Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Ms HARRISON (Parramatta - Minister for Sport and Recreation) [10.02 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

During last summer’s cricket season members of the public at the Sydney Cricket Ground were subjected to a large number of disturbances and interruptions to what should have been an enjoyable day at the cricket. Not only were patrons abused and jostled by unruly elements of the crowd, but play was interrupted on several occasions by spectators illegally running onto the field. Enough is enough. This Government is not willing to tolerate such antisocial behaviour, which generally detracts from an otherwise enjoyable day for most people and does nothing to enhance the world’s perception of Australia as a premier and professional sporting nation as pictures showing otherwise are broadcast around the world.

The Government moved quickly and established a working party consisting of members from the Ministry for Police, the New South Wales Police Service, my department and the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust. The working party considered a number of options and made a number of recommendations to deal with such antisocial behaviour at sporting venues, in particular the Sydney Football Stadium and the Sydney Cricket Ground, and this bill is the final phase of those initiatives. Essentially the bill has three basic purposes. The first purpose is to introduce a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units that may be imposed by a court on anyone who illegally enters a playing field. This penalty replaces the existing maximum penalty of one penalty unit which could be imposed and has obviously served as little if any form of deterrent to would-be offenders. From 1 September 1997 a penalty unit increased by $10 to $110.

The second purpose is to increase the maximum penalty that may be imposed for breach of a by-law from one penalty unit to 10 penalty units. The current maximum fine that may be imposed by the Local Court of one penalty unit has often meant that the costs associated with enforcing the by-laws has exceeded the amount that may be recovered by way of fine. Whilst this amendment will fix only the maximum amount of any fine the Local Court may impose, the final amount being determined by the magistrate on the day, it does at least provide the Local Court with a wider range of penalty to impose to ensure that the amount of the fine reflects the seriousness of the offence. Furthermore, I expect that substantially increasing penalties will act as a discouragement to people who are contemplating breaching the by-laws.

The third purpose is to introduce an infringement notice system whereby the trust may issue an on-the-spot fine not exceeding one penalty unit for breach of certain by-laws, which, if paid by the offender will not require the matter to be heard before a magistrate. This system currently operates effectively in Centennial and Moore parks and will certainly streamline the current procedures whereby an offender is required to appear before the Local Court. Should an offender elect not to pay the fine, the matter will be referred to the Local Court for determination. As with penalties recovered in court proceedings, any money recovered under the infringement notice system will be paid to the trust to be used for the purposes of the Act.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Downy.

Debate resumed from 17 September.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [10.06 a.m.]: This great State of New South Wales is drifting aimlessly - in stark contrast
Page 204
to other Australian States, notably, Victoria, under Jeff Kennett. New South Wales has a directionless Government - a Government that every day engages in some kind of policy backflip, change of course, new direction or reversal of previously stated policy. In the 20 minutes available to me today I will address some of those issues. At the core of the whole problem besetting the Carr Government - the greatest problem facing New South Wales today - is financial mismanagement. This morning, as I speak in this debate on behalf of the Opposition, I will point out the gross financial mismanagement occurring in this State under the Premier, Bob Carr, and the Treasurer, Michael Egan.

Financial mismanagement is characterised by three things. The first is squandered opportunities. When the Carr Government was elected 2½ years ago it inherited a healthy economy, an enviable economic situation, which it has simply squandered. In March 1995 the Carr Government inherited the lowest tax growth rate of any State in Australia. At that stage New South Wales led the nation in employment growth and attracted the largest amount of private business investment. At the last election, the Carr Government inherited $50 million in payroll tax cuts, with taxes frozen for two years. In this Government’s first two years in office opportunity after opportunity has been lost to other States and, in some cases, lost altogether to Australia because the finances of this State, the premier State, the largest State, the engine room of the Australian economy, have not been managed properly.

