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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [9.01]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust Act 1980 to clarify the trust's role in plant conservation, allow it greater flexibility in leasing of commercial outlets, permit the issue of on-the-spot fines for littering and parking offences, remove from trust land certain areas of the Domain now occupied by the Art Gallery of New South Wales, and allow the trust to manage certain subsurface lands. The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, in conjunction with its role managing its three important gardens - Sydney, Mount Tomah and Mount Annan - has a major role to play in plant conservation. The trust aims to promote community awareness and knowledge of plants, their conservation and their importance in the natural world. In listing the principal objectives of the trust, the Act states that "when acting in pursuance of its objects, the trust shall give particular emphasis to encouraging and advancing the study of systematic botany".

Schedule 1[1] of the bill amends section 7 in order to specify plant conservation as one of the principal objectives of the trust. This amendment adds the words "and to plant conservation". This reflects the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust's conviction that an important responsibility for all botanic gardens in the late twentieth century is their role in conserving plant diversity. Schedule 1[3] repeals and replaces section 20(2)(a) of the principal Act. The intention of this amendment is to confer a general power on the trust to lease any trust land for purposes consistent with its objectives. In 1980, when the trust's Act was drafted, only four leases were contemplated: the restaurant in the Sydney Gardens - which I note was featured in the "Good Living" section of the Sydney Morning Herald as one of the top new restaurants in Sydney - the restaurant in the Domain, the Domain parking station and the navy oil tanks.

The trust now has an additional three kiosks at its three gardens and agreements with various commercial operators who occupy its lands. Due to existing provisions in the Act only four leases were expressly allowed for. The trust has issued licences for its recent premises; operators would prefer the legal protection of a lease. This amendment will allow the trust to provide that protection. References in the Act to specific leased premises have been deleted and are being replaced by a provision for the trust to enter into leases and licences with people or companies that occupy its lands for purposes consistent with the trust's objectives.

Schedule 1[5] amends the regulation-making power of the principal Act to allow the trust to charge a fee for the use of trust lands for other forms of commercial filming or photography besides cinema and television. This change responds to the widespread use of hand-held video cameras for commercial purposes. Obviously an area as important as the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney attracts a great deal of interest for people who are attempting to use commercial filming or photography other than traditional cinema or television. The proposed amendments will not affect individuals who wish to video in the gardens for personal use. Schedule 1[6] of the bill will increase the maximum number of fine penalty units from two, the equivalent to $200, to five, the equivalent to $500. This provides for inflation since the maximum penalty amount was originally set in 1980. It will also enable a greater variation in the fine according to the nature of the breach.

Schedule 1[7] inserts in the bill new sections 22A and 22B, which will provide for the issue of penalty notices and will permit trust employees to issue on-the-spot fines for littering, parking offences and trespass. This amendment is essential for the trust to manage the parking in Mrs Macquaries Road and Conservatorium Road. This is a long overdue amendment to enable the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust to implement the various parking meters, and such like, which are in place within trust ownership. At the present time, the trust is fairly ineffectual because it lacks legal powers to act on violations of parking offences, particularly around Mrs Macquaries Road. As honourable members would be aware, this is a very popular area of Sydney and many visitors park in those areas. At the present time, the trust simply lacks the authority to ensure that its parking rules and regulations are abided by.

The trust, under the previous Government, installed parking meters in these two roads. However - quite illogically in my opinion - the trust was not given the power to issue penalty notices for parking offences. Up until now the trust could only proceed against a person who breached its
Page 4854
regulations by means of a court summons. As we all know, this is cumbersome and costly, and a deterrent for the trust to fine the people who violate the law. Because of the low maximum penalties available to magistrates, the trust has not initiated action for many years. Consequently, most of the breaches for traffic violations in the grounds and on the roads managed by the trust go unpunished. Under the proposed amendment, rangers will be able to issue on-the-spot fines, making use of the Police Service's computerised self-enforcing infringement notice scheme. The Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust Act 1983 and Bicentennial Park Trust Act 1987 both incorporate penalty notice provisions. This amendment to the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust Act will bring the trust into line with the other urban parks around Sydney.

Schedule 1[7] of the bill adds section 22C relating to legal presumptions. This facilitates proof of matters in legal proceedings, similar to provisions in the Bicentennial Park Trust Act. Schedule 1[8] refers to the description of lands on the Domain area. This will amend schedule 2 to the principal Act so as to replace the land description of the Domain contained in part 2 of the schedule. This responds to changes in the way allotments are recorded in the Land Titles Office. Schedule 1[9] refers to trust lands vested in the Art Gallery of New South Wales. The intention of this amendment is to remove from the trust land areas of the Domain now occupied by extensions to the Art Gallery of New South Wales.

The Bicentennial extension to the Art Gallery resulted in a loss of open space in the Domain. The trust has agreed to transfer ownership of the expanded footprint of land occupied by the gallery. This means the Art Gallery of New South Wales owns the land on which the extension is built to ensure proper management and control. The final amendment to the bill, schedule 1[10], relates to future use of part of the Royal Botanic Gardens. This will amend the Act to allow certain subsurface land owned by the trust, and previously used by the Commonwealth for fuel storage, to be made available for some other purpose. A number of honourable members would be aware that this land is situated in the Domain adjacent to Lincoln Crescent near the edge of Woolloomooloo Bay. It is no longer required by the Commonwealth for naval fuel-oil storage. Prior to its transfer to the navy during the Second World War, the site was extensively quarried for building materials. This provided space for oil tanks to be installed.

If the fuel tanks remain in their current site the dreary landscape and restrictions on use will also remain. The flat roof over the tanks, which I have had an opportunity to inspect, cannot be used for team sports because of doubts about its load-bearing capacity. In addition, the site is certainly contaminated below the oil tanks due to leaks over the years. The Department of Defence has previously indicated its willingness to remove the tanks and remediate the site. The cost of this remediation will be met by the Department of Defence. If the cleaned quarry site were left in its original state it would be both unsightly and dangerous because of the height of the exposed cliff face. The quarry site could be simply filled in and relandscaped. But this would be a very expensive option for which the garden trust has no resources. It would also waste an opportunity to use the space for a community purpose such as indoor sports facilities or archival space.

In addition, the revenue generated by such a facility will not only provide the funds to rehabilitate the site and landscape the surface to a high standard, but also provide ongoing resources to maintain and improve facilities in the Domain. If this legislation is passed, the trust intends to invite expressions of interest to redevelop the site. I would like to make clear that the trust will not consider a car park on the site. It is important to note that the commitment by the trust and the Government not to consider a car park on the site is a considerable departure from the attitude of the previous Government and the Hon. Tim Moore, a former Minister for the Environment. A similar amendment was introduced in this place to amend the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust Act, not to cover the whole gamut of issues I have already raised in my second reading speech but to cover the future of land currently owned by the Department of Defence.

At that stage there was justified enormous public outcry about what was seen as an abrogation or a further alienation of Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust land for an obvious commercial, and some would say, quite ugly purpose. At that time my voice was one of the voices raised in protest about the planned use of that area. Eventually, the legislation did not proceed because of the outcry that was generated. That is what distinguishes the Government's current proposal, which I have already referred to this morning, from the proposal of the previous Government. The potential uses of this site, which will be remediated and become redundant so far as the Commonwealth Government is concerned, will be restricted by the fact that the facility will be substantially underground.

The trust is determined to maintain an informal green space above the site and restore the natural profile of the Domain. The trust and the Government are determined to achieve the intent of this amendment. The trust considers the adjoining Woolloomooloo finger wharf redevelopment will increase the importance of this adjacent green space. It will no longer be a forgotten park, the backyard of the Royal Botanic Gardens. If the Woolloomooloo finger wharf redevelopment proceeds and begins to attract tens of thousands of people - they are expected to be attracted when the area is redeveloped - it will be a key area, not just for presentation as parkland, but also for potential recreation uses and access to public facilities.

Page 4855

The proposals in the bill are consistent with good land management of the trust's open space and, in addition, will afford greater flexibility in the use of its subsurface land. Schedule 2 amends the Act in keeping with statute law revisions which update certain obsolete references to other legislation and terminology. The amendments I have discussed will give the trust greater ability to fulfil its obligations to manage and conserve the lands under its control. It provides protection for additional commercial operations on trust land which were not covered in original legislation. Better control of trust land is ensured through the ability of its authorised officers to directly fine offenders against its regulations. These amendments have the potential to increase the amount of open available land for public use by re-creating the original profile of lands at Woolloomooloo Bay.

Before commending the bill to the House I will make one or two other observations in relation to the Royal Botanic Gardens. I am pleased that the Minister for Local Government is in the Chamber as I have recently been approached on two occasions by Councillor Frank Sartor, Lord Mayor of Sydney City Council, on issues relating to my responsibilities regarding the Royal Botanic Gardens. One issue relates to the future use of the Domain car park. It is Councillor Frank Sartor's publicly expressed view that we have to think creatively about the uses of that car park over the next few months to determine the future transport planning needs of the Sydney central business district. It is the view of Frank Sartor and Sydney City Council that the Domain car park should be a focal point for tourism buses, a facility which does not currently exist in that area of the CBD. I wrote recently to Councillor Sartor indicating that the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust does not reject that proposal. In fact, it is the responsible managing organisation for the Domain car-parking station.

I indicated to Councillor Sartor that I would be more than happy to enter into negotiations concerning the future multiple uses of the Domain car park. It seems likely that, over the next few years, the requirements of the Domain car park may diminish and it may be appropriate for us to look at a change of basic functions for that car park. These decisions have not yet been made, but the Government is interested in entering into meaningful discussions with Sydney City Council and South Sydney City Council, which has a vital interest in the Domain car park. The other issue Councillor Frank Sartor wrote to me about concerns the future use of the Andrew "Boy" Charlton Swimming Pool. I am sure honourable members would be aware that a week or two ago public disquiet was expressed in the media as a result of a statement by Sydney City Council that unless private sponsorship was found for the pool it might close.

In my opinion that is an extremely dismal prospect. It is quite obvious to anyone who has used the pool or has taken the opportunity to visit the area around it that it is an important recreational asset for the Sydney central business district. Many people, whether they are visitors to Sydney or residents of Sydney, use the Andrew "Boy" Charlton Swimming Pool. Obviously, it has important historic significance. It also has a recreational significance which I, as Minister for the Environment with responsibility for the Royal Botanic Gardens, would like to see continue. Recently Councillor Sartor wrote to me and referred to the ways in which we could encourage increased use of the pool and increase the amount of revenue available so that the pool remains a viable proposition for a cash-strapped city council.

Some of the suggestions made to me by Councillor Sartor would not be acceptable. One of his specific suggestions was that car-parking meters near the pool be taken away. As it is not only people using the pool who park in that area along Mrs Macquaries Road, but people visiting the city, I would be most reluctant, as would the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, to take away the car-parking meters in the immediate vicinity of the pool. Councillor Sartor made another important suggestion that negotiations be held between the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust and the council on the allocation of various lands around the Andrew "Boy" Charlton Pool, which may be able to provide an additional incentive for people to use the pool. I have instructed the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust to have an on-site meeting with officers of the Sydney City Council, with a view to negotiating more suitable arrangements that would increase the attraction of the pool and achieving the aim of the city council to make the pool a going concern. Anything that the Government and the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust can do to ensure the long-term viability of the Andrew "Boy" Charlton Pool will certainly be done. I look forward to working with my colleagues the Minister for Local Government and Councillor Sartor to ensure that the facility remains open.

I look forward to cooperation from the other side of the Chamber on these proposed amendments to the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust Act. Many of the amendments have been overdue for a considerable time but were not proceeded with by the former Government. This Government has appreciated the work done by the trust, by trustees, employees and administrative staff. The work of the trust is very important but often, perhaps because of the area's proximity to Parliament House, some of the trust's pressing legislative needs have not been addressed. I think we tend to take the area a little for granted because it is virtually in our backyard. The amendments upon which I have elaborated this morning will correct that behaviour. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Longley.

Page 4856

Debate resumed from 7 December.

Mr LONGLEY (Pittwater) [9.23]: This bill, the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Bill, is predominantly machinery legislation designed to tidy up administrative processes. Its overall role is to create a new category of parks, called regional parks, the primary purpose of which will be to provide open space and recreation opportunities. This is an important issue and one in which the Opposition is keenly interested. It is clear that the Government has alienated a large number of people on the matter of access to national parks and the process of declaration of wilderness areas. This bill is a modest attempt by the Government to address the issue, albeit a half-hearted attempt and one that will go nowhere near to meeting community demands. Because the bill is predominantly machinery legislation, the coalition will not oppose it and will not propose any amendments. I am sure that will give the Government an amount of relief.

The bill sets up successor mechanisms for the Urban Parks Agency, which the Government has abolished, and brings regional parks under the wing of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. As the Minister for the Environment indicated in her second reading speech, seven regional open-space parks are to be created for Sydney. That is an important step forward, although it has to be noted that most of the parks already exist. In fact, the bill represents a renaming exercise more than an exercise of substance. Similar exercises have been undertaken in other legislation that has been passed by the House, including the Forests and Reserves Revocation Bill, which was mainly a renaming exercise also. The bill not only creates the new reserve category of regional park but also sets up the operational framework for the new regional parks.

My colleague the honourable member for The Hills, who is doing an excellent job, will raise a number of concerns about the bill. It is important that those concerns be raised and it is important to note that by undertaking merely renaming exercises the Government breaks even more promises. The Opposition waits with bated breath to know which promises will be broken through this legislation. The honourable member for The Hills will refer to that matter. The bill provides management provisions for the regional parks and amends the National Parks and Wildlife Act to provide that the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife has the care, control and management of regional parks. The bill will enable the establishment of trusts that will have those responsibilities if, as and when considered appropriate.

I commend the work of the many trusts involved with the areas that will become regional parks. Those who serve on trusts established within the National Parks and Wildlife Service and trusts under the responsibility of the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, state recreation areas and so on, give their time for the community, do an excellent job and deserve commendation. One of my colleagues asked whether the passage of the bill would result in the wholesale removal of state recreation areas from the Department of Land and Water Conservation to the responsibility of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Opposition's understanding of the legislation is that that is not the case and that a number of state recreation areas will remain under the administration of the department.

The honourable member for South Coast has raised concerns about the Killalea State Recreation Area just south of Shellharbour and about Crown land generally within his electorate. It would be appropriate if the Minister, in her reply to the second reading debate, referred to State recreation areas under the control of the Department of Land and Water Conservation. We must always keep uppermost in our minds that it is important that the public have access to areas that are nominally owned by the State and managed for the benefit of the people of New South Wales. The coalition will not oppose the bill. However, it does have a number of concerns about the legislation, some of which I mentioned briefly. My colleague the honourable member for The Hills will speak further of those concerns.

Mr WATKINS (Gladesville) [9.31]: I am offended that the shadow minister should suggest that this bill is a renaming of legislation that the former coalition Government intended to bring in. It is absolute nonsense for the former coalition Government to suggest that this Government is copying it. The performance of the honourable member for Pittwater was carping, harping and dull. Opposition members should never suggest or pretend to the community that this Government is doing what the previous coalition Government was pretending to do.

Mr Jeffery: Who wrote your speech for you?

Mr WATKINS: I wrote it myself. The previous coalition Government took no action on the establishment of regional parks, which will be of great benefit and a boon to the people of Sydney. I am pleased to support the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Bill. Last week when speaking in support of the Waste Minimisation and Management Bill I mentioned the great strides the Carr Labor Government has taken in environmental legislation. This bill is another example of why the Carr Labor Government will go down in the history of New South Wales as one of the great environmental governments of this century. It is delivering in all areas - forests, river clean-up, land clearing degradation, ozone depletion, waste management, and water quality protection. The list goes on. The Government is now supporting, expanding and developing urban parks. The
Page 4857
coalition should face the fact that this is another piece of great legislation from the visionary and outstanding Minister for the Environment, who is fulfilling Labor's commitments.

Mr Jeffery: Who wrote this for you?

Mr WATKINS: I did it all. The creation of urban parks will provide quality areas of urban bushland and regional open space for the people of Sydney. In the outer western and south-western suburbs, in Casula, Campbelltown and Rouse Hill, and in the inner suburbs of Concord, Gladesville and Rozelle parks will be provided close to where people live. The people of Sydney who love urban bushland and parks will no longer have to drive long distances to the Royal National Park, Parramatta Park, Lane Cove River State Recreation Area or Centennial Park; they will have parks in their own communities.

I wish to draw the attention of honourable members to the proposed urban regional open-space park in the grounds of Gladesville Hospital, which lies on the northern shoreline of the Parramatta River between the inappropriately named, historic Bedlam Point and Gladesville Reserve. The area covered by the proposal is adjacent to the shoreline and extends along the southern boundary of the hospital. It includes playing fields, rugged foreshore, degraded areas and cleared areas. It is important to note that the park will not have an impact on the continuing work of mental health on the site. The rebirth of Gladesville Hospital as a mental health care institution was recently announced by the Minister for Health. The two uses of the site can work hand in hand.

Gladesville Hospital, which has been a mental health institution since the 1830s, is the oldest functioning mental health institution in Australia. Aside from providing care for the mentally ill, it has had the associated benefit of protecting the foreshore of the Parramatta River from inappropriate development. It is a sad reflection on the history of our city that much of the foreshore was protected for public use only because it was tied up in public ownership by the Department of Defence, which administered land at North Head, and State institutions such as the Maritime Services Board, the Department of Health or the Forestry Commission. Such accidents of history have resulted in the retention of precious resources that are now being handed over gradually to the real owners, the people of New South Wales. This process is assured only because New South Wales now has a Labor Government and a Minister who is determined to provide public protection and use of harbour foreshore and other publicly owned land scattered across Sydney.

I am deeply disappointed to note the actions of the former Government in this regard. A perfect example of its venal money-grubbing, lack of concern for the needs of the people of Sydney and lack of regard for the principle of public ownership of the foreshore is reflected in its tawdry behaviour over the division and sale of the northern campus of Gladesville Hospital on Tarban Creek and its planned subdivision and sale of areas of Gladesville Hospital's southern campus. The contrast between this Government and the previous Government could not be shown more clearly than in the treatment of the Gladesville Hospital campus. The former Government sold for $32 million and lost forever precious foreshore land. Unfortunately, it has gone from the ownership of the people.

The former Government sold off foreshore land; this Government will protect it and hand it over to the public in perpetuity. The former Government alienated; this Government consolidates and protects. When the process of establishment of these new urban regional open-space parks is complete, Sydney will have seven new regional open-space reserves that will live forever as critically important open spaces, providing tranquillity, peace and community activity to the people of Sydney. I am particularly pleased that one of the major reserves will be established in the electorate of Gladesville. I have great pleasure in supporting the bill.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [9.38]: I would briefly like to address some concerns in my electorate, but before I do so I should like to comment on the description by the honourable member for Gladesville of the speech made by the honourable member for Pittwater as harping, carping and dull. What struck me as most extraordinary about his comments, apart from the fact that it is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black, was that he had written them in advance, before hearing the contribution of the honourable member for Pittwater. Mr Speaker, you will recall the conversation we had about members reading speeches. This is precisely why honourable members should not read their speeches in this House. They must listen to what is said in the House to be able to contribute reasonably to the debate.

Mr Watkins: On a point of order: my handwritten notes provide proof that the words "carping, harping and dull" were written while the honourable member for Pittwater was delivering his speech.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. The member cannot make a personal explanation at this time.

Mr RICHARDSON: I shall turn now to the substance of the debate. I am concerned that the bill will degrade the status of regional parks. The previous Government set up an Urban Parks Agency, which received $7.5 million funding in 1994-95. The funding allocated to the establishment of Horsley and Rouse Hill regional parks in the current budget is a paltry $3 million. Despite the Minister's fine rhetoric claiming that this bill will deliver seven new regional open-space parks for Sydney, the reality falls well short of the promise. I have noticed a tendency for the Australian Labor
Page 4858
Party both before and after the election to claim Rouse Hill regional park as its initiative, but nothing could be further from the truth. Rouse Hill regional park was an initiative developed by the previous Government. In January I was at the Rouse Hill regional park, which is just outside my electorate in the electorate of the Minister for Education and Training, when the former Minister for Planning officially declared it open.

At that time walking trails had been constructed around Rouse Hill House and hides were provided to allow waterbird watching. The park was up and running. It is completely spurious for the Government to claim that it is responsible for establishing Rouse Hill regional park, as it was entirely a coalition initiative. It is evident from the funding provisions in the budget that the park has been pushed into the never-never. The coalition Government originally intended that the park would comprise 165 hectares, and a number of private properties surrounding the land owned by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning were to be acquired to create the park. Although the Minister in her second reading speech finally conceded that a further 110 hectares will be added to the park, I am sceptical that the funding provisions in the budget will allow that addition to occur in my lifetime.

Ms Allan: Is that your political lifetime or your real lifetime?

Mr RICHARDSON: I will live forever! The Labor Party's election platform promised the 50-hectare park, which the previous Government had essentially established. The Minister belatedly - probably after reading the archives left by the previous Minister, the honourable member for Gosford - has found that the park was supposed to comprise 165 hectares, or three times the size of the park proposed by the Labor Party. On 7 December the Minister for the Environment spoke about stage two of the Rouse Hill regional park adding 110 hectares to the site. I am delighted that the Minister has read the files and that she realises that the park is needed for the people of north-western Sydney. An additional 250,000 people will be drawn to the north-west sector of Sydney west of my electorate, and those people will need recreation areas - environmental lungs, breathing space and green space. Unless the Minister is prepared to commit adequate funding to Rouse Hill regional park, these people will miss out again and some of the planning disasters perpetrated on this city by some previous governments will be repeated on the people of the north-west. That is reprehensible and should be avoided at all costs. I challenge the Minister to increase the level of funding for regional parks in the next budget to enable her to fulfil her promises.

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield - Minister for Small Business and Regional Development, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State Development) [9.44]: I am delighted to speak to this amendment.

Mr Longley: It is not an amendment; it is a bill.

Mr SCULLY: It is a measure to create a new category of park. I understood that it was an amendment to the National Parks and Wildlife Act.

Ms Allan: It is.

Mr SCULLY: Therefore, it is an amendment - the honourable member is wrong. I took a heavy hand in the planning for Western Sydney Regional Park when the previous Government sought to perpetrate an outrage upon my electorate by rezoning 100 hectares of land for medium-density and high-density housing. It became a heated issue in the Smithfield electorate. Following discussions with the Minister for the Environment when she was shadow minister, she made a commitment prior to the election with the current Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning to set the area aside as a regional park. I put the matter to the then Leader of the Opposition, and he was convinced by the argument. As a result, the 1,000-hectare Western Sydney Regional Park, which is entirely within the Smithfield electorate, will become probably the largest urban park in Australia.

I am pleased to be able to say today on behalf of my electorate that this park is another tick for the Government and another tick for an election promise fulfilled. The park will protect an extremely valuable open space not only for the people of western Sydney but also for the rest of New South Wales. I invite anyone who has not visited Horsley Park to visit Fairfield city farm, which comprises 180 hectares of the 1,000 hectares. This wonderful development, which has taken about 10 years to create, attracts visitors from all over Sydney, but particularly western Sydney. Fairfield city farm will continue to lease the area from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Greening Australia is doing tremendous work in revegetating much of the cleared area.

I understand that $750,000 worth of trees have already been planted and that another $250,000 worth of trees will be planted this financial year. I am pleased that $3 million has been allocated for capital works in the Western Sydney and Rouse Hill regional parks. I look forward in the ensuing weeks and months to the Minister for the Environment explaining how the capital works will be implemented and what work will be performed at Western Sydney Regional Park. I congratulate the Minister for the Environment. This legislation represents a big tick for the Government and the fulfilment of an election promise for the people of my electorate.

Ms NORI (Port Jackson) [9.47]: I start where the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development finished: by congratulating the Government and the Minister for the Environment on this innovative legislation.

Page 4859

Mr Longley: Self-congratulation is the highest form of praise!

Ms NORI: Is that right? It is all right for members of the Opposition in their leafy north shore suburbs, but those of us who represent inner city electorates are very grateful for the creation of additional public open space, particularly when a number of former industrial sites are about to be redeveloped for housing. I am afraid that the former Government did not recognise the need for open space. In recognising that need the Government is fulfilling an election promise. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, will remember when you, the then Leader of the Opposition, the current Premier, and I inspected the regional park sites late last year and when the commitment to create the parks was made. The legislation will give a great gift to Sydney for not only the current generation of Sydneysiders but also future generations. No price can be put on the pleasure and recreational opportunities that will be provided by the regional parks. They are the intangibles of life that we soon miss when they are unavailable. This policy is a commitment to the preservation of urban bushland and regional open space.

The reservation of urban regional open-space parks currently has no legislative base, but this bill will amend the National Parks and Wildlife Act to create a new reserve category of regional park to accommodate urban parks. The legislation includes provisions banning prospecting, mining and related activities in regional parks, consistent with the Labor Party's policy to prohibit mining in national parks. A regional park may be managed by a trust that will be accountable to the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife. The Minister for the Environment, however, will continue to appoint trustees. Where a trust is not appointed to a regional park, the director-general will exercise care, control and management. The bill contains a number of other conditions to ensure that the parks will work properly.

The greening of Sydney policy, which has prompted the bill, will deliver seven new regional open-space parks and seven new national parks and nature reserves in and around Sydney and increase the size of seven existing national parks and nature reserves. These seven new regional parks are 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. These parks will prove to be a great addition to Sydney's open-space requirements. Of particular interest in the Port Jackson electorate are the Rozelle Hospital grounds, about which the Premier and I made an election promise to the people of that electorate late last year. It is good that the plan is being negotiated between the Department of Health and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Whatever happens, the park will not interfere in any way with the workings of the hospital.

The Rozelle Hospital site is adjacent to a number of existing foreshore access parks and walks. The site will add to the value of those walks and parks. The site is located between the hospital and the Leichhardt Aquatic Centre and is part of the bay run that links Leichhardt, Balmain, Birkenhead Point, the Leichhardt Rowing Club and King George Park. This site will provide a valuable asset for inner-city residents. Further out, such parks will have regional open-space significance. Creation of these parks is part of a trend. Increasingly inner city residents are realising that they live close to valuable foreshore land. When I was growing up in the inner city no-one thought of Glebe as a waterfront suburb, yet it is, as is Pyrmont and parts of Leichhardt, Balmain and Rozelle.

I see no reason why inner-city suburbs such as Pyrmont, Glebe, Rozelle, and indeed Annandale, cannot in future enjoy the facilities and recreational opportunities that have long been enjoyed by their wealthy cousins on the north shore. There is increasing evidence that residents of the inner city find that the southern harbour foreshore offers opportunities for sailing, rowing and other uses. The lifestyle of inner-city dwellers is quite stressful. We live in fairly cramped conditions, by Sydney standards, with congested traffic conditions and parking problems. The profile of an inner-city resident tends to be that of a professional person in a stressful job. People in the inner city should have access to recreational opportunities, which can only be enhanced by these open space areas.

Leichhardt municipality is short on open space, and in that regard compares poorly with other municipalities. We will be grateful for this additional open space. Urban consolidation policies must recognise that amenities and facilities given up by those who live in a medium-density environment have to be made good within the public sector, in other words through recreational opportunities in public open space. We cannot take the path of the previous coalition Government towards the zoning of extraordinary levels of medium-density dwellings without adequate open space in Balmain, not far from the Rozelle site. We cannot have it both ways. If inner-city residents have to live in congested and cramped conditions, albeit close to the city, with the advantages that brings, the disadvantages must also be recognised. Those disadvantages have to be made good by provision of open space for the sanity and physical recreation of residents. Also, in a biological sense, the city needs its lungs.

Mr Schultz: We have the same argument in the bush, but no consideration is given.

Ms NORI: If you would like to have all the medium-density housing in Balmain and the housing that is proposed for that area, you can have it. Urban consolidation brings with it certain disadvantages, which have to be made good. This park will make a contribution to the lifestyle of my
Page 4860
constituents in the inner city. I congratulate the Minister on her prompt attention to the delivery of this election promise.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [9.55], in reply: I thank honourable members from both sides of the Chamber who have participated in such a purposeful and positive way in the debate on the proposal to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Act to ensure that the Government's promises on establishing regional parks in urban areas are fulfilled. There was an uncharacteristic spirit of optimism in the debate, though members opposite still express cynicism about the Government's capacity to fund these regional parks adequately. Governments of any political persuasion have competing political priorities at budget time. Any government will have difficulty wriggling out of responsibility for adequately funding regional parks.

We are not hiding these parks; we are not tucking them away out the back of Tibooburra, Broken Hill or Burrinjuck. We are ensuring that sizeable parks are placed, with a fair amount of fanfare, in metropolitan areas, at this stage at least in Sydney and perhaps in future in other areas. The Western Sydney Regional Park proposed for south-west Sydney, the Rouse Hill Regional Park proposed for north-west Sydney, the park at Rozelle that the honourable member for Port Jackson referred to, and those around Gladesville and Concord hospitals, referred to by the honourable member for Gladesville, will be in prominent urban locations. Governments of any political persuasion will create for themselves a political blight if they create cinderella parks but do not provide adequate money to maintain them over ensuing decades. Local communities, particularly those in urban areas, will develop deep expectations of proper park maintenance. There is the option to appoint local regional park trusts with local community membership.

Mr Schultz: Horse riders?

Ms ALLAN: Trust members will probably be sailboard enthusiasts or have other interests, and they will keep a close eye on the operation of the trusts. Mr Speaker, one of the proposed parks will be in the important electorate of Drummoyne. I know from your involvement in Drummoyne politics that you will be not only expecting the Government to deliver an excellent park in the Drummoyne area but also encouraging local participation in its management. The nervous nellies opposite do not fully appreciate the politics inherent in the creation of these regional parks. Creation of these parks meets people's expectations, but those expectations will continue to expand. People will compare the new regional parks with other long-established parks. People will still want to visit Centennial Park and Bicentennial Park, even though the creation of other parks will relieve visitor pressure on them. Parks such as Hyde Park and even parks administered by other authorities such as local councils and the Sydney City Council will be the yardsticks against which people will compare their local regional parks.

A lot of pressure will be placed on whatever government is in power to ensure that these parks are maintained at a high standard. For example, Centennial Park will have Olympic usages which will not only attract more people to them but will mean that people will expect the park to be in very good shape. I was amazed by the comments of the honourable member for The Hills who suggested this concept of regional parks was a degradation of or reflected poorly on national parks. I do not know where he is coming from; it was a silly comment for him to make. My colleague the honourable member for Pittwater and others who participated in the debate did not make that kind of comment.

The purpose of amending the National Parks and Wildlife Act in this way is to ensure that there is a new substantial category of park which is different from a State recreation area or a national park. Regional parks will be a new category within the National Parks and Wildlife Act, with an important status and sense of permanency. Certain features distinguish a regional park from other parks. Generally speaking they will be in urban areas and there will not be mining in them, unlike in State recreation areas. Certain provisions have been put into the bill to ensure that regional parks have their own unique quality. No-one should assume that a regional park will be any less a park than the other category of parks covered by the National Parks and Wildlife Act. I was disappointed that there were no contributions from National Party members in this debate. Perhaps they have not read to the bottom of the bill yet. They must not have been listening to my second reading speech, in which I did not attempt to avoid the fact that this bill also corrects that administrative anomaly regarding State recreation areas which have inland waters.

Several years ago in this place that anomaly caused tremendous anxiety. A parliamentary legislative committee discussed the matter, and members from both sides made passionate speeches about the future of inland water storages and State recreation areas like Burrinjuck, Glenbawn, Copeton, Lake Keepit, Burrendong and Wyangala. Members of the National Party passionately expressed their views on these issues and yet today not one of them has congratulated the Government or commented on its initiative in finally sorting out this mess. That mess was caused because the former Minister for the Environment, Tim Moore, did not have the numbers in his Cabinet and consequently was bashed about and rolled by his National Party Cabinet colleagues. He wanted to keep things and they wanted to take things off him. Inevitably he lost and they won. It created an enormous political stink.

No attempt was made to rationally explore the nature conservation values of the various areas in contention and to decide dispassionately which areas should be administered by the Department of Land
Page 4861
and Water Conservation - the former Department of Conservation and Land Management - and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Members of the Government at the time had this foolish view that the National Parks and Wildlife Service could not possibly manage these areas properly, and they had to be managed by another department. Many disaffected people in the community realised the nature conservation values of those areas and knew that they were being ignored by the former Government. Since the Labor Government came to office it has sought to objectively assess the nature conservation criteria of these parks and has come up with a workable solution that satisfies the Department of Land and Water Conservation and its constituency and also the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Government's solution will ensure that the areas that do not have significant conservation value stay with that department. The areas that do have conservation value, such as the area where Trial Bay gaol is -

Mr Jeffery: Arakoon.

Ms ALLAN: Arakoon State Recreation Area, as the honourable member for Oxley well knows. I recently met with the trustees of Arakoon who are keen to participate in this transfer process.

Mr Jeffery: They have a good member, too.

Ms ALLAN: They have an excellent member on this issue. He has not sought to undermine their efforts to make sure that the trust's activities are viable. The areas that should be kept have been kept, and the others have been left with the Department of Land and Water Conservation. The Government has approached this matter in a sensible way. I thank honourable members for the bipartisan approach of their contributions to this debate. I am sure that approach will be carried over in the Legislative Council. Some purists on the conservation side probably think that regional parks should not be a concern of the environment portfolio. Those people fail to appreciate the pressing demands being placed on growth areas such as the Sydney metropolitan area. Any green spaces left in Sydney should be protected for all time, as the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development made clear in his reference to the Western Sydney Regional Park. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 6 December.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.08]: I lead for the Opposition on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Contaminated Land) Bill. This is important legislation as it relates to the overall planning and consent powers of planning authorities in relation to their liability when they exercise their functions regarding contaminated land. Honourable members will be aware of the Armidale City Council case, which was not alluded to by the Minister in his second reading speech, but which caused me some concern when I was Minister for the Environment. The Armidale City Council was held liable by the courts in respect of an approval it had granted to a subdivision of land at Armidale that had previously been used by a firm which treated telegraph poles for termite protection. Over the years chemical residue had been poured onto the land. When the company went out of business it sought to subdivide the land and the council, not being aware of the effect of the contamination, acted in accordance with ordinary planning requirements and approved the subdivision.

When home owners purchased the land they discovered it was contaminated. Eventually, they successfully sued the council for negligence. It has been a major concern of local government and consent authorities, especially in relation to land in the inner-city areas of Sydney, that if they consent to developments or rezonings, or introduce a new zoning of land, somehow they may be held liable for negligence if extensive measures are not taken to ensure that the land is decontaminated. This legislation seeks to do what the Fahey Government intended; that is, to introduce good practice guidelines to be drafted by the Environment Protection Authority and by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. If those guidelines are followed in good faith by the councils or the planning authorities, they will provide councils with a shield against legal liability. This does not mean that if they act negligently or outside the parameters of good faith they will hold a shield; that will be so only if they act responsibly within those guidelines.

The councils and planning authorities need to know what the guidelines will be. They have not yet been promulgated. The bill simply sets out a statutory mechanism to amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act by inserting a new section 145B into the Act, and provides that the planning authorities acting in accordance with the guidelines which are to be published will have that legal shield termed an exemption from liability. The Opposition intends to scrutinise carefully the rules of good practice once they are published. We would expect them to be fair and to take into account the various historic situations regarding land and its future development.

The Opposition accepts that if local government authorities and planning authorities are going to allow subdivisions, rezonings or new developments, they need to be able to act with a certain degree of assurance and they need to have guidelines within which they may act. The orderly development of the State is dependent upon that form of advice being available to them. They acknowledge that they are not experts in this field but can only act upon the advice provided to them by experts. Accordingly, the State Opposition does not oppose this legislation.

Page 4862

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [10.11], in reply: I am delighted to respond to the comments of the honourable member for Gosford. If the Fahey Government had this legislation in train, it was like a lot of other things that the Fahey Government had in train - it was running very late and there was not much urgency associated with the need to tackle what the honourable member for Gosford claims he, as a Cabinet member, identified as a major problem. It is a bit like the stage two protection of the environment legislation, for which the honourable member for Gosford was directly responsible.

That legislation was discussed on many occasions but very little action was taken by the previous Government to progress fundamental issues for environmental protection in this State. I have often commented that six or eight months ago, when I became Minister for the Environment, I expected to open the doors of the office and find planning material on actions the former Government was taking on rationalising, streamlining, protection of the environment administration legislation, and contaminated lands legislation. When we opened the cupboards all we found were empty beer bottles and Priscilla compact discs. We did not find the material that the honourable member claims the former Government treated with such urgency.

I congratulate the Minister responsible for urban affairs on introducing this legislation. I also congratulate the Environment Protection Authority because it has acted swiftly in the last two months to help the Government reach the point where it is starting to remove some of the uncertainty of local councils about issues associated with contaminated lands and development on those lands. Land has become a precious resource both in Sydney and outside Sydney, in regional areas like the area that you represent, Mr Acting-Speaker. There has been pressure over the years to consider the suitable development of lands that have had various uses - sometimes toxic and other contaminated uses.

The pressure has been on councils from local communities and local developers to get those lands into shape so they can be made suitable for development. Often the lands are located in areas that are very close to the centre of a community, and would be ideal sites for redevelopment. The equipment to ensure that redevelopment and planning guidelines, zoning conditions and expectations are met were not available in the past. The previous Government did very little to ensure that those anomalies were corrected and that the strong expectations of local councils were met and they would not be the only authorities responsible for the issue.

The honourable member for Gosford referred to the Armidale matter as if it were a recent problem. The problems in Armidale City Council with the Market Street development go back to the late 1980s when the Hon. Tim Moore was unsatisfactorily trying to deal with the issue. He was driven by community pressure, council was driven by community pressure, the State Government was driven by community pressure and the Federal Government was being driven by community pressure. That pressure was generated by local residents whose houses were built on bubbling toxic masses. The material was bubbling up in their front and backyards.

I had the opportunity to visit the area many years ago and saw the nature of the problem. Governments have supposedly been grappling to arrive at a resolution of this problem ever since. It is appalling that it has taken so long for such simple amendments to be moved. The previous Government made no effort to do so. I also had the opportunity to inspect the old gasworks site at Maitland during the election campaign. That is an ideal site for redevelopment. What action did the former Government take to make sure the local council and the local community did not continue to be burdened with such an impossible site?

This amendment to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act begins the process. I had the opportunity to launch the guidelines that the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning will send to local authorities on Monday. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning and I jointly endorse the guidelines. They are the result of efforts by his department and my authority, in consultation with local councils, to ensure that at last local government and local communities have a more predictable framework within which to operate when tackling this question. There are contaminated sites all over New South Wales, and the Government is under pressure to do something about them.

The guidelines and the amendment to the legislation will contribute to that process of injecting predictability and rationality into a debate that was largely ignored by the former State Government. Next year I will issue a discussion paper specifically anticipating the contaminated lands legislation to which the Government is committed. That will be issued in the first half of next year, and later next year there will be an opportunity to debate new legislation which it is hoped will deal with every major issue of consequence in this debate and will at long last remove the uncertainty.

I look forward to more bipartisan support from members opposite on this issue. I hope they will not do what they have been doing in the last few weeks and seize the opportunity for petty political point scoring on an issue that they should have tackled when they were in government but chose to ignore. The Government needs more cooperative support from the Opposition in the future. I look forward to its wholehearted support by the end of next year when the new legislation comes before the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Page 4863

Debate resumed from 7 December.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.19]: I lead for the Opposition on this bill. The Minister for the Environment has issued a pathetic plea for bipartisanship, but all she can do is make nonsensical, irrelevant remarks about contaminated lands. The Minister gets the sort of bipartisanship she deserves. She will get it only if she can give coherent, sensible reasons for her decisions and she will be held accountable not only for the decisions she makes but for the mismanagement of her portfolio, which continues to unfold. It was delightful to hear her talk about her relationship with the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning.

Ms Allan: On a point of order: I appreciate the cut and thrust of debate, but the House is debating the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Delegation) Bill. The honourable member is not permitted to revisit the previous legislation. He should address his comments to the bill that is being debated.

Mr HARTCHER: On the point of order: Mr Deputy-Speaker, you were in the chair and I was in the Chamber when the Minister for the Environment, speaking in reply on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Contaminated Land) Bill, gave us a discourse on the stage two legislation. The Minister covered the whole field of the legislation, which was not relevant to that bill. If you are going to call me to order now, the appropriate position would have been to call the Minister to order on that occasion for her irrelevant remarks about the stage two legislation. The Minister is a hypocrite and she cannot have it both ways.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Whether or not the Minister for the Environment is a hypocrite is not a matter for the Chair to decide. The honourable member for Gosford had an opportunity to take a point of order during his contribution but chose not to. I uphold the Minister's point of order and ask the member to return to the leave of the bill.

Mr HARTCHER: I accept the label that you have agreed applies to the Minister for the Environment. The fact that this legislation, introduced by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, bears close relationship to that of the Minister for the Environment relating to threatened species has become an open secret around Parliament House. The love-in sessions that the two Ministers have had as they yelled at each other about the legislation are well known, but I will deal with that at another time. It is interesting to note that that suggestion is not denied by the Minister. She recalls the bitter exchanges between herself and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning in recent days.

This legislation introduced by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and not by the Minister for the Environment, seeks to amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act by inserting a new section 153A. Honourable members are advised by the Government that that section seeks to allow a consent authority to further delegate to its officers the power delegated to it by the Director-General of Planning, if it chooses to do so. The general principle of law is expressed in the Latin maxim, delegatus non potest delegare, which means that a delegate cannot delegate.

Ms Allan: Don't talk dirty.

Mr HARTCHER: The ignorance of the Minister is now revealed. Not only does she not understand Latin, she does not understand legal maxims.

Ms Allan: On a point of order: I achieved an excellent second level pass in Latin in my higher school certificate examination.

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

Mr HARTCHER: The Minister, who represents not only the people of Blacktown but the State of New South Wales in Cabinet, is unable to understand a simple Latin phrase. Her statement reveals a mind that immediately thinks of sex. That is a self-revelatory statement. The maxim that a delegate, having received a delegated power, cannot delegate is well known and applies in this instance under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The powers having been delegated by the director-general cannot be further delegated. That places a burden upon the consent authorities who would normally, in the exercise of their own functions, delegate those powers to their officers. The Opposition has been advised that by this legislation the Government seeks only to ensure that powers, once delegated to the consent authorities, can be further delegated to officers of those consent authorities.

Of course, the consent authorities will be responsible for the actions of their officers, must still determine whether they will delegate those powers to their officers, and must receive reports from their officers. The Opposition has received an assurance from the Government that the legislation is limited in its scope and seeks only to comply with the principles that were set out in the Local Government Act 1993 - which allowed councils, the principal consent authorities referred to in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, to further delegate powers. The Opposition is prepared to support the legislation, given those assurances and in the spirit of the legislation as presented to the House.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [10.25], in reply: I will resist the provocation meted out this morning by the honourable member for Gosford.

Page 4864

Mr Phillips: You were savaged!

Ms ALLAN: I have been savaged. I feel wounded and it is difficult to cope after that onslaught. Essentially, the honourable member has tried to convert what is a fairly low-key debate on a fairly low-key but nevertheless very important bill, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Delegation) Bill, into a frenzied debate, because he is attempting to hide his own inadequacies. Honourable members can tell that he is really fighting to maintain his front-bench position. Honourable members will have read the publicity about the hit list of failed shadow ministers compiled by the honourable member for Wagga Wagga. The honourable member for Gosford featured prominently on that list. Since then honourable members will have observed an enormous upsurge of energy and aggression from certain members opposite, and the honourable member for Gosford is one of them.

