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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


Mr COLLINS: I seek leave to move the following motion:

That standing orders be suspended to allow consideration forthwith of General Business Notice of Motion No. 21, standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Leave not granted.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [9.01]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to reform the law concerning the effect of intoxication on criminal liability and punishment for criminal conduct. At present the common law as stated by the High Court of Australia in R v O'Connor enables a defendant to lead evidence on intoxication to cast doubt on whether the defendant acted voluntarily or with the requisite mental state for the offence. The amendments will make the following three fundamental changes to the common law: evidence of self-induced intoxication will not be admissible to rebut an allegation that the defendant's conduct was voluntary; evidence of self-induced intoxication will not be admissible to rebut an allegation that the person did not possess the requisite mental state for an offence; and evidence of intoxication will not be a mitigating circumstance that can be taken into account in determining the punishment for any offence.

In the preparation of my second reading speech I was indebted to the Parliamentary Library, in particular Vicki Mullen from the research service. Despite significant cutbacks in resources the service still does an outstanding job. Much of what I say this morning is based on material prepared by Vicki Mullen. The bill is about trying to deal with the problems and issues raised in the case of Paxman who, after drinking a lot of alcohol, shot dead a little boy called Michael Barber. He pleaded guilty to the crime of manslaughter and the fact that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offence was taken into account by the sentencing judge, Mr Justice Christie. This was the cause of great public concern. As a result, the Attorney General, the Hon. J. W. Shaw, promised that he would change the law in this respect. Nothing had happened and two weeks ago I indicated that I would proceed with my bill.

Last night the Government introduced the Criminal Legislation Further Amendment Bill. Tucked out of sight in the middle of that bill, as well it might be, was the Government's proposal to amend the law in this area. The availability of the criminal defence of intoxication in present New South Wales law presents a conflict between strict legal principle and community attitudes to intoxicated offenders. The case of O'Connor I suppose sets the high-water mark of the use of intoxication as a defence in the Australian context. On the other hand, the leading English judgment is the House of Lords decision in Regina v Majewski. It dealt with the issue of intoxication by deciding on policy grounds that intoxication is relevant to the proof of the crime in relation to specific intent but not relevant to the proof of crimes of basic intent, at least as it may bear upon the existence of a mental element necessary for the commission of the offence. The High Court of Australia, in O'Connor's case, rejected the English approach and, in effect, decided, as I understand it, that evidence of gross intoxication will always be relevant to proof of murder. The position as outlined in O'Connor led to very interesting comments by individual judges. I refer particularly to the decision of Mr Justice Stephen, 29 ALR 449 at 472. Bearing in mind the Majewski and O'Connor cases, he said:

There are . . . two views, one at each extreme, which the law might in this century take of the intoxicated law-breaker. It might treat his intoxicated state as altogether irrelevant, or on the other hand it might in certain circumstances treat it as involving complete exoneration.

That was very much the view in O'Connor. The judgment continued:

In between lie several possible intermediate positions: one of these Majewski . . .

Mr Justice Stephen makes it plain that it is open to this House to amend the law in this State to make the intoxicated state of a law-breaker altogether irrelevant. That is exactly what the bill does. I believe it is the way to go in policy making in this area, and I believe the public supports this approach. In the O'Connor judgment Mr Justice Murphy stated, as reported at page 484, that the Legislature should act to decide the law so that we do not have to rely on the common law. Mr Justice Aickin supported this view, as reported at page 494. The High Court is saying that it is up to the Parliament to legislate on this fundamentally
Page 4398
important matter. Both the Attorney General and I are taking up the High Court invitation, as it were, but with very different proposals. Mine takes the intoxicated state to be altogether irrelevant. The approach of the Attorney General in the bill introduced last night is to draw a distinction between crimes of specific intent and crimes that do not have specific intent.

With this approach, some offences for which the defence of intoxication would still be open would include murder, acts done by a person with intent to murder, discharging loaded firearms with intent, wounding with intent, poisoning, assault with intent to commit a felony and assault with intent to have sexual intercourse. I find that approach fundamentally unsatisfactory. What the public wants, and what I believe we must deliver, what the High Court has invited us to consider and what Mr Justice Stephen has indicated it is open to us to deliver, is the abolition of the defence of intoxication in any of these criminal areas. That is what the bill does. That is where the bill introduced by the Government last night fundamentally falls down. The judge in the Paxman case plainly had it in mind that matters relating to intoxication were irrelevant. In sentencing Paxman he said:

You have continued to ingest alcohol in the form of full strength beer. At some stage of an altercation you fired the rifle into the air and the evidence comes from your mate Mr Lewis.

Regrettably, the bullet that was fired killed the little boy. It is plain that an issue on the judge's mind at that time was the fact that Paxman was drunk. In the sentencing submissions Paxman's defence barrister said:

He had skolled a carton of beer and was drunk when he arrived at the house at 10.40 p.m.

Those matters were taken into account by the judge when sentencing Paxman. It should be remembered that Paxman, who killed a six-year-old boy, will be out of gaol 3½ years after his sentence begins. That was a cause of justifiable public outrage. The Attorney General promised to remedy that situation. In the bill that was introduced last night he did not include any provisions concerning intoxication. That bill will not alter in any way the sentencing of Paxman. The Government has done nothing to remedy a situation that caused incredible public outrage, despite a number of comments by the Attorney General, which are reported in the media, that he would fix this problem. In the Newcastle Herald of 6 July these comments were attributed to the Attorney General:

People who kill others or commit violent acts while under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs should not be entitled to greater judicial leniency than people who commit similar crimes in a sober state. Intoxication is no excuse for violence because the victims suffer no less and possibly suffer more when the assailant is drug influenced.

In the Sun-Herald of 15 October these comments were attributed to the Attorney General:

The Carr Government will move to outlaw the use of intoxication as an excuse in court cases after a drunken child killer was given a six year sentence.

As far as the Paxmans of this world and the Government are concerned it is business as usual for them. Nothing in the legislation introduced by the Government does anything to bring justice to Michael Barber and his mother Dianne Boyd. Nothing in the bill will do that. Nothing indicates that there will be any follow through on the Attorney General's promise - which he made twice in the media and in a number of other places - that this situation will be rectified. My bill will abolish the defence of intoxication in relation to criminal liability across the board and in relation to sentencing. However, in criminal matters, the Crown must always prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. The onus remains on the Crown, and so it should. But a defendant cannot use the fact that he was drunk as an excuse either as to liability or as to sentence. Dianne Boyd, Michael Barber's mother, as reported in the Daily Telegraph Mirror on 15 July, said:

Mr Shaw, can you please explain to our children why their six-year-old brother's murderer will be out of gaol in three years?

The Attorney General promised to deliver the answer to that question in his legislation. He has not. My bill does. Is the Attorney General serious about addressing the wrongs in the Paxman case? Is he serious about following through on the immense public concern concerning drunkenness and drugs? Regrettably, recently a number of so-called roid rages occurred - the tragic case of the Wayne family and a couple of others - where this defence could have been used by people like Mr Wayne if he had lived. My bill does away with those defences. It provides an answer for Mrs Boyd, Michael Barber's mother. It fulfils the promise made by the Attorney General, which is yet to be fulfilled by him.

Is this legislation so draconian? It is pretty damn tough. As I have said, the High Court makes it plain that that option is open to this Parliament. The most that the Attorney General can do is to look at what is going on in the rest of the Commonwealth and to somehow cobble New South Wales with the law reform and developments that are occurring at the Commonwealth level. New South Wales can take the lead. We have had some extremely difficult cases with extremely silly outcomes. We can take up the High Court's invitation and get tough on the defence or excuse of drunkenness, or the excuse of intoxication through drugs, when sentencing. Is that so tough? People might say, "It is all right for an offence involving prescribed concentrations of alcohol. That is a relatively serious but only mid-range sort of offence."

I draw to the attention of honourable members section 52A of the Crimes Act which deals with dangerous driving, which is an exceptionally serious offence. Dangerous driving occasioning death invites imprisonment of up to 10 years. Aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death invites imprisonment of up to 14 years. Those are
Page 4399
exceptionally serious criminal offences in anybody's language. What is the difference between a conviction which results in a penalty of 10 years in gaol and a conviction that results in a penalty of 14 years in gaol? One aggravating circumstance that can make the difference is if an offender has a prescribed concentration of alcohol in his blood. The prescribed concentration of alcohol is 0.15 - three times the legal limit. It is plain in the Crimes Act in regard to an exceptionally serious crime carrying up to 14 years imprisonment that if an offender is drunk beyond a certain prescribed level that fact would aggravate the crime.

This legislation is tough but at least it provides some consistency with laws already on the statute books. Put simply, let us take the offence of dangerous driving. If a person drinks, drives and kills, the fact that he is drunk aggravates the circumstances. If a person drinks, uses a weapon and kills, the fact that he is drunk may amount to a complete defence or an exonerating circumstance. That is just ridiculous! It is time that this House made the rest of the serious criminal law consistent with those dangerous driving matters. If we want to be consistent the other way we should repeal the offence of dangerous driving in so far as it has that consequence. I do not see any demand for that action. I do not see any move by the Attorney General to do that. It follows logically, particularly in the context of the promises made after the Paxman case, that it is time these other defences were removed from legislation.

The Attorney General would have us believe that, based on legislation that was introduced last night on his behalf, it can still be a complete defence to the crime of murder that an offender is drunk; it can still be a complete defence to the crime of rape that an offender was drunk; it can still be a complete defence to the crime of discharging a firearm that an offender was drunk; and that that applies also to a host of other serious criminal offences. That is absolute nonsense! On the analysis of the Attorney General we would be better off staying with O'Connor. It is plain that the public wants to go the other way. I believe it is entirely responsible for this Parliament to go the other way. If we are to get to the bottom of this issue and if we are to deal with public demand for change in this area, this is the way we have to go. As I have said, that does not mean that the prosecution must not, in all those cases of specific intent, prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

I refer honourable members to page 12 of Vicki Mullen's excellent paper. It does not mean that, even in the Paxman case, a lot of other circumstances cannot appropriately be taken into account when determining sentence. Paxman's case is set out at page 12 of Ms Mullen's paper. The Opposition is saying that one of those circumstances and excuses must not be drunkenness. If the Attorney General wants to fulfil the commitment that he made to Michael Barber's mother and to the public - those public promises that are on the record - he should ditch so much of the Criminal Legislation Further Amendment Bill that relies on this distinction between crimes of specific intents and other crimes. He should get behind this private member's bill so that in all cases where there is intoxication through drugs or substances or through the ingestion of alcohol, that is no defence as to liability or quantum. On that basis I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Amery.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [9.21]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Opposition members have supported me in trying to bring about some democracy within the voting system of New South Wales. However, so far the Government, with no real excuse, has sought to stifle any legislation or debate on this matter. On 8 June I brought the Electorates and Elections (Enrolment and Voting) into this House. It required all voters in New South Wales to prove their identity when enrolling to vote and it also cleansed the rolls. Unfortunately, on 23 November you, Mr Speaker, gave a casting vote and the legislation was not passed. I now introduce this legislation and whilst I admit that the legislation is not nearly as good as the previous legislation, it does in some respects safeguard democracy in New South Wales. The legislation is designed in such a way that anyone wishing to cast a vote in New South Wales at a State election will be required to present proof of their identity to claim that vote and then cast it.

Mr O'Farrell: What could be more reasonable.

Mr FRASER: As the honourable member for Northcott said, that is eminently reasonable and it protects democracy in New South Wales. The proof required under the legislation is readily available to all persons within New South Wales. I shall briefly run through schedule 1, which outlines documents that will be suitable for identification. The identification documents are as follows:

. . . a birth certificate or a certified copy, or an extract, of a birth certificate -

and I would hope that all persons born in New South Wales and who are eligible to vote would have a birth certificate or a certified extract of a birth certificate -

(b) a citizenship certificate or a certified copy of a citizenship certificate,

(c) a current passport,

(d) an expired passport, being a passport that was not cancelled and that was current within the preceding 2 years,

Page 4400

(e) a marriage certificate or a certified extract of a marriage certificate,

(f) a divorce decree,

(g) a deed poll,

(h) evidence of electoral enrolment issued under this Act, or under any Commonwealth Act,

(i) a current motor vehicle driver's or rider's licence or permit held by the person, being a licence or permit issued by the Roads and Traffic Authority or by the corresponding traffic authority of the Commonwealth, or of some other State or Territory,

(j) a current Pensioner Health Benefits Card or Pensioner Transport Concession Card (issued on behalf of the Commonwealth Government . . .

(k) a current Medicare card . . .

(l) a current credit card, savings account card -

that has a 100 point check done on it so that is acceptable -

(m) a "proof of age" card . . .

- the youth of this State on reaching the age of 18 years can obtain such a card from the Roads and Traffic Authority after presenting suitable proof of their identity -

(n) the most recent income tax assessment issued in relation to the person,

(o) a certificate of identification or discharge papers issued by a branch of the armed services of the Commonwealth,

(p) a rate notice issued under the Local Government Act 1993

(q) a valuation notice issued under the Valuation of Land Act 1916.

That comprehensive list may still not be complete and I am happy to consider amendments from the Government. However, I would not consider a death certificate. It has been proved in the past, as anecdotal evidence has shown, that that is where a lot of Labor Party votes come from. I should like to read into Hansard an article published in the People magazine dated 19 April 1988. That article was written by none other than Frank Hardy. The article is entitled "The Wizard of Oz". With the indulgence of the House I should like to read this because it is anecdotal evidence of how the voting system in New South Wales and Australia works.

Mr O'Farrell: Have you got any photos?

Mr FRASER: There are photos but I will get those later. The article states:

The Apostle replied: "Verily, I say unto you: no problems, for there are many in the land who will cast not their vote, and you know the ways of casting votes for such people.

The Wizard of Oz spoke thus: "Some of us who do not vote shall vote? Yes! And the lame and the dead shall also vote, though they never leave their sick beds or their graves."

Replieth the Apostle: "But only in the seats where we may lose, numbering scarcely more than 20. Seek ye the help of the Wizard Kid of numbers . . . "

And so it came to pass that the people cast their votes, save one in 20, who cared not who ruled the Land of Oz . . . But in 22 seats, the people who vote Labor-dum and Labor-dee were almost equal in number, and here strange events came to pass.

Voting ceased when the sun sank in the East, but in the hour before sunset many men known as scrutineers, and a few other men called electoral officers did speak in divers tongues; and so procured the pieces of paper of the recently dead, the mortally sick, even for some people from foreign lands not yet registered to vote. Pieces of paper were placed in the ballot boxes and names crossed from the list of voters and all these papers were marked for Labor-dee . . .

Now, at that time, in the land of Oz, was a custom called talk-back radio, which gave the citizens of Oz their only chance to talk back. And behold on the first day of the week after the ballot, many citizens rang to say that when they went to vote they found that their names had already been struck off the list of voters, and these people dwelt in the swinging seats . . .

There dwelt in Oz a scribe, who had long ago written that the Labor-dee numbers men had often voted for the halt, the lame, the dead and the absent . . . Not all the Labor-dee men he had known in his youth had yet gone to the Land of Nod, and one of them did speak to him secretly saying: "It is the Sugar Roberts factor brought back to life by the Wizard of Oz." And he did in detail reveal to the scribe exactly how the result of the ballot was reversed. For the scribe, the mention of the Sugar Roberts factor meant that the lame, the dead and the absent would "vote often and late." . . .

The scribe was like a voice crying out in the wilderness. And the citizens of Oz lived happily ever after - except the 600,000 who were fined 100 shekels for not using their pieces of paper. Especially unhappy were the thousands of voters in the swinging seats whose pieces of paper had been used by the Wizard of Oz and the Wizard Kid; . . . or were very ill, or very dead or very late or had no intention of voting at all.

This article was written by Frank Hardy. He had a lot of information about electoral fraud by the Labor Party. The legislation that I have put before the House will in some way, but only a small way, reduce electoral fraud. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Amery.


Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by Mr Amery.


Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by Mr Amery.


Debate resumed from 23 November.

Mr IEMMA (Hurstville) [9.32]: I lead for the Government, which opposes the bill presented by the honourable member for Northcott. The bill
Page 4401
does no more than attempt to restore the credibility of the honourable member for Northcott within the ranks of the Liberal Party following his performance as State Director of the party during the Federal election of 1993 and the State election of 1995. The bill has nothing to do with providing a fairer electoral system. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a backdoor attempt by the honourable member for Northcott to weight the votes of those living on the north shore and in the country so that the Liberal Party and the National Party have an advantage. It is also a backdoor attempt to return to the bad old days of the Askin era and the zonal system of voting.

The honourable member for Northcott spoke in his second reading speech about a system of one vote one value, but he failed to recognise that the existing system already requires that enrolment in electorates reflects one vote one value. The problem for the coalition, as identified by the honourable member for Northcott, has nothing to do with the absence of one vote one value, but the problems that arise from time to time with single-member constituencies. He quoted figures from the 1995 election that revealed that the coalition received 52 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, and the Australian Labor Party received 48 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. The coalition won more votes than the Australian Labor Party but the Labor Party got more seats, therefore something is wrong with the system. It is almost impossible under single-member constituencies for the proportion of votes polled to match the numbers of seats gained.

The honourable member for Northcott has attempted to remedy that problem not by looking at the fundamentals of the system that produces such a result, but by trying to bring about a rort redistribution. The honourable member is trying to remedy the problem the Liberal Party has of large numbers of votes locked up on the north shore in very safe seats. The National Party has a similar problem with votes locked up in rural New South Wales, with no spread of support for either party. He has suggested a form of weighting for safe conservative electorates. Some move was made in this regard when Nick Greiner undertook an electoral boundary redistribution in 1991. The proposal by the honourable member for Northcott does not take into account the advantage of a sitting member, or the advantage of a very strong local candidate. Following the 1991 redistribution a number of Labor-held seats notionally became Liberal seats, and one was the seat of Drummoyne. But what happened? Three of the nine seats won by the Labor Party in the 1991 election were the notional Liberal seats of Drummoyne, Kogarah and Bathurst.

Were the honourable member for Northcott successful in having the legislation passed, the result probably would not be a win for the National and Liberal parties. Single-member constituencies tend to concentrate party support in certain geographic areas. The honourable member for Northcott is not proposing to change our system of single-member constituency; there is no way he would get that through the joint party room, because the National Party would not let him. So he is trying to bring about a form of weighting through the back door. I can understand why the fairness of the current electoral boundaries is something that has greatly interested the honourable member for Northcott. The coalition has not really come to terms with its loss in the 1995 election, nor has it come to terms with the shock it received in the 1991 election. The honourable member for Northcott spoke in his second reading speech about eternal vigilance in regard to electoral boundaries. I should like to quote from what Nick Greiner had to say in 1990 when he introduced legislation to alter the electoral boundaries and electoral procedures following his win under the system brought in by the previous Labor Government. In introducing the legislation, which triggered the 1991 redistribution, Nick Greiner said:

The principles to be applied to a redistribution will ensure that there is no scope for a gerrymander in New South Wales.

The current leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Lachlan, said:

The bill before this House will restore true democracy to New South Wales and will give country people the opportunity for fair representation.

The former leader of the Liberal Party and the current leader of the National Party said that the boundaries and the system were fair and, indeed, would give country people fair representation. The honourable member for Northcott said that the electoral system is rorted, that the process of redistribution must be changed. He does not want to fundamentally alter the system of single-member constituencies, which is at the heart of the difficulty the honourable member for Northcott has identified. Instead, the honourable member wants to bring about a mad scheme to weight north shore and country votes, in order to spread that vote artificially and consequently win more seats.

As was highlighted at the 1991 and 1995 elections, the coalition's problem relates to electoral strategy. In single-member constituencies votes are locked up; votes tend to be wasted in safe seats. The electoral strategy has to be altered to take that into account. The honourable member for Northcott has failed to acknowledge that the coalition did not win the 1991 and 1995 elections because of its failure in electoral strategy. In those elections the Independents succeeded in winning safe conservative seats. The coalition succeeded in securing swings - in some seats very large swings - in its safe seats, thus topping up its already safe majorities. However, it failed to win marginal seats - the seats that would have given it government.

Mrs Skinner: Good members.

Page 4402

Mr IEMMA: That is right. Good members in marginal seats are not going to be tipped out. The system proposed by the honourable member for Northcott was tried in 1991, in some form, and failed because of good sitting members such as the honourable member for Drummoyne - the current Speaker - the honourable member for Kogarah and the honourable member for Bathurst. Where there is a good incumbent local member or candidate the system proposed by the honourable member will not work. He is not suggesting fair electoral boundaries; he is trying to sneak in a little weighting for the north shore and the country. This gets back to the failure of the coalition's electoral strategy. The honourable member for Northcott was State Director of the Liberal Party at the time of the 1995 State election, and at the time of the 1993 Federal election when the Liberal Party succeeded in winning only eight out of 50 seats in New South Wales. It is a failure of strategy.

I refer to the Federal election results from 1949 to 1977. In only two of those 13 elections did the primary vote of the Labor Party match the seats gained. Why? There were a number of reasons. First, there was malapportionment in those Federal boundaries. More importantly, there was an overwhelming failure of electoral strategy. The Labor Party had not succeeded in gaining the support of third party candidates and Independents - a trend that has been reversed in the last 15 years at the Federal and State levels. At the State level the Labor Party has succeeded in campaigning in marginal seats, spreading its base of support, spreading its votes and gaining the support of a majority of voters in those seats, as well as securing a much better percentage of the votes of third-party candidates.

Over the last 15 years the trend on the conservative side of politics to obtain a fair percentage of preferences from third-party candidates has been a spectacular failure. The coalition certainly was not unhappy when the Australian Democratic Labor Party directed preferences against the Labor Party at the national level and cost it election after election. The honourable member for Northcott did not make too much mention of that in his second reading speech. In those years the coalition was the beneficiary of that process. It was quite happy about that.

As soon as something happens on the State scene to expose the coalition's inability to spread its support across the State, its inability to campaign properly in marginal seats, and its inability to gain a majority of votes in a majority of seats, it wants to change the voting system. This is a mad proposition from the honourable member for Northcott. He relied on Malcolm Mackerras to substantiate his claims. I quote from an article which appeared in the Australian after the election earlier this year. What did Malcolm Mackerras have to say in that article about the Leader of the Opposition after he raised the issue of some sort of gerrymander or rort in the current electoral boundaries? He stated:

Every reputable analyst, every fair minded politician accepted the new map (1991) as eminently fair. The Liberal Party was so delighted it said to itself: roll on the early election.

No record exists of Collins or any other Liberal complaining in March 1991. If the system (their system) was so unfair, why did the Liberals take so long to notice?

According to the Liberal Party, for four years there were fair electoral boundaries, a fair electoral process. As soon as it loses an election it says, "Something is wrong: the voters got it wrong, they could not possibly elect a Labor Government. Something is wrong with the system. We got 52 per cent of the two-party preferred vote and we did not get 50 per cent of the seats." That is not unusual. It has happened time and again at the Federal level and the State level under a system of single-member constituencies. How does the honourable member for Northcott propose to change that? He does not propose to look at the system which produces that - that is too fundamental a change for the honourable member to get through.

He is proposing a mad scheme to weight the north shore and the country. He does not want to - indeed, he cannot - take a broader look at the electoral system and single-member constituencies because the National Party would go berserk with a system of multimember constituencies and proportional representation. The honourable member for Northcott is concerned that the coalition got 52 per cent of the vote and did not get 50 per cent of the seats. The only system that will fix that is multimember constituencies or proportional representation, that applies in Tasmania - the Hare-Clark system. How many National Party members are in the Parliament in Tasmania under the Hare-Clark system? None. That is why they do not want any.

The rural rump, with 11 per cent of the vote and 17 per cent of the seats in this current Parliament, would not let the honourable member for Northcott or the Leader of the Opposition introduce a bill to really examine the electoral system in this State. Liberal Party members and National Party members have attempted to cut each other's throats over who gets to ask a question during question time. Could honourable members imagine what would happen if the honourable member for Northcott introduced a bill that actually considered fundamental changes to the electoral system? If coalition members try to cut each other's throats over who will ask a question, what would they do to each other over a proposal which would see their seats abolished?

The honourable member for Northcott is concerned not about fair electoral boundaries but about giving the Liberal and National parties a leg-up at the next State election to reverse their 1991 shock and their 1995 defeat. Malcolm Mackerras stated in his article in the Australian that the proportion of votes won by the coalition in 1991 matched the number of seats won, and so did the Labor Party vote. Antony Green's analysis of the
Page 4403
reasons the coalition lost the 1991 and 1995 elections is much the same as that of Malcolm Mackerras. The honourable member said that boundaries were drawn up by the last coalition Government in an attempt to remove alleged bias towards the Australian Labor Party, but that only some bias was eliminated. Malcolm Mackerras - much quoted by the honourable member in his second reading speech - offered figures to prove that the boundaries are fair and that there is no bias towards the ALP.

The honourable member for Northcott is attempting to restore his own credibility, which was severely damaged when he was directing the last election campaign. He forget his old mate Ivan Petch in Gladesville, and slipped him a list of targeted seats. He made the judgment that the Liberals were going so well in Badgerys Creek - a front-line marginal seat - that they could pull people and resources out three weeks before the elections because they would win Badgerys Creek in a landslide. In the madder moments when the honourable member was devising the election strategy, the Liberal Party was sending its young apparatchiks and money to seats they had no chance of winning. Poor old Ivan, just back from the health farm, looking forward to seeing all his friends in Gladesville and to them helping him out, looked around but saw no supporters - they had all disappeared to seats that the Liberal and National parties had no chance of winning.

I offer the honourable member a few choice quotes from some of his friends on this issue of electoral boundaries. The honourable member emphasised the importance of upholding and entrenching the principle of one vote one value. That principle was enshrined in this State by Neville Wran. When the bill to introduce one vote one value was introduced into this Parliament, Leon Punch - that great defender of electoral reform - had plenty to say about it. When Neville Wran introduced the bill to get rid of Robin Askin's crooked zonal system, on 10 April 1979 Leon Punch made the following response to the proposal for fair electoral boundaries and one vote one value, recorded at page 3882 of Hansard:

A rural bias in the electoral system is necessary to protect the national interest.

According to Leon Punch, giving the National Party more seats than their votes warrant was in the national interest! To him, a fair electoral system should give the National Party more seats than they are entitled to. But that is their heritage. Leon Punch went further, as recorded at page 4077 of Hansard of 10 April 1979, to describe the bill to introduce one vote one value by ensuring that electorate enrolments were equal, within acceptable tolerances:

It is a scandalous, undemocratic, opportunistic piece of legislation.

Yet the honourable member for Northcott espouses one vote one value, claiming that the electoral boundaries are rorted and that the north shore should be given a weighting. That is what he wants - and he is not going to get it. His bill will be defeated. One day - no doubt when the honourable member for Northcott is long gone - the National Party will get true electoral justice. The bill is not about fair electoral boundaries or about changing the electoral system so that votes obtained equal the proportion of seats gained. The bill is an attempt to weight the north shore and country areas because that is where the coalition's vote are locked up. The Liberal and National parties do not have the spread of electoral support that the ALP has been able to achieve over the last 15 years.

The honourable member for Northcott has attempted to rectify that imagined wrong by reverting to the discredited, rorted zonal system employed by Robin Askin. His other intention is to attempt to restore his credibility within the Liberal Party by explaining the 1995 defeat. Just as John Howard has no policies Federally, the honourable member for Northcott offers the same electoral strategy at State level - none. He offers no electoral strategy and makes no attempt to broaden the base of coalition support, but seeks instead to reintroduce the old weighting towards the north shore and rural areas. That is what the bill is about.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [9.58]: What an encouraging contribution from the honourable member for Hurstville! If the future of the Labor Party lies with the honourable member, a protégé of Graham Richardson, what a rosy future the coalition has. It will not be very long before we are back on the Treasury benches, to remain there for a long time. The honourable member represents the style of younger Labor Party members, who have no appreciation of the value of one vote one value, given the way they operate their own party. One has only to look at the abuses of power in the Labor Party. Where are the left-wing members? Let us hear their opinions on electoral abuses within the Labor Party. If the opportunity arises we may debate that issue later today. Where does the left-wing of the Labor Party stand on electoral harassment, rorting and abuse? We know all about it because Labor's left-wing acolytes have put it all down in writing - I will distribute a copy to the honourable member for Hurstville later today.

It is bizarre that the Labor Party should attempt to argue principle in this Chamber. The bill seeks to enshrine the principle that every vote has equivalent value. The current system does not allow for that. When the 3 million to 3.5 million voters in this State cast their votes in a Legislative Assembly election, they cannot be assured that the party that wins the majority of votes will form a government. The party system overlays the Westminster system in New South Wales. Under the present system, as little as 25 per cent of the vote will enable a party to form a government. By winning just over 50 per cent of votes in half the number of seats - that is 25 per cent of the vote plus one - hypothetically a party can form government. There is nothing to preclude that. This legislation
Page 4404
seeks to address the problem at least in part. The system has worked in South Australia, where this kind of legislation was brought in because it was recognised that there had been problems for a number of years. The current system denies a number of people a fair say in influencing who forms government.

By opposing the bill Government members suggest that voters should be denied a say, denied influence, by virtue of where they live. This is not a question of whether one lives on the north shore, the peninsula, the north coast or southern Sydney. Regardless of where one lives one's vote for a lower House member should count for something; currently it does not. The Westminster system allows for a government to be formed if a party can be assured of the support of half the members in the lower House. At present, a New South Wales government requires the support of 50 members in the lower House. It is the party political system that provides stability, much to the chagrin of Independent members perhaps, and people recognise that fact when they vote for a party-endorsed candidate. If a party achieves more than half the vote, they expect it to be able to form a government.

This bill, introduced by the honourable member for Northcott, recognises that if more than half the voters vote on a two-party preferred basis for a particular party, there is a more than reasonable chance that that party will form government. At present it is more than possible that a vote of 25 per cent plus one would enable a party to form government. As witnessed in New South Wales, at the Federal level and particularly in South Australia, parties do form government with less than 48 per cent of the vote, which is ridiculous. In that case, the wishes of the clear majority of voters are denied. The honourable member for Hurstville has contributed nothing in this debate to refute the system proposed or offer a better solution. He talked about electoral boundaries, an issue of essence to the bill.

An electorate can be drawn in a number of ways. In boundary redistribution there is a near-infinite number of ways by which boundaries can be drawn, using streets or natural boundaries formed by waterways or railways. When electoral commissioners make redistribution they should recognise that boundaries should allow, on the basis of the result of the previous election on a two-party preferred basis, that the party receiving the majority of the vote is more than likely to form government. To be fair, electoral redistribution should take into account the result of the previous election on a two-party preferred basis.

The honourable member for Hurstville also referred to and pointed out the shortcomings of single-member constituencies. He was not able, however, to provide any reasonable suggestion for improvement, apart from that of multimember constituencies. I hope that at some future opportunity he will be prepared to elaborate on his proposal. Does he propose that New South Wales have, for example, 11 nine-member constituencies, to result in a more fair outcome? Perhaps he should put that proposal - which has some merit - up for consideration and debate. Had Government members been prepared to agree to a joint committee with the upper House on electoral reform, that committee could have examined seriously some of the options that could result in a fairer outcome.

In South Australian State elections until about 1990 the Australian Labor Party won government on successive occasions with less than 48 per cent of the vote. Since redistribution there has been a fairer result in South Australia, with the Liberal Party, obtaining well in excess of 50 per cent of the vote, forming government. If a party got just over 50 per cent of the vote in South Australia, it could still form government, which was not the case under previous legislation. The South Australian Parliament took a bipartisan approach in recognising the principle of one vote one value, which is the principle that this bill seeks to enshrine. Any person or political party that seeks to oppose the principle of one vote one value, in opposing this bill, seeks to deny many of this State's voters a fair say in deciding the party that forms government and the Premier of this State. It is a challenge for Government members to argue against this bill on principle, and it will be very interesting to hear arguments made in opposition to the bill.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [10.06]: I am pleased to contribute to the debate on this bill, which proposes to amend the electoral process. When I contested the State election in 1991 I was defeated because of the elimination of ticks and crosses as valid votes. I am amused that it is the honourable member for Northcott who has introduced this bill. In 1991 he was a political apparatchik in his party.

Mr O'Farrell: He still is.

Mr McBRIDE: Unlike the honourable member for Northcott, unfortunately I do not have a Bachelor of Arts degree. I am just an ordinary boy. I do not have the training of the honourable member, and it is unfair of him to pick on people like me in that way.

Mrs Skinner: You could do some of the literacy papers.

Mr McBRIDE: It is pretty obvious that the honourable member for North Shore passed. The Minister for Local Government comments on that often. It is of great interest for me to note that the honourable member for Northcott, since the coalition defeat of 1995, finds it important to talk about electoral reform and changing the process of parliamentary electorates and elections. Since the 25 March Labor Party election victory the Liberal-National Party has suggested a series of proposals to amend the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections
Page 4405
Act. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour proposed a voter identification card, which was defeated but which he is now resubmitting, perhaps in another attempt to disfranchise those whom he calls the "tree people, basketweavers and extreme Greens". It appears that his proposal was designed to discard from the electoral process those whom he found offensive and whom he considered did not vote for him. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour with his so-called electoral reform wanted to disfranchise those whom he considered did not vote for him. The honourable member for Northcott has proposed that voting be conducted through the Totalizator Agency Board.

Mr O'Farrell: The Electoral Commissioner's proposal.

Mr McBRIDE: Why not? After all, what is wrong with the TAB? The TAB has very good computing processes. Now there is an attempt to change the procedures for the redistribution of electoral boundaries, which again comes from the honourable member for Northcott. The honourable member has been very active since coming to Parliament, and one can understand that. After all, he was in charge of the 1995 Liberal Party campaign - a campaign that he lost. Since coming to Parliament he has been trying to reconstruct his reputation. On each occasion thus far, and again today, the Government has addressed and will, in the context of potential value to the New South Wales electoral system, address the proposals and the arguments put forward by Opposition members.

Mr Fraser: Author?

Mr McBRIDE: I note that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has finally come to the Chamber. Is he about to propose more legislation? There is one fundamental and indisputable fact that Opposition members cannot avoid. I pose this question: in the seven years that Opposition members were in government why did they not attempt to reform the electoral system in the way that they now propose? It is obvious why Opposition members did not want to do that. They were happy with the system because they won in 1988 after the previous Labor Government initiated a redistribution. For seven years they had the opportunity to do something, but they did nothing. The honourable member for Northcott said in his second reading speech:

There are those who argue that the power to rectify the problem of a distorted electoral system was within the hands of the former coalition Government and that it should have remedied it then.

He acknowledged that they had the opportunity to do so. At some stage he said he worked for a senior Minister, so he had a direct input into the Government, but did nothing about it. It is clear that even members opposite recognise that their seven years in office were seven years of missed opportunity of so-called electoral reform. The honourable member for Northcott has the answer. He said:

Vigilance must always be ongoing and these matters should always be reviewed in the light of each and every electoral outcome regardless of who is successful.

That is a wonderful, even-handed, balanced comment. The real answer is that the honourable member is unhappy about the outcome. The coalition Government did nothing for seven years because it was happy with the existing system. Prior to the 1991 election the coalition initiated a redistribution and reduced the number of members in the House from 109 to 99. The Labor Party had increased the number of members from 99 to 109, which was a fair and equitable redistribution system according to the then Opposition. The coalition parties thought it fair because it won the 1988 elections. When they took office they decided to tighten the situation by reducing the number of lower House members to 99. The coalition produced a redistribution and when it went to the elections in 1991, after it thought it had produced a favourable distribution, it copped it hard. The Premier never recovered and subsequently left this House. Members of the coalition may have wanted him to pass out of history, but he has gone on to embarrass them over the republican issue and a range of other things.

Mr O'Farrell: So what? He can now vote Labor.

Mr McBRIDE: The Government is happy to have him in the public arena. In an amendment to the Act the coalition Government abolished ticks and crosses.

Mr Fraser: They ticked you off.

Mr McBRIDE: They did, but I came back to haunt the Opposition.

Mr Fraser: Well and truly.

Mr McBRIDE: That is right, just like the Greens and all those others the honourable member does not like. I had the opportunity to talk to a strong colleague and possibly the patron of the honourable member for Northcott, a former member of the upper House, Mr Ted Pickering. I took the opportunity, on his retirement, to talk to him about ticks and crosses and why the legislation was introduced. I told him that ticks and crosses were being debated in the House and asked him, as the architect of the program in concert with the then member for Gordon, what was the objective of ticks and crosses. He said to me, "Who are you anyway?" I told him I was one of the victims of ticks and crosses. He said ticks and crosses would advantage the coalition. In fact it did, and the coalition took advantage of that system. It was only because of ticks and crosses that the coalition was elected in 1991.

Since the coalition has been in Opposition it has suggested electoral reforms. The proposed electoral reforms make two points abundantly clear. First, members opposite still cannot believe and have not adjusted to the fact that they lost. Their
Page 4406
attitude is, "We didn't lose; we was robbed". In the 1972 Federal election, when the Labor Party was elected after 23 years, the attitude of the former Government was that they were robbed, that they were the true government of the nation, the only people who should be elected to government in Australia. This Opposition has the same attitude. When I was young I was interested in politics, and I used to think the coalition parties had a them and us mentality that they were born to rule. As I went through life that attitude did not seem so strong, but since I have been a member of this House my perception that coalition members believe they were born to rule has been reinforced.

Mr O'Farrell: They talk about Refshauge like that.

Mr McBRIDE: I know. And doesn't that get up your bloody nostrils.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! The member will refrain from using such language in the House.

Mr McBRIDE: I withdraw.

Mr O'Farrell: And apologise.

Mr McBRIDE: I apologise to honourable members who were truly offended. Let them stand up. Members of the Opposition think they were robbed. They whinge that they had 52 per cent of the vote but that the Labor Party, with 48 per cent of the vote, is in government. They should get used to the idea because they will be on the opposition benches for a long time. The issue now is re-establishing a failed career. An article in the Australian of 16 May stated:

The NSW Liberal Party has ordered its campaign director for the State election, Mr Barry O'Farrell, and a former minister, Mr Ted Pickering, to report to it this weekend on why the Fahey government lost office.

The former Premier has never recovered. Honourable members can see when he chooses to come into the House that he is a very unhappy man. They do not want to sit next to him. The article continued:

Both [the member for Northcott and the other architect, his patron] had resisted attending the meeting on Saturday of the party's State council, where there is expected to be considerable criticism of the campaign.

Has the honourable member for Northcott ever recovered from that? Do the lash scars still hurt? Do they still burn? Opposition members want the cane so they can do him over again. Or is it the strap, or the paddle? At selective schools do they use the paddle? The article continued:

According to one Liberal, "they were petrified of getting slaughtered".

The honourable member did not turn up. He was not game to go.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The member will address his remarks through the Chair.

[Extension of time agreed to.]

Mr McBRIDE: The article continued:

After failing to persuade Mr O'Farrell and having difficulty contacting Mr Pickering . . .

Mr Jeffery: Who wrote this?

Mr McBRIDE: Mike Steketee, a highly respected journalist.

Mr O'Farrell: On a point of order: I am prepared to debate the substance of this bill all day, but the honourable member's comments have nothing to do with the principle of protecting one vote one value.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member will return to the leave of the bill as soon as possible.

Mr McBRIDE: The newspaper article continued:

After failing to persuade Mr O'Farrell and having difficulty contacting Mr Pickering, who headed the key seats committee for the election, the party's NSW president, Mr Bill Heffernan, took the extraordinary step of convening a special meeting of its management committee last Friday night to issue an instruction to them to participate in an election forum at the State council meeting.

Mr O'Farrell: It was a good meeting.

Mr McBRIDE: I am sure it was a good meeting. The honourable member probably still bears the marks of it. The honourable member for Northcott is the failed campaign director of the 1995 coalition election campaign.

Mr O'Farrell: This is worse than corporal punishment.

Mr McBRIDE: It is meant to be. The honourable member for Northcott made these comments, which relate directly to the bill:

So it would seem the electoral Commissioner must anticipate that a political party may have some bad luck at a future election and redraw the map to eliminate that possibility -

what nonsense -

The present procedures produced the 1991 redistribution which was the fairest I have ever examined.

He thought it was the fairest, I suppose, because he worked on the redistribution. Therefore, according to the honourable member for Northcott, a fair map can be obtained under the present procedures. What could be the motive of any unnecessary change? The honourable member has never recovered from the "We was robbed" attitude over the last election. The bill will provide for an additional requirement of electoral fairness to be addressed in the carrying out of a redistribution. Redistributions of electoral boundaries are currently carried out according to the following criteria. First, the boundaries of each electoral district are to be determined so that, at the time the distribution is made, the number of electors enrolled in each electorate shall be equal, subject to a margin of allowance not exceeding 10 per cent.

Page 4407

Mr O'Farrell: No problem with that.

Mr McBRIDE: That is right. Who introduced that requirement? Second, the electoral district commissioners must have regard to demographic trends so that at a time which is four years from the return of the writs for the last general election the number of electors enrolled in each electoral district will be equal, within a margin of allowance of 3 per cent more or less of the average of enrolments.

Mr O'Farrell: No problem with that.

Mr McBRIDE: Exactly.

Mr O'Farrell: We introduced that.

Mr McBRIDE: You introduced that?

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! I remind the honourable member for Northcott that he will have adequate time to respond in his reply to matters raised by other members. In the meantime he should remain silent.

Mr McBRIDE: Third, the commissioners must give due consideration in relation to each electoral district to the following matters: community interests within the electoral district, including economic, social and regional interests; means of communication and travel within the electoral district; the physical features and area of the electoral district; and the boundaries of the existing electoral districts. The effect of the Opposition's bill would be to superimpose on these requirements a further requirement that, subject to the equal enrolment criteria, the commissioners must endeavour to ensure that the distribution is such that at an election held four years after the previous general election a particular group of candidates that attracts more than 50 per cent of the popular vote, after allocating preferences, will be elected in sufficient number to enable them to form a government. It takes no account of Independent members and the situation this Parliament has experienced over the last two terms of government.

The bill specifies that the electoral fairness provision is to be applied subject to the existing numerical requirement, but it is to be given greater emphasis than the remaining provisions of section 17A of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act. The bill follows the South Australian example in requiring matters such as voting patterns to be taken into account to determine electoral boundaries. The resulting reallocation of boundaries would presumably eliminate the significant margins existing in the safest seats. For example, the seat with the largest margin in the State is Gordon, where the sitting member received approximately 80 per cent of the vote. Application of an electoral fairness provision would necessarily result in electoral boundaries that would ensure a more even distribution of voting patterns. The issue of the application of an election fairness provision is being examined by the Commonwealth Joint Standing Committee into Electoral Matters. The Australian Electoral Commission's submission into that inquiry highlighted major practical and theoretical difficulties inherent in adopting a requirement of electoral fairness. I note the findings of that committee:

(1) The proposal draws no distinction between votes given for a candidate in his or her personal capacity and votes given for a candidate in his or her capacity as a member of a particular party. The assumption underlying the proposal is not supported by instances where a strong local candidate endorsed by a political party has retired and the new candidate put forward by that party failed to retain the seat;

(2) The provision relies on the existence of a seats-votes relationship by assuming that seats will change hands in response to a swing of a given magnitude in the same proportions as if the swing were uniform. According to the Australian Electoral Commission submission, this assumption is not supported by any well defined statistical theory;

(3) The drawing of boundaries to take account of partisan affects cannot agree with certainty that a party polling 50%+1 of the vote will win a majority of six.

Therefore, the bill cannot guarantee the outcome it seeks to produce. The findings continued:

(4) In addition, recent New South Wales general elections have resulted in a number of seats being won by members with no party affiliation. The impact of the electoral fairness position on seats held by Independent members is not clear.

I am sure that this point is not lost on the Independent members of this House. The current provisions governing redistributions are detailed and carefully drafted. They principally impose objective requirements that are aimed at ensuring that any variation in enrolment numbers among electorates are minimised and kept within tolerable limits. Redistributions are conducted at well-defined, frequent intervals, and the Act contains a back-up provision that triggers a redistribution to be carried out when a certain percentage of electorates become malapportioned. It is considered that these provisions provide for redistributions to be carried out objectively, governed by fair and reasonable criteria. The inclusion of an additional requirement to take into account the possible partisan implications of proposed electoral boundaries will introduce a difficult subjective element into the redistribution process which may not be well founded in theory. [Time expired.]

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [10.26]: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to support this bill introduced by the honourable member for Northcott. The honourable member for Hurstville, Mr "I am a", interjected -

Mr Nagle: It is pronounced Yemma.

Mr FRASER: The honourable member may pronounce his name as Yemma, but listening to his contribution -

Page 4408

Mr Nagle: On a point of order: the honourable member for Coffs Harbour should refer to the honourable member for Hurstville by his title. To do otherwise is offensive conduct and a breach of standing orders.

Mr FRASER: On the point of order: I referred to the member as the honourable member for Hurstville, and I was then making an inference regarding the pronunciation of his name.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! The member commenced his contribution by referring to the honourable member for Hurstville. I suggest that he confine his remarks to the leave of the bill.

Mr FRASER: I was listening to the contribution of the honourable member for Hur-hur-hurstville -

Mr Iemma: On a point of order: it is Hurstville.

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

Mr FRASER: The honourable member's contribution implied that he was saying, "I am afraid of the National Party; I am paranoid about any legislation that is brought before this House that will give electoral fairness in New South Wales." Honourable members heard his contribution to debate on legislation relating to electoral fraud that I introduced recently to this House and they have heard his contribution to this bill. He introduced nothing substantial into the debate. Instead, he said that he does not want democracy to survive in New South Wales. This bill is based on legislation introduced by the Bannon Labor Government in South Australia. That Government introduced this type of legislation to ensure that the party that received the majority of votes in the State election gained office. The honourable member for Davidson pointed out that, although it is a slim possibility, under the existing electoral laws in New South Wales it is possible for a party that wins 25 per cent of the vote to govern. Although 25 per cent of the New South Wales voters may have clearly indicated that they did not want a particular party to govern, under the existing electoral laws that party could in fact govern.

This legislation will provide equity and fairness in the electoral system. It will direct the Electoral Commissioner to redistribute the boundaries in such a way so as to ensure that the party that wins the most votes gains government. It will mean that political parties, Premiers and others will not be able to give directions to the Electoral Commissioner. The Electoral Commissioner will have to take note of the legislation and to ensure that the political party that gains the majority of votes in a State election will govern. All the honourable member for The Entrance did in his contribution to the debate was apologise. He had no idea what the debate was about. He was told he had to speak in the debate, read what was on a piece of paper and try to make some sense of it. He made no sense.

Mr O'Farrell: The Greg Blewett attack.

Mr FRASER: As the honourable member for Northcott says, it was the Greg Blewett attack. The honourable member for The Entrance made a contribution to the debate, but he did not understand his contribution. I believe he does not understand the legislation. The legislation is imperative and important not only to members of this House but to the people of New South Wales. It is important that the people of New South Wales be given an opportunity to elect a government that has majority support in the community. This legislation will guarantee that majority support. As I have said, the Electoral Commissioner will have to ensure that electoral boundaries are fixed with fairness and equity. When the boundaries are fixed, the voters in the electorate will be able to cast their votes in such a way that the political party that gains the majority of the vote will govern.

The State will not be governed by a party with the minority of the vote, as it is at present. Members opposite claim that the Opposition is whingeing that it won 52 per cent and did not win government. The coalition accepts that it will be in opposition for the next 3½ years. This bill simply challenges the Government to ensure that the electoral process in New South Wales is equitable. This bill and other current and future legislation will guarantee that the people of New South Wales understand what equity and democracy are all about. If the Government believes in electoral fairness and democracy, I challenge it to support this private member's bill. The honourable member for Hurstville talked about the National Party winning 11 per cent of the vote. We need to give him a lesson in maths. We have done it before and we will do so again.

All members of the House represent electorates with approximately the same number of voters. If a candidate wins the majority of votes, he wins the seat. Each National Party member represents approximately the same number of electors as the honourable member for Hurstville. If he went back to school and looked at the math books he would be able to work out that I, as the member for Coffs Harbour, probably represent more people than he does - and I represent them in a much more democratic manner. This legislation will ensure that the people of New South Wales have an opportunity to elect a majority government. They have not had that opportunity in the past. I challenge members of the Labor Party to tell the media why they will not support this and other legislation that is being introduced to ensure fairness in the electoral system. I support the bill.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [10.35]: If bill is passed the result will be a great little gerrymander! The purpose of the bill is to redeem the honourable member for Northcott following the disaster he caused on 25 March 1995. He and the Hon. Ted Pickering were ordered to appear before the State Council of the Liberal Party to explain why the
Page 4409
Fahey Government lost power in New South Wales. The honourable member carries the burden of that defeat, and will continue to do so. Each bill he introduces seeks to ensure that he will not lose next time or, as one of the reports puts it, how to win an election or not lose it by very much. I assure him that whether the Liberal Party wins 52 per cent or 48 per cent of the vote it will still lose, simply because the Liberal Party does not know how to run an election campaign or how to win marginal seats.

The Liberal Party has no concept about winning. It can win seats on the north shore and in the eastern suburbs with great margins, but in the marginal swinging seats where the votes really count, the Liberal Party does not have a clue. The day the Liberal Party learns how to win marginal seats might be the day it is returned to office. Members of the Opposition keep talking about the 52 per cent of the vote that they received and the 48.9 per cent that the Labor Party received. They forget that the coalition Government introduced legislation that invalidated ticks and crosses and deprived nearly 3.8 per cent of the people of New South Wales of valid votes.

If ticks and crosses had been regarded as valid votes the Labor Party would have received about the same percentage of votes as the coalition parties in the recent election. If people are deprived of the right to vote in that way, the concept of one vote one value is not possible. The honourable member for Northcott has another problem: he is desperate to become a member of the frontbench. His colleagues claim that they should be sitting on the Government side of the House. However, the honourable member for Northcott put them on the other side and, therefore, it will be some time before the honourable member becomes a member of the frontbench. Malcolm Mackerras seems to be a god-like figure for the Liberal-National Party when it suits them, and he is the devil when it does not suit them. In an article in the Australian of 22 May 1995 from Malcolm Mackerras said:

Imagine a Liberal Party that cannot win safe seats such as Bligh and Manly or a National Party that cannot win a safe seat such as Tamworth. Are such parties deserving of the slightest sympathy? What are we to think when they say "we wuz robbed"?

The article also stated:

Meanwhile the new Liberal leader, Peter Collins, now tells us "there is a lot of anger" in the party over the loss of government . . .

The Leader of the Opposition is effectively saying that the Liberal and National parties were robbed because New South Wales does not have a one vote one value electoral law, and because of the electoral boundaries. The boundaries were fixed by the coalition Government when the Hon. Tim Moore was Leader of the House. On a number of occasions he said in this House that because of his reforms the electoral system in New South Wales was the fairest and most honest system in the whole of the Westminster system. In 1995, after the coalition lost the election, the Opposition claims that the system is bad and evil and it must be changed in the way the Opposition wants it changed. The Opposition will not get its way. The Hon. Peter Collins, the Leader of the Opposition, was recently quoted as saying:

Our electoral laws need to be changed for the future so that we have one-vote-one-value in this State and we don't have the situation where a government can be elected with a minority of the two party preferred vote.

He forgot to tell everyone, of course, about the ticks and crosses rort and how 5,000 ticks and crosses, which were formal votes in 1988, were turned into informal votes in 1991. As a result of a great effort by both the Liberal and Labor candidates in the electorate of Auburn, an effort that was instigated mainly by myself, voters were convinced that the proper way to vote was by number. Because of that, only 2,500 people voted with ticks and crosses in the recent election, of which 75 per cent went to the Labor Party. Prior to the 1981 election the previous Liberal-National Government had a system under which Sydney, Newcastle and the Illawarra areas were part of what was known as the central electorate district, with each electorate having an average of 33,000 voters. The remainder of New South Wales was in the country electorate zone, with each electorate having an average of 20,000 voters. That was a gerrymander of the worst order. If this bill is passed that system will return.

The bill has nothing to do with democracy in this State; it is all about the bald-faced power that comes with being in government. The honourable member for Northcott should be ashamed for attempting to bring back that type of archaic National Party thinking. The people who were elected to government under that type of system had a distinct advantage; they could be elected to office with about 38 per cent or 40 per cent of the vote. I turn now to one of the fallacies about the Federal scene. The Opposition is talking about one vote one value, and trying to bring New South Wales as close as possible to a two-party preferred system, or a first-past-the-post system. In 1949 at the Federal election the Australian Labor Party polled 46 per cent of the vote and obtained 38.3 per cent of the seats. The Liberal Party polled 39.3 per cent of the vote and obtained 45.5 per cent of the seats. That is the coalition's concept of fairness!

In 1961 the Labor Party polled 48 per cent of the vote and held 49.2 per cent of the seats. In 1969 the Labor Party polled 47 per cent and held 47.2 per cent of the seats. I mention those figures to show that there is some correlation between single-member constituencies. With that system, that type of result can be achieved. In 1977 the Labor Party polled 39.6 per cent of the vote and obtained 30.6 per cent of the seats. With a two-party preferred system in 1954, Labor polled 50.7 per cent of the vote and obtained 47.9 per cent of the seats. In 1961 Labor polled 50.5 per cent of the vote and obtained 49.2 per cent of the seats. In
Page 4410
1969 Labor polled 50.2 per cent of the votes and obtained 47.2 per cent of the seats. That is the problem with single-member constituencies. The way to get around the problem is to return to two-member constituencies, as we had in the early part of this century, or move to proportional representation. If we had proportional representation, what would happen to the National Party? The honourable member for Coffs Harbour told the House that at the last election all sitting National Party members were re-elected and everything was fine. The overall vote for the National Party in the State was 11.1 per cent!

Mr Jeffery: We did not contest all the seats.

Mr NAGLE: The honourable member for Oxley and the honourable member for Coffs Harbour should calm down and listen. This is an important lesson about mathematics.

Mr Jeffery: Tell the truth.

Mr NAGLE: I am reading from an analysis in the Australian. The National Party obtained 11.1 per cent of the entire State vote, not just in the electorates of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the honourable member for Oxley. As a result of receiving that percentage of the vote they obtain 17 seats in this House, or 60 per cent of the seats held by the coalition. The Liberal Party polled 32.8 per cent of the vote, nearly three times as much as the National Party, and obtained 29 seats. The National Party obtained 17 seats. Those are the figures. If it were to contest seats everywhere around the State its vote would be marginal because it would have to contest metropolitan electorates held by the Liberal Party, as well as electorates in Wollongong, Newcastle and the Illawarra. The National Party would hardly get a vote. It gets its votes and its strength from that small group of 17 electorates in the country areas.

The honourable member for Oxley and the honourable member for Coffs Harbour may turn out to be the victims of this legislation rather than members of the Labor Party. In relation to the dishonesty of electoral boundaries, in 1979 in this House the Hon. Leon Punch said that there are several reasons why the proportion of seats does not mirror the proportion of votes polled by each party. He said that discrepancies are not necessarily proof of a gerrymander. Leon Punch is one of the National Party's heroes. Antony Green in his analysis of elections from 1984 to 1991 stated that the electoral boundaries at the 1991 election did not unfairly disadvantage the coalition. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Antony Green also said that in 1991 there did not appear to be any bias against the coalition. What is the basis of the argument that somehow the electoral boundaries are biased? If ticks and crosses are included as valid votes, the number of votes is nearly equal, as they were in the figures I gave about other elections. History has proven that the National Party rorted the system in Queensland. The New South Wales National Party claims that it is not related to the Queensland party, but it still has the same mentality. In the State seat of Brisbane there were 31,000 voters and in an electorate 50 kilometres west of Townsville there were 7,000 electors.

Mr Jeffery: How large was that area?

Mr NAGLE: The area is large, but is that an excuse? One vote one value! The honourable member is now advocating that area should be taken into account.

Mr Jeffery: What about the Senate vote in Tasmania?

Mr NAGLE: The honourable member knows the reality. He knows that this is a rort that his party has created. The bill has other problems. It draws no distinction between a vote given to a candidate -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, who has contributed to debate already, should listen in silence to the contribution of the honourable member for Auburn.

Mr NAGLE: I have two other points to make before I deal with the provisions of the bill. The bill draws no distinction between a vote given to a candidate in his or her personal capacity and a vote given to a candidate in his or her party capacity. The honourable member for Northcott will claim that when he stood for the seat of Northcott in 1995 he was extremely popular in that electorate, he was well known, he has been actively involved in that area for 25 to 30 years, and he is the most popular person around the place. He got the vote in his own capacity and not because he was the Liberal candidate. Was the truth of the matter that he had never been to the electorate until he won pre-selection? If he won the seat because of his personality, this bill is of no value because electors did not vote for the party, they voted for the candidate. If he was the Liberal candidate for the electorate of Northcott and had never been to the electorate and hardly anyone knew him, the bill would have some value. However, the bill does not distinguish between the two situations.

In truth the bill provides that all votes will be treated as if they were given directly to parties. In addition, the bill assumes that a relationship exists between electorates and votes. The honourable member for Northcott and other speakers for the Opposition have failed to show that that relationship exists. The Government has shown beyond doubt that it does not exist. I could cite parts of the second reading speech of the honourable member for Northcott that destroy his own argument. If honourable members analyse the bill they will realise how flawed it is. I should like to read part of proposed section 17A(1)(a1) to show what a farce the bill is:

Page 4411

. . . fair distribution to prospective groups of candidates and, as far as practicable, endeavour to ensure that the distribution is such that, at an election held at the relevant future time, candidates of a particular group attracting more than 50 per cent of the popular vote (determined by aggregating votes cast throughout the State and allocating preferences to the necessary extent) will be elected in sufficient numbers to enable them to form government . . .

The word used is "endeavour". The bill is not a directive, it is an endeavour. If it eventuated that the coalition won 49 per cent of the vote and the majority of the seats, and the Labor Party won 51 per cent of the vote but obtained one less seat, one could say that the bill does not entitle the coalition to take office because of the use of the word "endeavour". To gain office the Labor Party would have to do one of two things. It would have to create some new safe seats so that it could gain a majority of seats in the House. Alternatively, it would have to take some seats off the coalition to achieve the goal. When the preferences are distributed members are elected to their seats. They may not be declared the elected winners but they have been elected to their seats.

The honourable member for Northcott would have to say to the honourable member for Vaucluse, for example, "You have just been elected to the Liberal electorate of Vaucluse. However, the Labor Party got 51 per cent of the vote, we got 49 per cent and you can no longer be the member for Vaucluse because we are going to have to put a Labor person into your electorate." Honourable members should logically think about what would happen. The bill then states, ". . . will be elected in sufficient numbers to enable them to form a government, and". The bill is flawed on that basic proposition alone. How is that to be achieved? It will be achieved by eliminating one winning candidate. The proposal is just not practical. The way to do it is the way it works now.

The language used in the bill is ". . . candidates of a particular group attracting more than 50 per cent of the popular vote (determined by aggregating votes cast throughout the State and allocating preferences to the necessary extent) . . ." A full count is not necessary to achieve that goal. The proposal cannot come into operation until 50 per cent of the vote has been achieved by distribution of preferences. That seems to me to be the greatest gerrymander that could ever be perpetrated on the people of New South Wales. It is a disgrace. [Time expired.]

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [10.55]: This is another of the bills dealing with voting, redistribution and electoral matters that are frequently introduced or debated on private members' days. The sad reality is that members of the Opposition are still shell shocked and have not come to grips with their loss at the 25 March election. They have no vision; they simply want to argue about rules. The rules are set out in an excellent document called the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912. The real problem is that members of the Opposition are afflicted by the malaise of the born-to-rule brigade. They firmly believe that no matter what happened in the election, the electorate got it wrong. That is not uncommon for members of the Opposition. They have suffered from the malaise for a long period of time, and obviously they have not changed.

The Labor Party is running the State because the Opposition has not got the goods; it cannot come up with what is required from an opposition on private members' day. The Opposition cannot introduce bills that will benefit the people of New South Wales. The best it can do is to give a paltry excuse to the blue-rinse set, to the north shore, for getting it wrong again. In 1988 and 1989 when Nick Greiner's Government was in any trouble, as sure as night follows day the story would appear in the press "Yes, the redistribution is coming, New South Wales needs a redistribution." The Labor Party expected that the redistribution would be totally undemocratic because Nick Greiner was relying so heavily on it. The redistribution eventually arrived. Nick Greiner could not legitimately secure a redistribution for the election that was due to be held in 1992 unless he tinkered with the system. Mr Greiner engaged in some gross politicking and reduced the number of seats in this House to trigger a redistribution. The only way he could achieve his objective of obtaining a redistribution was to reduce the number of seats.

The redistribution in 1990 was conducted by an independent former judge appointed by the Government. In my view he did an excellent job; he showed true impartiality. The work done by the Surveyor General, the Electoral Commissioner and the judge certainly produced worthwhile boundaries. In a democracy what is required is consistency and an ability to ensure that people know what a fair thing is. The 1991 election and the 1995 election were fought on the 1990 redistribution. That redistribution meant that candidates were able to face each other in an electoral contest on the same boundaries in two successive elections. That is the essence of this legislation. Fortuitously, we will be able to have a redistribution before the election that is due to be held in 1999, and no doubt we will be able to ensure that the boundaries are fair and equitable for that election.

Mr O'Farrell: It is due now.

Mr CRITTENDEN: The honourable member for Northcott interjects to say that the redistribution is due now. The honourable member should realise that he is in Opposition. It is important that the boundaries for the 1999 election and the election to be held in 2003 are as fair as possible. The redistribution process should commence a little later in order to provide the best possible chance of achieving objective boundaries. The honourable member for Northcott, despite his expressed concern about democracy and wanting a fair go, wants a return to the old days of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Honourable members know what Joh was
Page 4412
up to in Queensland. In order to achieve the desired result he would take entire Aboriginal communities and lump them together with a conservative community several kilometres away, even though the areas were not contiguous. The Labor Party would never stoop so low. The Labor Party will not support the lumping together of separate areas. It will not adopt the approach advocated by the honourable member for Northcott simply because of some crazy notion that he wants to foist on the people of New South Wales.

That is the only way that the honourable member and the Opposition could, first, win an election, and, second, retain government. Members of the Opposition are simply incapable of meeting the needs of the people of this State. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour contradicted himself several times during the debate. The less said about that, the better; it is beneath my dignity to respond to him. However, I expected better from the honourable member for Davidson. One always knows that the Opposition is in strife when members use those wonderful words "the Westminster system of government". The honourable member for Davidson said, "We should take into account the results of the previous election in the drawing of the redistribution."

The problem is that the honourable member has not read the bill. It does not refer to previous election results; it refers to an election held at a relevant future time and candidates of a particular group attracting more than 50 per cent of the popular vote. I would have hoped that the honourable member for Davidson, who is not a total moron like some members of the National Party, would at least have read the bill before he spoke to the legislation. Honourable members will recall that wonderful night of 25 May 1991 when the television stations were not even going to cover the election because they believed it would be a one-horse race. Only Antony Green of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was able to provide some decent coverage. The result was not as predicted; in fact, it was a very close result. The then member for Gordon, that electoral genius, on the basis of the results from a few country booths in my electorate that comprised fewer than 400 votes, predicted that I would lose by about 7 per cent. Obviously, he got it wrong.

Mr Kerr: So did the voters.

Mr CRITTENDEN: The honourable member for Cronulla interjected to say, "So did the voters." That is the malaise with which those opposite have approached this legislation. They cannot cope with the fact that they lost the election. The reality is that the voters got it right and unless the members of the Opposition change their thinking they will be in opposition for ever. In this country unless you have a vision you should not expect anyone to vote for you. [Extension of time agreed to.]

I refer honourable members to an excellent background paper commissioned by the Parliamentary Library and issued in March 1994. The author was Antony Green and the paper is entitled "New South Wales Elections 1984 to 1991: A Comparative Analysis." It would have been better if, at that time, the director or secretary of the Liberal Party, whatever he called himself, had taken the time to read Mr Green's excellent analysis of the state of play with respect to electoral matters in New South Wales. Mr Green stated at pages 34 and 35:

For even if it could be proved that the Coalition are disadvantaged by over concentration of vote in the country and on Sydney's North Shore, that should not be an excuse for the Coalition to complain about the electoral system. Rather, recognition of such a problem suggests the Coalition should adopt electoral strategies to appeal to voters outside of its heart-land, even if it cost them votes in their safe seats.

Antony Green was saying that it was a north shore government and that the north shore was all it was concerned about. That was the real problem. Mr Green went on to say:

In the 1991 NSW election the Coalition singularly failed to do this. It was defeated in the key marginal electorates at the same time as it improved its vote in its safest seats.

Over-concentration was a problem that historically affected the Labor Party, especially in Victoria. The success of Labor over the past decade in Federal and Victorian elections has partly been by adopting policies and tactics that enabled them to win marginal electorates . . .

He gave advice to the Liberal Party. He said:

To repeat this strategy in New South Wales, the Coalition would need to meet two pre-conditions. First the Coalition needs to dramatically improve its campaigning ability in marginal seats, and second, it needs to ensure that it can hold its own safe seats.

The evidence provided in this Chapter is that the Coalition's safe seats may be under threat from Independents in a way not previously considered possible. . . .

The problem for the Coalition at the next election -

that is the 1995 election; he kept on giving the coalition advice but it did not take it -

will be that it may be too late to adopt a strategy trading off votes in safe seats for votes in key marginals. In 1995, rather than facing a traditional battle with Labor, the Coalition will find itself fighting a two-front war, with Labor in the marginal seats, and with Independents in its own heartland seats.

That was very good advice. One does not have to be a mathematical genius - the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has to take off his shoes and socks to count to 20 - to see that it is crazy to expect statewide votes to exactly correspond with the number of seats won. Seats held presently by Independents favour the coalition more than Labor. I refer particularly to Manly and Bligh - and South Coast was held by Mr Hatton up to 1995. The contest in those seats is between an Independent and the coalition. The coalition might get a large percentage of votes but it does not win the seat.

Page 4413

Coalition members believe they are born to rule. They would be better adopting a strategy of winning seats presently held by Independent members than whingeing, whining and carrying on. Much of the coalition's support is tied up in north shore electorates and seats currently held by Independents. The coalition should campaign effectively. People who have not performed have been allowed to parachute out of a job into a safe seat. The coalition would do better with better candidates. Antony Green gave other worthwhile advice to the coalition but it was not accepted. Had the coalition taken the advice of Antony Green, today we could have been debating something of importance to the ordinary men and women of this State rather than this ridiculous proposal.

Mr E. T. Page: They did not even know what their marginal seats were. They did not know that they could lose Gladesville and Badgerys Creek.

Mr CRITTENDEN: Yes. Coalition members remind me of people who say that the new age is dawning. They believe that by some process of osmosis they will be able to govern ad infinitum. The people of New South Wales are too smart to allow that. Antony Green stated that the four elections from 1979 to 1991 inclusive were conducted with the most equal electoral enrolments in New South Wales electoral history. On his calculations, the Gini coefficients for the elections were very low by comparison with those for the period 1950 to 1978. The coefficients were about a tenth of what they were in that period. Coalition members are still agonising over why they did not win. All I can suggest is that the Opposition needs decent candidates.

[Point of Explanation]

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [11.15]: I wish to raise a point of explanation under Standing Order 73. I may have been misunderstood. The honourable member for Wyong, I believe, inferred that I meant that a redistribution should have been based on future results. I made it clear - I believe I am correct in saying this - that on the result of the previous election, on a two-party preferred basis, a redistribution is justified.

Mr HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [11.16]: I have not been convinced by the arguments put forward by the Opposition in this debate. Since the 25 March election the Liberal-National Party coalition has suggested a series of changes to the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour put forward a proposal and the proposal we are debating today is the second from the honourable member for Northcott. He is attempting to change the procedures for the redistribution of electoral boundaries. It is obvious that the Opposition does not believe it lost the election - it feels it was robbed - and that its proposed electoral changes are in response to the election result.

It has been pointed out clearly today by Government members that the Opposition lost the election because it was not in contact or in tune with voters during the previous seven years. In the seven years in which the coalition was in government, why did it not attempt to reform the electoral system in the way now proposed? The honourable member for Northcott was not a member of the House in that period, but he seems now to believe it was a missed opportunity. He should have spoken to one of his predecessors to have those changes introduced previously if he believed they were worthwhile. In his second reading speech he said:

There are those who argue that the power to rectify the problem of a distorted electoral system was within the hands of the former coalition Government and that it should have remedied it then.

I would say that is right; it is exactly what I said. If there was a problem it should have been remedied. Obviously his predecessor and members of the former coalition Government did not believe there was a problem. Since taking opposition, coalition members have suggested these electoral reforms - they have flowed freely from the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and now the honourable member for Northcott. The proposed electoral reforms by the Opposition make two points very clear. First, honourable members opposite cannot believe they lost the election and, second, the proposals from the honourable member for Northcott show that he is the strategic genius for the Opposition. He is trying to get these changes in place so he can address the failings of the election campaign.

If the system was so unfair, why did it take the Liberal Party so long to notice that it was unfair? In the second reading debate the honourable member for Northcott commented further about the Electoral Commissioner being asked to anticipate that a political party may have some bad luck at a future election and to redraw the boundary map to eliminate that possibility. That is certainly an onerous task to place on the redistribution committee. The bill provides for an additional requirement, that is, electoral fairness, to be addressed in a redistribution. At present, redistributions of the electoral boundaries are subject to a large number of criteria, and I should like to refer to those for the benefit of honourable members.

Section 28 of the Constitution Act requires that the boundaries of each electoral district are to be determined so that when a redistribution is made, the number of electors enrolled in each electorate shall be equal, subject to a margin of allowance not exceeding 10 per cent more or less. The electoral district commissioners must have regard to demographic trends so that four years after the return of writs for the last general election the number of voters enrolled in each electoral district will be equal, within a margin of allowance of 3 per cent more or less of the average enrolment. In relation to each electoral district, the commissioners
Page 4414
must give due consideration to the following matters: community interests, including economic, social and regional interests; means of communication and travel; the physical features and the area; and the boundaries of the existing district.

The effect of the Opposition's bill would be to superimpose on these requirements a further requirement that, subject to the equal enrolment criteria required by section 28 of the Constitution Act and section 17A(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act, the commissioners must endeavour to ensure that the distribution is such that, at an election held four years after the last general election, candidates of a particular group attracting more than 50 per cent of the popular vote - after allocation preference - will be elected in sufficient number to enable them to form a government. That certainly would have dramatic effects if it were implemented in electorates such as Lake Macquarie and Waratah.

The boundaries of the Lake Macquarie electorate cover the western shores of Lake Macquarie and there is a definite community of interest involving communication and travel within the electorate - with the F3 Freeway, the Great Northern rail line and Main Road 217 linking small villages on the western side of the lake. The boundaries are drawn to retain physical features such as the mountain range and the lake foreshore so that the electorate has a community of interest. If the changes put forward by the honourable member for Northcott were introduced, electorates such as Lake Macquarie would then be disjointed, the boundaries would be drawn differently, and there would not be a community of interest. My electorate could even stretch across the lake to take in coastal areas, still within the city of Lake Macquarie, but certainly a totally different electorate in a coastal zone.

This bill follows the South Australian example of requiring matters such as voting patterns to be taken into account in determining electoral boundaries. A resultant reallocation of boundaries would presumably eliminate the significant margins in the safest seats. The current provisions governing redistribution are detailed and carefully drafted, and I have referred to a few of them. They principally impose objective requirements which are aimed at ensuring that any variation in enrolment numbers among electorates are minimised and kept within tolerable limits.

Redistributions are conducted at well-defined and frequent intervals. The Act also contains a back-up provision which triggers a redistribution to be carried out when a certain percentage of electorates become malapportioned. It is considered that these provisions provide for redistributions to be carried out objectively, governed by fair and reasonable criteria. The inclusion of an additional requirement to take into account the possible partisan implications of proposed electoral boundaries will introduce a difficult subjective element into the redistribution process which may not be well founded in theory. For these reasons the Government opposes the bill.

I have read through the second reading speech of the honourable member for Northcott, and his arguments do not convince me that I should support the bill. It draws no distinction between a vote given to a candidate in his or her personal capacity and a vote given to a candidate in his or her party capacity. Under this proposal all votes are treated as if they are given directly for parties. In addition, the proposal assumes that there is a seats-vote relationship, which may not in fact exist. The drawing of boundaries to take account of partisan effects cannot guarantee with certainty that a party polling 50 per cent plus one of the vote will win a majority of seats. Certainly the impact on seats held by Independents in the application of the electoral fairness proposal in this regard is certainly not clear. Reference has been made to comments by Malcolm Mackerras in an article in the Australian dated 22 May. Mr Mackerras said:

Meanwhile, the new Liberal leader, Peter Collins, now tells us "There is a lot of anger" in the party over the loss of government - by which he means, in effect, "We wuz robbed by the lack of one-vote-one-value in the boundaries".

He continued:

Peter Collins recently said: "Our electoral laws need to be changed for the future so that we have one-vote-one-value in this State and we don't have the situation where a government can be elected with a minority of the two party preferred vote".

So it would seem electoral commissioners must anticipate that a political party may have some bad luck at a future election and redraw the map to eliminate that possibility. What nonsense.

In so far as I have any influence in the matter I say this: If any attempt is made to change the redistribution procedures of NSW I shall oppose such an attempt.

The present procedures produced the 1991 redistribution, which was the fairest that I have ever examined. If so fair a map can be obtained under the present procedures, what could be the motive for any unnecessary change.

There Malcolm Mackerras put forward quite rightly the reasons why this legislation should not be supported. Malcolm Mackerras stated further in his column:

Imagine a Liberal Party that cannot win safe seats such as Bligh and Manly or a National Party that cannot win a safe seat such as Tamworth. Are such parties deserving of the slightest sympathy? What are we to think when they say "we wuz robbed"?

The remarks of Malcolm Mackerras are correct.

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted.


Debate resumed from 23 November.

Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [11.30]: I congratulate the honourable member for Rockdale on taking up the case of Paul Rupert Cooper.
Page 4415
Traditionally members of this House have raised the grievances of battlers who may have suffered at the hands of the legal and administrative systems of New South Wales. I have great admiration for those who steadfastly and doggedly pursue the truth. For example, I refer to the role of Professor Barry Boettcher in the case of Douglas Harry Rendell, which I brought to the attention of the Parliament some years ago. Professor Boettcher was the biological scientist who provided the forensic evidence which overturned the conviction of Lindy Chamberlain. Similarly, he helped to overturn the conviction of Douglas Harry Rendell. Barry Boettcher is one of those who pursue the truth. Ziggy Pohl pursued the truth in his own case, which was brought to the attention of the Parliament by the honourable member for Rockdale a couple of years ago. In cases, justice was eventually obtained following a miscarriage of justice.

Mrs Cooper - Paul's mother - is similarly steadfastly and doggedly pursuing the truth about her dead son. I have to thank the honourable member for Rockdale for trying to give her a helping hand. It seems that it is necessary to bring these matters to the attention of the Parliament in, thankfully, rare cases. In those rare cases we encounter the notion that possible legal errors cannot be acknowledged or rectified in the legal system. In those rare cases the letter of the law wins and justice loses. Paul Cooper's mother seeks to achieve a recognition that the illness which led to her son's death was work related. As a first step, the Commissioner of Police made a determination under the Act that the death of Paul Cooper was not work related. His mother then applied to the Compensation Court of New South Wales for a determination on the commissioner's decision.

The court ruled against Mrs Cooper in 1990. There are two strong arguments for the motion moved by the honourable member for Rockdale. First, would the court have ruled against Mrs Cooper in that way if the 1995 revelations of the Wood Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service were known to it? Clearly, police officer Paul Cooper was in the middle of the corrupt and illegal activities which have recently been revealed. Most importantly, recent revelations give credibility to his then stated reasons for resigning from the force. That credibility was lacking in 1990 in the Compensation Court. I quote from the Compensation Court judgment of Judge Burke, determination No. 5212 of 1989, in Cooper v Commissioner for Police, dated 28 February 1990:

Even if the historical matters so related by Paul to the various people were evidence of the facts, there is still a virtual absence of any material matters concerning Paul's time in the force which discloses any relevant psychological trauma or stress which, in the context of expert opinion which I now accept, would be relevant to the genesis and evolution of Paul's paranoid schizophrenia.

Could that paragraph be written now, after the revelations of the royal commission? I really do not think so. The second strong argument is the probable legal error made by the lawyers for Paul Cooper's mother in the Compensation Court in not calling Dr Tom Clark to give evidence. I refer to a letter dated 23 August 1994 from Dr Tom Clark - the visiting psychiatrist in the adult and family mental health team at the St George Hospital and Rockdale Community Health Centre - to Mrs Cooper. It stated:

I do not see that the court case was fully heard, in that I was not called to give evidence. I was his treating psychiatrist at Rockdale Community Health Centre in the years before his final admission to Rozelle and I saw him frequently over that time.

My opinion was that substantial precipitants of his illness were due to his police work and the condition was exaggerated and prolonged by his time in the force.

Schizophrenia is a disease of unknown causation but in all probability in his case, the severity and degree of his disorder was directly related to his work.

The judgment referred to material which might be treated as evidence of the facts from Dr Clark. It seems incomprehensible that Dr Clark was not called to give evidence. In hindsight it is obvious he should have been called. Let us rectify that legal error by supporting this motion and obtaining an inquiry to hear Dr Clark's evidence. There is, in the view of members who favour the motion, sufficient new evidence to support the reopening of this matter and a fresh judicial examination. We can then ensure that justice is done in the case of Paul Cooper, for the sake of his mother. If the review finds in Paul Cooper's favour, the third part of the motion covers payment of the appropriate compensation.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [11.35]: I commend the honourable member for Rockdale for bringing this matter before the House. I concur with the comments of the honourable member for Wallsend. This House deals with many matters on a large scale, so it is nice to see an individual person - in this case, Mrs Cooper, Paul Cooper's mother - being given the attention of the House. Last week the honourable member for Rockdale said the following about Mrs Cooper:

. . . Mrs Cooper is none of those things; rather, she impresses me as an intelligent, articulate and dignified lady who is only seeking justice for her family.

Mrs Cooper wants to close the book on the tragedy that her family experienced through Paul's death and the circumstances that they believe led to it. Should the House agree to this motion, an independent arbitrator or judicial officer will be appointed to conduct an inquiry, particularly to hear evidence from Dr Tom Clark.

This matter has gone before the Compensation Court and Judge Burke has examined the evidence. This House is the master of its own destiny. I ask it to give this family a chance to have all the facts examined. The honourable member for Rockdale said that he was amazed that the legal representative did not call Dr Clark. It really is a bit of a worry. The judgment of Judge Burke epitomises the situation. In my opinion, if one reads between the lines, one realises that the judge was trying to find a way to help Mrs Cooper. He stated:

Page 4416

Even if the historical matters so related by Paul to the various people were evidence of the facts, there is still a virtual absence of any material matters concerning Paul's time in the force which discloses any relevant psychological trauma or stress which, in the context of expert opinion which I now accept, would be relevant to the genesis and evolution of Paul's paranoid schizophrenia.

My interpretation of that is that had Judge Burke had any evidence at all before him, he would have found for the family. I refer to a letter of Dr Tom Clark dated 23 August 1994, which stated:

I agree it is now opportune to contact the Police Department in relation to the development of his tragic illness. I do not see that the court case was fully heard, in that I was not called to give evidence. I was his treating psychiatrist at Rockdale Community Health Centre in the years before his final admission to Rozelle and I saw him frequently over that time.

My opinion was that substantial precipitants of his illness were due to his police work and the condition was exaggerated and prolonged by his time in the force.

I again refer to the judgment, which stated:

. . . there is still a virtual absence of any material matters concerning Paul's time in the force . . .

I should have thought that if Paul was being treated by Dr Clark while Paul was in the force, there would be sufficient causal connection between the events and his death to warrant the provision of proper compensation. I believe that the honourable member for Rockdale, acting on behalf of his constituent Mrs Cooper, should be given the opportunity to have this matter arbitrated so that Dr Clark's evidence, together with the other evidence Judge Burke heard, can be looked at and evaluated. A final decision can then be made.

Having regard to the Wood royal commission, we are all now viewing the matter somewhat in hindsight. Paul Cooper was serving at Kings Cross. As the honourable member for Rockdale nicely put it, "At Darlinghurst he worked with the famous Roger Rogerson" - the word used should have been "infamous" rather than "famous"; history has proved that. Paul was an idealistic 22-year-old who went into the Police Service for the purpose of serving the community. He took up a lowly paid, lonely job to serve the community and to serve it well. As a consequence he developed schizophrenia. Nowhere in the judgment of Judge Burke has it been said or even implied that there was a family history of schizophrenia. The Police Service would have evaluated Paul's health and psychological health not only when he joined the service but also during his training and whilst he was actively serving as a police officer. I ask that the House support the motion. [Time expired.]

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.40]: This is a sad and tragic case. As the honourable member for Rockdale has indicated, on 10 August 1987 Paul Rupert Cooper, a former police officer, committed suicide. He was at the time on day leave from Rozelle Hospital. It is easy to see how the loss of a loved one in such terrible circumstances has had a profound effect on Mrs Cooper. Mrs Cooper continues to hold the Police Service directly responsible for her son's death. It is only natural for her to search desperately for reasons to account for her son's suicide. Paul Cooper resigned from the Police Service in 1984, some three years prior to his suicide. Paul indicated in his resignation letter to the Police Service that he wished to pursue further studies. He subsequently commenced a course at Hawkesbury college.

Paul's medical condition was diagnosed as schizophrenia in August 1985, some 15 months after his resignation from the Police Service. I am advised that doctors' reports have indicated that Paul's condition was complicated considerably by his own use of drugs. He was subsequently placed on medication and it is my understanding that his condition improved. I am advised, however, that as a result of substance abuse Paul again suffered further problems and developed a fixation about rejoining the Police Service. In May 1987 Paul was again admitted to Rozelle Hospital. Subsequent inquiries into the circumstances of Paul Cooper's death did not support Mrs Cooper's contention that her son's death was employment related. This matter has a long and protracted history. It has been thoroughly investigated on a number of occasions.

The honourable member for Rockdale has mentioned the evidence of Paul's doctor, Dr Tom Clark. I understand that Dr Clark supports Mrs Cooper's claim that her son's condition and subsequent suicide were a direct result of his time in the Police Service. This is in direct contrast to the opinion of other doctors who have examined the matter. I am advised that a number of psychiatrists have examined Paul's case and their collective opinion is that his mental condition surfaced after he left the Police Service. His condition fluctuated thereafter, and he became preoccupied with police corruption and inefficiency. Essentially, Dr Clark's opinion that Paul's death was work related is countered by the medical opinions of other doctors that his death was not work related. I understand that Dr Clark apparently did not see Paul in the first stage of his illness, and this could account for his medical opinion being different from that of other doctors. Furthermore, in a report dated September 1987, Paul's case manager stated:

In early May 1987, Paul became very preoccupied with re-joining the Police Force. . . . at this time there were other issues worrying Paul . . . he inappropriately was linking his leaving the Police Force to all of these issues. He admitted that his marijuana use was making him very paranoid, but was unwilling to cease using marijuana and refused help from a drug counsellor.

The matter was also litigated in the Compensation Court in 1990. His Honour Judge Burke stated:

In my view, the totality of the evidence discloses no basis for suggesting that Paul's service in the Police Force contributed in any way to the contraction, aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of his paranoid schizophrenia. For those reasons, the determination of the Commissioner of Police herein made on 4 November 1988 is confirmed.

Page 4417

A number of previous police Ministers, including the honourable member for Orange as recently as 20 December last year, have declined claims for ex gratia payments. Based on the information provided to me by the Police Service I do not consider that there is sufficient new evidence at this stage to support a further inquiry into Paul Cooper's death. Every consideration has been given to Mrs Cooper's claims, and they have been aired in an independent tribunal, which strongly found in favour of the service. I understand also that Mrs Cooper has met with Assistant Commissioners Jarratt and Schuberg to discuss her concerns. She has written to former Ministers for Police and the Chairman of the Police Board and she has made numerous representations to the Police Service. I understand that her claims have also been raised with the royal commission. All of this was not to her satisfaction.