Secondly, the big taxing, big spending Labor Government that this State is inflicted with brought down what Treasurer Michael Egan described as a big, bold Labor budget. Indeed it was! Thirteen times in this Government’s first 2½ years the Premier has broken his promise of no new taxes and no tax increases that was part of the mantra before the last State election. That unlucky number is the number of promises that the Government has broken so far. Since Bob Carr became Premier and while Michael Egan has been Treasurer there has been an additional tax take of $2.35 billion a year, or $1,000 per family per year. The Government has raised an additional $1.9 billion in business taxes in the past two years - taxes imposed by a Government that says it wants to attract business to Sydney and beat Victoria in the rush to create jobs.

Since March 1995 payroll tax has increased by $88 million. Despite the fact that at the change of government the State was promising a cut in payroll tax, Bob Carr and Michael Egan have increased payroll tax by $88 million. New South Wales has had a 19 per cent increase in tax revenue in the past two years. Those facts mean that, under the Carr Government, in the run-up to the Olympic Games New South Wales is in no position to take advantage of the unique opportunities offered to this State by those Games, which are just three years away. At a time when New South Wales should be well on its way down the road to attracting investment to the State and overseas investment to Sydney and thus creating jobs, Premier Bob Carr and Treasurer Michael Egan are squandering the unique opportunities presented to them because they do not know how to take advantage of them.

At the very time that the Boeing company decided to relocate its operations - a proposal, announced last week, that would result in 300 newly created high-tech jobs going north with the Boeing company to Brisbane - where was the Premier? He was in Beirut. At the very time that the Premier should have been in New South Wales fighting for the retention of the Boeing jobs in Sydney and preventing their loss to Brisbane, he was on the other side of the world talking up investment opportunities. Some say that is where he should have stayed.

Let me turn to what the commentators predicted when Michael Egan brought down his budget. Here are just a few of their comments. Terry McCrann warned in the Daily Telegraph, "Take away the property boom and NSW’s budget finances would be in deep doo-dah." That is precisely where New South Wales is under Premier Carr and Treasurer Egan. Ross Gittins said in the Sydney Morning Herald that "since the first Carr budget it has been all down hill since then." He added that "the much-trumpeted Budget surpluses . . . are phoney", a "disgracefully irresponsible exercise". Those were the warnings when the third budget of the Carr Government was brought down.

The Australian Financial Review editorial at the time referred to the "Carr Government’s overall muddled approach to the economic and financial husbandry of Australia’s most populous State". Ross Gittins said in the Sydney Morning Herald, "Now it’s the no-apology tax regime" and referred to a "flagrant breach of Bob Carr’s election promise not to increase taxes". Mike Steketee said in the Australian, "The NSW Government . . . seemed to morph into old-style Labor spend and tax administration" and referred to its approach as "an approach which harms investment and job creation". All the warnings were there. All of those predictions have become the reality.

Page 205

The Opposition warned at the time that the underlying deficit that this State faced was a real problem. In more ways than one the chickens have come home to roost for Treasurer Egan. In his caucus briefing paper to the Labor Party this week it was said "Treasurer Egan concedes we now face a deficit of $324 million." The summary of Treasurer Egan’s budget position, contained in the caucus briefing paper, shows that this year’s budget and the next, the last of this term of government and, may I interpose, the last of the Carr Government, are in serious trouble. The outlook for the next two years is bleak. I have news for the Government: not quite the next two years but the next 1½ years, because at a State election on 27 March 1999 the people will have the chance to do something before the two years are up.

Have no doubt that under the Carr Government there is rough water ahead in New South Wales, with high taxes and high unemployment. Indeed, the unemployment that this State faces is nothing short of a national disaster, and the Government is powerless, under this Premier and this Treasurer, to turn it around. They must understand that high taxes reduce investment and that that, in turn, increases unemployment. There has been a $300 million budget blow-out. This has confirmed precisely what the commentators have said. But let me deal with the rabbit that Treasurer Egan and, belatedly, although there seems to be a question mark at the moment, Premier Carr think they will pull from the hat. They have embraced electricity privatisation as the solution to all their problems, saying that it will put $22 billion to $25 billion in the State’s coffers and, more particularly for the Premier, provide a slush fund of several billion dollars for the next State election.