I do not believe that honourable members should exchange blows about the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Delegation) Bill. It would be better to wait for another day. I thank the honourable member for his support for the bill. As the relevant Minister outlined in his second reading speech, the purpose of the bill is to enable a person or body who comes within the definition of "public authority" in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to delegate any functions conferred or imposed on the person or body by or under that Act. As the Minister has said on a previous occasion - and I assume the shadow minister was attempting to say - this legislation will give such public authorities the tools to overcome various administrative defects that they currently experience, where such powers would have otherwise been required to have been exercised personally by the public authority. This is very simple, yet very significant, legislation, which I commend to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 6 December.

Mr SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [10.28]: In recent years the livestock industry in New South Wales has suffered from the effects of chemical residues. Dieldrin, arsenic, DDT, and more recently HGP - or hormonal growth promotants - chlorfluazuron under the common trade name of Helix, and fluazuron under the brand name of Acatak, have created problems for the livestock industry, and particularly for the cattle industry. Hormonal growth promotants have created a most difficult situation in regard to our exports to the European Union. Many of our trading opponents will resort to any excuse to stop exports of Australian produce to what they believe are their markets. The worst situation arose only a couple of years ago when the product Helix, or chlorofluazuron, was detected by a private cattle processor in Australia. Helix, as it is commonly called, was fed to stock during the drought, mainly in the form of cotton trash. It was supplied free to cattle producers by cotton farmers as a gesture of goodwill. Helix is 10 times less toxic than sodium chloride, that is common house salt. One would have to eat three tonnes of meat in one sitting to have any reaction, even the dullest headache, to Helix.

Helix is not exactly a pesticide but it is virtually a year 2000 chemical for the control of insects in vegetables and cotton crops. The Japanese accept 10 parts per million in their vegetable crops. However, when this unknown substance was detected by a private meat company in Australia and finally identified as chlorofluazuron, in 24 hours a headline in Japan stated "Chemicals contaminate Australian beef". As I said, our competitors are only too keen to take advantage of us. I particularly hold in contempt the United States, our greatest ally in defence but now our greatest competitor, and certainly not a fair trader with Australia. The Japanese must also be condemned because they accept 10 parts per million in vegetables for human consumption, but will not allow even two parts, or even one part, per million in Australian exports.

The media must take some credit for the severe attack on our export industries. In particular I mention the outbreak of mad cow disease in Great Britain some time ago. The media claimed that a person who had thrown a fit after consuming beefsteak must have been suffering from mad cow disease. It is ironic that sales of beefsteak in Great Britain fell by 70 per cent, but beef mince sales were not affected. That shows the power of the media. A wonderful chemical in the form of chlorofluazuron, an insect growth promotant regulator, has been ruined by misunderstanding and misinformation, and that is sad. The Minister is aware that approximately 2,000 head of cattle in New South Wales still have a high level of parts per million of Helix in their fat content. The Government has already allocated $1 million to assist cattle producers who have been left in dire straits because of the chemical.

Many thousands of head of cattle have reached the permissible limit and can now be sold, but about 2,000 head still cannot be sold. In the budget the Minister allocated $5 million - $2.5 million belongs to cattle producers - $1 million of which have already been spent. I strongly suggest that the Minister take action; he should bite the bullet, go past the Department of Agriculture bureaucrats, and compensate the owners to get rid of those 2,000 head of cattle. That will create no threat; indeed, it will enhance confidence in our exports. Cotton
Page 4865
chemical residue in our export industry is a serious matter. Lives have been ruined, especially by the outbreak of high Helix residue. I fully support the bill, and now is the time to act. We cannot allow past situations to reoccur. Technology is becoming much more accurate, and it will not be long before the beef industry is hurt by the detection of chemical residues from other fertilisers and drugs.

Other industries are also at risk, including the beekeeping industry, which is a multimillion dollar export industry; the sheep and wool industries; the fruit industry; the vegetable industry; and even the cut flower industry, which is gaining a reputation for being clean and green. We must guard our reputation among our customers, because our competitors will use anything to discredit us; irrespective of whether Helix has been proved to be harmful or dangerous, and irrespective of the truth. The Japanese and the Americans should be condemned as hypocrites of the first order. We must be ever vigilant and show our customers that we are pro-active, quality conscious and responsible players in the world market. The Opposition supports the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Price.


Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [10.37], by leave: I wish to make a ministerial statement. The Government is committed to fundamentally reforming housing policy to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. The housing policies of the past are no longer adequate for the needs of the present and the challenges of the future. New directions are needed to meet the Government's social justice and micro-reform objectives. The quality of housing affects employment choices, access to education, transport options, recreational activities and quality of life. Housing demand patterns are shifting dramatically.

It is already widely accepted that demographic change has had a major impact on housing needs. In particular, declining household size and the ageing of the population have created a need for smaller dwellings. Economic and social trends are transforming where we work and live - reshaping our housing needs and preferences. The Government believes that housing choices for people on low and moderate incomes are too limited to enable them to cope with the pace and extent of changes. Access to home ownership for these groups has declined steadily. Our existing public housing system, which has been the safety net for more than fifty years, is run down and slow to respond to the changing needs of many of its clients. More than 53 per cent of the public housing stock is more than 20 years old; only 21 per cent is less than 10 years old.

The Carr Government has inherited a public housing waiting list of more than 88,000. More than 96 per cent of families in public housing receive some form of income support. It is time for all governments to realise that the needs of public housing clients extend beyond just shelter. They require broader assistance to access employment, training and other opportunities. This can only be achieved by offering greater housing choice and flexibility. Today I am releasing a green paper which explores these issues in more detail and calls for public comment.

The aim of the green paper is clear - to enable more housing choices, and to improve the quality of public housing stock. This underscores the Government's support for a strong and viable social housing sector. The Government cannot do this job alone. Working with other players in the housing system is vital to ensure that all avenues for success and innovation are explored. We will build strategic partnerships with the housing industry, the financial sector, non-government organisations, the private sector and other levels of government. Equally important are dramatic improvements in the management of all aspects of the operations of the Department of Housing. The New South Wales Government housing policy green paper proposes fundamental reforms in five key areas: reforming housing assistance, better quality social housing, improving service delivery, access and equity, and influencing market outcomes. The outcome of the discussions and consultation on these issues will place New South Wales at the forefront of the national housing reform agenda. And of course, that is entirely appropriate.

New South Wales has the largest asset base, longest waiting list and the most rapidly changing demand patterns, both demographic and locational. Earlier this week the Prime Minister, in his "Community and Nation" statement, presented the States, especially New South Wales, with an opportunity. The Prime Minister's statement is one of the most important social reform initiatives to be undertaken by any government since the Second World War. It proposes fundamental reform in the provision of social housing. The reforms include: first, States taking responsibility for property and tenancy management while the Commonwealth assumes responsibility for ensuring that people can afford the housing provided; second, substantial increases in rent assistance to encourage greater use of the private sector rental market; third, ensuring that new public tenants will not pay more than 25 per cent of their income on housing; and fourth, the opportunity for recipients of rent assistance to convert their payments to lump sums to allow them entry into home purchase.

These reforms will take time. They are not a quick fix. This is a change in policy underscored by a philosophical shift recognising the need for people to exercise choice in the location and type of social housing provided. As the Commonwealth has commenced the task of reform, so must the States.
Page 4866
Yesterday I attended the meeting of housing Ministers in Victoria, where these issues were debated. Even States with conservative governments recognise the need to significantly reform the next Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. With that in mind, the Ministers conference agreed to negotiate a three-year agreement to allow the transition to take place. That is good news for New South Wales as we now have the flexibility to work with the Commonwealth and embrace reform.

At present, around 45 per cent of the 2.2 million households in New South Wales own their own home and 25 per cent are purchasing their dwelling. Twenty per cent of households rent privately and 6 per cent rent public housing. The demand for rental housing is rising. A factor affecting this is lower inflation, which reduces the prospect of capital gains from home ownership - but in other cases households are opting for the more flexible housing tenure that renting provides. A recent national study of housing needs indicates that at least 150,000 households in New South Wales require further assistance to access private rental housing of a size, location and cost appropriate to their circumstances. Most of these households are in Sydney. Many have the capacity to remain in private rental housing, with an increased level of rent assistance. Others require housing not provided by the private market and will benefit most from public or community housing options.

The range of households requesting housing assistance is more diverse than in the past. Groups with needs not well catered for by past approaches include refugees, single people and people living with HIV-AIDS. Homelessness, particularly amongst young people, older single men, and women escaping domestic violence, remains a serious problem. Of all groups requiring direct assistance, Aboriginal people have the greatest relative need - approximately 30 per cent of indigenous households experience after-housing poverty. The most complex needs group is that of people with disabilities. At present around one in five applications for public housing are from this group. The green paper has five key strategies aimed at responding to changing community needs. All of the measures outlined in the paper will be funded from existing sources and additional Commonwealth funding, and through the greater flexibility available to the States under the proposed new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement.

I turn to reforming of housing assistance. The separation of Commonwealth and State roles will help overcome inequities between public and private tenants. It will relieve affordability pressures which affect the high demand for public housing, particularly in Sydney. To increase the choice for clients the New South Wales Government will: improve the accountability and service standards of housing providers; substantially increase the range of housing providers by expanding community-managed housing and Aboriginal housing, and, through building partnerships with non-government organisations and the private sector; and, explore the establishment of a new social housing register to allow clients to nominate public or community-based options and express their preference for housing tenure. We also propose to introduce a new accountability and performance based regime. Integral to this is the establishment of a housing charter that will apply to all current and future housing providers.

The Government will also explore the opportunity to create a new governance model for the Department of Housing. These initiatives are all in the context of the Government's commitment to maintain and increase the supply of social rental housing commensurate with need. The Government intends to have better quality social housing. In the past governments have put all their money into building and owning more houses. This has meant neglecting maintenance and allowing the existing housing stock to deteriorate. The chronic underfunding of public housing maintenance, the failure to upgrade public housing estates and the lack of an asset management strategy cast the quality of existing public housing stock in a very poor light. Already, the Government has increased the maintenance expenditure in 1995-96 by 13 per cent to $93 million.

Further, the Government will increase expenditure up to the industry rule of thumb of an average 1.5 per cent of the replacement value of the housing stock. We will spend $143 million over four years to improve large public housing estates in addition to the public housing upgrade and redevelopment programs. Obviously, the challenge for the Government is to strike the right balance between providing more housing to satisfy unmet needs and redressing the years of neglect. The green paper proposes a major increase in expenditure on maintaining and improving the existing housing, coupled with the use of more private sector funds to provide additional subsidised housing. The Government intends to use the greater flexibility provided to the States under the proposed new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement to maximise improvements in the value and condition of existing public housing over the next three financial years.

The Government will improve service delivery. It believes that past approaches to customer service provision in housing have been far from satisfactory. The Government proposes to focus on designing new service options recognising that most clients in the housing system are also clients of other government services. A whole-of-government approach, across all three levels of government, is required to coordinate the planning and delivery of housing and to link it to other assistance services. As an initial step, the Government proposes to identify key housing workers within the Department of Housing to act as service coordinators and to ensure that there is a timely response when a tenant's support needs
Page 4867
change. To respond more effectively to the needs of individual clients, the Government will work with the Commonwealth to design and pilot customised assistance packages. These packages could be tailored to a range of individual circumstances and will seek to target assistance funds more efficiently. Improvements to service delivery will also be achieved through the establishment of a strong code of practice to apply to the Department of Housing and to all other providers of housing assistance. The code will set out the standards and quality of service a customer can reasonably expect and offer fast and direct means of redress for complaints.

I turn to access and equity. The Government recognises that there are certain groups in the community who have special needs. To overcome past discrimination against many of these groups, the Government proposes to develop and adopt a full needs-based approach to targeting housing assistance. A number of specific initiatives designed to overcome immediate gaps in present arrangements are also proposed, including: developing special assistance arrangements for refugees in cooperation with the Commonwealth; increasing the provision of crisis accommodation, particularly for homeless women; increasing housing options for single people; and improving the housing situation of people living in boarding houses. Homeless people will be assisted by the new five-year supported accommodation assistance program agreed with the Commonwealth. Aboriginal people, people living with HIV-AIDS and people with disabilities are also identified as groups with special needs who will receive additional earmarked funding.

On the subject of influencing market outcomes, the Government intends to take a leading role in addressing housing market issues with key market players. Some 93 per cent of New South Wales residents rely on the private sector to meet their housing needs. The Government's objective in taking a more proactive stand in the private housing market is twofold. First, the Government wants to ensure that its policies for more compact, cost-effective and environmentally sustainable cities do not make housing more expensive. Second, the Government wants to use its influence to relieve housing cost pressures by encouraging innovative design, financing, planning and construction mechanisms. The Government also proposes to work more collaboratively with local councils to encourage the formulation of residential development strategies and local housing strategies to increase the choice and diversity of housing provided in local areas.

To achieve these objectives I propose, among other initiatives, to establish a ministerial task force on housing to promote the role of the private sector and local government in responding to housing demand. This green paper outlines proposals for a more diversified and comprehensive approach to meeting the community's housing needs. The proposals are open to discussion. The paper also includes a range of specific housing initiatives that the Government considers should and could be implemented immediately. The green paper is presented to generate debate about the issues it raises, and is seeking support for substantial reform of traditional housing policy approaches. A housing summit, proposed for mid-1996 will provide a collaborative forum whereby the community can participate with the Government in shaping the future of the State's housing system. I believe the proposed new policy directions will lay the foundations for ongoing renewal of the housing system and will establish New South Wales as a model for other States.

However, the important and final point is to recognise that the models that have driven the provision of social housing for the past five decades have passed their use-by date. Just as the Carr Government has reformed outdated industry models in the provision of transport, electricity and water, it is also committed to the reform of social programs. This Labor Government does not see economic reform as a separate activity from social reform. Rather, the Government believes that social reform will follow as a result of economic reform. In that context opening a closed housing market to other providers, including the private sector, will serve the dual purpose of providing investment opportunities while getting social housing clients a better deal - more choice, better service, better outcomes for all. It is only by linking the economic reforms that are occurring not only in this State but nationally through the Council of Australian Goverments to this social agenda that we can ever hope to avoid the establishment of a divided community of haves and have-nots, of those with opportunity and choice and those that are relegated to the margins of our society. I commend the green paper to the House.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.53]: I welcome the conceptual statement issued today by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing and acknowledge the exciting challenge that the new discussions on the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement pose to housing both for the public and the private sectors. The provision of public housing has been largely unchanged since its introduction in the post-war period when large housing estates were planned by the Commonwealth and State on a joint basis and large numbers of people moved into them without adequate provision for employment or other social services. Many of these estates still exist today but are run down and neglected with the passage of time. There is quite a major challenge to rejuvenate and develop them as suitable living space both for their existing occupants and for future generations.

It would appear to be one of the more interesting and significant initiatives that have emerged from the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. But like all such agreements it will depend very much upon finance and the willingness of governments at a State and Federal level to
Page 4868
ensure the flow of money necessary to rejuvenate and redevelop these antiquated estates. I also welcome the Minister's announcement that there is to be a green paper, a discussion paper, on the various aspects of new housing initiatives for New South Wales following on from the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement.

The problem is whether the Government has the will to finance and implement what are simply stated as broad principles. The principles announced by the Minister today are extremely general. The conceptual framework would not essentially be challenged by most thinking people, but the wherewithal and finance to implement the framework will have to be examined. The plight of the homeless remains a standing indictment on this Government and on society generally. We have a growing number of homeless suffering from mental disability, a growing number of homeless women and an ever increasing number of homeless children - and they are a challenge to our conscience.

It is clear that if we are to have a successful new approach to housing throughout the State and the Commonwealth we urgently need to address how we adequately provide for these people in a cost-effective way and also in a way that ensures that their human dignity is maintained. Many schemes have been proposed over a long period. Some have failed through lack of financial commitment and others have simply failed to acknowledge the human dignity of the people in need of assistance, and have accordingly become a blight on our social conscience. It will be very interesting to see how the green paper tackles this overwhelming social need to provide assistance for the homeless, especially those who are simply unable to look after themselves for whatever reason.

Whilst I therefore welcome the Government's outline of its housing policy, we must look at the fine print and the implementation. A crucial aspect of housing remains with the position of the ordinary home buyer in the private sector. The Minister said that 93 per cent of housing stock is in the private sector. This Government's failure to develop an assistance program for young first home buyers - the only State in Australia without an assistance program - is an indictment upon it; it is a matter that the Minister failed to address in his statement. It is not sufficient simply to state, as he did, that he and the Government intend to take a more proactive stand. The essential necessity to provide assistance to first home buyers, with the deposit gap and, if possible, recurrent assistance to ensure low interest loans, is a challenge to government at both State and Federal levels.

It was disappointing that the ministerial statement was so skimpy on detail about this 93 per cent of the home market. Unless the Government is prepared to bite the bullet and accept that it has a responsibility towards first home buyers, it will fail in the discharge of its housing responsibilities. The Minister has announced there is to be a ministerial task force on housing but has failed to tell us its composition, its terms of reference and its reporting deadlines. He also said there is to be a housing summit in mid-1996, but once again gave only skimpy details of it. The Opposition welcomes the green paper as a discussion document and the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement in its draft form as an essential new attempt to blaze a housing policy path, as long as there is adequate provision for accommodation for the homeless, the disabled and for those unable to look after themselves. These people are growing in number, not declining, under this Government.

The Opposition welcomes the discussion paper if the Government is prepared to address the waiting list, which the Minister acknowledged is the longest in Australia per head of population - another indictment on this Government. This Minister may make a fine statement of broad conceptual principles but the proof of the pudding on housing is very much in the eating. If in 12 months the Minister once again gives us generalised statements about new horizons in housing and has not provided for the homeless, has not cut the waiting lists and the waiting time and has not established a program to assist first home buyers, this Government will be seen to be the emperor without clothes.

The Opposition welcomes the discussion paper and will study it. It will participate in the housing summit and will hold this Government accountable to assist the homeless in this State, the first home buyers in this State, to redevelop and rejuvenate the vast housing commission estates in New South Wales along the lines that have been done around the township of Elizabeth, outside Adelaide, where areas have been beautified and rejuvenated and made into modern housing estates, unlike the vast housing estates that Labor governments established in the late 1940s and early 1950s in this State.

This Government has a challenge before it. The Prime Minister's housing strategy, which was announced in Brisbane at a meeting of all housing Ministers, was essentially an election gambit of a desperate Prime Minister who is running out of ideas, initiatives and votes. The program was announced without consultation and has shown that the Prime Minister is geared more towards March 1996 than to the long-term interests of the people of Australia and this State. The Opposition expects the New South Wales Government to do better. It expects the Minister to do better in the discharge of his portfolio responsibilities. The test will come in 12 months time: will waiting list numbers be cut; will there be fewer homeless people in this State; and will there be a scheme to assist first home buyers? They are major challenges for this Minister and this Government if they are serious about the adequate provision of housing in New South Wales.

Page 4869

Consideration of Legislative Council's amendments.

No. 1 Page 7, Schedule 1[6], lines 21-26. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 2 Page 7, Schedule 1[7], lines 29-34. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1A) A subpoena for production of a document or thing may authorise compliance with the subpoena by the production of the document or thing to a specified person at a specified place. However, the person who is required by the subpoena to produce a document or thing can still elect to produce the document or thing at the specified hearing of the action or of proceedings ancillary to the action.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the Committee agree to the Legislative Council's amendments.

Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported from Committee, and report adopted.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.02]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Police Service Further Amendment Bill provides for random breath testing of on-duty police officers and enhances protection for police internal informants. The bill is designed to improve police integrity. It represents a further stage in the Government's plan to make the Police Service more responsive to the community. On 19 September the Premier made a ministerial statement about the police royal commission. In it he outlined a number of government strategies in response to the revelations of inappropriate - and at times criminal - behaviour by police officers. The Premier said the feasibility of introducing random breath testing of on-duty police officers in areas which the royal commission had highlighted would be examined.

As the Premier said, it is important that the Government takes all possible measures to restore public confidence in the Police Service. That confidence has been severely damaged by the revelations coming from the royal commission about police drinking on duty. In particular, photographs publicised in the media showing detectives lying drunk on the floor whilst on duty have caused considerable community disquiet. The public has a right to expect police officers to go about their work in a responsible manner. Police officers are armed, are often called upon to drive vehicles at high speeds and are given extensive authority and discretion to affect the freedom and personal liberties of the general community. It is essential that an officer's judgment is not affected by alcohol. It is only proper that police officers be required to undertake their onerous tasks sober.

Breath testing of government employees is not without precedent. The Rail Safety Act 1993 permits the breath testing of railway employees who carry out safety work - train drivers are an obvious example. Similarly, the Prisons (Administration) Regulation 1995 provides for the breath testing of prison officers if there is reasonable cause to believe an officer is under the influence of alcohol. Given these existing requirements, it is appropriate that the behaviour of police officers be subject to similar scrutiny. The Police Service Further Amendment Bill provides for the random breath testing of any on-duty police officer with no requirement that there be any reasonable suspicion that an officer is under the influence, and for disciplinary action to be taken against a police officer who refuses to undergo a test. Breath tests will be conducted by a special team led by commissioned officers authorised by the commissioner. Details of the maximum permissible blood alcohol concentration, which it is proposed will be 0.02 millilitres per 100 millilitres of blood, will be set out in the regulations. The regulations will also detail the requirements for recording and accountability of test records and the action to be taken against police who fail a breath test.

As I have said, the decision to introduce random breath testing of police was made in response to evidence arising from the royal commission. The community has a right to expect its police to be sober while on duty. The adoption of this proactive approach again demonstrates this Government's commitment to cleaning up the New South Wales Police Service. I turn now to another matter included in the bill - the creation of an offence of victimisation under the Police Service Act. The Protected Disclosures Act, which commenced on 1 March 1995, makes it an offence to take detrimental action in reprisal against a person who makes a protected disclosure. The maximum penalty for such an offence is 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both. However, to be protected by this Act, a disclosure must be made voluntarily. A disclosure is not considered to be voluntary if it is made under a statutory obligation. Under the terms of the Police Service regulation a police officer is required to report the misconduct of another officer. Therefore, such a disclosure by a police officer is currently not covered by the Protected Disclosures Act.

Page 4870

Whilst the Police Service regulations prohibit victimisation of a police officer by another police officer, such victimisation is dealt with as a disciplinary, not criminal, matter. In Queensland, the Police Service Administration Act contains a criminal offence of victimisation. Police in New South Wales should be protected by the inclusion in the Police Service Act of a criminal offence for victimisation, similar to the offence under section 20 of the Protected Disclosures Act. This offence will be a significant affirmation by the Parliament of the unacceptability of a culture which permits or tolerates the victimisation of officers who do their duty by reporting the misconduct of their colleagues. The bill before the House represents a further step in the Government's continuing reform agenda for the Police Service. The bill, while brief, is important and I call upon all members of the House to support the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr West.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr PRICE (Waratah) [11.07]: I support the Stock (Chemical Residues) Amendment Bill. This legislation will make the Act more flexible as the Minister will be able to declare a chemical residue for the purposes of the Act. In so doing he will be required to take into account a wider class of harmful effects, including the effects on animal and human health, environment and trade in the stock concerned. The provisions of the Act will control stock which has been treated with hormonal growth promotants, which do not leave residues in the animal. The legislation also allows for similar treatment that may come on the market in the future to be included under the provisions of this Act. Although such a substance does not leave residues in the animal, there may be health concerns about whether the treatment has detrimental effects on human health or on trade. The honourable member for Barwon mentioned this problem, which has received adverse publicity. Australia must be sensitive to the perceived concerns, whether real or not, of its international markets and endeavour to get around those concerns in the best way possible.

This legislation will promote better use of chemicals and, hopefully, a better explanation for our customers of the associated problems or, indeed, lack of problems. Rather than the Minister updating the list of residue limits every time the National Food Authority determines a new set of residue limits, provisions in the Act will allow incorporation of the Australian Food Standards code, as published from time to time, to be automatically incorporated as the New South Wales standard to automatically keep the Act up to date with national guidelines as determined by the National Food Authority. I believe that this practical innovation will have the full support of industry. The automatic process will certainly reduce confusion. I imagine that the code will be gazetted instantly. We will not have to wait, as we have in the past, for legislation to be prepared and introduced in this House. I recall discussing with a cotton farmer the problem of cotton waste contaminating export cattle. We are still trying to remove that problem from our export copybook.

Some 120,000 cattle on 200 properties in Queensland have been treated with Acatak, a pour-on product used in the treatment of cattle infested with cattle tick which are resistant to all previously used tick treatments. The active chemical in Acatak is chlorofluazuron, which creates long-lasting residues in treated cattle. It is expected that the United States of America will impose low chemical residue limits on our meat exports. In order to prevent the exportation of cattle with CFZ residues, new provisions have been included in the Stock (Chemical Residues) Act to enable the tracing of these animals. These provisions will require people moving stock into or around New South Wales to sign a statutory declaration stating where the stock have been and what their destination is. The regulations will make provision for stock which are chemically affected, or are suspected to be affected, to be tagged. It is in the best interests of industry to pursue this provision with vigilance and honesty in order to preserve the integrity and expansion potential of this vital rural industry. I support the bill.

Mr CAUSLEY (Clarence) [11.12]: As the honourable member for Barwon said earlier, the Opposition will not oppose the Stock (Chemical Residues) Amendment Bill. Export markets are important to Australia. We cannot jeopardise them in any way by allowing the export of chemically contaminated meat. The cotton industry, an important industry to Australia, contributes considerably to our economy. A lot of lessons are to be learned by the grazing and agricultural industries, the Department of Agriculture and the Government from the use of chlorofluazuron, which is sold under the trade name Helix. As the honourable member for Barwon said, the chemical, which was rather innocuous and less toxic than common salt, was valuable to the cotton industry. The Minister for Agriculture would be aware that the heliothis moth does a lot of damage to cotton. This chemical, when sprayed on the larva, stops them from pupating and they became drops of liquid on the cotton leaves.

The problems that have occurred could have been avoided. One of the things that frustrated me as Minister for Agriculture was that we allowed ourselves to get into this situation. When the chemical was introduced the manufacturer warned that, even though it was not toxic, it could build up in the fatty tissues of animals. The Department of Agriculture should have been alerted to these potential problems. In those days the registration of
Page 4871
chemicals was the responsibility of the department. At a later date the chemical was sold without the manufacturer's warning, which is why these problems arose. Graziers should have been alerted to the fact that there was the possibility of chemical contamination if they were feeding cotton residue or any other residue to cattle. Most chemicals have what is known as a maximum residue level. Tests can be conducted to determine that level. As the honourable member for Barwon said -

Mr Amery: On a point of order: I do not wish to disrupt the honourable member for Clarence, but I point out that he is talking about the Helix matter, which I understand relates to a government assistance program. He is referring to the registration of a product which is the subject of court action. I submit at this stage that the detailed evidence referred to by the honourable member may be sub judice. I bring this to the attention of the House and ask you to caution him on it.

Mr CAUSLEY: I accept the point of order. I was not doing that deliberately. As I said, there are a lot of lessons to be learned. We must be aware of maximum residue levels when using chemicals such as this. Those levels should be set scientifically and not by plucking figures out of the air. We must also be aware of the limits set by our trading partners. All those things must be stated clearly. This legislation will place additional restrictions on industry and increase costs to producers. It is obvious that the cattle industry will have to keep detailed stock records and conduct chemical testing, which happened in this instance. There are costs involved in that. Under this legislation the Minister can declare a beast or beasts chemically affected, which means that they could be quarantined on an owner's property. There are costs involved in that.

When I was Minister for Agriculture no-one could tell me how many stock were infected, what the withholding period was, what support industry would receive or what compensation it would be paid. The figures that were flashed across the screen were out of the reach of the Cattle Compensation Fund and taxpayers. That must be better defined to enable the Minister for Agriculture or any other Minister to deal explicitly and directly with these problems. Individual producers can suffer severe problems. A producer cannot sell stock with high residue levels. He has to keep feeding stock until the residue level lessens or he has to kill and bury them. He would not be able to sell them in the marketplace. I recognise that this legislation has been introduced to overcome some of these problems. There is no doubt that some stock have been shifted interstate and that tail tags have been altered or removed so that stock cannot be traced. That is a real danger to the export market. We have to look closely at the costs to the producer of this exercise.

The Minister should state clearly in this House how this will affect individual producers, whether the Cattle Compensation Fund can be used, or whether any other support will be given. I hope that this does not occur again and that producers are not placed in this unenviable position. I do not have up-to-date records as to what the withholding period might be or whether contamination is reducing in stock that has been affected, but if it is not reducing and the levels are holding, the Minister will have to consider closely the merits of slaughtering for pet food the stock in New South Wales that has been contaminated by Helix. If residue levels are not declining in stock held in New South Wales, that is one way of getting rid of a problem that might affect the export market. It is a delicate issue because two sides of agriculture are involved: the cotton industry, which uses chlorofluazuron - CFZ - to control heliothis grub, and the grazing industry that was caught badly in this instance. The warnings must be louder. Obviously the grazing industry has to be more alert. It cannot take all the blame, it has to be shared equally.

The Commonwealth maintains a chemicals register. Any future registration should include details of the scientific maximum residue level, not just some figure that has been plucked out of the air. The purpose for which other countries use such chemicals must also be taken into consideration because that can have a bearing on our ability to trade. As the honourable member for Barwon said, many of our competitors are only too willing to use this episode as a trade barrier. In most instances chemical contamination scares are used as trade barriers, not as health issues. We must all understand exactly what the risks are. In that way perhaps we will not reach this sorry state again.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [11.22], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Barwon, who led for the Opposition, the honourable member for Waratah, who spoke on behalf of the Government, and the honourable member for Clarence, the former Minister for Agriculture, who spoke on behalf of the Opposition. The contribution of the honourable member for Barwon gave a history of some problems in the livestock industry, and dealt with residues and their effect on export industries. This legislation has been drafted in an attempt to solve those problems and give confidence to overseas markets that this State is doing all it can by way of legislation, increasing the powers of inspectors and implementing quality control to deal with the problem.

The honourable member for Barwon was critical of the issue being blown out of proportion. He said that CFZ was less toxic than salt and that our tolerance levels were higher than those of people in places such as Japan or our other trading countries. He criticised the media in that regard. He closed his contribution by calling on the Government to make compensation payments to those affected by the use of CFZ in their cattle. Blaming the media will not achieve anything. We are the sellers overseas of our produce and, as the honourable member for Clarence pointed out,
Page 4872
buyers of our produce can use any barrier, whether it is artificial, unfair or whatever. It is no good attacking the messenger. We have to respond to the world situation. We can say that our levels of chlorofluazuron are lower than those of Japan, but Japan may continue to refuse to buy from us. It is a trade issue, not a health issue.

The honourable member for Waratah spoke about the flexibility of the legislation, which is one of its strong points. The major point he made was that it gives authority on future products. Unintended consequences result from the use of chemicals in agricultural production. Some product could be considered to be quite safe today but, next year, could produce a residue problem that may be either a community health problem or a trade problem. The definitions built into the bill will enable the Government to take action without having to draw up new guidelines, new rules or new laws for future problems. The honourable member for Waratah referred to the use of the chemical Acatak. It is a chemical used and approved in Queensland but not in New South Wales. I can assure the honourable member for Waratah and the House that whilst the use of Acatak in Queensland is considered to be a restriction on trade between that State and New South Wales, the Queensland authorities have cooperated with New South Wales Agriculture to attempt to contain the problem. Though there will be some effect on the policing of products coming from Queensland, I assure the House that there is no conflict between the two governments.

The formulation of the amendments embodied in the bill involved consultation with representatives from the Cattlemen's Union of Australia, the Queensland Cattle Council, the Australian Meat Council, the Bureau of Research Scientists, the Queensland Department of Primary Industries, the national registration authority and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. Although there have been some problems as a result of the approved use of the chemical in Queensland, there has been full consultation with those authorities. I do not want to comment on compensation, an issue raised by the honourable member for Clarence, because it may be subject to court action. It is best left to the legal people to determine. Compensation is not a political decision that should involve governments. It is a matter that involves the farming community, the chemical producers, the suppliers, the cotton industry and other players, and it should be left to them.

Some members asked for more information about Helix. I am able to provide some information to the House about the Government's assistance package, the Helix Relief Fund of $6 million, made up of $3 million from the State Government and $3 million from the Cattle Compensation Fund. I am advised that the money will be paid out by 21 December 1995, with only a small contingency for expected late-testing costs. The fund has resulted in the removal of over 500 tail tags that were on the targeted testing list and allowed many producers to determine the residue status of their cattle, finding more than 50 new properties with residues above the maximum residue level. The relief scheme has provided some level of support to most producers with residue-affected cattle and has particularly helped those with cattle in detention for more than six months. These severely affected producers will have received $97.10 per head for all cattle detained for over six months, a total of approximately 39,000 cattle.

Industry bodies are still concerned at the extremely slow depletion of Helix residues in cattle. This issue was raised by the honourable member for Clarence. New South Wales Agriculture is cooperating with the residue management group to determine the extent of the ongoing problem and appropriate national strategies for dealing with it. New South Wales Agriculture and staff of the Rural Lands Protection Board are also continuing to provide technical assistance to affected producers. The laboratory test for Helix continues at the subsidised rate of $40 per test. The cost of the support of New South Wales Agriculture and the Rural Lands Protection Board for the past 12 months has exceeded $900,000. The Government has provided substantial assistance not only in relation to technical support but also through the relief fund. It has done all it can to at least provide assistance to affected farmers, but I do not believe that governments or Ministers should be making off-the-cuff political statements about the technical question of compensation.

The bill goes a long way to giving inspectors more powers and flexibility through commonsense reforms in residue detection and enforcement. Generally, this type of legislation becomes a working document for the inspectors. Many bills may never see the light of day after passing through this House, but these documents will be kept by inspectors as working documents to be used when they need to check on their powers and the responsibilities of farmers and cattle owners. This document generally stays with inspectors. Inspectors will find the commonsense drafting easy to follow. The provisions, guidelines and statutory powers are clearly spelt out for inspectors and the farming community that will have to comply with them. The debate has been productive, and I thank honourable members for their contributions.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 7 December.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [11.32], in reply: I thank all members from both sides of the Chamber and those on the
Page 4873
crossbenches who participated in the second reading debate. For some honourable members this may have been their first opportunity to participate in a threatened species conservation debate, but both you, Mr Acting-Speaker, and I know that this issue has had a very thorough airing over a number of years in this House. We have not had a subsequent opportunity to talk about the debate, but I found it to be one of the more sensible debates in this Chamber about threatened species conservation, even though we have been talking about essentially the same subject matter all these years.

The one exception in an otherwise sensible debate was the contribution by the honourable member for Monaro. It is sad that he has not grasped that considerable progress has been made in debate and in recognition of the issues, as reflected in the bill. His colleague, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, with whom I have exchanged many words across the Chamber on this issue since we were first elected to the Parliament in 1988, has made tremendous inroads on the issue, and made a quite sensible contribution. The honourable member for Monaro thought we were still debating amendments to the interim endangered fauna protection legislation, which has been debated substantially in this Chamber three times prior to this occasion. With that single exception, the debate was lucid, and constructive comments came from all sides. The tenor of the debate reflected the sensible approach taken to the bill.

As I said in my initial speech, the bill represents a watershed for conservation of threatened species, ecological communities and populations in this State. It is the culmination of the Government's commitment to the enactment of comprehensive threatened species legislation which is workable. Mr Acting-Speaker, despite the efforts made by members opposite to seize on comments you made in passing that there was an acknowledgment by the Government that the previous legislation was unworkable, I do not think that interpretation could have been placed either on your comments or on this Government's approach. Some members opposite are fairly new to the debate and are unaware that for a number of years their own colleagues, despite their wanting the interim legislation to be unworkable, have not been able to announce in this Chamber that that is so. I say for the benefit of those members new to this debate, including the honourable member for The Hills and the honourable member for Pittwater, that since the enactment of the initial interim legislation, regular reports in this Chamber from Ministers responsible for the environment and for forests have categorically shown that the interim legislation has worked.

There may be deficiencies in that legislation and there may be room for improvement in it, but it did work. The honourable member for Ballina spoke about chaos. Chaos did not exist. Let us not rewrite history; that temptation is the natural inclination of a politician. But chaos simply did not occur. The honourable member for Orange, as a former Minister responsible for forests in this State, had many opportunities over the past three years to acknowledge in this Parliament that the system was working. On many occasions issues have arisen which have caused immediate problems to sectors of the community. One of those we remedied yesterday was the Tomago sandmining issue in the Port Stephens area. There a third-party appeal challenge, initiated not by the Government but by the community, highlighted an anomaly in the interim legislation. We were not aware of it until the court made that interpretation. That matter was correctly dealt with quite swiftly with bipartisan support.

There have been times during the past three years when the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act has come under close scrutiny. It is a total stretch of the imagination, however, even by members opposite, to say the system was unworkable. The system did work, though it needed improvement and change, hence the present bill. The measure is a sensible and responsible approach to what is commonly accepted as the greatest challenge in nature conservation today, that is, halting the rush of species to extinction.

At the heart of the threatened species legislation there are two main features. First, wherever possible the bill integrates threatened species conservation into the planning system. Second, the legislation establishes a framework for pro-active - rather than reactive - and cooperative management of the actions necessary to restore species to viability in the wild. The effect of this ground-breaking legislation is to successfully confront trade-off decisions between strict conservation outcomes and their social and economic consequences. Just as importantly, the bill abandons the narrow and, in the end, counter-productive obsession with regulations. Instead it allows the Government to concentrate its resources on areas which need urgent attention such as recovery planning. I cannot overemphasise the need to involve the community in the conservation of threatened species. Simply, it is far too important and complex a task to be left to governments and their bureaucracies alone.

This is particularly the case in rural New South Wales. Most of this State's land is effectively under the care of private land-holders. Without their cooperation and support this venture is doomed. It is not possible to legislate for cooperation and support from landowners at the same time as a plethora of unnecessary and unwieldy bureaucratic controls are visited upon them. We simply cannot do what we want to do by taking that approach. Effective controls are embedded in the bill. Consent and determining authorities must give proper consideration to the conservation of threatened species, ecological communities and ecological populations in their decision making. In this regard, the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife acts either
Page 4874
as a concurrence authority or as specialised technical adviser who must be consulted in the course of the decision making.

When the advice of the director-general is disregarded, reasons for disregarding it are to be made available. Penalties for offences of damaging habitat have been substantially increased. That will act as a significant deterrent to the irresponsible. As I said in my second reading speech, the preparation and introduction of this legislation have been rushed because the Opposition refused to support the extension of the interim endangered fauna legislation. That meant the Government was not allowed the time to undertake the necessary broad-based community consultation. The honourable member for Pittwater in his contribution, perhaps in a freudian slip, referred to "the speed with which it had to be introduced", before correcting himself and returning to his ridiculous suggestions that the mad rush is not the fault of the coalition.

The supposed lack of consultation in relation to this legislation is overestimated. Certainly the time frame in which to prepare this legislation has been incredibly tight. It has been foisted upon the Government because of the Opposition's lack of initiative in recognising the complexity of this issue and for different reasons in relation to the non-aligned or other Independents in the Legislative Council. The Green Independents in the Legislative Council and the Opposition decided, in an unhappy and unusual concurrence of views, that it was appropriate to curtail the amount of time the Government would have for adequate consultation.

They have each made the decision for different reasons, the Opposition from sheer political bloody-mindedness borne by its immaturity as an opposition. In years to come I hope the Opposition develops some maturity and that after four years it will begin to act as an Opposition as this Government did when it was in opposition, even in the first 12 months. The Opposition lacks a sense of responsibility as an integral part of the legislative process of this State. If the Opposition tries to curtail public and community debate on issues as complex as threatened species conservation, it has to take the consequences and be condemned.

On the other hand, the reason the Greens in the Legislative Council have tried to curtail the debate is an overanxiety to have permanent threatened species conservation legislation operate in this State. While I appreciate their enthusiasm, it would have been more appropriate if they had given the extra five months that the Government sought to allow full and proper consultation. It is not as if the Government has been sitting on its hands on conservation issues, as you would well know, Mr Acting-Speaker, because you are the chairman of the caucus environment committee. There have been more achievements in conservation policy development in the last eight months than in the previous decade. It would have been appropriate to allow more time on an issue as complex as threatened species legislation.

If the interim legislation had been extended, as the Government suggested in September but the Opposition and others rejected, the legislation would have been before the Parliament within the first 12 months of the Labor Government. Despite the tight time frame there has been tremendous consultation on this bill. In terms of conservation initiatives there has been more intense consultation on this legislation than there has been on quite a few others that I can think of. Yesterday representatives of mining resource groups and representatives of foresters associations were in the Chamber. Representatives of farmers were in the building yesterday but I am not sure whether they were in the Chamber at any time during the debate. Intensive consultations have been held with farmers, miners and foresters, and as a result those people are content with the changes that have been made by the Government.

I do not share the doom and gloom that the Opposition has projected by saying this is being done in a mad rush and the Government has not talked to anybody. That is not true. Because of the intensive consultation that has taken place the Government is introducing good legislation and proposals. The consultation process has led to major changes in the bill. Those changes make redundant the only sensible amendments that are proposed by the coalition. Of course, not all the coalition's amendments are sensible; they never are. There were a couple that the Government had already adopted, and I will discuss those later.

The most significant Government amendment relates to the treatment of routine farm management practices. This amendment ensures that routine farm management practices are not caught up in red tape. It exempts from licensing all routine farming practices and their ancillary activities. That was always the Government's intention when the legislation was being prepared. The Government now has an amendment that confirms that position. This principle will be given effect to in the legislation by listing in the regulations only those actions which may require licensing on the basis of an informed assessment of their potentially significant impact on threatened species or their habitat. Any additions to or omissions from the regulations may only be made after the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife has consulted with the Director-General of Agriculture.

The list of actions in the regulations will be developed as a matter of urgency immediately following the passage of this legislation through the Parliament. Key stakeholders such as the New South Wales Farmers Association will also be consulted. In addition, the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife may approve a property management plan prepared by the land-holder. Such approval will exempt all activities carried out
Page 4875
in accordance with the plan from licensing, whether or not the activity is listed in the regulations. Consequently, the undertaking of routine farming practices or actions carried out under a property management plan will not be liable to prosecution in respect of all new offences created by the bill.

The other significant change deals with species impact statements. The new provision enables the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife to dispense with the requirement for the preparation of a species impact statement if the director-general is satisfied that the impact of the activity concerned will be trivial or negligible. This is a mechanism to exempt the proponents of activities of minor impacts from the requirements of unnecessary bureaucracy. Again I emphasise that this approval is set in the context of strong conservation initiatives in the legislation. Most of the other changes that are suggested by the Government are relatively minor, the sort of tidying up that would have occurred before the introduction of the bill had the current timetable not been foisted upon us.

I now deal with various matters that were raised in the debate. There were representations on behalf of the timber industry, as well as from the timber industry directly, about its concern with the prospect of logging in native forests being listed as a key threatening process by the Scientific Committee. These provisions were not intended for that purpose. The identification of broadly based economic activities such as logging or mining would not appear to meet any reasonable interpretation of clause 15(2). That is, even if they could be construed as a key threatening process, they are clearly not capable of being dealt with effectively and efficiently through the preparation of a threat abatement plan.

Furthermore, the Minister for the Environment has the final say on listing. I refer members opposite to clause 24(1). I confirm that I am not going to approve any patently silly proposals. I would not be nearly as confident of the capacity of the Opposition to do that. To provide any greater assurance to the timber industry I draw attention to two other key provisions in the bill. First, listing a process as a key threatening process has no effect except to trigger the discretion of the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife to prepare a threat abatement plan. Public authorities such as State Forests will not have their statutory discretions limited by a threat abatement plan. Opposition members should read clause 87(2) if they do not realise that.