In view of the new evidence that has been revealed by the doctor and the fact - which I ask the honourable member for Rockdale and Mrs Cooper to take into consideration - that this Government has come to the matter as a result of winning government eight months ago, I ask that the honourable member for Rockdale give the Government some time to peruse the file in detail to reinvestigate the circumstances of the case. I think there is cogent evidence now being obtained as a result of new medical evidence by Dr Clark. I would like the opportunity for the evidence to be examined professionally and then at a later stage to advise the honourable member for Rockdale and his constituent of the results of that examination.

Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [11.45], in reply: I thank honourable members who contributed in the debate, the honourable member for Orange, the honourable member for Auburn, the honourable member for Wallsend and the Minister for Police. As regards the comments of the Minister, I accept that this matter has been around for a long time, has been before previous administrations and has been before the present administration for only a comparatively short time. My constituent Mrs Cooper is nothing if not tenacious but she is also patient, as she has demonstrated amply over a long period. As I said in my remarks of 23 November, although Mrs Cooper has been pursuing the case for a number of years she brought it to my attention only a few months ago. Whilst she has experienced great frustration over several years, she was prompted to refer the case to me only after developments and revelations in the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service.

It is also only recently that I became aware of Dr Clark's letter of 23 August 1994 and his then expressed opinion that substantial precipitants for Paul Cooper's illness were due to his police work and that his condition was exaggerated by his time in the force. I appreciate the outline given by the Minister of the developments of Paul Cooper's medical condition, details of which Mrs Cooper had acquainted me with, and the gradual deterioration of his condition over a period of time. I believe that highlights a startling gap in the evidence presented to the Compensation Court in 1990, when the key person who would have been able to attest to Paul Cooper's condition was not called to give evidence. To me this strikes at the very heart of the Compensation Court hearing.

I have had some experience of Compensation Court hearings, and I was startled that this evidence was not brought forward in that forum. At the very least this motion will bring on to the record and have tested the expert evidence of Dr Clark. On being tested, that evidence will stand or fall on its strength and veracity. Essentially, all I am looking for is to bring this evidence on to the record to have it tested. Where it goes from there will be decided by the weight that is given to the testimony. I am fully aware of the tortuous history of this case, for which members may refer to my contribution to the House on 23 November. I am totally convinced of Mrs Cooper's bona fides. I have spent considerable time with her. I can understand how some people might tend to be dismissive of her approach, but I have seen a large part of the correspondence which she has entered into with departments, the Ombudsman, the previous Commissioner of Police and former Premiers.

Over several years she has approached anyone who may be able to influence this matter. Given all that, my knowledge of the woman and my extensive discussions with her convince me of her bona fides, and I am fully supportive of her untiring efforts to bring this matter to a conclusion. I appreciate the comments of the honourable member for Auburn and the honourable member for Wallsend, who referred to a case about which he has some knowledge: that of Harry Rendell, and the involvement of Professor Barry Boettcher. I was involved in a case with Ziggy Pohl. I could rattle off a litany of similar cases, but the one which comes immediately to mind is that of Eddie Azzopardi. People are sometimes judged to be committed to a false cause, when hindsight proves them to be completely justified. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.


Debate resumed from 5 December.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Before giving the Deputy Leader of the Opposition the call, I inform the House that upon resuming debate on this motion moved by the Leader of the National Party, the motion has reverted to a General Business Order of the Day. Therefore, the speaking times provided in Standing Order 118 shall apply; that is, four more members may speak, in addition to the mover in reply.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.54]: It is with reluctance that I support this no confidence motion. It is a matter of
Page 4418
extreme seriousness. Recently, I was more than happy to support a number of dissent motions from specific rulings from the Chair. As I indicated in debate on those motions, dissent was taken from specific rulings, not an individual. This House had a responsibility to pursue those issues; members cannot expect the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to be right at all times during tense moments in the House.

However, a no confidence motion is a very different matter. It is directed specifically at the person - in this case, the occupant of the chair - not at a specific ruling. In the short time available to me, I shall outline the four matters which cause me to support this no confidence motion in you, Mr Speaker. First, it is clear to all members of this House that you are constantly intimidated by members of the Government. One has only to sit in this House and watch the Premier in this regard: if he is not happy with what is happening, say, when he is answering a question, he stops, pauses, and glares at you willing you to intervene on his behalf. If any other member of this Parliament attempted to do that, you would treat that member with disdain and tell him or her to get on with the job. You have succumbed constantly to that type of intimidation, Mr Speaker.

My second reason for supporting the motion is that Government intimidation also is evident when the House is in emotional uproar. On those occasions you look directly and specifically at members on this side of the House giving us the impression that you regard members on the Government benches as saintly. I realise that at times there is a build-up of emotions. However, a count of the number of calls to order and the occasions on which members are derided will show that rarely are members on the Government side of the House involved - almost without exception the member called to order or directed to remain silent is a member of the Opposition. Members on this side of the House have been prepared to accept the position to this stage. However, you still appear to be linked with the Government, rather than fulfilling your role as an impartial, independent Speaker of this Chamber.

My third reason for supporting the motion relates to your statements in public and on the radio about this House and its members. I have never before struck a Speaker who is prepared to denigrate this House and its members in public in the manner that you have. You occupy the chair in this House because its members elected you to represent their interests. Your public denigration of this House and its members is one of the prime reasons for my losing confidence in you as Speaker. You have a responsibility to look after our interests, not to denigrate us in public. I have heard members, the Independents particularly, say that this motion relates specifically to a question asked of the Leader of the National Party.

The fact is that the Leader of the National Party was asked a question, a point of order was taken and the Speaker ruled the question in order. But that is not the issue. The Government then moved to gag a member of this House, a motion which you, Mr Speaker, supported. For generations no Speaker of a Westminster-style government has failed to support the fundamental right that members have to free speech in Parliament. No matter how much you may not like what is happening in the Chamber, you have no right to gag its members. You have a responsibility to protect the right of speech of every member of this House. I support the no confidence motion in you, Mr Speaker, because you have transgressed the principles and conventions of the Westminster system of parliament.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party [11.59], in reply: It gives me no pleasure to move this motion and to draw attention to the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. This issue, sir, affects all members of this Parliament. It is an issue that affects the good name and reputation of government in this State. It is an issue that greatly affects the general demeanour and opinion of the public towards politics in this State. When you were first installed as the incumbent in the chair you said that you were conscious of the position. Clearly, honourable members are not satisfied with your performance, sir. In the debate, the Leader of the House on behalf of the Government said, "The motion is a waste of time." I repudiate that to the nth degree. Never at any time is a motion of this nature a waste of time; it is a fundamental right. If the Leader of the House does not understand that, he is somewhat wanting.

The Leader of the House simply does not understand the process of this debate. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition just said, this has nothing to do with the standing orders relevant to the question asked of me, because you, sir, quite properly accepted the question. You gave it the imprimatur of the Chair, but the question then arose when the gag was moved on me preventing me from giving the answer. The question is not the nub of the debate. The Leader of the House wants to refer certain standing orders to the committee. That is fine, but that is not the nub of this debate. You, Mr Speaker, accepted that and gave it a rubber stamp. The issue is the gag.

Mr Whelan: The issue has nothing to do with the gag at all.

Mr ARMSTRONG: The Leader of the House is doubting your ruling, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House and you, sir, are in total conflict. There is a problem on your side of politics when the Speaker and the Leader of the House are in conflict over the principle at stake. Clearly, there has to be proper order and proper respect in this place. We cannot run a working parliament or have respect from the community unless there is general acknowledgment that the Speaker is impartial. Mr Speaker, you have a responsibility, as the honourable member for Manly said, to ensure that honourable members can scrutinise government and scrutinise business before the House. The honourable member for Manly, an Independent member, said in his address that the process of Parliament is to scrutinise government and scrutinise business before the House. The question addressed
Page 4419
to me was to scrutinise business before the House, which you again accepted. Mr Speaker, I compliment you on upholding that portion of the standing orders of this Parliament.

The honourable member for Hawkesbury and others have said that you, Mr Speaker, do not understand the standing orders. If honourable members wanted any evidence of that, the performance in this Chamber last night could only be described as amateurish and disgraceful. I do not think there was any intent in it at all, I will not accept that for one second. But it certainly demonstrated professional incompetence and that the Parliament is not being administered in a fair, reasonable and expected manner. Sir, you cannot, when putting the question, say, "Yeah, yeah." Standing orders are to be adhered to and the principles are set down. If we are going to have "yeah, yeah" as a standing order, we might as well give up and go home. I ask you to respect the position of the Chair. You cannot have the benefits, the honours and the title without the responsibility. They go hand in hand. Mr Speaker, you want the title, the honour, and the glory - and certainly I support that. But I also maintain that with all that goes responsibility. You have the responsibility to learn and understand the standing orders and to apply them on a totally impartial basis. I hope that as a result of this debate, from here on we will see -

Mr Whelan: Your time is up. You are defiant.

Mr ARMSTRONG: You are not the Speaker. [Time expired.]

Mr West: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, before you put the question and the amendment, I wish to take a point of order that Standing Order 170 specifically reads:

Amendments must be relevant to the question which it is proposed to amend.

I submit, sir, that the original motion moved by the Leader of the National Party has three parts to it. The first part is about the use of the casting vote, the Westminster style and practice. The second part is about the discharge of duties as Speaker. The third part is an interpretation of the standing orders. The amendment seeks to refer Standing Orders 135 to 141 to the Standing Orders and Procedures Committee for consideration. Those standing orders relate to questions without notice and to the procedures involved. Clearly, they are not relevant at all to the original motion. Therefore, I submit to you, sir, that the amendment is out of order and cannot be put.

Mr Whelan: On the point of order: obviously I cannot accede to that view because the amendment I put was in good faith. Whilst the notice of motion is one of no confidence in the Speaker, the whole substance of the issue is about inadequacy, inconsistency and ambiguity of the standing orders. Leaving aside all the personalities, this whole exercise has been an attack on you personally, Mr Speaker. Looking at the merits of the amendment, I suggest that it is within the leave of relevance of Standing Order 170: it is relevant to the issue and to the questions before the Chamber. More importantly, those amendments were put some 24 hours ago, or even longer. At no stage did anyone take any objection to those amendments. I submitted them, they were signed and circulated. Now at this late stage, and as a deliberate strategy, the Opposition wants to put you, Mr Speaker, in the position whereby if you rule in my favour the Opposition will say you are biased because the amendment suits you.

Mr West: No.

Mr Whelan: Of course you will: that is what it is all about. The whole issue is an attempt to personally embarrass you, Mr Speaker. I have been listening to this debate from the time it started a couple of days ago until today. It is all about personality and attacking the credibility of the high office of the Speaker of this Parliament. It went outside the Parliament to some radio interview, as we heard today. Unlike the attitude of members opposite, I will abide by your decision on the amendment. The amendment has been available for all to see, and it is only today, when the Opposition realised another tactic might cause you embarrassment, that it has sought to have the amendment ruled out of order.

Mr West: Further to the point of order: an opportunity to raise this point of order was not afforded to me on the day that the motion was moved. As the Minister well knows, I was not in the Chamber or present in the House that day. This is my first opportunity and it is the appropriate time for me to submit this point of order, before the amendment is put. Again, I dispute what has been said by the Minister for Police because this is not about a personal attack. This is about practice and function, about the use of the casting vote.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is straying from his point of order.

Mr West: I am responding to the Minister.

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

Mr West: The point of order is all about the fact that the standing orders, referred to in the amendments, relate to the asking of questions at question time. The motion is about the use of a casting vote. They are two separate functions and two separate standing orders. I submit that this is not being taken frivolously, but seriously. Mr Speaker, I ask you to seriously consider its importance. If relevance is not important in this Parliament then, as somebody else has said, we may as well shut up shop, throw the standing orders out and give it all away.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The amendment refers to standing orders relevant to questions asked during question time, whereas the motion contains no such reference. Accordingly, as the amendment is beyond the scope of the original motion I rule it out of order.

Page 4420

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 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 Tink
Mr Hartcher Mr Turner
Mr Hazzard Mr West
Mr Humpherson Mr Windsor
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross
Mr Longley Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
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 Photios Mr Aquilina
Mr Souris Mr Carr

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [12.18]: I move:

That this House refer to the Police Commissioner and Director of Public Prosecutions the document entitled "Abuse of Power - NSW Labor in 1993" published by ALP Membership Defence Committee and request a full investigation and report investigating the following allegations:

(1) That Joe Tripodi, now Member for Fairfield, did fraudulently misrepresent and forge the signature of branch secretary Trevor Davies.

(2) That Reba Meagher, now Member for Cabramatta, did bribe members of the public to attend and out vote opponents at a young labor meeting in Port Macquarie.

(3) That Reba Meagher did fraudulently sign her Neutral Bay branch register as having attended two meetings which she did not attend.

(4) That Laurie Brown, northern organiser and now ministerial chief of staff to the Minister for Agriculture, did racially harass Aboriginal youths in Port Macquarie.

(5) Claims of forgery, harassment, intimidation and standover tactics.

I refer to the document tabled in the Legislative Council by Mr Ryan on 18 June 1995 entitled "Abuse of Power", which was produced and printed by -

Mr BECKROGE (Broken Hill) [12.20]: I move:

That the question be now put.

The House divided.

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

Page 4421

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

Mr Aquilina Mr Photios
Mr Carr Mr Souris

Resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

[In Division]

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order: I note the presence in the Chamber of the honourable member for Cabramatta and the honourable member for Fairfield, who are participating in this vote.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the member over interjections. The member for Hurstville will remain quiet.

Mr Hartcher: I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order 186 which reads as follows:

A Member cannot vote on any question in which the Member has a direct pecuniary interest not held in common with other citizens of the State.

The honourable member for Cabramatta and the honourable member for Fairfield have a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of these proceedings, which could result in criminal prosecution of them both for serious offences. The penalties imposed upon them could either be imprisonment or a fine. Accordingly, they both have a direct pecuniary interest in this vote and I ask that they be excluded from it.

Mr Whelan: On the point of order: the honourable members mentioned have no more pecuniary interest on this issue than any other member in this Chamber. The motion could be amended to encompass every member of this Chamber. The most important reason it is out of order is that the House has made a decision on this issue and the votes of both members were counted and no objection was taken. It was a decision on this motion, and the point of order is trivial.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not uphold the point of order. I am of the opinion that the members referred to do not have a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of these proceedings. The division will proceed.

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

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

Page 4422

Mr Photios Mr Aquilina
Mr Souris Mr Carr

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.


Mr LONGLEY (Pittwater) [12.37]: I move:

That this House condemns the government for failing to provide additional resources to the EPA to meet this State's commitment to the National Environment Protection Council.

This is an important issue because once again this Government is attempting to try to fiddle the numbers jiggery-pokery to disguise what is a real cutback in funding to the Environment Protection Authority. And devices such as this are used when the Environment Protection Authority takes on an additional commitment that is not funded by the Government. In other words, the Environment Protection Authority has to undertake more activities with the same dollars. Therefore, that represents a real reduction in available funding for the activities it now undertakes. One might argue that all that is required of the Environment Protection Authority is that it carry out its operations more effectively and efficiently. Indeed, one can appreciate that that should be the case not only with the Environment Protection Authority but with all government instrumentalities and organisations in the private sector and throughout our community.

I have singled out this issue because the funding requirements of the Environment Protection Authority for the National Environment Protection Council will drain the resources of the EPA. The National Environment Protection Council is not situated in Sydney but in Adelaide - which is a slap in the face for the State Government. It should be located in Sydney, which should be the premier location for national bodies, particularly of this nature. Funding for the National Environment Protection Council is a direct drain on the resources of the EPA and cannot be accommodated by the EPA simply improving its operation. The Government repeatedly uses sleight of hand, and is effective at selling a wonderful message to the media, which laps it up in an uncritical fashion and proceeds to regurgitate it on the airwaves and in newspapers.

The funding for the National Environment Protection Council is a relatively small component of the budget of the EPA - in the order of $200,000 per annum - but that is indicative of the range of deceptive and deceitful activities the Government engages in to cover up reductions in real terms. We see that throughout the EPA in other areas. Whilst the EPA has received an apparent increase in its budget, in overall terms it has suffered a decrease if the new waste management initiative is taken into account. The budget indicates an increase for the EPA of $8.4 million, or 12.5 per cent, to $75.5 million. However, the new waste management initiative - the legislation was rammed through this House after midnight last night - will take $6.8 million of the increase. So, after inflation, there is a real decrease in the resources available to the EPA of $1.3 million.

In addition, the EPA is funding the National Environment Protection Council to the tune of $200,000 per annum. The EPA is currently being called upon to do more - its policing activities are being increased and its other roles are being accreted - yet its resources are being reduced. I refer to the reduction in this Government's commitment to the metropolitan air quality study. The previous Government allocated $3.4 million per annum to that study; the Labor Government has reduced the funding to $1.4 million per annum - a decrease of $2 million. Yet air quality is one of the most critical issues facing New South Wales and Sydney, and particularly western Sydney, whose residents were the beneficiaries of the study. All of us will suffer because the Government is cutting back that funding.

It is all disguised in the figures, and this motion seeks to expose that deception. It is a great condemnation of this Government because it flows right through the work of the EPA. Frankly, it should be an extreme embarrassment to the State Labor Government. We see this throughout the environment portfolio. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has had a real decrease in its budget of about $6 million. Time and time again, if one looks behind the glossy brochures, behind the public figures to the real figures, one sees that this Government is cutting back on environment expenditure to the detriment of every citizen of New South Wales. This motion is trying to tell the people of New South Wales of the great deception that this Government is playing on them. I commend the motion to the House. [Time expired.]

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [12.47]: What absolute hypocrisy. The honourable member for Pittwater is attempting to condemn the Government for failing to provide additional resources to the Environment Protection Authority to meet this State's commitment to the National Environment Protection Council. The Opposition should compliment the Government on pursuing the passage and creation of the National Environment Protection Council. It was this Government - not the former Government in which the honourable member for Pittwater was a Minister - which pursued the creation of the National Environment Protection Council as a matter of high priority.

In fact, the Carr Government in its first legislative session ensured the urgent passage of the National Environment Protection Council legislation. It was a high priority for the Labor
Page 4423
Government, unlike the coalition Government, which allowed the bill to establish the National Environment Protection Council to languish on the back burner. Instead of making that sort of feeble attack - as the honourable member for Pittwater typically does - he should have complimented the Government. I remind those opposite that the establishment of the National Environment Protection Council is an important step in improving environment protection programs across Australia and achieving the national objective of an intergovernmental agreement on the environment.

The primary functions of the National Environment Protection Council - the NEPC - will be to establish national environmental protection measures, such as for motor vehicle emissions and air and water quality, and to report on their implementation and effectiveness. When the Government came to power in March this year the governments of only two States, New South Wales and Tasmania, had not passed complementary legislation necessary to allow the creation of the National Environment Protection Council. As I have said before, the honourable member for Pittwater was a Minister in the former Government, which failed to progress legislation to create the NEPC. In contrast to the Government of which he was a member, the Carr Government treated with urgency and high priority the necessary legislation to set up the council.

The Carr Government passed the National Environment Protection Council (New South Wales) Bill in May this year, as one of its first and most urgent legislative priorities, and the Act was proclaimed on 15 September this year, simultaneously with the proclamation of similar Acts in all other participating jurisdictions. The NEPC committee, established to assist and advise the council, met for the first time this month in Perth. I should say that the committee attempted to meet - its meeting was impacted by simultaneous sittings of legislatures throughout the country. As a result, although the Ministers did get together, the first formal meeting of the organisation was postponed until early in the new year, when all Ministers will be able to participate.

The NEPC has already moved towards establishing a secretariat and organising itself to get its work well under way to begin the important tasks set out in the legislation. It is expected that a work program for the development of measures by the NEPC will be considered by the committee when it actually meets for the first time. I shall attend that meeting as the representative of the New South Wales Government. At present the secretariat is getting on with the task of organising work priorities. The States are currently negotiating with the Commonwealth with a view to the implementation of a range of State regulatory schemes that will apply to Commonwealth agencies operating within State boundaries. The aim of that process is to ensure that the Commonwealth will no longer be able to operate outside State environmental laws - a complex task.

The cost of establishing the NEPC and developing measures is to be shared between the Commonwealth and State governments on a 50-50 basis, with the States contributing on the basis of population. Accordingly, $180,000 has been designated in the 1995 Environment Protection Authority budget as the New South Wales contribution to the funding of the establishment and operation of the NEPC. The Environment Protection Authority has allocated this amount as part of the normal budgeting process. Furthermore, the Government expanded the EPA's recurrent funding by $7 million on a year-by-year comparison basis. The point that the feeble member for Pittwater was attempting to make - that the Government was cheating the Environment Protection Authority out of important money so that the NEPC could be created - is rubbish.

The Government has provided money within the normal budgetary processes of the Environment Protection Authority, which is completely appropriate. Further, the Government has also increased the overall funding for the EPA, to ensure that the task is done effectively. One staff position within the Environment Protection Authority has been allocated to the development of NEPC measures as an in-kind contribution, or as may be required by the NEPC's work program. If the honourable member for Pittwater considers that work responsibility of a staff member of the Environment Protection Authority as not being a core responsibility for EPA officers, he highlights his ignorance of environmental issues generally. One of the matters constantly raised in environmental debate is the need to make sure that what we in this State try to achieve is consistent with national practice.

The honourable member for Pittwater attempted to make that point in his contribution to debate on the Waste Minimisation and Management Bill only a few days ago. Surely it is obvious that it is absolutely essential that the EPA has valuable resources and valuable staff time working on the development of a NEPC work program. I advise the honourable member for Pittwater that that is why resources and staff time are being so dedicated, and why the Government has increased the EPA budget. The honourable member for Pittwater has made allegations in the past about government attempts to reduce the amount provided the EPA in the budget. In my contribution to the budget debate I spent considerable time refuting the arguments put by the honourable member for Pittwater, and I do not intend to repeat my comments now. Suffice it to say that the EPA budget was not curtailed, and it certainly was not curtailed at the expense of the Government's contribution to the NEPC. On this issue, as on other issues, the honourable member for Pittwater is wrong.

The honourable member for Pittwater has made similar allegations about government efforts to cut back the budget of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. He is wrong on that account also.
Page 4424
In the eight months this Government has been in office it has achieved remarkable progress in the environment portfolio. It has made numerous new policy decisions. Unlike the former Government, which ignored the environment as a matter of course, this Government has developed policies, and has developed funding mechanisms for those policies. The Government has refused to go down the path of deciding that something is a good environmental idea but not being prepared to put resources into a program to ensure that good environmental management ensues. This Government, unlike the former Government, believed that the NEPC was an important political priority. That is why it legislated in May this year to create the council and that is why it has continued to allocate important resources from State revenue to ensure that the NEPC is a success story. The former Government, unfortunately, was not prepared to make that political or financial commitment to the creation and the efficient running of a national environment protection council in this country.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [12.57]: I am pleased to speak in support of this motion, which condemns the Government for failing to provide additional resources to the Environment Protection Authority to meet the contribution required for the establishment of the National Environment Protection Council. The Minister spoke about the former Government's seeming reluctance to pass the legislation required by the Commonwealth for the establishment of the NEPC. She said that only two States had passed legislation before March. Clearly, therefore, the previous Government was operating to the same kind of timetable adopted by other States, which is entirely appropriate. It will be noted from the May debate on the establishment of the NEPC that the Opposition had significant concerns, which led to some delay on the part of the previous Government supporting the legislation. Those delays led to a considered and measured approach to Liberal-National Party support for the legislation. It is indicative of this Government that it failed to consult on a wide range of measures. It did not allow adequate time for consideration and consultation on legislation governing issues such as WorkCover, which was subjected to the guillotine in the House.

Mr Longley: And waste minimisation.

Mr RICHARDSON: The Waste Minimisation and Management Bill was also subjected to the guillotine, as the honourable member for Pittwater reminds me. The Opposition was permitted only a couple of speakers on that bill, and then debate was gagged. The matter at issue is the amount of funding that has been allocated to the NEPC, a most important agency. We who recognise that the National Environment Protection Council has an important role to perform in providing uniform standards across Australia for a wide range of environmental matters believe that if the funding is not provided in the budget - given that New South Wales is the largest State in the Commonwealth - the organisation will not function as intended. Of course, environmental issues do not know state boundaries; they are national.

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted.


Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [1.03]: It gives me pleasure to present to the House the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Works since it was reactivated by the Carr Labor Government in May 1995. The Report on State Infrastructure Requirements of Sydney West Airport represents a comprehensive blueprint for urban development in the region surrounding the major new international and freight airport to be built at Badgerys Creek in greater western Sydney. This is the first time that any State government in Australia has properly planned such an important development to maximise economic benefits and minimise environmental impacts. I am confident that the committee's report will be recognised as a major contribution to this process by starting it on the right foot.

The committee faced a demanding task in fulfilling its terms of reference for this report because of the scale of the proposed airport development; the accelerated time frame for its construction by 1999; the need to respond to this time frame with swift and prudent action at a State government level; the responsibility to make contact with a large number of Commonwealth and State government departments, councils and interest groups which had a stake in the airport development; and the desire to give members of the public every opportunity to offer their opinions and ideas.

The committee received a total of 64 submissions, including major submissions from relevant State government departments and western Sydney councils. The committee also heard evidence from 26 witnesses at its public hearings. The resulting report details the committee's extensive recommendations about actions which should be taken to prepare for the smooth opening of Sydney West Airport in 1999. In five months the committee consolidated the dislocated planning taking place in the region into an integrated framework which will ensure that the airport becomes recognised as a valuable asset for western Sydney providing badly needed local jobs.

The committee has drawn into a single document the major issues facing Sydney West Airport. This document will form the basis for the strategic and environmental plans to be completed by the proposed Sydney West Airport Development Corporation - SWDC. The committee has identified what must happen, and it will be up to the
Page 4425
development corporation to see the project through to fruition. The SWDC will ensure that residential development is limited and prudently located to preserve the environment of western Sydney, and avoid exposing residents to aircraft noise. The committee also formulated recommendations which the New South Wales Government will raise with the Commonwealth to minimise aircraft noise. These include tight flight corridors and minimising night take-offs and landings over the densely populated region north east of the airport.

However, the development of Sydney West Airport - SWA - should not be viewed as a problem which needs to be controlled. In fact, it is a golden opportunity to improve infrastructure and the quality of life in western Sydney. The road and rail infrastructure for Sydney West Airport will help to create cross-regional transport systems in western Sydney for the first time, especially along the neglected north-south access between Penrith and Campbelltown. The committee has produced an integrated strategy for the timely development of rail links to SWA. Under this strategy, the first stage would link the airport to the southern line at Glenfield and, later, the rail link would be connected to the main western line near St Marys in the north. The reservation and acquisition of the initial rail corridor to SWA is the first step in this strategy, and this must take place as soon as possible. The goal is an efficient, reliable and reasonably priced public transport network in western Sydney which will reduce car usage and help the environment.

The comprehensive nature of this report and the manner in which it has been expedited is a tribute to the members of the committee. The committee membership encompasses the political spectrum as well as representing the interests of inner Sydney, western Sydney and every part of regional New South Wales. This breadth and depth of political experience enabled the committee to consider the potential impact of the airport on the entire state. Regarding the staff which serviced the committee, I particularly thank Mr Bill Dunbar for his decisive contribution. Joan Simpson did excellent work on the transport aspects of the report, particularly regarding rail and road, and Dr Tanya Sweeney dealt with the planning aspects. Roger Sayers, James Tremaine, and Natasha O'Connor also provided valuable contributions to the production of the report.

As the report was well received and everyone wanted a copy as quickly as possible, the printing of the report became a massive problem for the committee. I thank Paul Guilfoyle, Pat Makin, and particularly Paul Brock of the Parliamentary Printing Services for their excellent work in printing the report. This report will optimise the benefits of Sydney West Airport at Badgerys Creek. It is intended as a document for public distribution and consumption which will provide an important resource to the residents of western Sydney and, indeed, all citizens of New South Wales about what can be expected to happen at this new major international and freight airport and the surrounding region. The combination of more jobs closer to home, better public transport and minimum aircraft noise will ensure that Sydney West Airport enhances the quality of life in western Sydney.

Mr RIXON (Lismore) [1.07]: I am pleased to congratulate the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Works the honourable member for Wyong, other committee members, the committee secretariat and the clerk to the committee on producing an excellent report, with which I am proud to be associated. I view it in a slightly different manner from people living close to Sydney: I receive any number of questions from country people about what will happen at Badgerys Creek, and we now have an excellent reference for anyone who wants to know anything at all about Badgerys Creek and the airport proposal.

The report's 122 recommendations cover almost anything anyone could suggest, and anyone doing any research in relation to Sydney West Airport should firstly refer to this document. I was a little disappointed about one point, namely, that we were unable to obtain one piece of information from the Federal Government about a particular cost-benefit analysis on the third runway at Sydney airport. But all other information is there. I congratulate every member of the committee, particularly the chairman, on a job very well done.

Mrs BEAMER (Badgerys Creek) [1.09]: By and large this report has been very well received by the community. Firstly, I praise the committee, particularly Mr Bill Dunbar, for the excellent job done in working together to produce this report over approximately five months. It was gratifying that upon coming to government we had to come to grips with the need for an airport at Badgerys Creek. We had to plan for the airport which is to be located in the centre of my electorate. I am pleased at the way the report deals with comprehensive land-use management because it is well overdue and it is time we stopped development around a potential airport site. This is a greenfields site and it is about time it is recognised as such. It is time we started using our State powers to ensure that it remains. I am pleased that this committee, for the first time, talks about sound land-use planning surrounding the airport site. One of the committee recommendations called for a prohibition on all new residential developments along the proposed runway alignments for a distance of 10 kilometres. This is an extremely sensible stand for the State Government to take in the airport development.

The committee also went further and referred to proposed rezonings being rejected so that the character around the airport where there are residents will remain as sparsely populated as possible. The report also dealt with noise. The committee members considered that the Australian noise exposure forecast contour lines were
Page 4426
inadequate and asked that maximum noise events be taken into account, as opposed to average noise events. The committee would like the people in that area to get the complete picture of what airport noise will mean to them. The committee is calling for a substantial greater weighting for night flights in response to the Federal Government's plan of having a curfew-free airport. If western Sydney is to have a curfew-free airport then we have to treat the residents of Badgerys Creek and those in the surrounding electorates with respect concerning night flights.

The committee thought it was preposterous that the weighting given to night flights was so low and spoke about a substantially greater weighting. Also, the committee members took into account the rural character of the area and suggested that the noise maps should reflect the topography and climate and their effect on local residents. This is the first document that has had an wholistic approach to the airport development. The committee has not cut the document apart or segmented it but has looked at the airport and gone across portfolios and levels of government to determine how the State Government should deal with this important economic development in western Sydney. I commend the report and state my appreciation to the committee, particularly to the chairman, the honourable member for Wyong. I was happy to be involved in such a good task.

Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [1.13]: The Standing Committee on Public Works report, State Infrastructure Requirements for Sydney West Airport is very thorough and brings credit on the committee members. I compliment the chairman, the honourable member for Wyong. I also compliment the active and constructive way in which my fellow members of the committee participated. I extend my appreciation to the committee secretariat, particularly Bill Dunbar, for the work done. I am restricting my comments to transport issues, especially rail. The committee considered the way in which rail developments should take place, and this is shown in the comprehensive nature of the report. The committee took a long-term view of the transportation of major commodities through that area. I point out that recommendation 29 is that State Rail should continue to evaluate various Sydney West Airport to St Marys-Werrington corridor options.

The benefits of facilitating the movement of coal and other bulk freights, including wheat, between Port Kembla and western Sydney via the Maldon-Dombarton line should be considered. It is important to acknowledge the need to integrate those proposals which, in the case of Maldon-Dombarton, are probably more than half constructed. Of course, nothing has happened there since the previous Government came to power in 1988. The Government is anticipating that that construction will be resurrected. It is good that the committee has taken the view to incorporate that thinking into the overall proposal. The Maldon-Dombarton proposal arises out of a State Government policy that has been on the books for at least 15 years. The policy is that the transportation of bulk goods through residential and urban areas should be by rail. The committee took the view that if that were State government policy the committee should be actively propagating it rather than simply acknowledging it. I compliment the chairman and thank my fellow committee members and the secretariat.

Ms NORI (Port Jackson) [1.16]: This is the first time that I have been on a non-policy committee of this Parliament. I found it a very valuable experience. I join with other honourable members in congratulating the chairman, the staff who serviced the committee, the project officer, Mr Bill Dunbar, and other committee members. I am sure the committee members agree that it was a wonderful experience learning about infrastructure provisions. One does not normally come across such topics. I know that the report has been well received because I represent an area that is flight-path affected. People were looking to the State Government to see what it would do to provide the infrastructure to allow Badgerys Creek to develop, thereby making the development of Badgerys Creek a contributing factor to the alleviation of problems associated with noises emanating from Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.

The way in which airport developments have happened in the past - in particular the third runway - can be contrasted with the serious way in which the State Government is taking its responsibilities for the provision of infrastructure and is trying to get it right, right from the start. This report consolidates the dislocated planning for the region into a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable urban development. This is a new development in my view. It is an opportunity to give Sydney the second airport that it badly needs to improve the tourist industry in a way that will help the local environment, not hinder it or make it worse. The committee, quite properly, advocated the development of the Sydney West Airport Development Corporation as a way of ensuring that all the appropriate infrastructure needs are properly coordinated for the various departments. The committee has also, quite properly, come down strongly in favour of the need to ensure that there is a rail link to Badgerys Creek airport. I am pleased to see that in the report.

The committee canvassed a series of options for the payment of the rail link and was quite creative and intelligent in its approach. The committee suggested that the Federal Government should look at increasing the existing Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport levy, but should not apply it to interstate flights. It should be limited to a modest tariff on interstate flights to ensure that country travel is not improperly levied. The committee has suggested the feasibility of a car-parking levy at both airports. The committee looked at value-capture tax and at a number of other
Page 4427
issues. The committee has given the Federal Government a number of options to pay for the expensive but necessary infrastructure for the rail link to Badgerys Creek. I am proud to have been associated with this report. The fact that it has been well received in the community is testimony to the standard reached by the committee and its support staff. I contrast the tack taken by the State Government since being elected a short time ago with the unconstructive approach that the Federal member for Bennelong, the Federal Leader of the Opposition, is taking in trying to solve the airport noise at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.

It would be better if he spent more of his time developing the kind of constructive suggestions that this report contains instead of going off at a tangent, as he is at the moment, calling for the reopening of the east-west runway. For him that means reopening what is known as the stub end of the runway. In fact the east-west runway would be reopened in such a way as to liberate a number of additional movements on to the north-south runway and create increasing noise for those residents living north of the airport. I mention that once again so that honourable members in this House, and indeed the people of New South Wales, will be aware of the complex nature of solutions to the problem of aircraft noise; and wary of politicians trying to make policy on the run and producing hopeless solutions that are not solutions at all and will make the situation even worse. It would be far better if everyone stuck to positive and intelligent attempts to find positive and intelligent solutions such as are contained in this document.

Report noted.


Mr RUMBLE (Illawarra) [1.20]: It is a pleasure for me to speak to the annual report of the Public Accounts Committee. Clearly the most important event of the 1994-95 financial year was the March 1995 State election. It was a great honour to be elected Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of the Fifty-first Parliament. As chairman I extend a very warm welcome to our new members, that is the honourable member for East Hills and the honourable member for Fairfield, and I congratulate my colleagues from the previous committee, the honourable member for Albury and the honourable member for Monaro, on their reappointment.

The annual report for 1994-95 is the third report of the Public Accounts Committee of the Fifty-first Parliament. While the committee is not required to produce an annual report, it is acutely aware of the importance of these reports in the accountability process and so prepares and tables its own report in order to live by the standards it demands from the bureaucracy. Although the dissolution of the Parliament for the March election meant that the committee was inactive for some five months, I am delighted to report that, during the year covered by this annual report, the Public Accounts Committee was able to table seven reports, one of which was completed in 41 hours; hold 16 meetings; take evidence from 78 witnesses over seven days of hearings; and conduct two workshops and one seminar.

The seven reports tabled included: State Debt Control (Balanced Budgets) Bill; Overseas Projects - Issues Paper; Rural Assistance Authority; Proceedings of Seminar on Accrual Accounting: the Scoreboard to Date; and Annual Reports - Issues Paper. The range of reports completed by the committee shows that it is a capable vehicle for short, intensive inquiries as well as for longer investigations. The Public Accounts Committee has continued its strong focus on identifying public sector waste and mismanagement, while at the same time involving itself in what I might call the big picture accountability issues. For example, the Rural Assistance Authority inquiry and the Darling Harbour sports facilities inquiry, which were virtually completed in this reporting period, were clear messages to the public sector on Parliament's performance expectations from individual agencies.

On the other hand accrual accounting and annual reports inquiries are examples of the committee's determination to assist in implementing better public sector-wide accountability mechanisms. These mechanisms in turn provide the framework for better scrutiny of individual agencies. Thus the committee is able to consider broader public sector issues while continuing its probing of the activities of agencies to ensure management is held accountable for its performance and is always seeking to improve that performance. By looking at the big picture and by keeping public servants on their toes, the Public Accounts Committee will ensure that the public is receiving value for money from its public sector.

In the course of its activities the committee was able to contribute financially to the operation of the Parliament. Following the successful and well-attended seminar on annual reporting, the committee presented to the Parliament a cheque for over $14,000. I am also pleased to report that a number of significant recommendations made by the committee over recent years were adopted by the Government during this period. These recommendations, contained in Public Accounts Committee reports, are as diverse as internal audit, private sector provision of public infrastructure, public defenders and rural assistance, and are an indication of the value of the work carried out by the Public Accounts Committee.

I would like to thank my fellow committee members the honourable member for East Hills, the honourable member for Monaro, the honourable member for Albury and the honourable member for Fairfield for their efforts, contributions and bipartisanship. Furthermore, the contribution to
Page 4428
these achievements of members of the previous Public Accounts Committees cannot be emphasised enough. Accordingly, I would like to record my appreciation for the work of former chairmen, the honourable member for Eastwood and the honourable member for Albury, and former members, Geoff Irwin and the honourable member for Davidson. I want also to thank the staff of the Public Accounts Committee so capably and enthusiastically led by Patricia Azarias and supported by Ian Thackeray, David Blunt, Jozef Imrich, Kendy McLean, Caterina Sciara and John Lynas. In conclusion, I want to say that the Public Accounts Committee will not be resting on its laurels. The task of ensuring that the public sector is efficient and effective in its financial operations continues, and the committee will endeavour to surpass the achievements outlined in this annual report.

Mr GLACHAN (Albury) [1.26]: I am pleased to endorse the remarks of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in regard to the operation and bipartisanship of the committee. The March election meant that there was no Public Accounts Committee in existence for a significant period of the year. Despite the turnover in committee members the year was a remarkably productive one. Some of the highlights of our very busy year included the presentation to the Parliament of seven reports, 16 deliberative meetings, seven days of hearings, the issuing of seven press releases and the examining of 78 witnesses. In addition, 26 speaking engagements were undertaken by members of the committee and by staff members.

One of the notable achievements during the year was the inquiry into and report on, at short notice, the Rural Assistance Authority. The Public Accounts Committee was well equipped to handle such an inquiry, having three members from non-metropolitan areas and two members with a farming background. The committee conducted an extensive consultative program, with committee members visiting 11 country towns. Report highlights during the year included: A Tale of Two Olympic Cities, Proceedings of Seminar on Accrual Accounting, The Scorecard to Date, State Debt Control (Balanced Budgets) Bill, Annual Reports - Issues Paper, and Overseas Projects - Issues Paper.

The committee has been very pleased by the enthusiasm with which many of its recommendations to the Government have been taken up and implemented. The Public Accounts Committee has the overall objective of promoting value for money in the public sector and greater accountability to the Parliament and to the public. As a result, the committee in some ways has to be a preacher and a watchdog on accountability and financial transparency. It is important that the committee should practice what it preaches. It is interesting to note that the committee finished $12,000 under budget and, as a result of another successful seminar held in Parliament House, the committee was able to hand over a cheque for $12,800 to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. This brings to $50,000 the total dividends that the Public Accounts Committee has paid to the Parliament over the last three years, and the committee is the only part of the Parliament, apart from catering services, which puts money back into the Parliament rather than spending it.

I should also like to thank the secretariat for its assistance during the year, including our energetic director, Mrs Patricia Azarias, who was ably assisted by Ian Thackeray, David Blunt and Jozef Imrich, together with assistant committee officers Caterina Sciara and Kendy McLean. Of course, the expertise of our accounting and auditing adviser, Mr John Lynas, was of great assistance to the committee, as usual. I am very proud to be a member of this active and successful bipartisan committee. I believe the Public Accounts Committee plays a vital role in convincing a sometimes sceptical public, and the media, that Parliament is a force for more efficient and more accountable government. I commend the report to the House.

Report noted.


Called on, and adjourned on motion by Mr Nagle.


Called on, and adjourned on motion by Mr Nagle.


Called on, and adjourned on motion by Mr Nagle.

[Mr Speaker left the chair at 1.32 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]


Mr CARR: Mr Speaker, I have to advise the House of the absence of the Minister for Education and Training from question time. I further advise that I will answer any questions relating to his portfolios.


Mr Speaker tabled a copy of the performance audit report of the Audit Office of New South Wales entitled "Ethnic Affairs Commission: Administration of Grants", of December 1995.

Ordered to be printed.

Page 4429

Petition praying that Avalon Police Station not be closed and that Mona Vale Police Station not be downgraded, received from Mr Longley.

Petition praying that Dover Heights TAFE College not be closed, and continue to provide the current range and level of courses, received from Mr Debnam.

Petition praying that degrading or violent sexual images not be permitted in retail stores and other places that are accessible to the general public, and particularly children, received from Mr Schultz.

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, and Mr Rixon.

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

Petition praying that abolition of the Motor Vehicle Repair Industry Council be opposed, and that business and occupational certification in the motor vehicle repair industry be supported, received from Mr Downy.


Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the following reports be printed:

Task Force "Roderick", New South Wales Police Service Task Force Group

Department of Public Works and Services for the year ended 30 June 1995

Roads and Traffic Authority for the year ended 30 June 1995

Dams Safety Committee for the year ended 30 June 1995

By the Surveyor General to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation on the administration of the Survey Co-ordination Act, 1949 for the year ended 30 June 1995

Central West Electricity for the year ended 30 June 1995

Department of Industrial Relations for the year ended 30 June 1995

Law Foundation of New South Wales for the year ended 30 June 1995

New South Wales Law Reform Commission for the year ended 30 June 1995

New South Wales Law Reform Commission No. 75 entitled "Defamation", dated September 1995

National Crime Authority for the year ended 30 June 1995

Protective Commissioner for the year ended 30 June 1995

Public Accounts for the year ended 30 June 1995

Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1995

Honeysuckle Development Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1995

Ministerial Development Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1995

National Trust of Australia (New South Wales) for the year ended 30 June 1995

New South Wales Fisheries for the year ended 30 June 1995.

Mr Gibson, as Chairman, tabled the report entitled "Staysafe 28: Sleep Disorders, Driver Fatigue and Safe Driving" of December 1995.

Ordered to be printed.


Mr Shedden, as Chairman, tabled report No. 33 of the Regulation Review Committee entitled "Report of the Regulation Review Committee arising out of an inquiry into the Fair Trading (Product Safety Standards) Regulation 1995" relating to baby walkers.

Ordered to be printed.



Mr COLLINS: I direct my question to the Premier. Has the so-called third runway significantly increased aircraft noise in the electorates of Drummoyne, Marrickville, Port Jackson, Ashfield, Lane Cove and Gladesville and significantly reduced noise levels in the electorate of Coogee and his own electorate of Maroubra? Does the Premier support the reopening of the east-west runway to ensure that aircraft noise is shared more equally among Sydney's residents?

Page 4430

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

Mr CARR: Twelve months ago, during every question time in this House a little drama would be orchestrated about the third runway.

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

Mr CARR: For a desperate Fahey Government the politics of the third runway were going to be the politics of salvation. Remember Barry Morris sitting on the backbench like a time bomb? And there was the fragrant presence of Terry Griffiths lingering in the Chamber. The former Government had all these problems. What was supposed to save the Fahey Government was the politics of the third runway - leaving aside for the moment the fact that a coalition Opposition, under Nick Greiner, championed the third runway. The presence of the honourable member for the Southern Highlands reminds me that the Opposition wanted the curfew lifted. It wanted three runways roaring away 24 hours a day, with plane noise in all directions. It said, "Play the airport card; that will save our bacon." Twelve months ago, every question time, there was mention of the third runway. On 25 March the people voted and the only party to lose a seat on the aircraft noise issue was the Liberal Party; it lost Gladesville. I make the projection that John Howard will lose Bennelong on the same issue. He will be wiped out. There was some speculation today on this side of the Chamber about what the Opposition might ask questions about. We looked up the files -

Ms Machin: On a point of order: we know clearly from last night that the Premier now cannot even answer his own questions. We would like him to answer our question, which was specifically whether he supports the reopening of the third runway?

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

Mr CARR: This is a very dejected Opposition.

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

Mr CARR: Sixteen questions have been asked of me from the Leader of the Opposition during this parliamentary sitting and not one of them has been reported in the media. No wonder the press gallery concluded on Tuesday that he is the most lack-lustre Opposition leader in the history of the State.

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

Mr CARR: Yesterday we witnessed an attack on the racing industry. Dog swabbing was the big issue. Some of those on the Opposition backbenches look like they have been swabbed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. I call the honourable member for Murwillumbah to order.

Mr CARR: A bit of the lowest common denominator dog food would see the Leader of the Opposition through 24 hours. He asked me yesterday about dog racing. He has the same -

Mr Phillips: On a point of order: we know from the John Laws radio program this morning that the Premier could not answer 30 out of the 50 questions. You have ruled, Mr Speaker -

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

Mr Phillips: Mr Speaker, you have ruled -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on the point. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr CARR: The Leader of the Opposition asked me yesterday about dog racing -

Mr Collins: On a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will wait until the Premier has resumed his seat.

Mr Collins: Sometimes we have to wait a very long time for the Premier to resume his seat.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair shall decide such matters.

Mr Collins: If the Premier wants to give a supplementary answer to a question I asked yesterday, he should do so at the end of question time.

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

Mr CARR: He is arguing about the politics of the third runway -

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The points of order just taken by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition were frivolous.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Myall Lakes interjects again while the Chair is speaking, he will be removed from the Chamber. It is quite obvious that during question time points of order are being taken by members of the Opposition with the intention of disrupting Ministers' answers. I have warned members on numerous occasions against adopting such a tactic. I give the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai the call, but I trust that his point of order will have
Page 4431
some substance. The Chair is not assisted by comments from members on the Government side of the House.

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order: my point of order is serious as it relates to the maintenance of good order in this House.

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

Mr O'Doherty: Mr Speaker, on 1 June and on 11 October you ruled that you have no power to direct a Minister how to answer a question, as long as the Minister's answer is relevant to the question. The Premier has strayed from the issue of the third runway and is discussing a matter which was debated by this House yesterday. He is not addressing the question before the House. In line with your two previous rulings I ask you to either bring the Premier back to the question or to sit him down.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Premier was addressing the issue of the third runway.

Mr CARR: John Howard says that he will reopen the east-west runway to reconfigure the noise burden or reopen it to smaller aircraft, and thereby liberate the north-south runway to additional jet movements for every small aircraft. Heaven help those north of the airport if John Howard gets his way!

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

Mr CARR: John Howard's alternative for the reopening of the east-west runway will make it worse for those residents. The honourable member for Strathfield wrote to constituents defending the third runway.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection. I call the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to order. I call the honourable member for Gosford to order for the second time.

Mr CARR: The previous coalition Government supported the third runway - there is no doubt about it. The Leader of the Opposition is desperately casting around for any issue. He has a mutinous backbench and he faces leadership challenges.

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

Mr CARR: On the basis of this question, the Leader of the Opposition would be better off sticking with the dogs.


Ms NORI: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing. Following last night's tragic fire at Glebe, will the Minister outline what the Government is doing to prevent house fires in Department of Housing residences and in the community generally?

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

Mr KNOWLES: It is a pity that the honourable member for Gosford trivialises what is essentially a human tragedy. This morning he was on the radio speaking about smoke detectors and what he would do if he was the Minister. What did he do for seven years? I remind the honourable member that three people died in that fire this morning, and he can do nothing more than try to politicise the issue. No wonder the honourable member for Wagga Wagga said that the honourable member for Gosford should not be on the frontbench. The honourable member is an absolute disgrace and should be ashamed of himself. He spent $617,000 on a luxury office fit out, and then has the temerity to complain -

Mr Kerr: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, you admonished the honourable member for Gosford for interjecting, but now he is being goaded into interjecting.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. I warn the honourable member for Cronulla that he too is at risk of being removed from the Chamber.

Mr KNOWLES: I shall inform the House of the details surrounding the house fire at Westmoreland Street, Glebe. The fire began at 2 a.m. As a result of the fire, three people have been killed and another five have been taken to hospital with related injuries. The three people who lost their lives in the fire included an adult woman and two children. I have been advised that the fire appears suspicious and homicide and Glebe detectives are working together at the scene to determine whether it was deliberately lit. Fire investigators and senior police are still at the scene and police are continuing to interview witnesses. This incident can be described only as a tragedy. On behalf of the Parliament I express our sincere condolences to relatives and friends of the deceased and wish those who have sustained injuries a speedy recovery. As honourable members would be aware, this fire comes only weeks after a fire at Claymore, which saw the loss of lives. There have been a number of other fires in private homes since then. There was a fire at Seven Hills last weekend. These incidents highlight the need for greater community awareness and participation in preventing house fires.

My colleague the Minister for Emergency Services in discussions with me over recent weeks provided me with some statistics that I believe will be of interest to honourable members. In the year ended 30 June, there were 4,201 house fires in domestic residential properties in New South Wales. Nearly 34 per cent of these fires were attributed to
Page 4432
operational deficiencies, such as collisions with devices, overturning or knocking down appliances, leaving them unattended or accidentally turning them on or off. Nearly 22 per cent of all fires were attributed to the misuse of ignited or ignitable material - this includes children playing with matches, people falling asleep while smoking and the inadequate control of an open fire. Other causes for fire include placing combustible items too close to heat sources, improper storage and incorrect fuelling techniques.

It is unfortunate but those statistics reveal that human involvement appears to account for the majority of fires. These statistics point to a need for greater community education on fire prevention issues. It is important that all households take every precaution to prevent a possible fire. To that end, I will be contacting my colleagues the Minister for Emergency Services, the Minister for Police and the Minister for Local Government to discuss ways to improve the existing education campaign on fire prevention. The Department of Housing is currently preparing a fire safety booklet for issue to all tenants in January and February next year. It will contain important and practical information on how individuals can take steps to make their homes safer from fire risk. In addition, a pilot computerised fire reporting system is being implemented which will provide more accurate reporting and analysis. This system provides accurate fire data to help determine appropriate building modifications to reduce fire risk and will form a basis for funding priorities.

While recognising the needs for greater community participation, the Government is also playing its part to reduce the risk of house fires. As honourable members are aware, in the light of the recent tragedy at Claymore, I have instructed the department to immediately commence a program to fit smoke detectors in all Department of Housing dwellings. The department has commenced an immediate program of installing hard-wired mains-operated detectors in all 130,000 dwellings. This will cost an estimated $42 million in capital costs, with an ongoing annual maintenance and inspection service cost of $3 million. The first detectors will be installed in properties identified as being most at risk and those tenants most in need, such as the frail aged or people with a disability.

In addition, the Department of Housing has negotiated a bulk purchase of battery-operated smoke detectors to be made available through department offices at a cheap rate of $6 per unit, which is below the cost of acquisition. I stress that this is only an interim measure. Clearly, the long-term solution lies in installing hard-wired smoke detectors in public housing units. I refer again to the comments of the honourable member for Gosford in his radio interview this morning. He is not renowned for his sensitivity. He sought to make some short-term political mileage out of this tragedy. He said that battery-operated smoke detectors should be made available for every Department of Housing property. That short-term solution is available to those who want it.

However, the long-term solution is obviously the installation of hard-wired smoke detectors to ensure a proper smoke detection system rather than the problems associated with failure rates of battery-operated systems. We are making available battery-operated detectors to give people in public housing the opportunity for an interim solution while we move to that best solution of a hard-wired smoke detector system. In response to the irresponsible claims of the honourable member for Gosford this morning, the chronic underspending of the previous Government on public housing maintenance over the last seven years, and its failure to manage properly the 130,000 homes that make up the public housing stock, has brought us to a point where we have such a difficult and problematic situation with the management of fires in the public housing estate. I conclude by noting that the Minister for Emergency Services has announced that a summit on smoke alarms will be held to ensure that more home owners install such devices. The summit will be held next Monday, with an invitation extended to anyone who wants to attend. I am confident that if the Government and the community work together, real improvements in fire safety can be achieved.


Mr ARMSTRONG: Will the Minister for Health give the people of country New South Wales an unequivocal guarantee that the State Government does not plan to close or downgrade any country hospital?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I am delighted to have the opportunity to answer a question about health from the National Party. It is the National Party that is supposed to look after the people of the bush. But what did the National Party do when it was in government? How many hospitals did the former Government close? What happened at Bonalbo, at Yeoval, at Port Kembla, and at Binnaway? Those are the hospitals that the Labor Party was trying to protect and the former Government was trying to close down. The former Government did not close Bonalbo, because the Labor Party got massive support against it. Interestingly, the whole of Bonalbo town turned out to support the Labor Party when it fought to save the hospital at Bonalbo. That is the town in which the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti was born, but the people there would stand against Brian Pezzutti and the Liberal-National Government to support the Labor Party and their hospital. Despite the former Government's best efforts, we won that battle.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: Unfortunately, we were not strong enough to stage a win against the closure of hospitals at Quandialla or Binnaway, or the privatisation of Yeoval hospital. Worse than closure was the privatisation of Port Macquarie hospital. Everyone who comes to me to ask for a few more dollars for the provision of better services
Page 4433
at local hospitals should know that the money has gone to the privatised Port Macquarie hospital. The extra cost of that hospital is dramatically higher than the cost of a public hospital.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: At every chance I have I will bring out the correct figures. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition, who was Treasurer in the former Government, were prepared to spend all that extra money - money that should now be available for local hospitals - at Port Macquarie. That was outrageous.

Mrs Skinner: You are worried about the question.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member for North Shore interjects. I put it on record that I like her support. Despite what was said last night, I think that the work she has been doing is to be commended. I know that there is to be a reshuffle of the Opposition's front bench, but I ask that the honourable member for North Shore be retained in her position. The health portfolio takes some time to learn, but I am very keen that the enthusiasm with which the honourable member for North Shore approaches her responsibility is recognised.

Mrs Skinner: What about the waiting lists? You will be resigning.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore should resist the temptation to interject.

Dr REFSHAUGE: As we all know, good government depends on good opposition as well. It is very important that we do not lose the tenacious attack that the honourable member for North Shore constantly brings to the health portfolio -

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: - making sure that we are doing the right thing. It is really important -

Mr Phillips: Why are you focusing on her so much? Why don't you just get on with your job?

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: Perhaps there will be a new Leader of the Opposition next year. I want to say to whoever will be Leader of the Opposition: look at the work that the honourable member for North Shore has been doing; it is not to be underrated, it really keeps me on my toes. Despite the performance of the honourable member for North Shore last night, we want to bring her up to a higher plane. The National Party is going around the bush at the moment saying that there is a problem with rural health services. The National Party is right. What that party did when in government to downgrade rural health services should be noted. Every country hospital had its budget cut every year.

Mr Phillips: By how much did funding increase?

Dr REFSHAUGE: Here he is, axe man himself.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: Every country hospital had its budget cut. What did the National Party do about that? I know that some of its members started to complain, because they complained to me as well. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga may not be a National Party member, but he was complaining about the budget cuts - good on you, Joe. The honourable member for Dubbo knows that the coalition Government ignored the need to rebuild the hospital in his area. I am delighted to say that the honourable member for Dubbo has been very supportive of this Government's action in putting Dubbo Base Hospital on to the capital works program. He knows that Dubbo hospital serves people from outside its own area. In fact, the honourable member for Broken Hill has told me that many of his constituents who live close to Dubbo use that hospital. That capital works program is very important. The former Government ignored the hospital at Dubbo; it never rebuilt the hospital. This Government is putting the hospital on the capital works list. What about the position at West Wyalong? Where did West Wyalong health services feature?

Mrs Skinner: What about Nepean?

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: West Wyalong comes within the electorate of the Leader of the National Party, but he never got the hospital listed on the capital works program for that area. This Government put the local hospital on the capital works program, because we care about the country people and about the health services of rural New South Wales. I give a clear and unequivocal guarantee that rural health services will be upgraded under a Carr Labor Government, because that is the type of people we are. We care about country people. We will not cut the budgets of country hospitals in the way that the former Government did, year after year.


Mr ANDERSON: I ask a question of the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. What success has the Government had in its drive to create new jobs in New South Wales?

Page 4434

[Interruption]

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

Mr CARR: I am proud to announce that a subsidiary of the Bank of Scotland will establish its Asia-Pacific regional headquarters -

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection. I place the honourable member for Vaucluse on three calls to order. The House will come to order.

Mr CARR: I will try again: I am proud to announce that a subsidiary of the Bank of Scotland will establish its Asia-Pacific regional headquarters in Parramatta, bringing 350 new jobs to western Sydney. I am sure that -

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the National Party to order. I call the honourable member for Lismore to order.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I draw the attention -

Ms Allan: Sit down Malcolm, you idiot.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the Minister for the Environment on three calls to order. There is far too much unwarranted interjection. The Premier is attempting to provide a serious answer to an important question. Members will cease interjecting and will maintain order in the House. All members who have been called to order previously are now on three calls to order. The honourable member for Monaro well understands the possible consequences of that situation.

Mrs Chikarovski: On a point of order: it is the normal practice of this House that when Ministers have finished their answer they take their seat. We can only assume that is exactly what the Premier has done. Therefore, those members who jumped to their feet just prior to your standing were seeking the call for the next question. I ask that you recognise that fact.

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

Mr CARR: I am proud to announce that a subsidiary of the Bank of Scotland will establish its Asia-Pacific regional headquarters in Parramatta, bringing 350 new jobs to western Sydney. I am sure that this is an announcement that my colleague the Minister for Sport and Recreation will want to have amplified in the western Sydney news media. The subsidiary, Capital Finance Australia Limited, will invest up to $200 million in the operation over the next five years. This is a major victory for young job seekers in western Sydney. There are 350 high quality jobs in an industry with terrific growth prospects in Australia and the Asia Pacific. The company has already spent $16 million and plans to create another 100 jobs at other locations apart from Parramatta. Capital Finance will use its Parramatta headquarters to provide marketing, finance, accounting, information processing and software support for its regional operation.

Capital Finance chose Sydney over Brisbane and Hong Kong because of Sydney's excellent infrastructure, high quality labour pool and cost competitive business environment. A big factor was the ready availability of people speaking Asian languages. Capital Finance will receive a modest incentive package that includes the usual tax concessions for a company establishing regional headquarters in New South Wales. Today's news further strengthens Sydney's reputation as a financial and services centre for Australia and the Asia Pacific. It builds on recent regional headquarters announcements by Bankers Trust, American Express and State Street. Only a few weeks ago I opened at St Leonards the Seimens Nixdorf Centre of Excellence for Financial Institutions. This was a $40 million investment, secured only because of the efforts of this Government. The Leader of the Opposition said that we would not secure American Express, and we did!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is on three calls to order.

Mr CARR: That St Leonards facility announcement came on top of the announcement of a string of major projects for Sydney after the change of government. Those major projects include the American Express regional headquarters, which was a $29 million investment creating 830 jobs. We got it - the previous Government had no plans to secure it. Another major project was the State Street regional headquarters, which represents a $25 million investment with 300 jobs. It was secured by this Government.

Mr O'Farrell: That is a lie.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Northcott to order. As this is the fourth occasion on which he has been called to order, I ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove him.

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

Mr CARR: They will be opening the dog food now, the Meaty Bites. Cop it sweet - you lost!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will continue to answer the question and will resist the temptation to respond to interjections.

Mr CARR: State Street regional headquarters was another major project we secured, which represents a $25 million investment with 300 jobs. It was the Labor Government that secured the investment. Another major project was Bankers Trust regional headquarters, with an investment of $19 million and 300 jobs. The pro-business policies of Labor paid off once again with jobs and
Page 4435
investment for the people of this State. The American Telephone and Telegraph regional headquarters has been secured. This is yet another regional headquarters for New South Wales. How embarrassing for Jeff Kennett! He just cannot secure these headquarters; we win them all. AT&T regional headquarters was secured and represents an investment of $27 million and 200 jobs.

Mr West: We heard this last sitting week.

Mr CARR: The member heard it last week, because it was announced last week. He is a very clever boy!

Mr Tink: On a point of order: I can distinctly recall hearing precisely the same answer from the Premier on three occasions. He is engaging in tedious repetition.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Eastwood knows full well that no point of order is involved.

Mr CARR: He has the aura of leadership, the quiet authority. He is so unlike the current Leader of the Opposition. In the leadership stakes a betting person would put money on the member for Eastwood, not on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Eastwood on three calls to order.

Mr CARR: The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics report on the labour force shows that since the Government changed in New South Wales, 103,800 new jobs have been created. Members opposite do not like it. Since the old, sleepy team was pensioned off and sent out to graze, the Government changed and jobs were created.

Mr Peacocke: On a point of order: not only is the Premier's answer full of blather, but it is also well punctuated with calumny of a type totally unbecoming of this House. It is not even a good example of the casuistry of which the Premier is capable. It is achromatic drivel lacking acuity and clearly indicates the Premier's present catatonic state. It is also both contumacious -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. The honourable member for Dubbo is trifling with the House.


Ms MOORE: Could the Premier inform the House whether there was a heads of agreement between the Government and Fox studios dated 3 July 1995 preceding the current heads of agreement and referred to in the showground documents released by the Government under freedom of information?

Mr CARR: I refer to the answers I gave on this when the House was last sitting.

Mr WATKINS: My question is directed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation.

Mr Jeffery: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, I do not know whether you have extra-sensory perception, but -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! As I pre-empt the point of order the member is about to make, I must have.

Mr Jeffery: There is a point of order.

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

Mr Jeffery: You cannot call a member for a question when he hasn't risen out of his seat.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Oxley will resume his seat.

Mr WATKINS: What are the Government's plans to improve Sydney Harbour and its surrounding catchment area?

Mr YEADON: I am sure that all honourable members would agree that Sydney has the world's most beautiful harbour. In fact, last month Sydney was selected as the world's top city for tourists by a leading international travel magazine, and the harbour was nominated as one of the reasons for this. The harbour is the heart of Sydney, but it must be properly managed and preserved for present and future generations. By international standards Sydney Harbour is in very good condition, but there is no cause for complacency. The Government is acting to preserve Sydney Harbour as one of this city's most important waterways. The harbour is not terminally ill, but after years of neglect by the mob opposite it is definitely showing the symptoms of environmental sickness. Sydney Harbour is one of this nation's most important waterways, yet it does not have a total catchment management structure.

Mr Cochran: On a point of order: members are entitled to be referred to by their correct title, not "that mob" as the Minister just did.

Mr Clough: On the point of order: I have listened to a number of points of order raised by the Opposition in recent weeks and their sensitivity seems to be great. I suggest that for the Minister to call them "that mob" is a compliment.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. The Minister has not referred to any individual.

Mr YEADON: The Government is acting to preserve Sydney Harbour as one of this city's most important waterways. Sydney Harbour is this nation's most important waterway, yet it does not have a total catchment management structure. Indeed it is the only remaining area that does not have a total catchment structure, because it was neglected by the previous Government. Therefore,
Page 4436
immediate action must be taken. In the upper Parramatta reaches of the harbour, for instance, algal blooms are a problem. This week Long Bay at Cammeray experienced a toxic algal bloom. This Government is committed to coordinated action to preserve Sydney Harbour and the rivers and streams that flow into it. The 53,550 hectares of the Sydney Harbour catchment need responsive community-based environmental management. That is why the Government released today a discussion paper entitled "Improving the Environmental Management of Sydney Harbour Catchment". The Government is looking at the entire catchment, the surrounding hills and ridges that drain rainwater and run-off into the harbour.

The catchment includes the upper reaches of the Parramatta and Duck rivers, Lane Cove, Middle Harbour, the bays in the eastern suburbs, Balmain, Iron Cove, and Hen and Chicken Bay. There are considerable demands on the harbour. Sydney Harbour and the surrounding hills and ridges, and urban catchment, face a number of environmental problems that must be contained. These demands include: the effects of rubbish disposal - about 4,700 cubic metres of rubbish is collected each year by harbour cleaning programs, which is equivalent to 470 garbage trucks full of rubbish; deteriorating water quality - presently it is relatively safe to swim for about 90 to 95 per cent of the time in the harbour, however bacteria levels are extremely high in the first two to three days after rain; changes in flood and drainage patterns; sediment build-up - one estimate reported in the press recently is that in the last 25 years levels of the harbour have shallowed by two metres, the equivalent of 10,000 years of natural siltation; decline in fish and aquatic life diversity; air pollution; and the associated visual effects of these environmental problems.

These are complex problems. No single body has all the necessary resources, skills or abilities to manage the catchment on its own. What is needed is better coordination of groups who use, enjoy and influence the health and activities of Sydney Harbour. These include individuals, community groups, local government, industry and conservation groups, and public land administrators. We need a coordinating body capable of identifying priority issues. Today's option paper will explain and encourage comment on alternative management structures for Sydney Harbour. The paper is designed to be a catalyst for discussion. I expect the consultation process to take about six months. The management options in the paper are all structured in line with the total catchment management framework. Today the Government has signalled an end to the ad hockery in the management of Sydney Harbour. We have begun a process which will ensure the health of our catchments and make sure we leave our children with a healthy environment and a harbour of lasting beauty.

Mrs SKINNER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. Is an elderly woman with a badly broken leg still waiting, after more than three days in Canterbury Hospital, for her leg to be pinned, set and operated on? Is the Minister aware that Canterbury Hospital administrators have told the family that the delay is due to the pressure on the hospital to meet the Minister's waiting list promise?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The tenacity of the honourable member for North Shore is to be commended and it is important that these issues be raised. Despite the fact that the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti is touting himself in the Wentworth Courier as the shadow spokesman on health, he should go back to his upper House and let the real fight be done by the honourable member for North Shore who has shown a real commitment to the job. In regard to the question that the member has asked, there is certainly no doubt that the waiting lists reduction program is making a significant improvement to health services in New South Wales. The Opposition said it was not possible to be done. The Opposition was prepared to ignore the plight of patients in New South Wales, but the Government is prepared to put money into the health care system.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Lane Cove on three calls to order.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Government is prepared to bring all the health professionals together with one aim in mind: to provide better patient quality care, and get patients into the hospitals a lot faster.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for North Shore that she is on three calls to order.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Government is very pleased that the waiting lists are dramatically falling. The latest figures for October show that there has been a 33.4 per cent reduction in the number of people waiting for elective surgery. But more importantly, the lists for those waiting for a long time are falling by a greater number with an almost 60 per cent reduction in the number.

Mrs Skinner: On a point of order: my question related specifically to a woman who has been waiting for treatment in Canterbury Hospital, not the message that the Minister is going on about. I ask you to bring him back to my question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The scope of the question permits the Minister to refer to waiting lists and his attitudes and actions.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The member for North Shore mentioned the waiting lists, but obviously she does not want to hear the good news. Many patients in New South Wales are celebrating the election of the Carr Labor Government so that they
Page 4437
can get into hospital. I do not know the specific details that the member has raised about the woman concerned. If the member provides me with details I will get an answer to her and the House as soon as possible.


Ms ANDREWS: My question without notice is directed to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. How will the Government improve health services for victims of crime?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I thank the honourable member for her continuing interest and commitment to -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bega to order. As this is the fourth occasion on which the honourable member has been called to order, I ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove him.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: I thank the honourable member for her question. I commend her for her continued commitment to improving health services and for looking after the victims of crime. This is a major problem that has been facing us and taxing the minds of many people throughout this nation for many years.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Coffs Harbour on three calls to order.

Dr REFSHAUGE: Violent crime is an unfortunate part of modern daily life. The murders of Anita Cobby and Michael Marslew, and the Strathfield massacre, are all crimes which have resulted in deep trauma for surviving relatives. It has been well documented that victims of crime, particularly those involving homicide, assault, sexual assault and robbery, suffer both emotionally and physically. A significant body of research indicates that victims of serious crime have a higher incidence of health-related problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder. As a community we have a responsibility to ensure that victims of crime have access to the best possible range of support services. To this end the Carr Government is today launching the New South Wales victims of crime health policy. The Government has also committed $100,000 for the initial implementation of this policy.

The victims of crime health policy has, as its focus, the person or family who has suffered either physical harm, emotional trauma or personal loss as a consequence of crime. Central to the policy will be the New South Wales charter of victims rights. In recent years some initiatives have been developed to address the problems suffered by victims of crime. However, no State health policy for victims of crime has been developed. This policy is intended to fill that gap. The goal of the New South Wales victims of crime health policy will be to ensure that counselling, support and information is available to victims of crime and their families as soon as possible. This will help minimise secondary trauma and assist in recovery. The policy will provide a basis for health areas and districts to develop local plans to provide help for victims of crime. Area and district health services will work with police, therapists, counsellors and non-government organisations such as the Sydney City Mission victims of crime telephone counselling service.

This policy will also provide access for health workers to training as trauma and grief counsellors. Carers will also be trained to conduct comprehensive debriefings after a crime or traumatised incident. Specialised attention will be paid to developing appropriate counselling services for people from non-English speaking backgrounds. Many victims are first taken to hospital when a crime occurs. New South Wales Health will ensure that relevant hospital staff will be involved in the design and implementation of local plans to improve access for victims to counselling and support services. The role of community health centres will be enhanced to ensure that support services are available at a local level for victims of crime. Specialised teams and units in New South Wales will also be invited to help plan the implementation and development of their local plans.

Victims of crime often feel that they are further victimised by a system which does not place appropriate emphasis on their needs. The policy we are launching today seeks to provide the best possible network of services and care for those who are subjected to often violent crimes. The aftermath of a crime can be deeply traumatic for both the victim and the victim's family. The victims of crime health policy will ensure that the recovery process is managed in a comprehensive and appropriate fashion. This Government is about tipping the balance away from criminals and back to the victims. Victims have, in the past, been victims of neglect.


Mr BECK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Does he support the present green blockade of Mebbin State Forest? Is this blockade legal? If not, what action is he taking to protect the jobs of timber workers in Mebbin State Forest?

Mr Whelan: On a point of order: the question seeks a legal opinion. Therefore it is out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Murwillumbah to restate the question.

Page 4438

Mr BECK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Does he support the present green blockade of Mebbin State Forest? Is this blockade legal? If not, what action is he taking to protect the jobs of timber workers in Mebbin State Forest?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The advice of the Clerk is that part of the question seeks a legal opinion. The member may wish to rephrase his question.


Mr McMANUS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for the Environment. What is the Minister doing to ensure greater access for all sections of the community to our national parks?

Ms ALLAN: I thank the honourable member for Bulli for his continuing interest in the national parks in the Illawarra region. This Government is committed to providing opportunities for all to enjoy their pastimes in natural settings without harming the environment. Today I am pleased to announce a policy review of public access to the State's national parks system. The National Parks and Wildlife Service will prepare a new Government policy detailing opportunities for public access to national parks. The policy will identify areas where public access to park areas can be opened up without risking community safety or damaging the environment. A recent review has shown that more than 2,500 kilometres of vehicle access tracks are available within the State's national parks estate. I want to see as many of these tracks as possible opened to recreational drivers. The Government's plans to establish 24 new national parks within its first year in office will see expanded recreational opportunities for the public.

Recently the Premier asked the National Parks and Wildlife Service to emphasise in its revised policy a number of key areas: opportunities for access to parks by the disabled, elderly and families with prams; access to people wanting to fish in terrestrial national parks; access for horse riders on designated horse riding tracks; and ongoing approval for beekeepers to operate in park areas. The Government will also investigate improved recreational opportunities in State forests and on other Crown land. I am also pleased to announce a further initiative by the Government to assist sporting and recreational shooters. For seven years the Illawarra Sporting Shooters Association has been fighting to establish a new rifle range in south-west Sydney to service this area and the Illawarra.

The Minister for Land and Water Conservation has given approval for the association to submit a development application to Wollondilly Shire Council for approval. Once that has been approved, the rifle range development can proceed forthwith. The number of rifle ranges available to these associations to shoot for recreation and training has been drastically reduced, with five ranges closing in the past eight years. One range remains in the Wollongong area. In October 1991 - four years ago, approximately - the association spent almost $30,000 preparing plans for a new rifle range in the Dharawal reserve. The association was advised by the former Government that a lease would proceed to completion "within four weeks". Four years later no lease has been signed and the association is $28,000 out of pocket because of the coalition's bungling, and it did not get a rifle range.

The Dharawal reserve is about 8,000 hectares. It has been identified by the Government as suitable for addition to the national parks system, possibly as a State recreation area. The Sporting Shooters Association has advised me that it intends to reduce the scale of its proposal and will now require only about 500 hectares of land to accommodate the rifle range. Of this, 50 hectares represents the actual rifle range, and the remaining 450 hectares represents a safety zone around the range. The area of land identified for the rifle range is adjacent to two extractive industries, a clay pit and a sand mine. A significant proportion of the proposed site has been previously disturbed. Within six months of the official opening of the rifle range, approximately 1,500 shooters will use the facility. At the same time the Government is also proceeding with the establishment of the 8,000 hectare Dharawal State Recreation Area and Nature Reserve south of Campbelltown, which protects some of the last remaining koala habitat in metropolitan Sydney. This Government will be protecting koalas through the creation of a State recreation area and enabling sporting shooters to use a rifle range in the Illawarra region.


Mr McMANUS: I have a supplementary question for the Minister. In view of the answer just given, what initiatives can the Government take to consult all park users about their needs for park usage?

Ms ALLAN: The review process that the National Parks and Wildlife Service has now begun to implement includes widespread consultation with all those associations that currently have access, and recreational access in particular, to our national parks and State recreation areas. Already we have met with a number of these stakeholder organisations: the Public Land Users Alliance, various horse riding associations throughout New South Wales, beekeepers, and the four-wheel drive association. That process will continue and those groups will consult with the Government in the preparation of its new public access policy.

Questions without notice concluded.

Mr Beck: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, I am very disappointed that I have not been able to ask my question, which you indicated I would be allowed to ask. It is disappointing that you are not going to stick to your word.

Page 4439

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand the disappointment of the honourable member from Murwillumbah. However, standing orders provide that no further questions may be asked after the answering of 10 questions. I remind the honourable member that an answer to a supplementary question counts as one of the 10 answers.

[Personal Explanation]

Mr JEFFERY: Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation about my actions earlier today in taking a point of order under Standing Order 104, which states:

A Member may at any time raise a point of order relating to a breach of the standing orders or the practice of the House which shall, until disposed of, suspend the consideration and decision of every other question.

Mr Knight: On a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair will hear the member's personal explanation.

Mr Knight: He is not making a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair will make that decision.

Mr JEFFERY: My personal explanation is in relation to your giving the honourable member for Gladesville the call when he had not risen from his place. The honourable member for North Shore had sought the call to ask a question. Standing Order 63 provides that a member wishing to speak will not be recognised by the Speaker unless the member rises and seeks the call. My personal explanation is that I was trying to explain that there was a breach of standing orders but you did not give me the chance.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The personal explanation of the member is noted.


Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [3.22]: I seek leave to move the following motion:

That standing orders be suspended to allow consideration forthwith of General Business Notice of Motion No. 21 standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Leave not granted.


Clauses 1 to 3

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [3.25]: I raise an objection which I foreshadowed last night in the second reading debate in relation to clause 3. It relates to the registration requirements for schools. As I explained last night, the question of choice about corporal punishment is very important to the non-government school sector. The rest of the bill is irrelevant because, as the Minister for Education and Training announced earlier this week, he is perfectly entitled to make rules banning corporal punishment in government schools, which he has done in any case. Clause 3 is the guts of the bill and it is the clause that particularly concerns the non-government sector, for two reasons. First, the Minister has failed to consult on the question, and representatives of the non-government sector consider that they have been ambushed. Second, they feel - and the Opposition certainly agrees - that to deal with the question of corporal punishment by threatening the registration of schools is a particularly inappropriate way to proceed.

The Leader of the House is today representing the Minister for Education and Training, who is not present; I gather he is attending a ministerial council meeting. I ask the Leader of the House to answer the questions I posed last night. Can he be specific about whether non-government schools which retain corporal punishment as part of their discipline code will be deregistered by the Board of Studies for so doing? How will the process work? When will the question of corporal punishment in relation to the registration of schools be decided? Will it come up as soon as the bill is given assent? Will it come up when the schools seek to be re-registered on their regular cycle? If the Minister finds out in the middle of a school's term of registration that it is administering corporal punishment, or even if the cane remains part of the school's discipline code, will he take pro-active action to deregister the school? If that is the case and if parents continue to exercise their right to send their children to that school, are they in breach of the Education Reform Act and will action be taken against them?

These are vitally important questions which go to the heart of the right of independent schools to set their own standards and value systems and, importantly, the right of independent schools to exist at all, and the right of parents to send their children to schools of their choice. The Minister for Education and Training cannot answer these questions, first, because he is not here - and he should be if he has a bill before the Chamber - and, second, because the matters have not been decided by his department. It is ludicrous and bizarre for the Minister to rush through the Parliament with undue haste a bill in relation to which these matters have not been decided by his department. He cannot answer the questions because there are no answers. He does not know how the bill will operate. If he does not know how it will operate in practice, why is he rushing it through the Parliament? Why can the independent schools not have an answer to these important questions which they say threaten their very existence as schools and therefore threaten not only the livelihood of the staff but also the education of all students who attend non-government schools?

Page 4440

On behalf of those schools the Opposition seeks answers to these important questions. The Opposition joins with non-government schools in saying that this is a particularly inappropriate way of achieving the aim of abolishing corporal punishment. I ask the Government to reconsider using the registration of schools to achieve his aim. Yesterday, in the very little time allowed to the Opposition to negotiate on the bill, it was proposed to me by a school community that perhaps action in relation to section 6 of the Education Reform Act might be a more effective way of achieving what the Government wants to achieve rather than amending the section of the Act dealing with registrations. It is obscene for the Minister to race the bill through without having consulted with the non-government school sector. I spoke to representatives of that sector again today. They were here in Parliament House. I spoke with the Christian schools and the parent-controlled Christian schools. All they want is for the Minister to meet them. Has the Minister met them? No he has not. Has he deigned even to answer their telephone calls? No he has not.

Why will the Minister simply not talk to these people? If the Government goes ahead with this legislation it will impact on the viability and ethos of schools. These people would be happy to talk to the Minister about what he seeks to achieve and would certainly be interested in discussing it with him if only he would see them. I wonder why the Minister, as on other issues, hides behind his desk - the same desk in which he has those important reports hidden in the bottom drawer. Why does he persist in refusing to see those affected by his decisions? His political epitaph will be that he was never available to answer calls, never returned phone calls, and made decisions and then informed people afterwards.

It is just one of a number of measures that the Government is rushing through this House without due consultation and process. I ask the Minister for Police to address these questions, if he can. I accept his difficulty because the Minister for Education and Training is not present. That, of course, is not the Opposition's fault. The Government knew that the Minister would be attending a ministerial council meeting today, but the Minister could have answered the questions asked of him last night. In any event, I ask the Minister for Police to do his best. The Opposition will move in the other place that the bill be adjourned until the first day of the parliamentary sittings of 1996.

Obviously the Opposition will be seeking support from members on the crossbenches for that motion, to allow for consultation to enable the Minister to discuss with the small number of schools involved the aims and objectives to see whether a solution can be reached, either to use a different part of the bill to achieve the same aim or to have schools reach a voluntary agreement to abolish corporal punishment. That is a reasonable move. Once again the Opposition is trying to facilitate consultation in the interests of good education policy and in the interests of all students. I ask the Government to support my proposal to have the bill adjourned in the other place until the first day of sitting next year. I request also that the Government use that time to facilitate discussions between the Minister for Education and Training and the schools most affected by this measure.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Whilst it is clear from the comments of the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai that they relate to measures in the bill, he should have been speaking to the schedule and not to the clauses. In future he might direct his comments to the correct section.

Clauses agreed to.

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


Debate resumed from 5 December.

Mr WEST (Orange) [3.34]: As public confidence in the Police Service continues to decline, the need for this legislation becomes even more apparent, and for that reason the Opposition will support the principles enunciated in the bill. I notice in the Minister's second reading speech that he continues the myth that the Australian Labor Party was instrumental in ensuring that the royal commission went ahead, which he says is in stark contrast to the attitude of the former coalition Government. If the Australian Labor Party was so confident, I wonder why it did not move for the establishment of the royal commission, rather than leaving it to the former member for South Coast. Why did not the former member for Liverpool, a former Minister for Police, move such a motion? The truth is that it, as an opposition, was placed in a difficult position as it constantly exploited the numbers in the previous Parliament and could not be seen to oppose such a motion.

I might also add that contrary to the myth put forward by another former Minister for Police, the Hon. Ted Pickering, to my knowledge he did not call for a royal commission either. Hindsight is a marvellous thing and politicians of all political parties use and misuse it with regular monotony. At the time the former member for South Coast moved for the establishment of the royal commission, the coalition Government and many in the community believed that such an investigation should have been the province of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. There is no doubt, as history has now proven, that the Independent Commission Against Corruption failed the people of this State in the fight against police corruption. In fact, the coalition proposal was to set up a special division within the Independent
Page 4441
Commission Against Corruption to conduct the investigation along the lines of the royal commission, a move that was rejected at the time by the Australian Labor Party and the Independents.

It is interesting to note that recent media reports are now promoting the ICAC model for the post-royal commission watchdog. However, as the royal commission progresses its value is undoubted, and this bill is necessary so that the Parliament and the honest police of this State - and that is the majority of policemen and policewomen - can send a clear message to their colleagues that they want no part of the path carved out by their corrupt colleagues. Let us try to put partisan political point scoring aside as the royal commission continues so this Parliament can send a message to the people of this State and the honest men and women of the Police Service that we should all work together to ensure we have a Police Service in the future that will work for the protection of all in our community.

Before I turn to the Opposition's response to the detail of the bill, I should like to take the opportunity to give the Minister for Police a little advice, if I may, about the importance of a Minister's second reading speech. The Minister, as a longstanding member of this House, should be aware that under the Interpretation Act a Minister's second reading speech can be used by those outside this House, including the courts, to determine the detail and sometimes the intent of the legislation. Therefore, Ministers should be careful about departing from the text of the speech prepared for them for the purpose of giving examples or some political point-scoring exercise, which might be better done in the Minister's reply to the various contributions made by honourable members during the second reading debate.

A not too careful examination of the second reading speech by the Minister for Police on this bill is a good example of the point I wish to make. The Minister and the Government are obviously concerned about the lengthy process currently involved in the dismissal of police officers, which involves the Police Tribunal and the Government and Related Employees Tribunal, known as GREAT. In his enthusiasm to highlight his argument the Minister gave a series of off-the-cuff examples of the process, but unfortunately, only two of the five examples assisted his case. I am aware that the Minister for Police has tabled proposed amendments that he will move in Committee. However, it should be noted that these amendments are the result of an intensive campaign by the Police Association of New South Wales and the Commissioned Police Officers Association. The bill in its current form is not acceptable because it provides that where a police officer is dismissed, that officer has no right of appeal, except to the Supreme Court, as the Minister's decision is final.