It remains to be seen whether the Labor Party will give the Premier the imprimatur for the privatisation that he seeks. As I said yesterday in this House, it is impossible to believe that a Premier and a Treasurer would act in such a suicidal manner as to embrace the largest single privatisation ever undertaken by an Australian government unless a deal has been done with Sussex Street, with the unions; that is, unless they knew that at the ALP conference they would have the numbers.

Mr Photios: The old Della Bosca.

Mr COLLINS: Indeed, the State Secretary of the Labor Party, Mr Della Bosca, has no doubt assured the Premier and the Treasurer, "She’ll be right. We’ll just go through the charade of a debate. The Left can sound off a bit about its concerns about selling the family silver." That is, they can express concern about all of the things that the Labor Party claims to have held sacred for a hundred years, such as hanging on to the family silver and precious public assets. We will see at the ALP conference on the first weekend in October whether the assurances amount to anything more than lip service.

Mr Photios: It will be a big weekend. Don’t miss out! Buy your ticket now!

Mr COLLINS: It will be a big weekend. It will be the greatest show because at the Labor Party conference Labor people will be able to talk about their different approaches to privatisation. I digress to give a brief lesson in Labor history. The Australian Labor Party was formed more than a century ago. Central to its platform was public ownership of major utilities, the service providers such as electricity.

Mr O’Farrell: Mick Clough’s theme.

Mr COLLINS: Indeed, Mick Clough was probably at the initial conference of the ALP. As an eyewitness to the event, he could probably attest to that fact.

Mr Debus: You could go to the Liberal Party room and have this debate.

Mr COLLINS: I would be fascinated to have the Minister for Corrective Services reply and give his views on privatisation. Indeed, I invite him to expand on the ALP’s latest views on privatisation. I return to the question of privatisation. Memory is an important thing in politics, although a few people, including the Premier, think that it is not. The Labor Party in this very Chamber did everything it possibly could to obstruct and delay the privatisation of the Government Insurance Office. The coalition had told the electorate that it believed the Government did not need to be in the insurance business, and it moved to remove the Government from that business. Despite the opposition of the Labor Party, the Government Insurance Office was successfully privatised. It is now running well in the private sector and the Government in this State is no longer involved in insurance.

The State Bank was privatised despite every conceivable obstacle being placed in the way. At the time not a single commonsense reason was proffered by the Labor Party for the non-privatisation of the State Bank. All the bank's employees knew that they would get a much better deal as part of a privatised State Bank than if the bank remained in public employment. The coalition was completely up-front
Page 206
with the employees of the State Bank. It knew that if the State Bank remained in public ownership, many jobs and many branches would go. There was no choice about that. Instead, the employees received a package deal hammered out by the Fahey Government, in which I was Treasurer, that extended their job expectations, gave them far greater job security than they would otherwise have had and preserved to a large extent the branch network.

The coalition took a decision not to go for top dollar. Had it done, it would have sold the State Bank to one of the big four banks, which would have taken over the State Bank, closed all its branches, sacked the employees, and lived even more profitably ever after. The coalition did not do that; it made a decision to increase competition because it believes in competition and believes that the private sector can do more. The coalition stuck to its guns, it stuck to its philosophy, and it stuck to its platform. In the lead-up to the last State election at a time when the economy was running so well and New South Wales had the lowest tax growth rate in Australia, the people of New South Wales were subjected in March 1995 to the Labor Party saying, "We are not going to privatise anything. We do not believe in privatisation. We have opposed the privatisation of insurance and banking. We are anti-privatisation."

Mr MacCarthy: Then they were transformed.