It is the Minister for the Environment who has the discretion to adopt a threat abatement plan. That is reiterated in clause 87(2), which members opposite should read. No measure affecting the operation of a public authority such as State Forests may be included in a threat abatement plan without the express approval of the relevant Minister. I refer the timber industry and members opposite to clause 79(2), which contains that important information. Second, the bill clearly states that a licence, consent or approval, such as the type issued to State Forests, is a defence against prosecution for all the offences created by the bill. In other words, a properly authorised logging operation proceeding in accordance with its approval is completely secure. In addition, some operations will be secure from the imposition of stop-work orders and interim protection orders. The point of threat abatement plans is identification and then implementation of a range of actions by all interested parties in a cooperative and coordinated manner. Threat abatement plans are not a means of de facto regulation.

The coalition also suggested that this bill somehow turns itself into national legislation by constraining eligibility of species for listing as endangered and vulnerable on the basis of their status in Australia. That is wrong for a number of reasons. First, it is not practical. New South Wales legislation can only deal with the New South Wales situation. An expert Scientific Committee based in New South Wales, and subject to the discretion of the New South Wales Environment Minister, cannot decide which species are endangered nationally. The Commonwealth legislation introduced by my Federal colleague properly does that. Second, those who understand the principles of biodiversity conservation appreciate that it is critical to conserve biodiversity within species as well as between species. In other words, the notion of not listing a protected species endangered in New South Wales because it may occur more commonly in another State makes no biological sense. For example, I would not want to abandon the yellow-footed rock wallaby to extinction in New South Wales simply because it is more abundant in South Australia and Queensland. I do not believe, nor does the Government, that it would be appropriate to do so.

In most cases the same threatening processes operate across Australia. This means that a species not yet endangered in another State is highly likely to be heading in that direction. Third, the expenditure of resources on recovery planning - that is, when species are saved - gives absolute priority to nationally endangered species. I refer members opposite to clause 59(2). The coalition Government's 1993 Endangered and Other Threatened Species Conservation Bill defined endangered species in terms of their status in New South Wales. The rarity of a species is relevant only if it contributes to its endangered status. That is a sensible approach which has been adopted by the Commonwealth.

The Opposition's proposal for compensation to land-holders after a critical habitat declaration contradicts current planning principles, and would create a precedent that effectively diminished the possibility of sensible land use planning. The honourable member for Tamworth also expressed concern about that in his contribution to the debate. The coalition has also ignored the legislation's requirement for the Minister for the Environment to have regard to legal interests in or uses of land, as well as social and economic consequences in making a declaration of critical habitat. The Opposition has taken a convenient step to ignore that provision in the bill. It is a naughty step because the bill clearly
Page 4876
and unequivocally states that I must take into account social and economic consequences when determining a critical habitat.

The coalition Government's 1993 bill, obviously developed after careful deliberation, did not provide for compensation following designation of land as critical habitat. If it is an important issue now, it was certainly an important issue at that time. If the coalition Government had been fair dinkum it would have addressed the matter at that time. Another major theme in the coalition's scrappy list of amendments was treating vulnerable species the same as endangered species. Vulnerable species, by definition, are not in the same parlous state as endangered species, and they cannot be given the same scrutiny or resource allocation. They are vulnerable species, not endangered species.

The proposal for mandatory time frames for the preparation of recovery plans and threat abatement plans irretrievably commits this Government and future governments to unknown but significant funding requirements. In this regard the Federal example is not relevant as the Commonwealth has the luxury of having few endangered species on its own lands. I shall clarify for the Opposition the process of declaration of critical habitat. Identification of land as critical habitat is done by the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife and has no effect, apart from triggering a decision by the Minister for the Environment. Only the Minister's decision to declare critical habitat leads to any consequences. In making a decision I must have regard to social and economic consequences. I have already assured the House that I will readily take into account the circumstances outlined by the Opposition which led to its suggested amendment.

Members opposite, especially the honourable member for Pittwater, developed the issue of where the money will come from to fund the legislation. I simply refer the honourable member and other Opposition speakers to my second reading speech, in which I gave a clear commitment that the legislation will be adequately funded. In the past few weeks the honourable member for Pittwater has viciously attacked what he claims to be a reduction of Government expenditure for important activities in the National Parks and Wildlife Service. He continues to single out, as he did yesterday in his contribution to the debate, the pest species management program, which he relates in some way to the progress of this legislation. I hate to quote a former Minister but unfortunately the honourable member for Pittwater got it wrong again. He attacked, wrongly, the environment portfolio for reducing funds for the Environment Protection Authority. His assertions about the Government's lack of commitment to pest species protection, the amount that was spent on the program in the last financial year and the amount that was spent this financial year are wrong. Yesterday he claimed that a reduction in government spending on species management is an indicator of the small amount the Government is spending on this program. I will not go into detail -

Mr Longley: How much are you going to spend?

Ms ALLAN: The honourable member is still whingeing; he does not read anything. He claimed that reductions had been made. He prides himself on his ability to do sums. He talks about sums all the time but apparently he does not know how to read budget papers. He bagged the Government for failing to maintain its expenditure for pest species management, but he relied on the capital allocations, rather than viewing the programs as a whole. I issued a press release subsequent to the honourable member's last series of attacks on the Government, and I am happy to provide him with a copy. In fact, this Government has increased expenditure on pest species management. The honourable member has not sought to correct that in his mind because he still trotted out that argument yesterday when he maintained that the Government would not allocate sufficient resources for the successful operation of this legislation.

I dismiss the issue of funding as mischief-making on behalf of the Opposition. The Opposition is not committed to protecting threatened species in this State. The previous Government had legislation forced upon it when the Labor Party in opposition worked closely with the non-aligned Independent members. The coalition did not want to pursue the matter of its own volition; it always considered conservation to be low priority. Given that the previous Government did not have any high conservation priorities, the concept of threatened species was very, very low on the scale of public concern. Despite the fact that the previous Government was not concerned about conservation, it had legislation foisted upon it by the Labor Opposition; then to the surprise of the previous Government the legislation worked reasonably for some years.

Labor is now able to put in place even better legislation that integrates protection and conservation of threatened species with planning generally in this State. That is long overdue. Given that members opposite have bleated in the Parliament for years on this issue, I am surprised that the previous Government did not introduce a more rational system of conserving New South Wales threatened species. I strongly recommend that this House and the Legislative Council support the legislation with the Government amendments. This legislation will substantially improve the protection, obviously, of plant species - because they have not been picked up in the past - and all threatened species in this State. As Minister for the Environment I have worked closely with a number of my colleagues who have very important responsibilities vested in their areas of operation under this legislation, and I look forward to working cooperatively with them further to ensure that this legislation works well.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Page 4877

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Gaudry): Order! With the consent of the Committee I propose to deal with the bill in groups of clauses and schedules. The question is that clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to.

Mr BECKROGE (Broken Hill) [12.02]: I move:

That the question be now put (S.O. 100.)

The Committee divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Murray
Mr Clough Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face 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

Mr Armstrong Ms Moore
Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Causley Mr O'Farrell
Mr Chappell Mr D. L. Page
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Peacocke
Mr Cochran Mr Phillips
Mr Collins Mr Photios
Mr Cruickshank 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 Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr West
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Mr Longley Mr Zammit
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Blackmore
Mr Nagle Mr Tink

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Gaudry): Order! The vote being equal, I give my casting vote with the ayes and declare the question to be resolved in the affirmative. The question now is that clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to.

Clauses agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Gaudry): Order! The question - That the question be now put under Standing Order 100 - having been agreed to for all remaining stages, the question now is that the circulated amendments proposed by the Minister be agreed to.

Circulated amendments:

No. 1 Page 5, clause 4. After line 16, insert:

region means, for the purposes of the provision in which it is used, a bioregion defined in a national system of bioregionalisation that is determined (by the Director-General by order published in the Gazette) to be appropriate for those purposes. If the bioregion occurs partly within and partly outside New South Wales, the region consists only of so much of the bioregion as occurs within New South Wales.

No. 2 Page 17, clause 31, line 8. Omit "must be" where secondly occurring.

No. 3 Page 27, clause 55, lines 14 and 15. Omit "on certain public authorities".

No. 4 Page 27, clause 55, lines 23-27. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(d) landholders of land on which critical habitat is located (including public authorities who are landholders),

(e) other public authorities known by the Director-General to exercise relevant functions in relation to the land.

No. 5 Page 44, clause 89, line 3. Omit "section 86(2)", insert instead "section 87(2)".

No. 6 Page 47, clause 92. After line 25, insert:

(3) Despite subsection (1), a licence under this Part is not required for the carrying out of routine agricultural activities unless the actions are, or are of a class of actions, that the regulations prescribe may be carried out only under the authority of a licence under this Part.

(4) The Minister must not recommend the making of a regulation that identifies actions, or actions of a class of actions, that may be carried out only under the authority of a licence under this Part unless the Minister certifies that the Director-General has consulted with the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture concerning the making of the regulation.

(5) The Director-General may, for the purposes of this Act, approve of a property management plan for land prepared by a landholder. Any action identified in, and carried out in accordance with, a property management plan so approved by the Director-General does not require a licence under this Part even if the action is, or is of a class of actions, that may, in accordance with the regulations, be carried out only under the authority of a licence under this Part.

Page 4878

(6) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence under Part 8A of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 if the accused proves that the action constituting the alleged offence:

(a) was a routine agricultural activity, or

(b) is identified in, and carried out in accordance with, a property management plan approved by the Director-General for the purposes of this Act.

No. 7 Page 49, clause 94, line 5. Omit "levies", insert instead "levied".

No. 8 Page 50, clause 95, lines 4 and 5. Omit "regional environment of the species, population or ecological community", insert instead "region".

No. 9 Page 53, clause 106, line 34. After "has been", insert "varied or".

No. 10 Page 54, clause 106, line 2. Omit "section 97", insert instead "section 98".

No. 11 Page 57, clause 111. After line 36, insert:

(4) Despite anything in this Act or the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Director-General may, having regard to the circumstances of a particular case, dispense with the requirement for a species impact statement in the particular case if the Director-General is satisfied that the impact of the activity concerned will be trivial or negligible.

No. 12 Page 63, clause 122, line 4. Omit "contract", insert instead "agreement".

No. 13 Page 119, Schedule 4[29], line 2. Omit "areas", insert instead "reserves".

No. 14 Page 124, Schedule 4[52] (proposed section 91EE), line 10. Omit "provisions cannot be made to protect the environment", insert instead "arrangements cannot be made to protect the environment that is".

No. 15 Page 136, Schedule 4[86] (proposed section 118E), line 32. Omit "Division", insert instead "Part".

No. 16 Page 139, Schedule 4[100], line 1. Omit "Section 122(d)", insert instead "Section 122(2)(d)".

No. 17 Page 145, Schedule 4[134], line 11. After "Schedule.", insert "Insert instead (Sec. 94)".

No. 18 Page 147, Schedule 5[1], line 5. After "order", insert "in section 4(1)".

No. 19 Page 148. Insert after line 10:

[3] Section 4(1), definition of region

Insert ", except as provided in subsection (6A)" after "a region".

[4] Section 4(6A)

Insert after section 4(6):

(6A) However, for the purposes of sections 5A, 77C and 112D, a region is a bioregion defined in a national system of bioregionalisation, being a system that is determined (by the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife by order published in the Gazette) to be appropriate for those purposes. If the bioregion occurs partly within and partly outside New South Wales, the region consists only of so much of the bioregion as occurs within New South Wales.

No. 20 Page 149, Schedule 5[5] (proposed clause 5A), lines 18-20. Omit "regional environment of the species, population or ecological community", insert instead "region".

No. 21 Page 154, Schedule 5[12] (proposed section 77A), line 2. Omit "or", insert instead "of".

No. 22 Page 155, Schedule 5[12] (Proposed section 77C), line 30. Omit "action", insert instead "development".

No. 23 Page 159, Schedule 5[21], line 1. Omit "authorities", insert instead "authority".

No. 24 Page 161, Schedule 5[24] (proposed section 112C), line 19. Omit "or", insert instead "of".

No. 25 Page 163, Schedule 5[24]. After line 4, insert:

(g) the likely social and economic consequences if the activity is not carried out.

No. 26 Page 166, Schedule 6.9[3], line 16. Omit "Clause 12", insert instead "Clause 12(2)".

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses and schedules as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Clough): Order! The question - That the question be now put under Standing Order 100 - having been agreed to in the Committee of the Whole and it being after the time specified under that standing order for the completion of all remaining stages the question now is that the report be now adopted.

Question put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Murray
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 4879

Mr Armstrong Ms Moore
Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Causley Mr O'Farrell
Mr Chappell Mr D. L. Page
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Peacocke
Mr Cochran Mr Phillips
Mr Collins Mr Photios
Mr Cruickshank 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 Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr West
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Mr Longley Mr Zammit
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Blackmore
Mr Nagle Mr Tink

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: The vote being equal, I give my casting vote with the ayes and declare the question to have passed in the affirmative.

Report adopted and bill passed through remaining stages.


Bill read a third time.


Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Standing Orders be suspended to allow the consideration of Private Members' Statements forthwith.

Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [12.20]: Yesterday the Minister for Education and Training and I had the pleasure of inviting the Bathurst High School band and a group of gymnasts from the Bathurst-Orange area to perform in the foyer of Parliament House. In October this year when the Minister and I first saw the group perform we were so impressed that we invited the children to Parliament House so that other honourable members could see them in action. They did not let us down; they put on a tremendous performance. Amongst the group are a number of talented musicians and singers, one of whom has been given a scholarship. His colleagues, the Minister and I wish him well. He is one of a talented group of young people.

I pay tribute to Mr Johnston, a teacher from Bathurst High School who organised the visit. He is the conductor of the band and a teacher of these students. I am certain that the students trust him and rely on him for their tuition and management. I was pleased and proud to see them in Parliament House yesterday. I pay tribute also to Julie Apps from the Minister's staff who helped to organise the visit. Her efforts went a long way towards making the visit a success. It would be remiss of me not to thank the parliamentary attendants and catering staff. They did a wonderful job catering for 64 visitors on fairly short notice. It is quite obvious from the degree of professionalism displayed yesterday that young people in Australia are well placed in the performing arts area. The musicians were excellent and the aerobic display put on by the youngsters was first class. I am sure that if they performed commercially, they would be difficult to book.

Nowadays young people are encouraged to demonstrate their abilities in the performing arts, and that is indicative of the changing pattern in education in New South Wales. The various instruments that are necessary for them to perform are now provided to them. Bathurst High School has backed this band to the hilt. The members of that band left early yesterday morning, I think at 7 a.m., to arrive at Parliament House in time to perform at 12.30 p.m. After changing, they gave a performance that I am sure every member of Parliament who witnessed it will remember for a long time. I again express thanks to the Minister and his staff. I thank the parliamentary staff and, in particular, I thank those youngsters from Bathurst who showed us just what they can do.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [12.24]: I congratulate the honourable member for Bathurst on the encouragement he has given to the young students of Bathurst High School, and to a number of other young people from neighbouring schools, who visited the Parliament yesterday. He takes a deep interest in their welfare. One of my first duties as Minister for Education and Training was to visit Bathurst High School, where I noted the excellence of the work of the teachers and students in a wide range of curriculum areas. The standout feature, however, was the dedication of those involved in the performing arts and the quality of their work.

As the honourable member for Bathurst said, the band is professional in every way and performs at a very high standard. At that visit I recall being moved by the performance of the piece from Les Miserables. It will remain forever in my memory. I was pleased yesterday to be able to witness that
Page 4880
performance again. I congratulate the band and that section of it known as the Swing Factor. I congratulate Douglas Blaikie who, as the honourable member for Bathurst said, secured a scholarship to the National Institute of Dramatic Art. All honourable members would be aware how rare such scholarships are. Special congratulations go to Mr Johnston, the teacher and master of the band.


Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [12.26]: I refer to the M2 motorway and to the non-provision of noise barriers. Prior to the last election I lobbied the former Minister for Transport, the Hon. Bruce Baird, on three substantive matters. That representation confirms my consistency on these issues. First, I requested that sound barriers be erected on the south Turramurra side of the M2 as local residents, who are convinced that Lane Cove Valley is a natural amphitheatre, believe that they are necessary. Second, I said that the traditional pedestrian access in the area of Browns Waterhole should continue in preference to planned access several hundred metres away at Busaco Road. Local residents and council assert that the Browns Waterhole route has become a well-known pedestrian access for residents in the valley, in particular, students at Macquarie University and Turramurra High School. Ku-ring-gai Council is planning a cycleway for this area.

Third, I requested that the B2 and B3 option reservations be removed from existing Roads and Traffic Authority proposals as the B2 is being retained only for comparative purposes. I would have thought that, as work on the M2 had commenced, there would be no need to retain those reservations. I ask the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, who is in the Chamber, to provide me with answers in relation to those matters. I ask the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads, who is responsible for this area, to examine this matter in more detail. A review of environmental factors has been conducted by an acoustic consultant who said:

In order to achieve full compliance with the RTA's 1992 Interim Traffic Noise Policy, objectives at all dwellings (absorptive-type barriers) would be used throughout this study area, rather than the EIS Concept Design's reflective barriers.

These matters must be considered immediately as residents in my electorate are being affected. Anyone living near or on a property adjacent to the M2 will similarly be affected. As I have said, noise travels far and the Lane Cove Valley and other areas constitute a natural amphitheatre. The Government and the Minister for Public Works and Services should look closely at this issue. Labor voters in my electorate, who live in south Turramurra and West Pymble principally, feel betrayed. They do not appreciate the Minister's comments that in this instance "money is being taken from the rich and given to the poor". That is the sort of class warfare this Government is perpetuating. The Minister is the biggest traitor to these people. He said that the Government would scrap the M2. The honourable member for Gladesville was elected on the airport issue and on the basis that the M2 would be scrapped. He was elected on a lie. As recently as this week in the Northern District Times he was advocating the reopening of the east-west runway. He was elected on a lie over the airport and he was elected on a lie over the M2. Government members ought to be hanging their heads in shame, because it is the Labor voters in my electorate who said -

Mr Watkins: You signed the contract.

Mr KINROSS: And honourable members opposite said the Government would scrap it.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Clough): Order! The honourable member for Gladesville will cease interjecting and allow the honourable member for Gordon to complete his statement.

Mr KINROSS: Labor voters, who felt betrayed, consistently lobbied me before the election. They can see that I have maintained a consistent view about this matter. They are the ones who are being disenfranchised by their own Government. They are the ones being made the subject of recriminations and retribution, who are not having any success through their lobbying. This matter dates back to late last year. I have a four-page chronology that I will not seek to read out, but it lists all the work I have sought to do in relation to the M2. Much work needs to be done to ensure that it is a success. The Labor Party must make sure that it now honours its promise and does not continue to perpetuate class warfare by not installing sound barriers and the Government should immediately remove the B2 and B3 options. [Time expired.]

Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens - Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [12.31]: The grandstanding of the honourable member is noted by the Government. It was rather paltry of him to take a cheap shot at the honourable member for Gladesville and other honourable members in private members' statements on a matter that is so important. I notice that the honourable member for Northcott is in the Chamber. He has succeeded in that seat the former honourable member for Northcott who signed the contract and was responsible for so much of it. This Government will give equal treatment to all the citizens of New South Wales. It will not play favourites. It will not build great walls, such as have been built in the past, as a result of which others have suffered. It will be done fairly. I assure the honourable member that his cheap shots about aircraft noise, the honourable member for Gladesville and his perceptions only show his immaturity and reflect the problems he has in Gordon.

Page 4881

Mr ANDERSON (St Marys) [12.32]: I endorse your comments, Mr Acting-Speaker, about the young people of Bathurst. Yesterday they distinguished themselves with their performance in Parliament House. I bring to the attention of honourable members a problem concerning my electorate of St Marys. In the main street of the central business district of St Marys a methadone clinic services approximately 267 clients, people who really want to help themselves to get over a drug problem that virtually wrecked their lives and the lives of their families. Not far away from the methadone clinic a needle exchange program, which exchanges many thousands of needles every year, is operating. Each of these programs is a commendable initiative. The programs are designed to help members of our community who rely on us for assistance in their time of need.

My problem is that the two programs operate in premises in close proximity to each other, leading to many problems that the consent authorities of the time could not have imagined when the two services were first implemented. At a recent meeting that I convened between members of the local Chamber of Commerce, private land-holders and managers of two of the local shopping centres, I was quickly made aware of the impact these health initiatives were having on local businesses within our community. I was told that 57 premises in close proximity are now vacant, the landlords claiming that very generous discounts in rents have not attracted any interest at all in this part of the central business district. Some even claim that their tenants are close to bankruptcy because of a lack of patronage. People, they say, make significant detours to stay away from this part of the town.

It was most interesting to listen to the managing agents of the two shopping centres explain the sorts of security measures they have taken to protect their customers and secure their premises. Each of the agents has had to employ significant additional security personnel to patrol their shopping facilities. Cleaning personnel have to be supplied with special equipment because of the additional risks from cleaning blood off walls and ceilings, or picking up used and broken needles, and syringes. Additional patrols and inspections have to be made of children's playpens and cubbyhouse facilities every morning, afternoon and evening because recent experience has shown that these children's amenities are becoming disposal areas.

One of the agents informed me that he has spent an additional $36,000 so far this year trying to eliminate the immediate problem. The agents are willing to contribute significantly to a levy to buy out the lease of the methadone clinic in an effort to have the service relocated to a more appropriate location. I totally support such an initiative. The welfare of all members of the community must be considered when addressing the needs of people with drug problems. I believe that the closure of 57 business premises in and around the methadone clinic area has contributed greatly to an even higher unemployment problem within my electorate of St Marys.

Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens - Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [12.36]: The Government recognises the fine work being done by the honourable member for St Marys, not only the work he did prior to becoming a member of the Parliament, as the mayor of the local government body, but his continuing care for his constituency, the business community and the less fortunate. I am sure the Minister for Health will give serious consideration to this problem. The honourable member for St Marys can be assured that the Government will do all it can to make life better for everyone in that electorate.


Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [12.37]: I call on the Minister for the Environment and also the Minister for Fisheries to reject the recommendations of the Total Environment Centre that 23 headlands on the holiday coast, the mid-north coast, be closed to recreational fishing. Fishing is a popular pastime for locals and tourists alike, boosting the economy of many towns and villages along the coast, particularly during holiday time. Any closure of rock platforms to recreational fishing could ring the death knell for many small towns and villages. I have written to the Minister for Fisheries and to the Minister for the Environment, but I am yet to receive a reply, about the concerns I have raised on behalf of my constituents, which I again raise today.

The recommendations made by the Total Environment Centre come from Mr Jeff Angel, who was an employee of the Minister for the Environment. I understand that his contract has just run out. It makes one wonder whether the Minister for the Environment is the mouthpiece for some environmental groups. Some of the ridiculous decisions made by the Government and its lack of consultation with the community point to a Minister who is a captive of the green lobby. That is why I am concerned. In recent weeks legislation has been introduced dealing with State environmental planning policy 46, wetlands, wilderness areas, and the banning of duck shooting. That is indicative of a government that is listening only to a minority, radical environmental tune.

Does the New South Wales Minister for the Environment want to ban people from ocean rock platforms, which have been described by the Total Environment Centre as being of high conservation value? The plan to ban people from the ocean ledges - many of them popular fishing spots - is a preposterous suggestion. There is already a Fisheries Act to protect and preserve marine reserves and intertidal areas. The Total Environment Centre's Jeff Angel has reported that a survey of intertidal rock platforms on the New South Wales coast will be published. Who has been
Page 4882
consulted about this? Who is the expert who has prepared the survey? Who or what has been surveyed?

When releasing what it says is the first ever environmental inventory of rock platforms, the centre also called for a State environmental policy and special reserves to protect more than 200 rock platforms along the New South Wales coastline. A campaigner for the Total Environment Centre has stated that rock platforms should not be polluted, plundered or concreted. Responsible citizens and fishermen, rock fishermen such as myself, accessing these areas for their recreational pleasure are not going to pollute, plunder or concrete. We will not wear this. If the Government tries it, there will be problems. The people from the Total Environment Centre are totally over the top. Of course, these platforms contain marine biology that is vitally important to the food chain. Fishermen look after them. That is one of the reasons they fish from such areas - they are good fishing spots.

I suppose the Total Environment Centre, if they had the chance, would have rod-and-line amateur fishing banned. The Minister has not replied, so obviously there is a hidden agenda. He should say once and for all that fishing from rock ledges will continue. The Minister for the Environment takes notice of such views at her own peril. The citizens of New South Wales will not allow their rights to the enjoyment of our coastline to be taken away from them. Many amateur fishing club members and others who enjoy access to intertidal areas have expressed concern to me about these ridiculous proposals.

I call on the Minister for the Environment and on the Minister for Fisheries to reject any such proposals that may come before the Government, and to abandon any thoughts on restriction of access to ocean rock shelfs. Should proposals ever be brought forward, there must be consultation on them. I know what Ministers have been like in the past when they did not consult. Exactly the same thing could occur with this issue. On behalf of my constituents and all fishermen in New South Wales I strongly object to any proposal, now or in the future, to close or restrict recreational fishermen from having access to our seashores, especially those outside and in national parks. That will be the next move. People want access to these areas for pleasure, leisure and family enjoyment. The State Labor Government and the Minister for Fisheries must state where they stand on this issue, which is of paramount importance not only to our constituents but to all citizens of New South Wales.

Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens - Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [12.42]: I have taken note of the tirade by the honourable member for Oxley. He made claims about the Government plundering, polluting and concreting. Not so long ago the Hon. Wal Murray, a former member of this House, was well known for concreting. All National Party members opposite, and some Liberals, cry out that he is a good man, even a great man. They can all go with him. Members who have studied the legislation and remained observant in this House know that everything below the mean high watermark is subject to the Fisheries Management Act and also, formerly, the Crown Lands Act. Representations have been made to me in this House by the honourable member for Wollongong, the honourable member for Manly and other members concerned about the pillaging of rock platforms, particularly near densely populated areas where local people may not fully understand the ecology of regions that need protection.

The Government will make a very determined attempt to ensure that those areas are protected, not plundered or pillaged. The Government will consider every one of those rock platforms on its merits. We have every intention of keeping recreational fishing available and open to the maximum number of people. We are going to protect those ecosystems, particularly in areas of great significance along the coast of New South Wales. The honourable member for Oxley can rest assured that the Government will do much better than the previous coalition Government did in its seven long years in government, which saw the raping, pillaging, polluting and degradation of this State, not to mention the acid sulphate soils. The Government will do the job much better, and the honourable member can rest assured that the job will be done properly.


Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [12.44]: I had the privilege about two weeks ago of representing the Minister for the Environment at the 1995 Tidy Towns, Metro Pride and school environmental awards at Ballina. I congratulate the Ballina community, Ballina Shire Council and the Ballina Tidy Towns Committee for the wonderful and enthusiastic way they hosted the Tidy Towns Awards and made every award recipient feel very much at home, both with accommodation and hosted functions. The great thing about the whole weekend was the enthusiasm of Tidy Towns and Metro Pride participants who were present at the awards and participated in all the activities. Communities throughout New South Wales, from small towns of less than 200 people to major cities with more than 100,000 residents, and the 46 councils in Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong that participated in Metro Pride, shared in this endeavour. These awards have had real impact in improving the environment and in promoting the heritage and history of towns. Tidy Towns committees have focused on continued improvement in facilities for local communities and tourists. The awards are a significant event.

The small community of Burcher won first prize for towns with a population of less than 200. Khancoban won the award for towns with
Page 4883
populations between 351 and 1,200, and first prize for towns with between 1,201 and 4,000 people went to Finley down on the Murray. Finley developed initiatives which included an REEP program to provide employment, training and environmental beautification within the town, a corridor of green that required extensive tree planting, and an A Current Affair Angry Anderson challenge in which participants planted 200,000 trees in the Mulwala irrigation canal area. That is but an indication of the impact of such a program in a small country community. I was very proud that the winning city in the Metro Pride awards was Newcastle, which offered an outstanding submission, spanning the last several years, on its cultural heritage project, Summer Hill waste management, and works of major renovation to the Wallsend heritage rotunda. Newcastle City Council offered a significant environmental plan, and was judged the winner of the Metro Pride award. I had great pleasure in presenting that award to Councillor Keith Parsons, representing the Lord Mayor of Newcastle.

Kiama was the overall winner of the Tidy Towns award, a decision welcomed by a most enthusiastic group of representatives from that town. Kiama was singled out as a town where an enormous amount of work is being done to enhance its scenic and environmental qualities. Ourimbah school won the environmental award. Schools on the central coast, and probably throughout the State, are making great efforts to develop environmental awareness. This series of awards was a significant event for small towns and larger towns and cities, and for all communities in between. Within the Hunter, awards went to Tanilba and to Kurri Kurri, which received accolades for its Festival of Winds and Visions of Yesteryear photographic exhibition. Cessnock City Council received a local government award. Awards were made to communities in the Hunter and throughout New South Wales. [Time expired.]


Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [12.49]: My concern relates to the proposed bioremediation facility at Thornleigh. At the outset I recognise the different approach being taken by the newly elected councillors, an approach characterised by greater accountability to ratepayers, a more open approach to decision making, and a desire to achieve the right solution for the shire's waste disposal problem. That enlightenment has not yet flowed through to council's officers who have direct carriage of the issue and a vested interest in ensuring the past actions are seen in a good light. In recent days I have become aware of attempts by council's officers to rewrite the recommendations of the commission of inquiry into the proposed development. On page 42, as part of his recommended conditions for consent, Commissioner Cleland stated:

. . . the need for covering of the windrow area and the need for capture and treatment of emitted gases. I include conditions of consent to this effect.

Given these statements, I am surprised that in meetings with Northcompass and the Normanhurst West primary school Parents and Citizens Association, council officers have suggested that a cover and gas treatment may not be included in any development. I appreciate recent assurances by the mayor of Hornsby that this will not occur, but I will remain sceptical until the matter is finally resolved. A further concern relates to the whole question of independence of advice to council in relation to this development. I will not at this stage go into the existence or otherwise of a patent for the development, nor will I raise the outrageous treatment of a constituent who is being hounded by the proponent company with legal action clearly designed to shut him up, clearly designed to stem the criticism of this development and, I regret to say, clearly endorsed by council officers who have done nothing to stop such threats.

The issue that I am concerned with today is that I have been given information that suggests that even the recent commission of inquiry was tainted by a lack of independence. In the hearing before Commissioner Cleland, council used a Dr B. J. Macaulay, who was described as a microbiologist with some experience in composting. Dr Macaulay hailed from the La Trobe University. His evidence was understandably supportive of the operations of Earth Proprietary Limited and council's proposed development. What the commissioner was not told, and what should have been disclosed, was Dr Macaulay's personal financial involvement with the proponents of the development.

The Australian Securities Commission national database reveals that an incorporated, registered proprietary company called Environmentally Controlled Organics Systems Proprietary Limited - ECOS - which lists its principal activity as recycling research consulting, has amongst its eight directors one Barry John Macaulay. Other directors include Howard Mitchell, Roger Stretch and Russell Joshua, the very people who control Earth Proprietary Limited, the company endeavouring to develop the Thornleigh site. Questions abound. Was council aware of the conflict of interest? Who proposed Dr Macaulay as an expert witness - council staff or Earth Proprietary Limited? Was he paid? Was Dr Macaulay speaking as a La Trobe University academic or as a director of ECOS?

My concern in raising these matters today is singular. It is a desire to ensure that elected members of Hornsby council exercise due diligence and commonsense in their continued dealings on this matter. Clearly there are outstanding issues. Those issues need to be resolved to the satisfaction of councillors and ratepayers before the project progresses. In examining the material presented by council officers, councillors should heed the lessons of Yes, Minister and look beyond the obvious to the omissions from any information provided. As time permits, I will return to the issue of independence and again express my concern that there has been a lapse of independence on this issue. There appear
Page 4884
to be only two independent sources in this whole matter - a report from a company named Consil, which found in relation to the Essendon operations of Earth Proprietary Limited:

. . . The odour emissions from the site are almost entirely due to the windrow bioremediating operations.

The second source is a local soil expert who has extensively researched the Earth proposals. The approach to both these people has been less than encouraging. The Consil report is being suppressed. Council officers claim it is the property of Earth and therefore cannot be released. I believe council has sufficient commercial clout with the company to demand full release of the report. As I said earlier, the soil expert, a constituent, is being hounded by Earth with threats of legal action - threats which are designed to silence him and which council officers have done nothing to stop despite the significant commercial influence they wield. These are important matters to the ratepayers of Hornsby council. They are important matters to the local school community and they are important to local residents in the area. Until we have full and open decision making on this issue by Hornsby council, and until the councillors take a quizzical approach to advice being proffered by council officers, the matter will not be resolved.


Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [12.53]: I pay tribute to my predecessor, the former member for East Hills Joe Kelly, who died last week and whose funeral I attended last Friday. I pay this tribute simply because, as a backbencher, the former member for East Hills cannot have a condolence motion as a tribute to him, having survived more than 15 years after he retired as a member of this House. I, too, wish not to have condolence motions for me because I certainly wish to survive 15 years after I retire from this Chamber. Joe Kelly was born at Rix Creek, near Singleton, on 16 April 1905. He died from an aneurism in the stomach on 6 December this year. He was the second of four children, and was the only boy in the family.

When he was five years old his father, a mineworker, was badly injured in the mines and he and his older sister went to live with his grandmother, Mrs Rachel Kelly. When he was 15 he returned to live with his father and at 17 he went to Queensland to cut cane. When he was 20 he returned to Lithgow and in 1924 he met his future wife, Grace Margaret Stent. They were married on 19 February 1927. Mrs Kelly has the same name as that great film star, Grace Kelly, and I have to say Mrs Kelly had that same grace and serenity, which made her a lady and a great asset to Joe Kelly. It is very sad that she no longer has Joe to support her and give her the company she enjoyed over all those years.

Joe Kelly was elected to State Parliament in 1956 with an overwhelming majority. He held the seat of East Hills from 1956 to 17 November 1973, at which time he was 67 years of age. He was closely associated with the clubs in the district of East Hills. He moved out of East Hills when he retired and he kept up his great interest in bowls at the Ingleburn Bowling and Recreation Club. Indeed, it was a great tribute to Joe that at his funeral a guard of honour was formed by representatives of Revesby Workers Club, of which Joe was a patron; Revesby Heights Ex-servicemen's Memorial Club; Bankstown Sports Club; Ingleburn Bowling and Recreation Club. Former mayors; serving councillors; the former Federal member, Mr Vince Martin; the current Federal member for Banks, Mr Daryl Melham; former Deputy Premier, Mr Jack Ferguson; and former Minister, Mr Rex Jackson, all attended the funeral, together with relatives and friends.

The late Max Ruddock, a former Liberal Minister in this Chamber, referred to Joe Kelly one evening at a function. He said, "You will always be remembered in this House for something, and Joe Kelly will certainly be remembered for the wit that he displayed." It was a wit equal to that of the late Fred Daley, who honourable members and members of the public know had a great wit. Joe Kelly also made a great contribution locally. He was responsible for the establishment of the Georges River National Park, an area that was under threat by developers. He moved to have that national park established and now tens of thousands of people each year use that great recreation area. They do not realise that if it had not been for the foresight of Joe Kelly and community-minded people at the time, this area would have been lost for the public and for future generations. This, together with many other developments in the area, is a great tribute to a great former member of this House.


Mr RIXON (Lismore) [12.58]: I bring to the attention of the House the concerns of my constituents about the reorganisation of Northern Rivers Electricity into the NorthPower organisation. The electricity supply organisations, Namoi Valley County Council, New England Electricity, Northern Rivers Electricity, North West Electricity, Oxley Electricity, Peel-Cunningham County Council, and Tenterfield Electricity, have been amalgamated to form an organisation called NorthPower. Concerns have been expressed by consumers and by former employees of Northern Rivers Electricity. Consumers are worried about the future quality of the service to be provided and what the future cost of that service may be. In the past consumers have felt secure in the knowledge that power failures, often caused by storms, could be quickly rectified, even in the most remote parts of the district, no matter what time of the day or night. Indeed, the Reark customer satisfaction index shows that customer satisfaction with the NRE service during 1994 was higher than the satisfaction level of customers of more than 70 per cent of electricity authorities in New South Wales. Our consumers are worried that service levels will fall and costs will rise.

Page 4885

Extremely serious concerns have been expressed by the employees. They are concerned about job security, falling morale and increasing stress, which can have disastrous effects on the safety of workers. They are concerned that reduced quality of management supervision and cost-cutting measures disguised as efficiency gains, combined with stress and low morale could be a lethal mixture. Already, claims are being made that the number of serious accidents across New South Wales is rising. I shall use the words of a constituent to convey to the House the worries shared by all former employees of NRE. I quote:

I am a member of staff of the former Northern Rivers Electricity now part of North Power.

I have been employed with them for 19 years and for the last eight years I have been employed in the Customer Services Section. In the main I think we have provided prompt efficient service 24 hours a day. I myself participate in our on-call roster and have been out working with live electricity at all hours in all weathers.

I am very concerned at the actions of the new regime formed since the amalgamation forced on us by the State Government. In our Coffs Harbour area, several technicians had their own jobs advertised without any forewarning and if they wanted to keep their own position, they had to accept lower conditions. In their Design Section of 15 staff they were told that only 10 were required and they could decide amongst themselves who would go. The displaced staff will be found other work. I know this has happened as I have friends who work there.

In . . . Lismore . . . the supervisors of the two sections have been told that there will only be one overall position and if one or both miss out on it they will be found something to do. Very reassuring isn't it. This position will be readvertised with no list of duties or conditions.

I also feel insulted by . . . comments in the Daily Examiner last week. Surely . . . should have known the feelings that they would generate, but maybe it was his intention to inflame the situation for some hidden reasons. I regularly work extra time without claiming overtime and try to help our customers where possible. It doesn't matter who the comments were aimed at, we all have the tag of bludgers to bear now.

The morale of the staff in our depot is virtually rock bottom. When people talk about organising jobs for some time in the future the most common comment is that we won't be here to worry about it.

We are supposed to be using the best practises and procedures from across the new company but in most cases we have to do things the way the old North Power does them. A line management system that NRE has spent years developing and training staff for is to be thrown out in favour of their system. I know that this may sound like sour grapes, but it is just one of quite a few such cases.

It has been rumoured that the new management has a "Set" against NRE and at the start I was prepared to accept it as just that, but many of our staff have come from electricity distributors in the western regions and reports from their friends still indicate that management spend quite a bit of their visits there running down NRE and its staff. This coupled with . . . comments last week gives some credence to the original rumour.

The way -

the new management -

are treating loyal staff members who have many years experience is not right and they deserve better than that. I thought that you should know that there is widespread dissatisfaction amongst the staff with the way that the whole matter is being handled.

Those comments were made by a former employee who was professional in his approach to his work and gained satisfaction from his work. Clearly he, together with all the people on the far north coast, does not want to see falling standards, reduced safety and increased costs. I ask the Minister to ensure that these genuine concerns are addressed.


Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [1.03]: I shall talk about rail services that should be provided in New South Wales, particularly those that should be geared to increasing the tourist industry in certain parts of the State. I shall run through the experience in other States as it has affected the growth of the tourist industry in those States. In Western Australia the Australind runs between Perth and Bunbury. It has been a major contributing factor to the growth of tourism in the Bunbury and Busselton area. The Prospector runs between Perth and Kalgoorlie, and contributes to the tourism industry that is developing around the golden mile of the eastern part of Western Australia. In Queensland the Queenslander, the Sunlander and the Spirit of the Tropics operate between Brisbane and Cairns, and the Gulflander runs between Normanton and Croydon. Interestingly, the number of carriages on the Gulflander has been increased. I have been told that 95 per cent of passengers who travel on the Gulflander are tourists and do so simply to enjoy the experience.

The Spirit of the Outback is the latest train to start running in Queensland, and runs between Brisbane and Longreach. The Westlander runs between Brisbane and Charleville, the Inlander runs between Townsville and Mount Isa and the Savannalander runs between Mount Surprise and Forsayth. All these trains generate tourist activity in the areas they serve. No such trains run in New South Wales. We may have XPTs and Xplorers but they are not seen primarily as a means of developing tourism. An initial route could link together and utilise the existing rail systems that service Sydney, Newcastle, the Hunter Valley, through to Mudgee and Wallerawang and back to Sydney. The tourist areas that would benefit are Pokolbin, the Upper Hunter wine areas, the Mudgee wine areas - the history of Mudgee-Gulgong is increasingly attracting tourists - and national parks such as the Blue Mountains National Park, Gardens of Stone National Park and Wollemi National Park.

Mining activity in some areas is attracting tourist attention, with family visits and so on. I am told that the difficulty in the State Rail Authority is simply that no rolling stock is available to introduce any new services. Eight pairs of 620 class non-
Page 4886
airconditioned rail cars and 10 pairs of 900 class airconditioned rail cars, some with buffet facilities, are unused and lying idle. They were to be auctioned, but the auction was cancelled recently. The cars are presently stored at sidings adjacent to the Port Kembla locomotive maintenance centre. My proposal would involve a train running from Sydney up the central coast to Newcastle, which is an attractive area, through the Hunter Valley and the Goulburn River Valley to Sandy Hollow, to Ulan and then through Gulgong to Mudgee. The scenery in that area is spectacular. Such a rail service would provide an opportunity to see the northern end of the Wollemi National Park, which terminates at Goulburn Valley.

The scenery from Mudgee through the Capertee Valley to Wallerawang is spectacular. As a youth I travelled that area many times on the Mudgee Mail, always at night; the Mudgee Mail got into Mudgee at 3 a.m. On returning from Wallerawang through the Blue Mountains, the Blue Mountains scenery is well known. I request that this matter be given consideration by the Government with a view to emulating the success achieved in other States, notably Queensland and Western Australia.


Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [1.08]: The Minister for Education and Training has announced that he intends to close Dover Heights TAFE college this month. In his announcement he did not talk about the students and staff who would be affected - there are about 2,500 students and quite a few staff at that location. The Minister simply talked about the pot of gold that he would realise by removing the education facility and handing the site over for sale to a developer. Apparently the Minister is totally fixated on the real estate value of the site and has forgotten the people involved. His department announced that there will be no staff losses, that all staff will be offered jobs in other locations. As a result there will be no staff savings from closing the Dover Heights TAFE college. Because the majority of the college's costs relate to staff, there will in fact be no significant savings from closing the establishment. The result of the closure will be disruption to thousands of students - not to mention future students - to staff, to the local community, and to surrounding high schools.

The Minister has focused entirely on the real estate value, although so far there has been no indication as to what that value might be. I understand the Minister has issued instructions for his department to close the TAFE college at Dover Heights by 31 December and for it then to be sold. With a view to achieving maximum dollars for the site, no doubt the Minister is hoping to sell the land for future development of high density units. I can tell the Minister that the council will not stand for such development on that site; I will not stand for it, and the local community will do its best to prevent that outcome. In 1985 it was a Labor Government that closed the high school that was on that site. Ten years later a Labor Government has returned to close down the TAFE college that has operated there for the past decade.

Before this land was used to house an educational facility, that is, in the late 1950s or early 1960s, it was parkland. It was one of the few examples of coastal heath land on Sydney's coast. One would have to go south towards La Perouse to find another original site of coastal heath land. The Waverley municipality has a deficiency of green space in the surrounding area. North from Bondi Road to the northern border of the Waverley municipality there is a shortage of open space for the number of people living in that high density residential area. The Bondi area has the highest residential density of any area in Australia. If the Minister succeeds in closing the TAFE facility, and I certainly will work against that, I will request him to return the site to public use again as parkland and to investigate restoring the area to heath land.