The appeal to the Supreme Court is extremely unfair to the officer concerned. It allows the officer only to argue points of law as to the procedure used in the dismissal, not the evidence the Commissioner of Police used to arrive at the recommendation he made to the Minister with respect to the dismissal. It has been strongly argued that this is a denial of natural justice. Obviously there has been a lot of negotiation between the associations and the Minister to arrive at the amendments to be moved at the Committee stage. These amendments are, I understand, now acceptable to both the Police Association and the Commissioned Police Officers Association as an appeal will now to be available through the Industrial Commission. As this situation has now been resolved to the general satisfaction of the parties concerned the Opposition will not oppose the bill.

This bill is aimed at providing a mechanism for the royal commissioner - having identified officers who have committed corruption, and in whom he has lost faith - to recommend to the Minister that those people be removed from the Police Service. It is an important part of the process of presenting this State with a new-look Police Service for the future. The Minister and the Government can be assured that all reasonable attempts proposed by them and the royal commissioner will not be opposed, but supported, by the Opposition. The people of this State have the right to expect an honest Police Service. They have not had it in the past. I do not think anybody would have believed the extent of the corruption which has been disclosed as a result of the work of the royal commissioner, Justice Wood. We wish him well in his continuing endeavours.

There has been talk of a general amnesty. Do we want the royal commission to continue to sit, year in year out, until it runs every crooked copper out of the Police Service? That would take many years to achieve. I say to the Minister and to the Government that the general proposal put forward by the royal commissioner can be supported. Obviously the situation should be monitored. It is a further example of the royal commission playing its part in a continuing watchdog process. A royal commission is an expensive process and it would not be to anyone's benefit to have it sit indefinitely. I have seen the amendments circulated by the Minister for Police, and the Opposition will not oppose the bill.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [3.43], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Orange for his contribution. He is a former Minister for Police so he is very much aware of the reasons for and the purposes of this bill. It evinces the Government's intention that there should be an expedited method by which corrupt police officers, those who engage in corrupt conduct, and those who are no longer fit and proper persons to hold a position in the Police Service are dismissed. The Government, through this legislation, gives its total and complete support to royal commissioner James Wood. If it had not been for the support of the then Labor Opposition, the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service would not have been established. If anyone has to be wiser after the event -

Page 4442

Mr West: Why didn't you move it? Why did you leave it to the Independents?

Mr WHELAN: The Labor Party Opposition voted for it, the coalition Government did not. It can claim no credit whatsoever in relation to this issue. If it were not for the Labor Party and the three Independents, all the corruption that has been reported in every newspaper and on every television set over the last few months would have been swept under the carpet.

Mr West: Where was your courage? Why didn't you move it?

Mr WHELAN: I had courage when I sat on the Opposition bench and voted for it, and the honourable member for Orange - who was then the Minister for Police - opposed it. The people of New South Wales should be thankful that we have this royal commission. At least we can agree on one thing: this bill will enable the Commissioner of Police to expedite the dismissal of corrupt police officers. I have circulated amendments which will be moved during the Committee stage. The role of the Minister for Police will be removed and appeals will be referred to the Industrial Commission. As Minister I felt that exercising a quasi-judicial function was not correct. The Industrial Commission is the proper authority to hear those appeals. For those reasons, after a period of consultation with those involved, the Government resolved to accept the advice that was offered. I am pleased that the Opposition supports the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clause 3

Amendment, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

Pages 2 and 3, clause 3, line 11 on page 2 to line 31 on page 3. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

181A Definition and operation of Division

(1) In this Division:

Police Royal Commission means the Royal Commission of inquiry issued by the Governor by letters patent under the Public Seal on 13 May 1994, appointing the Honourable James Roland Tomson Wood sole commissioner to make inquiry into, and report on, the operations of the New South Wales Police Service.

(2) This Division prevails to the extent of any inconsistency with any other provision of this Act.

181B Dismissal of police officers - information arising out of Police Royal Commission

(1) The Commissioner may, by order in writing, dismiss a police officer from the Police Service if the Commissioner has formed the opinion, based on information arising out of the Police Royal Commission, that the officer:

(a) has engaged in corrupt conduct (or any other conduct constituting an indictable offence), and

(b) is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a position in the Police Service.

(2) The dismissal takes effect when the order is made.

(3) Before deciding whether to dismiss a police officer under this section, the Commissioner must:

(a) give the officer a notice setting out the grounds on which the Commissioner has formed the opinion referred to in subsection (1), and

(b) give the officer an opportunity to make a written submission to the Commissioner within 21 days of receiving the notice, and

(c) take into consideration any such submission received within that period.

(4) Section 182 (Appeal to GREAT against disciplinary decision of Commissioner) does not apply to or in respect of the decision by the Commissioner to dismiss a police officer under this section.

(5) Without limiting the generality of section 218 (Industrial Relations Act 1991 not affected), nothing in this section affects Part 8 (Unfair dismissals) of Chapter 3 of the Industrial Relations Act 1991.

Bill reported from Committee with amendment, and report adopted.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [3.50]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of the bill is to remove impediments to the harvesting of plantation timber so as to encourage the establishment of commercial timber plantations. In order to achieve this, the bill provides a scheme for the accreditation of timber plantations and removes the need to obtain licences under the National Parks and Wildlife Act before harvesting timber in an accredited plantation. It removes the need for development consent for harvesting operations under part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 or environmental assessment under part 5 of that Act. The bill provides for the protection of the environment by requiring harvesting operations on accredited timber plantations to be carried out in accordance with harvesting codes. The bill is a crucial legislative component in the Government's major program of nature conservation and forestry reforms.

Page 4443

If the Government is to realise its aim of maintaining a viable timber industry while reducing our dependence on old-growth native forest logging, we must find practical ways to increase the rate of plantation establishment. Plantations accredited under the legislation will be subject to a more streamlined system of planning and environmental control. However, there will be safeguards to ensure proper environmental standards. In essence, the legislation seeks to treat plantations as tree farms rather than native forests. This recognises that their purpose and function are closer to those of commercial crops. The bottom line is this: we cannot preserve a large proportion of our native forests unless we are willing to expand our capacity to produce plantation timber, especially hardwoods. The necessary investment by both public and private sectors will occur only if we move decisively to remove the disincentives that currently inhibit land-holders and investors from planting trees.

There are a number of factors that have discouraged potential investors, including the taxation treatment of plantations, uncertainty over markets and inconsistent treatment by local government. These have been well documented by many major studies, including the forest and timber inquiry final report of the Resource Assessment Commission, the "Adding Further Value to Australia's Forest Products" 1993 report of the Industry Commission and the report of the National Plantations Advisory Committee. In all these studies one factor stands out as the key disincentive inhibiting the establishment of native hardwood plantations: lack of guarantee of harvest.

If we want people to devote land and money to growing commercial tree crops, we must guarantee that they will be able to harvest the crop that they have planted. Both current and potential plantation owners are acutely aware that the rigorous environmental laws that regulate native forestry may apply to them and could potentially be used by third parties to prevent or delay their harvest. The law as it now stands does not discriminate between natural forests and tree farms. By inhibiting the growth of plantations, the lack of legal discrimination is indirectly working against the conservation of native forests and the development of the timber industry.

At this point I would like to place the bill in the context of other initiatives that the Government has announced, and show how it contributes towards the objectives the Government has set itself. The objectives can be summarised as follows: the establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative forest reserve system; action to ensure that forestry is carried out in an ecologically sustainable manner; and implementation of a strategy to restructure the native-forest based timber industry, to reduce its dependence on high conservation value old-growth forests. This will also increase its capacity to process regrowth timber and plantations and increase the value added to hardwood logs.

In order to achieve these objectives the Government has already moved to reschedule logging of high conservation old-growth forests and has identified wilderness into regrowth forests and plantations. It has established a nine-month interim assessment process that will identify areas of forest that should be protected pending the findings of comprehensive regional assessments and those areas that will be available for logging. The Government is now finalising details of a forestry structural adjustment package that will assist timber industry workers with retraining, redeployment, relocation or redundancy. It has committed $8.5 million in the 1995-96 budget with an in-principle commitment of $47 million over three years to allow State Forests to double its hardwood plantation establishment target to 10,000 hectares per year by 1997.

The Government has embarked upon a major expansion of the softwood plantation estate. It is making long-needed improvements to community consultation by establishing a high-level forestry advisory council representing major stakeholders. Involvement of the public will also be a central feature of the preparation of comprehensive regional assessments of all forestry regions in the State. There is a wide support for a legislative guarantee that the harvest of tree plantations should not be prevented or unreasonably constrained by laws designed to protect native forests. There are some difficulties about how the legislation should be framed, and that is reflected in the 20 submissions received during the Government's community consultation process for this bill.

An exposure draft of the bill was forwarded to all principal stakeholder groups for comment. It was also made generally available through regional offices of State Forests. The final bill that is before the House was prepared with the benefit of submissions, and I thank all those individuals and organisations who made submissions. Not surprisingly, it has not been possible to accommodate every view, but the Government has incorporated suggestions that will improve the operation of the bill and are consistent with its general thrust. I was disappointed by the lack of support for the bill by those in the environment movement. Their concerns about the supposed threat the bill posed to native vegetation are unfounded. Their criticism of the bill introduced by the Opposition earlier this year was justified, because that bill had insufficient safeguards against its unintended consequence of encouraging the clearing of native forests.

Criticism in that regard cannot be levelled at the bill before the House, because this Government has taken decisive action to bring all clearing of native vegetation under the control of State environmental planning policy 46, protection and management of native vegetation. On the other side of the fence, there were criticisms of the bill by some private growers who were offended at the very notion of State environmental controls being applied to their private lands. Their submission,
Page 4444
too, could not be accepted, as it would have overturned the objects of the legislation: to remove impediments to harvesting plantations and to encourage the establishment of plantations. The bill before the House, like every other workable piece of environmental legislation, represents a balance between the need to encourage economic activity to sustain our community and the need to protect the environment on which we all depend.

From the very beginning this Government has shown that it was willing to take the difficult decisions in forestry policy. It has demonstrated that it will listen to all groups and its final decision will be made in the public interest. The Government is determined that plantation development in New South Wales will not continue to lag behind that of Western Australia, Victoria and Tasmania. This is the third bill dealing with plantation harvest security to come before the House in the past year. The previous Minister for Land and Water Conservation introduced the Tree Plantations (Harvest Security) Bill in October last year. The Labor Party supported the general thrust of that bill but had some important reservations about its lack of safeguards. We would have been willing to support the bill only with a number of amendments. However, the bill lapsed when Parliament was prorogued.

The honourable member for Ballina attempted to revive the same bill in May this year. In opposing his bill, I indicated that the Government would introduce its own legislation after appropriate consultation with stakeholders. I also indicated that the Government would address problems associated with establishing - as distinct from harvesting - plantations. The Government has since decided that this will be dealt with in a separate measure. The bill before the House shares the objectives of its predecessors but has some important differences. A number of key definitions have been changed, and the regulatory powers will now be placed in the hands of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.

This bill is the second stage of a four-stage reform process to accelerate the development of the State's commercial hardwood plantations resource. There will also be benefits for the softwood plantation industry. The first stage, involving a doubling of State Forests hardwood plantation establishment target, was announced on 13 June, and initial funding of $8.5 million for 1995-96 was contained in the budget. The third stage is the publication of a hardwood plantation strategy for New South Wales. A discussion paper aimed at eliciting public and stakeholder input into this strategy will be released in the near future. The fourth stage will bring New South Wales planning and development regulations affecting the establishment of plantations into line with the requirements of the national forest policy statement.

The emphasis will be to achieve consistency of development requirements and "as of right" plantation establishment within designated planning zones. The outcome of this four-stage, integrated strategy will be a progressive, incentive-driven framework for plantation establishment, linked to relevant New South Wales and Commonwealth policies. This bill's definition of plantation has been refined to avoid any possibility that native forest might be designated as plantation and so escape from proper environmental controls. Unlike its predecessor, this bill has benefited from proper public consultation and from other policies that have been put in place by this Government, most notably SEPP 46.

A key objection to the earlier bill was its lack of adequate safeguards to prevent the clearing of native forest for the establishment of plantations. By creating a different environmental regime for plantations it gave an incentive to landowners to convert their natural forests into plantations. Under the former Government there were no effective clearing controls, other than on protected lands or in the Western Division. There was also no adequate mechanism to monitor and enforce those limited controls that did exist. This has now changed completely with the gazettal of SEPP 46.

This is the first Government to introduce a complete forestry reform package that goes beyond the creation of individual national parks or nature reserves. The strategy, firmly based on the national forest policy statement - NFPS - is designed to address both the nature conservation and socioeconomic values of our forests. The national forest policy statement commits its signatories to establishing a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system. It also states that forests not required for this reserve system should continue to be managed for timber production in an ecologically sustainable manner. It recognises that an increasing proportion of Australia's timber needs will be met from plantations, and calls for continuing government and private sector participation in plantation establishment. The relevant words in the NFPS are these:

Plantations . . . will become increasingly important . . . State and local governments will provide a planning framework that facilitates the development of large scale industrial plantations.

The NFPS explicitly recognises the role farmers will play through the establishment of wood lots and agroforestry plantings. The statement further states:

There is considerable scope for the commercial growing of wood to be extended on cleared agricultural land, particularly in higher rainfall areas that are close to markets.

Timber production in native State forests has been balanced with water conservation, wildlife, grazing, honey production and recreation. Plantations may possess other values, but these are incidental to the purpose of the plantation. In essence, they are cellulose crops, which is an intensive form of agriculture. The tendency of plantations to dominate the landscape has meant that they have been regarded and treated differently from other crops. Their superficial resemblance and physical
Page 4445
proximity to native forests has led to confusion about their purpose, leading to conflict over logging. The economic reality is that the community cannot afford to manage plantations as though they were native forests. We cannot afford to reserve a large proportion of our native forests unless we are prepared to manage some native regrowth forests and all plantations intensively for timber production.

The alternative is to import even more of our timber, and Australia is already running a $2 billion trade deficit in forest products. If as a community we want investment in new plantations, we must create enough certainty to justify the investment. Uncertainty about a plantation owner's ability to harvest will kill off investment. There is no doubt about this at all. If we want investment, if we want an expansion of our plantation estate, and if we want to reduce our dependence on high conservation value old-growth forests, we must restore certainty by providing a reasonable guarantee of harvest.

I now turn to the details of the bill. Clause 4 makes it clear that the proposed Act applies to existing timber plantations as well as to new timber plantations. Clause 5 contains definitions. "Code" refers to a timber plantation environmental protection code in force under the proposed Act. "Director-General" refers to the Director-General of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. Clause 6 defines a timber plantation as an area of land on which the predominant number of trees has been planted for the purpose of timber production. It is not relevant when the area was planted with trees, so long as it is not a natural forest.

Clause 7 defines harvesting operations as the cutting and removal of timber for the purpose of timber production. The term does not include activities carried out for the purpose of establishing a timber plantation - for example, clearing of natural forest - but includes the provision of access roads, silvicultural thinning and weed control. Clause 8 provides that harvesting operations on an accredited timber plantation are not subject to the environmental assessment or approval procedures of part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and that such operations do not require development consent under part 4 of that Act. It also provides that harvesting operations cannot be prohibited or restricted by an environmental planning instrument.

Clause 9 exempts a person who is carrying out harvesting operations on an accredited timber plantation from certain offence provisions under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. This will apply only if the operations are carried out in accordance with the code or codes applying to the timber plantations. These offence provisions relate to the taking or killing of protected and endangered fauna. Under current law a person harvesting timber must obtain a general licence from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Recent decisions by the Land and Environment Court have made it clear that "take" includes significant modification of animal habitat.

Clause 9 also provides that interim protection orders and stop work orders under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, and conservation instruments under the Heritage Act, may not be made to interfere with the carrying out of harvesting operations on accredited timber plantations. Clause 10 provides that a local council may not give an order under the Local Government Act 1993 to prevent harvesting operations on an accredited timber plantation. Clause 11 provides that harvesting operations on an accredited timber plantation are to be subject to the code applying to the timber plantation and are subject to other relevant laws.

Clauses 12 to 18 deal with the accreditation of timber plantations. They provide for applications for accreditation, the determination of applications and review by the Minister of the director-general's decisions, certificates of accreditation, the duration of accreditation and public notification of accredited plantations. The accreditation of a timber plantation may be cancelled if the director-general is satisfied that there has been a significant breach of a code applying to the timber plantation, or if the land is no longer a timber plantation. The accreditation of a plantation will not be affected by it being felled and replanted. The director-general may refuse to accredit a timber plantation if the area has been cleared of native vegetation without the consent of the Director-General of the Department of Land and Water Conservation under SEPP 46.

Clause 19 requires the director-general to prepare a draft code, which must be approved by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation before being finalised. Clause 20 provides for an environmental protection code to regulate harvesting operations on accredited timber plantations. A code may deal with such matters as harvesting plans, soil erosion, native animals and plants. The code will also deal with Aboriginal relics and places and specify the circumstances in which compensation may be available to protect unique or special wildlife values. I draw the attention of the honourable member for Ballina to the reference in clause 20 to compensation.

Clause 21 provides that a code may not contain provisions that are inconsistent with the provisions of any Act applying to harvesting operations; for example, the Clean Waters Act 1970. Clause 22 requires a code to be adopted by regulation before it comes into force. Any such regulation will need to comply with the requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989. For example, the proposed regulation must be advertised, consultation must take place and a regulatory impact statement must be prepared. Stakeholder input into the code is assured. Clause 23 requires the owner and manager of a timber plantation, including the licensees of the Forestry Commission, to ensure that harvesting operations on the timber plantation are carried out in accordance with the code or codes applying to the timber plantation.

Page 4446

Clause 24 provides for the appointment of timber plantation officers to supervise compliance with codes. Clause 25 provides that the proposed Act binds the Crown. Clause 26 enables proceedings for offences under the proposed Act to be dealt with by the Local Court. Clause 27 empowers the Governor to make regulations for the purposes of the proposed Act, including savings and transitional provisions consequent on the enactment of the proposed Act. Clause 28 amends section 27(3) of the Forestry Act 1916 as a consequence of the proposed Act. That provision in effect permits a person to take timber from certain Crown timber land if the Forestry Commission certifies that the tree has been planted for the purpose of tree farming. The amendment provides that this certification will not be necessary if the tree is situated on an accredited timber plantation.

Clause 29 amends the note to section 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 so that it refers to the operation of clause 10. Clause 30 provides for the proposed Act to be reviewed by the Minister after five years. The bill has been prepared as an integral element of the Government's forest strategy. Its passage by this Parliament is essential if we are to increase our reliance on plantation timber. The bill's objective is essentially reasonable: to guarantee that people who plant trees for commercial purposes will be able to harvest those trees when they are mature. It does so by discriminating between natural forests and artificial forests, based on the demonstrable truths that these forests are different and have different purposes. In preparing this legislation, the Government has consulted widely and has included adequate environmental and administrative safeguards. It is a balanced and moderate measure which deserves the support of every honourable member. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr D. L. Page.


Debate resumed from 21 November.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [4.13]: I lead for the Opposition on this legislation. The Opposition has a number of concerns which I will raise during my speech. Essentially these concerns relate to the way in which the legislation has been brought forward, particularly in regard to the revocation of certain State forests for inclusion in the national park system. The Opposition does not have any great objection to the revocation of flora reserves and for those to be brought into the national park system. They are protected in any event within State forests. The Opposition understands that under the Forestry Act 1916 they have to be subject to an Act of Parliament. The Opposition does not have problems in relation to the conversion of the flora reserves but has concerns in relation to the revocation of State forests, which I will deal with in a moment.

The Opposition has some concern about the nature reserves. It has been put to the Opposition that some of these nature reserves will be better looked after if they stay in the State forest system than if they go into the national parks system. That matter is not of primary concern to the Opposition, however I note it in my remarks. The main difficulty that the Opposition has is in relation to the transparency of the process involved in reaching the circumstances that are debated in the bill. The Opposition is concerned that the stakeholders have not been consulted and there has been no identification of the criteria used in relation to the determination of the boundaries, nor any public exhibition of the proposed boundaries.

The communities that are likely to be affected by this bill do not know whether it will have a major or a minor impact. One difficulty I see with this legislation is that there has not been any socioeconomic impact assessment attempted by the Government. Of course, the Opposition is receiving contradictory views in relation to the potential impact that these revocations of State forests will have if the forests are included in national parks. On the one hand we have the industry, particularly through the Forest Products Association, indicating that the impact in certain situations will be quite significant. The association has provided detailed information to me in relation to the loss of log quota that will occur and the potential foreclosure of mills in certain circumstances. On the other hand the Government assures me that there will be no jobs lost.

No-one is in a position to make a rational assessment about who is correct. If Government members were honest with themselves they would recognise that whilst nobody questions their right as an Executive Government to create a national park, all these decisions need to be underpinned by a rational basis and to be seen by the public as rational. There needs to be some sort of transparency so that people can be satisfied that the decision was made in an open way, that people were consulted and that the community can have an input as to whether it believes this to be an appropriate way for the Government to go. The Government will argue that this is an election commitment and therefore that is all that is required. There is a world of difference between identifying a number of national parks on a two-page policy document about conservation -

Mr Yeadon: No, that was yours, not ours.

Mr D. L. PAGE: No, it was yours, go back and look at your policy document. The identified national parks cover only a couple of pages in that document. There is a world of difference between identifying the name of a potential national park in a policy document and going to the detail of where that park will be. There are implications of creating
Page 4447
a park as far as the communities are concerned, particularly in relation to the revocation of State forests and what this means to the availability of resource to industry. It is relevant to note that when I was doing my research for this bill I looked at what the then Labor Minister for Planning and Environment, the Hon. Eric Bedford, said in this House on 30 March 1983 on the Forestry Revocation and National Parks Reservation Bill, legislation almost identical to this, except for the names of the parks involved.

The purpose of this bill is exactly the same, to revoke certain State forests and put them into national parks. The Hon. Eric Bedford acknowledged in his second reading speech that the legislation was underpinned by three key principles, that is: first, conservation; second employment, and he indicated the Government's desire to maintain levels of employment; third - and this is important - that there would be an alternative timber source for industry as a result of the revocation of State forests and their inclusion in the national parks system. To be specific, at page 5880 of the Hansard, he said:

. . . and third, the identification of alternative timber sources, the availability of which will be assured by Government.

He was saying that whilst industry would be losing some resources, alternative timber supplies had been identified and their availability would be assured by Government into the future. Much of the alternative timber resource that was promised to industry at that time is now being locked up in national parks and is no longer available to industry, as promised. Is it any wonder that industry is becoming increasingly frustrated. I supported what it believed to be a reasonable compromise, and now it finds itself in the invidious situation where the goal posts have been moved. The resources that were promised to industry to compensate it for what it was losing, are now uncertain. Here we are talking about trying to guarantee resource security for the timber industry in circumstances where we are also trying to develop a plantation strategy which will complement the available resource. It is certainly not a substitute for native forest harvesting. The result is an industry that is left in an uncertain situation.

Having said that, I indicate that the Opposition is not opposed to the creation of national parks per se. I remind the House that a coalition government set up the National Parks and Wildlife Service in 1967 and a coalition government re-established the National Parks and Wildlife Service by the 1974 Act. While some people might find that a bit hard to believe, it is the fact. I want to place on the record the fact that the Opposition is in no way anti-environment and it is not anti-national parks. I am proud of the fact that in the electorate of Ballina I was able to initiate - through the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning and the coastal acquisitions scheme - the acquisition of some sensitive private land at North Ocean Shores for eventual inclusion in the national parks system.

It is not so much a question of whether one is for or against national parks; it is a question of the process involved and the transparency of that process, and the opportunity for the community to participate in that process and be satisfied that what is being taken away from industry and being reserved for conservation purposes is justifiable. If honourable members refer to the detail of this legislation they will find that in certain circumstances what might be called young regrowth eucalypt forests are being reserved for a national park when normally they would be available to the timber industry. In this instance thousands of hectares of land is involved. Honourable members will also note that a hoop pine plantation in compartment 319 in Toonumbar National Park is to be locked up.

Honourable members have just heard the Minister's second reading speech in relation to the need to guarantee harvesting rights to encourage investment in plantation timber. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But I find it amazing that a government so pro-plantation - as it should be; it has the Opposition's full support in that regard - would lock up hoop pine plantations. That type of timber grows in a sterile environment, a monoculture, and would not normally be regarded as having any particularly high conservation value and yet it is going into the national parks system.

That brings into question the credibility of the process. I would have thought that locking up pine plantations in national parks would be totally against what the government is seeking to achieve. It probably could be argued that it brings into question the genuineness of the so-called high conservation value forests that are being deferred from logging and are, as it were, being locked up in the national parks system supposedly for all sorts of reasons including achieving a better biodiversity outcome, yet we know that plantations are not renowned for their biodiversity. I raise that point again because it seems to me that there are fundamental issues involved in relation to transparency and to the assessment process. I believe that the Government has not given the community an opportunity to have input into the determination of boundaries.

The Government is saying one thing about the impact and industry is saying another. What is required is a scientific and rational basis for making a judgment so that those who are interested in the area can be satisfied that the areas of State forests that ought not be logged go into national parks and areas of State forests that ought to be harvested do not go into national parks. That is the critical issue. Another concern of the Opposition is that at the moment a number of processes are running concurrently regarding the assessment of a comprehensive and representative reserve system under the National Forest Policy Statement. The State Government has appointed RACAC, the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council, to undertake an interim assessment on a reserve system and to report to the Government by the middle of
Page 4448
next year. This is a publicly funded committee, the composition of which involves the key stakeholders in the forest debate. Under the National Forest Policy Statement the Commonwealth is also developing an expanded conservation reserve system.

The deferred forests areas assessments process is part of this ongoing process. It is a process meant to identify areas which the timber industry can harvest in the short term while a series of assessments take place in deferred production areas to determine whether or not these are required in that national reserve system. The problem is that while both the Commonwealth and State governments are engaged in a detailed assessment process for inclusion in a comprehensive and adequate reserve system, the Carr Labor Government is acting prematurely by implementing a policy of creating new national parks ahead of the national forest policy outcomes. Instead of a coordinated, logical and scientific approach to these areas the Labor Government is rushing ahead, declaring national parks without so much as identifying the criteria on which the boundaries have been drawn. There has been no public consultation with affected communities on boundaries or impact, and there has been no socioeconomic impact assessed.

In some cases detailed environmental impact statements costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars have been conducted. I cite as an example the Urbenville environmental impact statement. These EISs, which have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, will be meaningless under the planning laws. The EIS process will have to start again in those areas that are going out of the forests and into the national parks system. The legislation fails to recognise the multi-use nature of our forests. The issue about taking away State forests and converting them into national parks is certainly about loss of employment. One estimate by the Department of Land and Water Conservation - the Minister subsequently distanced himself from the estimate - said that half the jobs in the timber industry in New South Wales would be lost by the year 2000. Whether or not that is wrong, it is a sobering thought.

Mr Yeadon: It is irrelevant.

Mr D. L. PAGE: It is not irrelevant; it is absolutely relevant. It came from the Minister's department. It was written by one of the Minister's top bureaucrats, so the Minister should not talk nonsense. Important though these jobs are, and preventable though their loss may be with a more enlightened approach to the forestry debate, the point is not just about sawmillers losing their jobs. After all, industries come and go and there is always structural reform taking place. The choice for the community is about the role of our native forests in the everyday life of the community.

The forest neighbour who enjoys the right to obtain his common boundary fencing materials from the forest, free of royalty; his access to grazing and assistance with burning; the person in the community who wishes to collect his own firewood; the woodturner who wishes to collect gnarled pieces of timber from the forest floor for craftwork; the grass-tree frond industry, harvesting the renewable fronds from grass-trees - now used in export flower arrangements to approximately six countries; fern cutters; the four-wheel drive clubs; car rally organisations; horse riding groups and individuals; the family group who enjoy a day in the forest on roads substantially paid for by timber sale royalties; the individual who can camp at the location of his choice in State forest areas and, at most times of the year, enjoy a campfire on the basis of trust that he will abide by commonsense precautions; as well as the timber workers of the large sawmills and their contractors; and the smaller operator who operates a bush mill or cuts poles, sleepers or heavy duty grinders - these are the people for whom the forests under multiple use management form part of the community.

The Government will abolish that multiple use concept and put a very restricted regime in place for the community. In case the Minister thinks people are not concerned, I inform him that the honourable member for Murwillumbah, the honourable member for Lismore, the honourable member for Clarence and the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and I have been receiving petitions from thousands of concerned residents of northern New South Wales about the impact of the decisions. They feel cheated at not being consulted. The maps have not been publicly exhibited. It would be in the Government's interest, apart from anything else, to take the community with it on its policies. Unless the basis on which the policy is formulated is transparent and understood by the community - people understand where the Government is going - there is bound to be conflict in the forest. Back in 1983, in relation to the decision to lock up the rainforest, Bedford said - the Minister for Land and Water Conservation is saying it now - "Just give me a bit of time to develop a comprehensive reserve system and I guarantee there will not be any more conflict in the forest. The industry will be happy and the conservationists will be happy."

Mr Yeadon: What is your position - do nothing as usual?

Mr D. L. PAGE: No. The sooner the Minister realises that the dark green movement will not be happy until it has stopped all harvesting of native forests the better.

Mr Yeadon: I recognise that. We do not pander to extremists.

Mr D. L. PAGE: I am pleased to hear the Minister say that. As long as that is the view of the dark greens there will be conflict in the forest. We have only to look at what is happening in the Mebbin State Forest today. The Minister and I both know that the Greens should not be there; it is an illegal action. What is the Minister doing about it? He has told his officers that if the greenies blockade
Page 4449
the forests, even if it is illegal, the officers have to negotiate. What sort of policy is that? All the people who work in the forests cannot get on with their job. What is the Minister's policy? What is he going to do about that? He claims that there will not be conflict in the forests, but there will be.

Mr Yeadon: The answer is to do nothing, is it?

Mr D. L. PAGE: No. The Minister should tell these people that we are going to have harvesting in native forests. As a responsible Minister he ought to enforce that and defend the jobs of -

Mr Yeadon: Unlike you, I am.

Mr D. L. PAGE: We certainly defend jobs but the Minister is not defending the jobs in Mebbin State Forest. He agrees that what the greenies are doing is wrong but he will not do anything about it. That is the bottom line. The Opposition is not opposed to the creation of national parks; it is concerned about the transparency of the process. There has been no transparency in the process, no consultation, no public exhibition of the maps and no opportunity for the community at large. Indeed, there has been no opportunity for regional offices of relevant government departments - State Forests and the National Parks and Wildlife Service - to have serious input on the boundaries. It is in the Government's interest and the community's interest to make sure that whatever decisions are made about the boundaries of the new national parks are sustained on a rational basis. That is not the case at the moment. There has been no proper assessment. No study of the socioeconomic impact has been done. We do not know whether the impact will be large or small.

It is in everybody's interest that there is analysis in relation to the matter. Schedule 2 deals with the revocation of State forests and their declaration as national parks. The Opposition wants a rational assessment done by the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council - RACAC. It may well be that the council reports to the Parliament that there will be no significant impact on employment in the timber industry as a result of the revocations. If that is the case the Opposition will be more than delighted. We do not want to see jobs go. I ask the Minister for an undertaking that the new national parks will not bring about loss of jobs. I was told by his officers last night that no jobs will be lost. Frankly, I am sceptical. I would like information upon which to make a rational decision. At the moment such information is not available because no socioeconomic impact study has been done. The people in timber communities in rural areas are very concerned about what is happening in the timber industry. They are justifiably worried about their jobs. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation is responsible for forests. He is not the Minister for the Environment.

Mr Yeadon: What do you think I have been doing?

Mr D. L. PAGE: I would like to hear you say it more loudly. I would like you to take on Pam Allan from time to time. Craig Knowles will support you. He is a bit more sensible. He is a good Minister. Frankly, you should get on the Craig Knowles bandwagon and support him and not let Pam Allan roll over the top of you. At the end of the day, people will not thank you for the way you have handled your portfolio. You still have a chance to redeem yourself, particularly in relation to forestry jobs, and to get serious. The Opposition will move an amendment in Committee to refer the revocation of the State forests to RACAC for report to the Parliament with a view to future action.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [4.36]: I support the bill but wish to raise briefly a number of issues with the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. I introduced the National Parks and Wildlife (New Areas and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill - called the new areas bill - two years ago to establish national parks and nature reserves. It also provided for a system of public nomination and consultation of proposed national parks. I also introduced the Khappinghat Nature Reserve Bill, essentially to address the issue of sandmining on the north and mid-north coast. It was passed by the lower House with an amendment by the Australian Labor Party. While the bill we are considering revokes flora reserves, State forests and nature reserves, it does not make clear that the areas are to be proclaimed as national parks upon revocation. There is concern about the process. I need to be assured by the Minister on that administrative matter that there will not be any undue delay in proclamation.

I have addressed a number of other issues to the Minister in correspondence: would the Government consider dedicating Ben Hall's Gap and Mount Jerusalem as nature reserves rather than national parks? These areas should be afforded an extra management protection without the expectation of the heavy visitation to these sensitive areas. Will the Government consider additional national parks in the Richmond Ranges as well as those already announced? I do not believe that the areas should be subject to a comprehensive regional assessment process before that determination and proclamation. Also, the Cudmirrah proposal seemed to be solely predicated on the addition of the current nature reserve. This was a key area for protection in my bill. I am most concerned about current proposals for the megatip near Bendalong in the catchment of this national park. Like many other members, I have had representations on this issue. I understand that at least some areas of State forest and Crown land are available for addition. I am also concerned that areas referenced by the National Parks and Wildlife Service should not be logged, pre-empting the outcome of the comprehensive regional assessment process being undertaken by RACAC, which was mentioned by the honourable member for Ballina.

Page 4450

As regards the Khappinghat area, I understand that the proposed schedule of works for logging includes the areas near Khappinghat which were the two areas identified by the Australian Labor Party in opposition in the previous Parliament and which I understand are included in the Government's policy for addition to Khappinghat Nature Reserve. I supported the Australian Labor Party amendment at the time which would see any logging in those areas as a serious breach of an electoral commitment. I seek the Government's agreement to the immediate dedication of those areas as nature reserves. I wish to point out to the Minister a number of differences between this measure and my new area bill. I refer first to the Abercrombie National Park, which I understand falls short of the area identified in my bill. Ben Hall's Gap should be a nature reserve. Eurobodalla National Park includes part of my Mummuga proposal and should be expanded to include neighbouring available State forest. Goobang National Park is welcomed and comprises fully my Wiradjuri proposals. Mount Jerusalem should be larger and include compartment 62, and the Wollemi National Park addition includes areas I identified as part of the larger Gardens of Stone National Park.

The Government should be commended for its actions to date. However, I ask the Government what is its intention about the establishment of certain other areas. They are: the balance of the Cudmirrah National Park; the whole of the Warrell Creek-Ngumbar National Park proposal, some of which is currently identified on the draft schedule of works for logging in the coming year; the Termeil National Park proposal, including areas currently identified in the draft schedule of works for logging in the coming year; Longneck Lagoon as a nature reserve; and Ourimbah Creek Nature Reserve, which was promised by the former Government.

I seek the Government's agreement to: amend the bill to provide express provision that revocation will not take place until, or concurrent with, the reservation-dedication of the areas as a national park; amend the bill to provide the inclusion of the ALP's Khappinghat Nature Reserve additions and compartment 62 of Nullum State Forest in Mount Jerusalem Nature Reserve or park; a commitment for substantial additions to Cudmirrah National Park, including parts of Conjola State Forest, the proposed tip sites and Crown land in addition to the Cudmirrah Nature Reserve; amend the bill to provide for the revocation of additional flora reserves and State forest in the Richmond Ranges, as I referred to earlier; protect the whole of Termeil State Forest and the National Parks and Wildlife Service referenced part of the Conjola State Forest until the completion of the comprehensive regional assessment process; and add part of Bodalla State Forest east of the Princes Highway adjacent to the proposed Eurobodalla National Park.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [4.42], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Ballina and the honourable member for Manly for their contributions to this debate. I am bemused by the pious contribution of the honourable member for Ballina, a member of a government that was in office for seven years and simply watched the conflict rage in the forest but did nothing about it. This Government is doing something. It went to the last election with the most comprehensive and detailed conservation and forestry strategy ever put forward by any party in any election in this State's history.

The honourable member says that the Government should not move ahead with key components of the policy, that is, the creation of 24 national parks about which the Government has a mandate. The contribution of the honourable member for Ballina really turned on a couple of key bases: transparency and rationality. I refer him to the Labor Party policy prior to the election and the numerous statements made by Ministers in relation to conservation and forestry subsequent to the election. There has never been a more rational and transparent approach to this issue. The documents go together; they complement each other. A key approach of the Labor Party prior to the election and subsequently was to take a whole-of-government approach. All those policy documents and announcements complement each other and, if read in totality, map out the most rational approach that has been drawn from and embodied in the national forest policy statement.

The former coalition Government signed the national forest policy statement, but then threw it in the bottom drawer and forgot about it. This Government's policies are embodied in that document; they provide balance and a rational approach to dealing with this issue. This Government has fulfilled its commitment to create 24 national parks. These are foundation parks that will finalise a comprehensive reserve system in this State as called for under the national forest policy statement. Prior to the election the Government was expansive about the fact that it would create these 24 national parks. The honourable member for Ballina conceded that the Executive Government had the right to create national parks because we received a mandate to do that in March.

Those foundation boundaries have been put together on a whole-of-government approach with all interested and affected agencies, and the Government having an input. When those national parks are created an interim assessment process will be carried out under the deferred forest agreement between New South Wales and the Federal Government presently under consideration. That will lead to the conclusion of regional forest agreements and to the establishment of a comprehensive representative and adequate reserve system. The honourable member for Ballina agreed that the Government had established the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council, which will involve all the key stakeholders and interested groups in undertaking the assessment.

Page 4451

I am bemused that the honourable member for Ballina berated the Government about issues of transparency, yet the Government has the requisite measures in place. I reiterate for the honourable member, because he is a little slow, that all these documents should be considered in totality. This will create a reserve system to ensure that New South Wales has a viable, balanced and competitive timber industry. Those initiatives were well known to the community prior to and subsequent to the election so that it was aware of the Government's intentions. Under the deferred forest area process the Government has put forward a range of compartments that will remain in place until the middle of next year, when the 30 per cent quota cuts will be put in place. This is deemed necessary because of the lack of policies or the pursuance of archaic policies by honourable members opposite when in government.

Those compartments have now been mapped out and have been displayed in the public arena. Consultation has taken place and submissions have been provided from all interested parties in relation to the compartments. As part of the DFA process those compartments will be on the table and will be the only areas of State forest that will be logged up until July 1996. I do not know how the member can say that there has been no transparency in the process and that horrific job losses will occur. However, there will be pain in the timber industry because of the necessity for restructuring. The Government has never resiled from that or denied it. Indeed, the industry now is clearly indicating that it realises that restructure is inevitable. When the coalition was in government it never had the gumption to address the issues; it simply fed politically off the conflict out in the forests for its own cheap political advantage. That is not the approach of the Labor Party. The Government is about getting out and resolving this issue of intense conflict. That is what the Government has been charged to do. and that is what it will do.

There will be a restructure of the timber industry. The Government has the support of the Forest Products Association Limited and other players within the industry. They know that the restructure is inevitable, that the Government has mapped out a rational, transparent approach on this issue. That is why the Government has gained the support of industry representatives and the union movement - which supports 100 per cent the policy of this Government. The coalition was never able to achieve that - it did not even get close. The honourable member for Ballina spoke of the industry's frustration about security. The Government's policy is entirely about bringing security to the industry, something it never got under the coalition Government. National Party backbenchers used to telephone the Minister and demand that he send State Forests in to knock over the next piece of pristine old-growth forest. That is not a policy; that is no approach. That is why the coalition is now the Opposition.

The honourable member for Ballina referred to the environmental impact statement process. This Government is trying to extract itself from that fiasco, a fiasco the mob opposite got itself immersed in, and it is costing an extraordinary amount of money. It is a disgrace that the previous coalition Government let the situation go on for so long and did nothing about it. The honourable member also mentioned some of the areas contained within the revocation schedule in the bill. He referred to the Toonumbar State Forest and a hoop pine plantation. That plantation was recognised during the process undertaken by the Government, thus ensuring that the overwhelming majority of that plantation was excluded from the boundaries. Tree types are not the only environmental values that need to be considered; a whole raft of issues are taken into account. There are other environmental values contained within that area.

I turn briefly to some of the issues raised by the honourable member for Manly. I will respond to him in writing on the issues he raised today. My response to his concerns is quite lengthy, so I will not take up the time of the House by going into it in detail now. The honourable member expressed some concern about the revocation of State forests and flora reserves and the interim period between the establishment of national parks and what may occur during that process. The gazettal of all of these processes - the revocation, dedication and the bill - will take place concurrently. That is in the Government's interests. I make a commitment that the gazettal of the three processes will take place simultaneously. That should allay the fears the honourable member for Manly expressed in that regard. I have already prepared the correspondence I will send to him. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clause 4

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [4.55]: I move:

Page 2, clause 4. After line 20, insert:

(2) The Minister is to request the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council to assess the suitability of the lands described in Schedule 2 for reservation as or inclusion in national parks under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and to provide the Minister with a written report of its findings before 1 July 1996.

(3) The Minister is to lay the Council's report, or cause it to be laid, before both Houses of Parliament on the first sitting day after receiving the report.

(4) None of the lands described in Schedule 2 is to be reserved as or included in a national park unless the Council's report has been presented to Parliament as required by this section.

Page 4452

I believe that the revocations contained in this bill - and I am talking only about those in this bill - have not been assessed properly in relation to the impact they will have on the community. There has been no assessment or public consultation in relation to the boundaries. There has been no public exhibition of the boundaries so that the communities that are affected by them can have an input. It would be in the interests of the community and the Government to secure support for these national parks. The Opposition is not saying that it will oppose the bill, but it would like the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council - RACAC - to look at the boundaries because of the sorts of reservations I have. Industry and everyone concerned could be satisfied that these are justifiable revocations that ought to be included in the national parks system. If the RACAC says that it is appropriate to include these areas, presumably we would support it. At the moment we are not able to support it, nor are we able to oppose it. Nobody knows what the impact will be.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [4.57]: In my second reading speech I addressed all of the issues raised by the honourable member for Ballina. The assessments have been done. The Government has looked at the socioeconomic impact and the boundaries. The Government had a mandate for its policy, and it is not moving away from that policy. It was always the prerogative of Executive Government to create the 24 national parks. The Resource and Conservation Assessment Council is then charged with creating a comprehensive and adequate reserve system. The Government has done the assessment. The honourable member for Ballina does not know about it - but that is what being in opposition is all about.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr Merton
Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran 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 Tink
Mr Hartcher Mr Turner
Mr Hazzard Mr West
Mr Humpherson Mr Windsor
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross Tellers,
Mr Longley Mr Jeffery
Ms Machin Mr Kerr

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mrs Beamer Ms Moore
Mr Clough Mr Moss
Mr Crittenden Mr Murray
Mr Debus Mr Nagle
Mr Face Mr Neilly
Mr Gaudry Ms Nori
Mr Gibson Mr E. T. Page
Mrs Grusovin Dr Refshauge
Ms Hall Mr Rogan
Ms Harrison Mr Rumble
Mr Hunter Mr Scully
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 Collins Mr Aquilina
Mr Cruickshank Mr Carr
Mr Photios Mr Harrison
Mr Souris Mr Shedden

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5

Mr LONGLEY (Pittwater) [5.05]: The Opposition opposes this clause, which revokes the dedication of certain lands set out in schedule 3 as nature reserves and deems them to be national parks. The coalition has consulted a great many people on this matter, and it is clear that the areas would be better managed if left as nature reserves. Included in schedule 3 are the Cudmirrah Nature Reserve, the Pantoney's Crown Nature Reserve, the Curumbenya Nature Reserve and Gurumbi Nature Reserve. Those are important reserves, and it is significant that this provision should have excited a high level of concern among a number of groups in the community. Those groups have clearly indicated a preference for leaving the areas as nature reserves rather than moving them over to the national parks system. The management of the areas would be significantly superior and more focused if they were left as nature reserves, rather than have the disadvantages of expense and delay that would be incurred were they to be moved into general classification national parks.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.08]: I move:

That you do now leave the chair, report progress, and seek leave to sit again.

Page 4453

Question put.

The Committee divided.

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

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

Mr Aquilina Mr Collins
Mr Carr Mr Cruickshank
Mr Harrison Mr Photios
Mr Shedden Mr Souris

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

Bill read a third time.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [5.19]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of the bill is to amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to allow for the delegation by a public authority of any function imposed or conferred on it by or under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. As honourable members will appreciate, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, in addition to imposing functions on the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, the director-general and other officers of the department, also imposes functions on public authorities. A public authority for the purposes of the Act means a public or local authority constituted by or under any Act, a government department or a statutory body representing the Crown, and includes a person exercising functions on behalf of that authority.

For example the definition contemplates that a person who is a director-general or a chief executive officer of a particular government department may be a public authority for the purposes of the Act. The functions which a public authority may exercise under the Act range from merely submitting information to a local council to having a significant role as a consent authority under an environmental planning instrument. In addition, a public authority may have a concurrence role under a planning instrument with respect to the granting of a development consent under that instrument. Public authorities may also exercise significant powers and duties as determining authorities under part 5 of the Act.

Unlike the power which I have under section 23 of the Act to delegate to other officers within the department functions imposed on me as Minister or the power of the director-general and the corporation to similarly delegate functions, no such express power exists under that Act to allow for the delegation of the functions of a public authority. This is the position regardless of the nature of the power which is exercised by the public authority under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In the absence of any express power of delegation, the position is that those powers must be exercised personally by the nominated public authority. At times the specific Act under which the public authority is established may permit the public authority to delegate functions conferred on it under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. However, it is usually the case that the Act establishing the public authority will limit the power of delegation to those
Page 4454
functions specifically conferred on the public authority by that Act. Therefore, with respect to the majority of public authorities their limited powers of delegation will mean that any functions conferred on them by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will need to be exercised personally and cannot be delegated to any other officers within the relevant public authority.

The lack of power to enable a public authority to delegate functions conferred on it under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act leads to administrative inefficiencies and delays particularly where the nature of the power to be exercised by the public authority is merely administrative in nature and does not warrant that it be undertaken personally by the nominated public authority. With respect to such powers honourable members may be aware that similar powers which are conferred on me as Minister or conferred on the director-general under the Environmental Planning Assessment Act are delegated to other officers within the department to ensure the proper and efficient administration of the Act.

Honourable members will appreciate that where a certain public authority is nominated as either a consent or concurrence authority or is otherwise a determining authority under part 5 of the Act, it may as a matter of administrative practice be difficult that at all times this power is to be exercised personally by the public authority and the matter is effectively held in abeyance until it can be personally undertaken by the relevant consent authority. As a result individual applications lodged with a public authority may be delayed, and this may lead to significant hardship, financial or otherwise, being suffered by the applicant who is awaiting the determination of the application. Where individual applications are delayed, the whole process of assessment becomes fraught with uncertainties. This is clearly an unsatisfactory position for all parties and has the potential to compromise the proper management of the State's resources. For this reason the proposals contained in the bill, by giving a public authority the power to delegate the range of functions that may be conferred on it under the Act, will give such public authorities the tools to overcome administrative difficulties where such powers would have otherwise been required to have been exercised personally by the public authority. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hartcher.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [5.24]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of the bill, which amends the Miscellaneous Acts (Planning) Repeal and Amendment Act 1979, is to clarify the legal status of development consents, approvals or permissions that have been issued prior to the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. In particular the proposed amendment will make it clear that any consent, approval, or permission which was in force immediately before 1 September 1980, that is, the date upon which the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act commenced operation, is taken to be a development consent within the meaning of that Act.

The need for the proposed bill arose as a result of a recent decision of the Land and Environment Court in the case of Winn v The Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife and RZM Proprietary Limited. In that case RZM was undertaking sandmining under consents issued by the local council prior to the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The company in undertaking this mining activity was issued with a temporary licence by the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to take or kill endangered fauna. A temporary licence may be granted under section 92B(11)(a) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act and operates for 120 days. Under this section there is no need for the applicant to prepare a fauna impact statement or for the licence application or fauna impact statement to be exhibited provided the activities which a licence may authorise to be undertaken are essential to the carrying out of a development in accordance with a development consent within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The court held that, for the purposes of section 92B(11)(a), consents which were issued to RZM prior to the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act were not consents within the meaning of that Act. The practical effect of this decision is that the temporary licence granted to RZM is invalid. The case has wider implications. It means that any temporary licence granted by the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service under section 92B(11)(a) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act with respect to a development for which consent has been issued prior to the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act without a fauna impact statement is potentially invalid. When section 92B(11)(a) was inserted in the National Parks and Wildlife Act it was intended that it apply to consents granted before and after the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

As honourable members may appreciate, this is clearly an unsatisfactory position and makes a mockery of the long-held view that development consents, permissions or approvals granted under a former planning scheme which operated before the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act are considered to be consents granted within the meaning of the Act. The
Page 4455
suggestion that they are not is too illogical to contemplate bearing in mind that under clause 7 of schedule 3 of the Miscellaneous Acts (Planning) Repeal and Amendment Act 1979 consents granted under a former planning scheme are expressly preserved. For this reason honourable members will appreciate that the proposed bill is not intended to do anything more than merely legislate to preserve the long-held view in planning law that consents issued prior to the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act are consents within the meaning of that Act.

As outlined to honourable members earlier, the need for this legislation has come about only as a result of the recent decision of the Land and Environment Court, which has left the status of such consents in a state of uncertainty. This amendment will reconfirm the legal status of consents issued prior to the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and will create certainty with respect to such consents. I urge honourable members to support the proposed amendments to ensure that all development approvals, consents and permissions issued prior to the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act are properly accorded the status of valid development consents within the meaning of the Act. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hartcher.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.27]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

As honourable members will be aware, in April of this year, the Heads of Government of all of the States, Territories and Commonwealth agreed to implement jointly a national competition policy package. This historic decision commits the New South Wales Government to a range of initiatives including a requirement to review and, where appropriate, reform all legislation that restricts competition. Governments across Australia have also indicated concern about inconsistencies in the treatment of occupations which are regulated in some but not all States and Territories. Such inconsistent treatment is seen as working against the achievement of a single national market for services through a policy of mutual recognition.

At the meeting of Premiers and Chief Ministers held in November 1991 it was agreed that registration of all partially registered occupations - that is, those occupations which are registered or licensed in some but not all States and Territories - should be removed unless there is overwhelming evidence for retention. The Premiers and Chief Ministers sought a review of those occupations and concluded that the key criterion for deciding to remove registration requirements was an assurance that self-regulation would not pose a risk to public health and safety. The category of baker is one such occupation specifically recommended for deregistration under a national review conducted by the Vocational Education Employment and Training Advisory Committee - VEETAC - working party on mutual recognition. Moreover, being a government firmly committed to removing unnecessary business impediments an internal review of legislation administered by the Department of Industrial Relations has concluded that the whole of the Bread Act 1969 is indeed appropriate for repeal. Hence the bill now before the House, the Bread Repeal Bill. In introducing the Bread Bill in 1969 the then Minister for Labour and Industry, the Hon. Eric Willis, succinctly observed:

Legislators should keep themselves constantly aware of the ever changing processes and activities of society and be willing and prepared to review legislation in the light of changing circumstances.

With this thought in mind it is clear to the Government that what remains of the Bread Act, after earlier legislative amendment exercises, is either redundant or simply out of kilter with the necessary microeconomic reform advances of the 1990s. The area of the Act of most current significance is part 3, which governs the issuing of operative bakers certificates and bread manufacturers licences. Consultation between the Department of Industrial Relations and the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union; the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales; and the Baking Industry Association of New South Wales has resulted in general agreement that bread manufacturers licences have become redundant following deregulation of hours, the abolition of bread zoning and the regulation of bakeries under provisions concerning bread in the food standards code operating under the Food Act 1989.

As put to the Government in representations received from the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales, the continuation of bread manufacturers licences does little but identify the number of manufacturers in the industry. Only 752 licences, renewable annually at $20, are currently in force. I impress upon honourable members that this figure does not reflect the large number of bread manufacturers, including small hot bread shops, supermarkets and in-store bakeries, operating in the State. A clear trend towards smaller bakeries failing to apply for licences is evident. In summary, the administration of bread manufacturers licences represents an unnecessary cost to the Government. It would appear that the enforcement of these provisions would not benefit the industry, the Government or the public. Certainly, the relevant department no longer has any practical use for the statistical information acquired. Section 13 of the Bread Act concerns the issue of operative bakers certificates. A certificate is issued to a
Page 4456
person who is fit and proper and who has either completed an apprenticeship or TAFE examinations, or possesses the prescribed qualifications, being four years on-the-job experience as an operative baker.

A total of 2,562 non-renewable certificates are currently in force. Of these a mere 39 have been applied for in the last 18 months. It will be evident to all honourable members that there is a tendency for industry to disregard this particular requirement of the Act. It is no surprise that the key industry parties are in agreement that there is no longer any need to retain operative bakers certificates, especially in view of the recent introduction of a uniform national competency-based training course through the TAFE system. However, the abolition of a particular New South Wales certificate for bakers will most importantly mean that there will, in the future, be no barrier to labour mobility in that occupation across Australia.

During the last decade major changes have taken place in the bread industry. These include legislative deregulation of bread baking and delivery times, the disappearance of zoning restrictions in relation to bread sales, repeal of standard weights requirements in respect of loaves of bread, and the cessation of operation of the Bread Industry Advisory Committee, which was set up by legislation to deal with industry issues. Given these advances, it is simply archaic to retain the skeletal provisions of the Act relating to ministerial directives governing the sale of bread in rural areas and bread manufacturers possibly being tied to ingredient suppliers.

This situation regarding the present utility of the Bread Act is in general due to industry rationalisation, changes in consumer demand emphasising the availability of daily fresh bread in a diversified range and government initiatives linked to progressive deregulation. It is an interesting historical point that in his second reading speech in 1969 the Hon. Eric Willis remarked that "bread has been the subject of legislation since Governor Macquarie's day". In recognising that the combination of national competition policy, uniform national training standards, modern manufacturing methods in the baking industry and consumer forces have resulted in 1995 in a clear case for the removal of legislative control over this important commodity, we are witnesses to the end of an era.

What the Bread Repeal Bill does most forcefully is to deliver on the Heads of Government microeconomic reform promises. The bill will remove existing legislation which is simply unnecessary - unnecessary both in regard to continuing occupational and business licensing requirements and in relation to archaic regulatory provisions within an industry in which market forces should be allowed to rule. Balanced and well-informed regulatory reform is a vital part of the national effort to improve Australia's competitiveness. However, let me state most emphatically that clumsy and, in a modern context, irrelevant forms of government intervention, such as is now the case with the Bread Act, are to be retired. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Kerr.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.37]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides for revised methods of selecting and summoning jurors; it refines the method of enforcing jury fines; and provides a court with a discretion to extend the period of jury deliberation in civil trials. The aim of these reforms is to bolster the jury system of this State by making the selection and summoning process of jurors more efficient and reducing inconvenience to members of the public who may be called upon to perform the important civic duty of jury service. These aims are particularly important as the impression most members of the public form of the justice system is through their participation in the jury system. Improved efficiencies in the management of the jury system are also expected to reduce costs.

These reforms to the jury system are part of a broader agenda currently being undertaken by court administrators to make the justice system more efficient and more responsive to community needs. The need to reform the manner in which jurors are selected and summoned was identified in a number of recent reviews of the jury system. In 1993, Andersen Consulting was commissioned to examine the jury selection process while undertaking a broader review of the functions performed by the office of the Sheriff of New South Wales. Andersen Consulting made certain recommendations to streamline jury summoning and to refine the method of enforcing jury fines. In July 1992, at the suggestion of His Honour Mr Justice Gleeson, the Chief Justice of New South Wales, a jury task force was established to look at issues relating primarily to the comfort, welfare and well-being of jurors.

The task force is chaired by Mr Justice Abadee of the Supreme Court. Members include representatives of the judiciary and court administrators. After examining the manner in which persons are summoned for jury service and after making certain recommendations for reform, the task force concluded that a more efficient jury summoning process would result in direct benefits to members of the public who may be called to serve as jurors. The difficulties which have arisen in respect of the current jury summoning procedures can best be illustrated by an examination of statistics collected in the 1992-93 financial year which provide a revealing profile of that system. Of the 212,000 jurors summoned for jury service during that year, it was necessary to subsequently excuse 79,000 from attending on the day before the trial.

Page 4457

This overassessment of the number of jurors required to attend is not only costly but represents an inconvenience to members of the public who are summoned to attend for jury service and, perhaps, made arrangements to perform that civic duty, only to be advised at the last moment that their attendance is no longer required. In addition, of the 77,000 jurors who attended, 17,000 of those persons were subsequently excused, and 42,000 were not required, with only 18,000 persons actually being empanelled. A total of 60,000 people were, however, paid for attending court. Therefore, even allowing for the need to take into account prescribed challenges and other factors such as people failing to comply with the summons to attend, more people were summoned than were required.

As the Chief Justice has correctly pointed out, nothing is more certain to cause widespread grievance in the community, and frustration with the perceived inefficiency of the justice system, than summoning for jury service large numbers of people who are ultimately not needed. Honourable members are advised that the Chief Justice has taken a personal interest in this issue and is keen for measures to be introduced which will remedy the current oversupply of jurors. The Australian Institute of Judicial Administration also conducted an examination of jury management in New South Wales. The report prepared by the AIJA recommended a number of administrative changes. The Jury Amendment Bill represents a considered response to the concerns expressed in each of these reviews.

I will now turn to the provisions of the Jury Amendment Bill. At present a jury roll, from which jurors are summoned for service, is required to be prepared for a jury district from electoral rolls each three years. For various reasons, such as persons on the jury roll moving from the jury district within the period, the information from which the roll is prepared becomes out of date over that period, with the result that by the end of the period, estimating and summoning from the roll the number of jurors required to be called up for service is extremely difficult and inefficient. Another shortcoming of the present scheme is that persons who attain the age of 18 after electoral roll data has been collected for a draft jury roll will not be represented on the jury roll until after the end of the next three-year cycle. This bill will replace the present rigid scheme with more flexible arrangements. These arrangements will allow the Sheriff, not less than once every 15 months, to update electoral roll information used in supplementing and culling the jury roll for a jury district which will ensure the currency of this information.

Proposed new section 12 requires the Sheriff, at intervals of not less than 12 months, to make a random selection of names from the electoral rolls for a jury district to compile a supplementary jury roll that will be used in revising the ongoing jury roll. Clause 13 of the bill provides for the Sheriff to send persons, whose names are selected for a supplementary roll, a notice requiring them to complete and return a questionnaire about their qualifications to be a juror and eligibility and availability for jury service. Those jurors who reply that they are not disqualified and are otherwise eligible and available to serve as jurors become liable to be summoned for jury service. This will ensure that the people actually being summoned for a jury trial are prepared and in a position to serve as jurors which should also greatly assist in assessing the number of jurors required to attend a given trial.

Proposed new section 15 preserves the existing right to have a Local Court review a decision of the Sheriff not to delete a person's name from a supplementary jury roll after the person has claimed to be disqualified from serving; to be ineligible to serve; or to be entitled to an exemption from service. However, proposed new section 15(2) extends this right to provide that, if a person is summoned to attend for jury service before the 21 days for making such an appeal has expired any such appeal will be dealt with by the judge or coroner having the conduct of the trial or inquest, or other authorised judge, coroner, master, magistrate or registrar, as is specified in a notice attached to the summons. While it is envisaged that most appeals will be dealt with by the Local Court, the extended appeal mechanism will provide a more flexible arrangement which can be tailored to the individual needs of any court in those circumstances where there has been insufficient time or it has not been practicable to hear such appeals in the Local Court.

Proposed new section 15A provides for the periodic updating of jury rolls. The clause provides that the Sheriff must supplement a current jury roll by adding persons who have not been deleted from the supplementary roll by the Sheriff and cull from the current jury roll persons who have been on the roll for a set period. The Jury Amendment Bill also refines the procedures for summoning jurors. The summoning of jurors by the Sheriff is presently subject to directions contained in general jury precepts issued by judges of the Supreme Court and District Court, the Prothonotary, the Criminal Listing Director, registrars of the District Court and coroners. This gives rise to the problem highlighted earlier where responsibility for the selection of jurors is not vested in a single person but spread across a number of positions which hinders the efficient management of the jury system.

The amendments will allow the Sheriff greater flexibility in arranging for the summoning of jurors. In particular, proposed new section 23 clearly states that it is the Sheriff's responsibility alone to maintain estimates of the number of jurors who will be required to be summoned in each jury district. This will ensure that the function of assessing the number of jurors is vested in the one person who has the necessary information and expertise to
Page 4458
accurately assess the number of persons required to attend for jury service. Moreover, by giving the Sheriff the sole responsibility for managing the jury system, it is expected that greater efficiencies will be achieved in the operation of that system. Once the Sheriff has made an estimate of the number of jurors required to be summoned for the listed trials in a particular jury district, proposed new section 25 requires the Sheriff to select this number of jurors at random from the jury roll for a district. Jurors may also be summoned from a supplementary jury roll for a district if the Sheriff believes the jury roll is inadequate. This procedure will provide the Sheriff with additional flexibility in summoning prospective jurors for jury service, without unduly inconveniencing members of the public.

Proposed new section 26 requires the Sheriff to issue a summons to each person selected for jury service requiring the person to attend at the court or coronial inquest concerned. The summons must be served at least seven days before the day on which the juror is required to attend, unless the court or coroner otherwise orders. In the event that there are no persons or not enough persons available for the selection of a jury who have already been summoned, proposed new section 27 will allow the Sheriff to summon additional jurors to supplement a jury if a trial or an inquest would otherwise be delayed. This will provide a safety net in those rare instances where a trial cannot proceed because insufficient jurors have been called or insufficient jurors attend after being summoned.

Proposed new section 61 creates new offences for the purpose of ensuring that questionnaires sent to persons in the course of preparation of jury rolls are completed accurately and returned to the Sheriff within the required period. Section 61 and 62 of the Act presently create offences if a person fails to inform the Sheriff of a disqualification or ineligibility to serve as a juror and if false representations are made for the purpose of evading jury service. These offences are restated and expanded by proposed new sections 62 and 62A. Since the Sheriff will be required to take a more direct and active role in estimating the number of jurors required for trials and coronial inquests and inquiries, it is essential for relevant information to be readily available to the Sheriff to assist in decision making.

Proposed new section 75A requires the registrars, judges and coroners of the various courts concerned to provide such information to the Sheriff as may be requested by the Sheriff for the purpose of exercising functions under the Act. For instance, prior to the issue of summonses to jurors to attend for jury service, the Sheriff will be required to obtain from the relevant court registry sufficient information to enable the Sheriff to calculate the number of jurors required to attend a particular sitting. This information may include: the number of defendants; the likely length of the case; and any other information which would assist the Sheriff in making this calculation. The Sheriff would also need to be advised of any changes that may subsequently be made to the matters listed in the court sittings.

In other instances, the Sheriff may liaise with any judge or coroner nominated to hear a case for which a jury has been summoned in order to seek such information as the time and the date on which the jurors should be summoned to attend. This will mean that jurors are not summoned to attend a trial when, for instance, it is apparent to those involved in the trial that legal argument can be expected to consume the first day's hearing, and thus attendance of the jurors will not be required until the second day of the trial. Such an arrangement will reduce the cost associated in summoning jurors to attend trials at an earlier time than is required. It will also ensure that jurors are not unnecessarily inconvenienced by having to wait to be empanelled while the court is involved in legal argument.

Proposed new section 75B requires the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Corrective Services and any other person prescribed by the regulations to provide information to the Sheriff for the purpose of deciding whether persons are liable to be included on a supplementary jury roll or jury roll or for jury service. This provision will assist the Sheriff to fulfil the responsibility he has to ensure the integrity of the jury rolls. Proposed new section 75B also requires parties to cases listed for trial by a jury to inform the Sheriff about any event of which they become aware that affects the question of whether or not a jury will be required for a trial or inquest and the dates and time at which jurors will be required to attend for jury service. Again, the inclusion of this provision is meant to assist the Sheriff in arranging for a jury to be present at the commencement of the trial or inquiry. Although there is no sanction for non-compliance with this provision, the provision represents a clear statement by Parliament that parties to court proceedings also have a responsibility to ensure that members of the public who are called as jurors to participate in that system are not unduly inconvenienced.

The last item in schedule 1 of the Jury Amendment Bill concerns the right to be excepted from jury service for previous service or attendance. Section 37 presently excepts a person from jury service if the person has been called for service on a previous occasion and there are other persons on the jury roll who have not been called. That section does not, however, allow for a person who may have been called for jury service, but not served, and who may wish to render jury service. The Jury Amendment Bill repeals that section and replaces it with a provision that allows persons to apply and be excepted as of right from jury service if they have served as jurors within the last three years or have attended for jury service and been prepared to serve, but not been called, within the last year.

Page 4459

I turn now to schedule 2 of the Jury Amendment Bill. The first matter of significance relates to proposed section 57A, which provides for a court to decide an issue of fact in a civil case if the jury is unable to reach a decision and the parties agree to the court deciding the issue. This will remove the need for a retrial in circumstances where a jury cannot come to a decision and the parties are prepared to have the trial judge decide the issues of fact. The Jury Amendment Bill also amends section 58 to remove the present requirement that a jury must be discharged after it has deliberated for more than six hours without reaching a decision in a civil case. This will give the court the same discretion to that given by section 56 to the judge in criminal proceedings - that is, the court is only required to discharge a jury where it is satisfied that the jurors are not likely to agree on their verdict.

The requirement to discharge juries in civil trials was criticised in the Court of Appeal case of Morgan v Fairfax, where His Honour Mr Justice Hunt noted that in these days of increasing complexity, with the necessary consequences, the length of trials and the number of issues to be determined by the jury are increased, the continued distinction between civil and criminal proceedings can no longer be justified. A further amendment included in schedule 2 of the bill refines the manner of enforcing certain fines imposed under the Act in order to ensure that the integrity of the jury system is maintained. Proposed new section 66 of the bill will allow penalty notices to be used for recovering fines for an offence of failing to return, or incorrectly responding, to a questionnaire sent for the purpose of establishing an accurate supplementary jury roll or for an offence of failing to attend for jury service.

Lastly, section 72 of the Act is to be amended to provide that persons summoned for jury service must attend for service to be paid and are not entitled to be paid for their attendance if they are excused from service. This provision will encourage persons summoned for jury service to make application to be excused directly to the Sheriff prior to the trial date instead of making such application on the day of court. This will not only assist the person seeking to be excused from unnecessarily having to attend court but also the Sheriff in attempting to estimate the likely number of people required to be summoned for a particular trial and in assessing how many jurors summoned are likely to attend. The remaining provisions of the bill deal with transitional matters.

Before concluding, I would like to foreshadow to the House that the Attorney General is currently considering a proposal to amend by regulation the schedules to the Jury Act dealing with disqualified, ineligible and exempt jurors. Both the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration report on jury management in New South Wales and the jury task force were critical of the current categories of person who are disqualified, ineligible or exempt from jury service as provided in schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the Jury Act. The task force found that the present schedules inhibit true representation, do no reflect contemporary standards and perceptions and further, may legitimately be thought by some to be inconsistent with the requirement that the jury be truly representative. The task force recommended that the grounds for disqualification, ineligibility or exemption as of right from jury service should be narrowed. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Tink.


Debate resumed from 23 November.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [5.52]: The Opposition supports this bill. The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill continues the well-established statute law revision program which started about 11 years ago. It is the twenty-fifth bill in that program and is recognised by all honourable members as a cost-effective and efficient way of dealing with amendments of the kind now included in the bill. The form of the bill is similar to that of previous bills in the statute law revision program. I do not want to go into all the provisions that are amended. However, as former Chairman of the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman, I am pleased that the legislation includes an amendment to the Ombudsman Act, removing any doubt as to the Ombudsman's power to make preliminary inquiries of the kind referred to in the amendment to the Freedom of Information Act 1989. Preliminary inquiries are undertaken to determine whether to make particular conduct of a public authority the subject of an investigation under the Ombudsman Act. The last schedule 1 amendments relate to that. The Opposition supports the bill.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [5.54], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Eastwood for his support for this measure. This is purely a machinery matter to clear up minor matters in various statutes and to ensure that problems do not arise with interpretation. The Government will continue to follow the convention that if the honourable member had raised an issue about any particular matter, that would have been withdrawn to enable further consideration, and the remainder of the legislation passed. I thank him for his support for the continuation of this well-established procedure.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [5.55]: The object of this bill is to give effect to the national classification scheme for publications, films and computer games
Page 4460
by providing for the enforcement of classification decisions made under the Commonwealth Act; and by prohibiting the publishing - which includes the sale, exhibition, display, distribution and demonstration - of certain publications, films and computer games. The bill is part of a national scheme to revise censorship laws in cooperation with the Commonwealth and the other States and Territories. The new classification scheme covers publications, that is, any written or pictorial matter, films and computer games, but does not include broadcasting services, that is, television or radio programs.

The machinery for the classification of publications, films and computer games is contained within the Commonwealth legislation, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. That legislation provides for a national classification code as has been agreed on between the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories. Whilst the Commonwealth legislation will provide for the classification of materials, the legislation passed by the States will provide for the enforcement of the various classifications. The new national classification scheme is essentially a continuation of the existing scheme which already applies in New South Wales. At present in New South Wales the Indecent Articles and Classified Publications Act 1975 and the Film and Computer Game Classification Act 1984 operate to provide for the classification of material and the enforcement of the laws. These two Acts will now be repealed and will be replaced by the new codified laws.

The commencement of the Commonwealth Act has been delayed to allow complementary State and Territory enforcement legislation to be enacted. It is expected that the new system will operate from 1 January 1996. When the new scheme comes into place it is proposed that any amendments will only be made with all jurisdictions. The only major change that is in this legislation and not in previous legislation is the development of a new classification category in relation to publications. The new classification is titled, "A Submittable Publication". It will be an offence to sell or deliver a submittable publication. A submittable publication is one that has not been classified and contains materials that relate to sexual matters, drugs, nudity or violence that are likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult. This change closes a gap in the legislation which allowed publishers to sell marginal material and to profit from that before anybody would complain about the material, thus causing it to be submitted for classification. With those comments, the Opposition supports the bill.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.58], in reply: I thank the honourable member for his comments and support for the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the sitting be extended beyond 7.00 p.m.

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

Westpac Banking Corporation Bill

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Rixon) left the chair at 6.00 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]


Debate resumed from 5 December.

Mr LONGLEY (Pittwater) [7.30]: The Opposition will not oppose the motion moved by the Minister for the Environment with respect to the Ozone Protection Act 1989. The Act was introduced by the previous coalition Government. It recognised the significant dangers presented by the developing ozone holes - and the worsening of those holes over a number of years - particularly those over the Antarctic. That is a cause for grave concern. After much research - which was heavily aided by space-based research - ozone holes and the their cause were discovered. That fact is not widely understood today. If people are serious about environmental research and protecting the earth, they will understand the increasing need for a level of space-based research and space-based environmental monitoring. We will need that research at a much more significant level than occurs today, and at higher levels than are currently projected.

We must ensure that we have the best level of research and information with respect to responding to and being aware of the developments that occur within the environment on earth, particularly atmospheric developments. With the increasing sophistication of satellite technology, the capacity for the analysis of the environment will not only include the atmospheric level but also oceans, ground level and below ground level. That is important. The motion is about extending the operation of the Ozone Protection Act 1989. It is important that that Act be extended. The concern the Opposition has with regard to this motion is that the extension is unlimited. The Minister indicated in her speech that the legislation expires on 31 March next year. Hence, the motion must be passed before then. However, it would have been preferable for another legislative mechanism to be used. As the Minister in her speech said:

Controls over ozone-depleting substances will therefore be needed in New South Wales for at least five years beyond the 1 April 1996 expiry date.

The Opposition believes that five years is the relevant time frame. The five-year expiry date for this legislation was put there for a reason. The Opposition believes that it would have been
Page 4461
preferable for this to have been done by way of an amending bill. That would have given a degree of tightness about the process. The Minister indicated that the Government would undertake to review the position before the five-year time frame expired. Whilst I appreciate that that commitment has been made with the best of intentions, the reality is that the current Minister may not be the Minister at that time, and such an undertaking may fall by the wayside. That is of some concern. It would have been preferable for there to have been amending legislation, which would have seen exactly the same situation arise in the year 2000, for example, and we could have reviewed the ozone depletion situation. This motion means that this legislation will apply indefinitely. There is no way of bringing this, in a pro-active sense, to a head. The Minister said:

. . . a resolution under the mechanism provided in the Act is the most efficient way of extending the Act's operation.

I disagree with that. It may be the easiest way, but it is not the most efficient way. The most efficient way would have been by an amending piece of legislation. Because of the nature of the motion and the Act, the coalition will not oppose it. We recognise the importance of not only controlling but continuing to control ozone-depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons, halons and the hydrochlorofluorocarbons. Obviously it is important that the controls and regulations which apply to those substances are continued. The Opposition would have liked to have seen a tighter process in this case. That is the way this motion should have gone. However, the Opposition will not oppose the motion.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [7.37], in reply: I thank the Opposition for its support for the motion to extend the operation of the Ozone Protection Act 1989. As I said in my speech, it is important that we do not allow the legislation to lapse. Of course, the legislation was an initiative of the previous government. It was passed with bipartisan support at that time. It was passed at a time when all the government's in Australia were seeking to strengthen Commonwealth ozone protection laws. This is a current issue. The parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer are meeting in Vienna literally as we speak. At an international level, they are doing something about the issues that are identified with ozone protection, which have already been outlined in this debate. The honourable member for Pittwater has raised the concern of whether an unlimited extension is necessary.

I made it clear in my original speech to the motion that the Government is not committed to legislation for the sake of legislation. However, it is anxious that the legislation not expire next year. We have used this mechanism - which I believe to be clean, neat and swift - to bring forward a motion to extend the operation of the Ozone Protection Act. Just because we are doing that, it does not mean that we will not keep the Act under close review. I believe, as I am sure does the honourable member for Pittwater, that there is still tremendous justification for the continuation of this legislation and the regulations that are attached to it. There will be increasing relevance of this legislation as Australia and the world attempt to deal with the problems raised by the hole in the ozone layer. At this stage the legislation will continue. The Government will certainly review it in the next year. It may be that some time next year the legislation will be brought back before the House and consideration given to amending it in the way that has been suggested.

Motion agreed to.


Debate resumed from 23 November.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [7.40]: The Opposition supports this bill, which is essentially about handing over control of therapeutic goods to the Commonwealth. The Minister in his second reading speech said that a number of therapeutic goods industry groups had been consulted in the development of the legislation. I have also consulted the Australian Medical Association, the Pharmacy Guild and pharmaceutical manufacturers. There is widespread support for uniform licensing registration and standards, which will apply with the enactment of this legislation. It is important to note that the development of these provisions started in 1991, when the coalition Government was in office. At the Australian health Ministers conference in 1991 it was agreed to establish a comprehensive national system to regulate therapeutic goods. As the Minister said, the bill formalises a practice that has developed since the Commonwealth introduced legislation in 1989.

The desire of Australian health Ministers for consistency across the country is understandable. Health Ministers agreed that they would enact legislation to extend control of the Commonwealth legislation. This bill consolidates two Acts, the Poisons Act 1966 and the Therapeutic Goods and Cosmetics Act 1972. The legislation provides for Commonwealth jurisdiction over registration, standards, manufacture, import and advertising of therapeutic goods. The State will have control over the wholesale and retail supply of therapeutic goods, including sale by vending machine and from door to door. Under the provisions of the bill only wholesalers who distribute medicines for human use included in schedules 1, 2, 3, 4 or 7 of the poisons list will be required to hold a licence. The licensing of wholesalers of substances thus listed is designed to combat drug misuse or abuse. These provisions are important in ensuring the correct use of the products. I agree with the Minister and support that provision entirely.

Page 4462

I am pleased to note that it will be an offence for a licensed person such as a doctor, pharmacist, vet or dentist to supply restricted products to unauthorised people. This is an extremely important provision when one takes into account stories of the illegal sale of steroids and benzodiazapines such as Rohypnol. I know of such stories from my previous life in youth affairs work. There is grave concern about the widespread use of benzodiazapines, particularly Rohypnol, amongst young people and, of late, the increasing use of steroids. I have heard of the use of steroids that are sold by vets, repackaged and made available very cheaply. I find that development alarming, and I know that the Minister would share my concern. I welcome the provisions of this bill, which are aimed at addressing that problem.

The legislation does not change provisions in relation to schedule 8 drugs, drugs of addiction. Wholesalers of schedule 8 drugs already require a licence. Requirements for licences for the wholesale of therapeutic goods which are not included on the poisons list will be removed. That provision covers products that are already widely available on an unrestricted basis, including shampoos, sunscreens and other goods found on supermarket shelves. That is an eminently sensible way to go. Existing controls prohibiting vending-machine and door-to-door supply of therapeutic goods will be retained, with the Minister correctly retaining the capacity to issue exemptions, which are important in the sale of products such as condoms. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, there is widespread support for these provisions, development of which began in 1991. On behalf of the Opposition, I am pleased to support the bill.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [7.45], in reply: I thank the honourable member for North Shore for her support. As her research has highlighted, support for the bill is widespread. The Poisons Amendment (Therapeutic Goods) Bill gives effect to the agreement of Commonwealth, State and Territory health Ministers to develop and implement an improved regulatory framework for the national market in therapeutic goods. The application of the Commonwealth therapeutic goods laws to New South Wales is an important reform that will ensure the application of a consistent regulatory framework to all manufacturers and sponsors of therapeutic goods. The reforms recognise and reflect important changes in the market for medicinal products and the shift in administrative responsibility in recent years.

The application of the Commonwealth Act as a law of New South Wales will formalise and complement the existing Commonwealth regulatory system. Victoria has already enacted complementary State legislation, albeit in a different form. I believe that the New South Wales form is much more effective and ensuring that it is updated on a regular basis will require much less legislative time. The agreement provides that State and Territory governments should introduce or maintain existing legislation to regulate the supply of therapeutic goods. Although the current Therapeutic Goods and Cosmetics Act is to be repealed, existing controls over supply by wholesale and retail will be maintained where necessary and transferred to the Poisons Act 1966.

Availability and usage of goods, particularly those subject to misuse and abuse, will be effectively monitored under the wholesale licensing system. That is essential in the interests of public health, as the honourable member for North Shore has already said. Suppliers of therapeutic goods in New South Wales will benefit from the consolidation of regulatory controls over poisons and therapeutic goods in the one legislative framework, the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act, which in itself is a good thing. There are no significant risks to public health and safety in the rationalisation of regulatory controls over cosmetics and wholesalers of therapeutic goods that are, as pointed out by the honourable member for North Shore, freely available to the public over the counter. I thank the Opposition for its support for this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 12 October.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [7.50]: This bill deals with the disposal of uncollected goods, an area governed partly by common law and partly by legislation. This is a notoriously difficult area of the law relating to conflicts of ownership and the rights of bailees. I understand that the bill virtually completely follows the recommendations of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission report No. 54 of 1988 entitled "Disposal of Uncollected Goods". It is interesting to note that the work of the Law Reform Commission has been comprehensively taken up in this bill which indicates the quality of the work done by the Law Reform Commission. Many Law Reform Commission reports over the years have been accepted by Parliament and acted upon. In that respect, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission is an outstanding organisation.

When John Dowd was the Attorney General and Leader of the House, a great deal of such amending legislation came through the House largely as a result of the work done by the Law Reform Commission. This bill is very much keeping up that tradition. In some ways this is a difficult and technical piece of legislation. Problems with uncollected goods can arise in many
Page 4463
situations and difficult and technical points can be taken. That is precisely the area which bodies like the Law Reform Commission can step into and do some excellent work. Departments of State can lose sight of these issues as they deal with bigger policy issues on behalf of governments. The Opposition supports the bill and commends the work of the Law Reform Commission. It is pleased to see the work of the commission taken up in this way.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [7.53], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Eastwood for his contribution.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [7.54]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

As this bill was introduced in the other place on 16 November 1995, the second reading speech appears on page 3319 of Hansard. The bill is in the same form as that introduced in the other place. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [7.55]: It gives me pleasure to indicate that the Opposition supports the bill. In 1993 the Commonwealth Government passed the Superannuation Industry Supervision Act which regulated the superannuation industry. Many institutions, such as churches, have had to reorganise their corporate bodies in order to obtain tax concessions and other benefits arising from the superannuation legislation. This bill has a couple of key objectives, one of which is to address the beneficiary fund of the Presbyterian Church. The fund was set up by the General Assembly to enable the clergy to avail themselves of benefits following service to the church. I am sure all honourable members would know of current and former ministers in the Presbyterian Church who have done tremendous work over a lifetime for the church. It is important that we take steps, as much as we can through a legislative scheme, to ensure that their futures are secure, particularly when Commonwealth legislation is changed in this area. In my electorate, the Rev. Peter Boase, who retired from full-time ministry at the Epping Presbyterian Church, now in semi-retirement has a roving ministry around the metropolitan area. I am sure every member of the House would know people similar to the Rev. Peter Boase. We can help secure the future of such people with this bill.

The other important objective of the bill is to allow the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church to incorporate any of its church bodies and to dissolve those corporations by way of resolution. The Governor, by proclamation, will be able to declare the dissolution of a corporation named in a resolution. The General Assembly will retain the ultimate power over the responsibilities of the body. A key issue, which is faced by many organisations throughout the State, is that it is important to be able to incorporate in regard to matters of law, liability and superannuation. In some ways it is a sad reflection on the community that incorporation is necessary to limit liability. This can affect all sorts of activities, such as church, scouting, and many others. Incorporation can be very important in handling what would otherwise be crippling liability arising through suits at law. And because that is the case with the Presbyterian Church this has to be done. I also recognise the work done by one of my constituents Mr Peter Graham, who is Assistant Secretary of the Presbyterian Church in New South Wales. I am sure that he has had a great deal to do with this bill. I am sure that the Leader of the House will be going to heaven; I am not sure that I will! However, I am happy to support the bill and I commend it to the House.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [7.58], in reply: I thank the Opposition for its support.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 5 December.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo) [7.59]: A particular concern of the Opposition to the Motor Accidents Amendment Bill relates to section 79A of the Act which is to be amended. The basis for the amendments are that motor accident policies held by motorists throughout New South Wales have not attracted a premium sufficient to cover the claims received by the various insurers who are involved in third party motor vehicle insurance within the State. Those who believe that this increase is necessary, which obviously includes the Government, would be excused if they questioned whether miscalculations had been made by insurance companies in setting the third party insurance premiums, or green slip premiums, over the past several years since the new Act was introduced.

In New South Wales there are 3.3 million insured vehicles which, at $350 per green slip, will generate income of $1,155 million each year. The Government claims that the amendments will reduce payouts to $660 million per annum, leaving $495 million, or 43 per cent of gross receipts to meet insurers' administration costs and provide profits for shareholders next year and every year thereafter. The legislation proposes that only those suffering minor injury will lose their rights. To understand what the present legislation provides,
Page 4464
one should visualise a small child, brain damaged, and confined to a wheelchair for life, with no movement save for the head. Such a person is, in terms of the Motor Accidents Act, a worst case and under the present legislation receives $222,000 for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. All other cases are evaluated as a percentage of the worst case.

Those who are assessed at between 1 per cent and 14 per cent of a worst case are the minor injury cases and they are to receive nothing at all for their pain and suffering. Previously those injuries would have attracted awards of between $2,350 and $32,900. The injuries rank in seriousness from lacerations and shock to fractured limbs, facial injuries and permanent scarring involving operations and significant hospitalisation. These are hardly minor injuries to those who sustain them. Some 65 per cent of all accident victims are within this category. At a stroke, 65 per cent of all motor accident claimants will recover nothing for pain and suffering. For the 15 per cent to 25 per cent levels of a worst case, that is from $35,250 to $58,750, this group of injured citizens will have deducted from their awards for pain and suffering a sum ranging from $33,250 and rising to $44,750. This means that they will receive between $2,000 and $14,000 only for pain and suffering.