Mr COLLINS: Then they were transformed. Then there was a conversion on the road to Damascus - well, maybe not the road to Damascus, but the road to Sussex Street. On the Premier’s first visit to the Labor Council after he became Premier the triumphant former education officer of the Labor Party returned to his old employer in glory to say, "We have won government. And the good news is that my Government will be a bulwark against privatisation." Members of the Labor Council cheered Bob Carr and gave him a standing ovation. They thought hallelujah! At last somebody understands what we are on about. At last we have got somebody who is prepared to stand up for the rank and file, for what the Labor Party has always believed in: public ownership of utilities and hanging on to the family silver. Time moves on. It is now 1997. Times change in the Labor Party, so do people, policies and philosophies. I think it was Sir Lew Grade, the English film producer, who once said, "Look, these are my principles. Don’t argue with these principles. If you don’t like them, there are plenty more where they came from."

Mr Hartcher: Which branch was he in?

Mr COLLINS: Sir Lew Grade was in the media and entertainment branch of the Labor Party, I suspect. And so, ever pragmatic down in Sussex Street as they are, ever willing to cut a deal with whoever has something to sell, Michael Egan and Bob Carr thought, "We are in government now; we can do anything we like."

Mr MacCarthy: We are in a state of flux.

Mr COLLINS: We are in a state of flux. Indeed, I understand that New South Wales is considering creating new number plates to read "New South Wales, the State of Flux". Some time earlier this year Michael Egan went to Bob Carr and said, "Look, Bob, I have got this great idea. I think we should ditch all our beliefs about public ownership and all of that philosophy stuff and embrace privatisation. We were only kidding; we were only playing political games when we blocked all those privatisations. We really know that privatisation is a good thing for the economy. We are the Government now, Bob. Let’s do it." At first the Premier said, "Well, Treasurer Egan has this idea, and I will be the umpire." He said to Michael Egan, "Get out there and run it up the flagpole." At first things seemed to be going reasonably well - so well that the Premier said, "This was not Michael Egan’s idea; this was my idea", and he took ownership of the privatisation issue.

In distinct contrast to the Howard Government, which had said before the last State election, "We are going to privatise a third of Telstra and have a fund for the environment, and we seek a mandate for that and for other things which we spell out for the people of Australia", for which a mandate was given, Bob Carr and Michael Egan sought no such mandate from the people of New South Wales. Indeed, they promised the opposite, and they promised members of their own party the opposite. Members of the Labor Party are obviously absent from this Chamber. They would be ashamed to hear the perfidious history of the Labor Party over the past few years on this issue. They are too embarrassed to be here to face the music; they are absent through shame.

Mr MacCarthy: Because the truth hertz.

Mr COLLINS: The truth is hurting the Labor Party now. But the big moment of truth is fast approaching because Bob Carr has said that this is a do-or-die effort. If the privatisation does not go through, he says that the Labor Party is history and it will not win the next election. This is a desperation move; it is the last rabbit in the hat for the Carr and Egan show.

Page 207

Mr MacCarthy: It has calicivirus.

Mr COLLINS: As the honourable member for Strathfield said, the rabbit has calicivirus. The question is whether, in a couple of weeks time, the Government will be able to pull that rabbit out of a hat. One has to say that so far things are not looking great with privatisation and the Labor Party. Let us take the Labor Party’s privatisation prototype, the privatisation of the Totalizator Agency Board. A deal was cut with the New South Wales racing industry on the privatisation of the TAB. It was to include a profit-sharing arrangement. That was fine, according to the racing industry. They hammered out a package of arrangements. It must be borne in mind that privatisation is only a tool, a label; it is the financial package that counts. The label "privatisation" does not matter; it is a question of the detail. The racing industry was told in its detail that it was a profit-sharing arrangement.

Mr Photios: They took Bob at his word.