Mr Martin: We could probably make it the Vaucluse state forest.

Mr DEBNAM: The Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries suggests that we make it Vaucluse state forest and perhaps I will raise that with the Minister for Education and Training. If it is intended to build units on the site, the land would need to be rezoned. The council has already announced its opinion on that. I believe the Government would have little hope of achieving that rezoning. I understand that the Minister has ordered that on Friday the doors are to be locked, the locks changed, and teaching materials removed. The teachers are currently in disarray trying to plan for next year, as are the high schools surrounding the college. The Minister has taken this action without consultation with the teachers, students or local high school representatives, all of whom are extremely frustrated about not having an opportunity to discuss this problem with him.

I understand that Randwick TAFE campus is to be renovated. There will be problems for the Randwick college if it is expected to accommodate new students from Dover Heights. In addition, a new building at Ultimo will be required if all the Dover Heights students are to be relocated to other colleges. In summary, there has been a total lack of consultation and a refusal to meet with people and answer letters and no doubt with a reshuffle coming up we will look for a change. [Time expired.]

Private members' statements noted.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Clough) left the chair at 1.13 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Page 4887

Royal assent to the following bills reported:

Consumer Credit Administration Bill
Liquor Further Amendment Bill
Property Legislation Amendment (Easements) Bill
Road Transport (Heavy Vehicles Registration Charges) Bill
Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill
Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill
Unclaimed Money Bill
Westpac Banking Corporation Bill
Police Service Amendment Bill
Adoption Information Amendment Bill
Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Bill
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Bill
Dormant Funds Amendment Bill
Forfeiture Bill
Motor Accidents Amendment Bill
Presbyterian Church (Corporations) Bill
Uncollected Goods Bill

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [2.17]: I am sure all honourable members will join me in extending condolences to Annette Olle and the three children of the late Australian Broadcasting Corporation broadcaster. Andrew Olle was noted for his courtesy, his dignity and his intelligence. He was a superb broadcaster. The explanation of State politics and public policy issues to the people of New South Wales was made more possible because of his professionalism. To Annette and their children I extend the condolences of all honourable members of this House. The quality of our public life is the poorer for his passing.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [2.18]: I join with the Premier in expressing my condolences and those of the Opposition to the family of Andrew Olle. It was my privilege to work with Andrew Olle over a brief time at ABC television in the mid-1970s. Andrew Olle will be regarded by everyone who knew him as a journalist committed to fairness; to giving people a fair go. He leaves a legacy to Australian journalism which others might follow. He has been an inspiration to those who work in the media and to all who have known him. The circumstances of his passing are particularly tragic. Certainly his family - his wife, Annette, and their three children - have the deep sympathy of all honourable members of this House and, indeed, the Australian community over the tragic loss that the Olle family has sustained. Andrew Olle has left his mark on Australian journalism. I hope it will be recognised in some way, perhaps by a traineeship at ABC television named in his honour. That is something that might be taken on board in another place. I join with the Premier in noting the passing of one of Australia's finest journalists.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party [2.19]: I join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing the condolences of the National Party on the very sad and untimely death of Andrew Olle. Through the medium of radio Andrew Olle became the friend of thousands of Australians. He possessed that rare talent of being able to relate to the ordinary person and to achieve the respect of professional people, both young and old. Andrew Olle's work was exemplary, particularly in picking up and reporting on causes such as the drought. Many commentators and journalists have done good work in exposing the rigours of the drought, but Andrew Olle's work was excellent in that his homework was always immaculate and he had a real feeling for his presentations on behalf of country people. It is with regret that I acknowledge the passing of a great professional and, indeed, a great Australian.


Mr Speaker, pursuant to section 31 of the Ombudsman Act, tabled the report of the Ombudsman entitled "New South Wales Police Complaints System".

Ordered to be printed.


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, to ensure the safety of school children, teachers and local residents, Lidcombe Court hear only adult matters, and that matters involving children be heard at Minda or elsewhere, received from Mr Nagle.

Petition praying that a bistro/tavern not be constructed on Buckwell Drive and Luxford Road, Hassall Grove, received from Mr Gibson.



Mr COLLINS: Did the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs at the health Ministers conference in June undertake to increase supplies of the life-saving
Page 4888
factor 8 coagulant which stops bleeding in haemophiliacs? Is a recent report correct that instead of the 3,000 bottles needed in New South Wales the Red Cross had only seven?

Dr REFSHAUGE: At the conference for health Ministers held in June deep concern was expressed about the need for factor 8.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: As honourable members know, haemophiliacs are desperately in need of factor 8, which is the clotting factor that ensures that when they sustain an injury they do not bleed to death. In the last few years significant changes have occurred in the way in which haemophilia has been treated. Australia has a very protected and clean blood transfusion service; we are keen to make sure that people are not infected by blood transfusions. Consequently, blood has not been introduced from elsewhere. Some countries use a number of different blood transfusion services. That blood, particularly from those states of the United States of America where donors are paid for blood donations, is not as clean as that which we use in New South Wales. Consequently, blood transfusion services in other parts of the world certainly do not have the same good reputation that our services enjoy.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: However, some significant changes have occurred in the treatment of haemophilia, particularly factor 8 haemophilia. Regular prophylactic factor 8 transfusions seem to be productive and make a significant difference. The Government strongly supports their use.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: As a result, the potential demand for factor 8 has dramatically increased. It was agreed by representatives at the health Ministers forum that a national approach to the issue should be adopted. The Federal Government is concerned that it not bear the full cost responsibility of recombinant factor 8, which is basically an artificial, rather than a natural, factor 8. The cost is quite high. Therefore it is appropriate that it is shared, with the Federal Government paying 50 per cent of the cost. Our blood banks are obviously concerned about the production of factor 8.

[Interruption]

I am sure the honourable member for North Shore does not want her comments to be regarded as a condemnation of the Red Cross Blood Bank, although I will be happy for them to be recorded as such if she continues to interject.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The amount of blood that is produced is a matter for the blood bank. Whether we have six bottles or 6,000 bottles does not depend on government funding; that depends on administrative decisions of the blood bank and the generosity of people who donate to the Red Cross. The honourable member for North Shore is obviously very unhappy with the blood bank. The Leader of the Opposition criticises KPMG Peat Marwick. I can understand why he may not like the big end of town, but for him to criticise the Red Cross Blood Bank raises concerns in my mind about his suitability for leadership of the Opposition. The States have decided that there should be a cost-sharing arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States with regard to recombinant factor 8.

Mr Collins: You have done nothing. That is what the haemophiliacs are saying. That's what they say.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. He will resume his seat. I ask the attendant to return to the Leader of the Opposition the document that he placed on the table of the House.

Mr Collins: This piece of paper, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I direct the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat. The honourable member for Bulli will cease interjecting.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The blood bank is having difficulty producing enough factor 8, and the Government is contributing extra money this year to ensure that adequate supplies of recombinant factor 8 are available. We will also ensure that that funding is matched by Federal funding so that recombinant factor 8 is available in the future. Obviously the most efficient way for the blood bank to produce a significant volume of factor 8 is through the generosity of donors. The Government is holding talks with the blood bank to ascertain how its efficiency can be maintained and, in fact, enhanced. It is outrageous for the Leader of the Opposition to make such a calculated attack on the generosity of the people of New South Wales who donate blood to the Red Cross -

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: That the honourable member for Ermington also condemns the Red Cross Blood Bank is a reflection of the absolute hypocrisy of honourable members opposite. They will be in opposition for a very long time.

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


Mr MOSS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. In light of the continuing revelations from the royal commission into the Police Service, what is the Minister doing
Page 4889
to remove corrupt police officers from the service?

Mr WHELAN: From today corrupt police will be purged from the New South Wales Police Service.

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

Mr WHELAN: Let me make it quite clear that the Premier and I are determined to get crooked cops out of the New South Wales Police Service.

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

Mr WHELAN: The Carr Government will work with the royal commission to purge the Police Service of corrupt police. Last night the Government pulled out all stops to ensure that corrupt police could be summarily dismissed from today. This morning the Police Service Amendment Bill became law. As a consequence, immediate action has begun against seven New South Wales police officers. The Commissioner of Police has formally advised me that notices are currently being prepared to be served on these officers in accordance with the newly proclaimed Act. These notices will set out the grounds on which the commissioner has formed the view that the seven officers have engaged in corrupt conduct and are not fit to remain in the New South Wales Police Service.

The royal commission has already demonstrated its effectiveness in detecting and exposing corruption. There is every reason to believe it will continue to get results. Today's announcement means that options are running out for crooks in the New South Wales Police Service. This week I, like the rest of the community, was horrified by the latest scandalous revelations, this time from the central coast. It is now clear that corruption in the New South Wales Police Service is not confined to isolated pockets. As a result of the ongoing royal commission process, the Government determined that a new process was needed to get rid of demonstrably corrupt police. The current disciplinary system - a matter the royal commissioner is likely to report on - is clearly inadequate to meet the need to quickly expel police exposed as corrupt by the royal commission.

I determined it was in the interests of the community, the Police Service and the officers themselves that a new process be developed specifically for the royal commission. Today that process bears fruit. Summary dismissal legislation provides a fast, effective means of dismissing corrupt police who fail to cooperate with the royal commission. The legislation will apply to all members of the New South Wales Police Service. The Commissioner of Police must be of the opinion that the officer is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a position in the Police Service because the officer concerned has engaged in corrupt conduct. The commissioner will be required to serve the officer with a notice setting out the grounds on which he has formed his opinion. As I said earlier, the commissioner is preparing seven such notices today. The officers will be given 21 days to respond to the commissioner. The commissioner must take this into consideration when making his decision. Dismissal will take effect when the commissioner's decision is made.

An exception applies - and it is an important one. The royal commissioner will have the power to direct the Commissioner of Police to accept the resignation of any officer he considers should be afforded that privilege. The Commissioner of Police has advised me today that he will cease summary dismissal action against any officer for whom such a recommendation is made by the royal commissioner. This will ensure the royal commissioner is not hampered in his job and will encourage police to continue to come forward to the royal commission. Honourable members will be aware that until 9 February next year police have the opportunity to come forward and admit their corruption under the recently announced amnesty. Today's announcement should provide further impetus.

I inform the House that notices are being prepared to be served upon Detective Inspective James Graham Fowler, Detective Senior Constable Duncan Grant Demol, Detective Sergeant Trevor David Haken, Sergeant Neville John Scullion, Detective Sergeant John Gordon Swan, Detective Sergeant Dennis Kimble Thompson, and Detective Sergeant Wayne James Eade. Consideration is being given to whether they will be dismissed or allowed to resign, and the Commissioner of Police is awaiting the royal commissioner's decision in this regard. I also advise the House that the Chairman of the Police Board informed me this morning that the board has decided to recommend to His Excellency the Governor that Chief Superintendent Robert Lysaught be removed from office for misbehaviour.

The board had regard to evidence given by Mr Lysaught to the royal commission on 14 and 18 September 1995. That evidence related to five specific events and/or conversations which Mr Lysaught admitted had occurred. The Police Board raised these matters with Mr Lysaught and gave him an opportunity to respond. He did so in writing and the board had regard to his response. I am informed that the board, in reaching its decision, confined itself to the five matters and had no regard to the allegations made at the royal commission which Mr Lysaught denies. The Carr Government is committed to taking swift and effective action to cleanse the New South Wales Police Service. The aim of the royal commissioner and the aim of the Carr Government are one and the same - we are determined to rid the New South Wales Police Service of corruption.


Mr ARMSTRONG: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Did the Premier say in response to my question yesterday that he
Page 4890
would not instruct his Ministers to cease enforcing the provisions of SEPP 46? Why has the Premier overridden his Minister by announcing the exclusion of native grasses from SEPP 46? Will the Premier now address the major deficiencies of the policy?

Mr CARR: The answers to the first two questions are: yes; no. The last question therefore does not apply.


Mr NAGLE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism. What is the Minister's response to a review of special tourist transport fares by the Government Pricing Tribunal?

Mr LANGTON: I am pleased to advise the House of our decision to accept the recommendations of the independent Government Pricing Tribunal regarding special travel passes for tourists and Sydneysiders. This decision fulfils this Government's pre-election commitment to introduce combined transport tickets. But, most importantly, the decision will make travel around Sydney easier for tourists and Sydneysiders alike. I refer to the Sydneypass, the Cityhopper, and a new addition to their ranks - the Dayrover pass. This Government will not only extend these passes so that they cover travel on trains as well as buses and ferries, it will also extend the areas they cover to ensure customers get even better value for money. I thank the honourable member for Auburn for the opportunity to provide more detail about these new tickets, which will be introduced almost immediately.

Sydneypass tickets previously allowed unlimited travel on buses and ferries for three-day, five-day or seven-day periods. From 1 January the Sydneypass will include train travel, and there will be no extra cost on those passes. The free rail travel area will be extended to cover an area bounded by Chatswood, Croydon, Bondi Junction, Rockdale and Canterbury, giving travellers, especially visitors to our city, a chance to venture outside the central business district. Train travel, of course, is in addition to free travel on premium State transit services such as the Sydney Explorer buses, the Airport Express, jetcats and rivercats. That is a great deal, and to make it even more attractive we are freezing the cost of those passes.

I am pleased to announce that the extended Sydneypass will be available in time for the beginning of the Sydney festival, ensuring that visitors over the summer months will have a chance to take advantage of the many cultural and musical events on offer. I advise the House also that the Government will introduce a new $20 Dayrover pass, again meeting an election commitment to introduce combined bus, ferry and train tickets for visitors. That ticket will offer unlimited travel on government bus, rail and ferry services in an area bounded by Otford in the south, Macarthur in the south-west, Emu Plains in the west and Cowan in the north. From 1 January, the tourists and visitors at which this offer is aimed will have the opportunity to explore the entire Sydney metropolitan region by bus, ferry and train. The decision is the fulfilment of this Government's pre-election commitment to introduce combined transport tickets.

I am equally pleased to advise the House of a further fulfilment of this Government's commitment to attracting people back on to our buses, ferries and trains. From the beginning of the school holidays, we will introduce a new discount for parents using public transport for family outings. A previous Labor Government introduced a family ticket under which only the first two children travelling with an adult had to pay; any other children travelled free. Under this Labor Government, commencing at the start of the forthcoming school holidays, an adult travelling with more than one child will only have to pay for herself or himself and one child; any additional children will travel free. That initiative meets, once again, an election commitment to make it easier for families to travel on public transport and to get people back onto public transport. This Government is about putting the public back into public transport by creating travel options that are not only integrated but affordable for all our customers.

Mr Photios: What is your definition of a family?

Mr LANGTON: The honourable member for Ermington loves to deride anything that is advantageous to families. I do not know what particular part of society he thinks he is representing. The members on the Government side of the House believe they have an obligation to make it easier for parents to afford to travel on public transport with their children. They have a right to travel as much as anyone else. The record will show that the honourable member for Ermington thinks this is all a big joke, that the Government should not be offering such tickets. The previous Labor Government introduced family tickets under which only the first two children had to pay; this Government has introduced a system whereby only the first child has to pay.

Mr Photios: Define the family. All children should travel free.

Mr LANGTON: The honourable member for Ermington, who was a member of a Government that did nothing for seven years, suggests that all children should be travelling free. As a Minister the honourable member swanned around New South Wales, but the previous coalition Government of which he was a member did nothing to offer discounts to enable families to travel around the city.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable
Page 4891
member for Ermington to order for the second time.

Mr LANGTON: The honourable member, who is now enjoying the comforts of opposition and who is on a brief visit back to Australia, suggests that the Government should be doing all sorts of things. The record will show that he believes that all children should be travelling free.

[Interruption]

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

Mr LANGTON: This announcement today meets the Government's pre-election commitment. It puts the public back into public transport by creating travel options which are integrated and affordable for all our customers, whether they be visitors or Sydneysiders with families.


Mr TINK: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. During his mid-year trip to the United States did he spend over $32,000 in just 10 days on limousine hire? Would $32,000 be enough to fund one of the youth employment positions he is cutting from the Sydney City Mission? He is not Premier Carr but Premier Limo!

Mr CARR: What a genius!

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

Mr CARR: All the honourable member for Eastwood tempts me to do is to release the file of the travels of the Leader of the Opposition, which is sitting there sweating, bound by thin pink tape, ready to be revealed to the world.

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

Mr CARR: Or the file of overseas travel by Premiers Greiner and Fahey.

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

Mr CARR: When we took to the investment houses in the United States the Treasurer, the head of Treasury, the head of the Department of State Development and other public officials, we took a powerful case for investment in New South Wales.

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

Mr CARR: We won for this State - as I have reported to this House - hundreds of new jobs, quality jobs for young Australians. I make no apology for that.

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

Mr NEILLY: My question is directed to the Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform me and the House what he is doing to improve the safety of staff employed in New South Wales correctional centres?

Mr DEBUS: I thank the honourable member for Cessnock for his question and for his continuing interest in the affairs of the State's correctional system. Several correctional centres are within his electorate. One of my highest priorities as Minister for Corrective Services is to ensure that violence in our gaols is kept to a minimum. I am greatly concerned to ensure that staff in particular have as safe an environment as possible in which to work. During the life of the former Government there was a massive increase in the size of the prison population. In fact, the prison population increased by about 50 per cent, and the number of assaults on staff rose as a direct result.

In 1990 and mid-1993 the rate of assault on prison officers in full-time correctional centres increased. Since 1994 the rate of assault has remained stable, although the number of serious assaults has dropped. The Department of Corrective Services defines assault as anything from spitting, pushing and shoving to attacks involving serious physical injury or even death. It cannot be denied that prisons can be violent and dangerous places. The Carr Government is firmly committed to securing the safety of staff and inmates. The case management program, in which prison officers work closely with inmates, is being expanded and refined. The advantage is that prison officers work closely with inmates, often identifying problems before they become serious and lead to violence.

The introduction and expansion of violence management and drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs and the introduction of crisis support units are all helping to lower the temperature of our prisons. In addition, more dynamic inmate management and improved electronic systems are being introduced in many of our prisons. To further improve staff security, a duress alarm system will be introduced into Lithgow and Maitland correctional centres in the next few weeks. During 1996 it will be in place in parts of Long Bay, Goulburn, Parklea, Parramatta and Bathurst correctional centres and may be extended to other prisons in the future.

The system signals that a staff member is in need of assistance. The alarm on the officer's belt will, through a series of beeps, alert the prison's control room and those officers closest to the scene of the incident. The duress system will also keep a record of the incident. The alarms are small, light and tough and clip easily on to staff uniforms. They will provide staff members with unprecedented
Page 4892
safety within the wings of correctional centres, the sites of violent attacks on prison staff. The alarms are also good news for inmates because during times of crisis, staff are able to summon help more quickly than they otherwise have been able to. Should a staff member be attacked from behind or be incapable of touching off the alarm, the alarms are programmed to go off if the wearer falls to the ground. The executive of the prison officers vocation branch has been consulted and the system has been demonstrated. The duress alarm system in our prison system is palpable evidence of the Carr Government's commitment to the safety of staff.


Dr MACDONALD: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. In view of the Government's decision to abolish the New South Wales Sexual Assault Committee and the Domestic Violence Advisory Council, how will the Premier provide for effective representation, advocacy and consultation between community groups and the Government to prevent marginalisation of these vitally important issues?

Mr CARR: The action is mainly through the Premier's Council for Women, which has recently been established with a powerful membership. It is addressing itself, as one of its highest priorities, to the incidence of sexual assault and domestic violence in general. The Minister for Women can provide additional details to the serious question asked by the honourable member.


Dr MACDONALD: I ask a supplementary question. How often has the Premier's Council for Women met and how will it provide for representation from grass roots groups?

Mr CARR: The Parliament can easily be provided with details of the membership of the committee. It is publicly available, it has been announced, and two weeks ago I attended its augural meeting.


Mr McMANUS: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Will the Premier provide the detail of the cost of travel by the current Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister?

Mr CARR: I am able to present to the House some material retrieved from the files in the last 10 minutes about travel by the current Leader of the Opposition. Members of this House will enjoy the memos that the file yielded. A memo went from his office to the Ministry for the Arts seeking assistance to justify a trip to Tuscany and Paris - to see the ratings agencies, to see the investment houses. Because of the stunted cultural development of the then Minister, he had to ask for the most obvious assistance available.

Mr Photios: On a point of order: the Leader of the Opposition is now about to read a memorandum he read two months ago.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I remind the honourable member for Ermington that he is on three calls to order. If he continues to use such a tactic, he will be removed from the Chamber.

Mr CARR: He cannot get used to it; he refers to me as the Leader of the Opposition. This makes all the more urgent the grief counselling the Government has promised the Opposition for some time. We must be careful not to provoke members of the Opposition. If we provoke them they misbehave, and who gets blamed? They cannot be provoked. I want no mention of hot dogs or gourmet sandwiches; no mention of leadership, or the little charmer from Lane Cove will be set off. Honourable members should listen to this beauty. The memorandum stated:

The Minister (Collins) has requested advice on suitable arts locations and activities for him to visit and attend during his proposed visit to Tuscany and Paris in June-July 1993.

Anyone with a minimal degree of self-education - that assumption cannot be made with the Liberals - would consult the Michelin guide or an art history book. The Leader of the Opposition had it done for him. A further memorandum stated:

Attached for the Minister's consideration is -

a shopping list -

of possible activities and venues to choose from.

(a) Northern Italy, particularly Tuscany . . .

It goes on to recommend an internationally renowned cooking school. Another memorandum dated 27 November 1992, table B, stated:

The Minister wishes to travel to Europe in June-July 1993 for 21 days.

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

Mr CARR: The Leader of the Opposition seems to have made trips to Tuscany and Paris every year. The memorandum stated:

The Minister would appreciate any advice the ministry could provide on suitable arts locations for him to visit.

What a hobbledehoy. The Leader of the Opposition needed the ministry to tell him where to go in Florence, to draw up an itinerary. He did not spend money on limousines. However, he spent $4,281 on several days in a hotel in Florence and $7,967 on a few days in a hotel in Paris. He was travelling for a couple of weeks to visit arts locations and art galleries, and the bill came to $50,000. Here is the itinerary: examine possible initiatives in the visual arts in Florence. He did not have to take initiatives because Lorenzetti, Giotto
Page 4893
and Michelangelo had done it all before him. One can see it at the Uffizi Gallery. Botticelli got there before him. One could say that all of them beat him to it.

Honourable members should fasten their seat belts. The Leader of the Opposition then went to Venice, with the great itinerary to "examine possible initiatives in" - you guessed it - "the visual arts." But he was cheated, and he cheated us, because Titian and Giorgione, and Giovanni Bellini beat him to it. One can see the evidence of that on the walls of the academia. That was exhausting, so off he goes to Paris. His itinerary was "various meetings with French authorities re film opportunities". He is a great film buff. His obligation or great task in Paris was a rest. After all that exploration of visual arts initiatives in Florence and Venice he went to Paris for a rest. To ensure that his rest was comfortable he spent $7,967 on his two-day stay in a hotel.

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

Mr CARR: The Leader of the Opposition needed a rest because his next obligation in Paris was "a spot of brainstorming with the French cultural Minister". The French cultural Minister did not do too well out of the brainstorming because he lost office shortly before the Leader of the Opposition. That exercise in mutual cultural enrichment did not work. The cost to the taxpayer of his trips to win jobs and investment for New South Wales is on the public record.


Mr SOURIS: My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. Are Department of Agriculture employees now eligible to apply for voluntary redundancy? Combined with $28 million in budgetary cuts and downsizing by natural attrition, how does the Minister propose to prevent a serious departmental brain drain and deterioration of quality services now provided to the rural sector?

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order: that is the fourth time during this question time that the Premier has risen, gone to the table and poured a glass of water, placing himself between the Minister speaking and the Chair. That is contrary to standing orders and precedents, and shows an abject disregard for the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the Minister use the rostrum closest to the Chair.

Mr AMERY: The question of the honourable member for Upper Hunter relates to a press release issued by the Leader of the National Party, in which he claimed that there was a brain drain from the Department of Agriculture. When the Leader of the National Party left the Department of Agriculture there was no brain drain; indeed, I understand that the collective intelligence quotient of the department increased by 2.3 per cent. I am surprised that I have been asked about voluntary redundancy packages for employees, because what this Government is doing contrasts starkly with what the previous Government did when it redirected the whole of the department to regional New South Wales. During debate on reorganisation of the department I asked honourable members for sympathy and understanding because taking over the agriculture portfolio on 4 April was similar to taking over a corner shop previously run by Jed Clampett and Jethro Bodine. The Leader of the National Party was the Minister for Agriculture in the first half of the term of the previous Government, and the honourable member for Clarence was the Minister in the second half.

It was necessary to rejig some of the department's operations, so they decentralised the department from Sydney to Orange. The previous Government offered no redundancy packages to those who could not go to Orange because they had a partner working in Sydney, they perhaps had an opportunity to work in another department, or they could not move to Orange for personal reasons. It effectively told employees that their jobs were in Orange and if they did not like it they should get out. Government policy is to decentralise research facilities and the Rural Assistance Authority and move them to the country. As I said in reply to a question from the honourable member for Tamworth recently, I realise that some people will not be able to travel. Some of those people may have partners whose careers are based in Sydney; perhaps they have some personal family matters that prevent them from moving to the country. We are providing a redundancy package for those people who for personal or professional reasons cannot move to the country. The last thing this mob opposite should do is to ask this question of the Government, which is providing a safety net to some employees who would not be able to transfer to the bush. There will be a voluntary redundancy package -

Mr Armstrong: You are going about to cut?

Mr AMERY: Yes. Yes, we are going to give a voluntary redundancy package. Honourable members opposite must not have realised that. Whilst I prefer that any reduction in staff numbers is achieved through natural attrition and redeployment, it is necessary for the department to meet its budget and to overcome the logistics problems of decentralisation. Therefore it has been necessary to consider the option of offering voluntary redundancies across the whole department, including the Rural Assistance Authority, as some employees from the authority are unable to move. In consultation with the Public Employment Office I have approved the seeking from staff of expressions of interest in taking voluntary redundancies. Voluntary redundancies can be offered only to staff who are declared excess and do not fall into one of the following categories: a member of the senior executive service; a temporary employee with less than 12 months
Page 4894
service; an apprentice or casual employee; a member of staff who is subject to disciplinary action; a member of staff who is potentially terminating from the department for workers' compensation reasons or similar.

The department will offer redundancy packages to employees who meet the criteria. Members opposite should not get too excited about this matter. When the coalition was in government it reduced the number of advisory staff in the department by 14 per cent, it cut the overall staff level by 6 per cent. There were no redundancy packages. That is how the former Government treated its employees. It told them their jobs would be on the other side of New South Wales and that they could take it or leave it - no compassion at all. The redundancy packages have been discussed with the unions and with the employees. I understand this is the best way of properly managing the budget for New South Wales Agriculture and the Government's very sensible policy on decentralisation of agricultural services to country areas.


Mr RUMBLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads. Will the Minister advise the House of the improvements to Darling Harbour since the appointment of the new board?

Mr KNIGHT: Darling Harbour is one of Sydney's major tourist attractions and is enjoyed by interstate and overseas visitors as well as Sydneysiders. But in recent years, under the coalition Government, it stagnated. Since 1991 visitor numbers have fallen by approximately 16 per cent. This was a big problem for the State. In August I appointed the new Darling Harbour Authority Board, chaired by Mr Gerry Gleeson, and charged it with the task of reinvigorating Darling Harbour and making it more attractive to local and foreign tourists alike. What was the response of the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr Photios: Jobs for the boys.

Mr KNIGHT: The interjection comes from the honourable member for Ermington who described the appointment as being an example of jobs for the boys. The Government publicly appointed one of the most senior and finest public servants this State has ever seen, to sort out the mess the coalition left behind. The only response from the Leader of the Opposition was a cowardly and unwarranted attack on Mr Gleeson and the board. I remind honourable members of what the Premier said in response to that attack. In the Australian of 3 August the Premier was quoted as having said:

If there is any attack on Gerry Gleeson coming from Peter Collins it is a reflection on Peter Collins, because Gerry Gleeson has got in the smallest of his fingers more ability than Peter Collins has in his whole frame.

The accuracy of that comment has been well demonstrated by the relative performance of the two since Gerry Gleeson was appointed.

Mr Photios: Jobs for the boys.

Mr KNIGHT: Again the honourable member for Ermington interjects about jobs for the boys. What a lovely week it was for everyone when the honourable member for Ermington was not here last week. I hear as many calls of "Hear! Hear!" from Opposition members as I hear from the Government side of the House. The Opposition has a saying about the honourable member for Ermington. The question is: how many members for Ermington does it take to change a light bulb? The answer is: none at all; he just stands there and holds up the globe because he assumes the whole world revolves around him.

Let me examine the record of the new Darling Harbour Authority Board. First, the board has approved the $9 million expansion of the Sydney Aquarium which was blocked repeatedly by the previous Government. The Government has cleared that blockage and approved of the expansion. Second, in October the board approved the new $60 million Sega development, a first-class family entertainment, high technology-oriented centre which will bring people back to Darling Harbour. Third, the new Darling Harbour Authority Board approved the Imax theatre. The Imax theatre was blocked repeatedly by the previous Government. When the Imax theatre was approved the major proponent of it, John Wiley, was asked why he could not get approval through the previous Government. He said that he went to the then Premier, Nick Greiner, and could not get it through. He then went to Premier John Fahey and could not get it through.

Mr Wiley was asked whether he had asked anyone else. He said, "Yes, I went to Peter Collins, because he was the Treasurer and the Minister for the Arts and this was a matter of great interest to the arts". When asked what response he got from Peter Collins he said that Peter Collins told him, "I totally support your project. I think it is terrific but don't tell anyone or that will be the kiss of death for it." "Shoosh", he said. By his own admission the Leader of the Opposition was unable to make anything happen; he was unable to make anything succeed; he was unable to make anything a goer. When one looks at the sorry state of the Opposition, nothing has changed.


Dr REFSHAUGE: I have a supplementary answer to a question asked earlier of me by the Leader of the Opposition concerning factor 8. As I said earlier, agreement had been reached with the Commonwealth Government to share the cost of
Page 4895
recombinant and plasma derived factor 8. The Australiawide shortage of factor 8 is due to the growth in the number of people with haemophilia and the change in clinical practices, as I mentioned, that places patients on prophylactic treatment. Already New South Wales has increased expenditure this year for additional reserves of factor 8. Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said, there are as at 10 a.m. today 210 bottles of factor 8 in Clarence Street and there are between 150 and 200 more bottles at the Red Cross at Newcastle.

There is sufficient factor 8 for an emergency or emergency surgery. For over a year the Red Cross has maintained factor 8 stocks of between 800 and 1,000 bottles, five days to one week's supply. Stocks of factor 8 have always been adequate to save the lives of people in need. The key reason is not anything about funding but it is the insufficient supply of people donating plasma, particularly with the change in treatment patterns for prophylactic treatment, although there has been an increase of 6 per cent in the donation rate since July. The Red Cross has the full support of the Government, despite the attacks by the Opposition. We are making this increased contribution of factor 8 with full confidence in its ability to maintain supplies.

Questions without notice concluded.


Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services) [3.19]: This motion is urgent not least because in the last three weeks a dozen people have died in house fires. As honourable members are aware, earlier this week I conducted a summit involving the insurance industry, local government, and many people from the fire services, all of whom agreed on a strategy for approaching this most serious urgent problem. This is one of the last opportunities for the House to send an important message to the community - particularly to the insurance industry, which has been asked to support a program of television advertising - about the benefits of smoke alarms in the event of house fires.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [3.20]: This matter is urgent because the Government lacks policy focus. This State is grinding to a halt because of the Carr Government's knee-jerk decisions and lack of consultation with a wide range of interest groups throughout the community on almost every piece of legislation that has been introduced to this House this session. Before this session of Parliament concludes the record must be set straight that the Carr Government must change its approach by being more consultative, more open and far less arrogant than it has been in its first nine months in office. From the Government's action to date across a range of portfolio areas it is clear that thousands of people have been caused a great deal of stress.

This matter is urgent because people do not know from one day to the next where the Carr Government stands. The Government changes policy as frequently as the Minister for Transport scribbles out resignations. The Premier's approach to government is damaging this State. He has not focused on long-term policy development; his vision does not extend beyond the six o'clock news. The Carr Government has no policy substance; it is all sizzle and no sausage. The Carr Government is a case study of policy on the run. Recently one morning the Premier said that there were far too many people in Sydney; and his solution was to ban all immigrants. The Premier's basic approach was to stamp visas "Not valid for Sydney" and set up some sort of exclusion zone around Sydney.

Recently he told architects who were planning the Olympic Stadium that glass and metal were out and house bricks were in. He saw a television program about accelerated learning and the next day he said he was going to ban it because it was trendy. This matter is urgent because the Government recently promised more support for school pupils. That proposal saw the light of day for about six hours until the Government claimed that the front-page story that it had generated was a figment of the journalist's imagination. More recently another great policy innovation were the higher school certificate identity cards, but that policy has disappeared without trace. Another unresolved matter is whether the Sydney Harbour Casino will get its tax break. Every jurisdiction in this country and around the world knows that casinos are a licence to print money. In this State the Premier's response is, "Why didn't I think of that?"

The Government's rhetoric has no substance. In recent weeks members heard the Premier's response to the problem of rave parties. Yesterday he attempted to answer a question I asked last week. He has a one week time lapse in providing answers to the people of New South Wales and to this House. The Premier said he was going to close the Phoenician Club; he said, "Enough is enough." He told the House he would come down on those establishments like a ton of bricks. He has come down like a feather because yesterday he told the House he was powerless to act on his promise. He changed his story and said the Government does not interfere in the court process.

The Government has done a backflip on environmental issues. I am pleased that the Minister for the Environment is in the precincts of the Chamber because her backflip on access to national parks and on State environmental planning policy 46 has plagued New South Wales and infringed on property rights in an unprecedented way. Rather than confront and debate the issue in this Chamber, the Premier changed his mind because John Laws very properly did him over on radio. These matters are urgent because - [Time
Page 4896
expired.]

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

The House divided.

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

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

Mrs Beamer Mr Blackmore

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The vote being equal, I give my casting vote with the ayes and declare the question to have passed in the affirmative.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services) [3.32]: I move:

That this House supports the creation of a major public awareness campaign on smoke detectors in the wake of the tragic deaths of 12 people in the past three weeks, and "calls on" the insurance industry to contribute to the campaign.

In the early hours of Sunday, 19 November, a small child playing with a lighter is believed to have started a fire. That fire quickly took hold in the lower floor of a town house in Proctor Way, Claymore. By the time it was put out five young people, ranging in age from 21 to just 18 months, were dead. Six others were lucky to escape with their lives. In the days following I, like many others, looked for a way to reduce the chances of another tragedy such as this. My colleague the Minister for Housing moved to announce the fast-tracking of a program to install hard-wired smoke detectors in all Department of Housing stock. As an interim measure he offered tenants the opportunity to buy battery-operated smoke alarms at cost price.

The Minister for Local Government has undertaken to consult urgently with local government regarding a proposed amendment to the law that would require the compulsory installation of smoke alarms where it is proposed to undertake alterations or additions to an existing dwelling, affecting the living area. For seven years the former Government watched the skyrocketing growth in parts of Sydney's south and west, but it did virtually nothing to ensure that the fire brigade gained the resources it needed to keep up with that growth. In some areas response times have slowed. I am concerned about fire coverage, particularly in the area I have referred to. The Carr Government is doing something about it. For a start, it increased funding in the brigades by 14 per cent. The former Government had such little regard for the New South Wales Fire Brigades and its staff that on many occasions it did not even find the money for capital works from consolidated revenue.

In the financial years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1994-95 the amount allocated from consolidated revenue was zero. The brigade was forced to rely on depreciation, which honourable members would appreciate is a spurious way of funding new capital works. Depreciation ought to fund only the replacement of existing assets. Over time the depreciation route is a dead-end strategy. In the 1995-96 budget I ensured an injection of
Page 4897
$2.3 million from consolidated revenue, bringing the total capital budget to nearly $20 million. That is a 17 per cent increase on the 1994-95 capital works budget. That money has enabled us to make the construction of a new fire station at St Andrews, near Campbelltown, our first priority. Construction will begin in 1996.

Following representations from the Minister for Housing, the Government has made a commitment to the people of the south-west that the existing fire station at Ingleburn will not be closed, as was threatened by the former Government. I will be paying particular attention to the needs of the greater west in the preparation of the next budget. After the Claymore fire I consulted with the Commissioner of the New South Wales Fire Brigades, the Fire Brigade Employees Union, representatives from the brigade and others working in the fire suppression industry. It became abundantly clear that there was a need to bring everyone together to discuss ways of ensuring that more homes were fitted with smoke detectors. On 24 November I announced that I would convene a summit to discuss initiatives to motivate more people to install smoke alarms.

Tragically, by the time the summit was held - the day before yesterday - another seven people had died as a result of fire in their homes. None of those homes had a smoke detector installed. In January 1994 when we lost four lives during the horrific bushfires we were all rightly devastated by the loss, yet around 30 people lose their lives in house fires each year. Despite the warnings and the explicit and terrifying reality of those deaths, just 21 per cent of the 2.1 million homes in New South Wales have smoke detectors fitted. The New South Wales Fire Brigades has worked hard over the past few years. It has conducted education campaigns, talked to hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren and distributed thousands of pamphlets. Through hard work it has doubled the number of smoke detector installations. But the community's response has been slow and patchy.

Figures for the last financial year show that firefighters in this State attended 4,224 house fires, yet just 5 per cent of those homes had a smoke alarm fitted. The New South Wales Fire Brigades fire investigation unit maintains that there would be a 42 per cent drop in fatalities if smoke alarms were fitted to all homes. In the United States of America where installation of smoke detectors averages at around 90 per cent, deaths have dropped by 50 per cent. Experience has shown that the majority of deaths occur when no smoke alarm is fitted. A Canadian study reveals a 32 per cent annual reduction in dollar terms after the introduction of smoke alarms. The New South Wales Fire Brigades estimate that at least one person will be injured in every 20 fires which occur if no smoke alarm is present.

The day before yesterday representatives from the fire services, government, and the insurance and fire suppression industry came together to discuss ways of motivating our community to take responsibility for its welfare. Many forthright and frank opinions were exchanged. Not surprisingly, people are passionate about this issue. One of the most frank was the State Coroner, Mr Derek Hand, who challenged the insurance industry to play a greater role in the promotion of smoke detectors. He challenged them to prove that lives were a priority for them. During his impromptu address to the summit he said that legislation was all well and good, but that in his job he had seen many laws broken. He made a strongly worded plea for a high profile public awareness campaign to be instigated urgently. Mr Hand maintains that making people responsible for their own safety within their own homes is the only way to ensure that they act on our message.

Indeed, in the United Kingdom a sustained publicity campaign improved the smoke detector installation rate from just 9 per cent in 1987 to 74 per cent in 1994. The summit represented people from all areas. The comments which made the greatest impact on me came from people who see the end result of our lethargy, people like Mr Hand and the firefighters of New South Wales. They are the people who see the human toll, the bodies, the victims and those left to pick up the pieces of their lives. The average cost of treating patients admitted to hospital with burns due to house fires is over $400,000. The cost of one week's treatment in a burns unit is $30,000. When you factor that in - about 317 people are injured in house fires in New South Wales each year - the cost in purely monetary terms is enormous.

I am pleased to be able to report to this House that by the end of the summit a number of encouraging initiatives had been announced. Leading the charge was AAMI - Australian Associated Motor Insurers Limited - which announced that planning was well advanced to give people signing up or renewing their house and contents insurance a free smoke detector. Mr Jones from the company told the summit of a recent incident in a home insured for around $250,000. A fire broke out in the kitchen of the home while its owners were not present. A smoke alarm alerted neighbours to the blaze and the result was a payout of $35,000, far less than the $250,000 that would have been paid out if the brigade had been tipped off a few minutes later.

It is for this reason that I have seen fit to appeal directly to the insurance companies to contribute to a major public awareness campaign. It is proposed that this campaign not just shock television viewers into considering the installation of smoke detectors, but provide a 0055 telephone number for them to call any time of the day or night. This number will allow callers to instantly order smoke detectors, and will also provide them with educational information. It is hoped that over
Page 4898
time the campaign will become self funding, with profits from the 0055 number used to buy more advertising time. We have lost 12 people in the past few weeks. We have before us the chance to do something about it. I hope that the House will join with me in urging insurers and other interested parties to contribute as generously as possible to this campaign.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [3.42]: The motion reflects the broad public concern about recent events as well as the longer-term problem of fires in homes. Far too many young people, and for that matter people of all ages, have suffered as a result of house fires. That so many fires have occurred in recent weeks makes it timely for this House to review its position in regard to actively trying to minimise fire dangers in the home. The broad thrust of the motion will be supported by the Opposition, save and except it will move an amendment - and I trust the Government will support it - to amend the question by leaving out all words after the words "calls on" with a view to adding "(1) the insurance industry to contribute to the promotional campaign; and (2) the Government to pay for and complete installation of fire detectors in existing public housing within the next 12 months".

The problem the Minister has so ably raised today is one that needs to be addressed urgently, but there is no simple answer to it. I was a little disappointed to hear the Minister commence his address to the House by putting a political connotation on this issue. Politics should not enter into it. The entire population should be aware of the dangers that lurk in their own homes. It could be a little kid playing with matches, it could be the curtains too close to the fire, or it could be a simple electrical fault. It is a real danger that is around all the time, but unfortunately we all tend to ignore it.

Some of us are starting to realise the dangers but, as the Minister indicated, the vast bulk of the 2.17 million homes in New South Wales are not fitted with fire detectors of any kind, be they hard wired ones or the portable types that can be so readily purchased from the local supermarket. The Minister may not have been advised of the involvement of the coalition in efforts to bring about an increased number of fire detectors in homes, so I will apprise him of that situation. Some years ago there was a national move to have fire detectors installed in homes throughout Australia but unfortunately, in the nature of separate States and their different interests, it did not get very far. If my memory serves me correctly, the Hon. Garry West, when he was Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives, pushed on with the installation of fire detectors in homes. The coalition amended the law to require that fire detectors be installed in new homes as from July 1994.

That puts into perspective the comments of the Minister regarding homes in any area, whether it be the south-west, the north-west, the east or wherever new homes are being constructed. Because of the initiative of the coalition, not the Labor Party, fire detectors were installed in new homes and the number of fire detectors in homes generally increased. I am quite happy to concede that there are still not nearly enough. The recent tragedies to which the Minister has referred emphasise the problem. On behalf of all members of the coalition I extend condolences to the families who have suffered so badly as a result of extensive fires, particularly those that have occurred in public housing.

Where do we go from here? Whilst the Minister is involved in worthwhile pursuits, one of which was the summit, I must express my disappointment at his becoming political, which is not something the Minister would be too disappointed about being accused of. I was waiting for my invitation to attend the summit. I would have had a great interest, as the Minister did, in attending it. I looked in my mail each day, but my invitation did not arrive. I am a little hurt that the Minister was not prepared to make this a bipartisan issue. In future I hope that such issues which affect so many people's lives can be separated from politics and that I might be invited to attend major events that will be for the future betterment of the whole community.

The coalition welcomes any promotional campaign. As yet, the coalition has not seen the colour of the Government's money. We want to know how much money the Government is prepared to put up to support this campaign, or will it try to rely on funds from insurance companies? If it does, it will be a total waste of time. The Opposition will not tolerate the Government diminishing its obligation through moneys that come from generous insurers such as AAMI, the NRMA Insurance Limited and other major insurance companies. The Government should make very clear the amount of money it will commit to this promotional campaign.