This group comprises a further 16 per cent of accident claimants. It includes, by way of example, a middle-aged lady with a broken neck, chest scarring, a disrupted left knee and nerve damage to her left arm. Such a lady recently received $40,900 for pain and suffering, that is 24 per cent of a worst case. Under the new legislation she would get $12,000. A 49-year-old lady with fractured ribs, sternum and clavicle, with tears to the small bowel and disfigurement to her abdomen who sustained severe depression, recently received $58,750 for her pain and suffering. Were she injured in that way in the future she would receive $14,000. I could go on at great length, but time does not permit, to give case studies on these issues, which are of importance to a great number of people. One has to understand the concern of the motorists and the public who have to pay ever-increasing premiums for green slips. It is a matter of concern to most of us. By the same token it is a matter of concern that our third party insurance program is now extremely limited to enable those premiums to be kept down.

The debate will show that members have strong misgivings about this bill on three issues: firstly, some 60 per cent of persons injured in motor accidents in New South Wales will, from 28 September 1995, lose their right to compensation for pain and suffering in excess of the thresholds that I have mentioned; secondly, the Attorney General is rushing the legislation through to placate the insurance companies which have been pushing up green slip premiums without real cause, seemingly to generate pressure for legislative change; and, thirdly, the insurance companies cannot show why they are not holding adequate reserves, having taken $5,227 million in premiums from New South Wales citizens in the past six years, while paying out about $3,000 million.

Certainly there is a significant tale to these claims. The Opposition is concerned that the proposed amendments to section 79 will not cure the problem. However, the Opposition is not strictly opposing this bill because the matters raised by the Government in this legislation should be tested in the real world. For that reason I will seek to introduce an amendment in Committee to impose a sunset clause of two years on the amendments. I am aware that the insurance industry claims that that will affect their actuaries' instructions in respect of calculations they will make for future green slip premium charges. However, the Government has indicated that it will keep this matter under close review. The Opposition considers that there is very little difference in putting in a sunset clause or indicating that there will be a review. The insurance companies, when instructing their actuaries, should not consider any sunset clause to be an impediment to setting a lower rate of premiums. About 9,500 injured people will be, in effect, disenfranchised from adequate cover if the amendments embodied by this bill are passed, as they certainly will be.

The 14 insurance companies that cover this particular field of insurance - seven of whom feature in the list of Australia's largest and most profitable 100 companies - could conceivably gain a windfall. That is, total compensation payments to victims falling, administrative costs of the scheme to the insurers reduced and premium income staying at the current level of approximately $1.28 billion. I am not sure whether the insurance companies are clouding the issue; I am not sure whether the Bar Association or the solicitors are clouding the issue; what I am concerned about, however, is that the issues are being clouded. I believe it is fair, since the Government has the numbers in this House to pass the legislation, that it be reviewed in two years time and that there be a sunset clause so that, at that time, the experience of the victims of car accidents can be assessed. That will show whether premiums have been reduced or at least stabilised and it will demonstrate whether the legislation has seriously disadvantaged people who have experienced extreme pain and suffering but little economic loss as a consequence of an accident.

Recently in my home town of Dubbo a lady pensioner was severely injured in a collision between two cars at an intersection. A car came through a stop light and crashed into the car in which she was a passenger. She was severely injured and endured great pain and suffering. She will have scarring and be disabled as a result of an injury to her leg. Unfortunately for that lady, she cannot establish economic loss because she receives a pension. She will always get the pension and she will certainly recover her out-of-pocket expenses for medical and hospital treatment, but she will not receive any payment for the pain and suffering she
Page 4465
will experience for the rest of her life. This is simply because she has not been designated as being above 15 per cent on a worst-case accident scale.

These are issues which should be of concern to all honourable members. We should understand that it is one thing to reduce premiums but it is another to ensure that the third party insurance cover which people rightly expect they should receive is adequate to provide the cover that they need. My belief is that if there is to be an increase in third party insurance premiums it should be minimal to at least give some justice to those in the lower 14 per cent of people who will now not receive adequate compensation for pain and suffering. It is for that reason that in Committee I will move an amendment to include a sunset clause.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [8.14]: The Opposition has some concerns about this bill, particularly in connection with clause 79 payments for non-economic loss for pain and suffering. It is in relation to that aspect that I would like to put some comments on the record. Provision is made for the amount of general damages to be reduced in accordance with a formula which is set out in clause 79 of the legislation. It is clear that the intention of the legislation is to make certain that the number of small claims will be eliminated and that the concentration will be on the elimination of those claims for minor injuries. The amount of deduction was set at $15,000 and was indexed so that it is now in excess of $19,000. The deduction under the proposed scheme has been significantly increased and is now almost double that amount.

A number of explanations have been put forward to account for this dramatic increase, but the most common explanation relates to the role of lawyers in the process and concern about that has been expressed by the insurance industry. However, the Opposition has considerable doubt as to the validity of that being the major contributor to the escalating costs. I think it is important to note that only one major research exercise has been undertaken into the operation of the Motor Accidents Act and the impact of awards made under that Act. That was conducted by the Civil Justice Research Centre, whose report was delivered in June 1995. It is worth taking time to read onto the record some extracts from the executive summary. In summary the researchers made the following comments:

. . . there was no statistically significant variation in the mean NEL % awarded for hearing or arbitration, judge/arbitrator, court location, or between the four years 1991/92 to 1994/95. The lack of any idiosyncratic variability in relation to these factors tends to indicate that the provisions of s79 are being consistently interpreted by the judges and arbitrators.

An interesting interpretation that could be applied to that is that every one of the judges has got it wrong, or that every one of the judges has got it right. There does not appear to be, as the commentators say, any idiosyncratic variation in the way in which the section is being applied by the judiciary. The report goes on to make some assessments for non-economic loss, and states:

Whilst processing a motor accident claim, an insurer may make a number of assessments as to the likely award for NEL %. For the present study the final assessment prior to the procedure used to determine the claim was recorded.

The mean NEL % assessed by insurers was 19%. This was lower than the mean NEL % awarded, which was 22%. This difference may indicate that judges and arbitrators are interpreting the provisions of s79 differently from insurers. However, it may also reflect a tendency on the part of insurers to under assess NEL %, either for actuarial purposes or otherwise.

This research project has shown that insurers assessing their liability in respect of a claim significantly undervalue their liabilities. I have yet to understand what "otherwise" may be. I also wonder why insurers would make an assessment that was lower for actuarial purposes. They have to justify their position to the Motor Accidents Authority and if they underestimate their liabilities it might result in an underestimation of premiums, and lower premiums might enable them to undercut their competitors to gain market share. Considering that all 14 insurers came into the field in 1989 and all wanted to get a market share, the Opposition might be cynical in wondering whether such exercises went on. We might learn something about that from the report from the researchers. It continues:

Like NEL % awards, variation was found to exist between the mean NEL % assessed for each injury type, jurisdiction, and whether other heads of damages formed a component of the total award. Also, like NEL % awards, there was no statistically significant variation in the mean assessments for hearing or arbitration, judge/arbitrator or court location.

We have heard the comment that judges were rafting up the awards. Yet the only independent research that has been conducted shows that this is not so; there has not been any such rafting up. The researchers continue:

These findings tend to indicate that the provisions of the Act in relation to s79 are being consistently interpreted by insurers, as was the case with judges and arbitrators.

Unlike NEL % awards, however, which remained fairly stable over the four years from 1991/2 to 1994/95, NEL % assessed was higher in 1993/94 and 1994/5 than in the two earlier years.

That is the first indication within the research that amounts being awarded by the courts at any particular time did increase during the period, but again there was consistency across the courts. The next part of the study report is the most interesting in reflecting where we as a Parliament should go in this regard. Under the heading "A Comparison of Awards and the Insurers' Assessments" the report states:

To undertake a comparison of awards and assessments the difference between NEL % awarded and NEL % assessed was calculated for each case.

If a judge determined the claimant's injury to represent 15 per cent of a most extreme case and the insurer assessed the amount to be 10 per cent, the difference would be 5 per cent. If the award was 15 per cent and the assessment 20 per cent, the difference is minus 5 per cent. Overall, the percentage mean difference between the non-
Page 4466
economic loss awarded and assessed was 3.5 per cent. That is, awards were typically $7,770 higher than assessed by insurers. If the insurers are going to be that much out in their assessment of their liabilities, their actuaries will also be significantly out in their assessment of the premiums. Then their premiums will be lower than is necessary to give the insurers sufficient income and therefore a sufficient asset to meet their liabilities.

The report pointed out that initially it is a problem of the administration of the insurers. However, the alternative view which will be advocated by the insurers is that they were right and the courts were wrong because the courts were determining damages awards which were different from the amounts assessed by the insurers. Therefore the blame is not the insurers; the blame is not within the administration of the insurance companies; the blame lies squarely with the courts. It is up to us to draw our own inferences from those two arguments. We must look at what the research says: that the judges were consistent during the whole of this period in the awards that they determined. As we read further through the report we find that the only variation seemed to be with the insurers. The report continued:

A number of factors were examined to see if there was any variation in the difference between NEL% awarded and NEL% assessed. The findings suggest that judges and arbitrators may be interpreting the provisions of s79 differently from insurers in relation to a number of factors. These were:

Injury Type

It was found that in claims for more severe and less frequent injury types, such as those for open wounds, fractures and multiple injuries, insurers' interpretation of s79, as evidenced by their assessments, was significantly lower than that of judges and arbitrators, as evidenced by their awards.

Other Damages Awarded

Where future economic loss was a component of the total award, insurers' interpretation of s79 was significantly lower than that of judges and arbitrators.

Year of Procedure

The difference between awards and assessments, and in the proportion of claims in which the award was made rather than assessed, has decreased over time. This suggests that while awards were initially more generous than anticipated by insurers, their assessments have become more reflective of awards as time has passed.

In effect, what the researchers are saying is that the insurers started to adjust to what was going on and were making more accurate assessments of the liabilities. The report continued:

Despite these differences in interpretation, there are many indications that the provisions of the Act in relation to s79 are being interpreted consistently by both judges and arbitrators, and insurers. The main difference between NEL% awarded and NEL% assessed was similar regardless of:

jurisdiction;

procedure;

judge/arbitrator;

or court location.

What it is saying is that both the insurers and the judge were interpreting the Act in the same way but they were coming out with different results. Near the conclusion of the report the following comments were made:

The findings of this study address concerns raised by insurers that judges and arbitrators are "generous" in their interpretation of the provisions of the Act in relation to the award of damages for non-economic loss.

Prior to this study, very little was known of the relationship between insurers' assessments and Court awards, other than that they should be related and that insurers' assessments would tend to be lower than awards.

Overall, the difference between awards and assessments, but the study has explored this further by describing the difference in terms of a number of factors. Awards for non-economic loss were higher in earlier years, indicating that awards were more generous than anticipated by insurers, claims awarded for future economic loss were also higher than anticipated, as were those for the more severe and less frequent injury types.

This study cannot determine whether the differences found are due wholly to the implementation of the Motor Accidents Act. Nor can it estimate the costs of these differences on the motor accident compensation scheme as a whole. Such an analysis would require fully comparative information to be available regarding the administration of claims prior to the implementation of the Act.

That analysis in itself is a telling commentary on attitudes towards the implementation of the Act. It is why the Opposition has serious concerns about the way in which the Government has sought to interpret the material presented to it. Obviously, submissions have been provided from insurers to the Motor Accidents Authority and to the Government. In this regard the insurers made their submissions through the Insurance Council of Australia, which has a clear duty to act in the interests of its members and to put a proposition which must be the best possible case for the insurers. There are 14 insurers in the marketplace so it is the council's obligation, acting on behalf of those insurers, to make certain that a case is put forward that will maintain the position of the insurers, and to seek to keep premium levels at what is reasonably regarded as an affordable level.

Following advice the Government has adopted $350 as an affordable level. It must accept responsibility for the legislation introduced. If blame is to be attributed, it does not lie with the authority, which might advise the Government, nor with the insurers, who are simply putting forward a case to ensure that they can deliver an insurance service at an affordable level. The Government has a responsibility to analyse individual cases and make a decision that ensures not only that New South Wales has an affordable system of insurance but also that it delivers a reasonable level of compensation to those who are injured. All 3.3 million people, or thereabouts, who buy insurance in this State under a compulsory scheme buy the insurance in the expectation that they will receive a reasonable level of compensation should they ever claim. That was precisely the point made
Page 4467
by the honourable member for Dubbo. Insurance in this regard is no different from household insurance or any other form of insurance. Consumers hope never to have to claim but, if they do, a reasonable return should be made for their investment over a lifetime. The same applies to car insurance: it is hoped a claim will not be necessary but if it is, the compensation has to be reasonable.

The question is: what is the most reasonable compensation? The Opposition is concerned that the Government has adopted what might best be described as a big-bang approach to this reform - to go in and cut away as much as is possible from the benefits to be paid to the injured party, who over a lifetime has been paying insurance in the expectation of receiving a benefit. These are the issues at the heart of the Opposition's concerns about the bill. We have serious concerns about the legislation and the future of the program as a result of the information that is becoming available to us. I understand that the Attorney General, in his second reading speech in the upper House, gave an assurance that he would be pursuing an inquiry in relation to these matters in conjunction with the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. The Opposition will take a more positive view tonight with an amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Dubbo in relation to further developments when Parliament resumes. I understand that the shadow attorney general in the upper House has foreshadowed a motion to refer these matters to the committee, which will be required to review the provisions of the Motor Accidents Act, this bill and its antecedents. The Opposition also expects that the committee will look into the issues raised tonight and previously in the upper House.

In a nutshell, what the committee should be looking at is the operation of the legislation and insurers to ascertain what caused premiums to be driven down; what caused the insurers to suffer such losses; and to what extent did the insurers bear the losses. Like all other insurers at the time, they were pursuing investments on which many other insurers suffered losses. Did the insurers in the scheme suffer similar losses? The Parliament does not know the answer to those questions but we believe it should know, and we expect that this will be achieved through the upper House committee. The Opposition will not oppose the bill in the Legislative Assembly. We hope that in the inquiry foreshadowed in the upper House we will get to the bottom of some of the cost pressures in the industry and make sure that the best balance is struck between insurers maintaining a viable scheme and, most of all, people gaining reasonable compensation.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [8.29]: There was and is a general consensus within the community about the need to review the Motor Accidents Act to ensure that green slip premiums do not become prohibitively expensive. The professions have wrestled with that problem. The previous Government introduced professional liability legislation which limited the liability available in order to ensure that premiums did not become prohibitive and therefore that medical and legal advice was not put out of the reach of citizens. I want to speak generally about the bill because the options selected by the Government in its review are unnecessarily harsh, particularly in the field of deprivation or removal of entitlement to compensation for pain and suffering. This could well be considered Kafkaesque.

There was a short story written by Franz Kafka entitled, "Before the Law", which I am sure the honourable member for Gordon well remembers. It concerned a poor person who came before a series of doorways. There was a doorman at the first one who said, "Look, I'm the least powerful here. Wait until I let you in". This person waited a lifetime to be let in but never was. In his dying breath he said, "Why didn't other people seek access to this doorway?" and he was told, "Because this doorway was constructed for you." I notice honourable members opposite show some consternation about the relevance of this. Perhaps I could teach the honourable member for Gladesville something about civil rights. The Government has constructed a doorway through which the members of your constituency, the poorest and least able, will not be entitled to enter, and I will tell you why.

Mr Watkins: Is that the one where he turns into a fly?

Mr KERR: Nobody will be turning into a fly and there will be no flights of fantasy when they come to see you in your electorate office. You will have a constituent, a pensioner, who goes to bowls and is knocked down at a pedestrian crossing and is not entitled to any compensation whatsoever. The pain and suffering - and it will be intense - is called non-economic loss. The former Government grappled with the problem of the social interest versus the individual's interest. Honourable members opposite may wish to examine the case of Kable v The Director of Public Prosecutions, 36 NSWLR at page 374. I shall not quote it, but Mr Justice Mahoney spoke about preventive detention. The coalition Government never denied the applicant access to the court, and that was the whole purpose. It was for the court to determine whether the public interest in keeping that person in custody outweighed his right to be released. Even in the most extreme situations the previous Government allowed access to the court. This Government is denying that. I wish to refer to technical issues and suggest a way that the legislation could have been improved with a degree of goodwill.

Mr Watkins: Are you supporting the legislation?

Mr KERR: If the honourable member for Gladesville waits he will hear. The Government has seen fit to adopt option A as set out in the actuarial report by Trowbridge consulting to the
Page 4468
Motor Accidents Authority rather than options B, C or D. All of the options, that is A to D inclusive, provided for a deductible or excess of nil up to 14 per cent of the maximum statutorily allowable for pain and suffering under section 79 of the Act. But in adopting option A the Government has acted so cruelly as to deprive up to two-thirds, say 50 per cent to 60 per cent, of those who hitherto have been entitled to compensation for pain and suffering as part of their claim for damages. The proposed option proffered by the Government is draconian. It has virtually eliminated entitlement to claim damages for pain and suffering in most cases of injury. Substantial injuries suffered by persons will no longer be compensable. Only people suffering a catastrophic injury will remain unaffected.

Further, it is to be noted that the actuarial assumptions upon which the recommendations were based are inherently flawed. The actuaries assumed that the present level of claims in respect to what is referred to as pain and suffering or non-economic loss start with a non-economic loss threshold of 15 per cent of the most extreme case. However, what is ignored is that because of the very severe reduction of the entitlement to claim, such claims, if disputed, no longer will be able to be litigated, because the cost rules of the District Court would render such litigation prohibitively expensive. Accordingly, the actuaries have substantially underestimated the effect of the drastic changes in reducing premiums.

The sliding scale between 25 per cent and 30 per cent leads to huge changes with each percentage point. This is likely to encourage "creep", particularly where judges and arbitrators see the manifest injustice and their inability to give awards for substantial injuries. Option D, which was proposed and propounded by the legal profession, would still have resulted in substantial savings to both the scheme and to premiums, but would have been more just and equitable in its application. Perhaps the Government should revisit that portion of the Act, although I would have no great confidence that the left wing would take up the cudgels of the poor and the deprived in our community.

I refer to a family law report where, in a custody matter, the judge said to the child, "Would you like to live with your father?" The child said, "No, he beats me." The judge said, "Would you like to live with your mother?" and the child said, "No, she beats me too." The judge said, "Well, who would you like to live with?" and the child said, "I would like to live with the left wing of the parliamentary Labor Party because they never beat anybody." The bill has a number of other shortcomings that could be reviewed.

The definition of injury in clause 3 is very narrow. The bill is intended to narrow the cover provided by insurers. It will have the effect of setting at nought a number of important decisions of the High Court, particularly those involved in the application of the definition "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" previously contained in the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act. I mentioned the case of Kable as discussed by Mr Justice Mahoney. It involved a number of implied guarantees by the High Court and this access to the courts could well be implied by a future High Court as an implied guarantee to a citizen.

The effect of the amendments will be to largely exclude, for example, loading and unloading claims. Since most of such claims are employment related, the principal effect will be to increase the burden on WorkCover insurers to the benefit of the Motor Accidents Act - MAA - insurers. No doubt such a change was deliberately intended to be obtained for the benefit of the Motor Accidents Act insurers. What is the position of uninsured or casual employers? Many persons in the community would be unaware of the substantial changes and limitations that are introduced by this bill, apparently for the benefit of insurers. A further anomaly that is not addressed is that between WorkCover and Motor Accidents Act insurers. Normally, where an accident occurs which factually can be said to result from employment and also arises out of the use of a motor vehicle, the MAA insurer and the WorkCover insurer each contribute half under the principles of double insurance. If, however, the WorkCover employer is a self-insurer, these principles do not apply, and if the claim is only brought under the Motor Accidents Act, the MAA insurer meets the whole bill. That is clearly unjust.

I wish to refer briefly to proposed section 43A and to a New South Wales Court of Appeal decision delivered on 25 September 1995 which is as yet unreported. That decision has significant ramifications in terms of the effectiveness of section 52(4) of the Motor Accidents Act whereby a plaintiff is given leave to commence proceedings and the defendant cannot appeal that decision until the matter has been fully prepared and heard at first instance. This would involve the expenditure of considerable funds, as well as a considerable amount of court time, possibly days, in order to save the Court of Appeal taking what would most likely be a much shorter period of time.

Proposed section 50A relates to delay in commencing proceedings until particulars are provided. This is a new section introduced into the Act. Section 48 of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act already requires that no action can be commenced while a reasonable request for particulars is outstanding. Particulars are already required to be given in the notice of claim. Any insurer would normally request provision of particulars and such must be answered or the plaintiff will be out of time in relation to an entitlement to commence proceedings.

The District Court rules already provide that particulars must be provided at the commencement of the proceedings. In the Supreme Court
Page 4469
differential case management requires similar particulars under part 33 of the Supreme Court rules. In the District Court particulars are required under part 12 of the District Court rules before an action can be set down for hearing. The amendments to the Act now impose a further requirement which is repetitive of an obligation under section 48 of the existing Act and will only add to the cost and the expense of litigation, ultimately reducing the availability of funds for compensation. Such an addition is totally unnecessary. There is no call for it. It only leads to an increase in applications for extension of time before the courts, which can only further result in waste of court time and public moneys. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Moreover, the duty cast by proposed section 50A is vague. The claimant must guess when there are particulars provided which are sufficient to enable the insurer, as far as practicable, to make a proper assessment of the claimant's full entitlement to damages. Such particulars must be provided before a person is entitled to commence court proceedings. Unscrupulous insurers will delay and string out otherwise justifiably entitled accident victims claiming a lack of provision of particulars. Legal professional privilege is not protected by proposed section 50A. The particulars required are vague, indeed they are less specific than the standard insurer's request for particulars, which have been administered in the court for the last 30 years without any demonstrable difficulty. The section is, in short, futile, repetitive and a waste of funds of all concerned. The section is gratuitous to the interests of the insurer and serves no benefit at all to the public interest - that is, voters.

Proposed section 52 refers to the time limitation. The abolition of the restriction under proposed section 52(3) is sensible. However, the Act makes no provision for automatic extensions of time for those persons who might be legally disabled, for example, infants and adults who might be temporarily or permanently unable to manage their affairs. The tests should be those in the Limitations Act 1969. Clearly time should not run against a person whilst that person is under a form of legal disability. Proposed section 70A refers to the future diminution of earning capacity. Proof that a person will sustain "the further economic loss claimed" if taken literally is impossible in any case. The amount allowed will always vary slightly or substantially from that which has been claimed. What is meant or intended to have been expressed in this amending section was that it should be demonstrated that it is "25 per cent likelihood of further loss". This provision should be amended accordingly, otherwise there will be a potential for all future economic loss entitlement to be effectively abolished. The real fact is that it means 100 per cent in real terms. That was fairly technical, but it was important to put it on the record.

In 1996, 13,000 citizens will suffer injury in a motor vehicle accident. They will include young people, working men and women, migrants, university professors, divorcees and single mothers. They will have, however, two things in common: all will have been injured as a consequence of the negligence of another and none will receive a cent in compensation for their pain and suffering and their diminution of enjoyment of life. This legislation is something to be really proud of for a Labor Party, I must say. The community will have no-one else to thank for this other than the present Government of New South Wales, which has seen fit to adopt what can be regarded as the most draconian approach possible.

The Government has agreed to change the law in the manner which has been demanded by insurance companies to take away the rights of compensation for pain and suffering, and yet has not struck a reasonable balance between the rights of injured persons and the need to ensure that premiums are kept at a reasonable level. The Government, and apparently the insurers, have assessed the reasonable level of insurance premiums to be $350 per annum. If the scheme remained unchanged, the present estimate is that the premiums would reach $400. If option D were adopted, it would reduce the premiums to $355, but would provide a reasonable level of compensation for pain and suffering. At a stroke, 65 per cent of all motor accident claimants will now recover nothing for pain and suffering. Is that not great?

For example, a middle-aged lady with a broken neck, chest scarring, disrupted left knee and nerve damage to her left arm recently received $40,900 for pain and suffering - 24 per cent of the worst case. She would get $12,000 under the proposed changes. A pensioner with no economic loss - who perhaps enjoyed bowls - may be knocked down in a pedestrian crossing, hospitalised for six months, experience great pain and suffering, and find that he can no longer play bowls would more likely than not receive nothing. He certainly would not be entitled to economic loss compensation. Insurers will be able to hide behind the cost rules.

Let us take another example. Recently a 49-year-old lady with fractured ribs, sternum and clavicle, with tears to the small bowel and disfigurement to the abdomen, who sustained severe depression, under the present scheme received $58,750 for pain and suffering. She will get $14,000 now. I could go on, because there are 3.3 million insured vehicles in New South Wales. Green slips, at $350 each, generate $1.155 billion each year. The Government says that its plan will reduce payments by $660 million per annum, leaving $495 million - or 43 per cent of gross receipts - to meet insurers' administration costs and provide profits for shareholders next year, and every year thereafter, with funds provided by the public.

There is an old saying in Cronulla, "If you take the premium, you should pay the claim". Has the Government now introduced the concept, "Take the premium, but don't bother about the claim"?
Page 4470
There is a lot that could have been done with a little commonsense and a little consultation. Nobody wants to see premiums go up. I do not support such increases. I support people having access to justice, people who are experiencing a great deal of pain and injury. What could have been done sensibly is to strengthen the pre-accident procedure, to employ more experienced people at the insurance level, and to allow a six-month period for accurate assessment. I am not bagging the insurance industry. It wants happy customers, and it wants customers to pay the lowest premiums. But let us not betray the people who can least afford to pay, the least protected members of our community. That is what this Government has done. The honourable member for the Southern Highlands is in the Chamber. He was part of a government that overturned TransCover - [Time expired.]

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [8.49]: My interests in the bill have nothing to do with my practice, which was principally insurance, trade practice and other matters. The honourable member for Cronulla spoke about the effect the legislation would have in relation to denying access to justice. I thought that such sentiments would come also from Government members who claim to represent those who would be most in need of financial compensation if injured. I should have thought that such people would be most in need of adequate compensation at time of injury. Of course there is a concern about premiums, but what greater concern is there than when one is injured? Under this proposal injured people will substantially be denied compensation. On these matters I would have expected Labor Party members to want to hold their heads high. Perhaps that is another reason traditional Labor Party voters are deserting the Australian Labor Party.

The Government is failing to address the issue of proper and sufficient compensation for injured persons. Government members have often said that they represent the workers - surely that is not correct. Because previous speakers have spoken about the issue of compensation I shall deal with other matters that have not been covered. The principal issue I want to talk about relates to insurers' calculations and costs. I shall speak about their methodology and rationale for justifying an increase in premiums. Trowbridge Consulting was hired as a consulting arm to the Motor Accidents Insurance Council to provide the council with a basis to justify an increase, because of the potential blow-out to section 79 pay-outs. Trowbridge Consulting concluded that a large proportion of the scheme's cost for 1995-96 underwriting year, $140 million or 20 per cent, relates to non-economic loss damages on claims involving minor injuries.

The relevance of the Trowbridge Consulting conclusion, even accepting the basis upon which calculations were made, is that the figure is only 20 per cent yet, to anyone who dares question the methodology or figures, that is used as a justification for increased premiums. In relation to the 20 per cent figure, perhaps we should also question the basis upon which some insurers have invested the money as a further reason for some of the increase. I represented the shadow attorney general at the New South Wales legal convention on 31 October. At that conference Dallas Booth, Assistant Manager of the Motor Accidents Authority, stated that in his view the Government proposals were an entirely arbitrary solution to a range of problems. What a wonderful endorsement of the reason that these proposals, based on an actuarial assessment, have to come forward.

There is a need for substantial monitoring of the situation, and that is why in another place the shadow attorney general proposed a Standing Committee on Law and Justice review of all methodology in relation to this issue. I would expect Government members to have some faith in such a procedure, given that they control the numbers on that committee. A review would allow a more proper and thorough assessment of the reason and rationale for these amendments. I believe there should be an appropriate sunset clause of perhaps two years. In that way there could be an assessment of the outcome, to strike a balance between the various stakeholders. As the Minister for Agriculture says, it is a fine balance between those who want to contain costs on green slips and those who will suffer through inadequate compensation payments.

When insurers allege that it takes five years to cost any change in premiums, I ask where the insurers were in 1990. Insurers set the premiums in 1990 and they use the rationale that adjusting premiums would lead to difficulty because of their need for five-year projections. There have been changes to premiums since 1990. It is a furphy for insurers to say that a sunset clause after two years would mean that they could not adjust their premiums because they need to make five-year projections. The conduct of insurers in the past does not support that contention.

I draw the attention of honourable members to a constituent of mine who is training in the swimming squad for the Atlanta Olympics. She suffered a motor accident injury and made a claim for compensation. As a 20-year-old female, under the current law she would be entitled to an amount based on the 28 per cent figure that I calculate to be approximately $66,000. Out of that amount has to come deductibles of about $6,500, leaving a sum of about $60,000. Under the Government's proposed amendments that young woman would be entitled to a sum of about $20,000. I shall not go into the matter of the Court of Appeal and other background details.

I should have thought that such a person would have the encouragement of everyone, but her financial affairs will be substantially limited and perhaps her ability to rehabilitate fully, to represent this country at Atlanta and maybe at the Sydney
Page 4471
Olympic Games in the year 2000, will be substantially diminished. I would have thought that she was entitled to the higher amount of compensation, to sufficiently compensate her for the injuries and scarring she suffered. A reduction of 66 per cent, from $60,000 to about $20,000, is a substantial infringement of her rights, and something that all honourable members should be concerned about. Government members have talked about their concerns for the rights of drivers of motor vehicles and others, but it is when one is affected by a motor vehicle accident that one's rights ought to be protected most.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and we have to make sure that when there is a break in that chain, such as through injury, we protect the rights of those who are most affected. The rights of those who would be affected through injuries have not been sufficiently considered. It was Shakespeare who said, "let's kill all the lawyers"; it is common to blame lawyers for our problems. During the New South Wales legal convention to which I have already referred those speaking in favour of the reforms had to acknowledge that the legal costs associated with some motor accident claims represented only about 15 per cent of the entire premiums. One can therefore hardly lay the blame on lawyers. After all, lawyers are there to protect those whose rights are affected, and in speaking about my constituent I have given an ample demonstration of someone whose rights are affected. I am sure that the example I have given would be mirrored a thousand times over every year. Honourable members have spoken about the great number of people who make claims. I have no doubt that the honourable member for Dubbo, who will also speak in the debate, handled many motor accident claims when he was a solicitor in private practice.

In conclusion I raise a view which is somewhat different from that of other speakers. During the legal convention, at which I represented the Attorney General, indirect threats came from some in the bureaucracy that if we did not go along with these amendments, we would be left with a bureaucratic tribunal, that is, a type of TransCover or a table of maims. They suggested, "If you don't like that, we'll take away your rights entirely." I do not like bureaucrats threatening me. Bureaucrats have no right to threaten members of the public who have their interests substantially affected. We should have more faith in a learned and independent judiciary. To adopt the Prime Minister's saying, I regard bureaucrats as a far more "unrepresentative swill" than those in the Senate whom the Prime Minister described in that way. We should have some trust and faith in the judiciary in relation to adequate compensation, rather than allowing a bureaucratic tribunal to rule the roost and dictate the basis on which these issues come before Parliament to compensate injured workers in a most insufficient way.

The alleged intolerable financial burden which was to be placed on compulsory third party insurers will be equally placed, if not more so, on those groups when injured parties are disentitled to any compensation whatsoever because of the Government's amendment, which will substantially curtail one's right to adequate compensation for rehabilitation and other support. There is a fine line between issues concerning green slips and related matters and compensation. On that basis, we must all make judgments. The Opposition has done so. I reserve my right to speak to the amendments to be moved by the honourable member for Dubbo in Committee.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women) [9.03], in reply: I thank all members who have contributed to the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clause 2 and Schedule 1

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo) [9.08], by leave: I move the amendments circulated in my name in globo:

No. 1 Page 2, clause 2, line 6. Omit "subsection (2)", insert instead "subsection (2) and (3)".

No. 2 Page 2, clause 2, line 7. Omit "[43]", insert instead "[44]".

No. 3 Page 2, clause 2, after line 8:

(3) Schedule 1[41] commences on the date of assent.

No. 4 Page 22. After line 12, insert:

[41] Section 136A

Insert after section 136:

136A Expiry of amendments made by Motor Accidents Amendment Act 1995

(1) If the amending Act has not been repealed by the second anniversary of the date of assent to the amending Act, it is repealed on the date of that second anniversary.

(2) On the date of that second anniversary:

(a) Any provision inserted in this Act (except this section) by the amending Act is repealed, and

(b) any amendment or repeal of any provision of this Act by the amending Act ceases to have effect and the provision is restored and revived in the form in which it was immediately before the enactment of the amending Act as if the amending Act had never been enacted.

(3) The regulations may contain provisions of a savings or transitional nature consequent on any amendment made by the amending Act being repealed or ceasing to have effect in accordance with this section.

(4) This section has effect despite section 28 of the Interpretation Act 1987.

(5) In this section, amending Act means the Motor Accidents Amendment Act 1995.

Page 4472

The Opposition has some concerns about the bill and the need of the insurance companies to have either higher premiums or reduced payout requirements. We need to test whether third party premiums will be sustained at the current level or will be reduced. The Government has indicated that it will review the operation of these amendments over time, and the Opposition supports such a review. One of my amendments merely provides a sunset clause two years from the date of assent of the legislation. I recall that someone in another place said about political parties, "We are here to keep the so-and-sos honest."

Both sides of this House have a genuine concern about two things. The first is the level of premiums for third party insurance which obviously is high for a lot of people and this creates considerable hardship, particularly when combined with normal property damage insurance and registration. The Opposition understands that problem. People will be concerned to see that the amendments, which to a large extent the Opposition has to support, achieve the ends that they are designed to achieve while at the same time they give fairness and equity to the 60 per cent of people who will be adversely affected. Secondly, we are faced with a situation where insurance companies have promised to stabilise premiums at about $350, in return for a reduced requirement to compensate people, particularly those in the bottom 15 per cent of worst cases.

This issue has already been debated at great length and I will not cover that ground again. I have moved this amendment to ensure that the review takes place and that the effects claimed prognostically for them will be proved to be a reality over that period. If the amendment is passed and if in two years time after reviewing the legislation it was found to be successful, it would be re-enacted by Parliament. I am sure there would be no objection to that. If, on the other hand, premiums have escalated in cost and insurance benefits paid to victims of car accidents were reduced, then of course there would be a massive change.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [9.12]: I reiterate the comments made by the honourable member for Dubbo. I also have a concern with clause 2(2), the seeming retrospectivity of the operation of some of these amendments. It mirrors to some extent legislation by pronouncement that our beloved Prime Minister is so well known for, especially in relation to tax legislation. Certainly some of that retrospectivity I would think would be deplored. A more important matter is the expiration of some of the amendments, including amendments that warrant a sunset provision. The calculation by actuaries, Trowbridge Consulting, leaves a lot more questions unanswered than those proposed in their paper. The methodology requires more analysis. The foundation, however they have articulated it, needs to be reviewed and questioned far more than has occurred in the past.

In this democratic institution with representative members of electorates, are we to wave our hands every time insurers come along and say, "Look, the CTP insurance premiums have to go up otherwise we believe there will be an escalation in premiums consequent upon section 79 damages." The best way to test that will be through a sunset clause so that the issues are fully analysed. I do not accept what the Insurance Council of Australia Limited has put to date which is that it will not have any certainty in setting premiums if that two-year period were put in place. After all, any insurer or any person who does his duty is monitoring these issues on a daily basis. That is the reason they come to this place and say, "Hold on, as a result of case X we need to revise our calculations that may warrant an increase in the premiums because the interpretation of that case has not been in accordance with what we contend ought to be the law."

If that is the basis for their calculation and monitoring why do they say they need five years? Why do they say that two years renders their ability to manage the fund incalculable and will lead to the same basis for an increase in premiums as currently exists? I do not accept that. There is no logic and certainly I have seen no evidence upon which that type of assertion can be based. Accordingly, that is the reason I believe that this proposal to include a two-year review in relation to the Act ought to be thoroughly supported by all honourable members.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women) [9.16]: I thank the two honourable members who have contributed to this debate. The Government opposes the amendments.

Amendments negatived.

Clause and schedule agreed to.

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


Debate resumed from 12 October.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [9.18]: For a long time the mechanism for dealing with dormant funds under the Dormant Funds Act has been identified as difficult. It can be quite expensive to comply with the provisions of the Act, and it can result in significant delays. For that reason there has been considerable criticism of the process for dealing with dormant funds. From time to time a number of organisations in this State close down - often in rural communities. An organisation may be established for a particular community purpose. That purpose may be maintained for several years but then there may be a lack of interest in an organisation continuing. When the organisation closes the funds are left in its various bank accounts.

Page 4473

The Dormant Funds Act provides a mechanism for an organisation to seek from the Commissioner of Dormant Funds approval for the reallocation of those moneys to another worthy community organisation, preferably one which has objects similar to those of the organisation which has closed. Sometimes it can be difficult to find such an entity. Therefore, another mechanism needs to be pursued in order to identify another charitable community organisation that would serve other purposes and from which the local community would benefit, but that would not have a dissimilar role to the organisation which closed. The proposed legislation will provide a mechanism whereby organisations with small amounts of funds will need only to advertise locally and the decision will be made effectively and locally. As the amounts increase, different advertising programs will be pursued and different levels of community interest will be attracted. Different advertising regimes have been outlined and the Opposition believes this program will be beneficial to small community organisations. The Opposition supports the bill.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women) [9.20], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Eastwood for his contribution. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 21 November.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [9.22]: The object of the bill is to confer a discretion on the Supreme Court to enable it to modify or adjust as required the operations of the unwritten rule of public policy, known as the forfeiture rule. The forfeiture rule precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit as a result of the death. The rules that exist generate considerable equity within the administration of the justice system. People commit very serious crimes, for example homicide, but often there are extenuating circumstances. This is particularly so in cases associated with the battered wife syndrome.

The bill recognises that while on the face of it a person who strikes out and kills as a result of being a battered wife, for example, would, under the existing law, forfeit any rights to inherit the property of the person killed. Quite often it is someone in a domestic relationship. The bill recognises that there will be occasions when there are extenuating circumstances making the application of that rule very harsh indeed. This would be the case, for example, where the killer has endured a terrible domestic relationship involving considerable physical violence over many years and in respect of which the forfeiture rule is a very harsh additional penalty. The bill is designed to give flexibility in such circumstances and the Opposition believes it deserves the support of the House. The Opposition supports the bill.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women) [9.24], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Eastwood for his contribution. I think everyone recognises that sometimes women are disadvantaged by the forfeiture rule. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 21 November.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [9.25]: I indicate the Opposition's support for the bill. Much of the bill arises out of a report prepared by the Standing Committee on Social Issues following its inquiry into the registration of births, deaths and marriages. That report has been highly acclaimed, as have most reports of that committee, and it indicates how well committees of this Parliament can work. The committee in this instance has been responsible for significant and on occasions ground-breaking legislative reform. The proposed legislation is in that category and the State legislatures intend to adopt the model code on registration of births, deaths and marriages. New South Wales is leading Australia on this issue. The changes uniquely meet the needs of New South Wales and they have the Opposition's support.

Some members of the community have questioned the meaning of changes to access to adoption information as set out in the overview statement to the bill. There is a bill that will be before this House in a few moments which reviews the Adoption Information Act. Questions were raised by people who have other concerns about the issue of adoption and, again, it is significant that these issues have also been raised before the Standing Committee on Social Issues. The Opposition, having had discussions with a number of those groups, believes that their concerns about this bill have been allayed. The legislation will provide a simplified procedure for name changes and will make many other timely changes. The Opposition supports the bill.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women) [9.27], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Eastwood for his support. It is nice to know that some of these bills are getting bipartisan support. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Page 4474

Debate resumed from 23 November.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [9.28]: The Opposition supports the bill. The bill arises out of recommendations made by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission in its report entitled "A Review of the Adoption Information Act 1990". The bill is particularly relevant to me as shadow minister for community services and I am very pleased to be able to support the bill. As honourable members know, the Adoption Information Act arose out of a report of a committee of this Parliament. It was controversial and difficult legislation that had to balance the interests of three different parties in what are very difficult circumstances - birth parents, adoptive parents and children - and take into account the longstanding relationships that had developed in adoption situations, at the same time making provision for birth parents and their natural children somehow to be able to get together should they wish.

It was an extremely difficult policy issue to get around. It was plain that not everybody was going to be happy, and this has turned out to be the case. Between 12 and 18 months after the bill became law in 1990 the former Government set in train a reference to the Law Reform Commission to consider concerns and objections in relation to the new legislation to that time and what might be done to make it better. The commission undertook extensive public consultation and spent a good deal of time looking at the issues. As I said in the House tonight on another bill, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission does outstanding work and is recognised throughout Australia and overseas. This is another example of the work done by the commission. It tackles some very tough issues that are not always at the forefront of consideration by departments of state, which are dealing with policy issues driven by political considerations.

The amendments to the legislation are based on the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. They attempt to deal with some of the problems raised by people having difficulty with the original concept legislation. The commission found significant concern among some adoptive parents, adoptees and birth parents justifying modifications to the Act. Accordingly, the amendments will allow information to be exchanged through an intermediary, which will remove the anxiety that surrounds unwanted or unexpected approaches for information. In addition, the amendments allow for requests for warning of any access, which will delay the release of information for up to three months so as not to compromise the person requesting warning. Most importantly, where access to information could lead to a hostile intrusion into the life of a person, the director-general may, in exceptional circumstances, refuse to supply information.

The exception may not prove the rule but somebody of the nature of Fred West in England might have been given an absolute right to trace children of his who had been adopted out. The State would have had no right to withhold such information. That would be a nonsense. It is a significant public policy consideration requiring the director-general's intervention. To the best of our knowledge such a case has not occurred but one could arise. It is pleasing that the loophole will be plugged. The amendments will ensure that the contact veto register cannot be discontinued without the express consent of the Parliament. As the legislation stands, there is a sunset provision, which was of concern to many people who wanted the matter reconsidered by Parliament before the contact veto register disappeared into the ether. I have been through the bill very carefully and compared it with the review of the Adoption Information Act, not because I think for a minute that Mr Dyer would say anything in the other Chamber which was incorrect, but in this case, with so many people holding strong opinions both ways, it is important to ensure on a third-party basis that the recommendations of the commission are adopted in this legislation.

At page 53 of Law Reform Commission report No. 69, it is recommended that provision should be made for appeal to the Community Welfare Appeals Tribunal against the exercise of all discretionary decisions affecting people's interests and entitlements under the Act, and that the availability of such appeals be appropriately publicised. I could not find that recommendation reproduced in the bill. I rang the Parliamentary Counsel, Mr Dennis Murphy. He drew my attention to a particular clause of the bill and assured me that the recommendation, in effect, is fully replicated in the bill. Therefore I accept that that is so. I also draw comfort from a letter that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of Tuesday, 28 November by Gordon Samuels, QC, Chairman of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. It is unusual for the Chairman of the Law Reform Commission to be writing letters to the newspaper about legislation said to be based on Law Reform Commission reports, but I think this is an indication of the interest that the legislation has generated among people with genuine concerns on all sides of the issue. He verified that the bill incorporates Law Reform Commission recommendations.

I have had discussions with Mr Rod Garrett, who is the President of the Adoption Privacy Protection Group. I am sure he would not object to my saying on the record that the group had fundamental concerns with the original concept of the legislation and those concerns remain - and I respect them. I guess that the Parliament has moved forward and accepts the Act now. From discussions with Mr Garrett I am satisfied that the amending bill is of assistance to his group in that it starts to come to grips with some of the anomalies that were worrying the group in relation to privacy
Page 4475
issues concerning the principal Act. The group maintains its concerns about the Act but believes that the amendments will meet a small proportion of its concerns. So I got some comfort from what Mr Garrett said.

A much wider review is now going on into the whole question of adoption. Mr Samuels said in his letter to the Sydney Morning Herald that the commission is now undertaking a review of the Adoption of Children Act 1965. Mr Garrett and his group will be involved in the process, which is healthy. On the other side of the ledger, I have received correspondence from Lynne Moggach, Chairperson of the New South Wales Committee of Adoptions and Permanent Care Incorporated. That organisation has a slightly different view of the bill but by and large supports it. The Opposition believes that the bill will deal with some of the anomalies and concerns of stakeholders in the primary Act and therefore deserves bipartisan support of the Parliament.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women) [9.39], in reply: Once again I thank the honourable member for Eastwood for his contribution. It is clear to me that he has thought very carefully about the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [9.39]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill was introduced in the other place on 23 November 1995, and the second reading speech appears at pages 62 to 64 of the Hansard galleys for that day. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [9.40]: I am pleased to speak on this bill as the shadow minister. I have a keen interest in this legislation and express my thanks to the Hon. J. F. Ryan for leading for the Opposition and moving a number of amendments to this legislation in the upper House which were agreed to and are now incorporated in the bill. I am sure all honourable members in the upper House would share my great concern about child deaths in New South Wales. It is acknowledged that over the past couple of years, at least 19 deaths have occurred in suspicious circumstances or in circumstances where there has been some domestic violence that has caused the death of those children. What is of far greater concern is that there may be a large number of deaths above and beyond those 19 which, if carefully and properly examined, unfortunately would also have to be included in that tally.

I have heard it said that there may be as many as 80 children who have died over that same period in circumstances where they have been beaten to death by parents, step-parents or close relatives. The bill arises out of a report of the New South Wales Child Protection Council entitled "Preventing Child Homicide". The chair of that council is Dr Ferry Grunseit of the children's hospital. I have known Dr Grunseit all my life. He is a very good friend of my parents, who also worked at the children's hospital. I wish to express the appreciation of all honourable members for all the work that Dr Grunseit and the Child Protection Council have done over many years, and I commend the report entitled "Preventing Child Homicide" to all honourable members. This bill has emerged out of the recommendations on page six of the report.

Indeed, after I read that report I took it to the Opposition party room and obtained permission to introduce a private member's bill. I gave instructions to the Parliamentary Counsel on 16 November but pulled those instructions, so to speak, when the Minister announced a couple of days later that the Government intended to introduce a similar bill, which pleased me. I have spoken to Dr Grunseit a couple of times in connection with this bill and he has raised a number of matters with me. To be fair, perhaps I raised them with him rather than he with me. I have a political perspective on these things where perhaps he does not. He referred me to a report of the Missouri child fatality review project, entitled "Protocol and Procedures". This report was very much based around that project.

Dr Grunseit referred my attention to a couple of matters in relation to that project which the Opposition did not feel were properly replicated in the bill. A number of amendments were moved in Committee in the upper House. First, the team contemplated to be created by the Act and to be given statutory powers under the Act - that is to say, the Child Deaths Review Team - had no upper limit for membership. A number of people are required to be appointed to the committee by their respective Ministers. For example, there will be a representative from the Child Protection Council, the Department of Community Services, the Department of Health, the Police Service, the Department of School Education, the Attorney General's Department and the office of the Coroner. In addition, there are to be experts in child care, paediatrics, law, social work, and psychology. In relation to the deaths of Aboriginal children, two additional Aboriginal people are to be appointed, and such other people as the Minister may appoint from time to time to undertake particular reviews.

That comes to a grand total of about 15. However, there is no upper limit on the number of members to be appointed to the committee. That struck me as rather odd. Without in any way casting any aspersions on Mr Dyer in this respect, I have some concerns regarding the Minister being a
Page 4476
representative. The committee could well make life difficult for the Government - as well it might - because I do not believe a committee like this would be doing its job properly if it did not come up with some tough recommendations and reports from time to time. This will not be pleasant reading for Mr Dyer, me or whoever else might be the Minister at the time. It is important to have an upper limit on committee membership so that it could never be stacked with ministerial appointees. I make no judgment about Mr Dyer, but we are dealing with legislation and we need to get it right.

The first amendment moved in the upper House was that the team was not to consist of more than 20 members at any one time. That allows ample opportunity for everyone mentioned in the bill to be included, plus a couple more, but not for the committee to be stacked. The next related to a rather curious clause at the back of the bill which stated, "The office of a member is not, for the purposes of any Act, an office or place of profit under the Crown." That started a few bells ringing in my head because the people who normally are affected by not being able to take any other offers of profit under the Crown are members of Parliament. I raised that issue with Parliamentary Counsel and in discussions with Dr Grunseit it appeared that that provision was not there at the express request of any person but to allow members of Parliament to be members of the Child Deaths Review Team.

I took a strong view on this. I do not think members of Parliament should be on that team. It is interesting to note that the bill contains an exemption that the Child Deaths Review Team will not be subject to the freedom of information legislation. That is extremely unusual. The key stakeholders and Opposition members had a significant debate on that and decided at the end of the day that this was an appropriate body to have exemption from freedom of information precisely because this information - and I have seen some of it confidentially, including police records - is the most unbelievable, appalling, confidential personal material of the most devastating and distressing nature.

However, it is the sort of material that people such as Dr Grunseit and his team must come to grips with every day. They have to sift through it to work out why deaths were caused, who was responsible in a broad sense, and what systemic changes are needed. The Opposition took the view that this was a situation in which there ought to be exemption. It seems to me, because of the nature of the information, that it is not appropriate for members of Parliament to be on the committee. It should be left to the experts and if members from both sides of the House are excluded from the team there is a much better chance that it will not be politicised.

Also, people with information are more likely to come forward to a body of professionals than to members of Parliament. Most people know where to find their local member and know they can speak to us if necessary. They realise that we can raise matters in the Parliament as an alternative mechanism. It is an excellent initiative to have a team with expertise but does not include members of Parliament. Another amendment dealt with the reporting issue. At the heart of this team's work is its report to Parliament.

Essentially the bill ensures that departments of state, ministers and people holding information - such as coroners and the police - are required to hand all the relevant information to this team. That has not always happened in the past. This bill will help to ensure that that now happens. That information is put together in a report and, ultimately, the team reports to Parliament on an annual basis. The formulation of the bill is much like the formulation of legislation involving the Auditor-General when he does an audit of a Minister or government department. The Auditor-General prepares a draft report, the Minister or the department concerned receives a copy of the draft, and goes through it and suggests alterations. The reports do not have to be accepted by the Auditor-General and quite often - as has been the case with some recent Roads and Traffic Authority reports - a dissenting report is required to be included in the report from the organisation which has been audited.

I was not happy with the measure in the bill that allowed the Minister to comment on the draft report of the committee. I am pleased to see that an amendment has been moved and accepted which makes it quite clear that the team is not bound to amend its report in light of any comment made by the Minister; although before finalising the report it has to consider any comment by the Minister. The amendment provides a tight time frame in which the team is required to report to Parliament, which I believe is important. The reports have to be relevant and timely in relation to the information submitted.

The other amendments which I discussed with Dr Grunseit, which I understand have been accepted, relate to the power of the Minister to appoint and remove members of the team. I am indebted to the staff of the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. We had some discussions and managed to work out a compromise on this aspect. I was concerned that the convenor of the team is to be appointed by the Minister and that the deputy convenor of the team is to be elected by the team. At first it struck me as somewhat anomalous that the convenor of the team was to be a ministerial appointee.

Mr Dyer's staff convinced me that it would be worse to leave it to the team to elect a leader because a senior member of the public service would then end up leading the team. That is the last thing we want. It would happen because of the way the team is made up - plainly the departments have a majority of representatives. The Minister
Page 4477
has undertaken to ensure that when he makes the appointment of convenor of the team it is not one of the departmental representatives but one of the other representatives - one of the experts in child care, paediatrics, social work or psychology. That is a most important thing.

The counterbalance of that arrangement was to make a change in the removal from office. The original proposal was that the Minister may remove a member from office on virtually any ground at any time. I am pleased to see that now the Minister may remove a member from office only for incapacity, incompetence or misbehaviour. That gives the team the necessary independence it needs to be able to do its important work. This bill, although small, is probably one of the most important introduced this session. I am pleased that it has been dealt with in a cooperative way. The Opposition strongly supports the bill as amended. I shall conclude where I began: I congratulate Dr Grunseit and his team and wish them all the best with their difficult work. Let us hope that as a result of what they do the number of suspicious child deaths in this State will decrease and we can act on some of the recommendations they arrive at. I support the bill.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [9.55], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Eastwood for his contribution. As I have said, it is obvious that this issue is dear to his heart. I do not disagree with anything he said. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [9.57]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Bill is to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 in order to create a new reserve category to be known as regional park. The creation of such a reserve category was foreshadowed in the Government's election promises in the greening of Sydney policy document and the Australian Labor Party's nature conservation strategy. The greening of Sydney policy will deliver seven new regional open space parks; seven new national parks and nature reserves in and around Sydney; and an increase in the size of seven existing national parks and nature reserves in and around Sydney. These seven new regional parks include western Sydney regional park, Rouse Hill regional park, J. F. Leacock regional park, William Howe Reserve, Rozelle Hospital grounds, Gladesville Hospital grounds; and Concord Hospital grounds.

In short, It will ensure that the Government can establish a world-class system of regional parks in urban areas providing valuable green space in cities. The creation of regional parks acknowledges the community's concern that urban bushland should be protected. These seven new regional parks will protect nature in the city, help to protect plant and animal species, establish green corridors through which wildlife can safely move, and help regenerate the bush and preserve the city's recreational and educational bushland. This bill creates the new reserve category of a regional park and sets up the operational framework for that. This will enable the seven new regional open space parks to be set up in urban areas. The primary purpose of this reserve category will be the provision of regional open space and recreation opportunities.

The creation of urban regional parks is a substantial new initiative of this Government, which will improve the lifestyle of people living in the greater Sydney area. Regional parks could also be established in other major urban areas, such as Newcastle or Wollongong, in the future. Sydney is fortunate to be ringed by extensive national parks. The Government's greening of Sydney policy adds to this by providing seven regional parks within Sydney. The outer suburbs of Sydney have long borne the brunt of our urban growth. Many families have moved to western Sydney to allow their children to grow up with access to open spaces. However, the spread of our suburbs has taken away much of the bushland open spaces from the outer suburbs. The regional parks initiative will provide recreational opportunities where people live. It will also retain remnant bushland in outer Sydney.
Regional parks will serve as regional catchments, preserving fragments of ecosystems or whole ecological units for communities within urban centres. In line with the Government's commitments, the National Parks and Wildlife Service will be given responsibility for regional parks. A number of urban parks have already been transferred to the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the functions previously held by the urban parks agency in relation to Centennial, Moore and Bicentennial parks have also been transferred to the administration of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Although these parks have been transferred to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, there is currently no legislative basis for reservation of these type of urban parks within the National Parks and Wildlife estate. The bill will rectify this anomaly.

While the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 contains various reserve categories, these existing categories do not appropriately accommodate regional parks. For instance, it would be clearly inappropriate to place regional parks under the existing national park and nature
Page 4478
reserve categories, as the management objectives for these categories are primarily concerned with natural environments and nature conservation. Similarly, the existing State recreation area category would not recognise the uniqueness of regional parks in an urban context, nor cater for their high intensity recreation and open space focus. Accordingly, although recreational opportunities are encouraged in State recreation areas, the provision of high intensity recreational opportunities as proposed for regional parks would be less appropriate.

Given the high intensity recreational and urban focus of the recently proposed regional parks, the authorisation of prospecting or mining activities in these parks would be clearly inappropriate. In this bill it is proposed to prohibit mining activity in regional parks. However, as I have indicated earlier, regional parks may be declared over other areas in the future where the initiative to prohibit prospecting and mining in regional parks might be particularly relevant. It should be noted that the National Parks and Wildlife Service intends to conduct a review of all reserve categories under the National Parks and Wildlife Act to ensure consistency in their operation and application. Western Sydney and Rouse Hill regional parks were transferred to the National Parks and Wildlife Service on 2 October 1995 and negotiations for the transfer of the other proposed regional parks are currently in progress.

The Government's decision to halt more urban development at Horsley Park and commit 1,000 hectares of land earmarked for urban development as an addition to the Western Sydney regional park shows our commitment to improving the urban environment of western Sydney residents. These regional parks will be more than just open space. The Government has already commenced on their development as first-class regional recreational facilities. The Western Sydney regional park will provide residents and visitors with picnic areas, shelters and toilets, children's playgrounds, paths for pedestrians and cyclists, extended tracks for long-distance walkers, horseriding trails, ponds and a mini lake. Road and track work will begin early in the New Year, and re-afforestation and revalidation activities will continue at the pace set by Greening Australia, drawing on the natural regional vegetation, of which nine species of trees and ninety smaller species still grow on the park lands.

Greening Australia has already planted $750,000 worth of trees at the site and a further $250,000 worth of tree planting will be done during the 1995-96 financial year. The Premier released the concept plan for Western Sydney regional park on 10 August this year. This park will comprise the largest area of open space reserved for park lands in Sydney. By the 2000 Olympics, park visitors will be surrounded by a young forest spread over 300 or 400 hectares. In addition to Western Sydney regional park, Rouse Hill regional park in the city's north-west has been established and includes 42 hectares surrounding historic Rouse Hill House on the Windsor Road. I had the pleasure of launching the draft concept plan for stage one of the park earlier this week, along with my ministerial colleague the Minister for Education and Training, who is the local member, and the President of the New South Wales Historic Houses Trust, Mr Jack Mundey.

Stage two of the Rouse Hill regional park development will add a further 110 hectares to the site. However, final design work will not begin until the community has had a chance to respond to the draft concept plan. The draft concept plan is on public exhibition for the next two months so that the community, those who will be using the park, will have an input into the development of this much-needed regional park. When fully established Western Sydney regional park will be up to four times the current size of Centennial Park. The Rouse Hill regional park and adjacent Rouse Hill House, built in 1813, will provide an invaluable scenic and recreational zone for north-western Sydney. Further, the park will ensure that people can enjoy large open spaces of great peace and beauty and not feel hemmed in by houses and industry. Three million dollars has been allocated for capital works this year to Western Sydney and Rouse Hill regional parks. Recurrent funding of $250,000 has been allocated for this financial year. This will increase to $650,000 in the 1996-97 financial year.

A network of regional parks throughout metropolitan Sydney will also prove significant in that people, particularly those living in the western suburbs, will not have to travel long distances to national parks such as Royal, Ku-ring-gai Chase and the Blue Mountains to spend quality recreational time in a natural setting. There are also economic benefits for local communities in terms of employment and contracting out services such as park maintenance, cleaning and garbage collection. The need for these regional parks is evidenced by the growing numbers of people using urban parkland. Visitation to our two well-known urban parks - Centennial and Bicentennial parks - is increasing every year. Visitation at Centennial Park, for example, has increased by 2 per cent to 5 per cent per annum over the past 10 years. At Bicentennial Park in Sydney's west visitation has increased by 8 per cent each year since its creation in 1988.

The Government's regional parks initiative will also improve the recreational lands and opportunities for inner- and middle-ring residents of Sydney. The Government is well aware of the need to provide more open space for the inner- and middle-ring suburbs. As our health priorities change and are modernised, the grounds of several major institutions in the central and inner subregions - Rozelle and Gladesville hospitals and the magnificent Edith Walker estate at Concord - will also become available for incorporation as regional
Page 4479
parks. The bill provides management provisions for regional parks, amending the National Parks and Wildlife Act to provide that the Director-General, National Parks and Wildlife will have care, control and management of regional parks, or enable the establishment of trusts to have these responsibilities, if considered appropriate.

The bill also provides a safeguard for the Director-General, National Parks and Wildlife to have a power to control or direct trusts. The bill provides for members of trusts to be appointed by the Minister. The bill alters the existing provisions relating to management by trusts to provide for management of regional parks and to update these provisions as they relate to state recreation areas. And, as I said earlier, there will be no mining or prospecting in regional parks. The National Parks and Wildlife Act already provides for trust management provisions in relation to state recreation areas. Given that current state recreation area trust management provisions could be applied to regional parks with only minor amendment, the bill proposes that these provisions be reviewed so that uniform trust management provisions apply to both state recreation areas and regional parks. Apart from the administrative advantages in having consistent trust management provisions for both regional parks and state recreation areas under the one Act, the review of existing state recreation area trust management provisions is opportune, given these arrangements have been administratively problematic in the past.

Specific problems have centred on leasing powers and accountability arrangements. The bill will minimise these problems and ensure greater administrative flexibility and security. Schedule 9A of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 currently prescribes the mechanisms for the operation of trusts for state recreation areas. Essentially, the existing state recreation area provisions enable the Minister to appoint trustees or, where there are no trustees, the Minister has the authority to delegate this power to the Director-General, National Parks and Wildlife through an administrative instrument. This bill proposes that schedule 9A be amended so that trusts for both state recreation areas and regional parks will be accountable to the Director-General, National Parks and Wildlife, although the Minister will continue to appoint the trustees. In selecting trustees I will be seeking to ensure Aboriginal representatives are given consideration, particularly where Aboriginal people have ties with the land in question.

To meet the needs of each individual regional park the bill provides for either having management by the Director-General, National Parks and Wildlife or the establishment of a trust if considered appropriate. Where it is considered necessary for uniform practices and procedures to be set in place this is made possible by the director-general's power of control and direction. In addition, the bill contains appropriate transitional provisions providing that the existing contracts, debts and liabilities incurred in relation to the management of the land that is to become or is a regional park will be transferred to the new managers whenever there is a change of management.

This means that they would be transferred to the Director-General of National Parks, if a trust is appointed to that particular trust. The bill will also allow the State recreation areas under the administration of the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to be deemed dedicated lands under the Crown Lands Act. The bill will transfer any existing contracts, debts and liabilities relating to these State recreation areas to the trusts established under the Crown Lands Act. The State recreation areas to remain under the administration of the Department of Land and Water Conservation are the seven inland water storage State recreation areas: Copeton, Lake Keepit, Burrendong, Lake Glenbawn, Wyangala, Grabine and part of Burrinjuck as well as Killalea State recreation area just south of Shellharbour.

These areas have been jointly reviewed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Land and Water Conservation and have been identified as areas of relatively low conservation value. Conservation agreements under the National Parks and Wildlife Act will be prepared to enable extra conservation protection for native plant species of concern at Burrendong and Lake Keepit. A conservation agreement will also be prepared for significant nature conservation value areas within Killalea State recreation area. The National Parks and Wildlife Service will be represented on the Crown reserve trust for Killalea. Arakoon and Bents Basin State recreation areas will be transferred by administrative order to my portfolio for administration by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. This has been done in clear recognition of the significant natural and cultural values identified in both areas.

To conclude, the Government strongly believes the amendments proposed in the bill should be supported by this House. Every day more of Sydney's urban bushland and open space is lost. With the approach of the 2000 Olympics, now more than ever before the challenge for Government is to protect these open spaces and create parks for the enjoyment of local residents and visitors alike. This Government is listening to the people of Sydney. This bill will ensure that regional parks will be managed and safeguarded for future generations to use and enjoy. The network of regional parks will not only rival any similar park system in the world in terms of parks for the people, it will also protect significant tracts of remnant vegetation preserving biodiversity throughout Sydney. The establishment of regional parks in accordance with the bill will meet this challenge. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Longley.

Page 4480

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Clause 5

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.16]: The coalition parties oppose clause 5 and intend to call for a division when the question is put in relation to it. The areas that are the subject of this amendment have been nature reserves for many years. The Cudmirrah nature reserve has had that status since 1976; Pantoney's Crown nature reserve since 1977; Curumbenya nature reserve since 1964; and Gurumbi nature reserve since 1988. The National Parks and Wildlife Act establishes a hierarchy of preservation of areas in this State, and nature reserves are the top of that hierarchy. This bill will revoke the high status for those areas with the preservation of flora and fauna, and will cause them to revert to ordinary status so that eventually they can be contained within a national park. Why would a government move such an amendment? A government doing so is not interested in protecting the environment as these areas are already protected and have a high status in relation to environmental protection. The only reason that this Government is moving this amendment is so that more land will be added to its 24 national parks.

This Government is introducing this bill to fulfil an election promise, but it is fulfilling that promise by fraud. It is devaluing the status of environmentally sensitive land - although it acknowledges that it is environmentally sensitive - simply to obtain more land to create its 24 national parks. This Government is renown for its fraud, deceit and lies, and clause 5 is a classic example of that fraud. These lands currently have the highest level of protection under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, yet the Government seeks to downgrade that status for the electoral purpose of adding them to the national parks system.

The State Government is exposed by clause 5 and schedule 3 of the bill. The bill is opposed not only by John Laws - who talks often about the Minister in endearing terms - and various coalitions for economic advancement, but also by the entire green movement. The Minister was not honest in introducing this legislation: he did not indicate to Parliament that the green organisations, including the Nature Conservation Council and the National Parks Association, are opposed to this amendment, which he presents as an environmental achievement. Such deceit should be caught out - and it has been tonight. The Government will be caught out further when more parts of its so-called green agenda are exposed. The Government's agenda is a fraud. The Government has land of protection level A status, but it will be reduced to protection level B status because it wants to claim to have fulfilled an election promise. The Government is downgrading nature reserves and environmental protection to achieve more land for its national parks system.

No wonder a certain radio program devotes an enormous amount of time to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. This bill is a fraud, and the Minister has been caught out. In that respect he deserves the censures that are so promulgated against him on Radio 2UE from 9.00 a.m. to noon each week day. The bill does not indicate that the lands will be added to national parks; it merely revokes their status as nature reserves. There is no guarantee from the Government that the lands will become national parks. If the Minister were sincere, he would introduce cognate legislation to make sure that once the lands were revoked, they would immediately be added to the national parks system.

The assurances of the Minister, with all due respect to him, are not worth anything at all. The House is entitled to legislative assurance, not the verbal assurance of the Minister. These areas will be revoked as soon as this bill passes and they will cease to be anything at all. The Minister has given an assurance that he intends to pass them over to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The people of New South Wales are entitled to better than that. If the people respected the Government's honesty and integrity, they may well believe the assurances of the Minister. But this Government has already broken 200 promises and has been criticised by the Nature Conservation Council, the National Parks Association, and other environmental groups for perpetuating a green fraud. The amendments will be supported by the crossbenchers in the upper House because they too see this Government's green agenda as fraudulent. The Minister is trying to cook up a green agenda to make the Government look good. All it is doing is degrading the status of four nature reserves to create land for its national parks system.

Clause 5 is fraudulent on three counts: one, the fraud; two, the fact it degrades their status; and three, the fact that there is no indication that they will be added to national parks. The Opposition opposes the amendment and will vote against it here and in the upper House. I suspect that next week we will be sitting to debate a message from the Legislative Council requesting the deletion of clause 5. The Minister has been caught out by me and by the half a million people who listen to the John Laws show. The Minister did not have the guts to go on the John Laws show today; the Premier had to defend him. The Premier mounted a weak defence of this Minister and a weak defence of the Minister for the Environment. He told them that bees would be allowed in national parks; that the policy in relation to the national parks and beekeeping would be changed. When the issue of Kimberley Maxwell Yeadon was addressed on the show John Laws and the Premier agreed to disagree. They were poles apart. One person thought the Minister should be sacked straight away, the other person, whom I will not name, thought he might sack him at a later date.

Page 4481

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Gaudry): Order! The honourable member for Gosford will return immediately to the leave of the clause.

Mr HARTCHER: This clause is fraudulent for the three reasons I have outlined. The Opposition will be voting against it and this clause will not survive. The Minister knows it will not survive because he has been caught out.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [10.23]: The Government is fulfilling its election promise of creating 24 new national parks and persists with these amendments.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

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

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

Mr Aquilina Mr Collins
Mr Carr Mr Cruickshank
Mr Clough Mr Fahey
Mr Harrison Mr Photios
Mr Shedden Mr Souris

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [10.35]: I move:

That the report be now adopted.

The House divided.

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

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

Page 4482

Mr Aquilina Mr Collins
Mr Carr Mr Cruickshank
Mr Clough Mr Fahey
Mr Harrison Mr Photios
Mr Shedden Mr Souris

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted, and bill passed through remaining stages.


Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [10.46]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In 1865, John Gould introduced his study of the birds of Australia with the following words:

I wish to remind the reader that many of the passages detailing the occurrence of certain species have reference to my visit to the country [in the late 1830s]. It may be possible - and, indeed it is most likely - that . . . The noble bustard no longer stalks over the flats of the upper hunter, nor the emus feed and breed on the Liverpool plains as they did at that time. And if this be so, surely the Australians should at once bestir themselves to render protection to these and many other native birds: otherwise, very many of them, like the fine parrot of Norfolk Island, will soon become extinct.

History has shown that John Gould's concerns were well founded. Australia has the worst record of mammal extinction rates in the world and almost a quarter of the nation's 22,000 plant species are now classed as threatened. The situation in New South Wales is equally dismal: 130 years after Gould's warning we have not bestirred and we still do not have comprehensive threatened species legislation. It is past time to set things right. There are 234 species of fauna currently listed as under threat in this State. Some are found nowhere else in the world; others occur elsewhere in Australia - and usually are confronted with threats similar to those operating in New South Wales. Most contend with a host of threats, including habitat loss and fragmentation; habitat degradation; and the introduction of exotic species.

The conservation status of New South Wales' amazing and often unique plants is also alarming. When the national list of rare or threatened Australian plants - ROTAP - was last revised in 1988, there were 537 plants on the New South Wales list. Now, only seven years later, there are 770 plants listed by ROTAP as under threat in New South Wales. Quite apart from extinction, many species are reduced to small populations in extremely restricted areas. The brush-tailed rock wallaby, for example, was once abundant throughout the mountainous country of eastern New South Wales. However, it is now rare in much of its former range, and seems to have disappeared completely from much of New South Wales. This phenomenon is the first step on the road to eventual extinction and this type of evidence confirms that extinction is not a thing of the past. It is obvious that the system for protecting this State's threatened plants and animals has shortcomings.

The current legislation - the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 as amended by the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991 - is restricted to endangered fauna and there is no effective protection for threatened plants, invertebrates or ecological communities. There is no systematic process for the protection of critical habitat for threatened species. Since the destruction or fragmentation of habitat is the main cause of species extinction and biodiversity loss, it is absolutely vital to conserve habitat and to properly consider the protection of what is known to be essential for species survival. The existing legislation also fails to recognise the importance of recovery planning and the control of threatening processes.

In other words, it does not seek to confront the problem and actively manage for species recovery and mitigation of the activities which are the engines of extinction. Having said that, I must also categorically state that without the Australian Labor Party's Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act, things would be significantly worse. This interim legislation was only ever intended to be a stop-gap measure until sensible and comprehensive legislation was introduced. Unfortunately for this State's plants and animals, the previous Government's masterful inactivity turned that gap into a yawning chasm.

The coalition Government introduced a bill in 1993, the Endangered and Other Threatened Species Conservation Bill, with the stated intention of promoting the recovery of endangered species of flora and fauna and balancing the competing demands for land use and biodiversity conservation. The bill would have completely abandoned the licensing system introduced by the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act. It was to be replaced by amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to provide that the effects of activities or developments on threatened species were taken into account in some nebulous way in the planning process. In addition, the coalition bill would have effectively done away with offences for the disturbance of habitat outside of critical habitat.

The bill was the subject of protracted consultation, and it is clear that the coalition had no real commitment to its own legislation. This is not surprising given that in any coalition government the most critically endangered species is a Liberal environment Minister. So, once again, the coalition
Page 4483
fiddled, like Nero, while Rome burned. As honourable members are aware, the honourable member for Manly, Dr Macdonald, introduced his own Threatened Species Conservation Bill in October 1995. The Government acknowledges Dr Macdonald's longstanding commitment to threatened species conservation, but cannot support a bill which dissipates the conservation effort across countless low-risk issues at the expense of focusing on critical concerns for biodiversity conservation. As I have mentioned on other occasions, Dr Macdonald's bill fails to integrate species conservation into the planning system and relies, instead, on a totally separate licensing system that is divorced from the environmental assessment and development control process with which we are all familiar.

Furthermore, Dr Macdonald's bill ignores the undeniable fact that social and economic consequences must be taken into account in the decision-making process. His bill is inefficient, ineffective and unrealistic. The fact that the honourable member for Manly is well-meaning does not overcome these fatal flaws. This Government has been relentless in its commitment to comprehensive and workable threatened species legislation and consistent in its desire to consult extensively in the development of such legislation. In September last the Government sought to extend the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991 until May next year. That proposal was made in order to allow an adequate period for public consultation in finalising new and comprehensive legislation to protect threatened species.

The Parliament, however, decided on that occasion to agree to an extension of the interim Act to the end of 1995 only. In the meantime intensive effort has gone into the development of new legislation and a detailed scheme was delineated. Inevitably, however, there has not been time available for full consultation with industry or with conservation interests. We knew that this would be the case. Having given a preliminary briefing on the new scheme to key stakeholders in recent days, it was obvious that both conservation and industry interests had concerns. Again we sought to prolong the operation of the interim legislation to maximise the scope for finding consensus. Obviously the Opposition has no interest in furthering community involvement since it has not been prepared to cooperate in the extension of the interim laws.

In these circumstances the Government has undertaken additional finetuning of the legislative scheme giving better recognition - where possible - to the concerns that had been raised with us. The bill now before the House reflects that process. The Government would have preferred a more cautious and inclusive process. We understand that, at the end of the day, saving species is far too important and far too difficult a task to be confronted by Government alone. Cooperative endeavour with the community is the way of the future. The dangers of this mad rush foisted on us by the uncaring and the irresponsible are self-evident. The coalition is being extremely hypocritical - they want this Government to pass legislation in a few short days when they refused to do it in seven years.

What then does the bill propose? It is important to emphasise what is actually meant by the term "threatened species." Under the Act, the term is used in a general sense and is taken to include two categories of risk: first, endangered species, namely, a species that is likely to become extinct in nature unless the factors threatening its survival or development cease; second, vulnerable species, a species that is likely to move into the endangered category in the near future if the causal factors continue to operate. A third category - presumed extinct - is also recognised. As well, if a presumed extinct species is rediscovered or a species new to science identified, that species will automatically and provisionally be deemed endangered. Recognising the shortcomings of the legislative alternatives, the Government has developed comprehensive legislation which affords proper protection for threatened species, uses the planning system when it is most appropriate to do so, but retains separate licensing where actions are likely to have a significant impact on threatened species or occur in declared critical habitat, but do not require approval under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The Government's bill represents a major step forward in regulatory reform. It will streamline existing procedures, allowing us to concentrate on areas which need urgent attention, such as recovery planning to ensure the long-term survival of species at risk. The bill also clearly recognises and responds to the hierarchy of risks. It does not treat vulnerable species, or indeed, even potentially vulnerable species, with the same level of scrutiny, concern or resources as endangered. This would be tantamount to a surgeon ignoring a severed artery in order to trim a patient's fingernails. It is also true to say that New South Wales is leading the way in integrating threatened species conservation so fully into the planning system. We have also confronted the difficult issue of trading off conservation benefits against social and economic consequences, and can give an assurance that adverse impact on economic activity will be minimised whilst giving effect to sensible conservation outcomes.

The legislation will cover all native plants and animals, including invertebrates and non-vascular plants and ecological communities which are eligible to be classified as threatened. It will not cover fish or marine plants, however, the Government is committed to amending the Fisheries Management Act 1994 in the near future to incorporate the relevant principles of the threatened species legislation. The inclusion of ecological communities is an important feature of the legislation. An ecological community is defined in the bill as an assemblage of species occupying a particular area. Traditionally, attention has been focused on
Page 4484
individual species, and then principally on vertebrates, large, furred and cute, and flowering plants.

For the many ugly and unloved animals and plants, conservation of ecological communities is often an effective approach to their protection. In this regard, at least, we have progressed from Gould's world of 1865. Threatened species, endangered ecological communities, endangered populations and key threatening processes will be identified and regularly reviewed by a 10-member scientific committee comprising representatives from New South Wales tertiary institutions, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Ecological Society of Australia, the Entomological Society of Australia, the Australian Museum, the Royal Botanic Gardens, a suitably qualified agricultural scientist and three government scientists.

The Minister will receive the committee's final determinations on listing and, subject to any review considered necessary by the Minister, will proceed to make formal listings. Essentially, the legislation will then provide for: first, the declaration and protection of critical habitat - critical habitat is defined as the area or areas known to be essential for the survival of endangered species, communities or populations; and second, the preparation of recovery plans. Recovery plans will outline the actions necessary for the recovery of individual species, communities and populations to a position of viability in the wild. This is a critical element of any effective threatened species legislation, particularly one like this scheme, built around outcomes other than a fetish for regulation at all cost. These plans will enable a very cost-effective and cooperative approach to rescuing species from extinction. The third one relates to the preparation of threat abatement plans to control key threatening processes.

Plans will address processes affecting more than one listed species-community or operating at a statewide or bioregional level, to be known as key threatening processes. This will be an effective and efficient means of managing a process, such as predation by the introduced European fox, which has had and is having a significant and wide-ranging impact on small mammals. The fourth relates to licensing of actions which do not require consent or approval under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act but are likely to have a significant impact on threatened species or occur in declared critical habitat.

Licence applications will be assessed by the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife. Before a licence can be issued, a species impact statement may need to be prepared in accordance with National Parks and Wildlife Service guidelines and any special requirements stipulated by the director-general. There will be a capacity for the director-general to vary the obligations to prepare an SIS or the contents of an SIS for activities such as routine or ancillary farm practices whose impact is negligible, within declared critical habitat. Applications for licences must be decided upon within 120 days of receiving an application of sufficient standard. If a decision is not made within this time period, or within such period as mutually agreed, the application will be deemed to have been approved.

The bill also provides an obligation to obtain the concurrence of the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service for actions requiring consent or approval under parts IV or V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that will have a significant impact on endangered species, ecological communities or populations, or critical habitat. However, where a matter is determined by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning or another Minister, concurrence will be replaced by mandatory consultation with the Minister for the Environment before a decision is made by the relevant Minister. This provides a mechanism for the resolution of conflicting public interest requirements in the most appropriate way, but ensures that endangered species interests are fully considered. As an additional safeguard there will be a requirement that where the determining Minister does not adopt any recommendations made by the director-general through the consultation process with the Minister for the Environment the reasons for this must be made public.

The bill also provides for the imposition of severe penalties for offences. There is a maximum penalty for damaging critical habitat for endangered animals and endangered plants of $200,000 or two years imprisonment or both. The penalty for harming vulnerable species of animals or picking vulnerable plants is $50,000 or imprisonment for one year or both. The penalty for damaging habitat other than critical habitat is $100,000. Beginning with the central concept of habitat protection, I would point out that the bill prohibits the destruction or adverse modification of any area that has been declared as critical habitat, without an informed decision based on the impact of that action. Critical habitat will be declared at the discretion of the Minister for the Environment with the advice of the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The declaration process will provide for public involvement and the Minister must also have regard to its social and economic consequences.

To maximise certainty for development proponents, it will be possible to identify the existence of declared critical habitat early in the planning process, ideally during the preparation of local environmental studies or plans or regional environmental plans. Provision will also be made for the identification of activities which may be permitted in declared critical habitat areas. In most cases, the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service will have a concurrence role for actions in declared areas of critical habitat. It is important to note, however, that critical habitat means just that. It is not all habitat. Where an area
Page 4485
is in fact critical to the survival of an endangered species, development proposals with adverse impact already encounter considerable hurdles for approval. A process to formally recognise that such an area is critical habitat is therefore in everyone's interests.

The legislation also requires the Minister for the Environment to consult other Ministers when declarations of critical habitat are being considered. As with other aspects of the legislative package, consultation is considered to be absolutely fundamental. As far as existing rights and interests are concerned, the Minister for the Environment will be required to consider the likely impact on landholders' existing uses in declaring land to be critical habitat. The Minister for the Environment may refuse to declare critical habitat on the basis of its social and economic consequences or the consequences on persons having an interest in or lawful uses of the land. The option of negotiating conservation agreements as provided for in the National Parks and Wildlife Act will be pursued in appropriate circumstances.

The Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service will be responsible for preparing recovery plans for all endangered species. Ideally, plans will also be prepared for all vulnerable species. However, the resource implications of this are significant and it means that the director-general must have the discretion to make a decision on plan preparation for vulnerable species. There may also be situations where plans will be required for certain vulnerable species before work on all endangered species has been completed. In some cases, for example, a plan may sensibly and economically deal with a coherent group of species, some endangered and some vulnerable. It would be absurd to have to exclude the vulnerable species from a composite plan. Plans will usually provide information on species status, habitat requirements, principal threats, recovery objectives, recovery criteria and actions needed. Priority will normally be given to preparation of plans for species which are endangered nationally.

The relevant agencies will be consulted in the development of plans and approval of the Minister for each affected agency must be obtained before any action relating to their administration is included in a recovery plan. The bill states explicitly that the director-general must take socioeconomic factors into account in the recovery planning process, as does the Minister in deciding whether to approve a draft plan. Threatening processes are defined in the bill as those processes which have or may have the capability to threaten the survival or evolutionary development of any plant or animal species or ecological community. Key threatening processes will be listed by the scientific committee, but subject to ministerial review, and may be the subject of threat abatement plans, prepared on a priority basis by the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Examples of key threatening processes may include habitat loss, fragmentation, competition, predation and habitat degradation by feral animals. Like recovery plans, threat abatement plans will consider socioeconomic consequences at both the draft and approval stages. The plans will not be strictly binding on authorities but every effort must be taken to implement measures in an approved threat abatement plan. The Minister for the Environment must be informed of any decision by an agency which is inconsistent with the requirements of a plan, and any disputes will be settled by the relevant Ministers or, if necessary, by the Premier. Recovery plans and threat abatement plans must be taken into account by consent or determining authorities and by the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service when deciding whether or not to issue a licence or to grant concurrence to an action which is likely to have a significant impact on threatened species.

As mentioned earlier, the legislation minimises the need for separate licensing and integrates the conservation of threatened species into the development control processes of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In areas of declared critical habitat, an action requiring development consent under part IV of the Act or activity approval under part V will require a species impact statement. If the statement indicates that endangered species are involved, the following factors apply: first, where a matter is determined by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning or another Minister, it will be necessary to consult the Minister for the Environment before a decision is made. Where the director-general's advice is not accepted, the reasons must be provided. Otherwise, all actions impacting on declared critical habitat or on endangered species, communities or populations needing consent or approval under parts IV or V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will require the concurrence of the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Actions which require development consent or approval and are likely to have a significant impact on endangered species but do not occur within critical habitat will also need a species impact statement and will trigger the consultation or concurrence provisions I have just mentioned. However, concurrence provisions will not apply where a significant impact only affects vulnerable species. In those cases, consent or determining authorities will be required only to consult with the director-general. Actions which do not require consent or approval under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, but are likely to have a significant impact on threatened species - as listed in the legislation at the time - will require the issue of a licence by the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to protect the applicants from prosecution for harming threatened species or their habitat.

Page 4486

Except under the circumstances I described earlier, a licence cannot be issued unless a species impact statement has been prepared in accordance with published standards or guidelines and any special requirements of the director-general. The likelihood of significant impact on threatened species will be determined using a test which is prescribed in the bill. This formulation will ensure a high degree of predictability and rigour in determining the critical concept of significant impact. The legislation will enable the director-general to enter into voluntary conservation agreements and joint management arguments with public authorities to protect threatened species and communities. There will also be provision for the imposition of stop work orders and the making of interim protection orders to provide immediate protection in emergencies. These measures may not be imposed where the activity being carried out is one authorised by an EPA consent or approval or by a licence under the National Parks and Wildlife Act or State Emergency and Rescue Management Act. The maximum penalties for damage to declared critical habitat or for harming endangered animals or picking endangered plants without consent or approval or a licence will be $200,000 or two years imprisonment or both.