The Minister might expect such a campaign to have a massive effect, but I counsel him that we all suffer from a psychological condition known as optimism bias: we all know that it is not going to happen to us. Optimism bias has to be overcome sociologically and socially when attempts are being made to change people's views. I trust that the Government will not throw away insurers' and public money in a campaign that is purely a political exercise. There should be a well thought out psychological campaign, one put together by those who best understand how to overcome optimism bias, not by advertising and marketing companies. I add my thanks to those of the Minister to the insurer companies. AAMI has been an active insurance company in New South Wales in recent years. Brian Keane, AAMI's chief executive, is a well-known and highly regarded gentleman within the insurance industry. I am sure AAMI will be in the vanguard in addressing this issue for the social good and the economic benefits that will flow from
Page 4899
it.

The NRMA also did wonderful things recently for volunteer rescue associations by contributing the equivalent of about $150,000 in insurance, but the budget papers show that the Treasurer has ripped that money back out of those organisations. I hope that does not happen again. I hope the Government will show understanding and will not ride on the backs of insurers to the end of its campaign. We should all be installing these alarms. Recently I installed a smoke alarm. Unfortunately, it goes off even when we are cooking chops at home, which can be a bit of a problem and from time to time causes a riot in the house. We all should have smoke detectors, but people living in public housing are often less able to pay for them. The coalition believes that people who live in public housing deserve extra help. We call on the Government to pay for fire detectors and complete their installation in public housing within the next 12 months. The Minister may say that is a big ask. It is a big ask, but it is a proper ask when those least able to afford to buy and install smoke detectors are in desperate need of them. I call on the House to support the amendment to the motion, which I now formally move:

That the question be amended by leaving out all words after "calls on" with a view to adding the following words:

(1) The insurance industry to contribute to the promotional campaign; and

(2) The Government to pay for and complete installation of fire detectors in existing public housing within the next 12 months.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services) [3.53], in reply: I have no wish to diminish the record of the previous coalition Government in its involvement in elements of policy of relevance to the installation of smoke detectors. I drew attention to the work of the New South Wales Fire Brigades over a number of years in a series of education campaigns. Those campaigns were run with relatively small resources. A public education campaign, to be effective, requires relatively large resources. That is why the Government has adopted the strategy that emerged from the smoke detector summit. I mentioned in my opening remarks the kinds of results that are possible. It is easy to become too optimistic in these matters, but a publicity campaign in the United Kingdom for smoke detector installation raised the rate of installation from 9 per cent to 74 per cent over six or seven years. We are looking to achieve those results.

The fire brigades will remain closely identified with and involved in the establishment of any campaign we produce. Undoubtedly, the expertise of the fire brigades must remain at the centre of the Government's policy making in this respect. Nevertheless, the Government does not accept the amendment proposed by the Opposition. It is not that we reject the sentiment expressed by the honourable member for Wakehurst, nor do we believe it is not necessary to install smoke detectors in public housing as fast as possible. But 120,000 homes would need to be hard-wired for smoke detectors. The cost of that exercise would be about $42 million. The Department of Housing needs to gain the agreement of tenants simply to arrange access to housing units, and qualified electricians are needed to install the smoke detectors and wire them up to the electrical system. Those exercises by themselves will make it physically impossible to meet a 12-month time frame. In the interim, the Department of Housing is supplying smoke detectors through its own offices to tenants at a cost of about $6. The Government is unable to accept the amendment proposed by the Opposition, but it welcomes the bipartisan nature of the Opposition's response to the motion. I commend the motion to the House without amendment.

Question - That the words stand - put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Farrell
Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Photios
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mr Collins Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Fahey Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small

Page 4900
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr West
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Mr Longley Mr Zammit
Dr Macdonald
Ms Machin Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Mrs Beamer Mr Blackmore

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.


Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [4.08]: It is significant that to mark the fiftieth anniversary of its founding the United Nations declared 1995 the International Year for Tolerance. It is a powerful reminder that, towards the end of the war which brought the United Nations into existence, the world learnt the full extent of the horror created by the supreme act of human intolerance - the holocaust. It recognises the fact that in the modern world intolerance remains the major cause of conflict, bloodshed and persecution. At this very moment, the United States is intervening in the Bosnian conflict which has, at its root, almost intractable problems of ethnic and religious intolerance.

That conflict itself demonstrates the ultimate fact that where there is a breakdown of tolerance the only alternative is attrition. Intolerance demands as its ultimate price not mere submission but extinction - the final solution. In a world in which it is true, as never before, that no person is an island, tolerance is the condition of survival. In Australia and New South Wales tolerance is more than a noble ideal, the foundation of peace, justice, human worth and dignity. It is a practical necessity; the requirement for the success of our great multi-cultural venture. It is appropriate for this Parliament to review the State's efforts to advance the cause of tolerance as we near the end of this International Year for Tolerance and to do so in the spirit of bipartisanship.

I gladly acknowledge the work of the previous Government in preparing for this international year. I believe that we share a common approach and common goals on this issue. The theme for this international year adopted by the Government is bringing people together. The idea behind it is to strengthen the links between all sections of the community, crossing all aspects of social life and seeking to bridge the divisions of culture, language, belief, lifestyle, work, sex, age and disability. In New South Wales tolerance is viewed in the broader context of the creation of a just, free and diverse society. The Government is committed to the concept of social justice as one of its four major themes for governing.

Our approach to social justice is based on the principles of equity, rights, access and participation. Accordingly, the Government has established a Cabinet Committee on Social Justice chaired by the Deputy Premier to give effect to these principles. A number of diverse initiatives that reflect the Government's broad commitment to a just and tolerant society are already under way, including 300 new supported accommodation places for people with a disability - the first decision of the Carr Labor Government; $13.5 million over three years for infrastructure to improve Aboriginal health; new funding for schizophrenia research; funding for a seniors information line and ongoing support for the Women's Information and Referral Service; an extra $2.7 million a year for the taxi transport subsidy; an extra 97 community language teachers over four years; a new $6.8 million per annum package for victims of crime; a living-in-harmony policy that seeks to address problems encountered in public housing; extra support for financial counselling and family services; establishment of a women's court assistance scheme; $600,000 a year for interpreter and translation services; establishment of an Aboriginal women's legal advisory service and increased funding for family mediation services, legal aid and community justice centres; and an enhanced role for the Child Protection Council and employment of 60 extra child protection workers.

The Government is also establishing the social justice reference group, whose membership reflects the cultural and social diversity of the New South Wales community. In these ways the international year will have results that last long beyond 1995. The Government seeks to promote tolerance through its policies and practices on three levels. Firstly, its policies are aimed at increasing understanding of our diverse and free society. For example, in April this year the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments highlighted the International Year for Tolerance by co-hosting the global diversity conference at Darling Harbour. This week the Ethnic Affairs Commission and the Anti-Discrimination Board presented a forum aimed at diminishing ethnic stereotyping in the media.

Secondly, the Government seeks to promote tolerance through policies that recognise and provide for the diversity of the population. This will improve the provision of services to groups in the community that might have been neglected in the past. The Ethnic Affairs Commission Act, for example, is being reviewed for the first time since its introduction in 1979 to ensure that it is effective
Page 4901
in delivering services to ethnic communities. The needs and interests of indigenous people, older people, people with a disability and people from rural and regional areas will receive more attention in government policy. For instance, an Aboriginal Housing Development Committee has been established to extensively consult Aboriginal people about their housing needs.

Thirdly, the Government seeks to reduce intolerant behaviour by providing protection from discrimination and crime. The Anti-Discrimination Board and the Ethnic Affairs Commission will continue to be at the forefront of these initiatives. The New South Wales Police Service is playing a larger role in reducing violent behaviour stemming from intolerance and protecting people who suffer from such behaviour. For example, the service has recently developed a new policy aimed at ending violence against gay men and lesbians - surely one of the most shameful and cowardly expressions of intolerance in our community.

In response to the naming of international years, days and decades by the United Nations, and in recognition of the fundamental role played by education in the development of a peaceful, tolerant and prosperous society, the Government has produced a handbook for schools and communities entitled Celebrating International Days, Years and Decades. There has been one disappointment in the Australian recognition of the United Nations International Year for Tolerance. I refer to the failure of the Federal Parliament to pass the criminal provisions of the incitement to racial hatred legislation. That disappointment is greater in view of the precedent set by this Parliament in its comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation. New South Wales will be seen as defining tolerance in a positive and constructive way. Tolerance is not a negative quality. It must not be confused with mere apathy or indifference.

Above all, tolerance is the touchstone of true democracy, the source of its strength and the key to its survival. The totalitarian ideologies of this century derided and despised the weakness and intellectual flabbiness, as they saw it, of the liberal democracies and their values of tolerance and pluralism. Dictators thought that tolerance stood for nothing, not even its own defence. In the International Year for Tolerance, Australia, as one of the great democracies, can draw confidence for the next century from the resounding verdict of history contained in the outcome of the three great struggles of this century: the two world wars and the Cold War. But the battle for tolerance requires eternal vigilance. I commend this matter to the House.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [4.15]: This year, 1995, was proclaimed by the United Nations as the International Year for Tolerance on the grounds that tolerance is an essential factor for world peace. The United Nations General Assembly made this decision in 1993 on a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation initiative and in light of the resurgence of ethno-nationalist conflicts; discrimination against majority groups; acts of xenophobia, particularly against refugees and asylum seekers, migrant workers and immigrants; racist organisations and ideologies, and acts of racial violence; religious extremism; acts of violence and intimidation committed against writers, intellectuals and other individuals exercising their freedom of opinion and expression; intolerance fostered by political movements or ideologies on the grounds that social ills such as crime, unemployment, deterioration in public health and urban stress should be attributed to specific groups and societies; and intolerance expressed through marginalisation and exclusion from society of vulnerable groups, or violence and discrimination against them.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation pointed out that intolerance is one of the greatest challenges confronting us on the eve of the twenty-first century. Tolerance is both an ethical and a political issue. It is the rejection of differences among individuals and cultures. When intolerance becomes collective or institutionalised it erodes democratic principles and poses a threat to world peace. New South Wales entered 1995, the International Year for Tolerance, with a coalition Government with a proud record of achieving a strong mix of policies compatible with UNESCO's objectives. In terms of ethnic affairs, for example, the coalition Government was responsible for many achievements and initiatives, including the State's first anti-vilification laws; the first stand-alone Minister for multicultural affairs, as the Premier said; and the adoption - this is a critical fact - of the New South Wales charter of principles for a culturally diverse society, binding all New South Wales government departments and instrumentalities. That move was the first of its kind in any Australian jurisdiction.

Another achievement of the coalition Government was the 300 per cent increase in the community grant scheme to $3.5 million as at the change of government. The coalition Government employed a range of policies designed to promote tolerance and opportunities for women in the community. Its achievements included creating the first separate ministry focused on the status and advancement of women in Australia. It developed a whole-of-government commitment to women through our working for women policy statement, which included more than 200 initiatives. It established a specialist unit to address the issue of sexual violence against women - a matter raised today in question time by the honourable member for Manly but not adequately addressed by the Premier in his response. It undertook a major
Page 4902
research project to investigate gender bias and the law, and it initiated media awards for the positive portrayal of women. I recognise the efforts of former coalition Ministers, including the honourable member for Lane Cove, in that regard. In terms of tolerance of the ageing the coalition when in government introduced a policy mix which included the removal of age discrimination and the introduction of the Seniors' Card.

The coalition Government's policy initiatives in promoting tolerance of the ageing were so successful that they were endorsed by the world-renowned international commentator on the ageing community, Betty Friedan, who said "New South Wales is on the cutting edge of ageing policy worldwide." I acknowledge the efforts of the former Minister in that regard. The coalition Government had a proud record also in the promotion of tolerance towards young people. It established the Office of Youth Affairs and the Youth Advisory Council, which gave young people direct access to the Premier and to Ministers - and in turn that allowed them direct input into the formulation of policies aimed at promoting tolerance of youth in New South Wales. Some of the initiatives that resulted from this direct dialogue between the youth of New South Wales and Ministers of the coalition included the helping early leavers program, which assisted the educationally disadvantaged; the circuit-breaker program, which promoted tolerance for young people of non-English speaking background; and the Koori youth program, which provides assistance for young Aboriginal people. However, the Carr Government axed the Office of Youth Affairs. This Government is simply intolerant of the ideas of other people.

As Treasurer I was proud to approve funding for a Commonwealth-State venture to host this year's international conference on tolerance in this great city of Sydney. Across the whole range of its portfolios, the previous coalition Government led Australia, and in some instances the world, in the employment of the principles of tolerance as defined by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. The Opposition is therefore aghast at the actions of this Government and this Premier that have brought about the wholesale dismantling of the leadership that this State once enjoyed in the promotion of tolerance. The Premier has in his actions and his utterances confirmed some of the concerns expressed by UNESCO to which I referred earlier. One of the Premier's first statements as Minister for Ethnic Affairs portrayed the migrant community in a negative light, and that statement made headlines around the world. It was the Premier who attributed Sydney's planning problems and urban sprawl to the number of migrants who flock to Sydney. The Premier said on 21 May, "Sydney is losing its character as a major city and its population growth must stop." In the same article the Premier said:

The Federal Government could offer immigrants incentives by giving them extra points, which they need to accumulate to migrate to Australia, if they nominated to live in another major city.

Even Senator Nick Bolkus opposed the Premier's intolerance. He was reported in the Australian on 23 May 1995 in the following terms:

The Premier's call for a curb on immigration to Sydney to ease population pressures put the city's claim to be a regional headquarters for multi-nationals in the Asia-Pacific at risk.

To seek to make immigration the scapegoat for the urban planning problems of Sydney, and to try to put the blame for this problem on to migrants coming to Sydney, is disgraceful and irresponsible. The Premier is flouting the objectives of UNESCO. It was this Premier who cut the ethnic affairs grants program by more than half. The Government has inflicted anxiety and hardship on 300 or more ethnic communities which relied heavily on the scheme for vital services like Meals on Wheels, welfare centres and community workshops.

I refer next to the Premier's intolerant attitude towards women. In May 1992 the Premier called the honourable member for Port Macquarie, then the Deputy Speaker, a "silly bitch". To this date he has not apologised to the honourable member for Port Macquarie or to the women of New South Wales. The Premier criticised the former member for Badgerys Creek for her appearance, urging her to change her lipstick - again, no apology. In June 1995 the Premier made the offensive remark, "Ask your female colleagues, who will tell you that size doesn't count". Then there were the offensive remarks that were directed at the honourable member for Lane Cove when the Premier described her as being on hormone treatment - again no apology from this Premier, this hypocrite who seeks to lecture this House and the people of this State about tolerance. There is no worse example of intolerance in this State than the Premier himself. Indeed, in the January 1996 edition of New Woman the Premier has been tagged a "caveman" over his comments to the honourable member for Lane Cove.

It is typical of this Premier, who is blinded by his own arrogance, that he should move yet another self-congratulatory motion as this parliamentary year draws to a close. However, by doing so he has allowed the Opposition to highlight the internationally applauded policies on tolerance of the former coalition Government, the regrettable dismantling of those policies by this Government and the intolerant attitude of this Premier - which is no more apparent than in his attitude to criticism in this Parliament. The Premier has stepped into deep water. He is in over his head; out of his depth. He is exposed as one of the arch proponents of
Page 4903
intolerance in this Parliament; as one of the great destroyers of tolerance in this State; as the worst example of tolerance for the people of this State. On that note I conclude my remarks. [Time expired.]

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [4.25]: I support this motion. The Government has been tolerant of the negative outbursts of the Leader of the Opposition in this debate. Central to the theme of the International Year for Tolerance is the creation of a society which is just, free and diverse. This Government is committed to the concept of social justice, which is based on the following principles: equity or fairness in the distribution of resources; rights which grant greater equality amongst individuals; accountability of decision makers; access to economic resources and services; the right to an improved quality of life; and the right to an opportunity to genuinely participate in community and decision-making processes.

To achieve these aims the Government has established a Cabinet committee on social justice which will seek to give effect to these principles in the development of government policy. Already the Government has moved to introduce a range of initiatives which reflect a broad commitment to a just and tolerant society. These include: the creation of 300 new supported accommodation places for people with disability; the redevelopment of infrastructure, including water and sewerage systems to improve the health of Aboriginal people; the establishment of the Seniors Information Line to provide information about services available to older people; and the appointment of 96 extra community language teachers over four years. Those initiatives will help communities maintain cultural traditions and better prepare people from non-English speaking backgrounds for life in the broader community -

[Interruption]

Does the honourable member for North Shore not support the provisions of additional community language teachers? Other initiatives include the development of the living-in-harmony policy, which tackles the problems of nuisance and annoyance in public housing through consultation with tenants and community groups; and the establishment of the women's court assistance scheme, which will provide legal representation, advice and support to women applying for apprehended domestic violence orders. The Government has also moved to establish the Social Justice Reference Group, which is made up of community members from a wide range of backgrounds. This group will provide a valuable source of community opinion to be used in the policy-making process. The group recognises and reflects, through its members, the cultural and social diversity of the population of New South Wales.

Despite the best of intentions there are still many people in our community who do not enjoy equal status and tolerance. Aboriginal people are a case in point. For too long the gap in health status between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people has been growing. We cannot afford to allow this gap to continue to widen. This Government has moved to improve the general health status of Aboriginal people to at least the equal of that enjoyed by non

Page 4904
-Aboriginal Australians. In order to achieve this, the New South Wales health department and the Aboriginal Health Resource Cooperative have joined forces. This historic partnership will draw on the experiences of the Aboriginal communities to develop and deliver effective health care services. However, governments can only do so much.

One of the best indicators of good health is employment. If someone is given a job, their prospects for better health are dramatically improved. A job means that a person can put food on the table, a roof over their family and clothes on their children. It also means that the community recognises the important contribution each person can make to society. The Government's goal to erase the gap in health status between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people is not an easy one, but in a tolerant society the job ahead is not just for government. Employers should recognise that they have an important role in this process. When an employer in this State has a job to fill, I ask them to consider an Aboriginal person for the position. That act alone can help reduce the gap in health status between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.

Many people in the community can find themselves marginalised through no fault of their own. The Government is responsible for breaking down these barriers wherever they occur. This Government has moved to improve access to health services for people of non-English speaking background. The multicultural health policy seeks to address the health needs of our multicultural society including funding of $200,000 for the multicultural health literacy service, $100,000 for the multicultural service enhancement program, $150,000 for the establishment of the rural interpreters program, $60,000 for an extra position in the multicultural health unit, and $50,000 to allow the Transcultural Mental Health Service to provide services to people of non-English speaking background in rural areas. These measures will ensure that people of non-English speaking background will have equitable access to the best available health care services. [Time expired.]

Discussion concluded.


Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [4.30]: I move:

(1) That, pursuant and subject to the provisions of the Forestry Act 1916, this House agrees to the revocation of the dedication of those part areas of State Forests indicated on the Schedule hereunder.

(2) That the foregoing resolution be communicated by address to His Excellency the Governor.

Page 4905

State Forest	SF. No.	Parish	County	Area (ha) (Approx.)	Portion	Purpose
Ben Halls Gap	950	Ellerston Yeerawun	Brisbane Hawes	2,500	Part	Proposed Ben Halls Gap National Park
Castlereagh	422	Londonderry	Cumberland	491.6	Whole	Proposed Castlereagh Nature Reserve
Bumberry	891	Bumberry	Ashburnham	1,013	Part	Part proposed Goobang National Park
Herveys Range	634	Benya, Hyandra, Rocky Ponds, and Strathorn Hervey	Gordon Narromine	20,036	Whole	Part proposed Goobang National Park
Wandawandong	761	Belmore Biridoo, Caloma	Gordon Narromine	9,228	Whole	Part proposed Goobang National Park
Malara	305	Bloxsome	Clive	895	Part	Proposed Demon Nature Reserve
Gurnang	825	Finley, Wyndham	Georgiana	5,750	Part	Part proposed Abercrombie River National Park
Nullum	356	Toolond	Rous	520	Part	Part proposed Mount Jerusalem National Park
Newnes	748	Cook and Rock Hill	Cook	3,500	Part	Addition to Wollemi National Park

The procedure under which State forests or parts of State forests may be revoked is set out in section 19 of the Forestry Act. The section provides for revocation by His Excellency the Governor, but it is first necessary that a resolution to effect a revocation be passed by both Houses of Parliament. The State forest dedications proposed to be revoked comprise three State forests and parts of six other State forests. Following revocation these lands will be reserved as national parks or dedicated as nature reserves. Honourable members are aware that the Government is committed to creating 24 new parks and reserves in its first year of office. The revocation of the forests in the schedule will allow the creation of four new national parks and two new nature reserves and add some 3,500 hectares to the Wollemi National Park.

Some lands within the national park proposals involve State forest lands which have been declared national forests or have been set apart as flora reserves under the provisions of the Forestry Act. The revocation of State forests declared to be national forests, and the revocation of flora reserves, can only be effected by an Act of Parliament, as provided by sections 19A and 25A(4) respectively of the Forestry Act. A bill providing for such revocations and the revocation of some existing nature reserves has been introduced during this session of Parliament. The first area listed involves the major part of Ben Halls Gap State Forest, which is located near Nundle. It consists of tall, old-growth forest and is known to harbour high numbers of tree-dwelling animals such as the greater gliders and endangered fauna, including the tiger quoll.

The land will be reserved as the Ben Halls Gap National Park. Poor access and high conservation values mean that the park will be managed primarily for conservation and research, although sightseeing of the old-growth forest will be another appropriate use. Castlereagh State Forest is located on the western part of the Cumberland Plain near Penrith. The Cumberland Plain is one of the most intensively developed areas in Australia and consequently contains only small fragments of native forest. The nature reserve proposal will protect this mostly ironbark forest, which contains unique, rare and endangered species.

The nature reserve will be primarily managed for conservation and research. Walking, sightseeing and educational uses will be catered for. Bumberry, Herveys Range and Wandawandong State forests are
Page 4906
proposed to be reserved as Goobang National Park in conjunction with the existing Curumbenya Nature Reserve. The national park will incorporate most of the Herveys Range east of Parkes. Goobang is the largest remaining natural area in the south-east inland slopes biogeographic region where less than 0.7 per cent is conserved in reserves. The part of Malara State Forest proposed to be revoked for Demon Nature Reserve is situated some 20 kilometres east of Tenterfield. The nature reserve will protect tableland forest on the scenic Demon Nature Reserve escarpment.

Although the reserve will comprise less than 1,000 hectares, future additions to the reserve may be possible as exploration for mineral prospectivity reveals surrounding areas of less economic significance. The next area listed is part of Gurnang State Forest, which is to be reserved as part of the proposed Abercrombie River National Park and is located south-west of Oberon in the central tablelands. The national park will comprise nearly 20,000 hectares being mainly Crown land. The area covers vegetation species and communities from those found in the tableland to those more typical of the western slopes. The park will include a 40-kilometre frontage to the Abercrombie River and will also protect streams such as Retreat River, Felled Timber Creek and Silent Creek.

The State forest area involved is managed to protect the nearby pine plantations from fire. The National Parks and Wildlife Service and State Forests are preparing a fire management plan for the area to ensure that the pine plantations are protected whilst maintaining conservation values of the national park. The national park will provide opportunities for recreation associated with Abercrombie River, and suitable facilities will be provided by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The part of Nullum State Forest listed in the schedule is located on the Koonyum Range west of Mullumbimby on the far north coast. This land is only part of the State forest area proposed to be reserved as Mount Jerusalem National Park.

An additional 450 hectares of Nullum State forest is to be revoked by an Act of Parliament as it is part of the national forest. The national park will protect a diverse range of habitats, including subtropical rainforest and an old-growth blackbutt forest which supports high numbers of tree-dwelling species. Visitor access is available via forest roads through to the spectacular western escarpment and Mount Jerusalem area. The historic Nightcap Track connects the proposed national park with nearby Nightcap National Park. The last area listed consists of the north-eastern corner of Newnes State Forest, which is located on the Newnes Plateau some 25 kilometres north-east of Lithgow. Massive sandstone cliffs, the incised gorge of Rocky Creek and narrow slot canyons of the creek's tributaries, which are among the most spectacular in the region, are features of this area. Rocky Creek is popular with walkers, canyoners and other wilderness recreationalists. Access is from the Glow-worm Tunnel Road. A 100-metre depth restriction will avoid possible extraction of coal and methane resources. I commend the motion to the House.

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


Debate resumed from 7 December.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [4.39]: The Opposition supports the Bread Repeal Bill. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, the Bread Act 1969 is virtually inoperative and defunct - a universally held view after consultation with the Baking Industry Association. Indeed, the reforms relating to competition and streamlining industries of this type all support the repeal of the present Act. The Opposition supports the bill.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [4.40], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Eastwood for his contribution to the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 7 December.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [4.41]: The Opposition supports the Jury Amendment Bill, which will amend the Jury Act 1977. The objects of the bill are as follows:

(a) to require periodic updating of jury rolls by the use of supplementary jury rolls, instead of the remaking of jury rolls once every 3 years, and

(b) to allow jurors to be summoned from a supplementary jury roll . . .

(c) to provide the sheriff with more flexibility in summoning jurors . . .

(e) to improve the supply of information to the sheriff about trials . . .

The objects of the bill refer to a number of other matters. It is particularly significant - and this is a matter that was referred to by the Minister for Police in his second reading speech - that some of these matters arose from suggestions made by the Chief Justice in July 1992 as a result of the establishment of a jury task force which looked at issues relating to the comfort, welfare and wellbeing of jurors. This amending bill has been introduced because of that. The process was well under way when the coalition Government was in office. The major review which gave rise to this bill was a coalition initiative. I understand that the Law Society and the Bar Association support this legislation. Often it is difficult for members of the public to serve on juries, particularly if they are
Page 4907
called to serve in a very long trial. It can be an onerous process involving a great deal of time, a lot of expense and a lot of inconvenience to employers.

I stress, first, the importance of jury duty for those who are called upon to do it. Although it is not very popular and it can be extremely time-consuming, the criminal justice system and a large part of the civil justice system revolve around people being called to do jury duty - and to do it properly. In that sense it is a most important, albeit onerous, job. Second, on behalf of the Parliament I thank all those thousands of people who have done jury duty, often at great expense and personal inconvenience. We all recognise what an important and, in many ways, thankless job it is. The bottom line is that any citizen facing a trial does not want a politician or a judge to judge him; he wants and expects his peers to judge him. That is why jury duty is so important. I believe that these amendments will facilitate that process.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [4.45], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Eastwood for his contribution and for his timely remarks. The Jury Act is an important piece of legislation. I understand the general thrust of the proposal but I am somewhat disappointed that the Attorney General's Department is contemplating not exempting the Clerks of the Parliament, parliamentary employees and electorate staff from jury duty. I do not think that is appropriate, given the business of the Parliament and the work that is done by parliamentary officers. However, I will take that matter up with the Attorney General. I do not think that exemption should be removed.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 6 December.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [4.47]: The Criminal Legislation Further Amendment Bill, an important bill, makes a number of legislative changes to the criminal law. A number of amendments relate to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act and the Crimes Act. The Opposition supports the amendments and the provisions in the bill. I will dwell on one section of the legislation and foreshadow that I will be moving some amendments in Committee. There is reference to intoxication on pages 13 to 20 of part 11A of the bill. This major provision in the legislation will change the common law defence of intoxication which operates in this State at the moment. The law on this defence is to be found in the Queen v O'Connor High Court decision of 1980. A defence of intoxication is available to somebody charged with a criminal offence. It is open to a defendant notwithstanding the fact that the Crown has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is also open to a defendant to lead evidence that he was so intoxicated that he did not have the capacity, that is to say, the mens rea, to commit the crime.

Under the law as it applies in New South Wales in O'Connor's case, it is open to the defendant in virtually any criminal matter, except certain traffic matters, to lead evidence that he was intoxicated and, therefore, did not have the intention to commit a crime. Earlier this year a person called Paxman was convicted after pleading guilty to the manslaughter of a young boy called Michael Barber. Mr Paxman pleaded guilty to Mr Barber's killing; by way of mitigation, Mr Paxman, through his barrister, relied upon the fact that he was drunk, amongst other things, to lessen his sentence. As a result, Mr Justice Christie sentenced Paxman to 3½ years gaol for the death of this boy who was shot with a rifle discharged by Paxman.

That decision rightly caused outrage, as a result of which the Attorney General publicly announced that he would fix the law relating to the Paxman case. The bill purports to change the law in that regard, but the view of the Opposition is that it does nothing of the sort. To do so it would be necessary, when sentencing a person, not to take into account the evidence of intoxication of that person. That might sound draconian, but if one reads the decision of Mr Justice Christie in Paxman's case it is clear that he took into account many other matters when sentencing him. I have no problem with the other matters being taken into account, but I am concerned, and I understood that the Attorney General was also concerned, that drunkenness would be taken into account.

I am sorry to be technical about this, but it is important legislation. The bill takes the law from where it stood in New South Wales to where it currently stands in England. Drunkenness can no longer be raised as a defence if the crime alleged does not require a specific intent. Defendants charged with the crimes of manslaughter and assault, for which intent is necessary, can no longer raise drunkenness as a defence. I urge honourable members to examine the legislation carefully, because it is rather extraordinary. It lists 95 serious crimes that are specifically exempted from the changes sought to be made by the Attorney General. Clause 428C states:

(1) Evidence that a person was intoxicated (whether by reason of self-induced intoxication or otherwise) at the time of the relevant conduct may be taken into account in determining whether the person had the intention to cause the specific result necessary for an offence of specific intent.

Evidence that a person was drunk cannot be used as a defence in 95 serious crimes including murder, kidnapping, blackmail, all types of serious assaults, and nearly every serious criminal offence except manslaughter and common assault. The Attorney General draws a distinction between crimes of specific intent and crimes of other intent. The
Page 4908
Opposition is of the view that that is far too technical an approach to take, and I do not think that the average person in the community cares or understands much about it. Having followed this issue closely on talkback programs and in the media - it is important for members to listen to these people - my overwhelming view is that the community is sick and tired of drunkenness being used as any sort of defence.

The amendments I am foreshadowing will amend the Government's bill by bringing in my private member's bill, which is fairly simple. It states that evidence of self-induced intoxication will not be admissible to rebut an allegation that a defendant's conduct was voluntary; evidence of self-induced intoxication is not 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 to be taken into account when determining the punishment for any offence. If somebody is drunk or under the influence of drugs - provided they are in that state voluntarily - they cannot use that fact as an excuse.

That may seem to be a tough attitude, but the public is demanding tough action. It is demanding the action it was promised following the decision in the Paxman case, but the present bill will not deliver it. Justice Murphy, at pages 483 and 484, and Justice Aickin, at page 494, in a decision handed down by the High Court of Australia in 1980 in the case of Regina v O'Connor specifically invited the Legislature to ultimately deal with this difficult policy area rather than leave it to the High Court. How far do we go? I concede that the Government is going a fair way. I should also like to refer to the judgment of Mr Justice Stephen in the same case at page 472:

There are, one supposes, 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. In between lie several possible intermediate positions: one of these Majewski takes, it treats it as exonerating, but only in the case of those offences said to involve a specific intent.

The Government is at the point where drunkenness is taken into account as an exonerating circumstance in cases involving specific intent. The problem is that when one refers to the bill, 95 of the crimes involving specific intent are exempt and there are probably many more that are not. That is unsatisfactory. It draws distinctions that should not be drawn as a matter of public policy. Taking up the invitation of Mr Justice Stephen, the intoxicated state is altogether irrelevant. That is the approach adopted by the Opposition and we believe it is the approach the public wants us to take. Is it as outrageous a proposition as some might suggest? Sure, it is tough, but I do not believe that it is outrageous. Section 52A of the Crimes Act deals with serious drink-driving offences, including the offences of dangerous driving occasioning death, which carries 10 years imprisonment. The next section of the Crimes Act talks about aggravated driving, or driving in circumstances of aggravation, for which the penalty jumps from 10 years to 14 years. The circumstance of aggravation is driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol in the blood of more than 0.15.

Under that section of the Crimes Act, drunkenness loads up the penalty by almost 50 per cent. However, in crimes of specific intent the defence of intoxication is knocked out. I do not suggest that the penalty for these crimes should be increased because the offender was drunk, but that should not be used as an excuse. If a person drinks, drives and kills, their drunkenness aggravates the seriousness of the offence; whereas under the bill the drunkenness of a person who drinks, shoots and kills may still provide a complete defence to a charge of murder. The public view that result as an absurdity and a nonsense. Although the bill is tough, the amendments proposed by the Opposition pay due regard to those public concerns, and take up the invitation of the High Court to intervene and remove some of the sillier anomalies in the Crimes Act.

That does not mean that the Crown does not have to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Many defences may be open to those who are drunk when they commit crimes such as murder or rape, such as questions of provocation, accident, or frame of mind, but the Crown always has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Opposition says that drunkenness should not be a part of that obligation. Even in Paxman's case, the only way to obtain a different sentence, which is what the Attorney General promised, would be to change the law on sentencing where drunkenness is a factor. But that does not mean that other matters cannot be taken fully into account on sentencing. Justice Christie's decision in Paxman's case mentions many other factors that were taken into account in determining sentence. Drunkenness should not be one of them. The Opposition supports the bill but not part 11A. I foreshadow moving in Committee the amendments that I have given both the Minister for Police and the Clerks notice of.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Debus.


Debate resumed from 6 December.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [5.05]: I lead for the Opposition on the Prisons Amendment Bill. The bill purports to address a number of issues on which the coalition has been extremely proactive during the last few years. Koori inmates of our correctional facilities have special needs that were recognised by the inquiry into Aboriginal deaths in custody. The coalition acknowledges that the bill takes up where the coalition left off in advancing the care of inmates, particularly Aboriginals.
Page 4909
Aboriginals have particular needs, and the bill seeks to address those needs by dealing with leave of absence. Earlier this year newspaper headlines described how Aboriginal inmates were being accompanied to the Aboriginal tent city in the Australian Capital Territory. There was some consternation about that.

Mr Debus: It was put on the National Estate Register.

Mr HAZZARD: The Minister advises me that it was put on the National Estate Register. I understand that Aboriginal inmates were accompanied to the Australian Capital Territory for that purpose. At the time the Minister issued a press release stating that there were no particular difficulties, and that the prisoners and their situation were quite safe. The legality of what happened on that occasion was not tested. A more recent press release from the Minister makes it clear retrospectively that there were some difficulties related to the commissioner's power to grant leave of absence to prisoners to travel interstate. Currently such travel is illegal. I will not put it any higher than that, other than to remind the Minister that it was an issue. But the coalition, in the spirit of heading in the right direction on prisons, notes that the bill addresses that issue. To that extent the Opposition will not oppose its provisions.

Mr Debus: The bill supports the attitude of my predecessor, Mr Hannaford, in another place. He made that decision.

Mr HAZZARD: The Minister notes that the bill supports previous initiatives of the coalition Government and particularly by former Minister John Hannaford in another place. The Minister is entirely correct. The coalition is happy about the way the legislation is moving and views these initiatives as being very important. The Minister referred in his second reading speech to a number of circumstances, some fairly obvious, that give rise to the need for inmates to travel interstate. Given the high Aboriginal population in some correctional facilities west of the divide, from Bathurst out to Broken Hill, the need often arises for inmates, particularly Aboriginals, to be transported to other States - logically, Queensland and South Australia - for family needs such as funerals. I note that the Minister made that point in regard to the Broken Hill Correctional Centre. That sensible initiative follows on from the coalition's policy move towards that goal.

The maximum compensation that can be awarded by the commissioner is $50, whereas the upper limit of award by a justice is $300. The Minister might correct me, with the assistance of his advisers, whether that is right. I understand that the legislation will not touch the $50 maximum compensation that can be awarded by the commissioner but will give carte blanche to a justice in making such awards. The coalition has no problem about the amount of compensation that a justice can impose. If compensation is to be awarded, it should be just and accurate. I ask the Minister to explain why the $50 upper limit, which is subject to the commissioner's discretion, is to remain. Such a provision is a little archaic, given that the value of a half a dozen packets of cigarettes that have been trodden on could amount these days to the best part of $50. It seems to me that at a practical level the sum of $50 should be increased as well. That would save the time of the court and time of justices. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on this. If he simply wants to retain that limit because of the view that prisoners should have recourse to court and the right to natural justice before the amounts reach a great level - which I suspect is probably his reasoning -

Mr Debus: Without question it is.

Mr HAZZARD: - then I suggest that obviously the coalition has similar concerns but there has to be a balance between civil liberties and good sensible management practices in prisons. I would have thought a figure up to $300 or so would have been more in order for the commissioner to impose, with perhaps some appeal rights for the inmate-prisoner to have the decision reviewed. More often than not the inmate would probably not question it if he knew he had caused the damage. I refer now to the name changes from prisons to correctional centres and from prisoners to inmates. The coalition sees those changes as an obvious advance from what the coalition had already commenced before March 1995, and it will not oppose those amendments. The use of that terminology puts a greater emphasis on the need for the old turnkey attitude of some prison officers to be well and truly put into the past and for them to understand that issues like case management exist because correctional officers are considered to be professionals who are fulfilling a role; not just locking up prisoners but trying to ensure that the prisoners-inmates will become better people and, when released from prison, will go some way towards rehabilitation. In view of pressures in this place at this time of the year, being so close to Christmas, I only propose to go through one of the issues mentioned in the bill.

I refer to the issue of penalties in regard to drug trafficking. In recent times the Minister has issued some excellent press releases, one of which referred to the increase in penalty for trafficking of drugs in prisons from the current six months to a maximum of two years. Yesterday I issued a press release relating to a penalty of a maximum of two years imprisonment for drug trafficking in and out of correctional facilities or within correctional facilities. It is coalition policy that those people deserve a greater penalty than that which applies for trafficking drugs outside prisons. People who are in correctional facilities are there because they have committed some offence against the broader community. They are there because they are criminals, and because lesser measures such as fines, community service orders and periodic detention were not considered appropriate.

Page 4910

In other words, people generally do not go to prison for lightweight offences. They go to prison either because they are consistent offenders or because they have done something that the community views seriously. Having that in mind, the coalition cannot see the logic in increasing the penalty to one that is consistent with circumstances that would apply in the broader community. Prior to the March election this was one of the aspects that the then Minister and the coalition were considering, in terms of increasing penalties. Whilst no final decision was reached because of the intervening election, it was of vital importance to the coalition. For that reason I foreshadow that I will move an amendment that will have the effect of increasing the maximum penalty to five years for trafficking of drugs and other substances that the broader community would find inappropriate.

Today staff in the Minister's office and I have had discussions, and the Minister has been involved in those discussions. I indicated that I would move this amendment. There have been some difficulties in achieving the outcome. Whether it was a mistake on my part or not, I do not know, but the outcome from the Parliamentary Counsel's office did not quite achieve what I had hoped to achieve. It has now been achieved, I hope, with the amendment I propose, and I will say more about it in Committee. Only fairly minor quantities of drugs are being addressed. We are aiming to consider the amounts of drugs that would normally be dealt with under summary provisions of the legislation. There is an opportunity under the Criminal Procedure Act for some otherwise indictable matters, or matters that would be dealt with as indictable, to be dealt with summarily.

If the matter either falls straight into the summary situation or it falls into the summary situation because of the availability of provisions under the Criminal Procedure Act, summary courts should be in a position to impose a maximum of five years gaol on offenders in this category. It is clear that the coalition supports an ongoing emphasis on rehabilitation and ensuring that inmates do not go back to prison. The coalition supports measures which may be considered by some as soft measures. It is attempting to make sure that inmates receive appropriate encouragement and education to ensure that they will not return to the correctional facility system once they are released. We are also determined to make clear that there are times when we should be tough.

This is one of those times when the coalition says the community expects a penalty of more than two years for playing around with drugs in and out of prisons. One of the biggest problems within the prison system relates to drugs. I ask the Government to support this amendment. Many inmates in the prison system are still drug dependent and seem determined to defy the system. Many relatives and friends are duped and encouraged to bring drugs into the prison system. The coalition Government announced initiatives, including the use of ultrasound and airport-type scanners, and believes it is imperative to have a clear statement, by way of penalty, that the community is fed up to the back teeth with drugs in prisons. The coalition therefore proposes that the legislation be amended to provide a five-year penalty. I again record my thanks to the Minister's staff, to other departmental staff and to the Minister for acknowledging today that these amendments should at least be considered and that it was reasonable for such amendments to be moved before the House.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services) [5.19], in reply: I shall make a few remarks in reply to the honourable member for Wakehurst. I acknowledge his general support for the legislation. The honourable member specifically asked why the bill continues to restrict the monetary limit to $50 for disciplinary hearings on property offences that are not heard by a visiting magistrate to a gaol. The answer is that charges of that nature are heard by the prison governor: there is no appeal. Disciplinary hearings are dealt with merely as internal matters, and without legal representation. It is important to point out that, although $50 may not be much in the outside world, it represents more than two weeks wages within Corrective Service Industries, and in that respect it is a larger amount than it might otherwise appear.

To permit such internal inquiries to have a more significant effect than I have described without legal representation is an infringement of basic civil liberties. For those reasons I have not sought to change the limit. A great deal is being done within the New South Wales correctional system to attack the drug abuse problem. It is true that a high proportion of those within the correctional system - one estimate is 70 per cent - were influenced by drugs in one way or another when they committed the crimes for which they were convicted. Obviously, a major disciplinary problem of the correctional system is to contain the trafficking of drugs from the outside to the inside - I imagine that it is not possible to prevent it entirely.

It is important to emphasise that a special task force called task force STED has been created precisely to fight drug trafficking and drug-related incidents in prison. That task force is conducting statewide investigations using investigative intelligence, drug detection and covert surveillance capabilities. It is using drug detection dogs, random urine analysis of inmates and monthly searches to detect illegal drugs within the prison system. The task force is considering options such as ultrasound, which is the sort of technology that exercises the mind of the honourable member for Wakehurst. As many inmates have drug problems, we have introduced and continue to improve a large drug rehabilitation program, including relapse prevention, various therapies and peer education. I assure the honourable member that soon we will be announcing more elements of a major drug strategy.

Page 4911

It cannot be said that the Government is failing to pay close attention to drug addiction problems within our prison system. The penalties that we are talking about, especially those in proposed section 37(1A), apply essentially to visitors who bring drugs into gaol, not to those who are in the system already. The intention is to restore parity between the Prisons Act as it deals with drug offences and other relevant legislation; it is not to introduce what would be an anomaly by increasing the penalties under the Prisons Act beyond those provided in the Poisons Act and the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. It is unacceptable for people apprehended for having a small amount of drugs about them - a less than trafficable quantity - to be exposed to prison sentences beyond two years. The bill contemplates the possibility that those dealing in commercial or large quantities as defined in the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act will face appropriate sentences, but it is not appropriate to increase the penalties applying to those who are trafficking or found in possession of small quantities to beyond two years. Such sentences would be more draconian than those they would face if charged under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act.

It would be poor sentencing practice to provide a harsher punishment to particular offenders within a wider class of offenders, which is the proposed amendment of the honourable member for Wakehurst. It would be anomalous, particularly while we are awaiting the outcome of the sentencing review being conducted by the Law Reform Commission. Astonishingly, the Government is not able to support the Opposition amendment. The Government will move an amendment in the Committee of the Whole to overcome a drafting problem that has emerged. I emphasise that it will do nothing to change the intention; rather, it will clarify the intention. I acknowledge the assistance of the honourable member for Wakehurst in this respect because his examination of the details of the bill indirectly brought to notice the anomaly or the ambiguity that existed.

At present proposed section 37(1A) provides that a magistrate may impose on a person convicted of bringing or attempting to bring less than a small quantity of prohibited drug or plant into a correctional centre a penalty that is linked to those under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The Government is concerned that as the bill now stands some convictions may incur penalties applicable to indictable offences rather than summary matters. To overcome that possibility I shall move that the words "on indictment" in proposed section 37(1A) be deleted and replaced by the word "summarily". I shall also move that the words "under paragraphs (c) or (d) of that subsection" be deleted from proposed section 47(1A) and replaced by the words "(other than a penalty under paragraph (a) of that subsection)". As I said, the amendments will not change the spirit or intention of the bill, but they will overcome a drafting problem that has emerged. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [5.30]: I move Opposition amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1.1 [2], lines 20-25. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(a) In relation to a quantity of a prohibited drug or number of prohibited plants that is less than the small quantity - a penalty of 5 years imprisonment or 50 penalty units, or both.

In my contribution to the second reading debate I stated the Opposition's reasons for moving the amendment, and I do not propose to add to what I said on that occasion.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services) [5.30]: For the reasons I stated earlier, the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Armstrong Ms Moore
Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Causley 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 Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr West
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Mr Longley Mr Zammit
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Ms Allan Mr Martin
Mr Amery Ms Meagher

Page 4912
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Ms Andrews Mr Moss
Mr Aquilina Mr Murray
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,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Mr Blackmore Mrs Beamer
Mr Photios Mr Carr

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Clough): Order! The vote being equal, I give my casting vote with the noes and declare the question to have passed in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services) [5.39]: I move:

No. 1 Page 3, Schedule 1.1[2], line 25. Omit "on indictment", insert instead "summarily".

No. 2 Page 5, Schedule 1.1[5], lines 18-19. Omit "under paragraphs (c) or (d) of that subsection", insert instead "(other than a penalty under paragraph (a) of that subsection)".

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [5.40]: These amendments are procedural. The original drafting of the proposed legislation contained a mistake. . It is disappointing that the Government has not supported the increase of the penalty to five years. Nevertheless, consultation has taken place between the Minister's office and the coalition on the issue, and the Opposition will support the Government on these procedural amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow Government Business to take precedence over Private Members' Statements at this sitting.

Debate resumed from 7 December.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.44], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Eastwood for his contribution to the debate. The matter will be further considered in Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [5.45], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 1 Page 4, Schedule 1.2[4], lines 21-23. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

[4] Section 1

Insert after the matter relating to Part 11:

Part 11A Intoxication - ss. 428A-428G

No. 2 Pages 13-20, Schedule 1.2[10], line 1 on page 13 to line 8 on page 20. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

[10] Part 11A

Insert after Part 11:

Part 11A Intoxication

428A Definitions

In this Part:

drug includes a drug within the meaning of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

intoxication means the impairment of awareness, understanding or control because of the influence of alcohol, a drug or any other substance.

self-induced intoxication means any intoxication except intoxication that:

(a) is involuntary, or

(b) results from fraud, sudden or extraordinary emergency, accident, reasonable mistake, duress or force.

428B Application of Part

This Part applies to any offence (whether under this Act or otherwise) committed after the commencement of this Part.

428C Relevance of intoxication to determination of criminal responsibility

(1) The following matters cannot be considered in determining whether a person has committed any offence:

(a) evidence that a person was so intoxicated because of self-inducing intoxication that the person's conduct was involuntary,

Page 4913

(b) evidence that a person was so intoxicated because of self-induced intoxication that the person did not possess the requisite mental state for the offence at the time the offence is alleged to have occurred.

(2) If negligence is an element necessary to constitute an offence by a person who alleges that he or she was intoxicated at the time the offence is alleged to have occurred:

(a) in the case of self-induced intoxication - regard must be had to the standard of a reasonable person who is not intoxicated in determining whether the person who was intoxicated was negligent, and

(b) in the case of intoxication that is not self-induced - regard must be had to the standard of a reasonable person intoxicated to the same extent as the person who was intoxicated in determining whether the person was negligent.

(3) Nothing in this section affects the onus resting on the prosecution to prove each element of an offence according to the appropriate standard of proof.

428D Relevance of intoxication in determining punishment

Evidence of self-induced intoxication is not to be taken as evidence of a mitigating circumstance for the purposes of determining the punishment for any offence.

428E Involuntary intoxication

A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person's conduct constituting the offence was because of intoxication that was not self-induced.

428F Presumption of self-induced intoxication

For the purposes of this Part, a person's intoxication is presumed to have been self-induced unless evidence is adduced that might lead the court or the jury (as the case may be) to conclude that there is a reasonable probability that it was not self-induced.

428G Abolition of common law relating to the effect of intoxication

The common law relating to the effect of intoxication on criminal liability and in determining punishment is abolished.

These amendments are designed to remove the defence of intoxication in criminal matters. The bill makes only minor changes to the current criminal law. Honourable members will note from page 13 to page 20 the bill refers to 95 serious crimes including murder, kidnapping and sexual assault where a defence of intoxication will still be available. The Opposition amendments will have the significant effect of no longer allowing drunkenness to be an excuse for those who commit such offences. These amendments have strong public support and arise because of a view expressed by certain members of the High Court. The amendments deserve the support of the Committee.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.47]: The Government will give further consideration to the Opposition amendments in another place. I suggest the honourable member for Eastwood tune in to the debate that will take place in the Legislative Council. The Government opposes the amendments.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Armstrong Ms Moore
Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Causley 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 Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr West
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Mr Longley Mr Zammit
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Ms Allan Mr Martin
Mr Amery Ms Meagher
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Ms Andrews Mr Moss
Mr Aquilina Mr Murray
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,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson


Page 4914
Mr Blackmore Mrs Beamer
Mr Photios Mr Carr

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

Amendments negatived.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.56]: I move:

Page 29, Schedule 1.8, lines 23-25. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(2) This section applies to judicial review of orders made by a Local Court or the District Court despite anything contained in the Justices Act 1902.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [5.57]: The Opposition does not oppose the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendment and passed through remaining stages.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.58]: Mr Speaker, I advise the House that as a result of the backlog of work in the Legislative Council I will recommend, at the conclusion of private members' statements, that you leave the Chair until the ringing of one long bell, which will be rung at 9.30 a.m. on Monday, 18 September. The House could sit before then, but there is no guarantee that the upper House will conclude its deliberations on important Government legislation in the meantime. I advise honourable members to inquire of their Whips and appropriate leaders when they return on Monday about the business to be dealt with at that time.


Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.59]: I move:

That, during the current session, unless otherwise ordered, the following minor amendments be made to the Standing Orders:

No. 1 Standing Order 100 - Allocation of time for debate (guillotine)

Add as the 6th paragraph - "If the closure under this Standing Order is agreed to at the second reading stage and there have been no Minister's amendments circulated the Speaker shall forthwith put to the vote the third reading of the Bill".

No. 2 Standing Order 107 - Dissent from Speaker's ruling

Replace paragraph (2) to read - "(2) The notice must be given within 3 clear sitting days after the sitting day at which the ruling was given."

No. 3 Standing Order 110 - Routine of Business

Replace "Business of the House" with "Business with Precedence" wherever occurring.

No. 4 Standing Order 121 - Matters of Public Importance

Replace "Sessional Order" in paragraph (9) with "Standing Order".

No. 5 Standing Order 124 - Censure of Member

Replace "at that sitting" in paragraph (2) with "the sitting day at which the notice was given".

No. 6 Standing Order 125 - Disallowance of Statutory Rules

Replace "gazettal" in paragraph (1) with "tabling".

No. 7 Standing Order 127 - Business with Precedence

Replace "Motions" in paragraph (8) with "Business".

No. 8 Standing Order 149 - Precedence of Motions

After "Notices of motions", insert "called on by the Clerk".

No. 9 Standing Order 197 - Restriction on Divisions and Quorums

Replace the Standing Order to read:

197. Members shall not be permitted to call a division on any question or call attention to the want of a quorum during the currency of Private Members' Statements. If a division is called prior to 9.30 a.m. on any sitting day, the division shall be deferred and conducted at 10.00 a.m. or, if an item of business is being conducted at 10.00 a.m., after that item is concluded.

No. 10 Standing Order 223 - Order of consideration

Replace 3, 4, 5 to read -

3. Postponed clauses/schedules in their numerical order

4. Preamble (if any)

5. Long title (if any)

No. 11 Standing Order 318 - Notice of appointment

Omit "select".

Mr WEST (Orange) [5.59]: These changes will correct drafting errors that were made during the major rewrite of the standing rules and orders last year. These non-contentious items were discussed in the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, and the Opposition does not oppose them.

Motion agreed to.



Mr FAHEY (Southern Highlands) [6.00], by consent: I understand that with the indulgence of the Leader of the Government and the support of the House I have been given the opportunity to speak for what may be the final time in this Parliament. I will be brief and endeavour to cover,
Page 4915
as I know I will not, those things that have occupied my mind for many months since March, as I have deliberated on what my future might be. When you come into this place you often think there will be a day when you will leave; but you never really know when it will come until circumstances creep up on you. I did not realise it would be today. When I reflect on the time that I have been a member of this place I can say that I have gained considerable joy from the chances, opportunities and responsibilities that came to me over the 12 years.

I recall in the early days of 1984 coming to this Parliament with a number of colleagues who are present in the House today. I found the system almost overawing. I found it especially difficult having come from practising the law where I had control of my life, and all of a sudden I was answering division bells and attending a room for rollcall. I could not leave the place at night. I wondered what I had gotten myself into. I also realised that it was a wonderful opportunity, not so much for myself but to serve the community, and that community initially was my electorate. Subsequently greater responsibilities were given to me. Hard work was the only way to achieve anything. To make a worthwhile contribution one had to know what the system was and what was involved and had to work hard to understand it. I relished that opportunity and progress occurred, as those who may look back on my career will see.

I believe very much in this institution. I have seen how it operates. Despite what one might think in the difficult final days of any given session - as we are experiencing now - it does work, and it works because the democratic process requires scrutiny. No honourable member should be afraid of the accountability that has been part of this Parliament for the past several year. It may well be that one House or another of the Parliament will undergo that scrutiny in the future in a similar manner to that we have complained about in the past few years. But to obtain a full understanding of the issues that are of interest to the people of this State there must be full and free debate. I urge all honourable members to continue to press to preserve the opportunity for full debate on all matters. I look back on the period when the coalition parties were a minority government. At times I wondered at the attitude of the crossbenchers, the Independents, and where their information was coming from. However, I never doubted their sincerity. On occasions I thought their logic was astray, but I never argued that we ought not be accountable and subjected to the scrutiny that the process ensured.

I wish to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House with whom I have enjoyed friendships. I will leave this Parliament knowing there is goodwill from both sides of the House, and I appreciate that very much. That is not to say I did not strive extremely hard for what I believed in. I do not know that too many people have tried much harder than I did. Not many people would take the opportunity of following a 1905 standing order to spend six weeks in the other place, where members speak for as long as they like, and as often as they like. Sir Adrian Solomons on one occasion when he gave me the call said the most sensible thing that I heard in that time. He called me the visiting magistrate. I was the visiting Minister for all of that six weeks until that one occasion after I had been the Minister at the table for 10 hours. Only he and I appreciated the meaning of the title he gave me when he gave me the call: a visiting magistrate is one who visits lunatic asylums and gaols. It was probably the most appropriate call I could have received.

I failed, in an industrial relations sense, on that occasion. Subsequently industrial relations legislation was passed in this State. The bill that is currently before the other place perhaps places some store in the fact that many industrial relations procedures make our workplaces in New South Wales better places. I urge my colleagues on this side of the House to be very careful about what might ultimately come back next year. To give but one example: in the first year after the industrial relations legislation went through, 25 per cent of dispute notifications were lodged with the Industrial Commission of New South Wales. If that does not make for better workplaces in New South Wales, I do not know what does. There will always be a need to look at bottlenecks that might occur and to try to make things that little bit better. But let us have that flexibility in our workplace. I believe that is more important than anything else to the progress that we might make.

I had a similar experience with such things as workers compensation legislation, and I note that compensation legislation is on the Government's agenda in this session. I recall the then Chairman of Committees assisting me one night when some clear liquid was brought into this place, not by the Chairman of Committees, but she did share that glass with me. That was one of the better things that Ivan Petch did for me. I will not tell honourable members what the clear liquid was, but it was needed and welcomed. I am proud that, following a blow-out in unfunded superannuation liabilities, for the first time since the days of Jack Lang, my Government decided to pay its own way. Had superannuation liabilities continued in the direction they were headed, many people in this State would never have achieved their monetary entitlement on retiring from whatever job they might have held in the public sector. That was one of the more responsible economic measures taken by any government in the past decade, and it will be acknowledged as such as time goes on.

I am proud of the roles I played and the responsibilities I had. Yesterday when I was asked what it will mean if I go to Canberra, I said that the hardest decision will be when I come to the end of my street and have to turn right instead of left. I have never been much good at turning right. That is what it will mean geographically; it will take
Page 4916
about the same time. But if I get the opportunity to go to Canberra, I assure honourable members that I shall work to improve the duplication and triplication of roles and responsibilities of governments at all levels across Australia, for that is an area in respect of which I have had a keen interest as a Minister and as Premier. I shall continue to fight to achieve that improvement. I will take to Canberra, if that opportunity arises, a belief that tied funding is not in the interests of the State or of our system of government. A government should not be told by a government in another place, even if I am a member of that government, that it has no flexibility with spending when it must meet the responsibility of looking after the people in the State at the level of State members, that is, right down there with the people. The Commonwealth does not do that.

As a sports lover I shall never forget the opportunity of being able to play a role in the winning of the bid for the year 2000 Olympics. I am very grateful to the honourable member for Coffs Harbour who, when I came back from the bid, gave me a rusty rabbit trap and said, "Here, you might as well have this as a memento, because it must have been under you at the time the announcement was made. Nobody can jump that high without a rabbit trap going off under the seat." I have it still and I treasure it. I thank all of the staffs of the Parliament. They keep ticking over, whether they be the Hansard staff, the dining room staff, the clerks, the support staff or the attendants. They are always unobtrusive, always willing, always helpful.

The opportunity to work with those in the public service wider afield has taught me that the greatest skills are not solely in the private sector. I came into this place believing that skills were only in the private sector, in law and elsewhere. As a Minister it did not take me long to realise that some of the best lawyers I met were in the public sector. When it comes to administration, the responsibility taken on by those in the senior level of the public sector far outweighs the responsibility taken or effort made in many cases by those in the private sector. We should never underestimate the skills of those who back us up in what we must do with the responsibilities we are given. I enjoyed not only friendships, but also a great deal of guidance.

I would like to talk of and pay tribute to many on my side of the House, but the opportunity is not available today bearing in mind the time limit. There were some sad times, the saddest of which to my recollection was in mid-1992 when two people - my Premier and a colleague in the Cabinet - were most unfairly dealt with by this Parliament. They never warranted the hanging that occurred. Perhaps opportunities would never have come my way had it not occurred, but as it unfolds history will show that it was one of the real downs of New South Wales parliamentary democracy. It was not good for what this institution stands for or what we all strive for.

If I could offer a word of advice to my colleagues, I would say please do not lose your way or your principles. Do not accept political expediency in the decision of the day, but stick to your principles and maintain credibility. If there is a wish amongst you to again govern, as I know there is - and that opportunity may come sooner rather than later - stick to your principles. Think about the longer term credibility of a decision rather than short-term political gain, particularly for any vested interest political group. I have made friendships on both sides of the house. I shall miss you. Hopefully, if my career unfolds, I shall take a perspective to Canberra which perhaps it deserves and needs, and which it does not have at the present time. I am told the dining room is not as good. But I assure you all, on all sides of this House, that the bar will always be stocked, and I will share a drink with you, if that is your wish. I still look forward to sharing my first beer with the current Premier, even though he has skited about it happening several times. I have no wish, however, to share a game of rugby league with the current Premier, because I am sick to death, recalling the one occasion I did it, of having to explain to him what a knock on and a forward pass are. I shall be available if he ever takes that plunge and wants to actually have that beer. It will probably do his personality the world of good.

I wish each of you every success and good health. Far too often we stand for condolence motions in this House for colleagues we have known and served with. Those times are very tough for us all. I often think that many of those condolence motions are a little premature because of the lifestyle we lead and perhaps because of the harm that we do to one another both in the name of friendship and in the name of Government or Opposition which might bring on that demise a little sooner than it should. I wish you all good health. I wish you success in what you hope for yourself. I urge you to continue to work for the people of your constituency or otherwise to work towards making things just that little bit better.

I urge those of you who have families to do your utmost to recognise them within it all. Whatever I have achieved, I could never have achieved without my wife Colleen. Without her encouragement and support God knows I would not have gone to Canberra. If she had said no I probably would have had some sense drummed into me by that small word. But she was willing to continue to go along with it. Without her I could do nothing. To me, the most important thing is to be able to say to my wife at the end of any day that it was for her, for the other people we know, and for the people that are part of our community and our State for whom we spend ungodly hours inside and outside this place. I guess that is what public duty is all about. I am delighted to have had that opportunity and experience. It is an experience that few people will ever understand, but it is one that few people can equal. I conclude by wishing everyone a happy Christmas, a good holiday, and good fun next year in the bearpit of New South Wales.


Page 4917
Mr CAUSLEY (Clarence) [6.13], by consent: I thank the house for its indulgence in allowing us a few minutes this evening to speak in this House, for it is probably our last opportunity to do so. I became a member of this House on the same day as the former Premier, the former member for Southern Highlands. That year saw a rather large intake - about 21 or 22 new members came into the Parliament. That was a fair turnaround; it does not often happen. Few of us are left, and there will be fewer still when the federal election is called. In that 12-year period in this Parliament - those 12 years have passed quickly - I have enjoyed many good times and many privileges. I really appreciate that I had the opportunity to serve for seven years as a Minister in the New South Wales Government. I would never have dreamed in my younger life of doing that. I never had ambitions to become involved in politics, but having reached the leadership of the cane industry on the Clarence River I became a fair target for a political party to ask me to stand for the Clarence electorate. That seat was held by a Labor Minister of the day, the Hon. Don Day, before I took it. I think he served a similar period of about 12 years in this Parliament.

Looking back over that period, I am very proud of the achievements in that electorate. In that period we managed to get public works in the electorate equal to, if not better than, anything achieved in previous eras. I remember in my campaigns talking about a new primary school for Yamba, a multipurpose centre for Grafton High School, and a hall for South Grafton High School. The area needed a new TAFE college at Maclean, which we managed to achieve with the much-maligned Terry Metherell. Terry helped me many times in upgrading TAFE colleges, high schools and other educational facilities in the Clarence electorate, and I am deeply grateful to him for that.

When I first stood for Clarence the Pacific Highway between Grafton and Maclean offered one opportunity for passing. A horrific bus accident happened on the one straight piece of road between Grafton and Maclean. The suggestion by the sitting member representing Coffs Harbour, Matt Singleton, of a three cents per litre levy to go to roads achieved great benefits in the Clarence electorate. Anyone travelling the Pacific Highway will see the enormous benefits from the money that has been spent on it. There are passing lanes every five kilometres, and the threat to the motoring public has been much reduced. I am very proud, having been involved in such a project, that we have managed to achieve it. As the honourable member for the Southern Highlands said, after the March election I did not seek a position on the front bench because I believed I had had my opportunities in this Parliament. I considered that I was extremely fortunate to have achieved what I did. So I took a backbench position and contemplated whether I would stay in this place or move on.

I dare say I was persuaded by people within the Clarence electorate that I should use the experience I had gained to endeavour to win the federal seat of Page presently held by the Labor Party. I live on challenges. I like challenges and cannot live without them. It is a challenge to me to win the seat of Page. That will not be easy. I have no quarrels with the incumbent member, but he belongs to the wrong party. I will be trying hard to win that seat. If I do, I will continue the work I have done in this Parliament, particularly on rural and resource issues. My seven years as Minister were spent mainly in administering resource and rural matters in this State; I think I have some knowledge of them. I will be endeavouring to pursue those interests on behalf of the people of New South Wales and of Australia in Federal Parliament. I have my own view of politics. I always believe that, whether in government or in opposition, members should do their utmost by pursuing and endorsing policies that will do the best for their country.

At times I become disappointed about resource policy. Forestry, one of the portfolios I took over in 1988, was probably the reason I entered this Parliament. My maiden speech shows that even in those days I was deeply involved in the forestry industry. Unfortunately, that debate in Australia today is doing enormous damage to our industries and to the economy of this State. The Parliament should look closely at that fact. If minority groups within the community are allowed to dictate to Parliament through political blackmail, we will do ourselves a great disservice. In the 12 years I have been a member of Parliament, the position of the forestry industry has only worsened. My predecessor, Don Day, would say probably exactly the same thing because he fought for exactly the same ideals in forestry. That industry is being destroyed, small businesses that have nowhere else to turn are being hurt badly, and small bush communities are being devastated. We have to take stock and ensure that industry survives, to our benefit.

I am proud of my portfolio areas. In particular I would single out my water resources portfolio, which I was responsible for changing quite radically. By the time I had vacated the position of Minister, having been one of the longest serving Ministers for water resources in New South Wales, the coalition had achieved a lot. When I took over as Minister the taxpayers of New South Wales were subsidising irrigation by $30 million and by the time I left they were not subsidising it at all. The irrigators had taken over control of the areas and were running their own affairs. They had implemented efficiencies. They were not increasing the price of water for themselves but were managing it efficiently. Other States in Australia followed the example.

Efficiencies can be found by allowing people to manage their own affairs and getting them out of the pockets of the taxpayers. The Sydney Fish
Page 4918
Markets was costing taxpayers dearly. Again, the strategy was to hand it over to the fishing industry to run. People will always run a business better when they have an interest in it. If they think they can sit back and get a handout from the Government they always will. The Sydney Fish Market is running efficiently because fishermen and merchants have an interest in its success.

I thank all those whom I have known in this place, friends that I have made on both sides of politics, and friends who are not here any longer - some of them are deceased. It is an interesting place, and the turnover is fairly quick. It is surprising to think back, after a few years, of those who have left. I thank all those who helped me along the way. In particular I thank my family, who have always supported me strongly. I thank my wife, June. My extended family has always supported me in the political process which, as most honourable members know, is all-encompassing. I also thank my ministerial staff, who were totally dedicated and worked beyond expectations to support me as Minister. Unfortunately none of them was given a job afterwards, but I think they have all found a niche since then.

I also thank the Hansard reporters; the parliamentary staff, who have always been courteous and helpful; and the dining room staff. We are well served in this Parliament and I appreciate all that was done to help me in my time as a member of this House. Again, I thank you all for your friendship. Sometimes we have a few words to one another, but underneath it all we get on well together and understand one another. It has been a great pleasure to serve in this Parliament. I wish you all a merry Christmas and all the best for 1996. I am sure we will see one another along the road somewhere.


Mr ZAMMIT (Strathfield) [6.23], by consent: A lot of thoughts are flooding through my mind tonight. Twelve years is a long time. I think back to my maiden speech. Convention dictates that no-one should interrupt a member making a maiden speech. When I finished speaking someone on the other side, whose name I will not mention because I did not seek his authority to do so, let out a loud laugh. I thought at the time it was a bit rude. After a maiden speech everyone congratulates you and wishes you well. As I walked out, that person was waiting for me. He said, "Let me buy you a drink." I said, "No, you have broken the tradition of this Parliament." He said, "Come on, let me buy you a drink." I went out with him and he apologised and said, "The reason I laughed loudly is that I have been here 12 years and I said exactly the same things 12 years ago that you just said."

That was one of my first experiences in this place, and I refused to let myself become cynical, because that is not constructive. I was sad that some people felt that way. I can understand that politics is a profession with many disappointments, I can understand how he felt, and I tried not to reach the stage where I would be cynical about life and about the Parliament. This Parliament and the community in general do not recognise sufficiently the contribution made by spouses of members of Parliament. Many people do not understand the pressures they are under. They do not understand how hard they work in the electorate. In fact, all electorates get a good deal because not only the member is involved but the spouse and the member.

I am pleased that my wife, Rita, is able to be in the gallery tonight. I thank her profusely. One can thank a spouse, but it goes deeper than mere thanks. For a long time I have felt that consideration should be given to paying the spouse a portion of the member's salary, if the member chooses to do that. I refer to a direct contribution; it is not a matter of splitting incomes. When members of Parliament sit in this House, their spouses are out representing them. When we cannot attend an engagement because of other commitments they do so for us. They mix with people and represent us very well, and come back to us with the concerns of the community. I would like to suggest that as a thought for the future. If there was a way I could have done it, I would have.

I am proud of the fact that when I was elected as the member for Burwood, as the seat of Strathfield was then known, it was a beachhead for the Liberal Party in the inner west. I am sorry in many respects that the seat of Strathfield is now totally surrounded by Labor-held electorates. In fact, the next row of seats around it are also Labor seats. I have established a beachhead which I would like to be expanded in the next State election. Perhaps other party members will be able to win back some of the other seats, with all due respect to the honourable members who represent those seats.

In many respects the seat of Strathfield has meant a double workload for me. I have not only had to ensure that the mainstream community is looked after, and that I spend as much time as I can with the mainstream community, but I also have a large ethnic community with many different backgrounds and communities. It is not enough to visit them once in a while; one has to be with them, one has to try and understand their problems. As a migrant of non-English speaking background I can identify with them and understand the problems they experience in their lives without them even telling me, because I have been through similar problems. It is not the sort of thing one can read about in a book and understand. It is totally different to experience it. I am proud that I am not saying farewell after losing a seat. I am proud that I am undefeated. One faces three major problems in political life. The first problem is whether one will win a seat. The second is the redistribution that we must all face from time to time. That is very stressful. The third is preselection. Preselections are fought not on policies but on personalities, and
Page 4919
they can be a fairly devastating and heart-breaking experience. Although a preselection win may be guaranteed, the community does not know anything about the experience. It is incumbent on me to say that we all have strains in our lives and the strains I have outlined are not evident to the community generally.

I have had many big disappointments in this place, but that is life. We accept the disappointments, put them behind us and get on with life. My role is to serve my constituents night and day, to be there for them, to assist them and to ensure that their concerns and views are reflected in the Parliament. I thank the voters in the Strathfield electorate for their confidence in me over the past 12 years - it has been four elections. I always felt that they had confidence in me because they knew I thought about them a lot and I worked hard for my community. My wife has tirelessly supported me. My children have had some difficulties; I understand that because I was not always home, as perhaps other fathers are.

I have enormous pride in my electorate. My constituents have had a difficult time in many respects, especially the migrants and immigrant women. I remember more than 12 years ago writing a paper on the problems of immigrant women, based on the experiences of my mother and other immigrant women. I was invited to address a group of Anglo-saxon women. One of them said to me, "Everything you have said in your paper, I have experienced in my life: the problem of my husband losing his job, the problem of finding accommodation, the problem of moving from house to house and living in a different area, and the problems with children. How can you say that we should have special programs to assist immigrant women when I have experienced the same things that you spoke about?" I said that the difference between her and immigrant women is that immigrant women suffer all these problems simultaneously upon arrival in Australia, and that many people cannot survive such stress. I can do a lot more work in that field because I feel extremely strongly about it.

The Parliament must address the problems with question time. With all due respect to honourable members, question time is a farce. When honourable members ask questions without notice we know that they are not without notice; the answers have been rehearsed. If we are to have a genuine Parliament honourable members must have more freedom in terms of the questions they ask. I am also deeply disappointed that I have not opened the door to the Liberal Party for other people, like me, from a non-English speaking background. I shall continue working to ensure that representation in Parliament reflects the general community.

Some have said that there are insufficient women in Parliament. Equally, there are insufficient people from a non-English speaking background, like me. Indeed, when I leave here there will be no Liberal members of non-English speaking background and born overseas. That is a pity because I am leaving, in a sense, with that hope unfulfilled. The electors of Lowe will decide their representative at the next Federal election. It is right and proper that they will decide my political future - it is a democratic process. I profusely thank the staff of the Parliament, who are always willing to assist honourable members. They have always been discreet in the assistance given to honourable members. I wish everyone a very happy Christmas and a peaceful and restful holiday period.


Mr WATKINS (Gladesville) [6.35]: I am happy to draw the attention of the House to the wonderful work of the Home Care Service of New South Wales in the Ryde-Gladesville area. The Home Care Service is funded by the State and Federal governments under the home and community care program. The service is a New South Wales statutory authority responsible to the Minister for Community Services, serving more than 46,000 clients throughout New South Wales each month. More than 900 people in my local area receive home care service each month. Home care staff assist people with such everyday practical tasks as house cleaning, shopping, laundry and personal care, such as showering, dressing and respite care. This means that people receiving care are able to maintain a level of independence that they could not otherwise hope for. Without this assistance they would probably be in institutions - nursing homes, hostels and residential facilities for people with disabilities.

The Home Care Service enables people to choose to continue living in their own homes. This is a life-giving choice for the aged and the disabled in our community. It enables them to stay in their own known communities, in their own homes. This independence maintains happiness and health. Having to move away from a known environment, often one's home for many years, must be one of the most traumatic choices facing aged and disabled residents. The Home Care Service enables residents to delay or to avoid that traumatic choice. It should be noted that this is of great economic importance to the State. The cost of maintaining a resident in a nursing home or other institution is expensive. Money spent on home care is therefore of double benefit to the resident and the taxpayer.

Honourable members who have an aged relative or who have spent time doorknocking or visiting nursing homes will recognise the value of ensuring that residents are able to remain in their homes for as long as possible. Last week I had the good fortune to attend the years of service awards ceremony for the Ryde members at the Argyle Centre at Ryde. With the local director of the service, Jane Warne, the 80 or so field staff in the area were honoured for their wonderful work in
Page 4920
providing assistance over the years. Some special staff members were honoured for five, 10 or 15 years of service to home care in Ryde. At the ceremony I made the point that many people find it difficult to provide day in, day out care to family members but that these generous, committed workers provide it to people with whom they had no prior connection.

It is a vocation of care. The staff go about their work with enthusiasm and compassion, and provide essential and often joyous experiences for their clients. They bring dignity and warmth to the lives of the people for whom they care. Many of the field staff had no formal qualifications when they joined the organisation. Others are in their second career. They are provided with the opportunity to learn new skills through course work and on-the-job training. Those whom I met value their work and their clients. They revealed themselves to be an enthusiastic and committed group who are deeply involved in the lives of their clients. Their work demands sensitivity, understanding, commitment and reliability. The workers in the Home Care Service in Ryde provide all those qualities. Her care for her staff is revealed in a recent letter to me in which she said:

Our staff are, I believe, true heroes (and heroines)! Their work is not easy - providing housekeeping services and personal care . . . to frail aged people and people with disabilities . . . 7 days a week from early morning to late at night. As well as the practical skills to do the job, they also need superior interpersonal skills as many of our customers are from non English speaking backgrounds and also may be confused as a result of the ageing process. They are also having to deal with families going through crisis - illness, deteriorating functional ability and loneliness when an elderly person is on their own. Our staff have to have excellent communication skills and also, very importantly, the ability to recognise when it is appropriate to refer to another organisation.

They have a wonderful staff doing a wonderful job in the Ryde area. It is a stronger and more compassionate community because of this organisation. I wish them well with their continuing endeavours.


Mr SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [6.40]: I rise and speak on a serious matter concerning the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the enormous impact on my constituents Mr and Mrs Goddard of the property Mooki, Tingha, purchased in May 1985 with an assurance from the National Parks and Wildlife Service that the claimed Aboriginal grave site on the property was strictly low key. Four years later, in 1989, the site was upgraded and nominated for heritage listing. The Goddards objected, proving that the report was biased and not researched. The listing was subsequently cancelled on the Goddards' evidence. However, the National Parks and Wildlife Service did not accept this finding and continued their claims, forcing the Goddards to undertake time-consuming, costly research.

In January 1976 the department claimed that Mary Anne Sullivan, known as Queen Annie, was buried on Mooki. The department received a copy of the death certificate showing she was buried at the Tingha cemetery and not on Mooki. Further, the National Parks and Wildlife Service changed the name of the site to Stony Creek Aboriginal graves, claiming a Mr Connors was buried there. Once again, a death certificate proves he was buried at Tingha cemetery. It has been stated Mr Joseph Clarkson had been buried in three places on Mooki. A death certificate proves he was buried in the Aboriginal cemetery on the neighbouring property, Bassendean, where many Aborigines lived and worked from the early 1900s.

In October 1992 the National Parks and Wildlife Service advised my constituents that there were a number of additional Aboriginal sites on Mooki. The service had never located or seen the sites. There is visual and documented evidence to refute the claims of the service. In March 1993 Minister Hartcher presented to Parliament a report that removed the Aboriginal place declaration, but allowed the department to issue a relic protection order. However, this order was issued without observing section 89 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act. In June 1995 a solicitor's purchases search revealed no plans for a national park, historic site, nature reserve, or Aboriginal area. No Aboriginal sites were disclosed to the solicitor by the service.

Again in June 1995 the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs received a petition from the Aboriginal people of Tingha requesting the service be denied access, management or protection of any sites or areas on Mooki. In June 1995 the Minister with portfolio responsibility for the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the director-general of the service invited the Goddards to go to the service's head office in Sydney to view two reports. Mrs Goddard accepted the invitation, attending the head office on 23 October, only to be refused access to the reports. The service stated that the staff should not have written the Minister's letter in that way or extended such an invitation; and Mrs Goddard's request for access to the Mooki file was also denied.

I ask: who is running the department - the Minister or the bureaucrats? In October 1995 Mrs Goddard used freedom of information provisions to gain access to documents from the Mooki file, but the department avoided access by deferral to a different document. There is a litany of documented evidence of the inaccuracy of the claims of the department. There are over 30,000 Aboriginal sites on the register of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, yet a letter to the Goddards confirms that the department does not routinely verify reports or sites before they register them as authenticated sites. The guidebook of the National Parks and Wildlife Service by Howard Kramer published in 1993 entitled "A gift and a dreaming", in reference to Aboriginal sites, states:

Page 4921

Significance for practical purposes is limitless as new sites are invented or existing prehistoric sites are given renewed significance.

Certainly in the case of the Goddards there has been a major error. The Goddards have engaged a consultant to have the sorry story published. I urge the Minister to take immediate action to prevent the gross embarrassment and loss of public confidence in the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Goddards have freehold land; it is not Crown land. They were not approached for any agreement for preservation or exhibition of a relic or an Aboriginal place. The service has been ignoring their request that the fence be taken down surrounding the site. Mr and Mrs Goddard would like to see the claim of the National Parks and Wildlife Service on Mooki withdrawn, and to have the fence removed that was erected on their property by that service.


Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [6.45]: I wish to speak on a matter of great interest in my electorate and the people of the central coast. On Sunday, 10 December, the final stage of the upgrade of the Kariong to Gosford section of the Pacific Highway was officially opened. Last Sunday the final link, the railway flyover bridge, was opened by the Minister for Roads, the Hon. Michael Knight, who is in the Chamber. Importantly the bridge is dedicated by name to the former member for Gosford and Gosford city councillor, the late Brian McGowan. I believe this is an appropriate dedication as this bridge is now the gateway to the central coast and the region of the State to which Brian was totally devoted.

Brian was renowned for his commitment to the environment and education, but he was also committed to the need for the constant upgrading of infrastructure as the area continued to grow. One of his proud claims was that during his time as a State member of Parliament one-third of the total budget of the former Public Works Department was spent on the central coast, providing water and sewerage infrastructure. While Brian was a member for Gosford, the electric train service was extended to Wyong, numerous schools and social welfare centres were established, water and sewerage services were extended to the whole of the coast and a commitment was made by the then Labor Government to the construction of the Kariong to Gosford roadworks.

In 1987 the then Labor Government roads 2000 policy was established and included the upgrading of the Pacific Highway throughout the central coast. The Kariong to Gosford sector was noted as one of the vital links in that program, and works started in September 1988, following completion of the final design and investigation. Work at Kariong Hill commenced in July 1989. However, because of other priorities of the Greiner Government, these projects fell into disrepute and became a local joke. Work was racing away on the Wyong Road project to prop up the recently-won seat of The Entrance by the Liberal Party, while the projects in west Gosford and at Kariong Hill moved at a snail's pace.

The west Gosford section, less than a few kilometres in length, was not completed until August 1992, some four years after commencement. A snail could have crawled the distance back and forth 100 times during that construction period. Work at Kariong Hill also took four years to complete, from 1989 to 1993. The abysmally slow progress became a public scandal. The public outrage was further fuelled by the attitude of the Deputy Premier, Wal Murray, to the closure to the Pacific Highway at Cheerio Point due to landslip. In April 1988 the Pacific Highway was reduced from three lanes to two lanes, and in March 1990 from two lanes to one lane. In April 1991 the highway was closed. The then Minister for Roads, Wal Murray, indicated that reconstruction of the Pacific Highway at Cheerio Point would cost $2.25 million and the highway would remain closed. Given the attitude of the then Government, supported by the honourable member for Gosford, Mr Chris Hartcher, the then member for Peats, the late Tony Doyle, introduced a private member's bill called the Pacific Highway (Cheerio Point) Re-opening Bill 1993 to overcome the obstinacy of the Deputy Premier.

In summary, in 1991 the Pacific Highway at Cheerio Point was closed and the west Gosford and Kariong Hill projects were moving at a snail's pace. Bob Stains, Central Coast Express editor and local community leader, reflected the community concern by launching a public protest campaign over closure of the Pacific Highway and the snail's pace of the west Gosford roadworks. The cartoon on the front page of the Central Coast Express of Wednesday, 12 May 1993, encapsulated the attitude of the Minister to community concern over road issues in the Gosford City Council area. In that cartoon the then Deputy Premier has a cork firmly stuck in each ear - he was deaf to the protests of the local community over roads issues.

I believe the concentrated efforts of a number of parties resulted in the successful completion of these roadworks. I refer to community outrage; the concerted efforts of the late Tony Doyle, member for Peats; the efforts of the mayor of Gosford City Council and former candidate for the seat of Gosford, Councillor Tony Sansom; the Gosford Chamber of Commerce; the central coast development corporation; and local media, both radio and press. The opening of the Brian McGowan Bridge last Sunday was an occasion to be celebrated by all residents of the central coast.

In conclusion, I congratulate those associated with the construction of the bridge: workers from the Roads and Traffic Authority, council, State Rail Authority, engineers, designers, the project management team and other contractors. Lastly I
Page 4922
congratulate those associated with the celebration: media staff from the RTA led by Peter Henderson, and the local organiser Mr Richard Davies, who was chairman of the combined bridge opening committee. The committee included members from West Gosford Rotary Club, East Gosford Rotary Club, North Gosford Rotary Club, Kariong-Somersby Rotary Club, Gosford City Council, local police, the State Rail Authority, and Gosford Chamber of Commerce. Last Sunday was a magnificent celebration marking the conclusion of a major infrastructure project for the central coast and honouring the service of a dedicated local member of State Parliament. [Time expired.]

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [6.50]: It is always interesting to hear from the honourable member for The Entrance on road matters. He is a dedicated representative of his constituents and a particularly strong fighter for central coast roads. I joined him on Sunday at the opening of the Brian McGowan Bridge. It is a great bridge and is a tribute to those involved in the lobbying and construction of it. It was particularly enjoyable to me as a member of the Wran Government to pay tribute to Brian and his work. I take this opportunity to also pay tribute to the work of Rotary, which was involved in the opening of the bridge, and to the community generally.

The honourable member for The Entrance covered the political background of the bridge. I do not wish to reiterate that except to advise the House of one remarkable event of political overtones at the opening ceremony. The bridge links two electorates: Gosford, which is held by the Liberal Party, and Peats, which is held by the Labor Party. To my amazement, when the bridge was opened in the Gosford electorate it rained, but by the time I had led the walk across the bridge into the Peats electorate the rain had stopped. Lest people think this was just a normal and natural phenomenon, when we returned to the Gosford side the rain recommenced.


Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [6.52]: I express appreciation to the Minister for Local Government for the recent announcement that Shellharbour municipality will be declared a city. One unfortunate occurrence has taken place as a result of that declaration. The ink was hardly dry on the Minister's press release when the General Manager of Wollongong City Council, Mr Rod Oxley, rushed into the meeting calling again for the amalgamation of Wollongong, Shellharbour and Kiama council areas. Mr Oxley has many things on his plate that should occupy his time more than trying to swallow up adjoining local government areas. For example, he is a member of the Illawarra Area Health Service, the local university council and the Institute of Municipal Management, and he also has various personal business investments to take care of. This man is so busy I often wonder how Wollongong City Council gets any return for the $107,000 it pays him.

Mr Oxley should realise that he is not a decision maker but a highly paid public servant - some might suggest overpaid - and he should leave alone sensitive political matters such as amalgamations of councils. Shellharbour is a rapidly developing local government area. In fact, it is the residential development area for the Illawarra region. An amount of $60 million has been earmarked for community facilities for Shellharbour over the next 15 or 20 years. Shellharbour will develop as a sister area to Wollongong in the same way that Parramatta will be with Sydney. The residents of Shellharbour are entitled to mid-range facilities that a city of approximately 80,000 people deserves - as will be the case in 15 years time - because facilities are unlikely to be provided if the area is swallowed up by Wollongong.

The latest comparative information published by the Department of Local Government and the Minister relates to the performance of New South Wales councils for 1993. I draw attention to the financial sheet, which reveals that Shellharbour's current debt to asset ratio is $2.09 - that is, Shellharbour Council has $2.09 of current assets for every $1 liability - compared with Wollongong, which has $1.31 current assets for every $1 liability. The average rate per residential assessment in Shellharbour is $513.98 and in Wollongong is $526.08. Shellharbour Council rates per capita for 1994 have been estimated at $190.88 whereas Wollongong council rates per capita are $202. The exceptional figure to which I draw attention is in planning and regulatory services. The number of building applications received and determined per staff member in Shellharbour was 314 and the number of development applications was 49; in Wollongong the numbers were 75.95 and 24.45 respectively.

The category average for New South Wales was 111.15 for building applications and 28.86 for development applications. Shellharbour's figures are extraordinarily high and the State average for our category of council would have been much lower if it had not been boosted by Shellharbour figures. Shellharbour looks forward to an exciting future. The Shell Cove project and other land-holdings, which have been strategically acquired over the last 20 years, are expected to bear fruit with jobs and financial returns to the council for the next 20 years amounting to many millions of dollars. It is considered that the Shell Cove project alone will return to the council an estimated $100 million in assets, including $31 million in cash. On the other hand, Wollongong City Council does not own its council chambers. The local wags refer to it as deficit towers. In a few years time Wollongong council will face the prospect of having to purchase the building or negotiate some sort of long-term lease. Obviously, that is a major liability that Wollongong council must face.

Page 4923

Wollongong council recently had to buy its way out of a joint venture with the failed Kern Corporation and acquire the Crown Gateway Shopping Centre in the Wollongong central business district at a cost of approximately $33 million. Therefore, any proposal to amalgamate Shellharbour with Wollongong would be obviously detrimental to the people of Shellharbour and would result in Shellharbour's strategically acquired assets being utilised to pay off Wollongong council's looming liabilities. Shellharbour's assets - the airport, boat harbour, resort site, broad acres of residentially zoned land and the Croom Regional Sporting Complex - are obviously coveted by persons such as Rod Oxley. My message to him is to butt out of the affairs of adjoining local government areas.


Mr STEWART (Lakemba) [6.57]: I have the honour and privilege to pay tribute to a truly great Australian, Mr Laurie Short, who this week, along with Bob Hawke, will receive the most prestigious certificate of honour from the Australian Council of Trade Unions - ACTU - for his outstanding contribution to the trade union movement. From 1951 to 1982 Laurie Short was the National Secretary of the Federated Ironworkers Association - FIA. During this tumultuous period in the history of labour in New South Wales Laurie Short was viewed by the New South Wales Labor Party as the person most closely identified with the anti-communist fight within the trade union movement.