This is much tougher than the present system, where penalties are limited to taking or killing endangered fauna, $100,000 or two years imprisonment or both, or vulnerable and rare fauna, $20,000 or one year's imprisonment or both. In addition to the more serious offence of damaging declared critical habitat there will be a separate offence of damaging habitat of threatened species, in acknowledgment of the fact that habitat loss and fragmentation is a crucial factor in the extinction of species. The option of negotiating conservation agreements as provided for in the National Parks and Wildlife Act will be pursued in appropriate circumstances.

The bill continues the third party appeal rights, which are already provided in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the National Parks and Wildlife Act. However, Olympics development and associated infrastructure will be exempt from third party rights claims as a matter of necessity. I also advise the House that the Government is committed to financial support for this initiative at a level appropriate to ensure its smooth administration and effective implementation. In the very limited time available to the Government to deal with this matter, I give an assurance that I and my colleagues will undertake further consultation with key interest groups. We will also continue to support the conservation agreement scheme as well as other relevant management assistance schemes throughout rural New South Wales to ensure that this Government meets its responsibilities as a responsible partner in these endeavours with the community.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service and other relevant government agencies will produce clear guidelines and offer whatever assistance possible in the implementation of the legislation. This legislation will be subject to a two-year review. Furthermore, the outcome of the review is to be tabled in each House of Parliament. So, more than two centuries after Europeans began to make their indelible mark on this unique country, let us begin a process of recovery and restoration. We do so in proper acknowledgment of the benefits brought to this State by our pioneers and with no desire to apportion blame for what has come to pass. Rather, this Government seeks only a commitment from across the community to pass on to future generations an environment and its natural heritage, at least as rich as that left to us. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Longley.


Suspension of certain standing orders agreed to.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [11.13]: I believe that my motion about ambulance critical incident debriefing and peer support briefing is of urgent nature and worthy of debate at this hour.

Mr BLACKMORE (Maitland) [11.13]: My notice for urgent consideration this evening is urgent because it relates to the severe damage inflicted on the Hunter region by storms on 29 and 30 November and calls on the Government to provide immediate and adequate natural disaster funding to relieve the distress of the many families who have suffered losses. The honourable member for Waratah, who has now left the Chair, this week made a private member's statement about storm damage to his area, particularly in Beresfield, and would be only too well aware that this is a matter of urgency. It is now more than a week since the storms hit, and more than 450 claims for assistance have been received by the State Emergency Service - an indication of the urgency of this matter. The insurance bill has exceeded $10 million and the areas of Beresfield, Thornton, Ashtonfield and Green Hills have been worst hit. At least 50 people have been left homeless.

I do not wish to bring politics into this debate, but I have given the Government every opportunity this week to announce the provision of natural disaster funding. The honourable member for Waratah made a private member's statement appealing for natural disaster funding from the Government. There is $75 million in the Treasurer's Advance for matters such as this. To deny debate on my motion would be to deny relief to those who are waiting for the Government to give assistance. I ask both sides of the House to put aside politics and examine the urgency of this matter. This is an urgent case - people are calling out and are waiting for urgent financial assistance.
Page 4487
If my motion is not debated I want Government members to tell the Roll, Trappell, Stertton, Tonan, Archer, French, Gordon, and Finlay families and the parishioners of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church at Beresfield that tonight the House considered that another motion for urgency had higher priority than the natural disaster that they and others in the Hunter region have suffered. I am pleased that the honourable member for Wallsend is in the Chamber because I am sure he also would want to support the people of the Hunter. I appeal to the House this evening to give urgency to this motion.

Question - That the notice for urgent consideration of Dr Refshauge be proceeded with - put.

The House divided.

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

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

Mr Aquilina Mr Collins
Mr Carr Mr Cruickshank
Mr Clough Mr Fahey
Mr Harrison Mr Photios
Mr Shedden Mr Souris

Question so resolved in the affirmative.


Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [11.25]: I move:

That this House supports the Government's expansion of peer support for Ambulance Officers who undergo traumatic experiences in the course of serving the people of New South Wales.

The emergency workload of the Ambulance Service of New South Wales is rising. In 1994-95, officers attended over 108,000 trauma cases across the State, which was an increase of almost 4,000 cases on the number attended in the previous year. In total, the service's 2,000 uniformed staff transported over 600,000 people last financial year. In the course of their daily duties ambulance officers are often exposed to distressing incidents; for example, sudden infant death syndrome, suicide, carnage on the road and the aftermath of industrial accidents. These incidents both individually and collectively can take their toll. Officers are called to major incidents such as the Newcastle earthquake and the Strathfield shootings, which involve multiple deaths or mass casualties. In the Newcastle earthquake 12 people died and 39 people were injured, and seven people were killed in the Strathfield shootings. People across New South Wales were shocked and horrified.

Other major incidents include the Milperra bikie shoot-out, the Grafton bus crash, the Kempsey bus crash, the Brooklyn train smash and the multiple murders on the central coast in 1994. Ambulance officers played a major role in the devastating bushfires of January 1994, which left three people dead and hundreds requiring medical treatment. During the fires, officers coordinated the evacuation and the subsequent medical care of approximately 3,000 nursing home patients. Recently in Sydney, several crews attended the victims of the grenade explosion at St Marys, some of whom suffered serious shrapnel injuries of the kind rarely seen outside war zones. Also, this year an ambulance officer accompanied police to the fatal shooting of two police officers at Crescent Head. Without knowing the whereabouts of the gunman, the ambulance officer potentially put his life at risk to examine the shooting victims. This officer has now been nominated for an award for his bravery. At the Milperra incident, ambulance officers moved into the line of fire to attend patients.

Page 4488

The Government has decided that the trauma counselling and peer support for ambulance officers needed to be improved. The incidents to which ambulance officers are called can produce characteristic sets of psychological and physiological reactions. The common stress responses are cognitive with a loss of confidence, impaired decision making, short-term memory problems and emotional responses with panic, guilt, depression and anger. Also, it can lead to behavioural problems with restlessness, short temper, social withdrawal and increased use of alcohol and drugs. These incidents and reactions certainly need to be taken seriously.

The ambulance service has long had special programs in place to educate ambulance officers on stress and to support them to mitigate the effects of stress arising from attendance at traumatic incidents. In 1985 the staff counselling program was introduced, followed by stress awareness and management programs. In 1988 the management of the service decided to develop and implement a program of critical incident stress debriefing, from which officers who attended such incidents could recognise that they were experiencing normal reactions to abnormal situations. The critical incident debriefing program was put to the test shortly after the program was introduced with three major incidents occurring in 1989; namely the Newcastle earthquake and the Grafton and Kempsey bus crashes. The latter bus crash occurred only three days before Christmas.

As well as trained psychologists, the ambulance service critical incident debriefing program makes extensive use of peer support officers. The service was the first emergency organisation in Australia to utilise the concept of peer support. Initially, 12 officers across the State were selected and trained as peer support officers, and selection was based on their operational experience, communication skills, and standing with, and acceptance by, their peers. Currently, the service has 28 peer support officers and we intend to increase the number from 28 to 40 peer support officers. These officers are often involved in one-on-one or small group defusing; that is, briefing discussions soon after distressing incidents where a peer support officer is called in to reduce the tension to allow the ambulance officer involved to gain focus and control.

They are also available to assist the families of ambulance officers to understand the reaction of officers to traumatic incidents. The gradual progression to one-to-one sessions which has occurred in the Ambulance Service of New South Wales mirrors trends overseas and the success of those programs. In August this year the Minister awarded the meritorious medal to one of the key people in the establishment of the critical incident debriefing - CID - program, Superintendent Ron Skuce. The Police Service and the New South Wales Fire Brigades have their own peer support programs.

In 1990 the ambulance service conducted an evaluation of debriefings held after the Grafton and Kempsey bus crashes. In all, 14 officers from seven different stations were interviewed. All officers found CID beneficial in sharing emotions and learning that others were experiencing similar, if not identical emotions; assuring them that the management cared about their wellbeing; and, learning more about the effects of stress and stress management. These sentiments were echoed by officers involved in the CID after the Brooklyn train crash. As one probationary officer put it, "I just wanted to know that I was normal." It is significant also that the Ambulance Service has not lost any officers through resignation or invalidity following attendance at major incidents. This compares with the resignation rate over the ensuing year of close to 10 per cent of the United States of America emergency workers who attended the horrific jet crash in 1978 when no CID was available.

Some of the cost savings of the program can be clearly identified. For example, training costs, which were estimated at $120,000 per officer. The costs in terms of the peace of mind of the officers being counselled is not so easily measured, but obviously of enormous importance. Complementing the CID and peer support programs to the services, are 17 chaplains who give their time on a voluntary basis and are on call 24 hours a day to provide support and counselling to ambulance officers. In Sydney Father Denis Madigan has become a respected part of the Ambulance Service family over the past five years. He has made a point of finding out what the life of the road officer is like and regularly goes out on full shifts with crews to different parts of the city. He sees his role in counselling officers after traumatic incidents as helping to confirm that they have done all they could and making sure that they understand that there is always someone with whom they can share their feelings. Father Madigan may also be called by officers on the job who feel uncomfortable with a particular case with which they are dealing, for example, the loss of a baby through the sudden infant death syndrome.

His concern is for officers as people and not simply as men and women in uniform. The Ambulance Service recognises the assistance to on-road officers through the critical incident debriefing and peer support programs as an investment in their health and wellbeing. The employee assistance program, the umbrella program for these initiatives, is currently being reviewed and will be extended and upgraded in the New Year. The service is committed to boosting the number of peer support officers from the current 28 to 40 and to ensuring that female officers are included in this group. Understanding that peer debriefing officers can suffer burnout in their role, the service will also ensure that officers suffering from burnout, or likely to, are able to stand down.

Expressions of interest have been called from professionally accredited organisations to continue the CID stress debriefing services, as well as the
Page 4489
training and coordination of peer support officers. The extended employee assistance program is expected to be running by March 1996. Under the arrangements for the upgraded program, the successful provider will report on a quarterly basis to service managers on the issues which officers have raised in peer support sessions. Special additional programs can then be put into place as necessary to address frequently occurring issues of concern. The provider will also be developing, implementing and maintaining a staff education program on stress recognition and reduction. The support for the Ambulance Service I am sure is bipartisan. A service for men and women who put themselves at risk every day to look after the community is one that I am sure is supported throughout the community. I ask the House to support this motion.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [11.33]: The Minister is quite correct in saying that the Opposition has enormous support for ambulance officers and for officers serving in all emergency services in this State. It goes without saying that support must be provided to people we rely upon so heavily in times of stress and emergency. It is imperative that all of these people have access to peer support and trauma counselling. We all know the kinds of difficult circumstances that they find themselves in on a regular basis. From my discussions with people in the Ambulance Service and other emergency services, I know of the enormous work that they do and the stress that they find themselves in. Sometimes that is not greatly appreciated by the general public. It is interesting to note the Minister's comments about the intention to increase peer support for ambulance officers. I would like to think that the Minister could address the issues that have been raised by the ambulance officers in the Hunter.

I refer to a question I asked during an estimates committee about funding to ensure that there were improvements to the recruitment of ambulance officers in the Hunter, because of the need to employ additional officers at Cardiff, Beresford, Toronto, Doyalson and Raymond Terrace. Enormous stress is placed on those officers when there is a shortage of manpower. In addition to the support they require for stress suffered from attending traumatic emergencies, they also need support on an ongoing basis through adequate staffing numbers. This applies to ambulance officers and to officers who fall within the shadow portfolio of the honourable member for Wakehurst, who I foreshadow will be moving an amendment to this motion so that it encompasses people serving in other services. The former coalition Government had a proud record with ambulance services in this State.

Mr Mills: Ask the officers of Toronto and Cardiff.

Mrs SKINNER: I did. Does the honourable member mean the ones who have been threatening industrial action? They still have not called off that threat, despite what the Minister has said. Yes, I have spoken to them. Of course, constantly there has been an upgrading in terms of finances for the Ambulance Service to assist in recruitment and to extend the number of ambulance officers on operational rosters. It is important to note that there have been a number of new ambulance stations located throughout the State, particularly in areas of great population growth such as the greater west, south Sydney, north Sydney and the central coast. The introduction of enterprise agreements for ambulance officers was an incentive that I hope will continue. It created work practices that enabled the service to extend staffing arrangements that suited individual officers.

The introduction of part-time work options is an important initiative that I hope the Government continues. While I support the notion of an ever-increasing range of support for ambulance officers and others, in relation to peer support and counselling trauma support, it is important that it is put in the context of general support for officers in the ambulance and other services. None of us can underestimate or thank too much the people who have been involved in recent tragedies such as the explosion at St Marys, the shooting at Crescent Head and motor accidents throughout the State. Many of them have occurred in my own area along Military Road and Spit Road. My colleague the honourable member for Wakehurst would know they are among the busiest roads in the State. Sadly they are to be neglected by the Carr Government which has indicated that any money which might have been allocated to upgrading those roads and preventing accidents will now go to the west.

Mr Cochran: That is a shame.

Mrs SKINNER: It is a matter of great shame and one which my constituents and those on the entire northern peninsula view with great distress and anger. None more than the ambulance, police, SES and other emergency officers who have to work in that area. I assure honourable members that I have a close working relationship with those officers. I have had that good relationship for a number of years, long before I was elected, through my community involvement. Last Sunday I was in company with a number of them in a social setting. I am always very happy to assist those people in whatever way I can. I support initiatives that will provide them with the kind of support they deserve. Whenever officers have tragedies to contend with, they experience trauma. Often they get very little thanks, unless it has been a very noticeable and public accident, such as those honourable members have seen reported on the front pages of the newspapers. Often the smaller accidents go unnoticed. The officers attend those accidents on a very regular basis and they do not get a lot of thanks. Last Sunday my daughter was talking to officers from the Mosman State Emergency Service about joining the service. She was asked how she would feel about getting up at 4 o'clock in the morning on a regular basis. Her answer was no, but that is just what these people do on a regular basis.

Page 4490

Ambulance officers are also asked to work very long hours, often at the expense of the comfort of their families and their personal relationships. I believe that there must often be great stress for the families when those officers take home with them the disasters that they have had to contend with during the day and need to be comforted back to normalcy. I have been married to someone who worked in an area where very often trauma was involved. It is difficult for families, the wives and children. The honourable member for Wakehurst will move an amendment to this motion which will extend the legislation so that it is not restricted to ambulance officers. It is important that this legislation encompass all people who experience trauma in the course of providing us with services during emergencies and crises. It is important that peer support officers should be in place in other services as well as in the ambulance service. I believe that the Minister will take this message on board and convey it to his colleague who is responsible for emergency services. I commend the amendment that my colleague will move - [Time expired.]

Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [11.43]: I am pleased to support the urgency motion moved by the Deputy Premier. The Carr Government supports the ambulance officers of New South Wales, by improving working conditions especially those related to occupational health and safety. In the short time available to me I will briefly mention two points that arose out of the contribution from the Deputy Premier. The first relates to one-officer ambulance services and the dangers associated with them. Seven years of Liberal Government saw the growth of one-officer ambulances. The honourable member for North Shore saved me the trouble of listing the five one-officer ambulance stations. They used to have a full complement of officers until the coalition came to office in 1988.

To their credit the Government and the workers involved in the ambulance services in the Hunter, are negotiating the occupational health and safety issues and the industrial issues that need to be sorted out. Recently a bad batch of heroin was circulating in the Hunter and four people died from overdoses. Ambulance officers are usually first on the scene at such tragedies. In one case an officer from a one-officer ambulance station was first on the scene of an overdose and the officer was threatened by friends of the deceased who were looking for drugs. That danger is ever present when there are one-officer ambulance stations. The Australian Labor Party was proud to say that when it attained office it would work towards getting rid of those one-officer ambulances, for occupational health and safety reasons. The Hunter has proved to be the crunch place. That is where the process has started and the Government is working its way towards satisfying the undertaking it gave.

The Deputy Premier outlined the key issues related to critical incident debriefing, but I think it is important to comment on the strength that New South Wales developed in the period of the Wran and Unsworth governments and continued when conservative governments were in office. The problem is not merely restricted to the ambulance service. I am very familiar with what happens in the mining industry when underground accidents occur. Once again, the process of debriefing has proved to be of enormous benefit to the workers affected by those incidents, and to their families. In that regard there is certainly a bipartisan approach. Looking to the future, the Government proposes that the employee assistance program be reviewed and extended.

There will be a boosting of the number of peer support officers from 28 to approximately 40, and that will include women officers. Finally, expressions of interest will be called for the stress debriefing service, and for training, coordination and peer support officers. It is expected that the extended employee assistance program will be up and running by March next year. It is important that this House acknowledge the changed emphasis of the CID program from the group session down to the one-to-one level and that progress will continue to be supported by the Government to give greater and improved benefits to individuals who are affected by stress, particularly in the ambulance service.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.48]: I am a bit disappointed that the honourable member for Wallsend could not speak for a full five minutes. That does not surprise me, because the Deputy Premier had great difficulty, also. The honourable member for Wallsend is a better person than his contribution might suggest. By his preparedness to support this motion he has, unfortunately, brought himself down to the level of the Deputy Premier. This member from the heart of the Hunter region did not vote to debate the motion of the honourable member for Maitland which referred to people who were traumatised after the recent storms and who are in need of precisely this form of counselling, peer support counselling.

Mr Hunter: On a point of order: I believe the remarks of the honourable member for Wakehurst are moving away from the topic before the Chair. He is now talking about storms in the Maitland area, which have nothing to do with the motion before the Chair. We are talking about trauma suffered by ambulance drivers encountering problems in their everyday careers.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst referred to matters that were the subject of another motion about which notice was given for urgent consideration. Accordingly, I direct him to confine his remarks to the motion before the Chair.

Mr HAZZARD: I thank the honourable member for Lake Macquarie for his vivid interest in the debate. He is concerned to ask that I speak to the motion before the Chair but was not concerned enough to support other members from the Hunter region, who wanted to talk about an issue of particular relevance to that region. I move:

Page 4491

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after House with a view to inserting instead "supports an expansion of peer support for emergency services personnel including ambulance officers who undergo traumatic experiences in the course of serving the people of New South Wales."

The coalition is not just playing games about people who suffer trauma. The coalition is not interested in just one small group. The coalition calls for support for everybody who suffers from trauma as a result of helping people in need and people who have been injured. People who assist people in trauma deserve peer support. The programs were initiated by the coalition when in government. The honourable member for Wallsend knows that under the coalition Government moves were afoot to expand the peer support concept. I remind him of the occasion when, as a member of the Staysafe committee, he and others visited a morgue. People who have suffered trauma are put into an environment similar to that of the Labor caucus, but an environment with a little more sentiment.

Many people, as well as officers of the Ambulance Service, have a need in this regard. The coalition supports expansion of the peer support service and other programs - the critical incidents programs and so on - that will address the trauma problems that confront emergency workers. To have such support focused on just ambulance officers is ridiculous. The coalition wants a recognition of people involved in the volunteer movement - not just the paid movement, but also the 70,000 volunteers in the 2,500 bushfire brigades and the more than 200 State Emergency Service units across the State, the thousands of volunteer SES workers, the many volunteer rescue association organisations, including the bushwalkers and the coast guard. I also include police officers. Those people should have access to greatly expanded -

Mr Price: They already have it.

Mr HAZZARD: Labor members will not expand it further. They do not care about these people. The coalition is saying that these services should be expanded to recognise the input of all these people. Those opposite are half asleep most of the time. Government members from the Hunter region should be ashamed to support this half-baked motion from the Deputy Premier, who has been asleep for most of the debate anyway. [Time expired.]

Mr PRICE (Waratah) [11.53]: Trauma can be the result of a number of things. I support the motion of the Deputy Premier. As a member from the Hunter region I can certainly attest to the comments in his speech about the Newcastle earthquake, which caused the death of 12 people and horrific injuries to people when the Newcastle Workers Club was broken in half and subsided into its own garage. They were traumatic events. The Ambulance Service was ferrying people to the hospital. The whole of the park and beachfront at Newcastle looked like a field hospital from the Crimean War. Obviously people suffer trauma when such events occur. Peer support officers are vital. The Government's initiative in increasing their numbers is to be commended. I refer particularly to the work of the chaplaincies. Having been involved in one of the chaplaincies in the Hunter as chairman for some years, I appreciate the work done by them and I acknowledge the comments made -

Mr Hazzard: On a point of order: it would appear now that the honourable member is supporting the amendment. Could it be clarified whether he is speaking to the amendment or the motion?

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

Mr PRICE: I stated that I supported the Minister's comments. I am debating the motion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled that there is no point of order.

Mr PRICE: Other forms of trauma are involved in the present industrial dispute which the Minister has been closely involved in trying to resolve in the best possible way in the shortest possible time, having regard to the fact that officers undergo a training period before they are sent out into the field. For a brief period some shifts at the Beresfield ambulance station were stood down to support other stations. The problems associated with that have been resolved by and large in the short term. The Minister is waiting for further reports so that a better solution can be obtained for the Hunter and the other regions of the State. Having worked with people in chaplaincies over a number of years I appreciate the work they do. It is voluntary - no payment is received from the Ambulance Service. We should not overlook this unpaid spiritual work. The new peer support officers proposed have been trained. They are males and females who have worked for a long time within the service. Their skills are acknowledged and their additional training equips them for this type of support work. I can only support the Minister's comments. I look forward to the expansion and continuation of the quality work provided by the peer support groups. I commend the Minister for his efforts on behalf of the Ambulance Service of New South Wales.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [11.57], in reply: I thank the honourable member for North Shore, the honourable member for Wallsend and the honourable member for Waratah for their contributions and for their recognition of the Ambulance Service. The role it has been playing is well understood by members on both sides of the House. We need to provide support for ambulance officers to cope with the trauma of what they see in their daily work lives. I hasten to point out that this is not a new program that is being expanded; it has been going for some time. To be fair, the
Page 4492
honourable member for North Shore can be proud that her Government was part of this program. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Wakehurst would have been accepted had it been moved by the honourable member for North Shore, because she has a real commitment to the service. Unfortunately, the honourable member for Wakehurst in his remarks this evening trivialised the issue to such an extent that I think it would be an unfair portrayal of our ambulance officers to use his argument for changing the motion. I am very disappointed at the lack of respect that he has shown for ambulance officers in this debate.

Mr Hazzard: On a point of order: the Deputy Premier was asleep during most of my contribution so for him to be -

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member for Wakehurst continues to trivialise this most important issue. All other members appreciate the work that has been done by ambulance officers, the trauma they suffer and the need to support them in their time of stress. If we do not look after our ambulance officers, they will not be able to look after us. The honourable member for North Shore highlighted the issues but the honourable member for Wakehurst has trivialised them in a way that I find offensive.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: I think the ambulance officers themselves would find his remarks offensive. Not only ambulance officers face trauma in the front line, as the honourable member for North Shore pointed out in a most appropriate way. The hypocrisy and the vile and demeaning attitude of the honourable member for Wakehurst in trivialising this important issue does him no credit. It would behove other members of the Opposition to explain to him that the matters he wishes to raise would more appropriately be dealt with by reference to other forms of the House.

I too should like to pay tribute to the work done by the clergy who work with the ambulance officers. The honourable member for Waratah made mention of this work. Many find this work interesting, but those who undertake it are required to give so much of their time. They certainly make a tremendous difference to the way in which ambulance staff operate. I praise also the work of station officer Graham Field, particularly for his work in the Sydney division. He has been a major role model and leader of the peer support team. The Government will assume that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wakehurst is a policy commitment and will cost it for a policy announcement for the forthcoming election. The Government would have supported the amendment if it had been moved in the manner indicated by the honourable member for North Shore. The Government will not denigrate and trivialise our ambulance officers by supporting the amendments of the honourable member for Wakehurst. It is highly unlikely that any amendment he moves would ever be supported by me.

Motion agreed to.


Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [12.03 a.m.]: I ask the House to note as a matter of public importance the promotion of women in public life and the representation of women in decision-making positions. One of the most commonly expressed concerns of women in Australia is the lack of representation of women in decision-making positions in both the public and the private sector. These views are shared by women across the world, as reflected in the platform of action endorsed by the United Nations World Conference on Women held in Beijing during September this year. The honourable member for Cabramatta, Ms Reba Meagher, was selected by Dr Carmen Lawrence to be a member of the Australian Government's delegation to the conference, a great privilege for both Reba and New South Wales.

The platform of action aims to accelerate the implementation of the Nairobi forward-looking strategies for the advancement of women and the removal of all obstacles to women's active participation in all spheres of public and private life through a full and equal share in economic, social, cultural and political decision making. It was argued by delegates that a transformed partnership based on equality between women and men is a condition for people-centred sustainable development. In effect, this will mean establishing the principle of shared power and responsibility between women and men at home, in the workplace and in the wider national and international communities. If we are to achieve shared power between men and women, this will require a fundamental shift in the way in which we currently operate, to say the least.

So in a sense, the Beijing conference platform of action is putting men on notice that women will not continue to accept second-class citizen status in terms of positions of power and influence. During the conference women debated the notion that equality between women and men is a matter of human rights and a condition for social justice. It is also a necessary and fundamental prerequisite for equality, development and peace. I have no difficulty in subscribing to that notion and would hope that it is also acceptable to all honourable members in this House.

The Beijing conference was different to previous world conferences in that it focused on progressing the global situation through a strategic
Page 4493
focus on an individual country's domestic priorities and commitments. The advantage is that it has allowed individual governments to select commitments based on their own social, economic and political position, and which address high-priority issues or needs within their country. At the Beijing conference, Austria was prepared to introduce legislation in their own country that insisted that men do 50 per cent of the housework. Nobody knows how 50 per cent of the housework is measured, but it is certainly clear that some countries in the world are more advanced than Australia in getting equality in homes.

One of the key areas of the platform of action to which the Australian Government has committed itself, and on which I want to focus as a matter of public importance, is women in public life and decision making to promote opportunities for women to participate in this sphere. Linked to this is another area to which Australia is committed, namely, women and families; to assist women further in balancing work and family responsibilities. Women who are in the paid and unpaid work force understand the juggling involved in getting the family ready in the morning, and doing a whole range of things pertaining to child care and housework, while men leisurely go off to work without shouldering any of the responsibilities.

The greatest decision most men make when they arrive at the railway station is whether to buy the Daily Telegraph Mirror or the Sydney Morning Herald. Women have to do a whole range of things before they arrive at work. The New South Wales Government will be working closely with the Federal Government to meet these commitments. In fact, we have already begun to promote opportunities for women to participate in public life and decision making. The Government is committed to the increased participation of women in decision-making roles in both the private and public sectors. When Labor came to office in March, after seven years of coalition Government, the proportion of women on boards at that time stood at 28 per cent. Women comprise 52 per cent of the population yet only 28 per cent are on boards. Clearly women should be represented on boards at least to the level of 50 per cent, however, this is not the case because the former Government did nothing about it. The Government has set itself a target to ensure that women will progressively fill 50 per cent of board posts.

To assist with meeting this goal the New South Wales Women's Register has recently been overhauled and the application form revised to make it more user friendly. This has been a very active advertising campaign run by the Public Employment Office, targeting women interested in appointments to government boards and committees. The women's register was in existence when I chaired the Women's Advisory Council in 1985. I have watched the honourable member for Port Macquarie take credit for things she never did. The register is jointly managed by the PEO and the Department for Women. The PEO is being very proactive in the matter of increasing the number of females in employment, by rigorously reviewing board nominations prior to submission to Cabinet.

I am the first to acknowledge that there is much work to be done in order to expand women's access to decision making positions, but if real work is to be achieved then we have to have more proportional representation of women on peak boards and committees to achieve a balance which at the moment does not exist in many cases. The honourable member for Lane Cove should be very quiet because she was dumped by her misogynist friends. In the New South Wales Senior Executive Service, Chief Executive Service women make up only 15.5 per cent. Approximately 67 per cent of women in senior positions are at levels one and two. Men are at the other levels. The Government is currently reviewing the women's executive strategy as a means of increasing the proportion of women in the SES.

The other evening I was very pleased to host a dinner for the nine CEO women we now have. We have come a long way since there was only one in 1989. Gabrielle Kibble was the first one. She was in the Department of Planning in 1989. Today there are nine. My own Department of Fair Trading has a woman as an acting CEO. In addition the following influential positions are held by women: the Ombudsman, Irene Moss; the new Health Complaints Commissioner, Merrilyn Walton; and the General Manager of the Home Care Service, Marianne Hammerton. Silence?

On Tuesday evening to mark the drawing to a close of the centenary of women's participation in New South Wales public sector, we made a collation of the women. There are even more women coming through. The number of women holding top positions in their respective agencies currently stands at a record for New South Wales but needs to be put into perspective, that is 12 out of 86 and it is not good enough. As the Opposition said, it has six, we have been here seven months and we have doubled it.

Mrs Chikarovski: Get the figures right, at least get the figures right, you have either 12 or nine, work out how many you have got.

Mrs LO PO': We have others as well. My own party has supported the introduction of an affirmative action strategy to ensure women are candidates for 35 per cent of the winnable seats. In 1991 the Opposition had four Liberal women, in 1995 it has got four Liberal women and I doubt very much whether you will have more than that in 1999. I note however that the strategy has been attacked at varying times by members of the Liberal and National parties.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Lane Cove wishes to contribute to the debate, she should seek the call at the appropriate time.

Page 4494

Mrs LO PO': I would like to turn to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am very pleased he is here. He talked about Liberals becoming dinosaurs unless they get women into Parliament. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been - [Time expired.]

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove) [12.13 a.m.]: We have just witnessed a most extraordinary performance. I had a look at the clippings file and the only reference in the women's section to the Premier are two headlines and both of them started with the same words, "Sexist Premier". The first one was from the netballers and the second one was in relation to the way he treats people in this House. This Minister now stands up in this House and claims that the Labor Party has an agenda for women. Let us see how well that agenda turns out. First of all, what was the very first thing the Premier did when he became the Premier? He reduced the number of women in Cabinet. He reduced the Cabinet from four to three and that was a perfect example of how committed he is to women in that he actually reduced the number of women in Cabinet.

What was the second thing the Premier did in relation to those women? He looked at who he was going to make the Minister for the Status of Women or the Minister for Women as she is now called. Who did he give that position to? He gave it to the Minister for Consumer Affairs. Where is the Minister for Consumer Affairs in the pecking order in the Cabinet? Is she number two? Is she number three? She is number 19, second last.

Mrs Lo Po': Where were you?

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: By the time I left there I was number three because the Premier at the time was absolutely and totally committed to an agenda for women. What is the next thing this Minister does? Let us see how committed this Minister is. The first thing the Minister did was to look at the budget and she asked, "Okay, what can we do for women? Let us reduce the funding available for special projects, let us reduce the funding available to grants so what we are going to do is actually make sure we spend less on those projects." Those projects would do what the Minister claims to want to do and that is provide the decision-making policies. The Government reduced the money available to the grants program and in that program the Government fiddled the figures. The Government said it had $1 million available for the grants program but in the budget it forgot to say - fortunately it came out at the estimates committees - that it rolled over the money that had been allocated but not spent from last year. So there is not $1 million to spend this year because that money has already been allocated.

The Minister was not aware of that when she attended the estimates committee. She had to refer to her head of department who told her that that is what had happened. That is how much interest this Minister has in women. What else has the Minister done? The Minister is really concerned about women and making sure that they are independent and capable of being involved in decision making. But what does she do? The Minister cuts out the programs that actually help women such as the mentoring program and the springboard program. Those are programs which are about giving women economic independence. If we are going to give women a say, we have got to give them the ability to have that say. The only way that can be done is to make women economically independent. The very first thing this Minister does is abolish programs which actually help women and programs which give women a position of influence and a position in which they can actually make a difference.

The programs the Opposition administered the Minister has no concern for because, and I quote her, she "regards those as a middle class women's agenda". They were programs which were designed to assist women to become economically independent and to give women the ability to actually make decisions for themselves. This is a difficult concept for the Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women, who does not think that women should be able to think. It is clearly the case tonight because she has had to read her speech and when she stops referring to her speech she gets confused. That very unusual Liberal concept that the Minister keeps referring to is supported by those well-known Liberal supporters, Eva Cox, Wendy McCarthy and Kathy Harris of the affirmative action movement! Kathy Harris refers to the sorts of programs we introduced as programs addressing the sticky floor syndrome.

Mr Hazzard: You explain that to us.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: Women are encouraged by programs which give them an opportunity to actually get into leadership positions because when women are in leadership decision-making positions within either the bureaucracy or the private sector, what do they do? They influence change for women at the bottom and that is how we are going to get change. We are not going to get change by having artificial quotas. We will get change by getting women who understand the issues and women who are prepared to address and talk about those issues to other people. Together, collectively with their male colleagues, they can actually make change. The Minister for Women referred to the Beijing conference. I am delighted to have an opportunity to talk about that conference. One of the things that the Australians were crowing about at that conference was that they were credited with developing the platform for action; it was their concept.

Ms Meagher: That is not right. It took five years to develop.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: I will tell the honourable member for Cabramatta how that platform for action developed. I sat with Mrs Mongella in New York two years ago.

Page 4495

[Interruption]

Is the honourable member for Cabramatta trivialising Mrs Mongella? Does she believe that Mrs Mongella has the same level of concern about women as she does? I am insulted that Mrs Mongella, who is regarded worldwide as an advocate for women, is being trivialised by the honourable member for Cabramatta. I remind honourable members that Mrs Mongella was excited about the platform for action because she and I had discussed that plan two years ago. In fact, I presented her with the New South Wales Working for Women document. We showed her how we had developed a plan that talked about an aim, an action and an achievement. To say the least, she was impressed. She was so impressed that as I left her office she walked out to her staff and said, "This is how we are going to go in Beijing". I am delighted to say that not only was the New South Wales Government influencing the women of New South Wales, it was influencing the women of the world. We were delighted to have that sort of impact at an international level.

The previous coalition Government established the Ministry for Women. It increased the budget of that ministry by 65 per cent in 1993-94 and a further 44 per cent in 1994-95. The coalition Government increased the percentage of women in the senior executive service from 8 per cent to over 14 per cent. The coalition Government increased the number of women heads of government from one to seven. The coalition Government increased the number of women on boards. The coalition Government, for the first time ever in this country, had a whole of government plan which was committed to working for women. The coalition used this blueprint, which has been adopted by States around the country and is the model that the Federal Office of the Status of Women looked at. The coalition actually does something for women. The Labor Party talks about it, but does not do anything.

When one looks at the record of the Labor Party in this regard, one can see what it has done. The final hypocrisy is this Minister talking about her commitment to women and her need to provide leadership to women. She is the woman who hounded a female bureaucrat out of the public service. She hounded Jane Bridge - attacked her in a personal manner and in a way in which she could not defend herself. The Minister and her colleagues hounded Jane Bridge so much that one Labor member, the Hon. Judith Walker, had the courage and decency to stand up to the Minister. She came to me and apologised for what the Labor Party had done to Jane Bridge. [Time expired.]

Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta) [12.23 a.m.]: I am pleased to hear that the honourable member for Lane Cove has done so much for the women of the world. I do not think she has done very much for the women of New South Wales. It is pretty disappointing when the Liberal Party has a government with a Minister for the Status of Women who also has carriage of the most draconian piece of industrial legislation in the country. It was under that legislation that women in New South Wales suffered. They suffered because they were forced into enterprise bargaining arrangements where they had no power; they were forced into systems where support networks could not access them. In my electorate sweatshops which exploited migrant women flourished while the honourable member for Lane Cove was the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women.

The hypocrisy of those on the other side of the House is daunting. I was amused when I saw the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Domain lamenting the lack of women in the Liberal Party, lamenting the fact that young women are not interested in joining the Liberal Party. Why? Because the leading woman of the Liberal Party, when she was elected to the position of Minister for the Status of Women, came into this place and put out a press release. She told the women of New South Wales that if they want to have a go at the cut and thrust of politics, if they want to be a part of the system, they should make sure they get a good hair-do and wear the right coloured lipstick. That sentiment was condemned widely by the women's movement and by the media.

If you are a young women and you are about implementing change, you have passion, and you have vision, you have a choice: you can join the Labor Party or you can do six months at the June Dally-Watkins school of deportment. That is the choice the Liberal Party offers young people. Look at how many women are on the coalition side of the House. Look at the talent that is available in that party. I refer to Marise Payne and Catherine Cusack. They are constantly overlooked. Why? Because the depth of the understanding of the coalition parties with respect to the status of women is that they cannot have quotas and have to operate on merit. That is the tenor of the debate. There is no acknowledgment whatsoever of the structural barriers to participation for women. The coalition does not understand the inherent structural barriers to participation.

The honourable member for Lane Cove does not think that women are disadvantaged by the inequitable distribution of labour within households. She does not think women are disadvantaged by an unfair distribution of the economy. She does not think women are being disadvantaged by the kinds of industrial relations system that she had carriage of when she was in power. Her hypocrisy is just laughable. The honourable member for Lane Cove comes into this House, swans around and tells us what a great system she administered when she was Minister for the Status of Women. The record speaks for itself, and the vote speaks for itself.

Only recently the honourable member for Lane Cove was at a New South Wales school captains day. She explained to the kids present the Liberal Party's position on the status of women. They
Page 4496
seemed fairly disillusioned. As the honourable member is a political tactician, she put it to the vote. Out of 150 kids, four thought that the Liberal Party was on track with the status of women. It was just laughable. It does not matter how young they are, they know the coalition has nothing to offer. The National Party has no women contesting seats in the upcoming Federal election, and the Liberal Party is bereft of understanding and support for young women. Obviously merit is important, because we cannot understand the debate beyond that. There is a mentor system in the pipeline. We look forward to the initiatives of the coalition to increase the participation of women in politics. I am proud to be part of a party that takes women seriously and is prepared to put together a Parliament that reflects the general community. That cannot be said about the coalition.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women) [12.29 a.m.], in reply: I am glad the honourable member for Lane Cove referred to Jane Bridge. The honourable member and Jane Bridge were in cahoots with one of the greatest rorts that ever was put on by women in this State. They had long lunches where the big end of town -

Mr Hazzard: On a point of order: the matter of public importance is women in decision-making positions. Mr Deputy-Speaker, you would be aware of the forms and standing orders of the House that require a member to desist from making a substantive attack on a member of this place unless by way of substantive motion. The Minister has embarked upon a substantive attack on the honourable member for Lane Cove. I ask that the Minister be brought back to comply with the forms and standing orders of the House.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is referring to comments made earlier. The Minister may proceed.

Mrs LO PO': The Department of the Ministry for the Advancement of Women, or whatever it was called, had some great rorts. When I became Minister for Women I inherited a budget overrun of $500,000 that I had to sort out with Treasury. Long lunches were part of that budget overrun. Staff morale was so low that half were ready to walk out; they were ready to pull the pin because they could not cope with the management style. They said that part of the management style was the Minister presiding over the whole shemozzle. The shemozzle that the honourable member for Lane Cove presided over was a disgrace to women in this State. The honourable member was never a Minister for women; she was a Minister for long lunches and shop until you drop. The honourable member for Lane Cove had no interest in women.

Let me refer now to the female members of the Liberal Party. Where are the women in the Liberal Party? Since 1988 there have been four female members of the Liberal Party. Where is the Liberal Party's plan of action? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition tells members opposite they should get off their backsides and get more women into Parliament. However, he organised the numbers against the honourable member for Lane Cove. The honourable member is so dumb she did not even realise what he was doing! She does not know who her friends are. Decision making in New South Wales for women is an important issue. By the time this Government is finished cleaning up, 50 per cent of the boards of directors in this State will have female members, which is something that the Liberal Party was never interested in.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Georges River had better not talk. If she does not tell any of this about me, I will not tell the truth about her.

Mrs Chikarovski: On a point of order: it is entirely inappropriate in this House for a Minister to attack a member in the manner just directed towards the honourable member for Georges River, implying that the member should be concerned about an allegation against her. It is an outrageous abuse of the forms of the House.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will return to the leave of the debate.

Mrs LO PO': Members opposite should hold a press conference to tell everyone how sexist I am. The honourable member for Lane Cove is more sexist than I am.

Mr Debnam: On a point of order: the Minister is pathetic. The Minister is flouting the ruling. The Minister's statements have no substance.

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

Mrs LO PO': Decision making in New South Wales for women is an important issue and should have been important for the honourable member for Lane Cove. The honourable member stumbled and threw down the ball. This Government has picked it up and will get on with appointing women to those boards of directors.

Mr Hazzard: On a point of order -

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has concluded her speech. There can be no point of order.

Mr Hazzard: I was on my feet, Mr Deputy-Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member was not on his feet when the Minister resumed her seat. Nothing is before the Chair on which a point of order can be taken. The Minister had concluded her speech.

Discussion concluded.

Page 4497

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council with amendment:

Courts Legislation Further Amendment Bill

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [12.35 a.m.]: I move:

That the Minister for Gaming and Racing no longer possesses the confidence of this House for:

(a) his maladministration of a number of key areas within his portfolio responsibilities;

(b) his refusal to meet with and act on the information of honest whistle blowers in the harness and greyhound racing industries;

(c) his inaction in light of serious allegations within the harness and greyhound racing industries;

(d) the threat that his maladministration is posing on an important revenue source for the economy of New South Wales.

The Minister has been a billion dollar disaster. He has fumbled every issue pertaining to his portfolio, be it horseracing, harness racing, greyhound racing, the Sydney Casino or the State's liquor laws. Never before has a Minister botched a portfolio so comprehensively, so quickly and with such dramatic consequences. The Minister for Gaming and Racing has created uncertainty in the horseracing industry with his equivocation on the Temby report. He has shut his mind to problems in the greyhound industry. He has tried to sweep under the carpet serious allegations of race fixing and maladministration in the harness racing industry. He has virtually signed up the taxpayers of this State for a tax break for the Sydney Harbour Casino when it has only just opened its doors. The Minister is pressing ahead with legislation that, alarmingly, makes bartenders liable for patrons who drink, drive and injure. It is no wonder that this Minister has alienated almost every interest group in every industry he oversees.

When the Minister was confronted with the Opposition's concerns about the management of his portfolio, he pleaded in this House "I just ask for a bit of breathing space". The gaming and racing industries do not have time for this Minister to catch his breath. Only one thing is left for him to do: he must resign. If he does not resign, the Premier must sack him. The responsibilities of the Minister for Gaming and Racing include horseracing, harness racing, greyhound racing, the Sydney Harbour Casino and the New South Wales Liquor Act. The revenues that he administers are worth more than $1.2 billion to the State budget. That represents roughly 10 per cent of the total revenue generated by the Government. The three codes of racing alone are worth more than $300 million a year to the budget.

Last year, according to the Totalizator Agency Board annual report, the Government derived $263 million from TAB turnover. This did not include taxes on other aspects of the industry or the contribution to racing infrastructure through the Racecourse Development Fund and Racing Assistance Fund. That $263 million turnover equals roughly the value of a new teaching hospital, 25 new high schools, 5,000 new teachers or 6,000 new nurses. The TAB pays for those types of facilities and services each year. In the past seven years the racing industry, through the TAB alone, has contributed about $1.5 billion to the budget, which is the equivalent of selling the State Bank of New South Wales and the GIO. The industry also generates $3.5 billion of economic activity each year, while the three racing codes employ about 50,000 people. Clearly, gaming and racing have a significant and growing financial importance to this State.

I shall deal briefly with the Minister's handling of the gaming side of the portfolio before turning to the more serious concerns about his mismanagement of racing. The two key areas of gaming in which the Minister has failed relate to the Sydney Harbour Casino and the Liquor Act. To most people casinos are a licence to print money. The Sydney Harbour Casino, however, is seeking a tax break. The coalition argues that the tax break should not be given. The casino operators knew the terms of the contract they were entering into and they agreed to those terms. It is too late to try to renegotiate that contract. Furthermore, it is too early in the life of Sydney Harbour Casino to be talking of slugging the taxpayers for tax concessions. The Minister has failed to hold his ground in the interests of New South Wales taxpayers. Indeed, the first time the casino put its hand out for a tax break, the Minister said that the request would get a sympathetic hearing. There was no mention of what was in it for the New South Wales taxpayer. The Minister's response was simply: if you want it, you have got it.

Equally alarming are the Minister's proposed amendments to the Liquor Act and Registered Clubs Act. The Minister is proposing some of the most draconian amendments to those Acts in their history. In particular, he is talking about making hoteliers liable for patrons who drink and drive and injure someone or damage property. In short, the Minister for Gaming and Racing believes that people who drink and drive should not take responsibility for their actions. As the Australian Hotels Association says, that is lunatic legislation. More disturbing, the association warns, it could close every club and hotel in New South Wales. Despite claims of wide consultation on these changes, the Minister gave major groups such as the Australian Hotels Association and the Registered Clubs Association just 24 hours to view and comment on the 39 amendments proposed to those Acts. However, it is the racing industry in which the Minister has exercised the most serious
Page 4498
maladministration. The three codes of racing in this State are being poorly served by their current Minister. In harness racing in particular the Minister's mismanagement is causing a deep crisis. To use the Minister's own words in this Parliament:

The racing industry is a vital element of the economic structure of New South Wales. It provides substantial revenue through betting taxation and is a large employer. Public confidence is pivotal to the continued prosperity of the racing industry.

The coalition could not agree more. Because of the Minister's negligence and his maladministration, there has been no Minister more responsible for destroying the public's confidence in the racing industry than the current Minister for Gaming and Racing. The thousands of punters who attend racetracks around the State each week, be it for greyhound racing, gallops or the trots, expect to put their money down in the knowledge that a fair race will be run. In two of those codes those expectations are not being met. Instead, the Minister has delivered confusion, despair and open revolt. Bookmakers are walking away from trotting tracks and punters are staying home. Honest reformers are being driven interstate and are living in fear of their lives.

Stories of scandal and corruption are rife at our trotting and greyhound tracks. Drivers, owners, trainers, punters and officials are being accused of corruption and collusion, and the public's confidence in these two industries is at an all-time low. At every turn the Minister has sought to sweep those allegations under the carpet. It was the coalition that had to inform the Minister yesterday of the latest incidence of a greyhound returning a positive test for cocaine. The Minister has refused to see the honest whistleblowers who are trying to do something about the industries they love and serve. He has poured scorn on them in this Parliament - he has even threatened to prosecute them. Even in the face of a damning indictment such as the Roderick report into the harness racing industry, the Minister has failed to act. Instead of calling an independent inquiry into allegations, he referred the censored report to the very industry the report was damning.

The coalition says that enough is enough. It is time that the information against this Minister, about his failure to act against serious allegations in the racing industry, was brought into the public arena. It will then become readily apparent, if it is not already apparent, that the Minister is not up to the job that he was given. It will become apparent that the Premier, having failed to address the lack of action by the Minister for Gaming and Racing, has been equally lax in his duty to the people of New South Wales. The coalition has sworn statements and statutory declarations that show that the Minister has ignored serious wrongdoing in the harness racing industry.

Those declarations relate to the alleged swapping of swabs by the Chief Steward of the Harness Racing Authority; the alleged fixing of barrier draws by the Chief Steward of the Harness Racing Authority; the alleged forgery of a judge's signature by Harness Racing Authority staff; the alleged conveying of information to certain trainers and drivers of pre-race swabbing procedures by staff of the HRA; the alleged failure of the chief steward to act on information conveyed by a former board member about people allegedly warranting investigation; the alleged failure of the chief steward to conduct a post-race swab of a winning horse because the trainer-driver was providing evidence to the Independent Commission Against Corruption at the time; the alleged failure of the chief steward to take action against a driver who pleaded guilty to taking another horse and driver out of a race; the alleged witnessing of the chief steward marking or indicating in a leading punter's race book which horses will and will not win a race; attempts within the Minister's office to block access of whistleblowers to the Minister.

The Minister has failed to act on all of those allegations. As a result of such failure, the Opposition has learnt, a second senior bookmaker, Mr John Christensen, was on the verge of walking away from the track and joining Mr John Kennedy in voting against the Minister with his feet. There can be no stronger evidence of a crisis in the industry, and no stronger reason for the House to express no confidence in the Minister, than two of the leading bookmakers in the industry, two of its most vital cogs, shutting their bags in protest. The Minister has also failed to act on serious allegations of irregularities within the greyhound industry. Yet, on the first suggestion of wrongdoing in the horseracing industry, not necessarily on matters that could be corroborated, he moved in with all the finesse of a bull in a china shop.

The coalition has taken the grave step of moving this motion today because coalition members do not think that the people of New South Wales can endure the maladministration of the racing and gaming portfolio by the current Minister for any longer. This Minister must go. The evidence against him is too strong. The Premier, having ignored the evidence for so long, must finally be spurred into action. If the Premier fails to act, he must stand condemned for the damage the Minister has brought to the gaming and racing portfolio in general and the racing industry of New South Wales in particular. I stress: at this point the coalition is in no way alleging impropriety, conflict of interest or corruption - at the moment.

Mr Thompson: No!

Mr COLLINS: Would Government members like me to do so?

Mr Thompson: Yes. Put it on the table.

Mr COLLINS: If the honourable member for Rockdale has evidence on or allegations of corruption against the Minister then he should speak in the debate, and stop interjecting now. He should put his allegations against the Minister on the record later on. For a member of the Labor Party -

Page 4499

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! I call honourable members to order. I ask that the Leader of the Opposition direct his remarks through the Chair.

Mr COLLINS: I was only responding to interjections in passing. I have deliberately refrained from responding until this point, but if those interjections continue I might be spurred to respond. There the honourable member for Rockdale goes again; flouting your ruling, I would have thought. As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the honourable member for Rockdale, who claims that he is able to make corruption allegations, the Premier, having ignored this evidence for so long, must be spurred into action. If he fails to act he will stand condemned for the damage that this Minister has brought about. From our point of view we are not alleging impropriety and we are not alleging conflict of interest or corruption on the part of the Minister for Gaming and Racing. But we are alleging gross negligence and maladministration on the part of the Minister. We are intrigued about some of the activities of senior members of the Carr administration. The Opposition is in possession of a document sent to it anonymously which appears to indicate that the Minister for Police has a significant interest in a number of racehorses.

Mr Thompson: Table it.

Mr COLLINS: The honourable member for Rockdale, who has been quiet for some time, is now asking me to table this document. I seek leave to table a document headed Hamlyn Lodge Proprietary Limited, dated 6 June 1994, and signed by a gentleman by the name of John. The letter is addressed to Dear Paul - being Mr Paul Whelan.

Mr Thompson: So what!

Mr COLLINS: The honourable member for Rockdale says, "So what!" I am glad that he asked me that; the Dorothy Dixers are wonderful at this hour. The Opposition hopes that the Minister for Police will speak in this debate. Given the sensitivity of his portfolio and the personal interest he has taken in the portfolio of the Minister for Gaming and Racing, we hope he will indicate to this House whether or not he, his family or his companies have an ownership or part-ownership in thoroughbreds. If that is the case we also hope that he will explain why that has not been declared in his pecuniary interest disclosure. I am sure the Minister for Police will have an opportunity to speak later in this debate. I seek leave to table the document to which I referred earlier.

Leave not granted.

The Minister for Gaming and Racing has refused me permission to table this document. I will be delighted to read the whole document onto the record. It states:
All Correspondence to "Chicquita Lodge"
P.O. Box 324, Smithfield Road,
Ascot Vale, Vic, 3032 Flemington, Vic., 3031

Facsimile Message
Attn: Mr Paul Whelan -

That is a familiar name. He is also known in this place - although it is not shown on this document which I have been refused permission to table - as the Minister for Police in the New South Wales Government.

Mr Hartcher: And Leader of the House.

Mr COLLINS: And Leader of the House. The letter, which is signed by John Meagher and is dated 6 June 1994 starts, "Dear Paul". We know that "Dear Paul" is the same Paul Whelan, the same Minister for Police, the same Leader of the House for the Carr Government. The document continues:

Just a note to keep in touch regarding the progress of our three horses. I inspected the Sir Tristram colt at Stuart Bathiss's stable at Randwick last week. The horse has thrived during his time out in the paddock and has coped beautifully with his breaking in. He has furnished into a outstanding type and I believe that after this initial breaking in period we should spell him for 8-10 weeks and then assess his progress with a view to giving him an early, light preparation at our Randwick stables.

In short I am really delighted with his progress.

The Prego filly has been in light educational work with Kylie Gavenlock at Gosford and was transferred to my Randwick stable last Wednesday where she will stay for one or two weeks. I feel it is important to give her some experience at Randwick because as you are well aware we hope she can be an early runner for us. She has developed into quite an athletic looking type and I am more than happy with her development since the sale. Her attitude is good and she is a quite smart, sensible type of filly.

The Nassipour/enhanced colt which was at G.T. Park, Gosford I have transferred to Shipton Lodge at Cobbitty. I wanted this horse paddocked in a larger paddock than he was in at G.T. Park and Bruce McKew's staff have assured me that they can handle this. I can see no point in bringing this colt in over the next eight weeks as we know he will not be an early runner for us.

Will keep in touch regarding the progress of the three horses, especially the Prego filly.

Kindest regards,

John

The Minister for Gaming and Racing did not give me permission to table that document. What a brilliant tactical move by him to prevent me from tabling that letter from John Meagher of Hamlyn Lodge Proprietary Limited to Mr Paul Whelan, the New South Wales Minister for Police. There might be an explanation for this document. I look forward to hearing it.

Dr Macdonald: What is the point in raising it?

Mr COLLINS: The honourable member for Manly asks, "What is the point in raising it?" I say again, because the honourable member might not
Page 4500
have been in the Chamber when I began reading the letter, that I hope that the Minister for Police will explain why this interest in thoroughbred racing was not declared on his pecuniary interest disclosure. There may well be an explanation; I look forward to hearing that explanation in debate. The Minister for Gaming and Racing caused unnecessary confusion and concern in the thoroughbred racing industry through his initial enthusiastic acceptance of the Temby report, his Premier's contradiction of this approach, his own defiance of the Premier's interpretation and, finally, his belated backflip.

I make it clear for the record that the coalition is opposed to the unnecessary involvement of government in the administration of thoroughbred racing in this State. We support in principle the alternative proposal of the Australian Jockey Club for a principal race club. However, an important fact to note is that in relation to thoroughbreds the Government produced two important precedents which it failed to follow, with disastrous results, in the other two racing codes. Firstly, the Minister acted quickly to resolve problems which he saw in the thoroughbred industry. We argue that he acted wrongly - that he employed a sledgehammer to crack an egg. But the fact remains that he did act, which becomes particularly relevant when we look at the other racing codes. Secondly, in the face of community uproar at the actions of the Minister, the Premier intervened. The Premier has failed to intervene when more serious concerns have been raised about the harness and greyhound racing industries. As we examine this Minister's mismanagement of his portfolio, particularly the greyhound and harness legs of his responsibilities, we find a number of recurrent and related themes. These themes will be illustrated in detail by later speakers. The Minister -

[Interruption]

Stick around. The honourable member for Rockdale keeps interjecting. If there was any substance to his interjections, that would be news. It would be the first time he ever had any substance to his interjections. We will have plenty of substance to ours. We have already been denied the opportunity to table the first document tonight. We look forward with anticipation to the cooperation of the Government when we seek to table further documents as debate progresses. This Minister has his head firmly in the sand when it comes to allegations in both these industries. Put simply, he just does not want to know. He has blocked his ears to the complaints of decent, honourable people in these industries. People he knows are coming forward with information at considerable risk to themselves.

He knows that. He has actually taken the astounding action of threatening them with prosecution. The former member for South Coast is well remembered for campaigning on behalf of whistleblowers in public life. That was one of the contributions for which the member was noted during his 20 years of membership of this Parliament. One wonders what the former member for South Coast would have said about the Minister, who has actually threatened to prosecute whistleblowers! The members opposite were so keen to have whistleblower legislation that they could not make it strong enough or have it fast enough; in government, they cannot breach it fast enough!

This Minister is beholden to specific interest groups - and individuals within them - rather than the punters and consumers to whom he has his principal and overriding responsibility. When faced with an overwhelming outcry about the administration of the harness industry, and when presented with one of the most damning reports into an industry in the last decade - the Roderick report - the Minister did not refer the report to an independent inquiry; he referred the allegations and the report to the very industry which was under attack! The Minister's actions lend themselves to producing nothing but a whitewash. In response, no doubt the Carr Government will try to muddy the waters of the debate by referring to the previous Government's term in office. I will set the record straight once and for all in that regard, and it will be dealt with in considerable detail by following speakers.

Mr McManus: This applies to your Ministers.

Mr COLLINS: Another Dorothy Dixer.

Mr McManus: Let us start with Metherell and Smiles.

Mr COLLINS: Let us start with the Ministers. I thank the member for the Dorothy Dixer. The former Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing, the honourable member for Sutherland, saw a significant and growing crisis of confidence in the greyhound and harness racing industries. As a result, he appointed two genuine, honest and reforming nominees to the controlling boards of each industry. As a result of the closed shop conditions in each industry, and because the new Labor Minister simply did not want to know them, they have now found themselves in the role of whistleblower. Secondly, and most importantly, the former minister commissioned the Roderick report into the harness racing industry which - although he did not have the opportunity to see it himself - will now I hope be the catalyst for cleaning up the industry. That will occur if the Premier acts to remove the greatest obstruction to the clean-up of the industry - this Minister.

Before I move on, and before the Minister alleges that the Opposition has refused to deal with the proper authorities in relation to irregularities in relation to the harness industry, I state for the record that recently the shadow minister for gaming and racing, the Hon. Richard Bull, MLC, met with the Independent Commission Against Corruption and provided it will all the documents in the
Page 4501
Opposition's possession. Members opposite are silent on that point, and so they should be. In the course of this debate, speakers will talk in detail about the Minister's disastrous maladministration of the harness industry. We have repeatedly asked this Minister to call a full independent inquiry into the serious allegations surrounding the harness racing industry with proper protection for witnesses, but this has been to no avail. We have had no choice but to act - as we are currently doing in the Parliament - in the interests of the community. We understand that the individuals involved will be disturbed that these allegations are being made public in this place. We can understand that the harness community will be concerned that these allegations will further damage public confidence in their industry. But the person who has forced the coalition to raise these allegations on behalf of the community is the Minister for Gaming and Racing.

As I said, we have sworn statements and statutory declarations, many of which were provided to the Police Service task force Roderick and the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The Minister has been aware of the Roderick report since becoming Minister eight months ago, yet he has not bothered to acquaint himself with its content or inquire into why this report has been described as "life threatening" by his ministerial colleague the Minister for Police. When confronted with questions from the coalition in Parliament, the Minister for Gaming and Racing sought to dismiss them. When asked whether he had met with two former members of the Harness Racing Authority who had turned whistleblowers, he said, "Frankly, I don't want to know them." However, he now considers their allegations serious enough to refer them to ICAC.

Ever since the Roderick report was tabled in Parliament this Minister has taken no action to investigate the allegations in further detail. He referred the edited - I emphasise, edited - report to the Harness Racing Authority for its response. One wonders how the Chairman of the Harness Racing Authority could have investigated this report when he did not have all the information, let alone the recommendations and names of officials contained in that report. In the industry it has been likened to asking the Australian Jockey Club to investigate the jockey tapes without providing them with a copy of the tapes.

The statements obtained by the Opposition could easily have been obtained through the same means had the Minister been interested in addressing the problems of the industry. Faced with our questions, the Minister launched an extraordinary attack in this Chamber on 16 November on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place and one of his staff. We are not the only ones with concerns about harness racing: industry representatives have brought their concerns to us privately, and in public others close to harness racing have referred to the crisis in the industry. Even one of this Minister's Labor colleagues, the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Crime Authority, Peter Cleeland, has said he would not put a dollar on a harness race. The respected racing writer of the Illawarra Mercury, David Newling, has written:

I believe harness racing in NSW is in deep crisis and the only people who seem to be unaware are Face -

the Minister for Gaming and Racing -

his advisers -

those in the Chamber behind the bar -

and the Harness Racing Authority Board.

On the Minister's attitude to whistleblowers, Newling wrote:

Unfortunately, Face's response to many harness racing participants trying to air their grievances has been to either threaten them with gaol, refuse to talk to them, or adopt a shoot the messenger mentality.

As I have demonstrated, and as my colleagues will demonstrate throughout this debate, the Minister for Gaming and Racing has lurched from disaster to disaster in his portfolio. He has seriously undermined consumer confidence in the industry and, in the process, in the industry itself. The coalition knows that it will lose this no confidence motion, yet we know that many members on the Government benches do not have confidence in the Minister's handling of his portfolio. The punters of this State - the Minister's consumer base - do not have confidence in him. The industry does not have confidence in this Minister. The Premier must heed this chorus of revolt. He must sack this Minister and appoint someone who is up to the task. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [1.10 a.m.]: I have represented my electorate in this House for more than 23 years. I have been here longer than any other member, and I have never stooped to the gutter politics that the Leader of the Opposition and some of his cronies on the other side of the House relish. Never in that period of time have I used privilege to intentionally besmirch the reputation of public servants, like you have just done to those sitting behind the bar. Mark my words, Peter Collins, you will regret this day; you will regret it.

Mr Collins: On a point of order: members should be addressed by their correct titles.

Mr McManus: You didn't extend that courtesy to him.

Mr Collins: I did.

Mr McManus: You did not. You were calling him "Face" all the time.

Mr Collins: I did. I was accurately quoting from a newspaper, and you know it.

Page 4502

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I am sure the Minister will comply with the standing orders.

Mr FACE: I have always played by the rules in this place. But implicit in the motion before the House today is a direct attack on the effectiveness and efficiency of the senior management of my administration, and I intend to address that issue first. Let me remind the House that I have been the Minister for eight months. Upon assuming this high office I did not set out to destroy the careers of the senior management team simply because they had given loyal service to former Ministers on the other side of politics. Unlike the vindictive and malicious approach taken by the former Government when it assumed office in 1988, I decided to judge the senior management team on its merits.

I was aware, of course, that my director-general had only recently been re-appointed by the former Minister for Racing on 18 January this year for a further term of five years. Despite that, in the past few weeks the former Minister has been running around, traducing the character of the director-general and the director. Every step of the way we have known exactly where most of this has been coming from. I have the benefit of the five-year performance review, which the former Minister utilised in his assessment as to whether that re-appointment was to proceed. In his hollow and malicious attempt to censure me for the maladministration of my portfolio, the Leader of the Opposition attempted to reflect on the integrity and efficiency of all of my senior management team. That is absolutely contemptible. Indeed, to illustrate the absolute hypocrisy of the Opposition, I should like to take a little time to quote from the performance review summary. It reads:

An analysis of the performance of Mr K M Brown over the five year period 1989-90 to 1993-94 reveals that under Mr Brown's leadership the department:

•has been recognised as having performed admirably in the field of strategic planning;

•has responsibly managed its finances;

•has been a leader in applying government policies with respect to out sourcing of activities, customer oriented service and the Olympic initiative;

•has provided a high level of service to the Minister;

•has maintained service levels despite reduced budget and (throughout the bulk of the period) a recessed national economy;

•has significantly enhanced its strategies for the development of high performance sport; and

•has effectively and efficiently managed the racing policy area.

This is a document signed by the former Minister in January this year, the same time he and the shadow minister were running around the length and breadth of this State with one of his officers traducing the director-general's character. The performance review summary also stated:

The department has been recognised by the central agencies as a leader in the field of strategic planning. Since 1987 the department has regularly reviewed and revised its corporate and strategic plans. The department's planning is characterised by the following quality practices:

•sound environmental scanning;

•genuine participation by stakeholders in the planning process;

•clear enunciation of strategic goals.

Performance highlights include:

•the department's first corporate plan (1987);

•the many occasions which the department has been invited by the central agencies to provide leadership to other organisations with respect to planning;

•the fact that for some considerable time the department's strategic plan and strategic information base has been used as an example for other organisations.

During the period under review the department has been amongst the pathfinders in adopting changes in government accounting practice. In the same period responsible financial management in tandem with improvements in efficiency of activities has seen the department in each of the five years in question achieve savings beyond that required in the annual budget process. In the past five years the department has achieved a combined savings of $8.835 million beyond the level of savings required as productivity savings in the annual budget. In addition to this the department has since 1990-91 increased its revenue generated from user-fees by some 48.25 per cent. Performance highlights include:

•the introduction of global budgeting;

•the adoption of accrual accounting;

•the adoption of net appropriations;

•the progressive implementation of an activity costing system;

•the adoption of cash management.

As to performance in areas of general government policy, the review states:

Under the leadership of Mr Brown the department has faithfully implemented broad government policy thrusts. Performance highlights include:

•out sourcing - the department has successfully out sourced approximately 32 per cent of its operational budget;

•customer service - the department is recognised as a leader with respect to customer service;

•revenue increase - the department has successfully responded to the revenue requirements of the cabinet expenditure review committee.

The four Ministers during the review period have each received a high level of support from Mr Brown and his department in the form of policy advice and service. This support involved:

•the development and recommendation of policies;

•interpretation of government policy and legislation;

•formulation and recommendations of the annual financial and capital budget for the department;

•preparation of briefing papers for the annual estimates committee's considerations of the department's budget;

•provision of independent advice to the Minister concerning the implications of alternative actions with respect to policy; negotiation with sporting bodies, the racing industry and government agencies on behalf of the Government to ensure a full understanding of government policy and priority;

Page 4503

•conferring with all sectors of the racing industry in order to ensure a full understanding of the compliance demands of racing related legislation and to identify needs for improvement in legislation;

•provision of independent advice to the Minister concerning the implications of alternative actions with respect to those statutory authorities, which are responsible to the Minister;

•provision of support to the Minister with respect to his position on the racing Ministers' conference.

Under the leadership of the director Mr K M Brown, the department, over the five year review period, has successfully achieved the bulk of its targets, that is:

•within the due date in the case of initiatives/projects; and

•reaching at least the set efficiency and effectiveness targets in the case of most of the department's on-going services.

Overall results indicate that the department has in each of the review years been able to at least maintain, in most cases, and to improve in other cases its level of service despite a reduced expenditure framework. Performance details and highlights are clearly identified in the department's annual reports and the director's annual performance reports on actual performance against targets contained in the annual performance agreement between the Minister and the director.

I reiterate that the honourable member for Sutherland recommended the re-appointment of the director-general who, together with his director and me, is standing trial tonight. That might have seemed a big preamble, but honourable members opposite are going to listen. The former Minister reappointed the director-general of the department for a further period of five years as late as January 1995, and now for cheap political purposes he has chosen to malign senior officers who have served him and the three coalition Ministers who preceded him faithfully and loyally. I have been a Minister for eight months, but these things went on for seven years. Honourable members are in for a shock, because those former Ministers knew about a lot of things that I will be able to reveal in this House tonight.

Subsequent to my appointment as Minister for the portfolio of gaming and racing, I have not been slow in achieving a number of administrative changes and milestones. These include the amalgamation of the disparate administrations under the former Government into an effective and more efficient portfolio that is focused on the gaming, liquor, racing and charity industries, responsibilities that were previously fragmented. They were not service oriented, so we effectively moulded them into one portfolio. That that was the successful amalgamation of the Office of Racing with the former Chief Secretary's Department. A review of the senior executive service has been accomplished and I have been able to achieve its proper downsizing. The new department has been restructured to provide for greater efficiencies with a more focused and better aligned strategic direction.

Performance agreements have been entered into between senior executive officers and the chief executive officer. In turn, the chief executive officer has entered into a performance agreement with me. He provides me with quarterly reports on actual performance. That is much more frequently than is required. Such reports are usually supplied six-monthly. The department has introduced a number of administrative initiatives, including the following: the introduction of a performance review system for all staff; the introduction of efficiency and effectiveness measures and reporting as part of the budget process; a review of all branch operating plans and are now being implemented; and a review of financial reporting and monitoring to reflect the new administrative structure. The compliance division of my department is a focal point of the liquor and gaming administration, which the Leader of the Opposition has attacked here tonight.

I am able to list many of the achievements in the relatively short time I have been the Minister of the hard-working staff of the compliance division. Those achievements have resulted from joint cooperation. Among those achievements has been a highly efficient and vigorous litigation strategy that has resulted in a total of 40 cases currently being litigated before the Licensing Court, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. The Director of Liquor and Gaming has initiated prosecution and disciplinary action and has taken objections to licence applications in these matters to protect substantial government revenue - $271.1 million from liquor and $487.1 million from machine gaming - and to ensure the integrity of licence holders and their business associates in the liquor and gaming industries.

Complaints have been successfully managed, something we have achieved in a short time since taking over the functions of the Chief Secretary. That has enabled the resolution of matters rather than having them bogged down. There has been resolution of 236 complaints that were received during the last 12 months in respect of allegations against licensees, the conduct of licensed premises, registered clubs, board directors and secretary-managers. A total of 436 out of 785 complaints received for the year were referred to the Police Service for follow-up action in relation to police matters, such as theft from poker machines, under-age drinking, intoxicated persons and indecent conduct on licensed premises. That process is operating considerably more successfully since I took over because of my skills in that area. It is an ongoing process.

Another of my achievements was the large reassessments of liquor and gaming fees. Tonight we have heard about the loss of revenue. Liquor and gaming inspectors recovered in excess of $2 million in additional liquor fees, $210,000 in hotel and gaming duty and $81,000 in poker machine duty from registered clubs, in addition to fulfilling their ordinary compliance activities. Applications to the Licensing Court were always a source of complaint under the previous Government. Never a day passed when someone did not complain about them. A total of 1,274
Page 4504
applications to either the Licensing Court or the Liquor Administration Board were reviewed by officers of the legal services branch and the client services branch in the division. That figure compares favourably with the 1,212 applications in the previous year.

A total of 285 prosecutions were instituted in the Licensing Court for failure to lodge statutory declarations relating to liquor sales and purchases. That figure compares favourably with the figures of previous years - 205 in 1993-94, 171 in 1992-93 and 176 in 1991-92 - exemplifying once again my commitment and that of the Government to maximising and protecting State revenues. But what about the Kings Cross review? In eight months I have been left with a racing industry that is in turmoil. I have all the problems coming out of the royal commission practically day by day. On my own initiative I sent a special task force to Kings Cross. I took 18 of my senior officers out of the system. A review of all the licensed premises in the Kings Cross area has been taken. That was against advice but was requisitioned by the Premier. The review has been commenced by the Director of Liquor and Gaming, whose task force has obtained substantial evidence of breaches of the Liquor Act, and evidence of association by licensees with persons who are not fit and proper. Such persons include the business owners of these premises and their managers, who have serious criminal histories. Disciplinary action against these persons is current and in the last two months something of the order of 200 breaches have been detected.

So much for me being a do-nothing Minister! But all this was going on when the Opposition was in government. I have been the Minister for only eight months and with the various facilities available to me, most of which were already there, and with the proper utilisation of resources I have been able to uncover things and get things done that successive Ministers in successive governments were not able to achieve. The Leader of the Opposition has the hide to come in here and criticise me. Is he suggesting that I do not move quickly enough in relation to disciplinary matters? I have expedited disciplinary actions against the Phoenician Club and the Crescent Head Country Club. Investigations into drug abuse and excessive service of alcohol have been undertaken by the special investigations branch, which was once again set up by me, resulting in complaints and summonses being issued out of the Licensing Court against registered clubs and licensed premises.

Such cases include action against the Phoenician Club, in relation to which I have been able to prove that I had inadequate powers. I have acted in respect of the rave parties conducted at those premises where young Anna Wood lost her life from taking the drug ecstasy. So much for me not taking any action! My concern about young people and drinking is well known. The Crescent Head Country Club has also been summonsed for its highly irresponsible service of alcohol to John McGowan shortly before he murdered two police officers and killed himself. Once again I sent officers there straightaway. My department was successful in making a contribution to that sad series of events. One of the worst things I have ever seen was that little girl in Port Macquarie who had lost her father and the widow who had lost a previous husband under tragic circumstances. The Opposition claims that I am not a caring person. It was me who took action in relation to that matter.

Approximately 20 investigations by the special investigations branch are current and will lead to litigation before the Licensing Court. The purpose of these investigations, prosecutions and disciplinary action is to protect Government revenue, for which the Opposition has criticised me tonight. Another purpose of the investigations is to ensure that criminals are kept out of the liquor and gaming industries, in relation to which the Opposition never took action. The investigations are aimed at ensuring that gaming is conducted in a fair and honest way, that appropriate controls over the sale and supply of liquor are maintained, especially to under-age people, and that gaming device manufacturers and the devices they make conform to proper standards. What about reduction of illegal activities? These compliance investigations were never previously carried out properly. I am not saying that was because of a lack of will. However, because the Minister now supports the investigations and to some extent knows how to go about doing things, the possibility of illegal activities occurring in these industries has been actively reduced. Such activities include drug dealing and use, which were found in Kings Cross and at other places; money laundering and tax evasion; undisclosed criminal interests and associations; indecent conduct and prostitution; and payment of secret commissions in the purchase of gaming devices - all in eight months! The Opposition had seven years.

Other activities include corruption of regulators by manufacturers and dealers; theft and/or fraud by technicians; inadequate machine security, which I will deal with by legislation; and machine fraud and tax evasion by licensees and other personnel. The inspections branch is on target with the conduct of 1,605 gaming device inspections at licensed premises and clubs to verify the authorised use of gaming devices and proper reporting of their operations. The priority and pre-transfer of inspections was always bogged down. The inspections branch is also on target with the conduct of 1,630 priority and pre-transfer inspections of licensed premises. Once again that is an inhibition or a problem to small business. In addition to all I have said, the special investigations branch is on target with its completion, during the last quarter, of six investigations. While I am dealing with achievements, I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has given me a wonderful opportunity to reflect on the professional work done by officers in the policy division. I am sure that when the
Page 4505
honourable member for Sutherland compared the commitment, direction and achievements of my administration over the past eight months, with his own lack of direction, lack of leadership, lack of policy initiative, and lack of even a semblance of creativity and improvement, he would be embarrassed. One of my first tasks upon becoming Minister was to establish the New South Wales committee on under-age drinking. The previous coalition Government did not have such a committee.

Mr Downy: I was not the Minister then.

Mr FACE: You were part of the ministry. This Government is greatly concerned about the high level of under-age drinking that is occurring within the community. Of particular concern is the fact that much of it is caused by adults buying liquor for minors - an illegal act that is often referred to as a secondary purchase - a problem that I continuously raised when in opposition but which fell on the deaf ears of the then Chief Secretary. Increased policing of licensed and registered club premises, and the vigilance of liquor licensees and clubs in keeping under-age drinkers off their premises, has led to under-age drinkers resorting to this means of accessing alcohol. At the moment, an inadequate maximum penalty of $2,000 is provided under the Liquor Act for adults who break the law by supplying liquor to minors. Yet the honourable member for Sutherland is criticising me tonight for bringing in draconian legislation. I have news for him: the Government has no intention of introducing the legislation he referred to. The honourable member will be quite embarrassed by that news.

The Government views this as an inappropriate penalty - particularly when one considers the dangerous and often tragic aftermath of under-age drinking. Under-age drinkers - some of them children as young as 12 years of age - are vulnerable. An adult who supplies liquor to a minor is not only condoning the minor's illegal behaviour, but is openly flouting the law and contributing to the problems associated with under-age drinking. It is just not on to view it as one of those situations where one might say, "Well, I was once 17 years old and I know how that feels". An adult who purchases liquor for a minor and then supplies that liquor to the minor is breaking the law.

I have introduced a bill into this House which will substantially increase the penalty for secondary purchase. Adults who break the law in this way will be liable to a maximum penalty of $5,000. In addition, a new maximum penalty of $10,000 and/or 12 months imprisonment will apply where the supply of liquor by an adult is considered to be sufficiently serious to warrant consideration of that higher penalty - for example, where the supply involves large amounts of liquor or the supply of liquor to very young children. As Minister I will not preside over a repetition of the Leigh Leigh case. Members will recall that a 20-year-old and an 18-year-old took half a utility load of liquor to a sixteenth birthday party, at which a girl was raped and assaulted and finally murdered. Nothing could be done about them! I warned the previous Government frequently about such matters. And in the short time I have been a Minister, I have done something about it.

Secondary purchase is just one of the issues that will be considered by the newly established New South Wales committee on under-age drinking. I have asked the committee to advise me on appropriate strategies to address second party sales and other under-age drinking-related problems. Interestingly enough, just about everywhere I go, whether it be to a country racing conference, down at the old Liquor Industry Ministry and Advisory Council, or down at the Charities Advisory Board, I am greeted in the same way: "Thanks for coming, Minister, because we have never seen a Minister before." I find it unbelievable that they never ever saw a Minister. The people who were trying to give advice to the former Minister never saw him. The Government also intends to review the current restrictions placed on hoteliers who wish to conduct alcohol-free functions in a designated part of their premises. Following the death of Anna Wood, the Premier and I met with her parents and others, at their request.

There is an urgent need for young people to be able to access venues where they can socialise with their peers in an alcohol-free and controlled environment. At the moment very few hotels are able to conduct these functions because of the overly-stringent restrictions currently imposed on them. This is a genuine attempt, not like the flight of fancy of Nick Greiner in this House after he had a conversation with his daughter one night which resulted in it being impossible to hold proper functions. While the Government proposes to change those restrictions, I assure honourable members that the Government also intends to retain and strengthen existing control aspects over young people who attend hotels for alcohol-free functions.

Another issue that will be receiving attention concerns the ability of junior members of registered clubs to be on club premises. The purpose of allowing young people to become junior members of a club is to allow them to take part in sports activities conducted by the club. Many of the clubs that have junior members are small premises - often just one room - and this poses a problem when junior members need to access the premises in order to participate in a sporting or prize giving ceremony. The Government intends to alleviate this particular problem so that junior members can have more ready, but controlled, access to club premises in these types of situations. The issues of alcohol-free entertainment and junior membership of clubs were both dealt with in the report on youth violence in New South Wales by the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues. I am pleased to report that the committee's recommendations in regard to alcohol-free entertainment and junior membership are consistent with the Government's pre-election commitments that I have just outlined.

Page 4506

Finally, I must stress that the Government will initiate consultation with the liquor and club industries on these and other issues in the coming months. Notwithstanding all this, I am faced with this outrageous allegation that I am not consulting with the industry. When I was in opposition, I had to take the various briefings to industry. And because I have introduced a bill recently on harm minimisation I am told I am rushing things. It has not been rushed. One of the other bills mentioned by the honourable member for Sutherland is not in this House. He is completely confused.

The Government is more than willing to work with industry and the community to reduce the under-age drinking problem and its devastating influence on the lives of young people. I also established the Liquor Industry Consultative Council as a representative forum of all participants within the liquor industry, and appointed a well-respected departmental officer as chairperson. Once again, it is a consultative body, and that body has been dealing with the harm minimisation legislation since I gave it action. Unlike the former Government, I did not engage in petty politics by appointing Labor Party personnel to the committee. My sole interest was to make the system work and to gain the trust and views of the industry itself. By re-constituting the committee, unencumbered by political influence and interference - which my predecessor turned into an art form - the industry has become very united in its approach and more objective in its contribution to policy initiatives.

The council has had three full meetings in its re-constituted form, and it is now operating as an effective consultative body. This also means that the council's findings are reported to me, as the responsible Minister, in a truly independent manner. So much for no confidence. The Government has made other changes to the council as a consequence of our policy commitments. We also undertook to review the membership of the council, and I have done that. As a result, the New South Wales Wine Industry Association - the peak association representing vignerons in New South Wales - is now a member of the council, something which was not done before. The association has participated in the council's recent meetings. The New South Wales Wine Industry Association directly represents wine makers and producers in the State. A request which this association made to the former Government to be permitted to participate in LIMAC was not acted upon.

The Carr Government is genuinely committed to involving peak industry associations in policies and programs that need industry support to be successful. We are about fostering an open and productive dialogue between industry and government. The liquor industry is an important part of the State's recreation, tourism and hospitality industries, and it has made great progress in improving standards across the industry - progress that is in the industry's interests as well as that of patrons. As Minister, I will from time to time give references to the council so that it may have input to the development of liquor policy, and comment on policy implementation from an industry perspective. This Government is taking a strong stand on alcohol-related violence, and the anti-social behaviour that is unfortunately associated with consuming alcohol. Earlier this year, the Premier organised a special forum at Parliament House which emphasised the importance that this Government places on addressing alcohol-related problems.

The Government is pleased that the forum endorsed the Government's harm-minimisation and preventive approach to alcohol problems in society. The approach is not advocating prohibition or wowserism; it is about sensible and realistic programs, recognising that alcohol is consumed by many people with safety, without harm to themselves or others. That is not to say the Government does not recognise the problems associated with alcohol. We are all too well aware of those problems. Particular priorities of the Government include programs to deal with under-age drinking, and to ensure the responsible promotion, service and consumption of liquor. A range of initiatives is being pursued in the gaming and racing portfolio which will impact on alcohol-related problems in the community.

These are initiatives of the Labor Government and they will give effect to the Government's policies. One of the most important initiatives is a legislative package introduced into this House on 18 October which will reorientate the licensing laws so that they encompass clear harm-minimisation objectives. The Liquor and Registered Clubs Legislation Amendment Bill - the harm-minimisation bill - is before this House to be debated in the near future. The harm minimisation object in the licensing laws is significant. It is a first for Australia, if not the world. It is significant because the law will provide explicitly that harm-minimisation, that is the minimisation of harm associated with the misuse and abuse of liquor, is a primary objective of each Act. It will require due regard to be had to the need for harm minimisation by persons exercising functions under the Acts, particularly in considering the public interest.

It is also the intention to introduce compulsory responsible server training across the industry. Once again, the registered clubs have concerns and I am addressing them. I realise that small clubs do have a problem. So much for a Minister who is not supposed to be consulting with this industry! This will involve, when the proposed legislation is passed, the development of regulations to allow the staged introduction of compulsory training for licensees and liquor service staff across the industry. I emphasise this will be done in a staged way, in full consultation with the industry, and with the assistance of the industry. The measures will also strengthen the legislation in relation to minors in accordance with the Government's policies to act on the under-age drinking issue. However, even
Page 4507
though the legislation was first foreshadowed by the Premier in his address to the alcohol forum in August, it appears that it may have moved forward too quickly for some. The Government has attracted criticism recently from some elements of the liquor industry for not consulting more fully on the harm minimisation bill. However, the facts simply do not bear that out, as I will demonstrate.

The three consultative and advisory councils in the gaming and racing portfolio and no fewer than 10 government agencies were provided with information about the package; and those councils and agencies provided useful input. So much for the Opposition's allegations that I do not consult! While it is pleasing that the agencies and the industry in the main have given their support to the package, there remain some elements in the industry not fully satisfied with the consultation, or with some of the detail of the bill. The peak liquor industry associations were advised by my office of the contents of the proposed package at the end of September. That could hardly be construed as yesterday. I sought their comments at that time. Further, I provided all industry associations with a copy of the bill on 19 October - it has not passed through this House in its entirety - the morning after I introduced it into this House. In fact, all 10,000 members of the liquor and registered clubs industries around New South Wales were advised of the Government's legislative proposals in the industry liquor and gaming bulletin in October - a bulletin that is published on a regular basis by the Department of Gaming and Racing.

Since then, I have had discussions about the bill with a number of the peak industry associations, and I attended a special meeting of the liquor industry consultative council - one that the former Minister did not go near - in November, at which the harm-minimisation package was discussed at some length. I have also provided a number of detailed written responses to industry submissions on the bill. The consultation process has therefore been comprehensive, and it is a lot of rubbish that the Leader of the Opposition has peddled in this House tonight. I have no hesitation in saying that the harm-minimisation proposals have been well circulated to all sectors of the industry throughout New South Wales. I am pleased that the majority of the associations consulted have given their overall support for the proposals, even though elements of the industry have opposed some details of the bill. As I said, I will consult further with the Australian Hotels Association and the Registered Clubs Association.

The amendments proposed by the bill are sensible; they are not extreme. They are in the interests of the community, as well as in the interests of the liquor and clubs industries. They will not cause hardship for premises that are run responsibly. They will not cause hardship for people who drink alcohol responsibly. And, importantly, they are in the interests of our young people. The industry associations may also be assured that I will be seeking their assistance in the formulation of the new regulations concerning the responsible service and promotion of liquor. I have given them that commitment and I am pleased to repeat it here today if the Leader of the Opposition has become confused. There has been some speculation in the media - this is the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised a moment ago - that the Government intends introducing "server liability" legislation, that is, legislation that would see bar staff of licensed premises and clubs liable for damages in situations where patrons who had consumed too much alcohol caused injury or damage to other people or to property.