Laurie Short was a union leader respected by all sides of politics, but very much feared by his enemies. I am sure it was Laurie Short who first coined the phrase, "I don't get mad, I just get even", that many others have since pinched. Laurie Short's ascension to leadership of the Federated Ironworkers Association, one of Australia's largest and most influential trade unions, did not come easy. In the 1930s and 1940s he moved from being a member of the communist group to recognising the social evils of communism and subsequently becoming anti-communist in his feelings and aspirations. In 1937 Mr Laurie Short joined the FIA, which was then a strong communist controlled union. During this period Laurie Short became highly critical of the communist leadership of the FIA and eventually accused union officials of ballot rigging.

This culminated in 1949 when Laurie Short stood for the position of National Secretary of the FIA. He lost in what he claimed was a rigged ballot - a ballot which was contested in the courts. In late 1951, after a 16-month battle in the courts, Laurie Short was declared National Secretary of the FIA, much to the disgust of the communist leadership at that time. In the months that followed this decision Laurie Short received several death threats. He was told also that his daughter would be kidnapped from the local primary school. Laurie Short continued, despite all this. Nothing stopped him in his struggle to rid the FIA and the union movement of its communist influence.

Let me tell honourable members what Laurie Short did for the union leadership of the FIA in New South Wales. He established the role model for moderate unionism, a model which is still being used by successful unions. Unions should be about successful moderate union politics, and that is what they are about in 1995. The best way to sum up the impact that Laurie Short has had on the New South Wales labour movement is to quote the words of former Premier Neville Wran. In 1982, when Laurie Short retired from the FIA, the Hon. Neville Wran said of him:

. . . the man responsible, probably more than anyone else, for the fact that the Labor Party of NSW did not split in 1955. The importance of that fact, not only in the NSW Labor Party, not only in the Party throughout Australia, but its importance to Australia itself, can hardly be exaggerated. And if nothing else, if the Party had split in NSW in 1955, in the state with the strength of Labor which is the whole key to our strength throughout Australia, I don't think there would be a Labor government in NSW now, and I don't think I would be standing here as the Premier of NSW . . .

No truer words could have been spoken. Laurie Short was the catalyst for the successful spurring on Labor from Neville Wran's reign through to the leadership of Bob Carr. He laid the foundations. History shows that Laurie Short is a giant amongst men and women. He is truly a legend in his own time. The New South Wales and Australian labour movement should not forget Laurie Short's vast achievements. I as a former union official will certainly never forget. There are too many to mention now, but perhaps his best achievement is that although he will turn 80 years old in a few days time he still comes daily into the union office and performs union activities, writes articles and gives constructive and concrete advice to young union officials, thus enabling them to embark on a successful future in trade unionism in this State.

Private members' statements noted.

[The Speaker left the chair at 6.59 p.m., Wednesday.]


[Continuation of Wednesday's sitting.]

[The House resumed at 9.30 a.m.]


Mr Speaker tabled a copy of a report from the Auditor-General entitled "Performance Audit Reporting, Environmental Protection Authority, Management and Regulation of Contaminated Sites, a Preliminary Report" dated December 1995.

Ordered to be printed.


Page 4924
Royal assent to the following bill reported:

Children (Care and Protection) Amendment Bill

Mr Speaker reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:

Mr Speaker

The Legislative Council informs the Legislative Assembly that it has this day agreed to the Assembly's further amendment to the Council's amendment No. 1 in the General Government Debt Elimination Bill.

Legislative Council Duncan Gay
14 December 1995 a.m. Acting President

The following bills were returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:

Environmental Planning Legislation Amendment Bill
Forests and Reserves Revocation Bill
State Emergency Legislation Amendment Bill
Timber Plantations (Harvest Guarantee) Bill
Education Reform Amendment (School Discipline) Bill

The following bills were returned from the Legislative Council with amendment:

Electricity Supply Bill
Energy Services Corporations Bill
Sustainable Energy Development Bill
Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2)
State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill
WorkCover Legislation Amendment Bill
Government Pricing Tribunal Amendment Bill
Waste Minimisation and Management Bill
Threatened Species Conservation Bill (No. 2)

Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [9.36]: I move:

That this House notes Christmas Felicitations.

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [9.36]: It is traditional at this time of year to extend Christmas felicitations to all those associated with the running of this House and to one another. This is a very cheerful and wholesome tradition of the Parliament.

[Interruption]

It is hard to stop smiling when one is in my position. I recall Christmas felicitations when the 1988 to 1991 Parliament was adjourning. My colleague was going to introduce an opposition bill on endangered species and on that last day of sitting I said to her, "Pull that back Pam. They all expect us to be done; they all expect us to be endangered species. I would not bring that on", and she did not. A few months later we went on to achieve a near win in the 1991 elections. With Christmas felicitations last year there was the noise bombing of Sydney and a few other issues, and there was more optimism on the government side than on the opposition side, but people did not reckon on the strength of a united New South Wales Labor Party. So we are here beaming, trying not to offend opposition members by looking too happy. We will give attention to the commitment I made to provide coalition members with grief counselling, but we should not dwell too glumly on Christmas issues.

Mr Cochran: Just get on with it. Get on your helicopter and -

Mr CARR: We will remind you of your helicopter trips.

[Interruption]

I am trying to get on to that, Clover, but they keep derailing me. The reason members on both sides of the House can smile is that this Parliament, this time-honoured institution, witnessed a peaceful transfer of power in the year under review, and all that has happened since has underlined the relevance of State Parliament. The public service cooperated to great effect and with professionalism in the transfer of power; and all that has happened, the passage of an ambitious reform program by this Government, confirms the relevance of State Parliament to the aspirations of the people of New South Wales. I would like to seize this opportunity to extend my best wishes first to the Clerks of the House, who so wisely, so benignly and with such grace, give objective advice to all of us - effecting an attitude of cynical world-weariness but yet condescending to answer with patient courtesy our unceasing inquiries, and always doing it well.

To the staff of Hansard, our best wishes as well. We know that the Liberal Party has had trouble with the English language since the passing of Menzies. English is the common national language of our nation, despite our proud multiculturalism. Hansard has helped the Liberal Party and the National Party enormously, and I think that we ought to register our gratitude. The rules of grammar and the subtleties of syntax have never been strong ground for them since Menzies went. We are always happy to help, but Hansard helps them most of all. By the way, I have to say that with the approaching Federal election the prospect of Alexander Downer representing this country abroad -

Mr Cochran: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point of order is, no doubt, that the Premier is straying a little from the subject of the debate. I am sure he will return to it.

Page 4925

Mr CARR: But a very merry Christmas to Alexander Downer. To the Parliamentary Counsel, who has served the system with such professionalism, we extend our best wishes for a happy Christmas. I come now to the staff of the Parliament, without whom this noble institution would not function as effectively as it does. To the cheerful cleaning staff, whom it is always a pleasure to greet, a happy Christmas. To the catering staff - we might in the New Year test the accuracy of those little healthy food tips that have accumulated on the menu - we send our best wishes. To the Parliamentary Library staff, who manifest a high level of professionalism at all times, our best wishes. The administration of the Parliament has been able to keep this institution operating, especially during the trying last week, and the administrative staff have carried out their duties with great professionalism and skill, and we thank them. To the Parliamentary Attendants, who see that this Chamber is properly secure while legislation is deliberated on, again our best wishes.

I note that three members of the Parliament have nominated or expressed their intention to nominate for the approaching Federal election. I refer first to the honourable member for Strathfield. I do not think much of his chances, but I wish him a happy Christmas. I think Mary Easson will trump him, will do him like a dinner, but a very happy Christmas to the honourable member for Strathfield. The honourable member for Clarence is taking his chances, hoping fourth time round to defeat Harry Woods.

Mr Fraser: Bye-bye, Harry Woods.

Mr CARR: You said it last time, the time before, and the time before that; go for your life. We wish the honourable member for Clarence well, but as with the honourable member for Strathfield, we warn you that we are all out to do you in. Good luck in the election. I come now to my old football buddy, the honourable member for the Southern Highlands, who is leaving the Parliament as well. Having to feign interest in his elaborate explanations of the rules of the code is very trying, but we wish him well, while at the same time committing ourselves to working energetically for his defeat. I know it has been a trying experience to accommodate defeat as Premier in an election, but his predecessor and the one before had to accommodate that. Recent history shows that Neville Wran is the only Premier who has not had to accommodate defeat. I say in the spirit of goodwill that I am sure the honourable member for the Southern Highlands will make the adjustment to a new life, whether it is in Federal politics, an attempted return to this Parliament when he is defeated in that battlefield, or in any other endeavour.

Mr Gibson: You're going to lose a drinking mate.

Mr CARR: I know, and there is considerable sadness on my part at that prospect. Finally, Mr Speaker, to you and my colleagues on both sides of the House, sincere wishes for a very happy Christmas. What the Opposition is going through now, Labor went through in 1988. We extend sincere condolences to them, and grief counselling is well on the way. Happy Christmas to you all.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [9.44]: I regret that the Premier has just left the Chamber, and I regret that his comments reaffirm that cynical expression used about Christmas felicitations: Christmas hypocrisies. The politicisation of this occasion by the Premier is what we have come to expect in the brief sittings of this Parliament this year. Just before the Parliament adjourns for the year, it is worth noting that according to the records kept by the Parliamentary Library about parliamentary sittings going back to 1956, this year the Legislative Assembly has recorded the lowest number of days sat in the past 40 years; we have sat for 33 days. The average for the past 40 years is 54 days. It is worth noting - and honourable members may be interested in these statistics - that the highest number of sitting days was 67 in 1956 and 1964; and the next lowest was 41 days in 1988, when the coalition took office. But this year, thanks to the Carr Government, 33 days is all the New South Wales taxpayers got from their funding of the Legislative Assembly.

Mr Whelan: Talk about selective amnesia.

Mr COLLINS: The Leader of the House wants more information. I will give him the rest of the statistics. In 1991 the House sat for 57 days; in 1988 it sat for 41 days, in 1984 it sat for 45 days and in 1981 it sat for 54 days. All of those were election years; yet this year, with the election of the Carr Government, the Legislative Assembly has sat just 33 days. I deplore that we are going to have to wait until April for this House to resume.

So far as the Premier's remarks are concerned, what goes around comes around. We understand that he has been locked away for seven years as Leader of the Opposition and he has built up a degree of frustration. However, that it should translate into such rampant arrogance so quickly must come as a surprise to many people in New South Wales. Indeed, the comment I have heard from many people is that they did not expect the Premier to become so arrogant this quickly. But every dog has his day, and that includes the Premier. I trust he will enjoy this day because one may be assured that as we have a break over Christmas, the Opposition will be endeavouring to make sure that the Premier's day is as short as possible.

For the Opposition, the Liberal Party and National Party, it has been a period of consolidation. Usually when a government loses office a degenerative process takes place; the whole process breaks down and becomes a cannibalistic process. That has not occurred with the coalition; indeed, the reverse has occurred. Every attempt by the Labor Party to defeat us, to divide us as a coalition, has failed. Every attempt by the Labor
Page 4926
Party to divide either the Liberal Party or the National Party has failed, it has been an abject failure; and the coalition ends the year in a very strong position, as every opinion poll indicates.

I would have thought that the last thing the Premier would want before he leaves for overseas on his usual European holiday, would be to speak here at the last minute and go out on a note of arrogance. Yet, it is typical; it is standard; it is what we have come to expect. It is regrettable that the Premier has decided to set the tone today by turning Christmas felicitations into a political debate rather than one in which we reflect upon the year past and the year ahead. But as he has made it so, I am quite happy to respond in kind.

I acknowledge the work done by my colleagues and the support that I have been given as Leader of the Opposition by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and all of my colleagues, who hit the ground running as we went into Opposition. It is not an easy time going into Opposition, as members on the government benches will acknowledge. It is a tough time, but it is also an opportunity for Opposition members to reflect on what they would do differently. Indeed, I assure the people of New South Wales that it is an opportunity that we are using to the maximum.

I acknowledge also the reasonable working relationship we have developed with the crossbenchers in this place and another place. I believe that we have demonstrated that we are not in the business of opposing merely for the sake of opposing, but that we will oppose when we believe we can propose something better than what the Government has proposed, when we believe that we can introduce some form of constructive change. Although other events may have overshadowed the achievements of the other place, in the last week many of the amendments that have been introduced and are being brought back to this House today demonstrate an excellent working relationship with crossbenchers with a wide range of interests both in this House and in another place. We exercise discretion on legislation very carefully.

During our time in Opposition we will not adopt the obstructive and negative attitude adopted by the previous Opposition, which opposed merely for the sake of opposing. Much of the legislation that was in the pipeline and has been introduced by the previous Government, and sometimes put on hold for years by the Opposition - the disorderly houses legislation comes to mind - has been rebadged; it has been dressed up as some sort of Carr Government initiative when of course the initiative came from the previous coalition Government. That is happening repeatedly. Therefore it is not surprising that at this stage the Opposition is able to agree with a fairly large proportion of legislation that comes before this Chamber.

I acknowledge the work done by the Clerks of the House, the attendants, who remain courteous and helpful at all times, and Hansard. I simply deplore the utterly partisan and recklessly untruthful remarks made about Hansard by the Premier. It was a typical restatement of the arrogance of the person who now happens to be Premier. Hansard has a difficult task, and sometimes it is not made easier by the uproar in the House, which the Speaker must deal with. Mr Speaker, I trust that the break coming up will be an opportunity for you to reflect on the year past and the year ahead. All honourable members feel that you have a critical role to play in maintaining order and fairness in the House. We certainly look to you to achieve that. We are aware that you are a member of a political party, as your predecessors have been. You are a member of the Australian Labor Party; but at the same time the Opposition wants to support your role in maintaining fairness and equality in debate, and we trust that that support will be reciprocated in 1996.

I acknowledge the work done by the Parliamentary Library. A good indication of the work done by the library is its rapid response this morning in proving conclusively that this House has sat for only 33 days this year. That is the record lowest number of days that the House has sat since records commenced in 1956. That is a typical indication of the accuracy and helpfulness of the Parliamentary Library, and we trust that its staff will enjoy their well-earned break. It may not be understood by many people that the library must be open when the Parliament sits. If we sit until 11 p.m. or 2 a.m. the library is open and functioning, as, too, are the catering staff. While it might be said that honourable members would like individual improvements made to the menu, the fact is that the catering staff are there to ensure that we are looked after when we sit through to some of these absurd hours of the early morning, despite the so-called user-friendly hours that were meant to be introduced by the Leader of the House earlier in the year.

It is a matter of some concern to me and to all Opposition members that as we go into the Christmas break the position of Governor of New South Wales has not been clarified. The term of the Governor of New South Wales, Rear Admiral Peter Sinclair, expires on Australia Day, 26 January. That is only five weeks away, yet the people of New South Wales have not been told by the Premier who will succeed the current Governor. That is a matter of real concern. I am delighted to have this opportunity to make the point that, regardless of any constitutional change that occurs in this country over the next couple of decades, the role of State Governor will be as necessary as ever. That is a requirement. If we are to have States, we must have State Governors. Regardless of any constitutional change, there will be a full-time State Governor, who should be in residence at Government House.

It is absurd to talk about alternative uses for Government House. What will the Government do - turn it into a kiosk for the botanic gardens, or a
Page 4927
club casino? It is absolutely imperative that the role of Governor be maintained and respected for as long as this State exists within a Federation. That respect is not forthcoming from the Premier and the Government. The people of the State and the Governor himself are entitled to know who will replace him, and they are entitled to know it will be someone who has served this State and the nation with the same distinction as all of our Governors have, including the current Governor. This is a matter of real concern. Before the Premier gets on his plane to fly out for his European holiday, I hope that he will indicate who the Governor's replacement will be.

I turn to retiring members. From the Opposition's point of view, they go with our total support and in the belief that they will win their seats. The honourable member for Clarence, the honourable member for Southern Highlands and the honourable member for Strathfield go with our total support. We look forward to their being elected to the Australian Parliament at the next Federal election, whenever it may be called. We also look forward to their serving as Government members when they are elected. We are confident that that will be the case. The days of the Keating Government are well and truly numbered. In addition, we also expect that as the State seats for Clarence, Southern Highlands and Strathfield become vacant, by-elections will be held forthwith to enable the constituents of those electorates to be represented in this House. Just as a number of members of the Wran and Unsworth Government moved to Canberra in 1988 to seek Federal pre-selection and then election, and were successful in moving to Canberra, we expect that the constituents of Clarence, Southern Highlands and Strathfield will be quickly represented by new coalition members in this Chamber.

I acknowledge those who make the engine room of politics function - those who work throughout this building serving as parliamentary staff in the many offices in this building, working for the committees of this Parliament and for individual members of Parliament. I wish all members of Parliament, regardless of their political allegiance, a happy and holy Christmas. Often we forget the origin of Christmas in our daily battle in this place. We should remember, as the community should remember, that it is not merely a public holiday; it is an observance of religious beliefs held by a majority of Australians. To all members and their long-suffering families who have to put up with us being separated from them for long periods of time until late into the night, we extend our best wishes.

Mr Whelan: We should sit more, then, should we?

Mr COLLINS: With regard to the so-called family-friendly hours, I am delighted at that interjection by the Leader of the House. If the Parliament were run more efficiently by the Leader of the House and we had been able to sit more than the 33 days we have sat this year, we and our families could have benefited from the user-friendly hours he made such a noise about early in his term as Leader of the House. But alas, that was not to be the case. The Leader of the House was merely going for a press release, as is the custom of the Carr Government; going for a bit of sizzle and no sausage, as usual. Therefore, our sitting days have been truncated but our hours have been lengthened. On that note, I commend the motion to the House.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party [10.02]: I join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in extending felicitations to all on the occasion of Christmas 1995. This year has been politically eventful for every member of this House. For those of us on this side of the House the loss of government has certainly been a humbling experience. There is, of course, a limit to the amount of humility one can endure, so we are back in the race with purpose and enthusiasm and a total mission to reverse the situation of the parties in this House at the first available opportunity. It is said that a week is a long time in politics, but it is interesting to reflect on felicitations over the last decade. A decade ago felicitations were truly that. They were delivered in good spirit and with goodwill and reflected the proper and true meaning of Christmas. Members enjoyed the delivery from the leaders of various parties and others who chose to speak, and members generally stayed to express their appreciation to the staff and those many others whom we speak of in this place.

It galls me somewhat to recognise the changes that have occurred over the last decade. Felicitations have become politicised to a great extent, as was the case this morning when the Premier spoke. Now the benches are almost empty, and that makes this whole charade empty. No matter what we might be, fundamentally parliamentarians have to be decent people, and that means recognising others. Despite the tantalising closeness of the numbers in this House and tensions which arise from time to time, the system works without too much damage to life and limb. In 1995 there was a continuation of rural hardship in New South Wales and much of eastern Australia, with good general rains in the past two months giving some relief to farmers who were experiencing their sixth year of drought.

Whilst there is no doubt that members of this House will enjoy Christmas celebrations and festivities, and whilst this place will close down effectively for a few days, among many people on the land - those we represent - there is anything but a Christmas spirit. The recession is still alive in a meaningful way. Many families and individuals this year will not enjoy a happy Christmas. It is incumbent upon us to recognise that whilst we feel shiny and happy about things, we must recognise that many of our constituents - be they Labor, National, Liberal or Independent - will not enjoy
Page 4928
what we expect ourselves and our families to be able to enjoy. I ask that a moment's thought be given to those people as we enjoy our roast turkey on Christmas Day.

Australia's farmers have learned to stoically accept the harshness and unpredictability of the seasons. But they resent unnecessary interference from government in the way in which they manage their land. The present Government has not won many friends in the bush. Farmers see some of its aggressive environmental legislation as anti-rural. In the spirit of goodwill that pertains at this time of the year, I suggest that the Government do more to understand what makes rural New South Wales tick and how important the rural sector is to the State and national economy. I use the word "tick" carefully, because this Government is very keen to claim that it ticks its policies off. It has not learned how to make the State tick, nor how the electorate ticks. "Tick" is an appropriate word for the Government to adopt in 1996. Members of the Government should see how things tick outside this place as they accept their cheques in the mail every month.

I take this opportunity to extend my thanks and appreciation to the members of my party for the way in which they have knuckled down to the job at hand. It takes a little time and a little introspection to recover from the trauma of election defeat, but that is now behind us and the goal is to regain government. I pay tribute to the private staff of the former Government who are not with us this year for Christmas. Many of them served us loyally for up to seven years and it is only right that we record our appreciation of them. I understand most of them have found new lives in private enterprise, and I wish them well.

I thank our coalition partners for their cooperation. I acknowledge my personal appreciation of the Liberal Party leader, Peter Collins, and his staff for their teamwork. It has been a magnificent transition from government to opposition, and the way this team has worked, particularly the support staff, has been a credit to all. Support staff are essential to make a team work effectively. Mr Speaker, I extend to you my felicitations. We have had our differences, but in the end we are here together and it is our responsibility to make this bear pit work democratically and effectively. I thank you for your efforts this year. I particularly thank the Clerks of the House and the House staff. Your work is much appreciated. To our Hansard reporters I say thank you and well done under frequently difficult circumstances. When members speak under difficult circumstances, sometimes created by themselves, the Hansard reporters do an outstanding job in accurately recording and eloquently producing Hansard the following day.

I thank the press gallery - love them or hate them - for their professionalism and for the essential role they play in keeping the citizens aware of what goes on in here. The press gallery is the communications cord from the Parliament to the people. Their expertise, diligence, tolerance and capacity to articulate makes it possible for us to get our message through to the constituents. The reverse applies as well, because the press also reflects in many ways the mood and opinions of the broader public, and it is essential that we respect that. I thank the library staff for their prompt and efficient service. Many and varied demands are made of them. Forward thinking has enabled the library to keep pace with technological developments. I suspect that most honourable members would not be able to absorb those developments. Library staff should continue to lead in this field.

I extend my thanks and best wishes to the dining room and catering staff and the staff of the bottle shop. I say to the excellent team of attendants: well done and thank you for your cooperation. Our attendants present the face of this Parliament. It is not often recognised that they have the first and last contact with the thousands of people who visit this Parliament each year. The impression that they create is most important. I thank the cleaners for keeping our offices immaculate. I make special mention of my personal staff. My electorate staff, in particular, Mrs Julie Harrison and Mrs Claire Taylor, work tirelessly to keep pace with the demands of an electorate office. In my parliamentary office Polly Bennett, Debra Monks, Bryce Osmond, Russ, Melinda, Regina and Sean are all dedicated team players. I also thank my stenographer, Mrs Carole Worland.

It is likely that three members of Parliament will not be with us when we return next year. Other speakers have referred to the fact that John Fahey, the honourable member for Southern Highlands, Ian Causley, the honourable member for Clarence, and Paul Zammit, the honourable member for Strathfield, will all be contesting seats at the forthcoming Federal election. The Premier predicted, first, that those three members would not make it to Canberra and, second, that the Labor Party would win the by-elections that their leaving will necessitate. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the honourable member for Murwillumbah would attest to the fact that the last time the Premier said he would take seats from the National Party in this State he came an almighty gutser. It is over to the Premier. He has a snowflake's chance in hell of winning on this occasion also. Conservative members will defeat Labor in all three seats.

On a serious note, as we go into 1996 we must remember that our duty is to the people of New South Wales and the Parliament. From time to time we might lose sight of that fact. Individual members are but a speck in the passages of democracy in this place. It is an honour and a privilege for us to be elected members of Parliament. We do not own this Parliament or the Constitution - the people do. I and members of the
Page 4929
Opposition try to remember that our duty is to the people of New South Wales and the Parliament. Throughout 1996 we must try to preserve the rights and privileges of the people of New South Wales. We will not tolerate interference or tampering with the Constitution in any shape or form. We will resist that to the nth degree.

The Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Peter Collins, referred earlier to the role of the Governor. I wish to refer not only to the incumbent Governor but also to his role in this State. For five months members of the Opposition have endeavoured to raise in debate the constitutional capacity of the Governor, but we and the people of New South Wales have been denied that opportunity. This Government has used every tactic it could to prevent the people's representatives debating in this Parliament the future role of the constitutional head of this State - a real black cloud at the end of this session and at the end of 1995. This Parliament has been used as a political tool; the Government interfered with the right of the people's representatives to raise in this Parliament the matter of the Governor and the Constitution. I condemn those who were party to it.

I will comment briefly on the incumbent Governor as it is widely touted that his term of office will conclude before this House reconvenes in 1996. I extend to Governor Peter Sinclair and his wife, Shirley Sinclair, the best wishes of the National Party. They have performed - as have many before them - in an outstanding manner. They have established an empathy between the governorship and country people. They visited towns and villages, rode on trains and attended stock sales and primary school meetings. In bringing the governorship to the people of New South Wales they brought happiness to a lot of people during tough times.

It would be delinquent of us if we did not record their outstanding contribution not only in achieving better recognition for the position of Governor in New South Wales but also for bringing to the position an element of charm, harmony and happiness. I, on behalf of the National Party, wish them every happiness in their future on their farm at Tea Gardens. All honourable members would be aware that very few vitriolic words that are spoken in this Chamber carry any weight. It is good that people here get on reasonably well. I extend to all honourable members my warmest best wishes for a happy Christmas and a prosperous new year. I look forward to seeing all honourable members, with the exception of the three to whom I referred earlier, in 1996.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.17], in reply: I thank all honourable members who spoke in this debate and take this opportunity to wish them God's blessing and a safe return. They deserve a well-earned break. I thank all those who spoke in many debates during the year for their cooperation. I thank the honourable member for Orange for oversighting Opposition business. Last year at a similar time he said that he began the year as Minister for Energy and ended the year as Minister for Police. I began this year as Opposition spokesperson for police and emergency services. I envisaged that I would be Attorney General in a Carr Labor government but ended up as Minister for Police. We have all changed sides and positions.

It has not been easy for a number of honourable members and for those who support them, whether it be their families and friends or their staff. I thank them all for their support. This year my role as Minister for Police has been very challenging. Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank you for your fairness, impartiality and good humour. I thank you for your progressive attitude in opening up this Parliament to the people. You allowed the Cancer Council to use your room for the purpose of raising money and you opened this Chamber to the public, for example, for the presentation of a debate on the republic. Generally, you will be remembered for your role in opening up this House and making it the people's House - although if the weekend papers are to be believed, there may be some charge for that use in the future.

I take this opportunity to thank the Clerks of the House for their invaluable assistance. To Russell, Mark, Les and Rhonda, many thanks for your impartial and professional advice throughout the year. I take this opportunity of saying farewell to Robin Long, who devoted 26 years to the service of the Parliament. I know all honourable members join me in wishing a very fine lady well in her future career.

I thank the Editor of Debates, Robin Dennis, and his Hansard staff for working such long hours and for turning what are sometimes average speeches into speeches of which honourable members are proud. I take this opportunity also to mention Merv Sheather, the Serjeant-at-Arms, who is looking so well after returning to work from his illness. I congratulate him on getting a new mobile phone after 16 years! Mention must also be made of Greg Kelly, who acted so capably in Merv's absence. I thank the hard-working Parliamentary Counsel, Dennis Murphy, and all his staff. Their efforts are evidenced by the large number of amendments and bills that pass through the Parliament, and particularly by those amendments from the Legislative Council that will be considered by this House today. I thank especially Phillip Reed of the Cabinet office for working so hard.

From a personal viewpoint it is a tragedy that former members Andrew Ziolkowski, Tony Doyle and John Newman did not make it to government with us. But putting aside that sadness and tragedy, overall it has been a great year for the Carr
Page 4930
Government, and I thank everyone in the ministry for it. I would like to thank the staff of the Parliamentary Librarian, Rob Brian, who are absolutely second to none. When doing a bit of cleaning up at home on the weekend my daughter Bridget found a book that, with a great deal of shame, I intend to return to the library. The date of return for the book, Life Wasn't Meant to be Easy: A Political Profile of Malcolm Fraser, is August 1980. I dare not think what the fine will be.

Mr West: Is this an apology?

Mr WHELAN: It is an apology. It is a formal apology. The cheque will follow. Thanks go also to David Draper, Joseph Rokoqo, Kevin Connolly, Jose and all the staff who look after us in the parliamentary dining room. Without exception our guests marvel at the professionalism of and service provided by our catering staff. They make it a privilege for members of Parliament to invite guests to the Parliament. I add my tribute to those of other members to Ray Lynch and his team of attendants for all that they do to make our jobs a little easier. Paul Guilfoyle, Patricia Makin and their professional staff in printing and stores do a marvellous job looking after us. The support from the officers of Information Technology Services has been absolutely outstanding. They are helping us learn the difficulties associated with technology upgrades.

I thank Alan Beverstock and Jan Clifford and all the security staff for ensuring the safety of all. The security of members of Parliament and the public in the public gallery is a very difficult issue and is becoming more prominent. A few incidents have occurred this year that have brought home to honourable members the necessity for a vigilant and professional security service for Parliament House. I thank all members of the procedural office for a job well done and for working so cooperatively with members and other staffs. Thanks go to all the support staff, those who do such a great job keeping Parliament House operating.

On a personal note I should like to thank the staff of the Leader of the House: Jason Clare, who although new to the position has done a great job; and my parliamentary secretary, Lin Cuneo. She and Jason do a marvellous job of running the shop. I thank my hard-working ministerial staff - Andrew, Jane and Sandra - they too do a wonderful job.

I note the honourable member for Orange sitting opposite me. He and I had the privilege of having the same driver, Bob Pullar. I am pleased and relieved to know that last week he passed his police driving test. It was a great relief to me, but I am sure it was more of a relief to him. He could hardly wait until I got into the car this morning to say, "I passed. I passed. I passed." I did not know he stuttered. I thank also my electorate staff. As well as being a sad year for the Labor Party - and I have mentioned those cut down in their prime: Andrew, Tony and John - the Police Service has experienced tragedy with the deaths of Robert Spears and Peter Addison.

I take this opportunity to wish everyone best wishes for Christmas, God's blessings and a safe return to this Chamber. I hope you are all able to spend a lot of time with your families and friends. Remember that we are here to serve the people, but remember also that it is most important that we be fresh, alert and mentally equipped to represent our constituents. The adjournment of the Parliament will give us the opportunity to refresh ourselves and be with our loved ones. Finally, I thank the Parliamentary Secretaries, who have worked extremely hard and assiduously, particularly the honourable member for Bulli. I thank everyone for their cooperation throughout the year. I sincerely suggest that over the Christmas period we think about our roles, our constituents and more importantly our families. I look forward to seeing everyone again in the New Year, refreshed and invigorated.

Mr SPEAKER: In adding to this year's felicitations I extend my warmest wishes and those of my wife, Maureen, to the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition and their families. I acknowledge the efforts of the Leader of the House, the manager of Opposition business, and the Whips. Over the period we have built up quite a reasonable working relationship, and they have exhibited a real commitment to the orderly running of this House. Although the position of the honourable member for Orange is not officially designated as an officer of the House, I am hopeful that that may change in the future,

My first year in the chair has been exciting. I have been on a fast-track learning experience. To those who have accelerated that learning experience I say thank you for your graciousness. In my role as Chair I have attempted to bring some humour into the House. That has not always been possible. I assure members that one gets a much better feeling of good government when one sees members on both sides of the House with smiles on their faces rather than frowns. I have built up a most pleasing relationship with the Clerks, the Legislative Assembly staff, the attendants, Hansard, the staff of the library and the staff of the parliamentary committees - whose efforts in this growth industry are not always recognised. Only recently the committees have come under the control of the Speaker. Consequently I have had a much more involved relationship with the staff and have a better understanding of their services to the House.

I also have a close relationship with the staffs of the Printing Services, Security Services, Information Technology Services and Food and Beverage Services, who during the past few months have undergone considerable trauma and are still
Page 4931
utterly in limbo. To my personal staff I also extend my warmest thanks. I have avoided mentioning people by name, but I wish to especially thank for a job well done Joseph, my attendant, who is forever running backwards and forwards in this place and who has considerably less hair now than he did six months ago. Those who are intimately involved with the running of the House will understand the work Joseph has done, which often goes unexplained. Finally, I extend felicitations to the fourth estate, among whom I know there is some angst about rental proposals. However, regardless of the outcome I am sure they will have improved working conditions. To all, I wish a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

Motion agreed to.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [10.30]: The Opposition will not oppose the motion, but repeats its concerns about the lack of public consultation involved in the revocatory process. The Opposition is also concerned that the boundaries were not publicly exhibited and that there was a lack of transparency as to why certain areas were included and others were not. The Opposition is concerned that no formal socioeconomic impact statement was done and that the decisions failed to recognise the multi-use nature of our forests. Generally speaking the Opposition regards these additions as an improvement on other decisions related to implementing a comprehensive and representative system consistent with the National Forest policy statement.

I have received assurances from the Managing Director of State Forests, Dr Hans Drielsma, in relation to the socioeconomic impact that these revocations will have on the timber industry. I am sure all honourable members will be pleased to learn that, according to Dr Drielsma, there will be minor impact on the timber industry in country towns. In view of the importance that honourable members place on this aspect of the debate I shall quote briefly from Dr Drielsma's letter to me dated 14 December:

The majority of the areas of State forest to be revoked are relatively small and do not produce significant volumes of timber because they encompass high conservation value forest which has already been set aside from logging.

The areas to be revoked in the short term are foundation boundaries and are areas of relatively low commercial potential.

Further in the letter he stated:

The Deferred Forest Agreement, which has been prepared jointly with the Commonwealth, identifies those areas of forest which will be available for logging pending the completion of CRAs.

They are the comprehensive regional assessments. Dr Drielsma's letter continued:

It is anticipated that these areas will be sufficient to meet the Government's commitments to the timber industry. None of these areas will be made unavailable by the passage of the Forests and Reserves Revocation Bill and the revocation schedules.

The areas involved in the proposed Ben Halls Gap, Tooloom, Toonumbar and Mt Jerusalem National Parks contain some commercial timber which would previously have been available to industry.

However, he indicated that the impact of those revocations will not be additional to the impact of those that were predicted in relation to the Minister's statement of 13 June. Dr Drielsma also stated:

The Ben Halls Gap and the Black Butt Plateau area, which is in the proposed Mt Jerusalem National Park, have been identified for reservation under the relevant Environmental Impact Statements currently being prepared by State Forests in accordance with the Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Act. Any additional timber resource removed in these areas by the Bill is quite minor. All the other national park proposals have been agreed to by State Forests and we believe that there are no significant timber resource implications.

I welcome that assurance from the Managing Director of State Forests. On the basis of this advice and also because the coalition, having established the national parks system in 1967, continues to support that system and its enhancement where appropriate, the Opposition does not oppose the motion.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [10.33], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Ballina for his contribution and indication of support from the Opposition. The suggestion of lack of transparency raised by him in relation to this matter has been raised in other related legislation and is rejected by the Government. The Government went to the election with a clear policy of creating 24 national parks. The revocations set foundation boundaries and will be further deliberated upon in a very transparent process before the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council that will create a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system. The honourable member for Ballina has referred to statements in a letter by Dr Hans Drielsma in relation to socioeconomic factors. The Government has examined those types of issues very closely.

I find it ironic that the Opposition is really on its soapbox about transparency. The coalition parties lost office nine months ago, and for the seven years they were in office transparency was the last thing that characterised their forest policy - or their lack of forest policy. The former Government simply did what it liked behind closed doors, in cosy little deals between honourable members and the Minister at the time in relation to the supply of timber. As a result of these deals the
Page 4932
present Government found that resources had been overcut by 30 per cent, and that certainly exacerbated the problems that the Government has to face when dealing with this very important issue. I commend this motion to the House.

Motion agreed to.


Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Standing Orders be suspended to permit the consideration of the Legislative Council's amendments in the bills reported this day in one Committee of the Whole

Consideration of Legislative Council's amendments.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Committee will deal first with the Electricity Supply Bill.

No. 1 Page 22, clause 45, line 1. After "opportunity", insert "(being not less than 40 days from the date on which the notice was given)".

No. 2 Page 24, clause 48, line 10. After "tree", insert "within a protected area or to any tree".

No. 3 Page 24, clause 48, line 24. Omit all words on that line, insert instead:

(9) In this section:

protected area means an area that is within:

(a) a national park or nature reserve within the meaning of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or

(b) land that is reserved or zoned for environmental protection purposes under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,

(c) a public reserve within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993.

tree includes shrub and plant.

No. 4 Page 25, clause 49, line 4. Omit "out, and", insert instead "out.".

No. 5 Page 25, clause 49, lines 5 and 6. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 6 Page 36, clause 78, lines 14 and 15. Omit "(within the meaning of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal Act 1992)", insert instead "(being a regime that conforms to the principles set out in Clause 6(4) of the Competition Principles Agreement between the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories that was entered into, for and on behalf of New South Wales, on 11 April 1995)".

No. 7 Page 39. After line 21, insert:

Division 3 Licence Compliance Advisory Board

86 Establishment of Board

(1) The Minister is to establish a Licence Compliance Advisory Board.

(2) The Board is to consist of 4 members, comprising:

(a) one member nominated by the Nature Conservation Council, and

(b) one member nominated by the Australian Consumers Association, and

(c) 2 members representative of the Minister for Energy.

(3) The constitution and procedure of the Board are to be as prescribed by the regulations.

87 Functions of Board

(1) The functions of the Licence Compliance Advisory Board are to monitor, and report to the Minister on, the extent to which electricity distributors and retail suppliers comply, or fail to comply, with the conditions imposed on the licences held by them.

(2) For the purpose of enabling the Board to exercise its functions, the Minister must furnish the Board with such information in the possession of the Minister as the Board may request in relation to the compliance by electricity distributors and retail suppliers with the conditions imposed on the licences held by them.

88 Annual reports

(1) As soon as practicable after 30 June (but on or before 31 October) in each year, the Licence Compliance Advisory Board must prepare and forward to the Minister a report on the extent to which electricity distributors and retail suppliers have complied, or failed to comply, with the conditions imposed on the licences held by them during the 12 months ending on 30 June in that year.

(2) The Minister must lay the report or cause it to be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as practicable after receiving the report.

No. 8 Page 41, clause 89. After line 15, insert:

(3) Subject to the regulations, the Minister may not make an order under this section unless:

(a) notice of the proposal to make the order has been published in a daily newspaper circulating throughout New South Wales, and

(b) a report on any submissions received with respect to the proposed order has been prepared.

Page 4933

(4) The notice referred to in subsection (3)(a) must indicate:

(a) the nature of the proposed order, and

(b) where submissions on the proposed order should be lodged, and

(c) the time (being not less than 21 days from the date on which the notice is published) within which any such submissions should be lodged, and

(d) such other matters as may be prescribed by the regulations.

(5) The report referred to in subsection (3)(b):

(a) must summarise the substance of the submissions received by the Minister in connection with the proposed order, and

(b) must contain such other information as may be prescribed by the regulations, and

(c) must be kept available at the head office of the Department of Energy for inspection by members of the public, free of charge, during normal office hours.

No. 9 Page 54, Schedule 2. After line 7, insert:

(4) The Minister must cause a report summarising the substance of any submissions received with respect to an application for a licence to be prepared.

(5) The report:

(a) must indicate the Minister's decision with respect to the application, and

(b) must contain such other information as may be prescribed by the regulations, and

(c) must be kept available at the head office of the Department of Energy for inspection by members of the public, free of charge, during normal office hours.

No. 10 Page 56, Schedule 2, lines 4 and 5. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(4) Without limitation, the Minister must impose the following conditions on each retail supplier's licence:

No. 11 Page 56, Schedule 2, lines 6-7. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(a) a condition requiring the holder of the licence to develop strategies of the kind referred to in subsection (5),

(b) a condition requiring the auditing by the Environment Protection Authority, at intervals of no more than 3 years, of effectiveness of the strategies referred to in paragraph (a),

(c) a condition requiring the holder of the licence to develop 1, 3 and 5 year plans for:

(i) energy efficiency and demand management strategies, and

(ii) strategies for purchasing energy from sustainable sources, including consideration of cogeneration, purchasing of renewable energy, buy-back schemes from grid-connected solar cells on buildings and remote area power systems,

No. 12 Page 56, Schedule 2, lines 13 and 14. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(ii) the carbon dioxide emissions arising from the production of electricity supplied by it, as measured in accordance with a methodology approved by the Minister after consultation with the Environment Protection Authority,

No. 13 Page 56, Schedule 2. After line 20, insert:

(5) Without limitation, the Minister must impose the following conditions on each electricity distributor's licence:

(a) a condition requiring the holder of the licence, before expanding its distribution system or the capacity of its distribution system, to carry out investigations (being investigations to ascertain whether it would be cost-effective to avoid or postpone the expansion by implementing demand management strategies) in circumstances in which it would be reasonable to expect that it would be cost-effective to avoid or postpone the expansion by implementing such strategies,

(b) a condition requiring the holder of the licence to prepare and publish annual reports in relation to the investigations carried out by it as referred to in paragraph (a).

No. 14 Page 56, Schedule 2. After line 20, insert:

(5) The strategies referred to in subclause (4)(a):

(a) must be based on the principle of achieving the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, from electricity supplied to customers in New South Wales, as the electricity sector's contribution to achieving the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as agreed in the National Greenhouse Response Strategy 1992 and the InterGovernmental Agreement on the Environment, or as determined by the Council of Australian Governments, and

(b) must be arrived at by negotiation with the Minister, and must include independent verification of emissions.

(6) A report on each audit prepared by the Environment Protection Authority as referred to in subclause (4)(b):

(a) must be made publicly available at the offices of the Environment Protection Authority, and

(b) must be sent to the Licence Compliance Advisory Board, and

(c) must be tabled in each House of Parliament.

(7) The Minister must review the conditions referred to in subclause (4)(a), (b) and (c) at the end of the period of 3 years after the conditions are imposed in order to assess the environmental performances of the holder of the licence and the environmental consequences of its work and activities.

No. 15 Page 57, Schedule 2. After line 21, insert:

10 Register of licences

(1) The Minister is to cause a register of licences to be kept at the head office of the Department of Energy.

(2) The register is to be kept available for inspection by members of the public, free of charge, during normal office hours.

(3) Copies of entries in the register are to be made available to members of the public, at cost, during normal office hours.

Page 4934

No. 16 Page 86, Dictionary, line 24. After "customers,", insert "or to convey and control the conveyance of electricity to, from and along the rail network electricity system operated by the State Rail Authority,".

No. 17 Page 87, Dictionary, lines 10-12. Omit ", but does not include an electricity generator, electricity distributor or transmission operator".

No. 18 Page 87, Dictionary, lines 29 and 30. Omit ", but does not include an electricity generator, electricity distributor or transmission operator".

No. 19 Page 88, Dictionary. After line 3, insert:

public reserve has the same meaning as it has in the Local Government Act 1993.

public road has the same meaning as it has in the Roads Act 1993.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the Committee agree to the Legislative Council's amendments.

Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Committee will now deal with the Energy Services Corporations Bill.

No. 1 Page 8, clause 11. After line 12, insert:

(a) the Minister administering the Electricity Supply Act 1995,

No. 2 Page 11, clause 18. After line 11, insert:

(d) Electricity (Senior Staff Positions) Regulation 1995,

No. 3 Page 19, Schedule 4, line 21. Omit "distributor", insert instead "services corporation".

No. 4 Page 20, Schedule 4, line 4. Omit "distributor", insert instead "services corporation".

No. 5 Page 21, Schedule 4.7, item [1], line 16. After "by this Act", insert "(except section 8B)".