I want to make it clear that the harm-minimisation legislation before the House does not contain any such proposal. The Opposition has been sold a pup! The matter of server liability is a completely different issue and is certainly not one for the Liquor Act or Registered Clubs Act. It is not being considered by me as Minister or by the Government. I stress that the media reports that the Government is considering server liability legislation are wrong. As well as being totally wrong, they have generated much unnecessary concern in the community and the industry. Such legislation may have a place in countries like America and Canada, but it is not being contemplated for New South Wales. The harm-minimisation package currently before the House represents a balanced approach, one that takes account of the industry's interests and the community's interests. It contains no proposal that could, by any stretch of the imagination, amount to server liability for damages by people who have consumed too much alcohol. So much for the AHA, which is supposed to be concerned. I note that the Leader of the Opposition is taking a belated interest in this motion. I received the latest newsletter from the AHA today. On the back, it says:

We congratulate the Minister for listening to our concerns and look forward to meaningful discussions in the new year on this important matter for the whole liquor and hotel industry.

The newsletter also stated:

Liquor licensing fee payments, six instalments.

And they give me some praise for that, because that is something that the Government is assisting small business with. The association also thanked the Government for a midnight closing time on Christmas Eve but it would like the Government to go further. The Opposition spokesman was running all around the place the other day. He wanted it extended until 2 o'clock on Christmas morning. I thought that was really smart! That would have gone over well in country towns. Honourable members can just imagine it. That was really bright. The Leader of the Opposition does not know his constituency. So much for this furphy that the RCA and the AHA have concerns about me. This is the association's current newsletter, dated 7 December 1995, which is about to be
Page 4508
distributed. It has praised me for looking after the association's interests. While I am on that subject, the Registered Clubs Association was quite disturbed about a staff member of the Leader of the Opposition running around yesterday saying that that association had lost confidence in me. It has given me assurances and has telephoned me on several occasions to say it deprecates the actions of that particular member.

[Interruption]

I know, because a member of my staff was standing behind the person when the statement was made. In the very near future I hope to be in a position to introduce the Liquor and Registered Clubs Legislation Amendment (Enforcement) Bill. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is confused. He has the two bills mixed up. That bill has not been introduced as yet. The bill represents a package of amendments which are designed to give some much-needed teeth to the liquor laws. The bill has been developed as a result of a review of the adequacy of those laws in light of the alarming evidence which has emerged from the police royal commission in relation to corrupt conduct and unlawful behaviour associated with licensed premises, particularly in the Kings Cross area - something I elaborated on earlier; something the Leader of the Opposition did not do when he was Minister.

Other incidents, such as the Crescent Head murders of two policemen, and the Phoenician Club "rave" party - I have discovered the law is inadequate, something that the former Chief Secretary did not pursue - which led to the tragic death of a young schoolgirl, have indicated that tighter controls over the conduct of licensed premises and clubs are needed. Obviously, I will speak in some detail about the content of the "enforcement package" of legislation as it is known, when I introduce it to this House shortly. So that members of the Opposition do not get carried away over the Christmas period and think I am not consulting with the industry, I will consult with the industry as I have in the past - I have just explained to the Leader of the Opposition what I have done since September this year. It was unheard of during the administration of the previous Government. In line with my general policy of consulting so far as possible with industry groups over legislative proposals, I have recently advised all of the peak industry associations of the general nature of the proposed legislation.

I do not expect anybody, whether they are a private individual, a small business, or a non-profit association, to be overjoyed about stronger controls being introduced to force compliance with the law, and the liquor industry is no different from any other industry which would like to maximise its profits as free as possible from regulatory control. However, I make the point that the liquor industry is different from other industries in that its main business is the sale of a potentially lethal product, and historically the industry has been a magnet for corrupt individuals who are involved in abhorrent criminal activities. The vast majority of liquor licensees are honest, hard-working citizens who obey the laws and pay their taxes. These individuals are clearly not the target of the proposed enforcement legislation.

The Wood royal commission has demonstrated that laws which are designed to regulate the majority of law-abiding licensees are inadequate when it comes to controlling persons involved in drug trafficking, police corruption and stand-over tactics. I do not apologise for the fact that the legislation which I will be introducing shortly is tough. I do not apologise for aiming to increase the standard of conduct of licensed premises and clubs. And I do not apologise for trying to get rid of the crooks, the pimps and the stand-over men in our liquor industry. I saw enough of that when I was with the police force, and it flourished under the coalition. Having said that, I take the views of the liquor industry associations quite seriously. I have always attempted to consult widely and comprehensively with the industry before developing legislation to its final point.

However, I am not prepared to compromise the integrity of the liquor industry while a lengthy consultation process is pursued. The royal commission evidence has clearly shown that swift and immediate action is needed to clean up the Cross and other trouble spots in the State. Nevertheless, I have agreed to provide industry bodies with a copy of the bill and allow time for further consultation with the industry pending the resumption of Parliament in the autumn session next year. At that time I hope that the bill will proceed smoothly through the Parliament, so that it can be implemented as a matter of urgency. I undertake to keep the provisions of the legislation under review, to ensure that no undue hardship is experienced by honest licensees, who, as I have said, represent the vast majority of members of the industry.

Mr O'Doherty: I want to hear the guts of the thing. Don't tell us about bread and butter issues.

Mr FACE: The Opposition has cast the aspersion that I am in charge of billions of dollars. I will give honourable members a lesson about lotteries. In response to consumer demand, both the $2 and $5 jackpot lotteries have been restructured since I became Minister. This restructure included a number of major products, and a major marketing campaign ensured a high level of customer awareness. The changes have resulted in a significant turnaround in sales within a year. When I took over lotteries I had the same problem as I had with everything else I took over. I went to Burwood to see the lotteries people and they said it was unusual to see a Minister because they never saw the last one. I was asked what my position was, and I said that lotteries were a very important part of the State's operation. Those I spoke to said they were very pleased to hear that, because they
Page 4509
were virtually told to stay at Burwood to make certain that the annual or quarterly reports went to the Chief Secretary's Department, and for anything other than that the department did not want to hear from them. The previous Government wanted to bury lotteries.

There has been a turnaround in sales this year. To date, sales are up 18 per cent compared with a decline of 13 per cent last year. Who was the Treasurer then? Who was the person running lotteries in New South Wales? Since then we have had the launch of Lotto Strike, the development of a concept of a new national game. That is something the coalition could not get approval for. The previous Chief Secretary would not give permission. There are record profits for sales, and improved services to customers. As soon as I became Minister I decided the paper registration cards were no good. In the new year there will be a new plastic registration card, which will be of great advantage to consumers. A new state-of-the-art lottery computer facility has been completed at Homebush. New South Wales Lotteries has been corporatised, and I have also taken action that the previous Chief Secretary would not take to stop illegal activities on overseas lotteries. The coalition let it roll on and did absolutely nothing.

The coalition Government did nothing about the administration of charities. Since coming to office this Government has been firmly committed to the development and maintenance of an economically viable racing industry to which I am said to have done so much damage. To this end the Government has devised a far-reaching racing policy designed to cover all aspects of the industry. The previous Minister and Government could probably write its policy on the back of a postage stamp. As the Minister vested with the responsibility of implementing the Government's racing policy, I am proud of my achievements to date and I will continue to implement measures to assist the industry. I inherited an industry in absolute shambles. Honourable members will recall the jockey tapes revelations earlier this year, which we heard so much about from the Leader of the Opposition. That threatened to seriously undermine industry and public confidence in the control and regulation of thoroughbred racing.

The Government swiftly responded by commissioning Ian Temby, QC, to review these aspects and report within four months. If I had followed some of the advice that was given to me at the time, the Opposition would have asked for an inquiry, just as it wants for the harness industry. That would have been great. All those who are disgruntled would have been going back and forth to the Star Chamber when in fact the industry only needed a review to make sure preventive and proper probity measures and various other aspects were put into place. That was completed in four months. Following this review, Mr Temby submitted a comprehensive report to the Government which, if adopted, will set the scene for the future administration of racing in this State.

The recommendations are aimed at strengthening and ensuring the integrity of racing in New South Wales. They involve major changes to the way in which the industry is governed as well as dealing with a number of significant matters covering racing officials, trainers, jockeys, drugs, betting, bookmakers and police. The response to the report has been quite positive with most industry groups and racing clubs commenting favourably on the recommendations. Naturally, the issue which has generated the most comment is the recommended change to the manner in which the industry is governed. In this respect Mr Temby recommended that a thoroughbred racing council representative of the whole racing industry be established, and that the control and regulation of the industry be transferred from the committee of the Australian Jockey Club to the new body.

At a meeting the Premier and I had with the Chief Executive of the AJC, Mr Tony King, on 2 November 1995 it was agreed that the AJC would submit a response to the Temby report and government would consider it before making its decision. I might say at that up until that meeting the AJC position was that there should be no change whatsoever. Accordingly, in line with a commitment the AJC gave to me and the Premier, on 21 November 1995 the AJC submitted a report entitled "AJC Response to the Temby Report". In this report the AJC has indicated its agreement in principle with 59 of the 68 recommendations put forward by Mr Temby. In fact, many of these recommendations - which deal with critical areas such as drug testing, racecourse security and codes of conduct for the industry - are already being implemented. Government intervention is not required.

Those recommendations with which the AJC did not agree included the establishment of a thoroughbred racing council as a separate entity, the requirement that members of the controlling authority relinquish their position as members of committees of other racing clubs or associations, the payment of members and the transfer of the AJC laboratory. As a form of compromise, the AJC has submitted an alternative model for the future governance of racing in New South Wales. In this regard, the AJC has suggested the establishment of a new body to be known as the AJC principal club committee by way of amendments to the AJC constitution. This model overlooks participation on the controlling body by other industry stakeholders including owners, breeders, trainers, bookmakers, jockeys and punters. I have been persuaded that if a broadly representative model is to be introduced, then a nominee of owners and breeders should be added to the Temby model.

I continue to receive representations on both the Temby and AJC models. For example, the Sydney Turf Club, which conducts half the Sydney metropolitan race meetings, has indicated its full support for an independent and fully representative thoroughbred racing council. The AJC's
Page 4510
counterproposal is currently being examined by the implementation team established within the department. Honourable members may be assured that the model finally adopted for the future control of the industry will be in the best interests of the industry and the many thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on that industry. The Government's policies are based largely on ethics and sound administration and give strong consideration to the needs of the industry. In this regard I have been mindful of the necessity to fully consult with the industry in the implementation of government policies.

One of my first actions on taking office was to introduce legislation to protect the racing industry in New South Wales should other states decide to reduce their rates of totalisator commission. Rather than going through the cumbersome and time consuming process of amending the legislation to lower commission rates, the Government will now be able to quickly adjust to any decision by interstate authorities to reduce totalisator commission rates in an endeavour to attract New South Wales investments. The Governor, by order published in the Government Gazette on the recommendation of the Treasurer, will be able to reduce the rates of commission to meet any interstate challenge. The cornerstone of the Government's racing policy will be the corporatisation of the New South Wales TAB. As honourable members would be aware, the TAB was established in 1964 and is one of the world's largest off-course betting organisations. The TAB operates more than 1400 outlets throughout New South Wales and has an annual turnover of approximately $3.5 billion. TAB revenue in the period 1 April to 30 November increased by $63.5 million or 2.72 per cent over the same period in 1994. To remain competitive, the TAB must remain innovative.

I can report that the Government has appointed a steering committee comprising representatives of the Cabinet Office, the Treasury, the TAB, my Department of Gaming and Racing and my ministerial office to put forward proposals for the Government's consideration on the most appropriate means for corporatising the TAB. In considering the matter the steering committee will be asked to give particular emphasis to the submissions made on corporatisation by the combined horse industries and the TAB. It is anticipated that legislation will be introduced in the 1996 budget session to provide for corporatisation. I am confident that the corporatisation of the TAB will result in a greater return to government and the racing industry. While acknowledging the importance of corporatising the TAB, I recognise that without doubt taxation on wagering is seen by the industry as the most important issue affecting its viability.

Honourable members will no doubt recall the unmitigated disaster when the former Government, without consultation with the industry, chose to increase totalisator commission rates by 1 per cent. Poor old George Souris. The Treasury boffins told George not to argue; just to put it in. The impact on the racing industry was immediate with lost betting turnover and resultant lost commissions to race clubs. In fact, the situation in the industry today is a direct result of the 1 per cent rate. The coalition would not repeal the increase because Fahey had become Premier and he said, "We cannot be seen to go back." The reduction to three-quarters of a per cent was the first admission that there was a problem. Under a weight of criticism from the public and the industry, the coalition Government was forced to adjust the rates in a quick about-face. I find it ironic that in light of the disgraceful track record of the previous Government in the administration of the racing industry, I stand here defending myself against accusations of maladministration.

As an initial step to repair this damage of the former Government, I have established a working party - once again, I have not been doing anything in this period! - comprising representatives from the three controlling authorities of racing, the TAB and my department to inquire into wagering taxation reform. I am expecting a report from that working party early in the new year and honourable members may be assured that every consideration will be given to the provision of taxation relief to the industry. Apart from the major issues of corporatisation and taxation reform, I have not lost sight of the other commitments contained within the Government's racing policy.

In this regard, I have commenced action which has included consultation with and input from industry bodies where appropriate to further the implementation of the following policies: to develop a standardised code of ethics and accountability; to develop a standard accounting and auditing practice - once again, something the coalition never did - to conduct an independent and objective review of the composition and viability of all race clubs; to implement a coordinated approach for the programming of race dates involving the three controlling bodies of racing and the department; to monitor the effects of the new Sydney Casino on the viability of the racing industry; to consider the development of a fixed odds betting facility; to establish a scheme for the provision of funds to race clubs for the upkeep of training facilities; to legislate for the establishment of betting auditoriums at the Randwick and Rosehill racecourses; to develop and implement compulsive gambling programs to minimise the serious social impacts of gambling addiction, which the coalition never did; to increase funding made available for research initiatives; to provide for accredited competency based training for the racing industry; to establish a racing industry consultative council; to work towards reforms of the administration and various functions of the thoroughbred racing industry; to commission a long term strategy for the greyhound industry and its administration; and to undertake a joint review to ensure the appropriate department has under its jurisdiction land trusts where racing facilities exist on Crown land.

Page 4511

I was also able to obtain consensus at a meeting of Australian racing Ministers for two important initiatives to assist the greyhound racing and harness racing industries. Firstly, the Ministers agreed to my submission that a joint national approach be made to the Federal Treasurer seeking a lifting of the sales tax attached to greyhound food. In my many discussions with industry participants, both before and after the election, it became clear that the imposition of sales tax on greyhound food was seen as an unfair burden on greyhound owners, particularly as tax concessions are given for certain other categories of animals. Apart from this national approach, I have also raised the issue directly with the Federal Treasurer and I am hopeful that a decision will be taken to give taxation relief to greyhound enthusiasts. I also raised with my interstate counterparts concerns expressed by many quarters in the harness racing industry over the varying handicapping schemes between the States and Territories. As a result of my submission, I was able to obtain support in principle for the introduction of a national handicapping system.

As a flow on from that decision, the Australian Harness Racing Council resolved that each State and Territory would proceed towards the implementation of a nationwide system. In addition to my actions to bring about the implementation of the Government's racing policy, I have also introduced legislation to simplify the licensing provisions of the Gaming and Betting Act to enable the computer intelligence of a totalisator to be located off the racecourse. Both these initiatives were introduced to assist in the administration of racing in New South Wales. At the meeting of State Ministers we were able to get the Hunter Valley equine research centre adopted as the national yardstick. I visited the centre recently and I have advanced a further $500,000 to the establishment. Indeed, New South Wales will be at the forefront of establishing an equine centre. The motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition accuses me of maladministration. Perhaps if I am to be criticised it should be because I have been unable to rectify seven years of neglect and mismanagement by the coalition Government in my first seven and a half months in office.

I turn now to the so-called whistleblowers. The Leader of the Opposition in his motion has indicated that I refused to meet with whistleblowers and to act on the information of honest whistleblowers in the greyhound industry. I can only assume that he is referring to former Greyhound Racing Control Board members Mr Peter Atkins and Mr Edward Humphries and former Harness Racing Authority members Mr Allan Gaskell and Mr James Walsh. If so, I categorically deny the accusations. In the case of Mr Humphries and Mr Atkins, neither gentlemen ever sought a meeting with me before or after the appointment of the new Greyhound Racing Control Board in August 1995. I did, however, at one stage agree to meet a deputation from the United Greyhound Association in my office on Thursday, 8 June 1995.

To prepare appropriate background information for my consideration prior to the meeting, officers of my department had discussions with the president of the association, Mr Young, and his son. I have met them before. They have been major players in the industry. Mr Young was asked to provide a list of the items that his association would be raising with me. During those discussions, Mr Young indicated that one of the matters his association wished to discuss with me was the possible restructure of the Greyhound Racing Control Board, and stated that the association wished to put forward several recommendations in that regard. When asked to provide the names of the association members who would be attending the deputation, Mr Young stated that, apart from other executive members of the association, Mr Edward Humphries and possibly Mr Peter Atkins - then members of the Greyhound Racing Control Board - would be in attendance.

I found it quite strange that these two members would seek to join a deputation of greyhound industry participants to criticise the actions of their colleagues on the board, and I indicated that if either of them had concerns about the operations of the board they should bring them to my attention themselves. When this information was conveyed by my officers to the President of the United Greyhound Association, he indicated that the meeting would not proceed. In addition, apart from their applications for reappointment to the Greyhound Racing Control Board, I am not aware of Mr Atkins or Mr Humphries ever writing to me on any issue concerning improprieties within the greyhound racing industry.

Mr Atkins did, however, write a letter to the editor of a south coast newspaper which was circulated throughout the industry and made available to me by other participants within the industry. The letter contained several allegations of impropriety within the greyhound racing industry, and I arranged for it to be forwarded to the police department for appropriate investigation. Mr Atkins and Mr Humphries have been at times portrayed as reformers. I am not aware of any reforms initiated by these two gentlemen and I believe it is appropriate that I read for the information of honourable members a letter written by Mr Dennis English, who was the chairman of the committee as it then was, forwarded to me by the Chairman of the Greyhound Racing Control Board regarding the actions of Mr Atkins and Mr Humphries while members of the Greyhound Racing Control Board. The letter states:

The Minister is aware that a number of allegations have recently been made in the press against the Greyhound Racing Control Board. As those allegations have emanated from members of the Board and concern, to a large extent, matters discussed, or alleged to have been discussed, within the confines of the boardroom, it has placed the Board and in particular the other five members of the Board at a severe disadvantage in terms of any responses to the allegations. As the Minister would appreciate, it has always been the policy of the Board that matters discussed within the boardroom remain

Page 4512
confidential and that only the Chief Executive Officer or the Chairman of the Board speak to the press in relation to Board matters. Both of those policies have been clearly breached by the Board members in question. Given the current circumstances I feel that it is appropriate that I respond as Chairman of the Board to the allegations raised both in the press and elsewhere. The Minister would appreciate that in doing so, I myself must breach the confidentiality of the boardroom however I feel that in the circumstances, and despite a heavy reluctance to do so, I have no alternative. I would however therefore ask the Minister to treat this letter as highly confidential.

By documents distributed widely within the industry and purporting to be an account by Mr Peter Atkins of his time on the Board, Mr Atkins makes a number of allegations. I will now deal with those allegations in detail.

1. Mr Atkins alleges that prior to the first meeting of the new Board he was approached in the kitchen by a "senior member" of the Board who suggested that he should not try to get everything done at once. He draws the assumption that he should not try to get anything done at all. This is the report of what would appear to be a private conversation between Mr Atkins and an unidentified member of the Board. The term "senior member" presumably could only apply to either myself or . . .

I do not propose to name the member because he has been hurt enough. The letter continued:

As the Minister will remember all others members of the Board were appointed at the same time as Mr. Atkins and could therefore hardly be said to be senior to him. For my part I can deny categorically that I was a party to the conversation. In any event, as stated above, the conversation is clearly identified by Mr. Atkins as being a private conversation between him and another member of the Board. Members of the Board are entitled and indeed are appointed for the purposes of expressing their personal opinions and indeed the advice allegedly given by the member to Mr. Atkins is in itself unobjectionable and in my view quite reasonable. The assumption that Mr. Atkins draws is a subjective one and one adopted by him out of number of other possible and innocent interpretations.

2. Mr. Atkins suggests that "before the first meeting did commence the Board was advised by the secretary that complete minutes were not kept." This statement is clearly inaccurate. No discussions about Board procedures were conducted prior to the first meeting. The only matter that was raised about Board procedure during the meeting was to the effect that Board proceedings were conducted with as little formality as possible to allow the greatest possible opportunity to each Board member to express his opinion on any matter. It was of course pointed out to all Board members that for the Board to function property and for each member to be able to put his view without fear the confidentiality of the boardroom must be strictly observed. I have no knowledge as to whether Mr. Atkins recorded matters on his computer. However I would suggest that if he did so those recordings are not accurate judging by the allegations made by him.

3. Mr. Atkins alleges that when general business was reached at the first meeting he stated "I wish to talk about cleaning up the sport." He then attributes again to a "senior member" of the Board, the immediate responses "well we won't be doing that, we won't have anybody left." I have no memory of this response being made immediately in reply to Mr. Atkins statement. When general business is raised at the Board, each member of the Board is given the opportunity to raise such matters as he wishes. Every member of the Board is given the opportunity to speak to the matters raised and those matters are discussed generally by the Board members. It appears that Mr. Atkins was unaware that the previous Board had significantly increased the amount of swabbing and had introduced both random and place getter swabs. Mr. Atkins allegations presuppose that the Board had formed some prior consensus view in relation to the matters raised by him. This is somewhat remarkable as these statements were allegedly made at the first meeting of the new Board which Board contained five new members out of the seven member Board. There had been no previous meetings of the Board members either including or excluding Mr. Atkins and certainly I had no knowledge of the views of any of the individual Board members . . . with whom I have served on the previous Board.

The clear implication of Mr Atkins' allegation is that there was some existing consensus within the Board and that would appear totally inconsistent with the circumstances.

4. Mr Atkins then deals with a trainer who allegedly returned two positive swabs and was fined a total of $400.00. He attributes to a member of the Board the statement "that's a very mild anti-inflammatory substance". To my recollection the matter involved the use of a therapeutic substance and the first positive swab had not been returned when the trainer in question was swabbed for a second time. Accordingly both positive swabs were dealt with on the same day. The statement attributed to the Board member, to my knowledge, was made by the veterinary surgeon on the Board, Dr Ted Humphries. Board members apart from Mr Humphries are not trained chemists or veterinarians and therefore rely heavily upon the advice of the veterinarian on the Board in relation to the effect of certain substances. As stated Dr Humphries confirmed that the drug was a very mild anti-inflammatory substance. At a subsequent Board meeting Mr Atkins advised the Board members that he had contacted the manufacturer of the substance in question and had spoken to a female person of that company who advised him that the substance was akin to caffeine. Dr Humphries was given a further opportunity to comment and expressed the professional opinion that the statement by the manufacturer was incorrect and confirmed again that the substance was a very mild anti-inflammatory substance. The allegation by Mr Atkins that "the substance turned out to be a stimulant as strong as caffeine banned by every sporting organisation in Australia (except the Greyhound Racing Control Board)" is clearly at odds with the professional advice available to the Board. Mr Atkins was basing his opinion upon a telephone call to a person of unknown training at the office of the manufacturer - whereas the Board was basing its opinion upon the professional advice of a veterinarian experienced in the treatment of greyhounds. As to the suggestion that the substance was banned by every sporting organisation other than the Greyhound Racing Control Board, again this is clearly incorrect and inconsistent with the substance of Mr Atkins allegation. Mr Atkins is suggesting only, it would appear, that the trainer was dealt with too leniently not that an offence was not recorded. That is at odds with his statement that the substance is not banned in New South Wales. If the substance was not banned then clearly there would have been no penalty involved or offence recorded.

Page 4513

5. Mr Atkins makes an allegation in relation to the enforcement and amendment of Board rules. During my time on the Board with Mr Atkins I formed the personal view that Mr Atkins had very little knowledge of the Board Rules. It is interesting to note that he does not suggest which rules should be amended or enforced. In any event I have no memory whatsoever of this statement being made by Mr Atkins.

6. Mr Atkins alleges that a member of the Board made statements about him to the effect that he was a "f*** imbecile". Again I have no knowledge as to whether any member of the Board made this statement and in any event it could only amount to a personal comment by a member of the Board as to Mr Atkins ability. A member of the Board is entitled to his personal opinion regarding any other member. It would of course be unfortunate if he made that opinion public for the same reasons as it is unfortunate that Mr Atkins has made his view of other Board members public.

7. Mr Atkins refers to a statement made by him and an alleged response by the Secretary regarding the relative merits of the sport in Queensland and New South Wales. I can see no substance in this purported conversation which would reflect badly upon the Board. Mr Atkins would have appeared to have again misinterpreted the position in relation to the matter and appears to suggest that the substance in question is not banned when clearly it is.

8. Mr Atkins supposedly reports a conversation in which it is alleged that a Board member said "we don't care if trainers dope their dogs we're only interested in the ones who pull them up". As part of the same conversation he alleges that a Board member makes a statement to the effect that there were no honest people in greyhound racing. I have no knowledge of this conversation taking place and again would be most surprised if it had. You will note that Mr Atkins suggests that this statement was made at the second meeting of the Board. Again I would make the point that it would be highly improbable for a newly appointed member of the Board to make such a statement after only one meeting of the Board. This statement suggests again that there was a hidden consensus of the Board to support the alleged statement. This clearly does not fit with the reality of the situation.

9. Mr Atkins alleges that he was quizzed by the then Minister for Sport and Recreation as to his involvement in the first two meetings. He attributes to the former Minister the statement "well your name doesn't appear in the minutes". This would be a remarkable statement by the former Minister as not only does Mr Atkins name appear as being present at the meeting but matters raised by him are recorded in both sets of minutes. Clearly either the former Minister or Mr Atkins is in error.

10. In dealing with the third meeting of the Board, Mr Atkins suggests that he put forward a plan to "clean up our sport". He then suggests that objections were raised to his plan which presumably were unreasonable (in his view). I note that Mr Atkins does not provide details of his plan. However my memory of the situation is that his plan involved swabbing a greatly increased number of greyhounds competing at Wentworth Park. The matter was discussed in some detail by the other Board members who pointed out to Mr Atkins the practical problems with his suggestion. I feel that Mr Atkins has very little understanding of the swabbing procedures including the necessity for total security in relation to the actual swabbing and the specimen. Certainly the veterinarian on the Board, Dr Humphries, who as club veterinarian at Wentworth Park is charged with the responsibility of collecting swabs, expressed the view that the plan proposed by Mr Atkins would be impossible to put into practice. I remember that part of the Atkins plan was that anybody returning positive swabs should be disqualified and "kicked out of the sport". Again Mr Atkins seemed to have little understanding of the legal requirements of natural justice and in particular the legal requirement that each matter be dealt with on its merits. The legal requirements were explained to all members of the Board including Mr Atkins. However Mr Atkins appeared to take the view that these requirements were merely hurdles being placed in the way of his plan of action.

11. Mr Atkins makes the allegation again against a "senior member of the Board" that he made the statement "well we won't be doing that. The Clubs are running Greyhound racing". I have no knowledge of this statement having been made however the statement itself would be open to many interpretations. As the Minister is aware the Greyhound Racing Control Board Act precludes the Greyhound Racing Control Board from conducting race meetings. Accordingly all meetings within the state of New South Wales are conducted by Greyhound Racing clubs. To this extent it is true to say that the clubs run greyhound racing, certainly insofar as the conduct of meetings is concerned. Although it was explained to him on a number of occasions, Mr Atkins did not appear to understand the concept of the Board being a statutory body whose powers were governed by the Greyhound Racing Control Board Act. It was explained to all Board members that the Board was a creature of statute and any attempt by the Board to exercise a power which was not granted by the Act would be ultra vires. I have no knowledge of the alleged private conversation between Mr Atkins and a Board member in the carpark. I would again make the point that such a conversation is not a matter for the Board. In any event I would have thought it was highly appropriate for any member wishing to raise what he considers important matters for Board consideration to give the other Board members the opportunity of considering the proposal prior to a Board meeting. It is certainly a common practice in any number of Boards for members to table matters which they wish to be discussed by the Board.

12. Mr Atkins alleges that in reply to his submission that the Board did not have any control over stewards he was told "they run their own race". He also alleges that a statement was made to the effect that stewards were paid peanuts. I have no recollection whatsoever of this conversation having taken place. I do have a recollection however that Board members were advised of the provisions of the Act which specifically include stewards from the direction of the Board in relation to the conduct and determination of enquiries. This provision, apart from being a binding provision of the statute which governs the Board's existence, is a matter of common law. Any person exercising a quasi judicial function, as the stewards are, must not have their independence fettered in relation to the determination of matters before them. To do so would be a breach of the rules of natural justice and of course a breach of the Greyhound Racing Control Board Act.

13. Mr Atkins recites the case of a female appellant whose fine, according to him, was reduced from $500.00 to $100.00. My memory of the situation is

Page 4514
that the fine indeed was reduced however it was reduced to $200.00 rather than $100.00. It is clearly the role of the Board in hearing an Appeal on severity to take into consideration the personal circumstances of the appellant. To do otherwise would be a breach of the common law principles of natural justice. Quite clearly a $500.00 fine imposed upon a millionaire will have a different effect, therefore different severity, to a $500.00 fine imposed upon an unemployed person of limited means. My recollection is that despite the objections now being made by Mr Atkins he raised no objection to the decision when it was made by the Board. Any decision on an Appeal to the Board is put by way of Motion and all members of the Board are given the opportunity to discuss the Motion and then record their vote. The Board minutes record that Mr Atkins voted in favour of the resolution and certainly it is my recollection that he did so.

14. Mr Atkins criticises the Chief Steward for determining a matter upon objective assessment of the truthfulness or otherwise of the Defendant. Again, and I do not wish to be repetitious, the common law imposes upon the Stewards, the duty to act in accordance with the terms of natural justice. Natural justice requires that any person appearing before the stewards is given an opportunity to present their evidence and requires that the stewards must take account of that evidence in reaching their decision. If the stewards were not to take account of evidence presented before them at an enquiry they would be in breach of the rules of natural justice and the common law. Indeed if the stewards were to decide matters purely on the grounds of the factual evidence to the exclusion of explanations given by the trainer involved and their own objective assessment of the truthfulness or otherwise of that evidence there would be no need for stewards to hold enquiries.

15. Mr Atkins makes allegations that there is a secret drug list which "privileged trainers can use". Mr Atkins does not substantiate that claim by any evidence. It has never been denied that there is a list of therapeutic substances deemed non actionable by the previous Board. These substances are known to only four persons, those persons being the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Steward, the former Chief Steward and the former Veterinarian Board member. When the matter was raised Mr Atkins was indeed absent from the Board, having I believe, travelled to England in relation to the publication of a book written by him. Mr Atkins suggested that Ted Humphries asked what the drugs were and was "politely informed that he wasn't going to be told". This is clearly incorrect upon my recollection and the recollection of other Board members to whom I have spoken. Indeed the matter was recently put to Dr Humphries who conceded to the recollection of the other Board members. That recollection is that Dr Humphries was pressed to review the list of substances and to provide the Board with his own comments. Dr Humphries declined that request. Naturally I have no knowledge of the alleged conversation between Mr Atkins and Mr Humphries, however the matter was never raised by those members in any Board meeting.

16. Mr Atkins alleges that a member of the Board who is a respected trainer stated "My dogs race on that". I have no recollection of this conversation at all. Had the trainer been racing his dogs on that substance then those dogs if swabbed, would have returned a positive result. Despite Mr Atkins's confusion as to the position, it is clear even from his own evidence that the substance in question was dealt with as a prohibited substance.

17. Mr. Atkins deals in some detail in relation to the treatment of a person whom he has described elsewhere as a "child molester". Again Mr. Atkins appears to have difficulty in understanding the role of the Board. The Board is not invested with the power to make moral judgments as to the fitness or otherwise of a person to be involved in greyhound racing. The person in question was dealt with pursuant to Rule 9(4)(b) of the Greyhound Racing Control Board Rules. That Rule states that the Board may, after notice to a person and due enquiry, impose upon the person any one or more of certain penalties if the person has been convicted of an offence by a Court in New South Wales or elsewhere and the Board is satisfied that the nature of the offence is such that the persons continued participation or association with greyhound racing would be detrimental to the proper control and regulation of greyhound racing. The Board must therefore be satisfied that the nature of the offence is such that the persons continued participation or association with greyhound racing would be detrimental to the proper control and regulation of greyhound racing. Clearly there must be a nexus between the offence and the proper control and regulation of greyhound racing. It is difficult to see even on very detailed reflection how such a nexus could ever be said to exist. My recollection of the determination by the Board of this matter was that Mr Atkins did not speak in support of any action being taken against the person in question and certainly did not raise the matter again with the Board until some one and half to two months later immediately prior to it being raised with the press.

Generally I note that on at least two occasions Mr. Atkins raised matters in the boardroom where allegations had supposedly been made to him by industry participants regarding improper acts on greyhound tracks. On all occasions Mr Atkins was requested to supply the Board with the source of the allegations so that they could be properly investigated. He was unable or unwilling to do so. At least one of these instances was formally recorded in the minutes.

Apart from items of general business raised by him Mr. Atkins seemed to adopt the role of an observer rather than a participant in Board discussions. This is particularly so in relation to the matters where he now seeks to criticise the Board's decisions.

As the Minister would also be aware in the July 24 issue of the Daily Telegraph Mirror in an article headed "Greyhounds in Crisis" a number of allegations are attributed to Dr. Humphries, a member of the Board. Comment in relation to those reported allegations is also appropriate.

I. Mr. Humphries is quoted as stating "the Board was the worst administered Board I've ever seen. There's no staff training no forward planning and little use of computers." This statement by Dr. Humphries is, if true, rather remarkable. During Dr. Humphries time on the Board, we have, as the Minister is aware, provided the Minister with detailed reports as to training and indeed Dr. Humphries was a party to the Board's tender process in relation to the computerisation of greyhound registrations. As a Board member Dr. Humphries was presented with detailed reports as to the

Page 4515
computerisation of the registration section. Mr. Humphries was one of a three man sub-committee appointed by the Board to prepare the Board's strategic plan.

II. Dr. Humphries is alleged to have said, "we can't even find out what the drugs are, that information was kept from me, it's another example of an unlevel playing field for participants. They may be quite harmless but the fact they've refused to provide the list of swabs makes me suspect there's some reason as to why they won't do so." Dr. Humphries conceded as late as a Board meeting on the 13th of July, that he had been pressed by other Board members to peruse the list of therapeutic substances and to provide his comments on the list.

III. The only other allegation which requires response is that "positive swabs should be published as they are in Victoria and Queensland." In this regard I note that Dr. Humphries sat on the Board when a submission was put by the UGA in relation to the publication of swab results. The question was then discussed by the Board and it is my recollection that Dr. Humphries did not speak in favour of publishing swab results and appeared happy to continue with the Board's existing policy.

My own experience of Dr Humphries contribution to the Board is that it was coloured by his role as the Veterinarian officiating at Wentworth Park. The Minister would appreciate that the Stewards have ultimate control during a race meeting. Accordingly all persons involved with the race meeting are subject to their control and direction including the vet. In his role as a Board member however Dr. Humphries was the superior of the Stewards and they his de facto employees. Dr. Humphries seemed unable to fully balance these conflicting roles. Similarly a number of his professional clients were participants in the greyhound industry. Again he was placed in the difficult position of properly balancing his professional interests with those of his duties as a Board member.

Finally I should respond to the criticism implied in the allegations of Atkins and Humphries, of the Chief Executive of the Board. It is Mr. Cartwright's unenviable role to be the implementer of the Board's policy. Mr. Cartwright has always carried out that role in an exemplary manner. His honesty is in my view beyond reproach and his devotion to his duties deserving of the highest praise. It saddens me greatly to see his integrity and competence questioned. Mr. Cartwright has my fullest confidence.

In closing I express again my regret at having to breach the confidentiality of the Boardroom. However, it is clear that I also have a duty to you and the Government and the above comments are made in that respect.

The letter was signed by the chairman, Dennis English. The situation in regard to Mr Humphries and Mr Atkins needs clarification. I announced a new board and I decided to dismiss the previous board because it simply was not working. I have read this letter today to give honourable members a realisation of what confronted the board. The board was torn apart and things were not going to work. As a consequence I appointed for a term of seven years seven new members who I believe will do the best job and might settle the industry down.

Several reports have been produced concerning alleged improprieties within the greyhound industry. Those assertions were largely unsubstantiated and they have done a great deal of damage to the reputation of the industry. I was unhappy with the knee-jerk calls for parliamentary inquiries, the sole purpose of which was to score cheap political points. They would not help the industry's case. However, the allegations were serious. I wasted no time in referring them to the relevant authorities; in this case, the police. At the time of the announcement of the board I was able to say there was no evidence at that stage, and none has since emerged, of corruption or impropriety by any owners, trainers or officials. If that is not the case I would like to know about it. The call of the Opposition spokesman at the time was that the Government appoint an administrator to oversee the control and regulation of the greyhound racing industry. The spokesman probably did not understand the legislation governing the sport.

The Act was quite specific. The control and the regulation of greyhound racing shall be vested in the board of seven members, and there is no scope for me to appoint an administrator. As I have said, the coalition had a fair amount of time to do something about it. The situation is ongoing. It caused me a lot of heartache when I had to dismiss people who had given the industry a lot of time and energy. Their integrities appeared to be impugned by the fact that I dismissed the board. I thanked all of those who had been on the board, with the exclusion of two gentlemen because of what had gone on. Norm Brady, Bruce Fletcher, Neville Bailey and Cyril Rowe were the people I felt had been unfairly dealt with. When I reappointed the board I made certain that the new board removed any perceived conflict of interest that had been evident previously.

On the new board there are no committee members of any greyhound clubs, no active licensed persons, and no employees of the industry. I refer to Mr Humphries - I am not condemning him; he made a lot of allegations which were followed up, but the police were unable to glean anything from them. The previous Minister was not the wisest in appointing a person who had a contract at the time to be the vet at Wentworth Park to sit on those matters. Because of the way the appeal mechanism was set up under the Greyhound Racing Control Board it was not the wisest appointment in the world. I put those people on the board, and I do not intend to refer to each of them tonight. I reappointed Dennis English. He was a lawyer and the chairman. For consistency, and because he was a professional administrator, he deserved to go back. Every now and then there is a snide remark that because he worked with the Department of Sport and Recreation some years ago and he knew the officers there was something wrong. That is totally wrong.

Page 4516

I appointed people such as Ross McGinn because of his expertise. He has an accountancy background. I appointed Gerry Candrick. He had experience in the industry and was employed in a senior position dealing with totalisators. Keith Lambert is a former officer of the department. He knows every New South Wales racecourse inside and out. For the first time, I appointed a vet who had no vested interest - Dr Maddison. Because some matters needed to be addressed on the basis of promotion, I appointed Arthur Elliot, who was a lecturer in sales and marketing awareness at East Sydney technical college. He was a former mayor of Goulburn, and was not of my political persuasion. When that was put into place, they were charged from the word go with the development of a strategic plan for the industry; they had to come up with an industry code of conduct, a complete review of drug testing policy - which I have described in the House this week - including the use of therapeutic drugs and the publication of swab results; there was to be consultation with the greyhound racing clubs in light of the problems to devise a new plan to assist clubs in marketing the promotion of the industry.

In my view, it was a reasonable decision to reappoint members of a board that was in trouble. I refer to Mr Walsh and Mr Gaskell. Neither of these people approached me until Tuesday of last week. Let us get this straight: I knew neither of them. I had met Mr Gaskell on one occasion some years ago at a harness racing function. What the Leader of the Opposition alleged today is selective, to say the least. I said in the House that I did not care to know them if they continued to go on the way they had been. I appealed to them if they had the industry at heart to come forward. Everything that has happened in this industry over the years has been general; nothing has been specific. To the credit of Mr Walsh and Mr Gaskell, they took me up on the offer. They rang my office at about 3.45 p.m. last Monday afternoon and asked to see me. I immediately agreed. They were two former members of the board and they had never written to me about their complaints before. I have appealed to people right across the board over a long period to come forward if they had anything specific rather than something general.

Mr Gaskell and Mr Walsh could not make it that afternoon, so I arranged to see them at midday the next day. Mr Gaskell said to me at the time, "I am not here to see you about being upset about not being back on the board. It does not worry me." Mr Walsh did not say anything one way or the other. They made a statement, to which I have referred in this House. I will do likewise if anyone else comes to see me. The Leader of the Opposition said tonight that they had sent various matters to me for referral. That is a responsible way to do things. That is what I intend to do in the future. I am not about covering anything up. I have been in this place for 23 years. When I leave, I will do so with my integrity intact. In my entire public life I have never covered for anybody. That is the part that disappoints me. Following a request to meet Mr Walsh and Mr Gaskell, I did so in my office.

In accordance with my ministerial responsibilities, I arranged to have these allegations passed on immediately to the Independent Commission Against Corruption for examination and consideration. Apart from the four gentlemen mentioned, I at no time have been approached by any other board members or employees of either the Harness Racing Authority or the Greyhound Racing Control Board with information regarding corrupt conduct, maladministration or serious and substantial waste. Again, I refute the allegations levelled by the Leader of the Opposition. In recent times the Opposition has accused me of discouraging people with proof of corruption of impropriety in the racing industry from bringing those matters to my attention. That is completely untrue. On one occasion I expressed concerns over the access of some persons within the racing industry who make wild and unsubstantiated allegations merely to further their own names or to discredit and damage the reputation of administrators within the industry. In this regard, I was and still am of the opinion that persons found to have acted in this way should be dealt with accordingly.

I reject totally what was said here tonight - that I am running around this State and saying to people that they will be charged if they complain. That is a figment of the Opposition's imagination. It is mischief. I have said inside and outside of this House that I do not want people making allegations of a general nature, but if they have something to say I will listen and, if necessary, protect them. I cannot believe the comments I hear all the time about people being too frightened to come forward. They are asking for a public inquiry. I do not know of a better way to make people feel threatened than a public and open inquiry. However, anyone who has found evidence of corruption in the racing industry is encouraged to bring it to my attention. Likewise, I will bring such information to the attention of the authorities.

The problems with the harness racing industry and the criticism of the authority's actions is not new. In many ways, history is repeating itself. Prior to 1978 the industry was controlled and regulated by a committee of the New South Wales Trotting Club in its role as the principal club. As a result of continued complaints about the administration of that body, the government of the day established the Harness Racing Authority and determined that it would be largely representative of the industry.

Page 4517

However, within 12 months of the establishment of the authority certain elements within the industry commenced a campaign against it, its members and staff over certain policies and decisions of the authority. Acting on these and other complaints, the then Minister, the late Ken Booth, established a committee of inquiry to examine the finances and future viability of the industry. The Government subsequently adopted a recommendation of that committee and reconstituted the authority in its present form. In addition, the appeals mechanism for the industry was restructured with the establishment of an independent Harness Racing Appeals Tribunal. Unfortunately, that action failed to appease the critics. After a honeymoon period the new authority was again under attack and continues to be so to this day.

Since its establishment in 1977, a mere 18 years, the authority has been appointed on seven occasions. During that time it has had four chairmen and 24 other persons serving as members, three chief executive officers and two chairmen of stewards. If one were to listen to the critics of the authority, one would think there had never been any change. The same criticisms, allegations and complaints are heard over and over again. The authority has come under continual attacks, over the years, each time it did not agree with the views of certain persons within the industry. Of late this criticism has not been confined to the authority. In fact, it has extended to officers of my department, which I referred to earlier. Critics of the authority do not like the Harness Racing Appeals Tribunal, Justice Bill Perrignon, and the acting Harness Racing Appeals Tribunal, Judge Barrie Thorley, hearing certain things. Barrie Thorley receives criticisms for decisions he makes that do not meet with approval. The latest target is the Independent Commission Against Corruption. I shall quote from the National Trotting Weekly of 30 November a letter from the President of the United Harness Racing Association to the editor regarding recent task force Roderick and ICAC inquiries:

In what was viewed by many in the industry and the administration at the time as a gross betrayal of the trust placed in it by participants, the ICAC failed to release any report whatsoever, and instead issued a platitudinous public statement on 10 April 1995, to the effect that none of the matters raised during its and Roderick's investigation warranted any action against anybody.

Certain people in the harness racing industry will never be satisfied unless only their view is considered. To illustrate further, recently I arranged for senior officers on my personal staff to meet with the President of the United Harness Racing Association in an attempt to elicit from him details of allegations about corrupt practices within the harness racing industry. I shall quote from the report provided to me by my ministerial staff. This so-called senior representative of the harness racing industry, as he calls himself, and I do not criticise him for that, stated:

I don't have any information to pass on. It is others making the allegations but they won't talk to you.

More profoundly he stated:

I am satisfied that the only way to get things right in this industry is to blow up the current industry and start again.

Obviously the Leader of the Opposition and his people have been cooperating with some section of the industry. I do not think it is in the best interests of the industry to blow it up and start again. Even my predecessor, the honourable member for Sutherland, who certainly had a close association with some members of the former board, towards the end of his term as Minister was growing tired of the constant whingeing. I am informed that he indicated on one occasion that no matter what was the result of the election, the good thing would be that he would not have to deal with those people any more. In a press release of 7 February the Minister ordered an ICAC probe into the trots. In the second last paragraph of that media release the Minister said:

I was disappointed that the dissatisfaction of the two board members was ventilated by the media before I had a chance to speak to them.

Once again that indicates that the previous Minister was not consulted. If one wants responsibility in an industry like this, one cannot continue in this fashion. The honourable member for Sutherland, who has the temerity to support this motion against me predicated on assertions of lack of confidence in my administration, should himself have been censured by this House, as the voting public did on 25 March. For the past hour or more I have clearly demonstrated that my positive contribution to the gaming and racing portfolio is in stark contrast to the abysmal failure of the honourable member for Sutherland and his stewardship of this portfolio. This is not demonstrated any better than in the letter of resignation tendered by the former chairman of the Harness Racing Authority - a political appointee and coalition supporter of the previous Minister. I shall read to the House the actual letter of resignation by the former chairman. Once again it demonstrates the former Minister's incompetent handling of the administration and the divisive way that he administered, particularly, the harness racing industry. The letter stated:

Please accept this my resignation effective immediately from the Harness Racing Authority. I am aware that two other members of the Harness Racing Authority who resigned recently did not inform you of their reasons. I do not intend to allow you the same luxury on this occasion.

Mr Downy: Well I can tell you they did.

Mr FACE: I am only reading the letter. The letter continued:

I was the first appointed member of the Harness Racing Authority. I was asked by your predecessor, Bob Rowland Smith, to chair the authority. Subsequently I served under George Souris, during his term as racing

Page 4518
Minister and at a later stage was invited by Joe Schipp to accept an appointment as chairman of the authority. I also served the Government of New South Wales for almost 11 years at considerable personal cost, both emotionally and financially, because I believed I could make a contribution to the industry in which I have spent my life.

Until your appointment with the racing portfolio I enjoyed the support and confidence of all racing Ministers since 1983. It would become impossible to continue to work under a Minister who has gone out of his way to undermine the ability of the Harness Racing Authority to control and regulate the harness racing industry which, by the way, are its functions. In light of the statements made by you to myself and others in your most recent appointment to the authority is extraordinary. Significantly you chose to let me know via the press.

When I was invited to accept the chairmanship of the Harness Racing Authority I never expected thanks, as it was and always will be a thankless task. Moreover, I naively thought I was doing a good job for the side of politics that I have supported all my life. I did, however, expect unqualified support of the Government which asked me to do a job for the Minister to whom I am responsible.

The letter was signed by Barry Rose and presents a situation that speaks for itself. I shall not go through everything I said on the day I appointed these particular people to the board, but I shall read what I said about Mr Gaskell and Mr Walsh. After congratulating the new appointees I said:

I would like to thank the outgoing members, Mr Allen Gaskell and Mr Jim Walsh, for their contributions. I wish them every success in the future.

When I reappointed the authority I simply set the criteria that I wanted met. I wanted the existing chairman, who had been appointed by the former Minister, to remain as I knew he had a lot of respect and had only been appointed a short while. In the years that the authority has existed, it has hardly ever completed a full term. This clearly demonstrates the turmoil in the industry. I intend, along with Commissioner O'Keefe, to apply the various recommendations of the Temby report in regard to probity, preventive measures and more open board membership to the Greyhound Racing Control Board and the Harness Racing Authority.

It may well be that the existing Harness Racing Authority needs to be increased by a couple of members, to give industry participation. I have never run away from that issue. I have said that there needs to be some settling down. I do not know why, for the many years I have referred to, there has been so much turmoil in the industry. I will say, with all due respect, that the turmoil has gone on not only through the term of coalition governments but back to the time of the late Ken Booth. It is a matter that will not be resolved overnight. I turn to the appointments I have made. There was Mr Donoghue. It was intended to leave on the authority Len Graff from Bathurst, because he had held his position for only a short time. He has accounting skills and he represents an area on the other side of the divide, where more than two-thirds of the clubs are located. Mr Graff was appointed by the previous Minister, and I had no argument with his appointment. The only continuing member was Mr McGrath, who was treasurer at Harold Park.

I wanted to appoint a person who had legal experience and I wanted representation from a vet. I had already made such appointments to the Greyhound Racing Control Board, and I felt that such a move was in the best interests of the industry. I did not go looking for applicants. One person applied who had the required legal qualifications: John Withington. Opposition members could hardly knock his appointment. Mr Withington came from the Crown Solicitor's office and had been Deputy Crown Solicitor for the past 10 years. Coincidentally, he had been working on the rules of harness racing, which need some reform. I next looked to appoint a vet, and appointed Dr Diane Ryan. I asked the Department of Agriculture to supply me with a panel of names.

It was reasonable to appoint a vet, considering allegations raised by the Opposition tonight and bearing in mind my own concerns about drugs. There was nothing sinister in those two appointments. They have never come to me with whistleblowing allegations. And when they did come to me, I saw them. The allegations made in that regard in the House tonight are amazing. I have heard that further attacks will be made on my officers and my department. I am armed in their defence. I have asked for complete reports not only from my officers but from others also, including the General Manager of the Harness Racing Authority. If these allegations persist, and they have been in the industry for some months -

Mr Turner: Is the Minister saying that we have said -

Mr FACE: I am not yet suggesting that Opposition members have said that. I put the matter on record, because by so doing I open the issue for those involved. It would be most unfair, to say the least, if my officers were to continue to be attacked because it is said that I am not listening or I am doing other things. The Leader of the Opposition raised in detail the matter of racing revenue. A comparison of TAB sales from the periods 1 July 1994 to 1 December 1994 and from 30 June 1995 to 30 November 1995 shows an increase of 0.7 per cent for galloping, 6.13 per cent for harness racing and 10.7 per cent for greyhound racing. As can be seen, the growth in off-course betting on harness racing and greyhound racing is outstripping the growth in betting on galloping events.

I have no doubt that the publicity given to the "jockey tapes" impacted on sales, and that issue has been addressed. Such growth rates in harness racing and greyhound racing clearly indicate public confidence in the administration of harness racing
Page 4519
and greyhound racing in this State. I turn my attention to the efforts of the Opposition and the effect its denigration of the industry is having on the viability of racing clubs. In very recent times attention has been focused on the harness racing industry. Having noted a statement by an official of the club operating at Harold Park that current allegations are having an adverse effect upon the harness racing industry, I sought clarification of that statement. I table this document, outlining particular amounts of money, which might be of some use in the debate.

I am advised that compared with the weekly TAB turnover for the first six weeks in October-November 1995 at Harold Park, the flagship of the harness racing industry, in the week including Friday, 24 November, and Tuesday, 28 November, TAB turnover fell 20.1 per cent compared with the average. In the week including Friday, 1 December, and Tuesday, 4 December, TAB turnover fell by 12.48 per cent measured against the average. Legitimate complaints can and are being dealt with in the appropriate manner and by appropriate bodies. However, if the Opposition continues to play political football with the interests of the racing industry, that will inevitably reduce Crown revenue, the industries' income and, of course, the income of so many participants in the total ambit of the industry.

Much has been said about an independent inquiry. The inquiry may have been a good vehicle some years ago. Those who made allegations, such as the allegations made to me the other day and allegations that have been referred to by the Opposition, should take them to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. That is where allegations involving officers, defined within the meaning of the Act, will be dealt with. I have a statutory obligation to maintain such an avenue for that type of allegation. Tonight I have said that I have concerns and that I have already set in train a process to gather advice as to whether or not the rules of harness racing are adequate. It may well be that there are certain matters that are now before the Harness Racing Authority. No open inquiry will overshadow the responsibility in regard to any person licensed in this State. If a civilian is found to have done something wrong at law, such as fraud, that matter will go to the police. This parallels the position pertaining in the greyhound industry.

Opposition members ask for an open inquiry. I repeat that I am not going to cover-up for anybody. Do Opposition members honestly think that it will prove anything to have people appear before an inquiry and say what they like? Honourable members should bear in mind what I have said about the situation being unhappy and unsettled for many years. There are three methods that can be followed at present, so the eventuality is covered adequately. If an officer has done something wrong, including infringing against the rules of harness racing, that matter will go to the ICAC. It has been suggested that an inquiry may be held about someone who has earned more than he should have. Such case will go to the police immediately. Those three matters will continue to be contentious.

Opposition members can call for as many inquiries as they like. I am not a lawyer, but I know enough about the law. It is not in the industry's best interests for Opposition members to continue to act in the way they have been - that will do nobody any good. If Opposition members have complaints or substantial evidence then, in the spirit of cooperation and in the interests of the industry, I will reciprocate. I do not necessarily want to take up that role. There is a misunderstanding of the issue. It has been claimed that I have failed to act. I point out, as I have said before, that at no time have I failed to take appropriate action. I am amazed that it is possible for people to make the kind of allegations that have been made.

The Leader of the Opposition made great play about the casino, and it certainly did him no credit. The present casino taxation levels were set by the former Government; it established them and obtained exclusivity for them. At first that Government did not want to establish a casino, but then it did a real backflip and wanted not one but two. The former Government established the tax thresholds, and this Government cannot be held responsible for the fact that Sydney Harbour Casino has now identified that there may be a real threat to casino revenue in New South Wales because the former Government set taxation rates which are not competitive with rates set in other States, in particular Victoria. It is no secret that the Government is considering a proposal from Sydney Harbour Casino for a change in the rate of casino taxation.

The Government sees nothing wrong with exploring the scope for a reduction in the rate of duty for the casino, particularly when Victoria has already made a pre-emptive move in that direction. It is important to explore whether the review will demonstrate that New South Wales taxpayers will be better off. I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition can be so sure of what the Government plans to do with the request by Sydney Harbour Casino to review the tax rate, because at this stage all that is planned is that the matter be explored. The Leader of the Opposition might prefer the Government to take a head-in-the-sand attitude, which is what he has accused me of doing, to the difference in tax rates between the two States. The Leader of the Opposition might prefer it if no action were taken - with the possible outcome being an overall loss of revenue to this State.

It is curious that the Leader of the Opposition suggested that the review of the casino tax rates was a matter for me alone to determine. I would have
Page 4520
thought that as the Casino Control Act was drafted and implemented by the former Government, the Leader of the Opposition, a former Treasurer, would readily understand that the determination of casino tax rates was a matter for the Treasurer to decide under section 114 of the Casino Control Act. Quite clearly, the determination of the most appropriate tax rate is appropriately to be considered by Cabinet in the first instance. When the time is right, the outcome of Cabinet's decision on the matter will be announced. I hear from various protagonists in both these areas who are supposed to be hard done by that I am getting bad advice. Every time that occurs it reflects on my officers. I asked everyone who said this to me, including a colleague in the House, to give me an example of the wrong advice that I am getting.

I have told those people that if they are concerned about any matters I will obtain the relevant information for them. But I have never been given an example. All that I am told by those people is that I am getting the wrong advice. I have narrowed it down to a few reasonable people who I believe will be forthcoming. According to them the advice that I am getting that is wrong concerns matters about which they are displeased. Something has happened to them, and their view about what is right or wrong has been clouded. I have a mind of my own, and I deprecate this continual attack on my ministry and my departmental officers. No-one will give me specific examples other than to say that I am being given bad advice on particular issues. The rumour mongering just does not stop. In their attempt to attack me they are attacking my senior officers, who are unable to defend themselves in this House.

For that reason I will not refer to a number of other matters. It would be very enlightening if I were to bring up matters relating to Timolol. I do not propose to do that. If Opposition members want to wheel that up I will tell them what it is all about. I knew nothing about the Roderick report until I asked, but what I have found out has been quite enlightening. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition, who has an abysmal knowledge about the Roderick report, has bought into this. He really demonstrated tonight that he knows nothing about it. was commissioned by the former Government. I am not saying anything bad about the Roderick report other than that it was commissioned by the former Government in July 1994. The honourable member for Sutherland, who was the Minister at the time, was not entitled to that report and nor was I. When I asked about it I was told that I was not entitled to it; that it had been dealt with by the police and the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

I realise that over the past few weeks members of the Opposition have had someone within the Police Service giving them documents that I do not have in my possession. It will be interesting to establish who that is, as there are certain restrictions on police giving out information. I cannot be blamed for something that I have never seen, and I will not be blamed for it. But if there is something that is wrong in the industry I will protect no-one. I will be interested to hear the rest of the Opposition's attack on me. The Opposition has moved censure against me tonight regardless of various things that I have had on my plate in the last seven or eight months. However, I have been able to demonstrate right across my portfolio that I have been able to achieve. I might be blowing my own trumpet, but I am quite proud of it. I will continue to do what I believe is in the best interests of this industry, which was left in pretty bad shape due to the inaction of the previous Government. I will not be deterred from my task. If I am a little abrasive on some occasions it is because I have a genuine interest in the industry. I am trying to do something for it. I am guilty of that.

Mr TURNER (Myall Lakes) [3.17 a.m.]: Regrettably, the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development, in this no-confidence motion, condemned himself from his own mouth. The fact that he spent 2½ hours justifying his position is evidence of this Minister's incompetence in administering his portfolio. I qualify that by saying that I have regard for the Minister, but I am talking about his administration of his portfolio. Neither the Leader of the Opposition nor I have attacked the Minister's staff, and we do not intend to do so. Regrettably, the Minister attacked his own staff by saying that when he took over this department it was in a shambles. That, by necessity, demonstrates that this Minister has attacked staff in his department. The fact that he digressed from the terms of the motion indicates that he has some problems. This motion is not about licensed premises, the liquor industry or underage drinking, which are all important matters -

Mr Face: On a point of order: I wish to set the record straight as I did not do this earlier when another honourable member interjected. I have been a member of Parliament for a number of years and I have seen some pretty poorly written motions. The Opposition referred to me in the first instance as the Minister for Racing and Gaming. I have never seen such a wide-ranging motion. If Opposition members want to condemn people in the future they should tighten up their motions. The motion is so wide that I could have said anything; I could have driven a truck through it.

Mr TURNER: I will not address the point of order. I will continue my speech while the Minister, who has had a no-confidence motion moved against him, leaves the Chamber. This motion, which is very specific, refers to key areas in the Minister's portfolio. During the 2½ hours that the Minister took to justify his position, the Opposition did not take one point of order, although we could have done so on a number of occasions.

Page 4521

Mr Whelan: Get on with it.

Mr TURNER: The Minister for Police says, "Get on with it." I did not see him tell his Minister to get on with it while he kept this debate going for two and a half hours. I have 18 minutes left to speak, and I will take as long as I want to speak within that time. The more that the Leader of the House interjects - he is probably anxious to speak in view of certain comments made - the more he will delay the matter. It may also be of interest for the record to indicate that the Government backbench was waving surrender after the first two hours, wanting the Minister for Gaming and Racing to finish his speech.

This Minister's incompetence first became apparent to the Opposition when allegations of corruption and maladministration emerged in the greyhound racing industry. This is a wonderful industry in which I have had experience as a greyhound owner. It is at the opposite end of the expense scale to the glamorous and expensive thoroughbred industry, and it allows ordinary Australians to experience the thrill of owning and training a champion. Whether it be on the city track at Wentworth Park, at the suburban tracks at Penrith or Richmond, at provincial tracks like Newcastle, Taree, or Dapto, or across rural New South Wales, the greyhound industry has enjoyed the support of a loyal and devoted following. It is an industry which the Opposition strongly supports. It is the working man's sport. However, it is an industry at risk because of the maladministration of this Minister.

The Minister's inaction about allegations in the greyhound industry is astounding, although in light of his subsequent actions with the trotting industry we should not have been surprised. It was with the greyhound industry that we first saw a familiar pattern emerge of the Minister refusing to meet whistleblowers and, later, persecuting them. Two members of the Greyhound Racing Control Board, Mr Ted Humphries and Mr Peter Atkins - both of whom were recognised as true industry reformers and were appointees of the previous Minister, the honourable member for Sutherland - wished to meet the Minister to outline the maladministration and alleged corruption they had experienced while members of the board.

These allegations included the widespread use of cocaine and amphetamines and other performance enhancing drugs; the administering of diesel fuel, blood pressure tablets, toxic drugs and preservatives, such as chlorobutanol as dog slowers; a list of prohibited drugs to which the Greyhound Racing Control Board would turn a blind eye; and race fixing. The Minister said in his speech that neither Mr Atkins nor Mr Humphries sought a meeting with him. I am reliably told that those gentlemen, particularly Mr Atkins, attempted on more than 10 occasions to arrange a meeting with the Minister to discuss those allegations. They were refused a meeting on every occasion.

In desperation, and as part of his responsibility to the board, Mr Atkins approached the United Greyhound Association to organise a meeting with the Minister on his behalf. A meeting was organised with three representatives of that body, Mr Atkins and Mr Humphries. The meeting was scheduled for 8 June 1995. Prior to the meeting taking place, one of the Minister's staff contacted the United Greyhound Association to reconfirm the meeting, and upon noting that Mr Atkins and Mr Humphries were to be in attendance, the staff member stated that the meeting would not be convened in the presence of Atkins and Humphries.

This decision was not satisfactory to the United Greyhound Association, and on 8 June 1995 it sent a registered letter to the Minister outlining its extreme disappointment at his refusal to meet the two whistleblowers. I quote from this letter to outline to the House the serious nature of the issue. One of the concerns to be raised in the meeting was the rape of a 14-year-old girl at a greyhound track in rural New South Wales. I can only speculate that, like all his ministerial colleagues, as soon as the Minister heard the word "rural", he completely ignored this entire issue regardless of its seriousness. The letter sent by Mr H. W. Young, secretary of the United Greyhound Association, read:

We asked that we be allowed to bring two new members of the GRCB, who have refused to become puppets to the establishment, to the above meeting so that you could hear firsthand that our past assessment of the manner in which the board has been operating, is true.

This request was refused without any attempt to justify the reasoning to us.

In view of the press statements made only two days before on this subject by one of these persons we were astounded that you would not be eager for the opportunity to get to the bottom of the problem.

We view the matter as very serious since the one who spoke out publicly because of his frustration with the system and the fact that he had phoned your office on no less than 10 occasions to take the matter up directly with you, only to be ignored, has received death threats. If he was not hitting a raw nerve, why then would this happen, and if this is the reaction of those persons it is time we changed the system?

Put on the spot like this, we took the attitude that if you, the Minister himself was not interested to hear the cold hard facts from the very source, then this meeting was only going to be a useless play on lip service.

We are naturally disappointed in the turn of events, especially after the support we rallied in the election and the various indications by you at meetings with greyhound people leading up to the election on your feelings about the board.

Yours faithfully

H. W. Young (Secretary)

Page 4522
The Minister refused to meet with two of his own board members, one of whom had received death threats, to discuss serious allegations of corruption and maladministration. It gets worse. Not content with refusing to meet with these individuals on 10 different occasions, he then had to destroy their credibility and try to prevent them from making their allegations public. On the very next day, 9 June 1995, after being informed that Mr Peter Atkins was going to make his allegations public, he dismissed the Greyhound Racing Control Board without providing any details or rationale for his decision.

A freedom of information request to discover the rationale behind the decision to dismiss this board has been refused by his office. One must wonder what this Minister is trying to hide. Incidentally, the only way to remove a member of the Greyhound Racing Control Board under the Act is to dismiss the entire board. On 16 July the Opposition raised these concerns and sought an independent inquiry into the administration of the greyhound industry. But the coalition members were not the only people wanting an inquiry into the industry: in a letter to the same people his Minister was refusing to see - those from the UGA - the then Leader of the Opposition, Bob Carr, responding to the association's concerns said:

. . . what we are prepared to do is set up an inquiry into the greyhound industry.

This inquiry would be expected to report back to the Government within six months, where your inquiries will be investigated.

For the Minister's assistance, I shall table this letter if leave is granted. He may wish to discuss this matter with the Premier in greater detail when he is called into the Premier's office later this morning to discuss the mismanagement of his portfolio. After considerable pressure, the Minister was dragged kicking and screaming into a police inquiry almost two months after he was first made aware of the seriousness of the allegations. As I am sure the Minister will state, the subsequent police inquiry did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate criminal charges. However, it made recommendations of maladministration and inconsistencies in the swabbing procedure. I record that in the notorious "jockey tapes" inquiry and the subsequent New South Wales Crime Commission inquiry, not one person has been charged with criminal activity. Nevertheless, the Minister saw fit to have Mr Temby conduct an independent inquiry into the thoroughbred racing industry which cost the taxpayers of this State almost $400,000. One of my colleagues will discuss in detail how this Minister is trying to divorce himself from the recommendations of that inquiry.

In the eight months in which the Minister has presided over the greyhound industry, his administration has been characterised by one feature - crisis. This Minister has no excuse for his actions. He refused to meet with two whistleblowers to discuss the most serious of allegations on more than 10 different occasions. When it became apparent that these two men were going to make these allegations public, the Minister dismissed the board the very next day. The Opposition now poses a number of questions to the Minister. Why did he refuse to meet with these two board members on more than 10 different occasions? Why did he not immediately appoint a police inquiry as soon as he was made aware of the nature of the allegations, and not wait almost a month until the Opposition forced him to instigate an inquiry? Why has the Minister repeatedly threatened whistleblowers with prosecution under the public mischief legislation for making allegations known? Indeed, the Minister may be breaking the whistleblower legislation passed by this Parliament. The greyhound industry contributes $30 million annually to the New South Wales economy. The industry simply cannot be put at risk by a Minister who may mean well, but is completely out of his depth. The contribution made to the State economy by the greyhound industry and the perilous situation that it now faces as a result of the lack of leadership were highlighted in the recent Scullion report which stated:

The industry stands at the brink where, if appropriate decisions are not taken, New South Wales risks losing its pre-eminent position at the forefront of greyhound racing in Australia and New Zealand.

Up until only two months ago the Minister and his advisers were claiming they knew nothing about the Scullion report, which had been commissioned by the previous Government, that had been presented to the board on 1 June 1995.

[Interruption]

If it had been possible to apply the gag, the Opposition would have gagged the Minister. One would have thought, in light of the uproar created by the Minister's incompetent response to allegations in the industry, the Minister would have shown some sensitivity in other aspects of his administration of the industry. One would have thought he would have refrained from announcing policy thunderbolts and further destabilising the industry. But, sadly, that was not the case. In the Sunday Telegraph of 29 October the Minister came out with his latest bombshell. Inner-city racing, the Minister said blithely, was finished and it was just a matter of time before the Wentworth Park track was closed.

This outrageous bolt-from-the-blue brainwave from the Minister was in direct contravention of the Labor Party's pre-election promise. There are in fact two inner-city greyhound tracks, not one; greyhound racing will also be conducted at Harold Park. This was yet another Labor broken promise. All three racing codes in New South Wales deserve much better administration than they are currently receiving from this Minister. The $378 million annual contribution to the New South Wales economy from the three forms of racing cannot be jeopardised by the incompetence of the Minister. The Minister stands condemned for not having the confidence of the House.

Page 4523

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [3.31 a.m.]: At this hour of the night I will deliberately be brief. This is the most shallow debate I have experienced in my parliamentary life. There is not one ounce of substance to it, and unless some evidence comes from the former Minister, who is just about to speak, heaven help me! Honourable members do not need my words to convince them; Opposition members cannot believe it. Members know it is a farce and that Opposition members are hypocrites. If honourable members do not believe me, believe what the Leader of the National Party, Mr Ian Armstrong, said on 13 April:

Harness racing is enjoying a first-class outlook and is set for new growth in country regions. The trotting industry has emerged with its reputation fully intact after an exhaustive ICAC inquiry. No substance has been found to allegations made last year.

I cannot understand the reason for this motion, other than to keep everybody in this Chamber until the early hours of the morning. The former Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing said he had heard serious allegations about horse doping and race rigging in the harness racing industry. What did he do? He ran a mile. The allegations were too hot for him. He had his staff ring the office of disgraced police Minister Terry Griffiths and make inquiries from him. He organised a secret meeting with police on Thursday, 19 August 1993 when he was the Minister for Sport. The former Minister knows that is true. He chose deliberately to turn a blind eye to the issue. He is like the three monkeys: hear no evil, see no evil, do absolutely nothing. He could not get far enough away from the allegations. I have bad news for him, because something just fell off the proverbial back of a truck for me.

Mr Downy: That is the file note.

Mr WHELAN: It is not a file note; this is headed "Confidential. Allegations relating to the harness racing industry." Under the heading of "Background" it says, "On 19 August 1993 at the request of Mr B. Kelly, Office of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, relayed through Superintendent Garvey, Commissioner's Chief of Staff, I made telephone contact with Mr Tony Rowe." Does anyone know who Tony Rowe is? He is the research officer at the office of the former Minister for Sport. Mr Rowe sought a confidential meeting to relate information of alleged ongoing corrupt activities in the harness racing industry. But the former Minister did nothing. He did what he just did in the Chamber: he walked out. He walked away from the allegations. Here is the file that says he was privy to it, because he sought a clandestine meeting. He sent his research officer, got an interview with the Police Service, and was told about all the allegations. But as the Minister he could not get far enough away from it.

The honourable member for Sutherland now says that the present Minister has done nothing about it. The Minister has done more about it than the previous Minister did. He has faced up to the problem. He did not send a messenger to try to find out what was going on. The honourable member for Sutherland has been indicted by his own staff member, Tony Rowe, the research officer. Mr Rowe sought a confidential meeting to relate information to the police. If the former Minister had acted, all of these allegations could have been put to the test. But what did he do as a Minister? Nothing. Nevertheless he attempts to condemn the Minister because he has taken positive action. The former Minister is an absolute hypocrite.

As for the Leader of the Opposition, I ask the coalition not to get rid of him. It was a great revelation when he said, "Whelan has a racehorse." I was sitting in my room and I thought, "That is fantastic; he has bought a race book." As honourable members know, the names of the owners of racehorses appear in the book. Then I thought, "No, he has not bought a race book, he was listening to 2KY last week when I spoke to Ian Craig." He asked me how my horses were going and I said, "Pretty good: one has died, one is pretty good, one is no good, one cannot run." If I have to declare that I have a couple of horses, and it is my hobby, why do not members of the National Party who are graziers have to declare all their cattle and sheep?

This motion is farcical. If the Opposition had something on the Minister the subject of the motion I could understand how important it would be; but they should have moved a motion of no confidence in me, or a censure motion against me, because I am one of the thousands of people in New South Wales who enjoy racing: love the hobby, love the sport, and love the interest. I bought horses with friends, which is probably the difference between me and Opposition members - I have friends who enjoy racing. I listened to what the Minister said tonight and one thing sounded truer than others. I believe that the current Opposition is about destabilising the whole of the racing industry - greyhounds, thoroughbred, trots, and harness racing. It does not care about reputations, clubs, or people who put their lives into serving the industry.

I know when the former Minister received the Roderick report, because the day I tabled it in Parliament, I walked up and gave it to him. I received it at about midday that day. That was the first time I had seen the Roderick report, but the former Minister knew about it on 19 August 1993. He put his hands across his eyes and said, "It is too difficult for me". On 19 August he sent his research officer to the police to give the information. And he was the Minister! From 19 August up until the time the coalition lost government, he was responsible for investigating any corruption in the thoroughbred racing industry, the greyhound industry and the harness racing industry. Not an ounce of blame can be attributed on any member of the Government that took over in March. The honourable member for Sutherland is the one who should be condemned. I wish I could
Page 4524
move an amendment to this motion so that the Government could condemn the former Minister. If anyone is responsible for the corrupting influences persisting in New South Wales racing, it is him because he knew about it on 19 August 1993 and did nothing about it. He let corrupting influences continue in New South Wales the racing, harnessing and greyhound industries. He is the one who should be indicted; he is the one who should be on trial.

Mr DOWNY (Sutherland) [3.41 a.m.]: Now we know why the Leader of the House has us here until twenty to four in the morning: basically he is incompetent, not only as the Leader of the House but also as the Minister for Police. Let us find out what happened back in 1993. He sold himself a dump there. On 19 August 1993 my staff did go to the police. They not only went to the police, but they took 12 boxes of allegations and evidence. As a result of that Operation Roderick was set up, you stupid fool!

Mr Whelan: What did you do? You did nothing.

Mr DOWNY: Because of the allegations that were raised my office took action straightaway. As a result of that, Operation Roderick was established. The Independent Commission Against Corruption, the New South Wales Crime Commission and the Building Industry Task Force investigating those allegations. The Minister fell into it. He went to the Leader of the House and said, "We have the goods on them". When I was told this I could not believe my good luck. I thought, "This fool over here is talking about a police file that set off the whole train of events that led to the report on Operation Roderick."

Two weeks ago he finally tabled a sanitised report in this House. Clauses 1 to 32 were left out because the Minister knows what is in it and does not want to produce the evidence. It is the biggest racing cover-up ever seen in this State. Let us have a look at the allegations, and let us get down to what this motion is all about. For three hours the Minister delivered a turgid diatribe, trying to implicate his own staff. This motion is not about the Minister's staff; it is about the Minister. No-one has made any allegations or accusations tonight against any members of your staff.

Mr Thompson: Tell us about -

Mr DOWNY: The honourable member for Rockdale should give me a fair go because we had to listen to the Minister for three hours, and that was fairly difficult. I shall now refer to the allegations. It is alleged that to grant a stay of proceedings in a hearing, officers of the Harness Racing Authority obtained a copy of Justice Perrignon's signature from another document and then cut the signature out and taped it to the bottom of another page. The informant's solicitor was highly suspicious of the quality of this faxed document and drove to the Harness Racing Authority to inspect the original. Upon questioning senior officials of the Harness Racing Authority on this matter the solicitor was told that this was a common practice of the Harness Racing Authority.

The document that the Opposition has obtained alleges that the chief steward of the Harness Racing Authority failed to conduct a post-race swab of a horse because the driver-trainer was providing evidence to the ICAC at the time. The reason given for the cancellation of the swab by the chief steward was that another horse had cut itself and the vet was unable to take the swab. The driver-trainer stated he had known other horses to wait a number of hours for the vet to take a swab. It is also alleged that the Chief Steward of the Harness Racing Authority failed to take any action against a driver who had pleaded guilty to taking another driver out of a race.

It is alleged that the Chief Steward of the Harness Racing Authority has been seen marking a leading punter's race guide as to which horses would and would not win races. It is alleged that the chief steward was provided with a list of names of people to investigate by a board member of the Harness Racing Authority and that these people were subsequently not investigated by the stewards. It is further alleged that a driver-trainer was informed by his vet that his horse would return a positive swab to a prescribed, prohibited anti-inflammatory drug, equipalazone. After the swab had been taken this individual rang the chief steward at his home and said to him that he may have a problem with the swab and was there anything he could do.

The chief steward said, "Leave it with me, I will see what I can do." The following day he received a phone call from the chief steward, who said, "You know that business you spoke to me about the other night. Well, don't worry about it. I've fixed it up." By fixing it up he had arranged for the swab not to be tested. It is alleged that the chief steward was involved in arranging or fixing barrier draws. Barrier draws were arranged to suit certain characteristics of horses and thus providing them with either an unfair advantage or disadvantage. In turn this would have the effect of increasing or decreasing the odds of a horse.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order: the honourable member has been reading at length from a document. He should identify the document.

Mr DOWNY: It is simply a summary of the allegations. The allegations continued that officers from the Harness Racing Authority provided details to certain driver-trainers as to the dates that pre-race swabbing was going to occur. This knowledge allowed driver-trainers to provide their horses with performance- enhancing drugs in the knowledge that their horses would not be tested after the race. This information was found to be 100 per cent correct, as the informant was one of the persons driving the horses involved.

Page 4525

Mr Whelan: On the point of order: I ask the honourable member to indicate at least the date on which those allegations were made, and identify the document from which he is reading.

Mr DOWNY: On the point of order: the document is a summary of the allegations that have been made to the Opposition in statutory declarations. We have other information and it has all been forwarded to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. This is simply a summary.

Mr Whelan: Further to the point of order: I have to insist that the honourable member for Sutherland identify the date. We are talking about a motion of no confidence in a Minister. If the issue relates to a matter of an allegation that occurred while Minister Face was not a Minister, surely he cannot be responsible. The honourable member for Sutherland must identify the date of the document.

Mr DOWNY: Further to the point of order: the simple fact of the matter is the document is a summary of the allegations that have been made to the Opposition. That information has been provided to the ICAC. It is information that has been readily available for some time. This whole debate is about the fact that the Minister has done nothing.

Mr SPEAKER: It would be of assistance if the honourable member would inform the Chair of the date of the document from which he is reading.

Mr DOWNY: That is quite easily done. I will provide copies of all the statutory declarations and other information that I have. That is not a problem.

Mr SPEAKER: Does the document bear a date?

Mr DOWNY: The simple fact of the matter is, as I have already indicated, this is summary of the allegations that have been provided to the Opposition. If the Leader of the House wants that information I will simply make it available to him. If he wants to take up my time in this House, after we sat and listened to him and his colleague, that is fine, but I intend to continue.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is quoting from a document. He has been asked to provide the date of its compilation.

Mr DOWNY: It is a compilation of allegations that have been brought before the Opposition, and it goes back over a long period of time. It goes right back to 1969 through to the present day. I turn to other issues raised in this Chamber tonight. We heard about the Minister and his offer to meet with anyone prepared to come in and talk to him about problems they saw in the industry and about allegations they might have. Mr Peter Armstrong tried to meet the Minister but did not get anywhere. He is a punter and a devotee of harness racing. In July this year Mr Armstrong contacted the Minister's office to make an appointment to meet the Minister to discuss what he believed was evidence of race fixing.

An appointment was made and Mr Armstrong was asked to document what he believed was his evidence. Mr Armstrong appeared at the Minister's office, to be told that the Minister was very busy and was unable to see him. Mr Armstrong understood this and asked whether he could discuss the matter with another member of staff. He was told that no-one else was available to speak with him. Because of this response Mr Armstrong became quite disappointed and said he would take his concerns to the Opposition. At this particular point the Minister's chief of staff hurriedly ran out and asked for a copy of the document, which Mr Armstrong provided. Mr Armstrong expressed his disappointment in no-one being able to assist him and being told to make another appointment and come back later. Mr Armstrong left without even seeing the Minister or discussing the nature of his allegations with any staff at all.

The very next morning, at approximately 9 a.m., Mr Armstrong received a knock at his door, and who should be there but two special branch officers who asked if they could come in. Mr Armstrong obliged, whereupon he was asked whether he had made death threats to the Minister for Gaming and Racing. Mr Armstrong vehemently denied ever making any such threats to the Minister, and the police officers left in a matter of minutes. Mr Armstrong has never heard anything more from the Minister's office, not even an apology. Mr Armstrong stated that the whole issue startled his elderly mother, who was present at the time. That is but one example. I should mention Mr Bale, President of the United Harness Racing Association, because the Minister mentioned Mr Bale this evening.

Mr Bale claims that the United Harness Racing Association sent a letter requesting a meeting on 6 July this year. When no reply was received, a follow-up letter was sent on 18 July. As a reply was still not received, the faxed request was made on 4 August this year. With still no reply received, the further letter was both faxed and posted on 7 August 1995. The United Harness Racing Association rang the ministerial office between 9 August and 11 September and provided preferred dates for the proposed meetings. Staff members stated that the Minister was away and that they would arrange a meeting for the next week with the Minister. The United Harness Racing Association rang the ministerial office on 21 August and was told the meeting would be some time in the week starting 28 August.

The United Harness Racing Association rang the ministerial office on 28 August to find out when the meeting was to be, and was informed that a letter had been sent out by the Minister's office on 25 August and the meeting would not go ahead until the Minister's office received the reply to the letter. The United Harness Racing Association faxed the Minister's office on 30 August requesting a copy of the letter as they had not received the letter in the post. On 31 August the United Harness Racing Association rang the ministerial office but the call
Page 4526
was not returned. As of today, the President of UHRA still wanted to have a meeting with the Minister. We heard tonight that the Minister was prepared to meet with anyone. Part of the problem with all this -

Mr Whelan: We know who the problem is.

Mr DOWNY: You are the problem. We have a Minister who only listens to those who concur with his point of view. If anyone has any other point of view or is not in the club, he does not want to know about them. This evening - rather, in the early hours of this morning - the Minister talked about a variety of issues. The Minister does not realise that his responsibility is to protect the public interest, not to defend his departments and his authorities. It was quite obvious from his contribution that that is what the Minister is on about. As soon as he rose he adopted a paranoid stand and said, "The Opposition is attacking not only me, but they are attacking my department head and my authorities." That is not what the issue is about. The issue is that the Minister is responsible for the administration of racing in this State, and he must protect the public interest. That means that he has a duty to make sure all allegations are investigated and that everyone has an opportunity to put forward his or her point of view.

He does not have to agree, he does not necessarily disagree, but he has to listen. The Minister is not listening to the participants in the industry, and that has been demonstrated in the last few weeks. He has denigrated people in this Parliament who have a different point of view from his. He admitted here tonight that he had actually indicated that he did not know Mr Walsh, nor did he want to know him. That is remarkable, because Mr Walsh is one of the foremost sulky manufacturers in this country and one of the biggest exporters of sulkies to the United States and other parts of the world. Yet the Minister said he did not know him and did not want to know him. I find that offensive. Mr Walsh and Mr Gaskell are both honest gentlemen, but unfortunately for them they had a different point of view. They came to see the Minister, but he would only see them because of the pressure being placed upon him.

Tonight we heard the saga of Dennis Bale and his attempts to get a meeting with the Minister. He still has not met with him. However, because of the pressure that he is under, all of a sudden the Minister has decided, "We had better meet some of these people. We want to find what their allegations are all about." The other day when the Minister rose to speak in this House he did not know anything about these allegations. He has absolutely no idea what the allegations are. But all of a sudden, accordingly to what Mr Gaskell said, the Minister was blown over by these allegations. So off they go to the Independent Commission Against Corruption now. The Minister said tonight that he was not entitled to any information about Operation Roderick. What a load of rubbish. While that operation was continuing, the police still continued to brief my office on what was happening with that operation.

The Minister had the same advice, but he has taken no actions. He has put his head in the sand. He has chosen to ignore the allegations raised. That is why, in particular with regard to harness racing, there is so much frustration and dissatisfaction about the Minister. That is the reason the Minister must stand condemned. He is not prepared to listen or to take his job seriously, but he can say whatever he likes. It is interesting that most of the issues he talked about in the racing portfolio were initiatives started by the previous coalition Government. There is not much of a difference, just a continuation of the same policies. The Minister stands condemned for not listening to and taking an interest in all participants in the industry.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [4.00 a.m.]: I will make only a few brief comments. I listened to the entire debate because I was determined to hear the arguments of honourable members from both sides of the House. In 24 hours I have tried to get a grip on the files and on this whole issue in an attempt to get to the truth of the matter. The more I looked at the files and the material presented to me, the less clear the issue became. There is an enormous amount of material - letters, allegations and reports - going back over many years that seem to cloud the issue. I did not get a lot of help from the Roderick report. It appeared to indicate that there had been a number of insinuations but at the end of it all the Roderick report did not achieve what many hoped it would, that is, it did not get behind the veil of secrecy.