No. 6 Page 26, Schedule 4, lines 1-3. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 7 Page 27, Schedule 4, lines 1-3. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 8 Page 30, Schedule 4, lines 6-8. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 9 Page 33, Schedule 5, line 4. Omit "new generator", insert instead "energy services corporation, or to such other person or body acting on behalf of the Crown,".

No. 10 Page 34, Schedule 5, line 9. Omit "new distributor", insert instead "energy services corporation".

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the Committee agree to the Legislative Council's amendments.

Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Committee will now deal with the Sustainable Energy Development Bill.

No. 1 Page 2, clause 3, line 12 to page 20, Schedule 1, line 33. Omit "Board" wherever occurring, insert instead "Council".

No. 2 Page 6, clause 9. After line 27, insert:

(3) The Authority must ensure that copies of its current corporate plan are available at each of its offices for purchase and inspection by members of the public.

No. 3 Page 12, clause 21, line 4. Omit "at least 3, but not more than 7,", insert instead "the Executive Director and at least 2, but not more than 6,".

No. 4 Page 12, clause 21, line 6. Omit "member of the Board", insert instead "appointed member".

No. 5 Page 12, clause 21, line 9. Omit all words on that line, insert instead:

(a) sustainable energy or sustainable energy related services,

No. 6 Page 12, clause 21. After line 12, insert:

(4) The Minister must ensure that the appointed members have, between them, appropriate qualifications or experience in relation to each of the matters referred to in subsection (3).

No. 7 Page 12, clause 21, line 13. Insert "appointed" before "members".

No. 8 Page 12, clause 22, line 18. Insert "and the Authority" after "Minister".

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the Committee agree to the Legislative Council's amendments.

Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Committee will now deal with the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2).

No. 1 Page 2, clause 2, line 8. After "Schedule", insert "1 or".

No. 2 Page 17, Schedule 1. After line 33, insert:

1.17 Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1971 No. 53

[1] Section 3 Definitions

Insert in alphabetical order in section 3 (1):

federal member means a member of either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

[2] Section 22B Preservation of minimum benefits under superannuation guarantee legislation

Insert after section 22B(5):

(6) Payment for purposes of Commonwealth law

Nothing in this section prevents payment, in pursuance of an election under section 26A, of the whole or part of a benefit preserved under this section to the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust established under the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 of the Commonwealth, for the purposes of section 22Q of that Act.

Page 4935

[3] Section 26 Suspension of pension where another parliamentary pension received

Insert after section 26(3):

(4) This section does not apply so as to suspend a person's rights under this Part on account of the person's entitlement to a pension under the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 of the Commonwealth if the person (or the person's spouse, in a case where the entitlement concerned is that of a spouse):

(a) made an election under section 20A(1AC) of that Act, or

(b) became a federal member on or after 1 July 1994.

[4] Section 26A

Insert after section 26:

26A Arrangements for transfer to Commonwealth scheme

(1) Election to pay transfer value to Commonwealth

A former member who was a federal member as at 1 July 1994 or who afterwards becomes a federal member may elect to pay to the Commonwealth the amount of the transfer value payable to or in respect of the former member under this Act in relation to the period during which the former member served as a member.

(2) Provisions relating to election

The election must be in writing and given to the trustees. The trustees may decline to accept an election if it appears that the payment of the transfer value will not be effective for the purposes of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 of the Commonwealth.

(3) Nature of transfer value

The transfer value is:

(a) in the case of a former member who has been entitled to salary for a period of at least 7 years, the actuarially assessed future benefits (as determined by the trustees after receiving actuarial advice) that would, but for the election under this section, be payable under this Act in respect of the former member's past service as a member, and

(b) in the case of a former member who has been entitled to salary for a period of less than 7 years, the amount (as determined by the trustees) that would, but for the election under this section, be payable under section 22A.

(4) Payment of transfer value

The trustees are authorised to pay as a lump sum from the Fund an amount equal to the transfer value to the Commonwealth in accordance with the election.

(5) Consequences of payment of transfer value

When the amount equal to the transfer value is paid to the Commonwealth, the former member ceases to be entitled to any rights or benefits (present or future) under this Act in respect of any period of past service as a member to which the transfer value relates. However, the former member can become entitled to rights or benefits in respect of any future period of service as a member.

Commencement

The amendments to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1971 are taken to have commenced on 1 July 1995.
Explanatory note

Former members who become members of Commonwealth Parliament - Reduction of State scheme benefits by other benefit entitlements

Section 26 of the Act currently provides that the rights of a person to be paid a pension under Part 3 of the Act are suspended when the person becomes entitled to a pension under another scheme arising from membership of another Parliament. While the suspension is in force, the trustees of the fund established under the Act may nevertheless, at their discretion, pay benefits to the person from the fund, but only to the extent that those benefits, when added to the person's pension entitlements from service with the other Parliament, do not exceed the amount of the person's pension entitlements under Part 3 of the Act. Historically the Trustees' preference has been to exercise their discretion in favour of the former member and so the section, in effect, has operated to reduce benefits under the Act by an amount equal to the benefits being received by the former member from elsewhere.

The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 of the Commonwealth, which governs benefits under the scheme established for Commonwealth Parliamentarians, used to contain similar provisions that reduced a Commonwealth Parliamentary pension by amounts equal to the benefits being received from other Parliamentary schemes. With effect from 1 July 1994, however, Commonwealth law has been amended so that the reduction provisions do not apply to persons becoming Commonwealth Parliamentarians on or after that date. Moreover, a person who was a Commonwealth Parliamentarian on 1 July 1994 may, by election in writing, declare himself or herself exempt from those provisions. This, in effect, allows every person who is now a member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth and was a member of another Parliament to receive his or her full entitlements under the Commonwealth scheme based on Commonwealth Parliamentary service, regardless of benefits received from service with the other Parliament.

Item [3] amends section 26 in line with the Commonwealth law, by providing that suspension of benefit entitlements in terms of the section will not apply to persons who are not subject to similar benefit-reduction provisions under the Commonwealth law. The two cases are:

(a) where the person became a federal member on or after 1 July 1994, and

(b) where the person (having been a member of the Commonwealth Parliament on 1 July 1994) made an election under section 20A (1AC) of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 of the Commonwealth (as a result of which he or she is no longer subject to Commonwealth benefit-reduction provisions).

Transfer values

With effect from 1 July 1994, Commonwealth law has permitted a Commonwealth member who also served in another Parliament, at the member's option, to have additional service, represented by a benefit payable from another Parliamentary superannuation scheme

Page 4936
(following cessation of membership of the other Parliament), regarded as service with the Commonwealth Parliament for the purposes of the Commonwealth scheme. This is achieved by paying to the administrators of the Commonwealth scheme an amount of money (called a transfer value) actuarially calculated to represent future benefit payments from that other scheme forgone by the member. Item [4] inserts a new section 26A, the effect of which is to allow a Commonwealth Parliamentarian who was a member of the New South Wales Parliament, at his or her option, to have the trustees of the State scheme pay any benefits to which the former member is entitled under the State scheme to the administrators of the Commonwealth scheme as a transfer value for the purposes of that scheme.

Minor amendments

Item [1] provides a definition of federal member for the purposes of the provisions inserted by the Bill.

Item [2] makes a consequential amendment.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the Committee agree to the Legislative Council's amendments.

Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Committee will now deal with the State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill.

No. 1 Page 34, Schedule 7, line 25 to page 35, Schedule 7, line 5. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 2 Page 35, Schedule 7, lines 14-22. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 3 Page 36, Schedule 7, lines 12 and 13. Omit all words on those lines.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.46]: I move:

That the Committee agree to the Legislative Council's amendments.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.37]: Debate on this bill was gagged in this House. Therefore no amendments were allowed to be moved and it was despatched to the upper House. I was pleased that the upper House was able to consider the amendments and agree to them. It is obvious from discussions honourable members of this House had with members from the other place and from the way the upper House examined the bill that they clearly understood the case that the Opposition was putting and moved to support these amendments. The amendments clearly show that on this matter the Government was dishonest, deceitful, and duplicitous in its action. One has only to recall the history of this legislation to realise that similar action should not be taken again.

At the eleventh hour, over a weekend, the Government wanted to consult with very limited numbers of the business community about this bill, which sought to make 51 amendments, the vast majority of which were inconsequential, affecting a whole string of Acts. The Government despatched those business representatives and requested that they report back by Sunday night. Any response that those business organisations sought to make within that limited time were met by an answering machine. Nowhere in the notes that were distributed to those representatives was there mention of amendments relating to financial institutions duty. Nowhere in the Minister's second reading speech was any mention made of this change to the financial institutions duty; it was lost among 51 inconsequential amendments. When any attempt was made to refer to this change, debate was gagged. The Government was found out and was caught out.

When attempts were made to move amendments in the other place the Government cried foul and said, "How dare the upper House try to amend this bill." The Government was caught with its hand in the till. This amendment was the basis for a straight-out $100 million tax grab from the people of New South Wales. If the Government did not believe it was being duplicitous, why did it say when it was first caught out that the effect of the change was revenue neutral, that it was simply closing a loophole? Later, it was pointed out during a media conference that this change to the financial institutions duty will affect not only business but other small investors - the mums and dads, those selling homes, those taking redundancy payments, those receiving probate, and those receiving superannuation.

The Government said that only $10 million was involved and that was really inconsequential. Yet, according to the weekend newspapers, the Premier admitted that the Legislative Council's rejection of changes to State revenue laws could cost taxpayers at least $100 million per year. The Premier, the Treasurer and the Government stand condemned for the duplicitous way they have handled this bill. The business and general communities will not forget the way the bill was treated, nor the Government's attitude to the Parliament and the people of New South Wales. One wonders why the Government is breaking another election promise at this stage. The Government's election promise was that there would be no new taxes or tax increases; but already tobacco tax has been increased. Through its attempts to hide the change among other amendments, by driving this bill through all stages, the Government will make another $100 million tax grab that affects basically every family in the State. Every family at one time will be affected by a house sale, retirement, redundancy or those types of things.

This tax grab must be condemned. Why has the Government proceeded in this manner? During the budget debate the Opposition clearly pointed out that the Government's budget deficit figure of $238 million was absolutely false. A reading of Hansard and the Opposition's report on the budget will reveal that the true deficit will be at least
Page 4937
$600 million. The Government is trying to cover up that figure. So suddenly it is grabbing for an additional $100 million, to attempt to patch up the difficulties it faces. The Government's anticipated growth rates have not been achieved, the anticipated pay claims will be exceeded, and so the list goes on. The worst lie was about closing the loophole. This bill will not close the loophole. The legislation was not introduced to stop people trying to avoid tax. The debate quite clearly revealed that the benefit contained in the original Act by way of an exclusion was not included because people were attempting to avoid tax, but was included for a specific purpose. When the Stamp Duties (Financial Institutions Duty) Bill was introduced on 1 December 1982 Minister Booth said:

The detailed provisions have been formulated following extensive consultation with the finance industry.

That is very different to the consultation on this bill. The Minister continued:

In framing these definitions and the tax base, the Government has been anxious to ensure, so far as is practicable, that the very active money market in New South Wales is not unduly affected by the imposition of the duty. Extensive discussions have been held with the industry.

At a later stage in the debate the Minister said:

I should emphasize that the legislation makes it possible for other bodies such as corporations, which are not financial institutions, to be certified as short-term dealers if they so desire and qualify for the low rate of duty on their short-term dealings.

This Government wants to exclude that amendment, which was included in the original bill after consultation, for a greedy, deceitful tax grab from the people of New South Wales of, in the Premier's words, at least $100 million. This amendment will be a huge disincentive for business to deal in this State. A letter from the Australian Society of Corporate Treasurers dated 14 December said that this amendment will do more than close the so-called loophole; it will severely handicap the New South Wales economy as this economy will be the only one to have this restriction placed on its short-term dealings. What will business do? It will go to other States. That will mean a net loss to this State. This is a silly amendment, to say the least. The letter said that this amendment will affect not only corporate bodies but any organisation, institute or individuals who have receipts of more than $100,000 through the banking system. The Government has been caught out in its duplicitous approach to this bill. I am pleased that the members on the crossbenches in the other place supported the Opposition. I have been assured of their continued support to reject this amendment by the Government.

Motion agreed to.

Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.

CHAIRMAN: Order! The Committee will deal now with the WorkCover Legislation Amendment Bill.

No. 1 Page 5, Schedule 1[6]. After line 18, insert:

(2) If total or partial incapacity for work results from an injury that is a psychological injury, any compensation payable to the injured worker is not to include a weekly payment under Division 2 (Weekly compensation by way of income support) of Part 3 for any period of incapacity after the first 3 years of incapacity. A reference in this subsection to a period of incapacity for work includes, in the case of separate periods of incapacity resulting from the same injury, a reference to the aggregate of those periods.

No. 2 Page 10, Schedule 1[21], line 9. Omit all words on that line, insert instead:

Omit the subsection. Insert instead:

(4A) The Authority must refuse to register an agreement unless it is satisfied that the worker received independent legal advice about the agreement before the worker entered into the agreement.

No. 3 Page 14, Schedule 1[30], lines 20-25. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(2) Once a worker has been paid compensation under section 66 for a loss or further loss of hearing due to boilermakers deafness (whether the compensation was paid before or after the commencement of this section), the worker has no entitlement to compensation under section 66 for any further loss of hearing due to boilermakers deafness unless that further loss is at least 5%. This subsection is capable of applying to a worker on more than one occasion.

(3) The fact that compensation is not payable for a loss or further loss of hearing because of this section does not prevent notice of injury being given or a claim being made in respect of that loss or further loss, and does not affect the operation of section 17 in respect of that loss or further loss (if and when the worker's total hearing loss reaches 6% or that further loss reaches 5%).

No. 4 Page 15, Schedule 1[30], lines 8-12. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(c) The worker suffers a further hearing loss of 4%. The worker is not entitled to compensation for the 4% further loss (because it is less than the 5% further loss threshold). Again, notice of injury can be given or a claim can be made for that further loss even though compensation is not payable for it.

(d) The worker suffers a further hearing loss of 3%. The total further loss has now passed the 5% threshold and compensation is payable for the full 7% further loss. Each time the worker suffers a further loss of hearing after compensation has been paid for any previous loss, no compensation is payable for the further loss until it reaches 5%.

No. 5 Page 16, Schedule 1[30], lines 10-13. After "loss" wherever occurring, insert "or further loss".

No. 6 Page 16, Schedule 1[30], lines 19-21. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(c) any test that finds that the worker has suffered a total hearing loss due to boilermakers deafness of 6% or more (being hearing loss for which the worker has not received compensation under section 66),

Page 4938

(d) in the case of a worker who has received compensation under section 66 for loss of hearing (whether before or after the commencement of this section), any test that finds that the worker has suffered a further hearing loss due to boilermakers deafness of 5% or more,

No. 7 Page 20, Schedule 1[41], line 17. Omit ", because of exceptional circumstances,".

No. 8 Page 21, Schedule 1[41]. After line 6, insert:

(4E) When particulars of any injury received by a worker are entered in a register of injuries kept by the employer under this Act, the making of that entry suffices for the purposes of subsections (2) and (4A) as the making of a claim for compensation in respect of the injury.

No. 9 Page 22, Schedule 1[43]. After line 12, insert:

(5) An employer against whom a claim for compensation is made under this Act may require the employer's insurer in respect of the claim to defend the claim (whether by disputing liability or otherwise). An insurer is required to comply with such a requirement, subject to the regulations.

(6) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to the resolution of disputes between insurers and employers as to the defending of claims by insurers pursuant to a requirement under subsection (5).

No. 10 Page 24, Schedule 1[47], lines 27-31. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 11 Page 27, Schedule 1. After line 17, insert:

[49] Section 100A Proceedings before conciliation officers

Omit "not" from section 100A(2).

[50] Section 100A(3)

Omit the subsection.

No. 12 Page 32, Schedule 1[56], line 4. After "later", insert "However, this subsection does not prevent the commencement of court proceedings by a worker in respect of compensation under section 66 after a period of 16 weeks has elapsed since a claim for the compensation was duly made, so long as the worker has responded to any offer of settlement made to the worker during that period.".

No. 13 Page 38, Schedule 1[58]. At the end of line 16, insert:

, and

(f) costs incurred in relation to the mediation or neutral evaluation of any matter under Part 4A of the Compensation Court Act 1984.

No. 14 Page 40, Schedule 1[58]. At the end of line 13, insert:

, and

(f) costs incurred in relation to the mediation or neutral evaluation of any matter under Part 4A of the Compensation Court Act 1984.

No. 15 Page 43, Schedule 1[63], lines 22-25. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(4) The certificate is, in any proceedings, evidence (but not conclusive evidence) as to the findings certified.

No. 16 Pages 43 and 44, Schedule 1[63], line 26 on page 43 to line 7 on page 44. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 17 Page 45, Schedule 1[64], lines 15-35. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(3) The certificate of the medical panel is, in any proceedings, evidence (but not conclusive evidence) as to the matters certified.

No. 18 Page 66, Schedule 1[82], after line 8, insert:

(3) The assets of a statutory fund maintained by an insurer under this Division may not be applied for the purpose of enabling any payment by the Authority as a dividend to the credit of the Consolidated Fund, whether by virtue of a direction of the Minister under this Act or the WorkCover Administration Act 1989 or pursuant to a requirement under section 59B of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, or otherwise.

(4) The assets of the WorkCover Authority Fund under the WorkCover Administration Act 1989 may not be applied for the purpose of payment of a dividend to the credit of the Consolidated Fund, whether by virtue of a direction of the Minister under this Act or pursuant to a requirement under section 59B of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, or otherwise.

No. 19 Page 99, Schedule 2[28], line 29. Omit "associated".

No. 20 Page 101, Schedule 2[28], line 3. Omit "associated".

No. 21 Page 104, Schedule 2[31], line 16. Omit "(under section 31I(b1))".

No. 22 Page 111, Schedule 3[1], lines 4-26. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 23 Page 112, Schedule 3[2]. After line 13, insert:

(2B) The Minister can, when inviting nominations for the purposes of subsection (2A), specify the minimum number of persons required to be nominated.

No. 24 Page 112, Schedule 3[3], lines 16-20. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(2A) As far as reasonably practicable, one of the medical referees constituting a medical panel must be a medical referee appointed under section 14A(2A)(a) and one must be a medical referee appointed under section 14A(2A)(b).

(2B) Of the medical referees constituting a medical panel, no more than one is to be a medical referee appointed under section 14A(2A)(a) and no more than one is to be a medical referee appointed under section 14A(2A)(b).

No. 25 Page 112, Schedule 3[3]. After line 29, insert:

(2D) When a medical panel is constituted by 2 medical referees and they cannot agree as the their decision, the medical panel is to be reconstituted as a panel of 3 medical referees (whether or not including either or both of the medical referees from the original panel).

No. 26 Page 113, Schedule 3[5], line 4. Omit all words on that line, insert instead:

Omit the section. Insert instead:

18 Costs

Section 116 (Costs) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 applies to and in respect of any proceedings in the Court, not just proceedings under that Act.

No. 27 Page 113, Schedule 3[8], lines 10 and 11. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

Insert before section 22(3)(a):

Page 4939

(a1) the need for proceedings to be disposed of efficiently by the Court, including the need to make full use of the commissioners, and

No. 28 Page 113, Schedule 3[9], lines 12-22. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 29 Page 118, Schedule 3[23], lines 7-10. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

The cost of providing mediation and neutral evaluation for the purposes of this Part (including the remuneration of mediators and neutral evaluators and the cost of administrative support) is a cost of operation of the Compensation Court and accordingly is payable under section 19(2)(c) of the WorkCover Administration Act 1989.

No. 30 Page 118, Schedule 3[26], lines 18-20. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 31 Page 118, Schedule 3[27], lines 25 and 26. Omit "The Senior Commissioner must be a full-time Commissioner.".

No. 32 Page 133, Schedule 8.4, line 13. Omit all words on that line.

No. 33 Page 133, Schedule 8.4, line 15. Omit ", other than the Senior Commissioner".

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.46]: I move:

That the Committee agree to the Legislative Council's amendments.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [10.46]: When this matter was last in this Chamber the Opposition had 6½ hours notice between the time the bill was thrown across the table and when it was finally voted on. I predicted at that time that the bill would be returned from the Legislative Council with many amendments. Indeed, there are no less than 33 amendments before the Committee, which indicates the appalling state of the bill when it was rammed through the House and also reflects badly on the Minister for Police. The bill was conceived in lies and deceit and is still being represented in that way. On the weekend the Premier was out and about talking about how these amendments are a slap in the face perpetrated by the Opposition against business in this State. Nothing is further from the truth.

Of the 33 amendments before the Committee, 20 are Australian Labor Party amendments - that is, two-thirds are Government amendments. Two-thirds of the time in this Chamber and in the other place was spent cleaning up a disgraceful mess of the Government's own making. If the Minister for Police had accepted the invitation offered in this Chamber to properly consider the bill rather than ram it through, this process might have been completed more quickly and there may have been no need for honourable members to return today. The remaining 13 amendments, that is, one-third of the total, were Opposition amendments. It is interesting to note that only five divisions were called by the Labor Party on those proposed amendments. The Premier has been out on the trail, as is his want, representing that it is all the Opposition's fault. It is a lie! The Government's approach to the bill was a lie.

Going briefly through some of the amendments, contrary to what the Premier has said, the Opposition and members on the crossbenches have made substantial forward progress on cleaning up some key problems that have involved costs and caused waste in this scheme over the last few months. The first amendment is related to stress. The Premier has been raving on about stress all year. The Minister for Police knows that the Opposition moved that amendment to tighten up on stress claims, which is what the amendment is all about. What did the Government do in the upper House? It opposed the amendment and called a division.

Far from the Government dealing effectively with stress, it was the Opposition and members on the crossbenches that dealt effectively with it. I know that small business and the business community will understand that. Similar comments apply to amendment No. 3 and other consequential amendments relating to hearing loss. Members of the Opposition and those on the crossbenches in the upper House moved amendments to resolve the problem with the legislation as it related to hearing loss. That is another issue that the Premier has claimed credit for by saying that the Government is getting costs under control. When one looks at the record one can see that the Opposition, not the Government, addressed the problem, as the upper House amendments indicated. The Government divided on the amendment to try to maintain the status quo.

Another item of significant interest to small business is amendment No. 9. The Opposition, with the support of the crossbenchers, was able to empower employers to determine when they want to take on the defence of a claim. At the moment that is open to insurers only; employers do not have a say about wanting to defend a claim. The Government was prepared to continue with the status quo. The Opposition and the crossbenchers moved to empower employers to be able to take on these claims. Incredibly, the Government opposed that and divided the upper House on this fundamental issue - and lost. I am pleased the Government showed commonsense and accepted these amendments. If the Opposition had been given longer than six hours notice in this House, maybe some of this nonsense could have been sorted out.

The Government, with the support of the crossbenchers, was pleased to take up a key suggestion by the Labor Council of New South Wales to protect the rights of workers in relation to obtaining proper and informed advice on conciliation. I am pleased that the Opposition agreed with the Labor Council on this important amendment. I am confident that the professional advice which led to the amendment will facilitate early and economic settlements for all concerned.
Page 4940
Incredibly the Government was pitted against the Labor Council on the issue and called a division in the upper House. The Opposition and the crossbenchers got it right, as did the Labor Council. I am pleased that the Government did not have the hide to divide on the amendment moved in the upper House to ensure that the Government never gets hold of the WorkCover funds so that it can pay a dividend into consolidated revenue. It has always been the agenda of this Government, and of Mr Baxter, Mr Lambert, Mr Wilkins and others, to get their hands on the WorkCover Authority funds to pay a big fat dividend to the Government that will let it coast into its fourth year in office despite its incredible economic mismanagement.

Over the next three years the Opposition will plug those gaps to give the Government a sustainable economic base to take to the electorate. The Opposition saw through the lies and nonsense that had occurred over the 2.5 per cent increase in premiums, over and above what the Minister and the WorkCover Authority wanted, that is, ripping off an extra $136 million that would go into the fund for no good reason, with no professional support or advice. That $136 million was heading indirectly to the Government's re-election fund, in the broadest sense of the term. The Opposition put a stop to that. I am pleased that not even the Minister for Police or the Attorney General in the upper House had the hide to try to call a division on this issue. The proposal was untenable. I am sure that the Government, having gone backwards at a great rate of knots on the economically appropriate and responsible way of approaching the WorkCover legislation, will now start looking at journey claims.

Last week honourable members saw the incredible demonstration outside Parliament House and heard the threats by Mr Ferguson, supported, I regret to say, by Mr Sams on the same platform, that the unions will play the Olympic card on this issue. I give notice to the Government that as soon as I leave this Chamber I will lodge an application under freedom of information to gain access to Mr Dalgleish's report to the Government on the blow-outs in the Olympic budget arising from the concerns that are now raised in the building industry and flowing into workers compensation legislation that is foreshadowed for next year. The Government will not give access to that material voluntarily but the Opposition will get it according to law. Having given that burst, I wish everybody, particularly the Minister for Police and his mother-in-law, who is a constituent of mine, a very merry Christmas.

Motion agreed to.

Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee will now deal with the Government Pricing Tribunal Amendment Bill.

No. 1 Page 18, Schedule 1. After line 13, insert:

[25] Schedule 2, clause 3(2)

Insert at the end of clause 3:

(2) Subject to this Schedule, the minimum term of office that may be specified in the instrument of appointment of a permanent member is 3 years.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the Committee agree to the Legislative Council's amendment.

Legislative Council's amendment agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee will now deal with the Waste Minimisation and Management Bill.

No. 1 Page 8, clause 8(3), lines 9 to 11. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(3) SWAC may advise the Minister:

(a) on the appropriate sanctions to be imposed on industry members and Waste Boards for failing to achieve waste reduction and other targets required under this Act, and

(b) on the waste streams that may be subject to disposal bans or restrictions under this Act.

No. 2 Page 8, clause 8. Insert after line 14:

(5) In exercising its functions under this Act, SWAC is to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development contained in section 6(2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991.

No. 3 Page 8, clause 8. Insert after line 16:

(6) SWAC is required to prepare a report each year. Such a report is to refer to any public submissions received under subsection (5) and be made available to the public.

(7) The first such annual report must identify priorities for action and any areas where improved performance is required.

No. 4 Page 11, clause 11(3). At the end of line 9, insert:

, and

(e) that the council's waste programs are in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development contained in section 6(2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, and

(f) that the council has consulted broadly with its local community in developing its waste programs.

No. 5 Page 13, clause 17. At the end of line 25, insert:

, and

(c) to operate in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development contained in section 6(2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991.

Page 4941

No. 6 Page 15, clause 19(3), line 15. After "plans.", insert "Any such guidelines are to contain advice about the 1990 disposal rates referred to in section 3(1)(a), the methods to be used to identify priority waste streams in the region, and priority waste minimisation and management options.".

No. 7 Page 15, clause 19(4), line 17. After "groups", insert ", and with the local community,".

No. 8 Page 20, clause 30. At the end of line 24, insert:

, and

(d) to ensure that industry waste minimisation and management initiatives reflect State wide waste policy and waste minimisation and management objectives.

No. 9 Page 22, clause 32. After line 9, insert:

(4) On the commencement of this section, the Minister is taken to have determined that an IWRP is to be prepared and implemented for the dairy industry.

(5) Without limiting section 31, the IWRP for the dairy industry must:

(a) set a target for the level of use of refillable milk bottles for the New South Wales milk market by the end of 1996, and

(b) include a comprehensive public education strategy to encourage the community to use and return refillable milk bottles.

No. 10 Page 22, clause 33(2), line 18. Omit "21 days", insert instead "1 month".

No. 11 Page 23, clause 35(1), line 10. After "IWRP.", insert "Any such report must be referred to SWAC, and SWAC may advise the Minister on such matters relating to the report as it thinks fit.".

No. 12 Page 26, clause 39. After line 13, insert:

(6) If the container/packaging industry has failed to achieve a waste reduction target that has been set by an IWRP, SWAC may advise the Minister of the need to introduce container deposit legislation.

No. 13 Page 27, clause 42(a), line 4. After "re-use", insert ", refundable deposit".

No. 14 Page 34, clause 55. After line 14, insert:

(c) conditions requiring the licensee to provide incentives to encourage the separation of waste delivered to the waste facility.

No. 15 Page 34, clause 55(c), line 16. After "plan", insert "(which may, among other things include a closure plan as referred to in section 59)".

No. 16 Page 48, clause 73(2), lines 13 and 14. Omit all the words on those lines, insert instead:

(b) be spent in connection with waste reduction and management at State, regional and local government levels, and in connection with enforcement and regulation at regional and local government levels, and

No. 17 Page 48, clause 73, lines 19 and 20. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(3) the Minister is to seek the advice of SWAC regarding the development of policy for the allocation of money from the Fund, the setting and variation of any contributions under clause 72 and the procedures by which the contributions are imposed on the occupiers of controlled waste facilities.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the Committee agree to the Legislative Council's amendments.

Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee will now deal with the Threatened Species Conservation Bill (No. 2).

No. 1 Page 3, clause 4. After line 2, insert:

Advisory Council means the Biological Diversity Advisory Council established under this Act.

No. 2 Page 5, clause 4. After line 34, insert:

Strategy means the Biological Diversity Strategy referred to in section 140.

No. 3 Page 11, clause 15, lines 1-4. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 4 Page 13, clause 21. After line 8, insert:

(5) A person must not deliberately and wilfully make a vexatious nomination of any species, population or ecological community for insertion in or omission from Schedule 1 or 2.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

No. 5 Page 14, clause 22, line 10. After "notice", insert ", being a date occurring not more than 150 days after the date on which the notice was first published under this section".

No. 6 Page 14, clause 23, lines 11-26. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 7 Page 14, clause 24, lines 28 and 29. Omit ", if the Minister accepts the proposed final determination,".

No. 8 Page 14, clause 24, lines 29 and 30. Omit "(with or without such amendment as may also be acceptable to the Minister), or reject,", insert instead "or reject".

No. 9 Page 22, clause 42. After line 12, insert:

(iv) holders of leases and other interests granted by the Crown, and

No. 10 Page 24, clause 48. Insert after line 25:

(2) Despite the other provisions of this Division, the Minister must approve or refuse a recommendation within 6 months after the date specified in the notice referred to in section 42(2) as the date by which submissions about the recommendation must be made.

No. 11 Page 25, clause 50, line 25. Insert "amend or" after "must not".

No. 12 Page 25, clause 50, lines 28-32. Omit all the words on those lines, insert instead:

(2) Before providing advice about a proposed amendment or revocation, the Director-General must:

(a) consult the Scientific Committee concerning the proposed amendment or revocation and have regard to its advice, and

(b) give and publish notice of the proposed amendment or revocation as if it were a recommendation referred to in section 42, and consider all written submissions concerning the proposed amendment or revocation that are received on or before the date specified in the notice.

Page 4942

No. 13 Page 27, clause 54, line 12. Omit "or after".

No. 14 Page 27, clause 55. After line 23, insert:

(e) holders of leases and other interests granted by the Crown,

No. 15 Page 29, clause 57, line 36. Omit "may", insert instead "must".

No. 16 Page 29, clause 57. After line 37, insert:

(3) A recovery plan under this Act must be prepared within the same time limits as a recovery plan (within the meaning of the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 of the Commonwealth) must be prepared under that Act.

No. 17 Page 30, clause 58, line 11. Omit "the desirability of minimising", insert instead "the minimising of".

No. 18 Page 36, clause 72, lines 6 and 7. Omit "(other than the exercise of a discretion of a kind referred to in section 70(2))".

No. 19 Page 38, clause 75, line 23. Omit "may", insert instead "must".

No. 20 Page 38, clause 75. After line 26, insert:

(2) A threat abatement plan under this Act must be prepared within the same time limits as a threat abatement plan (within the meaning of the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 of the Commonwealth) must be prepared under that Act.

No. 21 Page 44, clause 89, lines 2 and 3. Omit "(other than the exercise of a discretion of a kind referred to in section 87(2))".

No. 22 Page 49, clause 94. After line 31, insert:

(5) Before a prospective applicant for a licence lodges an application, the Director-General must advise the applicant of the maximum fee payable in respect of the application.

No. 23 Page 53, clause 103. After line 31, insert:

103 Proposed variation of licence to be publicly notified

(1) Despite section 102(2), the Director-General must, before removing or varying any condition or restriction attached to a licence:

(a) cause to be placed in a newspaper circulating throughout the State a notice:

(i) outlining the nature of the proposed variation to the licence, and

(ii) specifying the address of the place at which copies of any species impact statement relating to the licence may be inspected or purchased, and

(iii) inviting written submissions within a period of not less than 28 days after the date of the notice, and

(b) take into account the matters specified in section 98.

(2) This section does not apply if the proposed variation to the licence constitutes a minor amendment only of that licence.

No. 24 Page 58, clause 110. After line 5, insert:

(5) The requirements of subsections (2) and (3) in relation to information concerning the State-wide conservation status of any species or population, or any ecological community, are taken to be satisfied by the information in that regard supplied to the principal author of the species impact statement by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which information that Service is by this subsection authorised and required to provide.

No. 25 Page 58, clause 111, line 12. Omit "have regard to", insert instead "comply with".

No. 26 Page 73. After Part 8, insert:

Part 9 Biological Diversity Strategy

137 Biological Diversity Advisory Council

(1) There is to be a Biological Diversity Advisory Council.

(2) The Advisory Council is to consist of the following 10 members:

(a) one scientist appointed by the Minister, who is to be the Chairperson of the Advisory Council,

(b) one person with expertise in industry appointed by the Minister,

(c) 3 scientists, one each to be selected by the Minister from 3 nominees of the Ecological Society of Australia, 3 nominees of the Australian Museum and 3 nominees of the National Biodiversity Council,

(d) 3 representatives of the environment movement selected by the Minister from 6 nominees of the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales,

(e) one Aboriginal person selected by the Minister from 3 nominees of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council,

(f) one councillor within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993 selected by the Minister from 3 nominees of the Local Government Association of New South Wales.

138 Provisions relating to Advisory Council and members of Advisory Council

The provisions of sections 130 (Provisions relating to members of Scientific Committee), 131 (Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson), 132 (Disclosure of pecuniary interests), 133 (Procedure of Scientific Committee) and 134 (Transaction of business outside meeting or by telephone or other means) apply to and in respect of the Advisory Council and the members of the Advisory Council as if references in those sections to the Scientific Committee were references to the Advisory Council.

139 Functions of Advisory Council

The Advisory Council has the following functions:

(a) to advise the Minister and the Director-General on the draft Strategy,

(b) to devise and to assist in the implementation of a comprehensive consultation process for preparation of the Strategy,

Page 4943

(c) to advise on the status of, and threats to, the biological diversity of the State,

(d) to undertake a review of existing legislation for implementing biological diversity programs and of existing legislation that may directly or indirectly result in the loss of biodiversity, and to advise on the necessity for future legislative action,

(e) to advise the Minister and the Director-General on matters relating to the conservation of biological diversity, including the monitoring of the implementation of the Strategy.

140 The Strategy

(1) The Director-General is to prepare a Biological Diversity Strategy within 9 months after the commencement of this Part setting out how the objects of this Act are to be achieved.

(2) The Strategy is to include proposals for:

(a) ensuring the survival and evolutionary development in nature of all species, populations and communities of plants and animals, including appropriate protection under the Wilderness Act 1987 or the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, and

(b) preparing or contributing to the preparation of strategies for ecologically sustainable development in New South Wales, including the integration of biological diversity conservation and natural resource management, and

(c) an education program targeted at the community and public authorities, and

(d) a biological diversity research program, and

(e) encouraging greater community involvement in decision making affecting biological diversity.

(3) The Strategy must also include:

(a) the objectives and performance targets of the Strategy, and

(b) a statement of the means by which these objectives and performance targets are to be achieved, and

(c) a statement of the manner in which the National Parks and Wildlife Service constituted by the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 proposes to assess its performance with respect to attainment of the objectives and performance targets of the Strategy.

(4) The Director-General may amend the Strategy.

141 Procedure for making or amending Strategy

(1) The Director-General is to prepare a draft Strategy and publish notice of the draft Strategy in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the State.

(2) A notice is to:

(a) be in the form prescribed by the regulations, and

(b) state the date by which submissions may be made to the Director-General, which is to be at least 30 days after the date on which the notice is published, and

(c) specify the manner in which submissions may be made, and

(d) fix a time and place at which a copy of the draft Strategy will be available to the public for inspection.

(3) Any person may make submissions to the Director-General about the draft Strategy.

(4) The Director-General may, after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (2)(b) and after examination of submissions received, amend the Strategy. The Director-General is to refer the Strategy and any submissions received to the Scientific Committee for its consideration and advice.

(5) Before adopting the Strategy, the Director-General is to consider the comments and suggestions of the Scientific Committee and is to seek the advice of any other relevant public authority.

(6) The Director-General may adopt the Strategy without alteration or with such alterations as the Director-General thinks fit.

(7) After the Strategy has been adopted, the Director-General is to publish notice of its making in the Gazette and in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the State.

(8) The procedures applicable to the making of the Strategy apply to the making of an amendment to the Strategy that is not a minor amendment.

No. 27 Page 77, clause 146, line 21. After "against", insert "this Act or".

No. 28 Page 78, clause 152, line 22. Omit "The Minister", insert instead "A Parliamentary Committee established for that purpose".

No. 29 Page 78, clause 152, line 26. Omit "2 years", insert instead "18 months".

No. 30 Page 78, clause 152, line 28. Omit "12 months", insert instead "6 months".

No. 31 Page 78, clause 152, line 29. Omit "2 years", insert instead "18 months".

No. 32 Page 154, Schedule 5[14], line 3. Omit "77D", insert instead "77C".

No. 33 Page 154, Schedule 5, lines 14-21. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

or its habitat, consent must not be granted without the concurrence of the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife.

No. 34 Page 155, Schedule 5, line 12. Omit "If, in so consulting, the", insert instead "The".

No. 35 Page 155, Schedule 5, line 13. Omit "provides", insert instead "must provide".

No. 36 Page 155, Schedule 5, line 17. After "and", insert ", if".

No. 37 Page 155, Schedule 5. After line 21, insert:

(7) A decision with respect to a development consent or concurrence referred to in this section, by whoever made, must include the reasons for which it was made.

Page 4944

(8) A copy of the reasons referred to in this section must be available for public inspection, during ordinary office hours, at the head office of the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

No. 38 Page 155, Schedule 5[14] (proposed section 77A). After line 21, insert:

(7) Despite any inconsistent provisions in sections 102 and 103, but without otherwise affecting those sections, development consent of the kind referred to in subsection (1) or (2) is not to be modified (except in the case of a minor modification) unless the requirements of this section and section 77C concerning concurrence have been complied with in relation to the proposed modification as if that proposed modification were an application for development consent.

No. 39 Page 156, Schedule 5, line 5. Omit "If, in so consulting, the", insert instead "The".

No. 40 Page 156, Schedule 5, line 6. Omit "provides", insert instead "must provide".

No. 41 Page 156, Schedule 5, line 10. After "and", insert ", if".

No. 42 Page 156, Schedule 5. After line 13, insert:

(4) A copy of the reasons referred to in this section must be available for public inspection, during ordinary office hours, at the head office of the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

No. 43 Page 157, Schedule 5[14] (proposed section 77D), lines 7-33. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 44 Page 161, Schedule 5[26] (proposed section 112B), lines 11-20. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(2) In so consulting, the Minister administering the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 must provide the Minister who is the determining authority with any recommendations made by the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife concerning the determination of the activity. If that Minister does not accept any one or more of the recommendations, that Minister must include the recommendations not accepted and the Minister's reasons for not accepting them in the determination.

No. 45 Pages 161 and 162, Schedule 5[26] (proposed section 112C), lines 24-36 on page 161 and lines 1-14 on page 162. Omit all words on those lines.

Insert instead:

(1) A determining authority (not being a Minister) must not carry out, or grant an approval to carry out, an activity:
(a) that is to be carried out in respect of land that is, or is part of, critical habitat, or
(b) that is likely to significantly affect a threatened species, population or ecological community or its habitat,

without the concurrence of the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife.

(2) Despite subsection (1), if the Minister administering the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 considers that it is appropriate, that Minister may elect to act in the place of the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife for the purpose of that subsection. However, if the Minister so elects, the Minister must:

(a) consult the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife and seek the Director-General's recommendations in respect of the proposed activity, and

(b) if the Minister does not accept any one or more of those recommendations - specify, in the determination as to the grant or refusal to grant concurrence under this section, the recommendations that were not accepted and the Minister's reasons for not accepting them.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the Committee agree to the Legislative Council's amendments.

Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.

Resolutions reported from Committee, and reports adopted.


Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the Leader of the House to: (a) make a ministerial statement and a ministerial announcement on behalf of the Premier; (b) table certain papers; and (c) move a motion for the printing of papers, notice of which was given this day for tomorrow.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the following reports be printed:

City West Development Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1995
Heritage Council for the year ended 30 June 1995
Department of Housing for the year ended 30 June 1995
Sydney Water for the year ended 30 June 1995
New England Electricity for the year ended 30 June 1995
Local Government Grants Commission for the year ended 30 June 1995
Ambulance Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Corrections Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Central Coast Area Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Central Sydney Area Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Eastern Sydney Area Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Hunter Area Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Illawarra Area Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Northern Sydney Area Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children for the year ended 30 June 1995

Page 4945

Southern Sydney Area Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
South Western Sydney Area Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Sydney Home Nursing Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Wentworth Area Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Western Sydney Area Health for the year ended 30 June 1995
Hunter Water Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1995
Broken Hill Electricity for the year ended 30 June 1995
Namoi Valley Electricity for the year ended 30 June 1995
NorthPower for the year ended 30 June 1995
Department of Aboriginal Affairs entitled "Implementation of Government Responses to the Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody; New South Wales Government Report 1993/94" including Executive Summary and Volumes 1 and 2, dated June 1995
Barwon Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Castlereagh Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Central West Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Clarence Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Evans Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Far West Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Department of Health entitled "Review of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1991"
Hume Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Lachlan Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Lower North Coast Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Macleay Hastings Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Macquarie Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Mid North Coast Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Monaro Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Murray Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Murrumbidgee Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
New England Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
North West Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Orana Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Richmond Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Riverina Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
South Coast Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Southern Tablelands Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Tweed Valley Health Service for the year ended 30 June 1995
Geographical Names Board for the year ended 30 June 1995
Newcastle International Sports Centre Trust for the year ended 30 June 1995
North West Electricity for the year ended 30 June 1995

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.58], on behalf of Mr Carr: I table the Eleventh Annual Report of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund. In accordance with section 11(1A) of the Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984 I confirm that the Secretary of the Treasury, through his delegate, granted on 27 September 1995 an extension of time for submission of the fund's 1994-95 financial statement. The extension of time was necessitated because of transitional issues arising from the handover of the fund's administration from the New South Wales Superannuation Office to the State Superannuation Investment and Management Corporation. The fund's annual report would ordinarily have been tabled by 30 November 1995. I have pleasure in advising that the total return for the fund for the year ended 30 June 1995 was 7.09 per cent.


Mr Whelan, on behalf of the Chairman, tabled a report entitled "Staysafe 29: Pedestrian Safety II - Cleaning windscreens and other itinerant commercial activities on or alongside the roadway".

Ordered to be printed.


Mr WHELAN: On behalf of the Premier I have to announce that on 15 December 1995 His Excellency the Governor appointed the Hon. Michael Rueben Egan, MLC, as Minister for State and Regional Development. His Excellency also appointed the Hon. Patrick Carl Scully, MP, as Minister for Public Works and Services, and Assistant Minister for State and Regional Development.


Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That this House at its rising this day do adjourn until Tuesday, 16 April 1996, at 2.15 p.m.