A lot of frustration came through in that report. When this matter was before the upper House, that House suggested there should be an inquiry to investigate the issue. The Roderick report appears to cry out for an inquiry. As members of Parliament we have to have regard to the debate and take into account the matters raised. I thought the Minister's performance tonight was excellent, and in saying that I do not mean in an award sense. I was very impressed with the Minister's demeanour and the way he handled the situation over several hours.

One tends to rely on a number of matters, for example, body language, to determine whether someone is telling the truth. I did not find the former Minister particularly convincing. I regard such ranting and raving in debate as totally useless. The performance of the Leader of the Opposition was equally unconvincing. It is remarkable that a former Minister only eight months out of office would come into this Chamber, hot under the collar, trying to claim support for the proposition that a Minister who has been in office only eight months should be dumped.

The material in the files that I examined would suggest that there have been problems in these industries for many years. If anyone has blood on
Page 4527
his hands in this place, one would have to argue that the former Minister, only eight months out of office, has. The former Minister was presumably behind the motion to bring this matter before the House. I received calls from a former board member of the Harness Racing Authority, Mr Walsh, who raised concerns about the competency of the board over a period of some years. During the past seven years it was under the administration of the former Government. Why did that Government not do something about it? I cannot understand why it has suddenly become a crisis that had to be dealt with. If the Minister for Gaming and Racing is to be condemned, I would think that the former Minister should also be condemned.

There was one disturbing matter that I do not think the Minister was prepared to delve into, but I am prepared to mention it. The report of the State Drug Crime Commission made recommendations in 1991 about reforms in regard to swabbing. What happened? Why was that not reported to the authorities? I thought if this Minister is to be condemned why not the former Minister. I looked at the Hansard report of the Minister's comments. Clearly there was some indiscrete language used but, goodness me, we hear such indiscretions in question time everyday. I am prepared to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. I suppose he had been frustrated by the fact that people were claiming to be whistleblowers but were not coming forward with evidence. I did not interpret it as harshly as others did. I have looked carefully at the Hansard report and I did not interpret it as intimidation of those whistleblowers.

I am not here to laud the performance of people, but I was very impressed with this Minister and the way he has acted in regard to liquor regulation. I am deeply concerned about the liquor regulations, as the Minister would know. I have had correspondence with the Minister about the matter over some time. I did not intend to mention this matter but it was raised by the Leader of the Opposition. He seemed to imply that the Minister was mishandling the issue of liquor administration. If anyone is likely to do something, it is this Minister. I propose to go even further and amend some of the legislation to make it a little tougher. However, I am very impressed with the harm minimisation legislation. It is an indication of what the Minister is doing in his portfolio. I do not know what is happening in the greyhound and harness racing industries, but one has to judge a person on what one knows, and I believe the Minister is heading in the right direction so far as the liquor regulations are concerned. I am not prepared to support this motion of no confidence in the Minister.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [4.05 a.m], in reply: The Minister for Gaming and Racing has set a new record in terms of the longest time ever taken by a member to say the least in response to serious allegations brought before the House.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Rockdale has interjected consistently on Opposition members; he should have been tossed out of the House hours ago because of his consistent interjecting. The Opposition has outlined this morning a number of reasons why this Minister should be removed from office.

Mr Markham: Why?

Mr COLLINS: I am glad the honourable member asked me why. Of principle concern to the Opposition, as it should be for all members of this House including the honourable member who interjected, is the protection of the billion dollar plus revenue stream that the Minister's portfolio provides to the State of New South Wales. The Opposition takes no joy in mounting such a sustained attack upon this Minister.

Mr Thompson: Rubbish!

Mr COLLINS: The honourable member has not been here long enough to know. I want to make it clear that I bear no personal animosity towards the Minister. He knows that.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Rockdale continues to interject and demonstrate his total ignorance. The Minister knows full well the truth of what I said. The more the honourable member for Rockdale continues to interject, obviously the longer my reply will take. I make that threat. The Minister for Gaming and Racing is one of the best liked members of this Chamber. He is the father of the House. It gives me no pleasure to take him on, and I do not do so out of personal animosity. We on this side of the House have a duty to act on behalf of the citizens of this State when the Government is guilty of maladministration. Tonight the Opposition has outlined a damning case of maladministration by this Minister, condoned by all the hyenas who are now interjecting in this debate.

The maladministration of the Minister has been aided and abetted by the inaction of the Premier. In this debate the Opposition has shown that the Minister has discarded the reform plans of the greyhound and harness industries commenced by the former Minister, the honourable member for Sutherland. The Opposition has shown that the Minister did so despite the overwhelming evidence before him in documents such as the report of Operation Roderick. The Opposition has also shown that when the Minister has acted in response to issues raised by the Opposition and others that his response has been belated and inadequate. We have shown that, when presented with damning evidence such as Operation Roderick, the Minister referred the report to the very industry under attack. He could not even get that right. He referred the censored version, the expurgated version, of the Roderick report to the Harness Racing Authority.

Page 4528

The Opposition has shown that as a result of the Minister's procrastination and the ineffectiveness of his action, allegations of corruption in the greyhound and harness racing industries of the most serious nature have continued to be raised. Indeed, current investigations into very recent irregularities in the running of harness races would indicate that because of the inaction of this Minister, questionable activities have continued to flourish. The Opposition has shown that the Minister has been negligent in refusing to see the honest whistleblowers in the greyhound and harness racing industries.

If that is not bad enough, this Minister has threatened to prosecute whistleblowers. He actually sought to intimidate one of them. He has had multiple opportunities to listen to honest whistleblowers, some of whom, we have been told by the Minister for Police, live in fear of their lives, to use the words he used in this House a couple of weeks ago. Yet the Minister for Gaming and Racing simply refused. When he finally relented it was too little too late; the damage had already been done. The Opposition has called on the Minister in good faith to open the public inquiry into the harness racing industry with some form of witness protection.

Faced with the Minister's refusal to act in a decisive and comprehensive manner by calling for such an inquiry, the Opposition has been forced to raise in this House some of the allegations that this Minister simply does not want to know about. The Opposition has referred to the Minister's negligence in other areas of his portfolio. Widespread community concern has been raised about his willingness to provide Sydney Harbour Casino with a tax break, without canvassing other options to improve its performance. The Opposition has referred to the absolute outrage in the hotel and club industries over his proposed draconian amendments to the Liquor Act and the fact that they were given only 24 hours to make submissions on the bill.

In relation to the thoroughbred industry, the Opposition understands that since the Temby report was initiated by this Minister, the executive of the Australian Jockey Club has had to ignore the administration of its responsibilities to concentrate solely on the report and on responding to ministerial directives. If that is an example of the type of government control the Minister is proposing for the thoroughbred industry, the Opposition and the State will have none of it. The vote of no confidence in this Minister has really already occurred tonight. It has been passed unanimously, and it has been passed by the Government. The Government has given a ringing endorsement of this motion and a massive snub to the Premier for his inaction in stalling this motion until this hour of the morning - 4.15 a.m.

By doing so, and attempting to take it out of the public gaze, the Government has confirmed that this Minister is an embarrassment to it, and it has condemned him as guilty. If there is any argument that confirms the validity of the motion before the House, it has been the Government's contemptuous treatment of it today. All that remains for the Premier is to do what he was elected to do - to show leadership by removing this Minister from the portfolio. I commend the motion to the House.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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

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

Page 4529

Mr Cruickshank Mr Aquilina
Mr Fahey Mr Carr
Mr Photios Mr Clough
Mr Schipp Mr Harrison
Mr Souris Mr Shedden

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.


Page 4530

The following questions upon notice and answers were circulated in Questions and Answers:

Mr Cochran asked the Minister for the Environment -

(1) Can she give an undertaking that existing commercial horse riding operations in the Kosciusko National Park will survive the proposed wilderness policy declarations?
(2) Will she give an undertaking that any further reduction in areas available for commercial horse riding operations in the Kosciusko National Park will be based on scientific evidence?

Answer -

(1) Commercial operations are not consistent with the management of wilderness areas and are not permitted under section 153 (a) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act.
There are two commercial horse riding licences issued to operators in the Goobragandra area in the northern part of Kosciusko National Park. However the operators have not used the area since 1993.
On negotiation of new licences, these operators will be able to obtain licences for areas in the park outside wilderness.
(2) The National Parks and Wildlife Service is involved in a program of monitoring the impacts of horse riding activity. The results of this program will be taken into account in any reduction in areas available for commercial horse riding operations.

Mr Cochran asked the Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services -

(1) Will he undertake to have the Government Radio Network installed in all Bush Fire Brigade vehicles funded by the Department prior to the conclusion of the 1996 fire season?
(2) How many radios will be installed in Bush Fire Council funded vehicles following the introduction of the Government Radio Network and at what cost?

Answer -

(1) No. The current planning for the migration to the current Government Radio Network (GRN) footprint is for the Central East Region (involving mainly the Sydney Basin north to Wyong, south to Shellharbour and west to Blue Mountains) to be completed by the end of the 1996/97 bushfire danger period, subject to funding.
(2) None. The Bush Fire Council of New South Wales is an advisory body established under section 39 of the Bush Fires Act 1949. The functions of the Bush Fire Council are set out in section 39A of the Act. Expenditures of the Department of Bush Fire Services are met from the Bush Fire Fighting Fund, also established under the Act. It is anticipated that total mobile radio purchases by the Department for use by bush fire brigades will be in the order of 13,300, statewide, at an estimated cost of $21,000,000 over 3 years commencing 1995/96 through to 1997/98. This total includes some 2,000 units which will be used within the GRN footprint. These figures are subject to the performance of the various radio networks and the growth of bush fire brigades.

Ms Machin asked the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

(1) Is Mr Bob Ellis currently employed by him in any capacity?
(2) Has Mr Ellis been employed by him at any time since the March 1995 election?
(3) Has he used Mr Ellis as a speech and comic scriptwriter?
(4) How much as Mr Ellis been paid?
(5) How many speeches and comic scripts has Mr Ellis written for him?

Answer -

(1) and (2) Yes.
(3) and (5) Mr Bob Ellis advises the Premier on Arts matters and writes and rewrites assigned speeches.
In the last 2 months, he has written or contributed to speeches on issues such as old age, McDonalds, live theatre, French nuclear testing, alcoholism, tourism, and the joy of gardening for the 2UE Garden Show.
In the last 5 months, he has advised on issues such as the new directions in live theatres and the importance of VP Day.
His ability as a writer is evidenced in his 18 major awards for play and screen and television writing, including one State Literary Award, he received from the Greiner Government for The True Believers.
(4) Mr Ellis is employed and paid in accordance with Public Employment Office guidelines.

Mr Hartcher asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) (a) How many persons were on the waiting list for single one-bedroom accommodation on 31 March 1995?

Page 4531

(b) What is the average length of time a person must wait for one-bedroom accommodation?

(2) (a) How many persons were on the waiting list for single two-bedroom accommodation on 31 March 1995?

(b) What is the average length of time a person must wait for two-bedroom accommodation?

(3) (a) How many persons were on the waiting list for single three-bedroom accommodation on 31 March 1995?

(b) What is the average length of time a person must wait for three-bedroom accommodation?

(4) (a) How many persons were on the waiting list for single four-bedroom accommodation on 31 March 1995?

(b) What is the average length of time a person must wait for four-bedroom accommodation?

Answer -

The requested information is not available as at 31 March 1995. Information is provided as at 30 June 1995. Waiting times are dependent on the size of the accommodation and the location. The Department does not have average waiting times, however, maximum and minimum waiting times have been provided in the Sydney metropolitan area.
(1) (a) As at 30 June 1995, there were 3,620 clients waiting for one-bedroom accommodation.

As at 30 June 1995, there were 15,081 clients waiting for pensioner accommodation.
(b) Minimum waiting time for one-bedroom accommodation was 29 months for pensioner units in the Mount Druitt area and maximum waiting time for similar accommodation in the Eastern Suburbs was 99 months. Minimum waiting time for one-bedroom apartments was 65 months in the Liverpool area and the maximum waiting time was 91 months in the Botany and Northern Suburbs areas.

(2) (a) As at 30 June 1995, there were 21,768 clients waiting for two-bedroom accommodation.

(b) Minimum waiting time for two-bedroom apartment accommodation was 26 months in the Riverwood area and maximum waiting time for similar accommodation was 84 months in the Northern Suburbs. Minimum waiting time for two-bedroom housing was 37 months in the Mount Druitt area and maximum waiting time for similar accommodation was 107 months in the Eastern Suburbs area.

(3) (a) As at 30 June 1995, there were 22,110 clients waiting for three-bedroom accommodation.

(b) Minimum waiting time for three-bedroom housing was 32 months at Campbelltown and maximum waiting time was 109 months in the Eastern Suburbs.

(4) (a) As at 30 June 1995, there were 3,340 clients waiting for four-bedroom accommodation.

(b) Minimum waiting time for four-bedroom housing was 33 months at Mount Druitt and maximum waiting time was 106 months in the Northern Beaches area.

Mr Hartcher asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) Is Sydney facing a shortage of rental accommodation?
(2) If so, what action is the Government taking to alleviate the shortage?
(3) How many new Department of Housing units of accommodation will become available in:

(a) 1995?
(b) 1996?
(c) 1997?
(d) 1998?

(4) How many blocks of residential land does the Department of Housing plan to release in:

(a) 1995?
(b) 1996?
(c) 1997?
(d) 1998?

(5) (a) Is it Department of Housing policy to sell Department of Housing homes?

(b) If so, how many were sold for the year ended 30 June 1995?
(c) How many are available for sale?

Answer -

(1) The latest estimates from the real estate industry show that Sydney's private rental vacancy rate for July 1995 was 1.9%. This is an improvement on the June 1995 estimate of 1.3%. In general, the market is thought to be "tightening" as vacancies fall below 3%. It is evident that any tightening in vacancy rates is regional in nature and limited currently to the inner areas of Sydney. As with other aspects of the housing market, rental vacancies follow a cyclical trend, with industry data sources suggesting that the trend line for Sydney has been declining since early in 1994, as it did in the early 1980s.
(2) In light of the possibly negative consequences of a tightening private rental market, particularly for those people on lower incomes, the Government has responded in the recent budget with a significant increase in public housing starts. Funding for capital works has been increased by nearly $35 million from $503.6 million to $538.3 million. This means work will commence on 3,309 new units of housing compared to only 2,863 units under the previous Government's budget last year.
In addition, I am currently developing a strategy which will involve leasing of new-built developments to add to the supply of rental housing. The strategy is in addition to a head leasing pilot scheme the Department of Housing has already embarked on.

Page 4532
(3) Completion of new Department of Housing dwelling units are as follows:

(a) 1994/95 financial year

2,834 units completed.

(b) 1995/96 financial year

3,335 units estimated for completion.

(c) 1996/97 financial year)
(d) 1997/98 financial year)
Not decided to date. Final figures will be subject to funding, business planning and alternate recurrent-based supply strategies.

(4) As part of its program for the disposal of its non-core assets, the Department proposes to release for sale the following non-metropolitan residential land:

(a) 1995/96 financial year

1,000 lots proposed for release.

(b) 1996/97 financial year

500 lots proposed for release.

(c) 1997/98 financial year

200 lots proposed for release.
(5) (a) Yes. The Department of Housing sells dwellings that it considers inappropriate for reasons such as age, condition and location. Funds generated by these sales are employed to acquire more stock.

(b) Sixty-six dwellings were sold to tenants in the 1994/95 financial year.
(c) Availability of stock for sale is dependent on asset management decisions as to the appropriateness of certain dwellings for the Department's purposes.

Mr Blackmore asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) How many members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) are employed in agencies within his Ministry?
(2) What are the names of the individuals and the agencies?
(3) What is the number in each grade of the SES?
(4) Which appointments to the SES have been made since 4 April 1995?
(5) Which positions are proposed to be abolished as part of the State Government's reduction of the SES?

Answer -

(1) to (5) The Government is committed to reducing the SES by 400 positions within its first term.
Currently the Government is ahead of its target in reducing the size of the SES and hence well advanced in the redirection of resources to the front line services such as schools, hospitals and police.

Mr Blackmore asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) How many staff are employed in his ministerial office?
(2) What is the name and job title of each staff member?
(3) Which staff members are career public servants?
(4) Which staff members are ministerial appointees?
(5) Which staff members are issued with NSW Government credit cards?
(6) Which staff members are issued with CabCharge cards?
(7) Which staff members have a NSW Government-owned motor vehicle allocated for their use?
(8) Which staff members have their home telephone and/or facsimile receiver accounts paid for by the NSW Government?

Answer -

(1) and (2) These questions were answered in Question on Notice No. 98. Since that date, Kate Booker has been appointed as Office Manager.
(3) All my staff are employed in the public sector. Whether they choose to make a career of working in the public service is a decision for them to make.
(4) All staff have been employed in accordance with guidelines issued by the Public Employment Office.
(5) None.
(6) Senior Press Secretary, Executive Officer, Chief of Staff.
(7) Chief of Staff.
(8) None.

Mr Blackmore asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) How many official functions have been held in his ministerial office since 4 April 1995?
(2) When were the functions held?
(3) What was the cost of each function?
(4) Who were the guests at each function?

Answer -

(1) None.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable.

Mr Hartcher asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) What contracts worth over $30,000 have been let since 4 April 1995 for:
(a) The Department of Housing?
(b) Sydney Water Corporation?
(c) Hunter Water Corporation?
(d) Other agencies under his administration?

Page 4533
(2) What is the value of each contract?
(3) Which contracts have gone to companies whose head office is in New South Wales?
(4) (a) Have any contracts over $30,000 been let which were not publicly tendered?
(b) If so, which?
(c) Why were they not publicly tendered?
(5) Has he let out any contracts from his ministerial office for a greater value than $1,000?
(6) If so, in respect of each contract:
(a) To whom was each contract let?
(b) For what purpose was each contract let?
(c) For how much was each contract let?
(d) Were tenders called?

Answer -

(1) to (6) It has become apparent that the cost to the public of the diversion of resources necessary to answer this question is not justifiable.

Mr Hartcher asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) What are the agencies or corporations within his portfolio which have a board or advisory committee?
(2) (a) What full-time appointments has he made since 4 April 1995 to the boards of agencies and corporations within his portfolio?
(b) Please list each person and agency?
(3) (a) What part-time appointments has he made since 4 April 1995 to the boards of agencies and corporations within his portfolio?
(b) Please list each person and agency?
(4) (a) Which full-time appointments expire prior to 30 June 1996?
(b) Please list each person and agency?
(5) (a) Which part-time appointments expire prior to 30 June 1996?
(b) Please list each person and agency?

Answer -

(1) to (5) The Government is committed to the principles of independence and merit in selections to Government boards and committees.
The establishment of the Public Employment Office with a charter to ensure merit, integrity and independence in selection and appointment matters provides Ministers with assistance in identifying suitable people for appointments to Government boards and committees.

Mr Hartcher asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) What trips since 4 April 1995 have been made by him by helicopter either owned or chartered by his Ministry or by an agency within his portfolio?
(2) In respect of each trip:
(a) Where was it to?
(b) For what purpose?
(c) On what date?
(d) At what cost?
(e) Who paid the cost?
(f) What type of helicopter was used?
(g) Was he accompanied by any persons not on his staff or not public servants?
(3) What trips has the Premier made by a helicopter owned or chartered by his Ministry or by an agency within his portfolio?
(4) In respect of each trip:
(a) Where was it to?
(b) For what purpose?
(c) On what date?
(d) At what cost?
(e) Who paid the cost?
(f) What type of helicopter was used?
(g) Was the Premier accompanied by any persons not on his staff or not public servants?
(5) What trips have been made by Parliamentary Secretaries since 4 April 1995 in a helicopter owned or chartered by his Ministry or an agency within his portfolio?
(6) In respect of each trip:
(a) Where was it to?
(b) For what purpose?
(c) On what date?
(d) At what cost?
(e) Who paid the cost?
(f) What type of helicopter was used?
(g) Was the Parliamentary Secretary accompanied by any persons not on his staff or not public servants?
(7) What trips have been made by NSW Members of Parliament since 4 April 1995 in a helicopter owned or chartered by his Ministry or an agency within his portfolio?
(8) In respect of each trip:
(a) Where was it to?
(b) For what purpose?
(c) On what date?
(d) At what cost?
(e) Who paid the cost?
(f) What type of helicopter was used?
(g) Was the Member of Parliament accompanied by any persons not on his staff or not public servants?

Answer -

(1) At the request of the Board of Sydney Water, I viewed the operations of Sydney Water. The helicopter was used in the execution of my official duties as Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning and Minister for Housing.
The same cannot be said of the Leader of the Opposition who, as Minister for Health in 1988, chartered the Roads and Traffic Authority helicopter to attend the Young Liberals Annual Conference at the Salamander Resort as confirmed by the Port Stephens Examiner of 15 June.

Page 4534
(2) (a) I inspected from the air the operations of Sydney Water. This included the catchment area for the Warragamba Dam and the catchment area surrounding Kangaroo Valley. A helicopter was appropriate because of the distance covered and because the aerial view provides the best way of understanding the catchment structures.
(b) To view the operations of Sydney Water, in particular water storage and treatment plants.
(c) 31 July 1995.
(d) $5,440.
(e) Sydney Water.
(f) Twin engine helicopter.
(g) Managing Director of Sydney Water and Manager Water Resources Planning.
(3) None.
(4) (a) to (g) Not applicable.
(5) None.
(6) (a) to (g) Not applicable.
(7) None.
(8) (a) to (g) Not applicable.

Mr O'Farrell asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Was Detective Inspector Davidson directed to remove a surveillance camera from outside Louis Bayeh's house in 1992?
(2) If so, by whom was the direction given and for what reason?
(3) Did the surveillance camera outside Louis Bayeh's home film various persons entering the home including Roger Rogerson and a Member of Parliament?
(4) Has this Member of Parliament been interviewed by police in respect of the relationship to Louis Bayeh?
(5) If not, why not?
(6) Has any inquiry been made as to the full name and electorate of the Member of Parliament?
(7) If not, why not?
(8) Is Louis Bayeh an alleged drug dealer who has been named in the Police Royal Commission for bribery of police?
(9) Is Louis Bayeh a relation of Bill Bayeh named in the Wood Royal Commission as Sydney's largest drug dealer?
(10) If so, what is the relationship?
(11) Are there any other police operations involving a Member of Parliament?

Answer -

I have been advised by the State Commander of the Police Service that the answers are:
(1) Any such decision would have been made by former Detective Inspector J. S. Davidson as the then Commander, Task Force NIS.
(2) Video surveillance was terminated due to technical complications.
(3) No.
(4) A Member of Parliament was interviewed in the course of inquiries.
(5) Not applicable.
(6) Yes.
(7) Not applicable.
(8) Yes.
(9) Yes.
(10) Brother.
(11) I am not prepared to release details of any police operations which may jeopardise any ongoing police inquiries. In accordance with Commissioner's Instruction 63, any allegations of corrupt conduct by a public official are to be reported by police to the Commissioner of Police who is required to bring the matter to the notice of the ICAC, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act.

Mr O'Farrell asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism -

(1) What was the extent of the SRA's total liabilities, including lease obligations, at 30 June 1987?
(2) What was the extent of the SRA's employee benefit liability as at 30 June 1987?
(3) What was the extent of total contributions from consolidated revenue to the SRA for the year ending 30 June 1987?

Answer -

(1) $2,085,542,000.
(2) $1,456,300,000.
(3) $679,992,000.

Mr O'Farrell asked the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development -

(1) How much (including cost of staff, accommodation and travel) has the Temby review of thoroughbred racing cost to date?
(2) How much has Mr Temby received (including travel and other allowances) to conduct the review?
(3) (a) Were other people besides Mr Temby considered for the position?
(b) If so, who?
(4) (a) Was Mr Temby the only person submitted to Cabinet for appointment to the position?
(b) If not, what other names were included?

Answer -

(1) $341,150.
(2) $189,045.
(3) (a) No.

(b) Not applicable.

(4) (a) No.

(b) Not applicable.

Page 4535

Mr Humpherson asked the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

(1) Will he promise that there will be no change in the number of Legislative Assembly electoral districts for the next State election?
(2) If not, how many districts does he propose?
(3) Does he support the principle that a party or group receiving over half of the statewide vote should form a Government?

Answer -

(1) There is no proposal to alter the number of electoral districts in New South Wales.
(2) There is no proposal to alter the number of electoral districts.
(3) The party which wins a majority of the seats throughout the State is entitled to form a Government.

Mr Humpherson asked the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs -

(1) Why doesn't the Government have a School Environment Education Policy?
(2) Why have you abandoned the Environment Education Policy of the previous Government?
(3) Why is no priority being given to developing a policy?
(4) When will a policy be developed and publicly stated?

Answer -

(1) Negotiations are being undertaken by the Environment Protection Authority to prepare an across government agencies environmental education discussion paper for consideration by the Government and its agencies. The proposed discussion paper will include school and community environmental education.
(2) The previous Government did not have an Environmental Education Policy. In February 1995, the previous Government did prepare an Environmental Education Pre-election Statement which it had not begun to implement before the change of Government.
(3) Since the change of Government we have adopted a more coordinated approach to ensure both the environment and education portfolios take a consistent approach to environmental education. The Environment Protection Authority is giving priority to the preparation of the environmental education discussion paper.
(4) The environmental education discussion paper is at present being developed and will be released for comment.
The Department of School Education and other school authorities will have an opportunity for participation in that process.
The paper will then provide a framework for the development of environmental education curriculum support materials to be used across key learning areas in schools K-12.

Mr Humpherson asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

In relation to the abandoned road corridor in Belrose between Forest Way and Garigal National Park -
(1) What does the Department of Planning propose to do with this land?
(2) Is any residential development planned?
(3) What portion of land will be retained as open space?
(4) What means will be taken to protect the amenity and privacy of existing dwellings along the corridor?
(5) What consideration is being given to addressing stormwater and drainage considerations on the corridor?

Answer -

(1) The subject portion of the corridor is primarily owned by State Government agencies, and as the land is now surplus, the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning commissioned a study to determine the future use of the land. It is anticipated that the consultant's work will be completed shortly.
(2) The current investigations are examining the suitability of the site, or portions thereof, for residential development. Although several broad concepts are being considered, no firm proposals exist for development, and the studies have been primarily concerned with determining site constraints associated with traffic, drainage and vegetation.
(3) Significant areas of the site are expected to be retained as open space, to enable retention of important vegetation and to resolve existing drainage problems. As no decision has been made, it is not possible to indicate precisely what amount of open space would be retained.
(4) In preparing the range of concepts for how the land might be developed, the privacy and amenity of existing residents is receiving due consideration by the consultants. Of course, any specific development proposals in the future would be subject to the usual requirements for assessment under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
(5) As already indicated, studies have been undertaken in relation to drainage and stormwater in the subject area. These studies indicate that the existing stormwater and drainage problems originate in the established areas outside the corridor. The consultant's report further indicates that development within the corridor could provide the
Page 4536
means by which remedial measures could be implemented to reduce existing problems with stormwater and run-off.

Mr Cochran asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads -

(1) Has the Government provided funds to build a new bridge on the Monaro Highway at Bibbenluke?
(2) Will he give an undertaking that motorists crossing the Bibbenluke bridge will not be at risk?
(3) Will the Government undertake to compensate motorists who sustain property or personal loss as a result of bridge failure at Bibbenluke?

Answer -

(1) Funding has been made available this financial year for design work for a new bridge and approaches on the Monaro Highway at Bibbenluke. It is expected that construction of the new bridge will be commenced in 1996/97.
(2) Recently completed structural maintenance works should ensure the safe passage of legally loaded vehicles.
(3) See answer (2) above.

Mr Cochran asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women -

Will she give an undertaking to maintain the presence of a Consumer Affairs Office in Queanbeyan for the duration of the term of the Government?

Answer -

The Government has demonstrated a full commitment, to all the people of New South Wales, to the ideals of fair trading and consumer protection in the marketplace.
This is evidenced by the formation of the new Department of Fair Trading, a department that amalgamates and consolidates agencies providing these valued services. You may be assured that the people of Queanbeyan will not in any way be disadvantaged and indeed will receive a much enhanced service to that provided under previous administrations.

Ms Ficarra asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs -

When will he introduce legislation outlawing the practice of female genital mutilation?

Answer -

I am advised that legislation covering female genital mutilation was passed in 1994. This legislation falls within the portfolio responsibilities of my colleague the Attorney General, and any further questions on this matter should be directed to him.

Ms Ficarra asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) What is the timeframe involved in the introduction of the proposed new SEPP relating to urban consolidation in the Sydney metropolitan area?
(2) Will it relate to other major regional centres throughout the State?
(3) What level of community consultation has been occurring during the formulation of the SEPP?

Answer -

(1) It is expected that the draft State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) for residential development will be finalised by mid-1996. This will provide time for councils to commit and start preparation of their own residential development strategies that contribute to urban consolidation. These strategies will form the basis for any exemption from the SEPP.
(2) Yes. It is proposed that the aims and objectives of the new policy will apply to the whole of the State. Parts of the new policy, such as those dealing with special needs housing, may also continue to apply to all council urban areas to ensure that the supply of housing in this section of the market is maintained.
I have recently written to all mayors in the greater metropolitan region outlining the State Government's new approach to urban consolidation which recognises the role of local government in identifying and maximising local housing opportunities. It is expected that councils will now, using the guideline booklet Residential Strategies, take the opportunity to prepare their own local residential development strategies that contribute to urban consolidation in the greater metropolitan region. For centres elsewhere in the State, councils may also prepare such strategies.
(3) The draft SEPP is being prepared by the Department in consultation with a working party comprising representatives of professional, academic, industry and local government groups. At this stage, it is envisaged that the draft SEPP will be publicly exhibited early next year, providing the opportunity for public comment on the development of the new policy.

Page 4537

Mr Hartcher asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) Has the Department of Housing recently acquired or contracted to acquire a block of home units at Bay Road, Russell Lea?
(2) If so, for what consideration?
(3) Were the units recently advertised for sale at prices up to $375,000?
(4) Do the units have spa baths and gourmet kitchens?
(5) Do some of the units have water views?
(6) Do the units have undercover parking?
(7) Will the Department be letting the units to prospective tenants on its housing waiting list?

Answer -

(1) Yes. The Department of Housing purchased the units at an average cost of $285,509 per unit. The units have standard Department of Housing furnishings. They do not include spa baths nor gourmet kitchens.
The Member for Gosford has either an extremely short memory or is being deliberately mischievous. The spot purchase program which funded this purchase has received bipartisan support from the previous Liberal and the Labor Government before that. Indeed, the budget papers identify works in progress that were part of the previous Liberal Government programs, including purchases in suburbs such as Thornleigh, Bondi, North Sydney and even Russell Lea - the same suburb that the honourable member now implicitly criticises in asking this question and in public comments the honourable member has made via media statements. The Member for Gosford in his question, and also in his speech on this year's budget, appears to be implying that Department of Housing tenants should not be allowed to live in some suburbs of Sydney and parts of New South Wales. This is a view that was not part of the previous Government's policy nor will it be part of the present Government's policy.
(2) The block was purchased at an average unit price of $285,509 per unit.
(3) In canvassing for pre-commitments, the developer did advertise the units for up to $375,000. The final purchase of $285,509 per unit is a very good purchase price for this area of high need for priority housing.
(4) No.
(5) There are limited water glimpses from two of the top floor units.
(6) Yes.
(7) Yes.

Mr Hazzard asked the Minister for Police -

(1) With the annual increase in police numbers will he:

(a) Reverse the proposed reduction in police numbers at Collaroy and Dee Why Police Stations?
(b) Guarantee Collaroy Police Station as a 24-hour police station?
(c) Guarantee Collaroy and Dee Why Police Stations will be fully restored to peak staffing levels?
(d) Advise when full staffing levels will be restored?

(2) How many representations has he received on the above matter including signatories on petitions?
(3) (a) How many police have been transferred from the Manly Warringah area since 25 March 1995?

(b) What were the number of police in Manly Warringah at:

(i) 25 March 1995?
(ii) 10 October 1995?

Answer -

(1) (a) The review of Warringah District police numbers was initiated under the former Coalition Government. The review recommended the transfer of 24 police from the peninsula area. I did, in fact, reverse the decision to remove 24 police and that is why only 13 will now be transferred from the Warringah district to areas of great need.

(b) Collaroy Police Station will remain operational.
(c) Collaroy and Dee Why Police Stations will be staffed appropriately to ensure the Warringah District has a level of policing commensurate to the area's needs.
(d) I am advised that the transfer of authorised positions is to be completed by January 1996.

(2) To provide an answer to this part of the question would require considerable dedication of staff time which is not warranted within the priorities of the Police Service.
(3) (a) Five as at 2 November 1995.

(b) (i) 483.
(ii) 478.

Mr Longley asked the Minister for Police -

(1) With the announced increase in police numbers for New South Wales, will he:

(a) Reverse the proposed reduction in police numbers at Avalon, Mona Vale and Collaroy Police Stations?
(b) Guarantee Avalon Police Station as a full service police station?
(c) Guarantee Mona Vale and Collaroy Police Stations will be fully restored to peak staffing levels?

(2) How many representations has he received on the above matter including signatories on petitions?

Page 4538

Answer -

(1) (a) The review of Warringah District police numbers was initiated under the former Coalition Government. The review recommended the transfer of 24 police from the peninsula area. I did, in fact, reverse the decision to remove 24 police and that is why only 13 will now be transferred from the Warringah District to areas of great need.

(b) Avalon Police Station will remain operational.
(c) Mona Vale and Collaroy Police Stations will be staffed appropriately to ensure the Warringah District has a level of policing commensurate to the area's needs.

(2) To provide an answer to this part of the question would require considerable dedication of staff time which is not warranted within the priorities of the Police Service.

Mr Longley asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads -

Will he list all proposed capital works in the electorate of Pittwater including proposed expenditure and timing for each item?

Answer -

There are no capital works proposed to be undertaken in the electorate of Pittwater in the current financial year.

Mr O'Farrell asked the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs -

(1) Is he aware that TAFE refuses to provide insurance coverage for students undertaking work experience, when work experience is not a formal part of the TAFE course?
(2) What is the rationale for this policy?
(3) How many students undertake work experience each year as part of their TAFE courses?
(4) What is the annual cost to TAFE of providing insurance coverage to students undertaking work experience?
(5) What is the estimated average cost per student?
(6) How many students are denied coverage on the basis that work experience is not a formal part of their TAFE course?
(7) What impact does the denial of such coverage have on a student's employment prospects?
(8) Will he establish a review to:

(a) Examine TAFE's policy in this area and its impact on students' chances of securing paid employment;
(b) Examine the feasibility of:

(i) extending coverage to students presently excluded; and
(ii) allowing students to purchase insurance coverage through TAFE?

Answer -

(1) Yes.
(2) The TAFE Commission policy for student work experience provides cover for students undertaking work experience as a specified requirement of their course. The work experience component of courses is specified in the syllabus or course outline.
TAFE courses are compiled/prescribed by a panel of industry specialists as well as Commission staff to reflect the vocational and training outcome of such courses.
It is this panel which determines the need for work experience as a course requirement.
The Commission policy specifies that where a student has independently arranged for a work placement outside their course, cover is not provided by the Commission.
The Department of School Education has a similar policy for student work experience which excludes cover for independently arranged work experience placements.
The TAFE Commission is not in the position to meet student work experience insurance cover where the work experience is an independent arrangement of a student.
(3) Approximately 32,000 in 1994.
(4) The cost of insurance cover for students undertaking work experience is included in the miscellaneous category of the Commission's insurance coverage. As this category also includes cover for exposures other than work experience, I am unable to provide the annual cost pertaining to the work experience component.
(5) See answer (4).
(6) This figure is unknown and no statistics held would assist in its determination.
(7) Where work experience is considered an essential element in the awarding of a TAFE Commission qualification, then a requirement for work experience is included in the syllabus. This is considered on a course by course basis. Wherever work experience is included in a syllabus the TAFE Commission provides insurance coverage. While a person who has experience in addition to obtaining a TAFE qualification may have enhanced employment prospects, the provision of such additional work experience would remove the TAFE Commission from its core activity of educational provision and require it to be an employment broker.
(8) (a) A review is unnecessary as this is currently being continually assessed on a course by course basis for each course.

(b) It is not part of the activities of an educational provider to act as an insurance agent for people who are working outside of the requirements of the course being undertaken. This is a service currently provided by the insurance industry.

Page 4539

Mr O'Farrell asked the Minister for the Environment -

(1) Does she plan to place the Berowra Valley Bushland Park under the control of the National Parks and Wildlife Service?
(2) If so, what is the proposed timetable for the transfer?

Answer -

(1) It is intended to reserve the Berowra Valley Bushland Park under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, with Hornsby Council to retain responsibility for management of the area.
(2) It is proposed that the transfer will occur by the end of December 1995.

Mr O'Farrell asked the Minister for Local Government -

(1) Is he aware of the leak of a confidential letter from the General Manager of Hornsby Council to a candidate in the September local government elections?
(2) Is he aware that the leaked letter was distributed widely to discredit the local government candidate?
(3) Is his Department investigating the incident to determine which council staff were involved?
(4) If not, why not?
(5) If an investigation is underway, will he give an assurance to provide me with a copy of the investigation's report when it is concluded?

Answer -

(1) I was not aware of the matter until the Department of Local Government made enquiries with the council and was furnished with the following information:

Early in August 1995, the General Manager's attention was drawn to the fact that a consultant working for council in relation to a proposed green organics bio-remediation facility had been nominated for election in the forthcoming local government elections. The consultant had indicated at a meeting of the bio-remediation project consultants, that his candidature had some association with a community group which was formed to oppose the proposed facility. The General Manager considered that this raised the potential for a conflict of interest in the consultancy, and in the circumstances he directed the Project Manager for the proposed facility to arrange finalisation of the consultant's involvement in the project.
The General Manager wrote to the consultant on 14 August 1995 informing him of the above, requesting him to ensure that information regarding the proposed facility to which he was privy, remains the intellectual property only of the council.

(2) Council informed the Department that a pamphlet was circulated within the shire, purporting to be a copy of the original letter forwarded to the consultant, but in fact, it appeared to be a forgery reconstructed from the duplicate copy.
The General Manager reported the matter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the State Electoral Commissioner and the Hornsby Police who investigated the matter.
(3) Council also informed the Department that the police investigation was commenced promptly and included an inspection of the relevant council file, and an interview with the General Manager. Council's basic policy in respect of its records is an "open" file policy, and the letter to the consultant was not confidential correspondence. The police have not taken the matter further.
The General Manager reviewed council's policy on access to information on council's files and concluded that council's general position regarding open access to non-restricted files should not be reversed.
(4) The Department's assessment of the information provided is that council's actions when informed of the circulation of the material, i.e., notification to ICAC, the Electoral Commissioner and the police, was appropriate, and that the involvement of the Department is not warranted.
(5) A departmental investigation will not be undertaken.
If at any time an investigation of a council under section 430 of the Local Government Act is undertaken, the Act requires under section 433 that a report on the results of the investigation must be furnished to the Minister, the Director-General and the council. The Act requires the council to table the investigation report, and the report becomes a public document.

Mr Schipp asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs -

(1) Has he instructed Regional Health Services to neither meet with members of the Opposition nor provide briefings regarding their activities?
(2) Why does this instruction apply only to non-Government members?
(3) Does this latest instruction extend the previous ban on briefings for visiting politicians to now include local members?
(4) Why has this instruction been applied to local members?
(5) Will he withdraw the ban?

Page 4540

Answer -

(1) to (5) There has been no broad instruction to Area Chief Executive Officers and District General Managers to neither meet with members of the Opposition nor to provide briefings.
To facilitate and improve communication channels, all enquiries from Members of Parliament in respect to the 1995/96 budget have been directed to my office.

Mr Schipp asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs -

(1) Has he endorsed the previous Government decision to conduct a trial of a second tier Air Ambulance Service to be located at Tamworth?
(2) If the trial is successful, does he intend to expand the service with aircraft to be located at Wagga Wagga and Dubbo?
(3) Will the Tamworth trial service be let through open tender?
(4) (a) How will the trial be monitored?

(b) What will be the terms of reference?

(5) When will the trial be commenced?

Answer -

(1) and (2) The NSW Health Department is currently considering the recommendation that a trial second tier aeromedical transport service be instituted at Tamworth. However, prior to the trial being approved, consideration of this proposal needs to be undertaken in the context of the Ambulance Service Strategic Plan and the overall utilisation and management of road and aeromedical transport.
(3) Yes, if it is decided to proceed with the trial.
(4) (a) and (b) As the trial is still being considered, these matters have not been determined.
(5) An examination of the requirement for and nature of the service, together with funding mechanisms, will be made in the context of the Ambulance Service Strategic Plan and is expected to be finalised in early 1996. Approval for the trial and its timing will not be provided prior to the completion of this examination.

Mr Schipp asked the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs -

(1) Has he claimed that the re-centralised Department of School Education will save $17 million per annum?
(2) Can this claimed saving of the total School Education Budget of $4.4 billion be justified in terms of the provision of quality support services for the State's country schools and teachers?
(3) Has this projected saving taken account of:

(a) "Dead rent" for vacated office space?
(b) Salary maintenance for displaced or downgraded staff?
(c) Redundancy payments?
(d) Travel and accommodation costs for visits to and from the centralised State offices?

(4) Will he release the actuarials which support the projected $17 million savings?

Answer -

(1) Yes.
(2) Yes. The establishment of 40 district offices with around 20 staff will not only increase support to schools but will provide support much closer to schools.
(3) Yes. Costs associated with the items referred to have been taken into account. It is anticipated that rationalisation of accommodation will result in significant savings in this area.
(4) Yes, if requested.

Mr Schipp asked the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs -

(1) Did he have a brief chance meeting with the former Mayor of Wagga Wagga, Councillor Pat Brassil, when Mr Brassil visited his office to discuss the issue of re-centralising the Department of School Education with departmental advisers?
(2) Did he refuse formal requests to meet with Councillor Brassil?
(3) Did the Premier pass to him the further request by recently elected Mayor, Councillor Peter Dale, to lead a community delegation, chosen at a public meeting, to raise issues with him concerning the decision to close the Riverina Regional Office of School Education ?
(4) Will 110 jobs be lost with that closure?
(5) What impact assessment on both school education and the local economy was conducted to support the decision?
(6) Did he, in his brief meeting with Mr Brassil, invite him to make a submission covering the issues for discussion?
(7) Has he received the invited submission?
(8) If so, has he responded?
(9) What was his response?
(10) (a) Will he now receive a delegation as requested by Councillor Dale?

(b) If not, why not?

Answer -

(1) and (2) Meetings between other persons and myself are my business. I suggest the honourable member ask Councillor Brassil.
(3) Correspondence between the Premier and me is our concern.

Page 4541
(4) The restructuring will result in the disestablishment of the Riverina Regional Office at Wagga Wagga and the establishment of the Wagga Wagga District Office. It is anticipated that this will result in a net loss of around 80 positions.
District offices with approximately 20 staff will be established in Albury, Griffith and Deniliquin.
(5) The objective of the restructuring of the Department of School Education is to take the available resources once the savings requirements of Government have been met, and to shape them into a new form of administration which is driven essentially by educational rather than financial imperatives.
(6) I suggest the honourable member ask Councillor Brassil.
(7) A submission was received.
(8) Yes.
(9) The basis of the response was that support could not be moved closer to schools or the required savings achieved with the retention of the Riverina Regional Office at Wagga Wagga or the establishment of a State Office at Wagga Wagga.
(10) (a) and (b) Councillor Dale can make requests for meetings in the normal manner.

Mr Souris asked the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

(1) Has he ordered the cancellation of all Ministerial credit cards for Ministers and Ministerial staff?
(2) How many Ministers' vehicles have been issued - either in the name of the Minister, the driver, the Department or any other person - plastic charge cards for use in paying the M4 or M5 tolls?
(3) Who are the Ministers concerned?

Answer -

(1) Ministers and their staff were advised on 22 May 1995 that they are not to provide themselves with departmental credit cards except in the case of overseas travel where short-term cards should be issued and returned at the completion of official travel.
(2) The Public Employment Office advises that 10 ministerial vehicles have cards issued for paying tollways whilst on official travel. Tollway credit cards were introduced by the previous Government for ministerial drivers on 3 August 1992.
(3) The Public Employment Office advises that the following ministerial vehicles have tollway credit cards for official use in accordance with the guidelines established by the previous Government:

Premier, Minister for the Arts and Minister for Ethnic Affairs;
Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics and Minister for Roads;
Attorney General and Minister for Industrial Relations;
Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning and Minister for Housing;
Minister for Agriculture;
Minister for Small Business, Minister for Ports and Minister for Regional Development;
Minister for Corrective Services and Minister for Emergency Services;
Minister for Gaming and Racing;
Minister for Consumer Affairs;
Minister for Local Government.

These cards have also been issued for all users of the Premier's Department official motor vehicle fleet including:

Governor;
President, Legislative Council;
Speaker, Legislative Assembly;
Leader of the Opposition;
Deputy Leader of the Opposition;
Former Premiers Fahey, Greiner and Wran and Sir Laurence Street.

Mr Souris asked the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

(1) Did he recently promise rural communities in New South Wales that a further $5 million had been allocated to charitable organisations?
(2) Has this amount not been paid and therefore not flowed through to farmers in exceptional circumstances in the Mudgee area?
(3) When will the money be made available?

Answer -

(1) Yes.
(2) $2.75 million has been paid to assist farmers across New South Wales. The situation will be reviewed on 20 November 1995 and further allocations will be paid when existing funds are nearing exhaustion.
It should be noted that all of the Mudgee Rural Lands Protection Board area has now been declared eligible for drought exceptional circumstances assistance and producers have access to Drought Relief Payments from the Commonwealth as well as other assistance measures.
(3) Money has already been allocated to:

Smith Family.
St Vincent de Paul.
Salvation Army.
Church of England.
Red Cross.

NSW Agriculture Drought Support Workers for emergency household support.

Mr Turner asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads -

Page 4542

(1) Does the Roads and Traffic Authority have a formula to evaluate the cost of motor vehicle accidents to the community?
(2) If so, what is that formula?
(3) If such formula exists, what cost does the Roads and Traffic Authority attribute to each death attributed to a motor vehicle accident?
(4) If such formula exists, what cost does the Roads and Traffic Authority attribute to each serious injury attributed to a motor vehicle accident?

Answer -

(1) Yes.
(2) Average crash costs shown in the RTA Economic Analysis Manual were based on 1993 New South Wales accident data and the costs by casualty class detailed in the Australian Road Research Board Report No. 227. Average crash costs are calculated taking into account loss of earnings by victims, family and community losses, pain and suffering, medical treatment, vehicle damage, insurance and administration costs.
(3) An estimated cost of approximately $701,000 in current terms.
(4) An estimated cost of approximately $119,700 in current terms.

Mr Blackmore asked the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

(1) Is he committed to saving the "corner pub" in the City of Sydney?
(2) If so, how is to proposed to save them?
(3) How many "corner pubs" are there in the City of Sydney?
(4) How many have closed since 1990 or are believed to be at risk of closure now?
(5) How much revenue does the State Government derive from the "corner pubs" in the City of Sydney by way of licence fees?
(6) (a) How many are protected by orders under the Heritage Act?

(b) Which ones?

Answer -

(1) Yes. My Government has already committed itself to initiatives that seek to maintain the place of pubs in the City of Sydney.
(2) Earlier this year, my Government amended the City of Sydney Act 1988 (by inserting a new section 52A) to enable Sydney City Council to limit individual rate increases and so provide assistance to city hotels in the form of rate relief.
Sydney City Council is now able to create an effective rate cap to limit the extent of rate rises and so make the rating system more stable and predictable for small businesses. This initiative will undoubtedly assist in enhancing the viability of city pubs.
(3) There are 108 hoteliers' licences for premises located in the area comprising the Sydney CBD (east to College and Elizabeth Streets, south to Railway Square and west to Darling Harbour), in The Rocks and in Millers Point.
Of these 108, I understand that around 56 are what we might think of as "corner pubs". This figure comes from a study, undertaken by Sydney City Council earlier this year, in which the "corner pub" was defined in terms of a traditional stand alone pub which does not exceed 20 rooms offering accommodation.
(4) This information is difficult to obtain and verify. However, it is understood that five "corner pubs" have closed in the city area since 1990. It is also understood that the owners of another, the Dumbarton Castle Hotel in Kent Street, intend to redevelop the site for residential apartments in the near future.
(5) For those "corner pubs" identified by the Sydney City Council study, liquor licence fees received or receivable by the Government for the current licensing period - 16 January 1995 to 15 January 1996 - total $1,657,280.
(6) (a) There are nine hotels in the City of Sydney subject to Permanent Conservation Orders under the Heritage Act.

(b) These are:

(i) Napoleon's Hotel (formerly the Big House), 20-24 Sussex Street, Millers Point;
(ii) Captain Cook Hotel, 33-35 Kent Street, Millers Point;
(iii) Lord Nelson Hotel, 19 Kent Street, Millers Point;
(iv) Palisade Hotel, 35-37 Bettington Street, Millers Point;
(v) Grand Hotel, 160-162 Elizabeth Street, Sydney;
(vi) Hero of Waterloo Hotel, 81-83 Lower Fort Street, Millers Point;
(vii) Harbour View Hotel, 18 Lower Fort Street, Millers Point;
(viii) Crown Hotel, 160-162 Elizabeth Street, Sydney;
(ix) Metropolitan Hotel, 244-246 George Street, Sydney.

Mr Blackmore asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) How many Local Environmental Policies and amendments to Local Environmental Policies has he approved since 4 April 1995?
(2) Has he rejected any Local Environmental Policies or amendments to Local Environmental Policies since 4 April 1995?
(3) If so:
(a) Which ones?

(b) For what reasons in each case?

Page 4543

Answer -

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 makes provision for Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) not Local Environmental Policies and answers to the questions follow:
(1) Since 4 April 1995, I have approved 293 Local Environmental Plans and amendments to Local Environmental Plans.
(2) Yes.
(3) (a) and (b)

Kogarah draft Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 76:
Reason for refusal - The draft plan proposed to permit medical suites with council consent at 2-4 Short Street, Kogarah. I refused to make the plan because of conflict of interest between the Southern Sydney Health Service and the owners of 2 and 4 Short Street, Kogarah.
Botany draft LEP 165:
Reason for refusal - The draft plan proposed to rezone land from 4(a) General Industrial to Residential 2(b) to permit multi-unit residential development. I declined to make the plan as it would reduce opportunities for industrial development. Further, rezoning for residential would conflict with nearby industrial and other employment generating uses. In addition, risk and contamination issues were not fully resolved.
Bankstown draft LEP 168:
Reason for refusal - This draft plan proposed to rezone land from 6(a) Recreation (Existing) to 5(a) Special Uses. I refused to make the plan as a result of concerns expressed regarding traffic and amenity issues at the intersection of Punchbowl Road and South Terrace, Punchbowl.
Randwick draft LEP 123:
Reason for refusal - This draft plan proposed to rezone the former Total Oil Refinery from 4(c) General Industrial to 4(b) Light Industrial to mitigate adverse effects on the amenity of the area. I declined to make the plan because of the regional and strategic importance of a large site due to its close proximity to Port Botany and the need to ensure retention of an adequate supply of appropriately zoned industrial land to support general industrial and port related uses.
Shoalhaven LEP 1985 (draft Amendment No. 94):
Reason for refusal - This plan proposed to allow the erection of a dwelling on 11 out of 14 urban sized lots zoned 1(a) Rural at Goodlands Road, Woollomia. I decided that the matter should not proceed because the proposed development was likely to significantly affect water quality and was in conflict with the water quality objectives proposed in the draft plan of management for the Jervis Bay Marine Reserve; the proposal was likely to result in the degradation of a wetland protected under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 14 - Coastal Wetlands; valuable fauna, birdlife and fish habitat would be threatened by the plan; and, a precedent could be set.
Byron LEP 1988 (draft Amendment No. 35):
Reason for refusal - The draft plan proposed to introduce flexible boundaries for wetland zones. I considered a general shire-wide draft plan of this nature undesirable and that site specific approval would be more appropriate.
Tweed LEP 1987 (draft Amendment No. 88):
Reason for refusal - The draft plan proposed a change in zoning from 1(b) Agricultural Protection to General Rural 1(a) to permit a retail opal business. I agreed with objections by the Roads and Traffic Authority to the general nature of the amendment having regard to traffic safety on the Pacific Highway.

Mr Blackmore asked the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State Development, representing the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council -

(1) Will he guarantee that the future use of the Showground will be for film/TV studios only and that no other usage will be permitted?
(2) (a) Will the public be admitted to the Showground once it becomes a film/TV studio?

(b) If so, will a fee be payable?

(3) Which buildings in the Showground will be preserved under any proposed lease?
(4) Will the lessee be required to maintain the buildings at its own cost?

Answer -

(1) In accordance with the public Call for Expressions of Interest in development of the site as a film studio released in December 1994, the primary objective will be for the establishment of a commercially viable film and television production studio complex, the details of which will be subject to public exhibition under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, prior to granting of any development approvals.
(2) (a) Yes.
(b) No, except in respect of entry to the proposed film studio tours, cinema, entertainment, restaurant and other commercial facilities.

Page 4544
(3) The heritage and conservation values of the site will be respected and formalised in a conservation plan to be developed by Fox in conjunction with the Heritage Council and the National Trust. The Royal Hall of Industries, Hordern Pavilion and the stables buildings will not be the subject of the proposed lease to Fox.
(4) Yes.

Mr Hartcher asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has he established a Central Coast Police District Anti-Theft Squad as promised prior to the 1995 State election?
(2) If not, why not?
(3) If so:

(a) When?
(b) How many police are in it?
(c) Who is the Commander?
(d) Where is it based?

(4) Has he established a Central Gang Control Intelligence Unit as promised prior to the 1995 State election?
(5) If not, why not?
(6) If so:

(a) When?
(b) How many police are in it?
(c) Who is the Commander?
(d) Where is it based?

Answer -

(1) to (3) I have had discussions with the Commissioner of Police concerning the establishment of anti-theft squads statewide.
(4) to (6) Proposals are currently under development.

Mr Hartcher asked the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs -

(1) How old are the wooden "portable" classrooms at Henry Kendall High School, Gosford?
(2) Do they comply with fire safety requirements?
(3) Are they used by handicapped students?
(4) Has he received numerous representations from the School Council and the Deputy Mayor of Gosford, Mich Whalan, to upgrade them?
(5) (a) Has he taken action to upgrade them?

(b) If none, why not?

(6) Does he acknowledge there are inadequate, outdated facilities for classroom usage?
(7) When will he announce a program to upgrade them?

Answer -

(1) The timber buildings are approximately 40 years old.
(2) The buildings comply with fire safety requirements.
(3) Most of the timber classrooms in the school are used by disabled students and these classrooms have ramped access.
(4) Three representations were received from the School Council or Parents and Citizens Association in mid-1994. There have been no representations from the Deputy Mayor, Gosford City.
(5) (a) Cyclic maintenance was completed earlier this year at a cost of $496,673 which included new aluminium windows in the G Block of timber classrooms and replacement floor coverings and heaters in several other timber classrooms. The replacement of timber classrooms has been included on the Metropolitan North Region's priority list for nomination in a future minor Capital Works Program.

(b) Not applicable, see above.

(6) The timber classrooms are considered to be adequate and received substantial painting and repair in the recent cyclic maintenance.
(7) Funds for capital works are limited with priority given to new schools in expanding areas where enrolments exceed the capacity of the existing permanent accommodation. For this reason, I am unable to advise when funds will be available for the replacement of the timber classrooms at Henry Kendall High School.

Mr Hartcher asked the Minister for the Environment -

(1) Will she expand Wyrrabalong National Park to include Crown lands at the North Entrance Peninsula as promised in Labor's infrastructure plan for the Central Coast issued in March 1995?
(2) If not, why not?
(3) If so:

(a) When?
(b) Which Crown lands specifically?

Answer -

(1) National Parks and Wildlife Service has advised that Crown lands are available which could be additions to Wyrrabalong National Park at North Entrance Peninsula.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) The National Parks and Wildlife Service will assess these lands for their suitability for inclusion in the National Park and advise me. However, for the Government, in the meantime, the creation of 24 new parks has first priority.

Mr Hartcher asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

Page 4545

(1) How often are people on the waiting list for Department of Housing accommodation reviewed to ascertain if their circumstances have changed?
(2) How many were reviewed for the year ending 30 June 1995?
(3) How many were removed from the list as a result of the review?
(4) What percentage of people on the waiting list are:

(a) Single parent families?
(b) Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islanders?
(c) Persons wholly dependent upon income from the Department of Social Security (excluding those also in categories (a) and (b) above)?

(5) Who carries out the review?
(6) Is the review appealable?

Answer -

(1) The Department surveys those clients who have had no contact with the Department within the last 12 months. This survey is an ongoing process. In addition, an eligibility review is undertaken approximately 6 months before an applicant's turn for an allocation is reached.
(2) 23,504 clients were surveyed during 1994/95.
(3) 8,274 clients had their name removed from the waiting list for failing to respond to the survey letter.
(4) (a) 27 per cent of the waiting list are lone parents.
(b) 2 per cent of the waiting list are Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islanders.
(c) 90 per cent of the waiting list is in receipt of statutory income either from the Department of Social Security or Veteran Affairs. (This figure includes those in (a) and (b) as the information cannot be separated in the manner requested.)
(5) Client Service staff undertake the survey.
(6) Yes, all decisions concerning eligibility for public housing are appealable.

Mr Hartcher asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) (a) Was a fire lit on Saturday 23 September 1995 on Sydney Water Corporation catchment land, near the Kowmung River, by a group of bushwalkers which included the Premier?

(b) If so:

(i) Was the Corporation's approval given for the lighting of this fire?
(ii) When was the approval given?
(iii) Who sought the approval?
(iv) Who gave the approval?
(v) Was the approval in writing?
(2) (a) How does the Corporation grant approval for the lighting of fires?
(b) (i) Is the power delegated?
(ii) If so, to whom and when?

(c) Does Mr Paul Broad have a delegated power to give consent to the lighting of fires?
(d) Does Mr Paul Broad have a delegated power to determine whether prosecutions for breaches of regulations are instituted?

(3) Is the lighting of fires in the area controlled under the regulation cited as the Sydney Water Corporation Limited (Catchment Management) Regulation 1995?
(4) Does the regulation prohibit the lighting of a fire unless the Corporation's approval is first obtained?
(5) (a) What action has been taken in respect of the lighting of the fire referred to above?

(b) Will a prosecution be instituted?
(c) If not, why not?

Answer -

(1) (a) Sydney Water Corporation is aware of media reports alleging that a fire was lit on Corporation land near the Kowmung River by a group of bushwalkers which included the Premier, on Saturday 23 September 1995.
(b) (i) Sydney Water has no direct knowledge of where the fire was lit.
(ii) to (v) Not applicable.
(2) (a) The Corporation grants approval for fires by general notification for some specific purposes, e.g., barbecues at dam picnic grounds, or on application in other areas.
(b) to (d) Senior officers of the Corporation with direct responsibility for catchment management carry with them an implied authority to interpret and implement the Catchment Management Regulation. These senior officers exercise this implied authority on a regular basis.
(3) Sydney Water has no direct knowledge of the location at which the fire is alleged to have been lit. The area where the fire was allegedly lit is controlled by the regulation.
(4) Yes, unless the fire is on private land in which case 24 hours notice must be given to Sydney Water of fires to be lit for land clearing purposes.
(5) (a) In line with its common practice, Sydney Water has written to the member of the party alleged to have lit the fire reminding that person of the prohibition on lighting of open fires and asking them to respect the prohibition and the reasons for it.
(b) No.
(c) Sydney Water commonly only proceeds to prosecution in fire lighting cases where there is a compelling reason to do so, such as where the person is a persistent offender or fails repeatedly to obey the direction of catchment protection officers. Based on the available information, there are no compelling reasons to prosecute in this case.

Page 4546

Mr Collins asked the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

(1) How many members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) are employed in agencies within his administration?
(2) What are the names of the individuals and the agencies?
(3) What is the number in each grade of the SES?
(4) Which appointments to the SES have been made since 4 April 1995?
(5) Which positions is it proposed are to be abolished as part of the State Government's reduction of the SES?
(6) Which positions have been abolished?
(7) Which SES officers have a Government purchased vehicle as part of their salary package?
(8) Are these vehicles purchased free of sales tax and/or stamp duty?

Answer -

(1) to (8) It is a requirement of the Annual Reports Act that relevant details regarding senior executives are included in annual reports. To avoid costly duplication of public resources, the honourable member is referred to the annual reports of the relevant departments which, in accordance with the Act, must be tabled 4 months after the end of the financial year.
The Government is committed to reducing the SES by 400 positions within its first term.
Currently the Government is ahead of its target in reducing the size of the SES and hence well advanced in the redirection of resources to front line services such as schools, hospitals and police.

Mr Cruickshank asked the Minister for Sport and Recreation -

(1) What contracts worth over $30,000 have been let since 4 April 1995 for the agencies within her ministerial portfolio?
(2) In respect of each contract:

(a) To whom was each contract let?
(b) For what purpose was each contract let?
(c) For how much was each contract let?
(d) Were tenders called?
(e) Who is the principal contact with each contractor?

(3) Which contracts have gone to companies whose head office is in New South Wales?
(4) (a) Have any contracts over $30,000 been let which were not publicly tendered?

(b) If so, which?
(c) Why were they not publicly tendered?

(5) Has she let out any contracts from her ministerial private office for a greater value than $1,000?
(6) If so, in respect of each contract:

(a) To whom was each contract let?
(b) For what purpose was each contract let?
(c) For how much was each contract let?
(d) Were tenders called?
(e) Who is the principal contact with each contractor?

Answer -

Minister's Office
(1) Nil.
(2) (a) to (e) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.
(4) (a) to (c) Not applicable.
(5) No.
(6) (a) to (e) Not applicable.

State Sports Centre
(1) One only.
(2) (a) Programmed Maintenance Services.

(b) Painting program.
(c) $63,776 per annum for 3 years.
(d) Yes.
(e) Mark Pikowski, phone (02) 748 7088.

(3) Nil.
(4) (a) No.

(b) Not applicable.
(c) Not applicable.

Parramatta Stadium Trust
(1) Building contract for stadium redevelopment.
(2) (a) McNamara Group Constructions Pty Ltd.

(b) Stadium redevelopment works.
(c) $403,250.
(d) Yes, tenders were called.
(e) Mr Tony McNamara
Managing Director
McNamara Group Constructions Pty Ltd
PO Box 257
Parramatta, NSW 2124

(3) All contracts have gone to companies whose head office is in New South Wales.
(4) (a) No.

(b) Not applicable.
(c) Not applicable.

Academy of Sport, Narrabeen
(1) Nil.
(2) (a) to (e) Not applicable.
(3) Lighting of track and fields.

NSW Public Works Department.
Ongoing Capital Works project.

(4) (a) to (c) Not applicable.

Jindabyne Sport and Recreation Centre, Winter Sports Academy
(1) Since 4 April 1995 - contracts exceeding $30,000 in value.

Contracts involving verbal agreements to supply services or goods have been entered into as follows:

Cooma Coach and Cooma Bus Lines
This service was used to replace the service used by E-Street Coach Service which

Page 4547
defaulted on their contract in July 1995. It is an emergency ongoing supply agreement valued at approximately $350,000 per year. The NSW Supply Service will re-issue tenders for the supply of this service when the appropriate specifications are drafted.

Gransport Flooring Pty Ltd
This service is part of the minor capital works project for the indoor gymnasium. Other services in this project have not exceeded $30,000 as individual items and/or were entered into prior to 1995.

(2) (a) (i) Cooma Coach and Cooma Bus Lines.
(ii) Gransport Flooring Pty Ltd.
(b) (i) Supply of coach services to transport participants to and from the Academy.
(ii) Floor for the indoor centre.
(c) (i) Ongoing supply of service - value is determined by usage pattern. Current estimate is approximately $30,000 per month.
(ii) Quotation for service - $93,831.
(d) (i) Tenders in the form of quotations were called from eight suppliers. Three responded of which the cheapest able to supply the appropriate service was selected.
(ii) Tenders in the form of quotations were called from four suppliers. Three responded of which the cheapest able to supply the appropriate service was selected.
(e) (i) Principal contact: Mrs Merle Heise.
(ii) Principal contact: Mr Mick Ballesty.
(3) Head office location.

Transport services provided by Cooma Coaches. Their head office is in Cooma.

(4) Public tender for contracts.

In both cases outlined above, offers to provide quotations for these services were made to all major operations capable of providing the appropriate service.
In both cases, all quotations received were evaluated in a competitive context with at least three quotations being assessed.
(a) In this sense, the contracts were offered as a public tender although they were not advertised in the print media.
(b) Not applicable.
(c) Not applicable - see notes above.

Mr Cruickshank asked the Minister for Local Government -

(1) What contracts worth over $30,000 have been let since 4 April 1995 for the agencies within his ministerial portfolio?
(2) In respect of each contract:

(a) To whom was each contract let?
(b) For what purpose was each contract let?
(c) For how much was each contract let?
(d) Were tenders called?
(e) Who is the principal contact with each contractor?

(3) Which contracts have gone to companies whose head office is in New South Wales?
(4) (a) Have any contracts over $30,000 been let which were not publicly tendered?

(b) If so, which?
(c) Why were they not publicly tendered?

(5) Has he let out any contracts from his ministerial private office for a greater value than $1,000?
(6) If so, in respect of each contract:

(a) To whom was each contract let?
(b) For what purpose was each contract let?
(c) For how much was each contract let?
(d) Were tenders called?
(e) Who is the principal contact with each contractor?

Answer -

(1) One contract was let over $30,000.
(2) (a) Maxim Technology Pty Limited.
(b) Contracting of computer programming services.
(c) $60 per hour to a maximum of $37,000.
(d) No. Four written quotations were sought.
(e) Mr Stephen Butler, Managing Director (external) with Manager, Information Services, Department of Local Government (internal).
(3) Contract for Maxim Technology Pty Limited.
(4) (a) Yes. See answer (2) (d) above.

(b) See answer (2) (a) above.
(c) The amount was below the threshold for public tender. Four written quotations were sought.

(5) Nil.
(6) Not applicable.

Mr Debnam asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads, representing the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, and Minister Assisting the Premier -

(1) How many grants has he made to community-based groups since 4 April 1995 (including local government, cultural, sporting and environment related organisations)?
(2) For each grant:

(a) Which organisation received the grant?
(b) What was its address?
(c) How much was it for?
(d) What was the purpose?
(e) On what date was it made?

Answer -

(1) Nil.
(2) Not applicable.

Page 4548

Mr Debnam asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads, representing the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, and Minister Assisting the Premier -

(1) How many consultants has his ministerial office engaged since 4 April 1995?
(2) For each consultant:

(a) What was the name and address of the consultancy?
(b) Who was the principal contact?
(c) What has the consultant been paid to date?
(d) What is the purpose of the consultancy?

(3) For each agency under his administration, what consultants have been engaged since 4 April 1995?
(4) For each consultant:

(a) What was the name and address of the consultancy?
(b) Who was the principal contact?
(c) What has the consultant been paid to date?
(d) What is the purpose of the consultancy?

Answer -

(1) to (4) It is a requirement of the Annual Reports Act that relevant details regarding the engaging of consultants are included in annual reports. To avoid costly duplication of public resources the honourable member is referred to the relevant department's annual report.

Mr Debnam asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads, representing the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, and Minister Assisting the Premier -

(1) Have any staff ceased employment in his ministerial office since 4 April 1995?
(2) What are their names?
(3) What was their period of employment?
(4) What were their positions?
(5) Why did they leave?

Answer -

(1) to (5) Ministerial staff departures have occurred in accordance with Public Employment Office guidelines.

Mr Downy asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads, representing the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, and Minister Assisting the Premier -

(1) How many staff are employed in his ministerial office?
(2) What is the name and job title of each staff member?
(3) What is the remuneration package of each staff member?
(4) Which staff members are career public servants?
(5) Which staff members are issued with NSW Government credit cards?
(6) Which staff members are issued with CabCharge cards?
(7) Which staff members have a NSW Government owned motor vehicle allocated for their use?
(8) Which staff members have Government purchased motor vehicles included in their salary package?
(9) How many mobile telephones are Government owned or Government leased in his ministerial office?

Answer -

(1) 16.
(2) Chief of Staff Matthew Strassberg
Driver Tony Perry
Service Officer Dean Hagan
Receptionist April Johnson
Receptionist Michelle Lloyd
Media Adviser Michael Coutts-Trotter
Assistant Private

Secretary (Media) Anabel Murray

Private Secretary Viola Gavan
Assistant Private Secretary
(Appointments) Debra Ward

Treasury

Chief Policy Adviser Mark Duffy

Assistant Private

Secretary Mardi Palmer

Energy
Energy Adviser Bill Frewen

State Development
State Development
Adviser John Whelan

Leader of the House (Parliamentary Co-ordination/Cabinet)
Parliamentary
Co-ordinator Virginia Knox
Executive Officer Gay Bransgrove
Assistant Private Secretary
(Parliamentary) Vicki Hayes
(3) Ministerial staff members are paid in accordance with the salary ranges and regulations determined by the Public Employment Office.
(4) Michelle Lloyd seconded from Premier's Department and Mardi Palmer and Dean Hagan seconded from Treasury.
(5) None.
(6) None.
(7) and (8) Matthew Strassberg, Mark Duffy, Virginia Knox and Michael Coutts-Trotter have a Government motor vehicle on a salary sacrifice basis.
(9) The ministerial office has nine mobile phones.

Page 4549

Mr Downy asked the Minister for Sport and Recreation -

(1) How many grants has she made to community-based groups since 4 April 1995 (including local government, cultural, sporting and environment related organisations)?
(2) For each grant:

(a) Which organisation received the grant?
(b) What was its address?
(c) How much was it for?
(d) What was the purpose?
(e) On what date was it made?

Answer -

(1) 11.
(2) (a) Lloyd McDermott Rugby Development Team.

(b) C/- The Rugby Club, Crane Place, Sydney.
(c) $6,000.
(d) To enable the trust of the team to meet the financial costs of the team's tour to Hong Kong. Financial support would cover the team's insurance, tour uniform, travel and accommodation.
(e) 3 October 1995.

(a) Cringilla Lions Soccer Club.
(b) PO Box 232, Warrawong.
(c) $5,000.
(d) Assistance towards the purchase of furniture for the clubhouse.
(e) 28 August 1995.

(a) Lakeside Netball Association.
(b) PO Box 178, Belmont.
(c) $15,000.
(d) Assistance towards the construction of three netball courts at the association's netball complex at Lake Macquarie as an advanced commitment from the 1995/96 Capital Assistance Program.
(e) 24 May 1995.

(a) Penrith Australian Football Club.
(b) Greygums Reserve, Mount Pleasant.
(c) $8,000.
(d) For the erection of perimeter fencing.
(e) 21 June 1995.

(a) Parkes Australian Football Club.
(b) North Parkes Complex.
(c) $42,000.
(d) Assistance towards the construction of an amenities block.
(e) 21 June 1995.

(a) Grafton Rugby Union Football Club.
(b) Grafton (C/- NSW Rugby Union Ltd, PO Box 405, Burwood).
(c) $11,500.
(d) Upgrading of existing playing field lighting and construction of roofing over existing seating area.
(e) 15 June 1995.

(a) Lismore Rugby Union Football Club.
(b) Lismore (C/- NSW Rugby Union Ltd, PO Box 405, Burwood).
(c) $8,500.
(d) Provision of playing field lighting to existing field and construction of a half-sized field for junior rugby.
(e) 15 June 1995.

(a) Warringah Rugby Union Football Club.
(b) Narrabeen (C/- NSW Rugby Union Ltd, PO Box 405, Burwood).
(c) $50,000.
(d) Construction of a new field and installation of match standard lighting.
(e) 15 June 1995.

(a) Orange Emus Rugby Football Club.
(b) Orange (C/- NSW Rugby Union Ltd, PO Box 405, Burwood).
(c) $100,000.
(d) Construction of a new grandstand and players amenities complex.
(e) 15 June 1995.

(a) Sports Medicine Australia (NSW Branch).
(b) PO Box 724, Glebe, NSW 2037.
(c) $500.
(d) To assist in the conduct of a "Careers for Women in Sport" seminar.
(e) 22 August 1995.

(a) Tennis NSW.
(b) 30 Alma Street, Paddington, NSW 2021.
(c) $200.
(d) To assist in the conduct of a "Sports Media and Marketing Skills Seminar for Women".
(e) 3 October 1995.

Mr Downy asked the Minister for Sport and Recreation -

(1) How many consultants has her ministerial office engaged since 4 April 1995?
(2) For each consultant:

(a) What was the name and address of the consultancy?
(b) Who was the principal contact?
(c) What has the consultant been paid to date?
(d) What is the purpose of the consultancy?

(3) For each agency under her administration, what consultants have been engaged since 4 April 1995?
(4) For each consultant:

(a) What was the name and address of the consultancy?

Page 4550

(b) Who was the principal contact?
(c) What has the consultant been paid to date?
(d) What is the purpose of the consultancy?

Answer -

(1) None.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) See below.
(4) (a) to (d) See below.

State Sports Centre Trust
(1) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) One only.
(4) (a) Quality Childrens Services

16 Cressy Road
Ryde, NSW 2112
(b) Mrs Kay Doyle.
(c) $2,000.
(d) Feasibility study and funding submission for child care centre on site.

Parramatta Stadium Trust
(1) Not applicable.
(2) (a) to (d) Not applicable.
(3) Public relations consultant and engineering consultant.
(4) (a) The Business Network.

(b) Mr Fred Symes.
(c) $2,000.
(d) Public relations.
(a) John Fenwick & Associates Pty Ltd.
(b) Mr John Fenwick.
(c) $2,555.
(d) Engineering advice for legal action.

Sports House
(1) The Sports Management Advisory Service has used three consultants since 4 April 1995.
(2) (a) Dr Ilan Kogus

17/8 Dine Street
Randwick, NSW 2031

Mr Peter Warning
14 John Street
Ashfield, NSW 2131

Crosswhite Consulting
73 Sugarloaf Crescent
Castlecrag, NSW 2068

(b) (i) Dr Ilan Kogus.
(ii) Mr Peter Warning.
(iii) Mr Perry and Mrs Janice Crosswhite.

(c) (i) $1,600.
(ii) $410.
(iii) Nil.
(d) (i) Adizcs Methodology Workshop - assisting organisations to cope with restructuring.
(ii) Human resources presentation.
(iii) Marketing workshop for State sporting organisations.

(3) Nil.
(4) (a) to (d) Not applicable.

Mr Downy asked the Minister for Sport and Recreation -

(1) Have any staff ceased employment in her ministerial office since 4 April 1995?
(2) What are their names?
(3) What was their period of employment?
(4) What were their positions?
(5) Why did they leave?

Answer -

(1) to (5) Ministerial staff departures have occurred in accordance with Public Employment Office guidelines.

Mr Ellis asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

(1) How many grants has he made to community-based groups since 4 April 1995 (including local government, cultural, sporting and environment related organisations)?
(2) For each grant:

(a) Which organisation received the grant?
(b) What was its address?
(c) How much was it for?
(d) What was the purpose?
(e) On what date was it made?

Answer -

(1) None.
(2) Not applicable.

Mr Ellis asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

(1) How many consultants has his ministerial office engaged since 4 April 1995?
(2) For each consultant:

(a) What was the name and address of the consultancy?
(b) Who was the principal contact?
(c) What has the consultant been paid to date?
(d) What is the purpose of the consultancy?

(3) For each agency under his administration, what consultants have been engaged since 4 April 1995?
(4) For each consultant:

(a) What was the name and address of the consultancy?
(b) Who was the principal contact?
(c) What has the consultant been paid to date?
(d) What is the purpose of the consultancy?

Page 4551

Answer -

(1) None.
(2) Not applicable.

NSW Fisheries
(3) Four consultants have been engaged since 4 April 1995.
(4) (a) The names of the four consultancies are as follows:

(i) Sigma Management Science Pty Ltd

PO Box 647

Dee Why 2099
(ii) Col Brown Consulting Pty Ltd

Suite 4

70A Malton Road

Beecroft 2119

(iii) Impact Safety Programs
PO Box 363

Swansea 2281

(iv) Humberside International
Fisheries Institute
University of Hull
England
(b) The principal contract for each consultancy is as follows:
(i) Mr John Smyrk (Principal-Sigma Management Science Pty Ltd).
(ii) Mr Colin Brown - Col Brown Consulting Pty Ltd.
(iii) Mr Peter Jones - Impact Safety Programs.
(iv) Dr Ian Cowx - Humberside International.
(c) The consultants have been paid the following amount to date:

(i) $1,900 has been paid to Sigma Management Science Pty Ltd.

(ii) $12,482.80 has been paid to Col Brown Consulting Pty Ltd.
(iii) $11,075 has been paid to Impact Safety Programs.
(iv) $11,521.37 has been paid to Humberside International.
(d) (i) The purpose of the Sigma Management Science Pty Ltd consultancy was to conduct a workshop to develop agency sub-program statements.
(ii) The purpose of the Col Brown Consulting Pty Ltd consultancy was to review the cost effectiveness of building and trades services at Fisheries research centres.
(iii) The purpose of the Impact Safety Programs consultancy was to conduct an Occupational Health and Safety audit of NSW Fisheries premises and work practices.
(iv) The purpose of the Humerside International consultancy was to conduct an international electro fishing workshop.

Department of Mineral Resources
(3) The following consultants have been engaged since 4 April 1995:
Keir Wells
Pitt Research Pty Ltd
Budside Pty Ltd
NSW Supply Service
John Saunders
Richard Facer Pty Ltd
Equatorial Talent
QMA
DLI Industries Pty Ltd
Metier Personnel
Stephen Madgwick
Terra Search Pty Ltd
BR Senior & Associates
Gwynne Scotford Management Consultants
Estelle Barboza

Mines Rescue Board

Paul Chesher & Associates

Downing Teal
Armstrong Advertising

Mann Judd Chartered Accountants
BHP Information Technology
WC Todd & Hay Management
JH Whale
IMPS Consultants
Illawarra Technology Corp.

Mine Subsidence Board

Capital Insights
Professor J. Galvin
Dr P. Walsh

Department of Mineral Resources
(4) * Keir Wells

15 Spurway Street
Ermington, NSW 2115
Mr Keir Wells
$4,675
Editing of Office Automation User Manual
* Pitt Research Pty Ltd
45 Hackney Road
Hackney, SA 5069
Mr Mark Deuter
$52,000
To define petroleum prospective areas in Murray Basin
* Budside Pty Ltd
PO Box 669
Balgowlah, NSW 2093
Mr Dennis Morton
$15,000
To compile a database of petroleum geochemical testing in the State
* NSW Supply Service
1 Francis Street
Darlinghurst, NSW 2010
Mr G. Edwards
Nil paid
Preparation of tenders and contracts for seismic surveys

Page 4552

* John Saunders
69 Fairlawn Avenue
Turramurra, NSW 2074
Mr John Saunders
$10,000
Supervision of seismic surveys
* Estelle Barboza
26 Curtins Avenue
Abbotsford, NSW 2046
Ms Estelle Barboza
Nil Paid
Clerical assistance on "Geology of NSW"
* Richard Facer Pty Ltd
PO Box 194
Killara, NSW 2071
Mr Richard Facer
$8,890
Editing sapphire brochure, Minfo Index and editing NRAC Report
* Equatorial Talent
10th Floor, 100 Miller Street
North Sydney, NSW 2060
Ms Belinda Eighan
$4,264
Co-ordination mining industry directory
* QMA
PO Box 95
Avalon, NSW 2107
Ms Michelle Tremolada
$5,145
Graphic design, mining industry directory
* DLI Industries Pty Ltd
3 Norfolk Avenue
Collaroy, NSW 2097
Ms Helena Basden
$14,700
Editing of "Geology of NSW Part 3"
* Metier Personnel
90 Mount Street
North Sydney, NSW 2060
Ms Megan Retford
$3,470
Clerical assistance industry directory
* Stephen Madgwick
6/15 Barry Street
Neutral Bay, NSW 2089
Mr Stephen Madgwick
$5,056
Editing Guidelines for Safe Mining
* Terra Search Pty Ltd
"Tathra" Mersing Road
Glanmire
Bathurst, NSW 2795
Mr Rod Pullin
$128,475.10
Compilation of a stream sediment geochemistry database for the Lachlan Ford Belt region
* B.R. Senior & Associate
RMB 246, Gundaroo Road
Via Bungendore, NSW 2621
Mr Brian Senior
Nil Paid
Preparation of photo scale base maps for Bunda and parts of Topar and Menindee
* Gwynne Scotford Management Consultants
PO Box 195
Neutral Bay, NSW 2089
Ms Narelle Scotford
$28,186
Assistance with setup and implementation of organisational change

Mines Rescue Board
* Paul Chesher & Associates
416 Flinders Parade
Brighton, Qld 4017
Mr Paul Chesher
$34,212.05
Consultancy assistance on human resources, personnel policies and job descriptions
* Downing Teal
PO Box 1487
North Sydney, NSW 2059
Mr Matthew Mitchell
$39,643.05
Staff selection
* Armstrong Advertising
140 Sussex Street
Sydney, NSW 2000
Mr Matthew Mitchell, Downing Teal
$5,688.73
Advertising for staff
* Mann Judd Chartered Accountants
159 Kent Street
Sydney, NSW 2000
Mr E. Bell, Ms M. Telan
$12,911.31
Accountancy services, implementation of new accounting and reporting systems, taxation advice
* BHP Information Technology
104 Beaumont Street
Hamilton, NSW 2303
Mr P. Risby
$12,079.26
Review of the Board's information technology
* WC Todd & Hay Management
14 Provincial Road
Lindfield, NSW 2070
Mr W. Todd
$2,646.98
Preparation of job descriptions and job evaluation
* J.H. Whale
40 Mariposa Road
Bilgola Plateau, NSW 2107
Mr J. Whale
Nil paid
Industrial relations assistance
* IMPS Consultants
11th Floor, 141 Queen Street
Brisbane, Qld 4000
Dr S. Lievesley
$7,521
Emergency preparedness and incident mine planning consultancy

Page 4553

* Illawarra Technology Corporation
Locked Bag 8812
South Coast Mail Centre, NSW 2521
Mrs L. White, University of Wollongong, Department of Management, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW 2522
$10,804
Marketing assistance

Mine Subsidence Board
* Capital Insights
110 Walker Street
North Sydney, NSW 2060
Mr Brian Farmer
Nil paid
Facilitate workshop with the community and industry
* Professor J. Galvin
University of New South Wales
As above
Nil paid
Assessment of mining and subsidence data
* Dr P. Walsh
University of Newcastle
As above
Nil paid
Assessment of soil mechanics and damage to building

Coal Compensation Board
(3) One consultant, Mr R. P. Daley, was engaged since 4 April 1995.
(4) (a) Mr R. P. Daley

6 Easton Place
Chiswick, NSW 2046
(b) Mr Ron Daley, a financial analyst and policy adviser.
(c) $5,000.
(d) To provide advice and prepare a report on aspects of pecuniary loss claims.

Mr Ellis asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

(1) Have any staff ceased employment in his ministerial office since 4 April 1995?
(2) What are their names?
(3) What was their period of employment?
(4) What were their positions?
(5) Why did they leave?

Answer -

(1) No (as at 10 November 1995).
(2) to (5) Not applicable.

Ms Ficarra asked the Minister for Sport and Recreation -

(1) Which agencies or corporations within her portfolio have a board or advisory committee?
(2) (a) What full-time appointments has she made since 4 April 1995 to the boards of agencies and corporations within her portfolio?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

(3) (a) What part-time appointments has she made since 4 April 1995 to the boards of agencies and corporations within her portfolio?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

(4) (a) Which full-time appointments expire prior to 30 June 1996?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

(5) (a) Which part-time appointments expire prior to 30 June 1996?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

Answer -

(1) to (5) The Government is committed to the principles of independence and merit in selections to Government boards and committees.
The establishment of the Public Employment Office, with a charter to ensure merit, integrity and independence in selection and appointment matters, provides Ministers with assistance in identifying suitable people for appointments to Government boards and committees.

Ms Ficarra asked the Minister for Local Government -

(1) Which agencies or corporations within his portfolio have a board or advisory committee?
(2) (a) What full-time appointments has he made since 4 April 1995 to the boards of agencies and corporations within his portfolio?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

(3) (a) What part-time appointments has he made since 4 April 1995 to the boards of agencies and corporations within his portfolio?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

(4) (a) Which full-time appointments expire prior to 30 June 1996?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

(5) (a) Which part-time appointments expire prior to 30 June 1996?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

Answer -

(1) There are two commissions constituted by the Local Government Act. These are the NSW Local Government Boundaries Commission and the NSW Local Government Grants Commission. The Swimming Pool Fencing Advisory Committee is constituted under the Swimming Pools Act 1992.
Page 4554
The Central Sydney Planning Committee is constituted under the City of Sydney Act.
The Department also has a range of special purpose and industry advisory groups formed to allow industry and client involvement in the policy making process. Most members do not receive any fees and there is no formal appointment made by the Executive Council. Most appointments are offered by departmental letter. These industry advisory groups are not of the nature of board or management committees.
(2) Nil.
(3) Nil.
(4) Nil.
(5) NSW Local Government Grants Commission

Emeritus Professor Maurice Daley's appointment as a part-time member of the NSW Local Government Grants Commission expires on 31 December 1995.
Central Sydney Planning Committee
The following part-time appointments will expire on 31 December 1995:

D. Simpson
R. Finlay
G. Lumodaire
R. Hamilton
D. Conybeare
I. McAndrew

Ms Ficarra asked the Minister for Local Government -

(1) How many grants has he made to community-based groups since 4 April 1995 (including local government, cultural, sporting and environment related organisations)?
(2) For each grant:

(a) Which organisation received the grant?
(b) What was its address?
(c) How much was it for?
(d) What was the purpose?
(e) On what date was it made?

Answer -

(1) Two grants made to community-based organisations.
(2) (a) Local Government and Shires Associations received both grants.

(b) Local Government Centre
215 Clarence Street
Sydney, NSW
(c) to (e) $10,000 was paid to the Local Government and Shires Associations on 20 June 1995 to part-sponsor training for potential councillors.
$6,000 was paid to the Local Government and Shires Associations on 8 September 1995 to conduct a series of informational workshops for local government on revised Guidelines for State of the Environment reports.

Ms Ficarra asked the Minister for Local Government -

(1) How many consultants has his ministerial office engaged since 4 April 1995?
(2) For each consultant:

(a) What was the name and address of the consultancy?
(b) Who was the principal contact?
(c) What has the consultant been paid to date?
(d) What is the purpose of the consultancy?

(3) For each agency under his administration, what consultants have been engaged since 4 April 1995?
(4) For each consultant:

(a) What was the name and address of the consultancy?
(b) Who was the principal contact?
(c) What has the consultant been paid to date?
(d) What is the purpose of the consultancy?

Answer -

(1) Nil.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) One consultant engaged - Dr Austin Adams, School of Psychology.
(4) (a) and (b)

Dr Austin Adams

School of Psychology
University of NSW
Sydney, NSW 2000

(c) $2,500 paid.
(d) Testing of water safety symbols in relation to Australian Standard 2416.

Mr Glachan asked the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development -

(1) How many grants has he made to community-based groups since 4 April 1995 (including local government, cultural, sporting and environment related organisations)?
(2) For each grant:

(a) Which organisation received the grant?
(b) What was its address?
(c) How much was it for?
(d) What was the purpose?
(e) On what date was it made?

Answer -

(1) 45.
(2) (a) to (e) The following relates to financial assistance made available from the Racecourse Development Fund:

Page 4555

Club	Amount	Purpose	Date Approved
Albury Coursing Club PO Box 131 Albury, NSW 2640	$15,348	Variation of costs incurred during construction of new administration/amenities building.	26-9-95
Albury Harness Racing Club PO Box 582 Albury, NSW 2640	$213,188	Reconstruction of harness racing circuit.	26-9-95
Albury Racing Club PO Box 502 Lavington, NSW 2641	$61,265	Repair and bitumen seal of racecourse entrance roadway and extension of course proper irrigation system.	7-7-95
Armidale Greyhound Racing Club PO Box 243 Armidale, NSW 2350	$12,929	New course irrigation system, repairs to running rail and track rectification works.	26-9-95
Australian Jockey Club Alison Road Randwick, NSW 2031	$521,008	Purchase of a Liquid Chromatograph - Mass Spectrometer for drug testing.	30-5-95
Ballina Jockey Club PO Box 141 Ballina, NSW 2478	$6,835	Cost of materials only, for aluminium backing plates on the running rails around training track.	26-9-95
Bankstown Harness Racing Club PO Box 62 Condell Park, NSW 2200	$404,204	Conversion of a repayable loan to an interest-free interminable loan.	26-6-95
Bathurst Turf Club PO Box 105 Bathurst, NSW 2795	$5,847	Improvements to water supply	11-5-95
Bega Jockey Club and Imlay Racing Club C/- PO Box 530 Bega, NSW 2550	$266,194 $50,000	Land acquisition costs Investigation/design costs in relation to construction of new racecourse at Kalaru.	8-5-95 7-7-95
Bourke District Race Club PO Box 678 Bourke, NSW 2840	$1,650	Cost of materials only to construct two mobile grandstands.	22-5-95
Broken Hill Harness Racing Club PO Box 162 Broken Hill, NSW 2880	$800	Public address connection	11-5-95
Cessnock & District Agricultural Association (Greyhounds) PO Box 9 Cessnock, NSW 2325	$11,986	New photo finish equipment and new lighting covers and lamps.	26-9-95
Collarenebri Jockey Club "Jomara" Collarenebri, NSW 2833	$4,274	Cost of materials only for extension to the bar area.	7-7-95
Page 4556 Corowa Race Club PO Box 188 Corowa, NSW 2646	$27,152	Two stewards' towers and watering truck.	11-5-95
Dubbo Harness Racing Club PO Box 283 Dubbo, NSW 2830	$17,750 $1,327,414	Economic appraisal in connection with proposed track redevelopment. New harness racing track and associated works.	11-5-95 7-7-95
Finley Harness Racing Club PO Box 258 Finley, NSW 2713	$1,100	Reimbursement to TAB of an interim distribution payment advanced to the club - club ceased racing.	26-9-95
Gilgandra Jockey Club PO Box 62 Gilgandra, NSW 2827	$20,065	Repairs and renovations to the grandstand.	7-7-95
Greyhound Racing Control Board PO Box 138 Lidcombe, NSW 2141	$1,400 $530,000	Computer equipment associated with National Bookmakers' Prices Service for use at the Wagga Wagga greyhound track. Cost of computerisation project to update the Board's Persons and Greyhound Licensing System.	7-7-95 26-9-95
Griffith Harness Racing Club PO Box 1099 Griffith, NSW 2680	$10,416	Cost of resurfacing the pacing track.	26-9-95
Harness Racing Authority of NSW PO Box 358 Bankstown, NSW 2200	$36,407	Replacement cost of the Authority's motor vehicles.	7-7-95
Inverell Jockey Club PO Box 111 Inverell, NSW 2360	$95,680	Cost of course reconstruction works and project supervision fees.	7-7-95
Leeton Harness Racing Club PO Box 430 Leeton, NSW 2705	$186,064	New viewing complex and toilet facility.	11-5-95
Narrabri Harness Racing Club PO Box 220 Narrabri, NSW 2390	$104,519	Reconstruction of pacing track	26-9-95
Narromine Turf Club PO Box 212 Narromine, NSW 2821	$31,550	New starting barrier stall	7-7-95
NSW GBOTA Gosford PO Box 543 Gosford, NSW 2250	$3,840	Emergency renovations to the driving tower at Gosford Greyhound Racecourse.	26-9-95
NSW GBOTA Appin Locked Bag 12 Lidcombe, NSW 2141	$28,280	Sealing access roads at Appin Way Greyhound Racecourse.	11-5-95
Page 4557 NSW GBOTA Orange PO Box 445 Orange, NSW 2800	$12,000	PC totalizator system at Orange Greyhound Racecourse.	11-5-95
NSW National Coursing Association Locked Bag 1700 Lidcombe, NSW 2141	$14,400	Cost of a study to determine the life expectancy and service/facility requirements of grandstand complex.	26-9-95
NSW Harness Racing Club - Menangle and Harold Park PO Box 227 Glebe, NSW 2037	$7,904 $11,900 $28,978	Final progress claim in relation to the cost of a detailed feasibility study in connection with proposed redevelopment of Harold Park. Track conditioner (Menangle Park). New semaphore board (Menangle Park).	26-9-95 11-5-95 11-5-95
Northern and North Western Districts Racing Association PO Box 423, Tamworth, NSW 2340	$4,672	Additional grant to cover cost of specialised tractor to pull Verti drain machine.	11-5-95
Orange Jockey Club PO Box 273 Orange, NSW 2800	$25,240 $49,178	Assembly/erection of betting ring cover. New totalizator building	7-7-95 26-9-95
Port Macquarie Race Club PO Box 194 Port Macquarie, NSW 2444	$97,040	Reconstruct internal access roads.	11-5-95
Tamworth Jockey Club PO Box W328, West Tamworth, NSW 2340	$25,000	Walking machine	11-5-95
Taree and District Pacing Club PO Box 643 Taree, NSW 2430	$5,250	Replacement of second-hand water tanker.	26-9-95
Taree Greyhound Racing Club PO Box 41 Taree, NSW 2430	$47,425	Renovations to judges' box and stewards' viewing area; alterations to kennel block, catching pen and access way.	26-9-95
Tweed River Jockey Club PO Box 313 Murwillumbah, NSW 2484	$1,456	Equipment required to overcome a water pressure problem on race days.	7-7-95
Wauchope Jockey Club 716 Rosewood Road Wauchope, NSW 2446	$4,478	Track rectification works	7-7-95
Wyong Race Club PO Box 28 Wyong, NSW 2259	$149,965	New semaphore board	26-9-95
Young Harness Racing Club PO Box 154 Young, NSW 2594	$6,400	Second-hand water truck	7-7-95

Page 4558

Mr Glachan asked the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development -

(1) Which agencies or corporations within his portfolio have a board or advisory committee?
(2) (a) What full-time appointments has he made since 4 April 1995 to the boards of agencies and corporations within his portfolio?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

(3) (a) What part-time appointments has he made since 4 April 1995 to the boards of agencies and corporations within his portfolio?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

(4) (a) Which full-time appointments expire prior to 30 June 1996?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

(5) (a) Which part-time appointments expire prior to 30 June 1996?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

Answer -

(1) to (5) The Government is committed to the principles of independence and merit in selections to Government boards and committees.
The establishment of the Public Employment Office, with a charter to ensure merit, integrity and independence in selection and appointment matters, provides Ministers with assistance in identifying suitable people for appointments to Government boards and committees.

Mr Glachan asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

(1) Which agencies or corporations within his portfolio have a board or advisory committee?
(2) (a) What full-time appointments has he made since 4 April 1995 to the boards of agencies and corporations within his portfolio?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

(3) (a) What part-time appointments has he made since 4 April 1995 to the boards of agencies and corporations within his portfolio?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

(4) (a) Which full-time appointments expire prior to 30 June 1996?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

(5) (a) Which part-time appointments expire prior to 30 June 1996?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

Answer -

(1) to (5) The Government is committed to the principles of independence and merit in selections to Government boards and committees.
The establishment of the Public Employment Office, with a charter to ensure merit, integrity and independence in selection and appointment matters, provides Ministers with assistance in identifying suitable people for appointments to Government boards and committees.

Mr Humpherson asked the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

(1) How many consultants has his ministerial office engaged since 4 April 1995?
(2) For each consultant:

(a) What was the name and address of the consultancy?
(b) Who was the principal contact?
(c) What has the consultant been paid to date?
(d) What is the purpose of the consultancy?

(3) For each agency under his administration, what consultants have been engaged since 4 April 1995?
(4) For each consultant:

(a) What was the name and address of the consultancy?
(b) Who was the principal contact?
(c) What has the consultant been paid to date?
(d) What is the purpose of the consultancy?

Answer -

(1) to (4) It is a requirement of the Annual Reports Act that relevant details regarding the engagement of consultants are included in annual reports. To avoid costly duplication of public resources, the honourable member is referred to the annual reports of the relevant departments which, in accordance with the Act, must be tabled 4 months after the end of the financial year.

Mr Humpherson asked the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

(1) Have any staff ceased employment in his ministerial office since 4 April 1995?
(2) What are their names?
(3) What was their period of employment?
(4) What were their positions?
(5) Why did they leave?

Answer -

(1) to (5) All staff departures have occurred in accordance with Public Employment Office guidelines.

Page 4559

Mr Humpherson asked the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

(1) Which agencies or corporations within his portfolio have a board or advisory committee?
(2) (a) What full-time appointments has he made since 4 April 1995 to the boards of agencies and corporations within his portfolio?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

(3) (a) What part-time appointments has he made since 4 April 1995 to the boards of agencies and corporations within his portfolio?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

(4) (a) Which full-time appointments expire prior to 30 June 1996?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

(5) (a) Which part-time appointments expire prior to 30 June 1996?

(b) Please list each person and agency.

Answer -

(1) to (5) The Government is committed to the principles of independence and merit in selections to Government boards and committees. The establishment of the Public Employment Office, with a charter to ensure merit, integrity and independence in selection and appointment matters, provides Ministers with assistance in identifying suitable people for appointments to Government boards and committees.
The Public Employment Office recently called for expressions of interest from members of the community to nominate to have their name on a register that will be used in making appointments to all Government boards and committees.
The Government has also committed itself to achieving 50 per cent representation of women on boards and committees. In order to promote the selection of women to boards and committees, a Women's Register has been established. A register has also been established for people from a non-English speaking background, as part of the Government's strategy in ethnic affairs, to ensure that people of non-English speaking background are well represented on decision-making bodies in this State.

Mr Humpherson asked the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

(1) What contracts worth over $30,000 have been let since 4 April 1995 for the agencies within his ministerial portfolio?
(2) In respect of each contract:

(a) To whom was each contract let?
(b) For what purpose was each contract let?
(c) For how much was each contract let?
(d) Were tenders called?
(e) Who is the principal contact with each contractor?

(3) Which contracts have gone to companies whose head office is in New South Wales?
(4) (a) Have any contracts over $30,000 been let which were not publicly tendered?

(b) If so, which?
(c) Why were they not publicly tendered?

(5) Has he let out any contracts from his ministerial private office for a greater value than $1,000?
(6) If so, in respect of each contract:

(a) To whom was each contract let?
(b) For what purpose was each contract let?
(c) For how much was each contract let?
(d) Were tenders called?
(e) Who is the principal contact with each contractor?

Answer -

(1) to (6) The cost to the public of the diversion of resources necessary to answer this question is not justifiable.

Mr Humpherson asked the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

(1) How many staff are employed in his ministerial office?
(2) What is the name and job title of each staff member?
(3) What is the remuneration package of each staff member?
(4) Which staff members are career public servants?
(5) Which staff members are issued with NSW Government credit cards?
(6) Which staff members are issued with CabCharge cards?
(7) Which staff members have a NSW Government owned motor vehicle allocated for their use?
(8) Which staff members have Government purchased motor vehicles included in their salary package?
(9) How many mobile telephones are Government owned or Government leased in his ministerial office?

Answer -

(1) 25 (as at day of collation).
(2) Chief of Staff Mr B. Hawker

Media Director Ms K. Neill
Special Adviser Mr S. Lyndon
Senior Press Secretary Mr G. Wedderburn
Director, Policy Mr R. Griggs
Special Adviser Mr G. Freudenberg
Communications Director Mr D. Gleeson
Executive Officer,

Administration Ms D. Lewis

Page 4560

Assistant Private

Secretary Ms P. Fitzpatrick

Policy Research Officer Mr A. Pennini
Clerical Officer Ms M. Roberts
Assistant to

Chief of Staff Ms J. Casey

Research Officer Mr J. Whelan
Personal Assistant

to Mrs Carr Ms M. Williams

Assistant Private

Secretary Ms K. Wade

Assistant Private

Secretary Ms K. Cooper

Receptionist Ms K. Cassim
Arts Adviser/

Speech Writer Mr B. Johnson

Research Officer/

Speech Writer Ms L. McLaughlin

Assistant to

Media Director Ms J. Messer

Media Assistant Ms J. O'Hare
Receptionist Ms N. Vascotto
Press Officer Mr G. Byres
Ethnic Affairs

Policy Adviser Ms Y. Sipka

Media Officer Mr W. Secord

(3) Salary and conditions are set by the Commissioner for Public Employment and are generally comparable to public service salaries and conditions.
(4) There are currently eight staff in the Premier's Office seconded from NSW Government departments. Their salaries are met from the Premier's Office budget.
(5) None.
(6) None.
(7) None.
(8) The following staff in the Premier's Office have motor vehicles included in their salary package:
B. Hawker
K. Neill
G. Wedderburn
R. Griggs
D. Gleeson
W. Secord
(9) 14.

Mr Jeffery asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation -

(1) What contracts worth over $30,000 have been let since 4 April 1995 for the agencies within his ministerial portfolio?
(2) In respect of each contract:

(a) To whom was each contract let?
(b) For what purpose was each contract let?
(c) For how much was each contract let?
(d) Were tenders called?
(e) Who is the principal contact with each contractor?

(3) Which contracts have gone to companies whose head office is in New South Wales?
(4) (a) Have any contracts over $30,000 been let which were not publicly tendered?

(b) If so, which?
(c) Why were they not publicly tendered?

(5) Has he let out any contracts from his ministerial private office for a greater value than $1,000?
(6) If so, in respect of each contract:

(a) To whom was each contract let?
(b) For what purpose was each contract let?
(c) For how much was each contract let?
(d) Were tenders called?
(e) Who is the principal contact with each contractor?

Answer -

(1) to (6) The cost to the public of the diversion of resources necessary to answer this question is not justifiable.

Dr Kernohan asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation -

(1) How many staff are employed in his ministerial office?
(2) What is the name and job title of each staff member?
(3) What is the remuneration package of each staff member?
(4) Which staff members are career public servants?
(5) Which staff members are issued with NSW Government credit cards?
(6) Which staff members are issued with CabCharge cards?
(7) Which staff members have a NSW Government owned motor vehicle allocated for their use?
(8) Which staff members have Government purchased motor vehicles included in their salary package?
(9) How many mobile telephones are Government owned or Government leased in his ministerial office?

Answer -

(1) 13.
(2) Jeanette Evans Chief of Staff
Julie Lewis Press Secretary
Penny Wong Senior Policy Advisor
Natalie Meyenn Policy Officer
Suzanne Fawcett Policy Officer
Jill Bateman Private Secretary

Beryl Segers Parliamentary Liaison

Officer

Janene Troy Administrative Assistant
Erika Todd Clerical Officer
Sharon Caldwell Receptionist
David Ridley Departmental Liaison Officer
Keith Uebel Departmental Liaison Officer
Bill Carpenter Driver

Page 4561
(3) All staff members' salaries are in accordance with guidelines issued by the Public Employment Office.
(4) David Ridley

Keith Uebel
Natalie Meyenn
Beryl Segers
Janene Troy

(5) None.
(6) Bill Carpenter, Minister's Driver.
(7) None.
(8) Jeanette Evans and Penny Wong.
(9) 5.

Mr Kerr asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation -

When will the State Government commence the dredging of Port Hacking?

Answer -

The project went to public tender and the contract awarded to Birdon Contracting Pty Ltd. Dredging commenced on 8 November 1995.

Mr Humpherson asked the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

(1) How many absentee, postal and section votes were disallowed in the March State election?
(2) How many of these, respectively, were disallowed in the following State Electoral Districts:

(a) Badgerys Creek?
(b) Gladesville?
(c) Manly?
(d) Penrith?
(e) Blue Mountains?
(f) Drummoyne?
(g) Bathurst?

(3) What action will the Government take to ensure that people whose votes were disallowed are advised?

Answer -

(1) Disallowed absentee votes 61,675
Disallowed postal votes 15,109
Disallowed section votes 35,981
(2) Details of absentee, postal and section votes in the particular electoral districts are listed below:
Electoral Absentee Postal Section
District Votes Votes Votes
Badgerys Creek 598 160 519
Gladesville 691 167 333
Manly 765 216 495
Penrith 885 80 242
Blue Mountains 470 260 283
Drummoyne 739 193 472
Bathurst 419 279 585
(3) Voters are not advised of the fact that their votes have been disallowed. However, if it is apparent that a voter is no longer enrolled following a change of address, the Australian Electoral Commission or the State Electoral Office will contact that voter with a view to having an enrolment form completed.

Mr Humpherson asked the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs -

(1) Which secondary schools in New South Wales do not have a school hall or multipurpose centre?
(2) What are the 1995 enrolments at these schools?
(3) Is Killarney Heights High School the only secondary school in the Northern Metropolitan Region without a hall?
(4) When will a hall be built?
(5) What have been the costs, to date, on design plans and development approvals for the planned hall?
(6) Will the Government allocate funds for the hall in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) A covered area in excess of 250 square metres is defined as a school hall or multi-purpose centre. The following schools do not have such facilities:

Barham High School.
Cobar High School.
Conservatorium High School.
Glendale High School.
Hay War Memorial High School.
Kandos High School.
Killarney Heights High School.
Kotara High School.
Miller High School (funding for gymnasium).
Narromine High School (MPC to be shared with the primary school).
Nelson Bay High School (facilities will be incorporated in the construction of the replacement school at Salamander Bay).
Randwick North High School.
Warialda High School.

Planning approval in the 1996/97 Budget has been given to Cobar High School. Funds for construction have been allocated in the 1995/96 Budget to Glendale, Kotara, Miller, Narromine and Nelson Bay High Schools.

(2) School 1995 Enrolment

Barham High School 266
Cobar High School 311
Conservatorium High School 154
Glendale High School 960
Hay War Memorial High School 322
Kandos High School 284
Killarney Heights High School 570
Kotara High School 767

Page 4562

Miller High School 660
Narromine High School 405

(will be shared with

Narromine Public
School - 525 students)
Nelson Bay High School 962
Randwick North High School 209
Warialda High School 253

(3) Yes.
(4) Construction of the Killarney Heights High School hall will be considered for funding along with all other priority needs in the development of the 1996/97 Budget.
(5) To date, funds in the order of $41,800 have been expended on planning for a hall at Killarney Heights.
(6) No.

Mr Humpherson asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads -

(1) Will he complete an arterial road link linking the Glebe Island Bridge with the M4?
(2) When will this be completed?
(3) Are there plans for this link to utilise Queens Road?
(4) If so:

(a) How many properties would need to be acquired?
(b) What would be the cost?

(5) Has there been any consideration of an elevated viaduct road over Parramatta Road from Haberfield to Concord?
(6) Has there been any consideration of a tunnel forming a part of this link?
(7) Will this link have a toll?

Answer -

(1) The RTA is continuing the progressive construction of the City West link road between the Glebe Island Bridge at White Bay and Parramatta Road at Five Dock. The link road, together with the new high level Glebe Island Bridge, will provide for improved east-west traffic movements between Five Dock and the city. There are no proposals to extend the M4 Motorway from Concord to Five Dock.
(2) The Glebe Island Bridge is expected to be opened to traffic on 4 December 1995. The link road is scheduled for completion in 1998.
(3) No.
(4) Not applicable.
(5) A preliminary study undertaken in the mid-1980s considered a number of possibilities including a viaduct or a tunnel for a crossing of Parramatta Road. However, the matter was not progressed and no further consideration has been given to the matter.
(6) See answer (5) above.
(7) There will be no toll on the City West link road.

Mr Humpherson asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads -

(1) How many trips outside Australia has he undertaken since 4 April 1995 in his capacity as Minister?
(2) Which locations did he visit on each trip?
(3) (a) Who went with him on each trip?

(b) What was the function of each person?

(4) What were the total expenses for the party for:

(a) Air travel?
(b) Vehicular travel?
(c) Other travel?
(d) Accommodation?
(e) Meals?
(f) Gifts?

(5) At which hotels did he stay?
(6) What gifts were received by him, if any?
(7) Was any portion of his travel personal?
(8) What reimbursement did he make for his personal travel, if any?
(9) (a) Did he use Government credit cards?

(b) If so, which and what charges were incurred on them?

(10) What was the purpose of each trip?
(11) (a) Has a written report for the Government been prepared as a result of any trip?

(b) If so, which trips?

(12) What was the date of departure and date of return for each trip?
(13) (a) Were any of the trips a result of an official invitation to him?

(b) If so, which and by whom was the invitation extended?

Answer -

(1) Two.
(2) Trip A Lausanne, Switzerland.

Trip B New York and Atlanta, United States of America.

(3) Trip A

(a) Mr Gary Pemberton.

(b) President, Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games.

Trip B
(a) Mr David Tierney.
(b) Chief of Staff, Office of the Minister for the Olympics.

(4) Trip A

(a) $10,532.
(b) (c) (d) and (d) $228.37. All other expenses met by the International Olympic Committee.
(f) Nil.
Trip B
(a) and (d) $16,380.

(b) (c) and (e) $504.

(f) $139.30.

(5) Trip A Beau Rivage Palace (paid for by the International Olympic Committee).

Trip B St Moritz, New York.
Marriott Marquis, Atlanta.

Page 4563
(6) Trip A Pill box for wife.

Trip B Several lapel pins.

(7) Trip A No.

Trip B No.

(8) Trip A N/A.

Trip B N/A.

(9) Trip A

(a) Yes.
(b) Minor expenses.
Trip B
(a) Yes.
(b) Accommodation, meals, minor expenses.

(10) Trip A Meet International Olympic Committee senior officials including President Samaranch.

Trip B Visit G-Tech in Rhode Island, ABC Sports in New York and examine progress for the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta.

(11) Trip A

(a) No.
(b) N/A.
Trip B
(a) No.
(b) N/A.

(12) Trip A 25 April 1995 to 29 April 1995.

Trip B 15 July 1995 to 22 July 1995.

(13) Trip A

(a) Yes.
(b) President, Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games on behalf of the International Olympic Committee.
Trip B
(a) No.
(b) N/A.

Mr Humpherson asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) Will he plan a moratorium on all major peninsula land releases pending the provision of a new transport link to the lower North Shore?
(2) What is the relative peak hour congestion on Warringah Road at Frenchs Forest in comparison to other major arterial roads in Sydney?

Answer -

(1) The only major land release on the Warringah Peninsula currently under consideration by the Government is in the Ingleside/Warriewood area. The area has been under examination since 1992 and Pittwater Council is the authority responsible for managing the release. I am currently reviewing council's Draft Planning Strategy for the release, with particular reference to both water cycle management and the transport implications before making any decision on a future course of action.
(2) This question would be better addressed to my colleague, the Hon. Michael Knight, M.P., Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads.

Mr Humpherson asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) Are the departmental photographic files from 1985-88 (inclusive) intact?
(2) Do these files contain photographs of the then Minister for Planning and Environment at locations at police stations, retirement villages and schools in the electorate of Maroubra?
(3) Were these photographs made available for political campaigning purposes by the then Minister at the 1988 State election?
(4) Was there any reimbursement for the photographic work used?
(5) Who took the photographs?
(6) What was the cost?
(7) Were copies of the photos given to the then Minister?
(8) Who arranged for the taking of the photos?
(9) (a) Were any of these photographs taken of the Minister with Labor Party election candidates in 1988?

(b) If so, whom?

Answer -

(1) To the best of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning's knowledge, the files are intact.
(2) Yes.
(3) to (9) The Department advises that there are no records or accounts relating to this period.

Mr Longley asked the Minister for the Environment -

(1) How much notice was Dr Colin Grant given before he left office as Executive Director of Technical Services for the Environment Protection Authority?
(2) Why was his employment terminated?
(3) (a) Is Dr Colin Grant still employed by the NSW Government?

(b) If so:

(i) Where?
(ii) In what position?
(iii) On what salary?

Answer -

(1) Dr Grant was advised of the termination of his tenure of the position of Executive Director Technical Services in the EPA as soon as the EPA was notified that the Governor had signed the Executive Council minute to that effect.
(2) The Government's changes to the SES mean that the EPA's senior management structure must be altered. The position of Executive Director Technical Services will be abolished in this process. Dr Grant will not be employed in the restructured EPA.

Page 4564
(3) Dr Grant is still employed by the NSW Government as an unattached officer in the SES. His total remuneration remains unchanged.

Mr Longley asked the Minister for the Environment -

(1) When does Dr Warwick Forrest retire?
(2) What persons and offices will be represented on the executive of the Environment Protection Authority after reconstitution?
(3) What other officers are affected by the reconstitution?

Answer -

(1) Dr Forrest has not formally advised his retirement date and is not obliged to do so.
(2) The final shape of the EPA senior management structure requires Premier's Department approval. The precise constitution of the Executive will depend on this senior management structure.
(3) The final details of officers affected will not be known until the restructure is completed and any consequent recruitment action is finalised.

Ms Machin asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

(1) Why was the former Director of Fisheries, Mr Crew, removed from the position?
(2) Was Mr Crew given less than 24 hours notice of removal from the position?
(3) What entitlements is Mr Crew being offered?
(4) (a) Did he personally advise Mr Crew of the decision to remove him?

(b) If not, why not?

Answer -

(1) I felt that a new direction was required in regard to the administration of this Department.
(2) The Commissioner for Public Employment met with Mr Crew on the day that he was removed to advise him of the decision. This followed the meeting of the Executive Council and is in line with the long-standing practice that there is no presumption of approval from the Governor.
(3) The Statutory and Other Officers Remuneration Tribunal (SOORT) has made a determination on Mr Crew's compensation. Mr Crew's contract was for a period of 5 years, commencing 9 August 1993. The position of Director of Fisheries is SES Level 4, with a salary range of $123,445 to $133,845 on the pre 1 October 1995 scale.
(4) The Commissioner for Public Employment is responsible for unattached Chief Executives.

Mr Turner asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs -

(1) What has been the cost of employing private agency nurses at Manning Base Hospital from the period 25 March 1995 to 11 October 1995?
(2) What private hospital facilities have been contracted by the Lower North Coast Health Service to provide services to public patients for the period 25 March 1995 to 11 October 1995?
(3) What has been the cost to the Lower North Coast Health Service of contracting with private health facilities to provide treatment to public patients for the period 25 March 1995 to 11 October 1995?

Answer -

(1) I am advised that the total cost of employing weekend agency nursing staff for theatre positions that could not be filled by local staff during the period in question was $20,411 including salaries, travel and associated costs.
(2) I am advised that public patients have not been contracted to private hospitals for services during the period in question.
(3) Not applicable.

Mr Turner asked the Minister for Police -

In relation to the death of Roy Arthur Allan on 30 July 1987 -
(1) Was Roy Arthur Allan a serving police officer at the time of his death?
(2) Did Roy Arthur Allan attend on duty as a police officer at Sydney Police Centre on 28 July 1987?
(3) Was Roy Arthur Allan, at about 11 a.m. on 28 July 1987, conveyed from the Police Internal Security Unit to the Police Medical Branch?
(4) (a) Did Dr Garrard of the Police Medical Branch attend upon Roy Arthur Allan at the Police Medical Branch?

(b) If so, why?

(5) (a) Did Dr Garrard make arrangements for Roy Arthur Allan to be examined by Dr Howard at Gosford Hospital at or about 4 p.m. on 29 July 1987?

(b) If so, why?

Answer -

(1) Yes.
(2) Yes. Sergeant Allan was rostered for duty at the Sydney Police Centre on 28 July 1987. Records show he reported off sick at 11 a.m.

Page 4565
(3) I am advised that Sergeant Allan, at his request, sought an interview with officers of the Internal Police Security Unit and attended that unit on the morning of 28 July 1987. The interviewing officer formed the opinion that Sergeant Allan was in need of medical assistance and arranged for him to be conveyed to the Police Welfare and Medical Branch.
(4) (a) Yes.

(b) During his sworn evidence at the inquest into the sergeant's death, Dr Garrard stated that he examined Sergeant Allan at about midday on 28 July 1987 for approximately 1½ hours.

(5) (a) Records indicate that Dr Garrard arranged for Sergeant Allan to attend the Mendalla Clinic at Gosford Hospital at 4 p.m. on 29 July 1987. However, they do not show any particular doctor's name.

(b) The referral to the Mendalla Clinic was for treatment of the sergeant's medical condition.

Mr Turner asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads -

(1) How many motor vehicle accidents have occurred on the Pacific Highway between Bulahdelah and Coolongolook for:

(a) 1988?
(b) 1989?
(c) 1990?
(d) 1991?
(e) 1992?
(f) 1993?
(g) 1994?
(h) 1995 to 10 October?

(2) How many of the above accidents involved heavy vehicles itemised to each of the above years?
(3) How many of the above accidents which involved heavy vehicles were single vehicle accidents?
(4) How many of the above accidents involved motor vehicles or light trucks?
(5) How many accidents involving motor vehicles or light trucks were single vehicle accidents?
(6) How many heavy vehicle accidents were classed as head-on accidents?
(7) How many light vehicle or light truck accidents were classed as head-on accidents?
(8) What degree of injuries were sustained in the accidents for each accident involving heavy vehicles in each of the years above?
(9) What deaths occurred at the accidents, or as a result of such accident, involving heavy vehicles in each of the years above?
(10) What degree of injuries were sustained for each accident involving motor vehicles or light trucks in each of the years above?
(11) What deaths occurred at the accidents, or as a result of such accident, involving motor vehicles or light trucks in each of the years above?

Answer -

The following points relating to the answer to this question should be noted:

RTA accident records are prepared from information provided by the police and only preliminary data is available for 1995.
Heavy vehicle involvement could be determined only if a heavy vehicle was involved in the first impact in a crash. Crashes have occurred where two light vehicles collided in the first impact and additional vehicles, one or more of which may have been heavy vehicles, subsequently became involved. There were three crashes of this type in both 1989 and 1992 and one each in the years 1988, 1990, 1991 and 1995.
Buses have been counted as light vehicles. A bus was involved in a crash in each of the years 1990 and 1995.
Figures for light vehicles and heavy vehicles should not be added, as crashes and fatalities that involved a light vehicle and a heavy vehicle have been counted in both the light vehicle and heavy vehicle categories.

(1) (a) 62.

(b) 66.

(c) 56.
(d) 47.
(e) 38.
(f) 33.
(g) 53.
(h) 26 (to 30 June). Later figures for accident numbers are not yet available to the RTA.
(2)
1988: 12 1989: 8 1990: 12 1991: 17
1992: 8 1993: 9 1994: 17 1995: 11 (to 30 June)
(3)
1988: 11 1989: 8 1990: 7 1991: 12
1992: 5 1993: 7 1994: 12 1995: 10 (to 30 June)
(4)
1988: 51 1989: 58 1990: 49 1991: 35
1992: 32 1993: 25 1994: 39 1995: 16 (to 30 June)
(5)
1988: 39 1989: 41 1990: 28 1991: 23
1992: 21 1993: 20 1994: 23 1995: 6 (to 30 June)
(6)
1988: 2 1989: nil 1990: 2 1991: 1
1992: 2 1993: 2 1994: 2 1995: nil (to 30 June)
(7)
1988: 8 1989: 7 1990: 10 1991: 2
1992: 5 1993: 2 1994: 4 1995: 4 (to 30 June)
(8) 1988: 1 fatal accident, 6 serious injury accidents, 1 minor injury accident.
1989: 1 serious injury accident, 2 minor injury accidents.
1990: 2 fatal accidents, 3 serious injury accidents, 4 minor injury accidents.
1991: 1 serious injury accident, 4 minor injury accidents.
1992: 3 fatal accidents, 1 serious injury accident, 1 minor injury accident.
1993: 1 fatal accident, 3 serious injury accidents, 2 minor injury accidents.

Page 4566
1994: 1 fatal injury accident, 5 serious injury accidents, 3 minor injury accidents.
1995: 1 fatal accident (to 10 October);
1 serious injury accident, 2 minor injury accidents (from January to 30 June).
(9)
1988: 1 1989: nil 1990: 3 1991: nil
1992: 3 1993: 1 1994: 1 1995: 1 (to 10
October)
(10) 1988: 1 fatal accident, 10 serious injury accidents, 19 minor injury accidents.
1989: 3 fatal accidents, 13 serious injury accidents, 10 minor injury accidents.
1990: 3 fatal accidents, 8 serious injury accidents, 13 minor injury accidents.
1991: 6 serious injury accidents, 2 minor injury accidents.
1992: 2 fatal accidents, 7 serious injury accidents, 6 minor injury accidents.
1993: 5 serious injury accidents, 3 minor injury accidents.
1994: 1 serious injury accident, 15 minor injury accidents.
1995 (to 30 June): 2 serious injury accidents, 5

minor injury accidents.

(11) 1988: 1 1989: 4 1990: 3 1991: nil
1992: 2 1993: nil 1994: nil 1995: nil (to 10

October)

Mr Blackmore asked the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

(1) How many helicopter flights has he undertaken since 4 April 1995 where the cost in whole or in part was borne by the New South Wales taxpayer?
(2) On what date for each flight?
(3) For what purpose was each flight made?
(4) What was the cost for each flight?
(5) Which department or agency paid the cost for each flight?

Answer -

(1) to (5) In my capacity as Premier of New South Wales, I have used a helicopter on four occasions - each for official travel purposes:

On Saturday 27 May, I inspected the Kowmung Valley with environmentalists including Keith Muir and environment writer Tim Flannery.
On Tuesday 29 August, I travelled to Lithgow to attend a Cabinet meeting.
On Thursday 31 August, I travelled to Nowra to present an award to Shoalhaven City Council and to inspect the Boyd property at Bundanoon.
On Saturday 23 September, I inspected Kanangra Boyd, an area proposed as wilderness by the Government.

To stress the point, on each of these occasions I travelled, without exception, for the purposes of official travel - executing my official duties as Premier of New South Wales.
The same cannot be said of the Leader of the Opposition who in 1988, as the then Minister for Health, chartered the Roads and Traffic Authority helicopter for "Inspections by Minister for Health" (see RTA helicopter requisition form 610) to attend a conference of the Young Liberal Party as confirmed by the Port Stephens Examiner of 15 June 1988.

Mr Longley asked the Minister for the Environment -

(1) How many staff positions are to be abolished in the Southern Region of the National Parks and Wildlife Service?
(2) How many staff positions are to be abolished in the Central Region of the National Parks and Wildlife Service?
(3) How many staff positions are to be abolished in the Northern Region of the National Parks and Wildlife Service?
(4) How many staff positions are to be abolished in the Western Region of the National Parks and Wildlife Service?
(5) How many staff positions are to be abolished at the Hurstville head office of the National Parks and Wildlife Service?
(6) What will happen to staff whose positions are abolished?
(7) Why are positions being abolished?


Answer -

(1) to (7) The commitment to the environment that was detailed in the lead-up to the March 1995 elections will in fact result in a net increase of over 100 staff for the National Parks and Wildlife Service during 1995/96.
I am advised by the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service that a total of 59 positions have been removed across the National Parks and Wildlife Service's area of operations in line with Government policy to reduce staff in corporate service areas, advertising and the size of the SES.
Many of the staff holding these positions will continue to be employed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service but in new capacities.
There should be no reduction in service because any cuts are more than offset by the net increases to the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
The net increase will enable staff to transfer to the new positions which are being created as a result of our Government's commitment to an improved environment.
Reductions will also be met through natural attrition as staff move on to other positions either in the Service or within other organisations.
These changes will better reflect the Service's core functions, as an organisation of the nineties, as well as ensure that the Service operates within the boundaries of its budget allocations without resulting in a possible budget blowout in future years.

Page 4567
Mr Hartcher asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) When will the guidelines for contaminated sites be issued to local government?
(2) Will he undertake to provide for a State Government indemnity to councils using the guidelines in good faith?
(3) Will the indemnity be given in legislative form?
(4) Will he provide for the establishment of a contaminated sites register in New South Wales accessible to the public?
(5) What is the reason for the delay in this matter?

Answer -

(1) The planning guidelines will be shortly published jointly by the Minister for the Environment and myself.
(2) This issue is being considered by Government.
(3) As answer (2) above.
(4) This issue is more appropriate for my colleague the Minister for the Environment. A comprehensive legislative and administrative review of contaminated land issues is being undertaken by her administration.
(5) There has been no delay.

Mr Hartcher asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) What is the present zoning of the property known as Centenary House, Sussex Street, Sydney?
(2) Is there any request or proposal to change the zoning of the property?
(3) What is the maximum number of storeys allowable for a new building on the site?
(4) Has a transfer of ownership of the site been requested at the Land Titles Office as at 15 October 1995?
(5) What is the area of the site?
(6) (a) Has the building on the site been assessed as suitable for the making of an order under the Heritage Act?
(b) If not, why not?

Answer -

(1) The property known as Centenary House is at No. 291-295 Sussex Street. The zoning is 3 (d) County Centre under the City of Sydney Local Environmental Plan (LEP) No. 30.
(2) The proposed zoning under draft Central Sydney Local Environmental Plan 1995 is City Centre.
(3) The property is located in the Western Commercial Precinct. There are no height controls in this precinct under Sydney LEP 30. The height of a building is determined by the maximum floor space ratio (FSR). In this precinct the FSR is 4:1 but this can be increased to 6:1 by the incorporation of through site links, retail, retention of facades, or plaza features.
Under the draft Central Sydney LEP 1995 the maximum building height is 60 metres.
(4) This question is more appropriately directed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, the Hon. Kim Yeadon, M.P.
(5) 291-295 Sussex Street - 344 square metres.
(6) (a) 291-295 Sussex Street is not listed in any heritage instrument.
(b) The Central Sydney Heritage Inventory did not list the building at 291-295 Sussex Street as an item of environmental heritage.

Mr Hartcher asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, representing the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services -

(1) Does he intend to cease using the Mount Penang site as a training centre for young male offenders?
(2) If so:

(a) When?
(b) Where will young male offenders be transferred to?
(c) What does he plan to do with the Mount Penang site?
(d) What will be the cost of relocation?
(e) Which buildings on the site will be preserved?

(3) What is the present area of the site?
(4) What is the present zoning of the site?

Answer -

(1) No, but it is proposed to downsize the centre from 180 beds to 60 beds and to transfer the remaining beds to other locations.
(2) (a) to (e) Not applicable.
(3) 206.3 hectares.
(4) Special Uses 5.A. Boys Homes.

Mr Blackmore asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Will he provide more police officers to the Maitland Patrol to complement the new police station at Thornton?
(2) If so, how many officers and when?

Answer -

(1) and (2) I will ensure that the new police station at Thornton is appropriately staffed.

Page 4568

Mr Blackmore asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the Patrol Commander of Maitland Police Patrol rejected the site of the proposed Thornton Police Station which received funding in this year's Budget?
(2) If so, will this delay the commencement of the proposed works?
(3) Does the Department have a preferred site?

Answer -

(1) I am advised that the District Commander has some concerns with the proposed site at Thornton.
(2) and (3) The Police Service is currently considering the options for Thornton with a view to completing the project as soon as possible.

Mr Blackmore asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads -

How many BMW motor vehicles are registered to owners whose residential address is in:

(a) the electorate of North Shore?
(b) the electorate of Cabramatta?

Answer -

The Roads and Traffic Authority's vehicle registration records are linked to post codes, not electorate boundaries.

Mr O'Farrell asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads -

(1) What was the total road funding allocated to the electorate of Northcott for the financial years 1984/85 through to 1994/95?
(2) What proportion of these funds were from:

(a) State sources?
(b) Federal sources?

(3) What is the estimate for road funding in the electorate of Northcott for 1995/96?
(4) What proportion of these estimates are to be from:

(a) State sources?
(b) Federal sources?

Answer -

(1) Expenditure in the electorate of Northcott was:

1984/85 $3.8 million
1985/86 $4.1 million
1986/87 $5.4 million
1987/88 $12.1 million
1988/89 $14.9 million
1989/90 $15.8 million
1990/91 $4.5 million
1991/92 $7.5 million
1992/93 $6.9 million
1993/94 $12.4 million
1994/95 $10.7 million

State Federal
$ million $ million
(2) 1984/85 3.6 0.2
1985/86 3.9 0.2
1986/87 4.9 0.5
1987/88 11.3 0.8
1988/89 4.1 10.8
1989/90 6.8 9.0
1990/91 2.7 1.8
1991/92 3.9 3.6
1992/93 2.6 4.3
1993/94 5.6 6.8
1994/95 7.6 3.1
(3) $5.6 million.
(4) (a) $5.4 million.
(b) $0.2 million.

Mr O'Farrell asked the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development -

(1) How many staff are employed in his ministerial office?
(2) What is the name and job title of each staff member?
(3) What is the remuneration package of each staff member?
(4) Which staff members are career public servants?
(5) Which staff members are issued with NSW Government credit cards?
(6) Which staff members are issued with CabCharge cards?
(7) Which staff members have a NSW Government owned motor vehicle allocated for their use?
(8) Which staff members have Government purchased motor vehicles included in their salary package?
(9) How many mobile telephones are Government owned or Government leased in his ministerial office?

Answer -

(1) 10 (as at 31 October 1995).
(2) Charles Shields Chief of Staff
David Williams Senior Policy Advisor
Bruce Jones Policy/Research Officer
Jeremy Anderson Policy/Research Officer

Frederick Smidt Media Officer
Peta-Maree Stapleton Private Secretary
Maryanne Smidt Assistant Private

Secretary

Page 4569

Allison Clout Receptionist
Belinda Maras Appointments Secretary
David Hudson Ministerial Driver

(3) Salary and conditions are set by the Public Employment Office and are generally comparable to public service salaries and conditions.
(4) No staff members are career public servants.
(5) No staff member is issued with a NSW Government credit card.
(6) No staff member is issued with a CabCharge card.
(7) No staff member has a NSW Government owned motor vehicle allocated for their use.
(8) Mr F. Smidt, Media Officer, is the only staff member who has a Government purchased motor vehicle included in his salary package.
(9) 6.

Mr O'Farrell asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

(1) How many staff are employed in his ministerial office?
(2) What is the name and job title of each staff member?
(3) What is the remuneration package of each staff member?
(4) Which staff members are career public servants?
(5) Which staff members are issued with NSW Government credit cards?
(6) Which staff members are issued with CabCharge cards?
(7) Which staff members have a NSW Government owned motor vehicle allocated for their use?
(8) Which staff members have Government purchased motor vehicles included in their salary package?
(9) How many mobile telephones are Government owned or Government leased in his ministerial office?

Answer -

(1) 9 (as at 10 November 1995).
(2) Refer to answer to Question on Notice No. 156, Paper No. 12, 21 September 1995, in the Legislative Council, parts (1) and (4).
(3) Refer to answer to Question on Notice No. 156, Paper No. 12, 21 September 1995, in the Legislative Council, part (2).
(4) The Private Secretary, Assistant Private Secretary and one of the Clerical Officer/Receptionists are attached to the Public Service.
(5) Nil.
(6) Nil.
(7) None.
(8) Chief of Staff.
(9) 9.

Mr Peacocke asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads, representing the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, and Minister Assisting the Premier -

(1) What contracts worth over $30,000 have been let since 4 April 1995 for the agencies within his ministerial portfolio?
(2) If so, in respect of each contract:

(a) To whom was each contract let?
(b) For what purpose was each contract let?
(c) For how much was each contract let?
(d) Were tenders called?
(e) Who is the principal contact with each contractor?

(3) Which contracts have gone to companies whose head office is in New South Wales?
(4) (a) Have any contracts over $30,000 been let which were not publicly tendered?

(b) If so, which?
(c) Why were they not publicly tendered?

(5) Has he let out any contracts from his ministerial private office for a greater value than $1,000?
(6) If so, in respect of each contract:

(a) To whom was each contract let?
(b) For what purpose was each contract let?
(c) For how much was each contract let?
(d) Were tenders called?
(e) Who is the principal contact with each contractor?

Answer -

(1) to (6) The cost to the public of the diversion of resources necessary to answer this question is not justifiable.

Mr Photios asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation -

(1) How many members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) are employed in agencies within his administration?
(2) What are the names of the individuals and the agencies?
(3) What is the number in each grade of the SES?
(4) Which appointments to the SES have been made since 4 April 1995?
(5) Which positions is it proposed are to be abolished as part of the State Government's reduction of the SES?
(6) Which positions have been abolished?
(7) Which SES officers have a Government purchased vehicle as part of their salary package?
(8) Are these vehicles purchased free of sales tax and/or stamp duty?

Page 4570

Answer -

(1) to (8) The cost to the public of the diversion of resources necessary to answer this question is not justifiable.
The Government is committed to reducing the SES by 400 positions within its first term.
Currently the Government is ahead of its target in reducing the size of the SES and hence well advanced in the redirection of resources to front line services such as schools, hospitals and police.

Mr Rixon asked the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development -

(1) What contracts worth over $30,000 have been let since 4 April 1995 for the agencies within his ministerial portfolio?
(2) If so, in respect of each contract:

(a) To whom was each contract let?
(b) For what purpose was each contract let?
(c) For how much was each contract let?
(d) Were tenders called?
(e) Who is the principal contact with each contractor?

(3) Which contracts have gone to companies whose head office is in New South Wales?
(4) (a) Have any contracts over $30,000 been let which were not publicly tendered?

(b) If so, which?
(c) Why were they not publicly tendered?

(5) Has he let out any contracts from his ministerial private office for a greater value than $1,000?
(6) If so, in respect of each contract:

(a) To whom was each contract let?
(b) For what purpose was each contract let?
(c) For how much was each contract let?
(d) Were tenders called?
(e) Who is the principal contact with each contractor?

Answer -

(1) to (6) The cost to the public of the diversion of resources necessary to answer this question is not justifiable.

Mr Rixon asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

(1) What contracts worth over $30,000 have been let since 4 April 1995 for the agencies within his ministerial portfolio?
(2) If so, in respect of each contract:

(a) To whom was each contract let?
(b) For what purpose was each contract let?
(c) For how much was each contract let?
(d) Were tenders called?
(e) Who is the principal contact with each contractor?

(3) Which contracts have gone to companies whose head office is in New South Wales?
(4) (a) Have any contracts over $30,000 been let which were not publicly tendered?

(b) If so, which?
(c) Why were they not publicly tendered?

(5) Has he let out any contracts from his ministerial private office for a greater value than $1,000?
(6) If so, in respect of each contract:

(a) To whom was each contract let?
(b) For what purpose was each contract let?
(c) For how much was each contract let?
(d) Were tenders called?
(e) Who is the principal contact with each contractor?

Answer -

NSW Fisheries
(1) Three contracts worth over $30,000 have been let since 4 April 1995. They are as follows:

* Head Office Fitout.
* Financial Management System.
* Financial Management System Project Management.

(2) Contract 1 - Head Office Fitout

(a) The contract was let to Alfred Australia Pty Ltd.
(b) The purpose of the contract was for the fitout of the newly leased area of storerooms, fitout of the new general office and the provision of electricity, telephone and computer connections.
(c) The contract was let for an amount of $49,427.
(d) Tenders were called by the Commercial Services Group.
(e) The principal contact with the contractor is Mr Ian Watson.

Contract 2 - Financial Management System
(a) The contract was let to Systems Union Pty Ltd.
(b) The purpose of the contract is for the purchase and implementation of a new computerised Financial Management System for the Department.
(c) The contract was let for an amount of $190,000.
(d) Tenders were not called.
(e) The principal contact with the contractor is Mr Matthew Lumsdaine.

Contract 3 - Financial Management System Project Management
(a) The contract was let to Asia Pacific Computer consultants.
(b) The purpose of the contract is to manage all of the staff and resources required to implement the new Financial Management System.

Page 4571

(c) The contract was let for an amount of $69,800.
(d) Tenders were not called.
(e) The principal contact with the contractor is Mr David Shearer.

(3) All three contracts have been let to companies whose head office is in Sydney.
(4) (a) Two contracts over $30,000 have been let which were not publicly tendered.

(b) The contracts were Contract 2 - Financial Management System and Contract 3 - Financial Management System Project Management.
(c) The Financial Management System Contract (Contract 2) was not publicly tendered as it is an approved supplier of financial management systems under Government Selected Application Systems Contract for Financial Management Systems.
The Financial Management System Project Management Contract (Contract 3) was not publicly tendered as Asia Pacific Computing Services is an approved supplier of contractors under Government Contract ITS881.

Department of Mineral Resources
(1) and (2) The following contracts worth over $30,000 have been let since 4 April 1995:

(a) Pitt Research Pty Ltd.
(b) To define petroleum prospective areas in Murray Basin.
(c) $52,000.
(d) Yes, tenders were called.
(e) The principal contact would be the departmental Program Manager.

(a) Budside Pty Ltd.
(b) To compile a database of petroleum geochemical testing in the State.
(c) $58,000.
(d) Yes, tenders were called.
(e) The principal contact would be the departmental Program Manager.

(a) John Saunders.
(b) Supervision of seismic surveys.
(c) $30,000.
(d) No, tenders were not called.
(e) The principal contact would be the departmental Program Manager.

(a) Internal Audit Bureau.
(b) Conducting financial and compliance audits.
(c) $50,000.
(d) No, tenders were not called.
(e) The principal contact would be the departmental Program Manager.

Mines Rescue Board
(a) Rolyn Building Services.
(b) Painting of Southern Mines Rescue Station buildings both internal and external.
(c) $60,000.
(d) Yes, three were called.
(e) Rod Parsons.

Mine Subsidence Board
(a) B. J. and E. A. Keena.
(b) Repairs to dwelling damaged by mine subsidence.
(c) $40,300.
(d) Yes.
(e) Mr Brian Keena.

(3) All of the above contractors are based in New South Wales except for Pitt Research Pty Ltd.
(4) (a) Yes.

(b) John Saunders - Supervision of seismic surveys.
Internal Audit Bureau - Conducting financial and compliance audits.
(c) John Saunders - Only a small number of organisations were capable of carrying out the job as called for in the tender.
Internal Audit Bureau - Came in originally as a semi-government organisation about 5 years ago and continued on an ongoing basis since then.

Coal Compensation Board
(1) There has been one contract let since 4 April 1995.
(2) (a) The contract was let to the NSW Department of Mineral Resources.

(b) The purpose of the contract was the provision of personnel and payroll services.
(c) The contract was let to June 1996 for $51,732.
(d) No tenders were called for this contract as the Department of Mineral Resources has a responsibility towards the permanent staff of the Coal Compensation Board.
(e) The principal contact at the Department of Mineral Resources for this contract is Dr George Gibbons, Acting Director of Administration.

(3) No contracts have been let to companies.
(4) (a) Yes.

(b) The contract with the Department of Mineral Resources.
(c) The contract was not publicly tendered because the Department of Mineral Resources provides a service that could not be matched by a private contractor.

(5) No.
(6) Not applicable.

Mr Small asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

(1) How many members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) are employed in agencies within his administration?

Page 4572
(2) What are the names of the individuals and the agencies?
(3) What is the number in each grade of the SES?
(4) Which appointments to the SES have been made since 4 April 1995?
(5) Which positions is it proposed are to be abolished as part of the State Government's reduction of the SES?
(6) Which positions have been abolished?
(7) Which SES officers have a Government purchased vehicle as part of their salary package?
(8) Are these vehicles purchased free of sales tax and/or stamp duty?

Answer -

NSW Fisheries
(1) NSW Fisheries employs four senior executives.
(2) These executives are Dr John Glaister, Dr Robert Kearnery, Mr Paul O'Connor and Ms Jennifer Burchmore.
(3) One of these executives is within Band 2 and the remaining three are within Band 1.
(4) The only appointment since 7 April 1995 was Dr Glaister. He entered on duty as Director of Fisheries on 30 October 1995.
(5) Currently under review.
(6) No SES positions have been abolished with NSW Fisheries.
(7) All four SES members have exercised their option to include a motor vehicle as part of their remuneration package.
(8) These vehicles are leased on a commercial basis through State Fleet Services. They have advised that these vehicles are purchased free of sales tax and stamp duty. It is noted that an amount equivalent to the appropriate sales tax is included in calculating the cost of the motor vehicle option which is paid by each Executive from their total remuneration package.
Department of Mineral Resources (incorporating Mine Subsidence Board and Coal Compensation Board)
(1) 14.
(2) Lowder, G. 6

Galligan, A. 4
Terrey, G. 3
McKensey, B. 3
Cramsie, J. 3
Gibbons, G. 1
Fearon, D. 1
Hollands, K. 1
Roberts, L. 1
Reczek, A. 1
Barron, L. 1
Holla, L. 1
Bowman, H. 1
Cole-Clarke, G. 1

(3) Level 6 1

Level 4 1
Level 3 3
Level 1 9

(4) Hollands, K.

Reczek, A.

(5) Nil.
(6) Deputy Director-General Level 5

Director Information Level 3
Principal Research Scientist Level 1

(7) Lowder, G.

Galligan, A.
Terrey, G.
McKensey, B.
Cramsie, J.
Gibbons, J.
Fearon, D.
Hollands, K.
Barron, L.
Holla, L.
Bowman, H.
Cole-Clarke, G.

(8) No.

Mr Small asked the Minister for Sport and Recreation -

(1) How many members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) are employed in agencies within her administration?
(2) What are the names of the individuals and the agencies?
(3) What is the number in each grade of the SES?
(4) Which appointments to the SES have been made since 4 April 1995?
(5) Which positions is it proposed are to be abolished as part of the State Government's reduction of the SES?
(6) Which positions have been abolished?
(7) Which SES officers have a Government purchased vehicle as part of their salary package?
(8) Are these vehicles purchased free of sales tax and/or stamp duty?

Answer -

(1) to (8) The Government is committed to reducing the SES by 400 positions within its first term.
Currently the Government is ahead of its target in reducing the size of the SES and hence well advanced in the redirection of resources to front line services such as schools, hospitals and police.

Mr Smith asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation -

(1) How many consultants has his ministerial office engaged since 4 April 1995?
(2) For each consultant:

(a) What was the name and address of the consultancy?
(b) Who was the principal contact?
(c) What has the consultant been paid to date?
(d) What is the purpose of the consultancy?

Page 4573
(3) For each agency under his administration, what consultants have been engaged since 4 April 1995?
(4) For each consultant:

(a) What was the name and address of the consultancy?
(b) Who was the principal contact?
(c) What has the consultant been paid to date?
(d) What is the purpose of the consultancy?

Answer -

(1) to (4) It is a requirement of the Annual Reports Act that relevant details regarding the engaging of consultants are included in annual reports. To avoid costly duplication of public resources the honourable member is referred to the relevant department's annual report.

Mr Smith asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation -

(1) Have any staff ceased employment in his ministerial office since 4 April 1995?
(2) What are their names?
(3) What was their period of employment?
(4) What were their positions?
(5) Why did they leave?
Answer -

(1) to (5) Ministerial staff departures have occurred in accordance with Public Employment Office guidelines.

Mr Souris asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads -

(1) What was the amount of specific purpose roads funding provided by the Commonwealth Government over the years:

(a) 1994 actual?
(b) 1995 actual?
(c) 1996 budget?

(2) What was the amount of funds the Commonwealth Government untied from specific purpose roads funding over the years:

(a) 1994 actual?
(b) 1995 actual?
(c) 1996 budget?

(3) What was the amount of untied funds referred to in (1) and (2) above that were used for roads expenditure over the years:

(a) 1994 actual?
(b) 1995 actual?
(c) 1996 budget?

Answer -

(1) Since 1 January 1994, the Commonwealth Government's road funding responsibilities have been confined to the construction and maintenance of the National Highway system.
(a) $397 million.
(b) $331 million.
(c) $340 million allocated to New South Wales in the Federal Budget announced in May 1995. The final allocation will be determined by the Federal Minister during 1995/96. New South Wales has requested a total of $366 million.
(2) (a) 1993/94 $51.8 million
(b) 1994/95 $103.6 million
(c) 1995/96 $109.3 million
(3) All the funding provided for specific purpose road grants by the Commonwealth is tied to specific road projects. Accordingly, there is no untied funding included in amounts shown in answer (1) above.
Details of finance provided by the Commonwealth in the form of untied road funding and applied to expenditure for roads are as follows:
(a) 1993/94 actual Nil. Funds were not

provided to the RTA by the previous State Government.

(b) 1994/95 actual $103.6 million.
(c) 1995/96 budget $109.3 million. All funds

have been allocated.

Mr Tink asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads, representing the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, and Minister Assisting the Premier -

(1) How many members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) are employed in agencies within his administration?
(2) What are the names of the individuals and the agencies?
(3) What is the number in each grade of the SES?
(4) Which appointments to the SES have been made since 4 April 1995?
(5) Which positions is it proposed are to be abolished as part of the State Government's reduction of the SES?
(6) Which positions have been abolished?
(7) Which SES officers have a Government purchased vehicle as part of their salary package?
(8) Are these vehicles purchased free of sales tax and/or stamp duty?

Answer -

(1) to (8) The cost to the public of the diversion of resources necessary to answer this question is not justifiable.
The Government is committed to reducing the SES by 400 positions within its first term.
Currently the Government is ahead of its target in reducing the size of the SES and hence well advanced in the redirection of resources to front line services such as schools, hospitals and police.

Page 4574

Mr Blackmore asked the Minister for Police -

Does he propose to close Beresfield Police Station when the new Thornton Police Station is completed?

Answer -

I am advised that there is no proposal to close Beresfield Police Station. Police numbers and resources are constantly under review to ensure the proper allocation of resources.
The Police Service is currently conducting a review of the Upper Hunter District to ensure the policing needs of that area are being met.

Mr Blackmore asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Does he propose to upgrade the status of Raymond Terrace Police Station to 24-hour operation?
(2) If so, when?

Answer -

(1) and (2) I am advised that the Police Service is currently conducting a staffing review of the Upper Hunter District, which includes Maitland, Beresfield, Thornton and Raymond Terrace.
I understand that the review will be completed shortly.

Mr Fraser asked the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development -

(1) How many consultants has his ministerial office engaged since 4 April 1995?
(2) For each consultant:

(a) What was the name and address of the consultancy?
(b) Who was the principal contact?
(c) What has the consultant been paid to date?
(d) What is the purpose of the consultancy?

(3) For each agency under his administration, what consultants have been engaged since 4 April 1995?
(4) For each consultant:

(a) What was the name and address of the consultancy?
(b) Who was the principal contact?
(c) What has the consultant been paid to date?
(d) What is the purpose of the consultancy?

Answer -

(1) to (4) It is a requirement of the Annual Reports Act that relevant details regarding the engaging of consultants are included in annual reports. To avoid costly duplication of public resources the honourable member is referred to the relevant department's annual report.

Mr Fraser asked the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development -

(1) Have any staff ceased employment in his ministerial office since 4 April 1995?
(2) What are their names?
(3) What was their period of employment?
(4) What were their positions?
(5) Why did they leave?

Answer -

(1) to (5) Ministerial staff departures have occurred in accordance with Public Employment Office guidelines.

Mr Fraser asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

(1) How many official functions have been held in his ministerial office since 4 April 1995?
(2) When were the functions held?
(3) What was the cost of each function?
(4) How much was spent on the following:
(a) Beer?
(b) Imported champagne?
(c) Australian champagne?
(d) Wine bottled in New South Wales?
(e) Wine bottled interstate?
(f) Wine bottled overseas?
(g) Spirits?
(5) Was caviar offered to the guests?
(6) Who were the guests at each function?

Answer -

(1) One.
(2) 27 June 1995.
(3) $133.30.
(4) (a) Nil.

(b) Nil.
(c) Nil.
(d) $38.
(e) Nil.
(f) Nil.
(g) Nil.

(5) No.
(6) There were 11 people present comprising members of the State Minerals Advisory Council.

Mr Humpherson asked the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

Page 4575

(1) How many official functions have been held in his ministerial office since 4 April 1995?
(2) When were the functions held?
(3) What was the cost of each function?
(4) How much was spent on the following:
(a) Beer?
(b) Imported champagne?
(c) Australian champagne?
(d) Wine bottled in New South Wales?
(e) Wine bottled interstate?
(f) Wine bottled overseas?
(g) Spirits?
(5) Was caviar offered to the guests?
(6) Who were the guests at each function?

Answer -

(1) None.
(2) to (6) Not applicable.

Mr Humpherson asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the ALP co-operated with police investigations into the Newcastle Branch of the ALP?
(2) Were the police satisfied with the co-operation they received?
(3) What were the findings?
(4) Did he instruct the Police Service in any way in this matter?
(5) Did he discuss this matter with Commissioner Lauer or any other police officer?

Answer -

(1) Yes.
(2) Yes.
(3) No criminal offences were detected.
(4) No.
(5) I made it clear to the Police Service that I wanted a full and open investigation.

Mr Kinross asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation -

(1) What trips since 4 April 1995 has he taken by helicopter either owned or chartered by the ministry or by an agency within his portfolio?
(2) In respect of each trip:

(a) What was the destination?
(b) For what purpose was the trip taken?
(c) When was it taken?
(d) What was the cost?
(e) Who paid the cost?
(f) What type of helicopter was used?
(g) Was he accompanied by any persons either not on his staff or public servants?

(3) What trips have been made by Parliamentary Secretaries and Members of Parliament since 4 April 1995 in a helicopter owned or chartered by him or an agency within his portfolio?
(4) In respect of each trip:

(a) What was the destination?
(b) For what purpose was the trip taken?
(c) When was it taken?
(d) What was the cost?
(e) Who paid the cost?
(f) What type of helicopter was used?
(g) (i) Was the Parliamentary Secretary or Member of Parliament accompanied by any other persons?
(ii) If so, whom?

Answer -

(1) State Forests has arranged one such trip since 4 April 1995.
(2) (a) Coolah.
(b) Consultations with community and industry and inspection of the Warung and Bundella State Forests.
(c) 5 July 1995.
(d) $1,731.
(e) Ministerial office budget.
(f) Aerospatiale AS350B.
(g) Yes, Mr Mark Greenhill of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. In addition, State Forests personnel accompanied the Minister for a portion of the trip involving an aerial inspection of the State forests.
(3) Nil according to State Forests' aircraft records.
(4) Not applicable.

Mr Kinross asked the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development -

(1) What trips since 4 April 1995 has he taken by helicopter either owned or chartered by the ministry or by an agency within his portfolio?
(2) In respect of each trip:

(a) What was the destination?
(b) For what purpose was the trip taken?
(c) When was it taken?
(d) What was the cost?
(e) Who paid the cost?
(f) What type of helicopter was used?
(g) Was he accompanied by any persons either not on his staff or public servants?

(3) What trips have been made by Parliamentary Secretaries and Members of Parliament since 4 April 1995 in a helicopter owned or chartered by him or an agency within his portfolio?
(4) In respect of each trip:

(a) What was the destination?
(b) For what purpose was the trip taken?
(c) When was it taken?
(d) What was the cost?

Page 4576

(e) Who paid the cost?
(f) What type of helicopter was used?
(g) (i) Was the Parliamentary Secretary or Member of Parliament accompanied by any other persons?
(ii) If so, whom?

Answer -

(1) No trips have been taken by helicopter.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable.

Mr O'Farrell asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

(1) What trips since 4 April 1995 has he taken by helicopter either owned or chartered by the ministry or by an agency within his portfolio?
(2) In respect of each trip:

(a) What was the destination?
(b) For what purpose was the trip taken?
(c) When was it taken?
(d) What was the cost?
(e) Who paid the cost?
(f) What type of helicopter was used?
(g) Was he accompanied by any persons either not on his staff or public servants?

(3) What trips have been made by Parliamentary Secretaries and Members of Parliament since 4 April 1995 in a helicopter owned or chartered by him or an agency within his portfolio?
(4) In respect of each trip:

(a) What was the destination?
(b) For what purpose was the trip taken?
(c) When was it taken?
(d) What was the cost?
(e) Who paid the cost?
(f) What type of helicopter was used?
(g) (i) Was the Parliamentary Secretary or Member of Parliament accompanied by any other persons?
(ii) If so, whom?

Answer -

(1) None.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) None.
(4) Not applicable.

Mr Richardson asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads, representing the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, and Minister Assisting the Premier -

(1) What trips since 4 April 1995 has he taken by helicopter either owned or chartered by the ministry or by an agency within his portfolio?
(2) In respect of each trip:

(a) What was the destination?
(b) For what purpose was the trip taken?
(c) When was it taken?
(d) What was the cost?
(e) Who paid the cost?
(f) What type of helicopter was used?
(g) Was he accompanied by any persons either not on his staff or public servants?

(3) What trips have been made by Parliamentary Secretaries and Members of Parliament since 4 April 1995 in a helicopter owned or chartered by him or an agency within his portfolio?
(4) In respect of each trip:

(a) What was the destination?
(b) For what purpose was the trip taken?
(c) When was it taken?
(d) What was the cost?
(e) Who paid the cost?
(f) What type of helicopter was used?
(g) (i) Was the Parliamentary Secretary or Member of Parliament accompanied by any other persons?
(ii) If so, whom?

Answer -

(1) None.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) None.
(4) Not applicable.

Mr Slack-Smith asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads, representing the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, and Minister Assisting the Premier -

(1) Which agencies or corporations within his portfolio have a board or advisory committee?
(2) (a) What full-time appointments has he made since 4 April 1995 to the boards of agencies and corporations within his portfolio?
(b) Please list each person and agency.
(3) (a) What part-time appointments has he made since 4 April 1995 to the boards of agencies and corporations within his portfolio?
(b) Please list each person and agency.
(4) (a) Which full-time appointments expire prior to 30 June 1996?
(b) Please list each person and agency.
(5) (a) Which part-time appointments expire prior to 30 June 1996?
(b) Please list each person and agency.

Answer -

(1) to (5) The Government is committed to the principles of independence and merit in selections to Government boards and committees.

Page 4577
The establishment of the Public Employment Office, with a charter to ensure merit, integrity and independence in selection and appointment matters, provides Ministers with assistance in identifying suitable people for appointments to Government boards and committees.

Mr Small asked the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development -

(1) How many members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) are employed in agencies within his administration?
(2) What are the names of the individuals and the agencies?
(3) What is the number in each grade of the SES?
(4) Which appointments to the SES have been made since 4 April 1995?
(5) Which positions is it proposed are to be abolished as part of the State Government's reduction of the SES?
(6) Which positions have been abolished?
(7) Which SES officers have a Government purchased vehicle as part of their salary package?
(8) Are these vehicles purchased free of sales tax and/or stamp duty?

Answer -

(1) to (8) The cost to the public of the diversion of resources necessary to answer this question is not justifiable.
The Government is committed to reducing the SES by 400 positions within its first term.
Currently the Government is ahead of its target in reducing the size of the SES and hence well advanced in the redirection of resources to front line services such as schools, hospitals and police.

Mr Turner asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation -

(1) How many official functions have been held in his ministerial office since 4 April 1995?
(2) When were the functions held?
(3) What was the cost of each function?
(4) How much was spent on the following:

(a) Beer?
(b) Imported champagne?
(c) Australian champagne?
(d) Wine bottled in New South Wales?
(e) Wine bottled interstate?
(f) Wine bottled overseas?
(g) Spirits?

(5) Was caviar offered to the guests?
(6) Who were the guests at each function?

Answer -

(1) One.
(2) 22 August 1995.
(3) $271.70.
(4) (a) $9.60.
(b) None.
(c) None.
(d) $82.10.
(e) None.
(f) None.
(g) None.
(5) No.
(6) Staff from offices of the Natural Resource ministries and representatives from ministerial offices located within the Governor Macquarie Tower.

Mr Turner asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads, representing the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, and Minister Assisting the Premier -

(1) How many official functions have been held in his ministerial office since 4 April 1995?
(2) When were the functions held?
(3) What was the cost of each function?
(4) How much was spent on the following:

(a) Beer?
(b) Imported champagne?
(c) Australian champagne?
(d) Wine bottled in New South Wales?
(e) Wine bottled interstate?
(f) Wine bottled overseas?
(g) Spirits?

(5) Was caviar offered to the guests?
(6) Who were the guests at each function?

Answer -

(1) None.
(2) to (6) Not applicable.

Mr Downy asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads representing the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, and Minister Assisting the Premier -

(1) What is the number of vacant positions in each Department/Corporation within his portfolio/administration?
(2) What is the grading, job title, brief position description and location of each vacant position?
(3) Of these positions -

(a) Which positions will be filled by:
(i) acting/higher duties allowance?
(ii) secondment?
(iii) internal advertising?
(iv) media advertising?

Page 4578

(b) Which positions will be declared excess to Departmental/Corporation staffing requirements?

(4) What is the number of positions likely to become vacant, in the near future or before 31 December 1995, in each Department/Corporation?
(5) What is the grading, job title, brief position description and location of each position?
(6) Of these positions -

(a) Which positions will be filled by:
(i) acting/higher duties allowance?
(ii) secondment?
(iii) internal advertising?
(iv) media advertising?
(b) Which positions will be declared excess to Departmental/Corporation staffing requirements?

Answer -

(1) to (6) The diversion of public resources necessary to answer this question is not justifiable.

Mr Hartcher asked the Minister for Local Government -

(1) Did he receive a complaint from or on behalf of a Mr Robert Cairns of 44 Citrus Close, Wyoming, concerning building approvals by Gosford City Council for 8 Coral Tree Place, Point Clare?
(2) Have departmental inspectors investigated the complaint?
(3) Did he rely solely on advice from Gosford City Council in replying to the complainant?
(4) (a) Has the Department undertaken a "full review" of Mr Cairn's concerns?

(b) What is a "full review"?
(c) (i) Was any person interviewed?
(ii) If so, whom?
(d) (i) Were any documents inspected?
(ii) If so, which?
(e) What other information was utilised in the conduct of the "full review"?

Answer -

(1) Yes.
(2) Mr Cairns' concerns have been the subject of extensive enquiries by departmental officers over the last 18 months.
(3) Ministerial correspondence on Mr Cairns' concerns has been based on departmental advice.
(4) (a) Yes.

(b) Mr Cairns' concerns have been fully assessed and the subject of extensive enquiries by departmental investigation and technical officers over the last 18 months. There has also been extensive correspondence with Mr Cairns on the issues raised by his complaint.
(c) (i) Yes.
(ii) Officers of Gosford City Council and also Mr Cairns.
(d) (i) Yes.
(ii) Relevant council documents pertaining to 8 Coral Tree Place, Point Clare, and Mr Cairns' complaint.
(e) Comments made and information provided by Mr Cairns.

Mr Humpherson asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads, representing the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, and Minister Assisting the Premier -

(1) What is the total floor area of his ministerial office?
(2) What is the annual rent?
(3) What floor of the building does this office occupy?
(4) How many floors are there in the building?
(5) (a) How many TV sets are located in the office?

(b) Which brands?

(6) (a) How many video recorders are located in the office?

(b) Which brands?

(7) (a) How many photocopiers are located in the office?

(b) Which brands?

(8) (a) How many printers are installed in the office?

(b) Which brands?

(9) Does the office have a built-in stereo system?
(10) Does the office have an en suite bathroom?
(11) Does the office have a bedroom?
(12) (a) Does the office have a kitchen?

(b) If so, what type and brand of appliances?
(c) Does this include a:
(i) microwave oven?
(ii) conventional oven?
(iii) blender?
(iv) refrigerator?
(v) dishwasher?

(13) (a) Has he acquired any original art works for the office since 4 April 1995?

(b) If so, when and at what price?

(14) (a) Does the office contain a liquor cabinet?

(b) If so, how many and what type of glasses and utensils?
(c) Does this include:
(i) facilities for making cocktails?
(ii) crystal champagne glasses?
(iii) brandy balloon glasses?

(15) (a) Does the office maintain a stock of gourmet food stuffs?

(b) If so, what kind?
(c) Does this include a supply of:
(i) caviar?
(ii) smoked salmon?
(iii) pâté de fois gras?

(16) (a) Does the office maintain a stock of alcohol?

Page 4579

(b) If so, how many bottles of the following spirits:
(i) Chivas Regal?
(ii) Glenfiddich?
(iii) French Armagnac cognac?
(iv) Australian cognac?

(17) (a) Does his office have facilities for in-house formal dining?

(b) If so, what brand of china/crockery is stocked?

(18) Have any functions been held at his office on behalf of the Australian Labor Party?

Answer -

(1) 375 square metres.
(2) $306,000.
(3) Level 33.
(4) 41 floors.
(5) (a) Two.
(b) NEC.
(6) (a) Two.
(b) NEC.
(7) (a) Three.
(b) Canon and Toshiba.
(8) (a) Four.
(b) Hewlett Packard printers.
(9) No.
(10) Yes.
(11) No.
(12) (a) Yes.

(b) See (c) below.
(c) (i) Microwave - Samson.
(ii) Conventional oven - St George.
(iii) No.

(iv) Refrigerator - Samson.

(v) Dishwasher - Vulcan.

(13) Yes, eight pieces rented from Artbank.
(14) No.
(15) No.
(16) No.
(17) No.
(18) No.

Mr Kinross asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

(1) What is the total floor area of his ministerial office?
(2) What is the annual rent?
(3) What floor of the building does this office occupy?
(4) How many floors are there in the building?
(5) (a) How many TV sets are located in the office?

(b) Which brands?

(6) (a) How many video recorders are located in the office?

(b) Which brands?

(7) (a) How many photocopiers are located in the office?

(b) Which brands?

(8) (a) How many printers are installed in the office?

(b) Which brands?

(9) Does the office have a built-in stereo system?
(10) Does the office have an en suite bathroom?
(11) Does the office have a bedroom?
(12) (a) Does the office have a kitchen?

(b) If so, what type and brand of appliances?
(c) Does this include a:
(i) microwave oven?
(ii) conventional oven?
(iii) blender?
(iv) refrigerator?
(v) dishwasher?

(13) (a) Has he acquired any original art works for the office since 4 April 1995?

(b) If so, when and at what price?

(14) (a) Does the office contain a liquor cabinet?

(b) If so, how many and what type of glasses and utensils?
(c) Does this include:
(i) facilities for making cocktails?
(ii) crystal champagne glasses?
(iii) brandy balloon glasses?

(15) (a) Does the office maintain a stock of gourmet food stuffs?

(b) If so, what kind?
(c) Does this include a supply of:
(i) caviar?
(ii) smoked salmon?
(iii) pâté de fois gras?

(16) (a) Does the office maintain a stock of alcohol?

(b) If so, how many bottles of the following spirits:
(i) Chivas Regal?
(ii) Glenfiddich?
(iii) French Armagnac cognac?
(iv) Australian cognac?

(17) (a) Does his office have facilities for in-house formal dining?

(b) If so, what brand of china/crockery is stocked?

(18) Have any functions been held at his office on behalf of the Australian Labor Party?

Answer -

(1) 394.63 square metres.
(2) $110,188.
(3) Level 12.
(4) 13 floors.
(5) (a) Two TV sets.

(b) Both are NEC.

(6) (a) Two video recorders.

(b) Both are NEC.

(7) (a) Two photocopiers.

(b) Both are Ricoh.

(8) (a) Three printers.

(b) Two Gestetner Laser GLP800 Scout, one Brother HL 1260.

(9) No.
(10) Yes.
(11) No.

Page 4580
(12) (a) Yes.

(b) Coffee Maker - Sunbeam.
(c) (i) Yes - Rank Arena.
(ii) Yes - St George.
(iii) No.
(iv) Yes - Rank Arena.
(v) Yes - Asea Skandia.

(13) (a) No.

(b) Not applicable.

(14) (a) Yes.

(b) Three dozen assorted wine, beer and soft drink glasses.
(c) (i) No.
(ii) No.

(iii) No.
(15) (a) No.

(b) Not applicable.
(c) Not applicable.

(16) (a) Yes.

(b) (i) Nil.
(ii) Nil.
(iii) Nil.

(iv) Nil.
(17) (a) Yes.

(b) Woolworths/Kmart.

(18) No.

Ms Machin asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

(1) Was Dr John Glaister previously interviewed for a position as Deputy Director of NSW Fisheries?
(2) Was he successful?
(3) If not, why not?
(4) Has he been approached by any persons, since the removal of the former Director, who raised the issue of the appointment of Dr Glaister as Director of NSW Fisheries?
(5) If so, what was the nature of these approaches?
(6) Has any person counselled him against appointing Dr Glaister as the new Director of Fisheries?

Answer -

(1) Yes.
(2) No.
(3) I do not know, such information is confidential to the selection committee.
(4) Yes.
(5) Generally strongly supportive.
(6) The honourable member would be aware that the appointment of a head of a department, particularly to a specialist position such as head of the Fisheries Department, generates a range of opinion and advice. Such has been the case with the appointment of Dr Glaister. In the Fisheries field, most eligible and experienced applicants are well known to their peers and the recreational and commercial fishing industry. I believe that the senior and very experienced selection committee have made an excellent choice and I look forward to Dr Glaister providing leadership to NSW Fisheries.

Mr O'Farrell asked the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development -

(1) Did Mr Vic Baueris and Mr Craig Sahlin assist Ian Temby in the Review of Thoroughbred Racing in NSW?
(2) How were Mr Baueris and Mr Sahlin appointed?
(3) Were other people considered or interviewed for the positions?
(4) What were the details of the total remuneration packages for:

(a) Mr Baueris?
(b) Mr Sahlin?

Answer -

(1) Yes.
(2) Mr Baueris was seconded from ICAC and Mr Sahlin was seconded from the Cabinet Office.
(3) No.
(4) (a) $72,459 per annum.

(b) $72,459 per annum.

Mr Turner asked the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development -

(1) What is the number of vacant positions in each Department/Corporation within his portfolio administration?
(2) What is the grading, job title, brief position description and location of each vacant position?
(3) Of these positions -

(a) Which positions will be filled by:
(i) acting/higher duties allowance?
(ii) secondment?
(iii) internal advertising?
(iv) media advertising?
(b) Which positions will be declared excess to Departmental/Corporation staffing requirements?

(4) What is the number of positions likely to become vacant, in the near future or before 31 December 1995, in each Department/Corporation?
(5) What is the grading, job title, brief position description and location of each position?
(6) Of these positions -

(a) Which positions will be filled by:
(i) acting/higher duties allowance?
(ii) secondment?
(iii) internal advertising?
(iv) media advertising?
(b) Which positions will be declared excess to Departmental/Corporation staffing requirements?

Page 4581

Answer -

(1) to (6) The diversion of public resources necessary to answer this question is not justifiable.


Mr Peacocke asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

(1) What is the number of vacant positions in each Department/Corporation within his portfolio administration?
(2) What is the grading, job title, brief position description and location of each vacant position?
(3) Of these positions -
(a) Which positions will be filled by:
(i) acting/higher duties allowance?
(ii) secondment?
(iii) internal advertising?
(iv) media advertising?

(b) Which positions will be declared excess to Departmental/Corporation staffing requirements?
(4) What is the number of positions likely to become vacant, in the near future or before 31 December 1995, in each Department/Corporation?
(5) What is the grading, job title, brief position description and location of each position?
(6) Of these positions -
(a) Which positions will be filled by:
(i) acting/higher duties allowance?
(ii) secondment?
(iii) internal advertising?
(iv) media advertising?
(b) Which positions will be declared excess to Departmental/Corporation staffing requirements?

Answer -

(1) to (6) The cost to the public of the diversion of resources necessary to answer this question is not justifiable.