Mr COLLINS: The racing industry took Bob Carr and Michael Egan at their word - in very much the same way as many hospital patients took them at their word when they promised that they would halve hospital waiting lists - a promise signed in blood - or resign. Hospital waiting lists in New South Wales are now approaching a record 50,000. Obviously, when they said "signed in blood" they meant somebody else’s blood, not their own. This is the Government that talked about abolishing the tolls on the M4 and M5. The Government made a clear commitment to its heartland in western Sydney - to the true believers - that it would abolish the tolls on the M4 and M5. What do we see? People who use the M4 and M5 today pay the tolls. The Government has introduced a cash-back system, which I shall talk about for a moment.

A couple of weeks ago I was asked about the cash-back system. I pointed out that on the financial projections for the cash-back system so far it is running at a take-up rate of about one in seven. The Government budgeted more than $70 million for implementation of the M4 and M5 promise. Thus far it will cost the Government $12 million a year. The person who asked me about the cash-back system a couple of weeks ago said, "I have a couple of friends who use the M4 and M5 regularly and they do not seem to have a problem with the cash-back system." I said that that was unusual because the cash-back form that must be filled out is very complicated, to which the person I was talking to replied, "But it was quite easy. They just gave their form to their accountant and he filled it out."

The people of New South Wales have not accessed the cash-back system because they need a PhD to work out how to fill in the form or they have to send the form to their accountant or tax adviser. The form is designed to exclude average motorists, who cannot be bothered doing the paperwork. It takes much less time to pay the toll than to do the paperwork. However, those people will have their say on 27 March 1999. I now return to the TAB privatisation. This privatisation is easy; it is the privatisation prototype. The TAB privatisation is a small privatisation. The Government had not intended to privatise the TAB because it was elected as a government opposed to any privatisation. Privatisation of the TAB is falling apart. The racing industry is up in arms because the Treasurer is pulling the plug on the profit-sharing arrangement that he promised to the much-depressed racing industry of New South Wales, a racing industry facing enormous competition again from Victoria. Victoria is pulling many of the resources of the racing industry south of the border.

The New South Wales racing industry rightly asks whether the line can be drawn, whether the racing industry can be built up so that it can hang on to what it has. So the TAB privatisation does not auger well. However, that is easy compared to privatisation of the electricity industry. Workers in the electricity industry want guarantees for their jobs. But there is a deafening silence from members opposite. What guarantees have been given to New South Wales electricity consumers that prices will not go through the roof after privatisation? The answer is none. Again there is a deafening silence from members opposite. It is easy to talk about privatisation.

Mr Jeffery: The Deputy Premier even said something - he has a list as well.

Mr COLLINS: I shall come to the Refshauge list in a moment. That list is interesting because the Deputy Premier, the left-wing leader - again I invite the Minister for Corrective Services to speak next on this issue so that we can hear some left-wing views on privatisation - told the Government not to privatise electricity but to privatise a lot of other things. He said that the State’s forests, The Rocks and Darling Harbour should be privatised. What kind of socialist is he? What kind of comrade is he? Marx and Lenin would spin in their graves if they heard this left-wing leader talk about the privatisation of vast tracts of historic land in inner Sydney and of the State’s forests. Honourable members should correct me if I am wrong, but are those not the forests that the Premier was so
Page 208
desperate to protect before the last State election? Nothing is beyond privatisation for the deal-cutting Labor Government in New South Wales.

From a business point of view it is interesting to hear about the Government’s deal cutting. The problem is that when the Government cuts a deal it reneges on the deal. It breaches the terms of the agreement, as the New South Wales racing industry is now finding and as workers in the electricity system and people in the regional towns and cities of New South Wales will find. People cannot trust the Carr Government, the Premier or the Treasurer, because when they hold up the written guarantee the Premier is winking at them. In the opening address in another place this week, in which His Excellency the Governor outlined the plans of the Carr Government, it is no wonder that the House was brought down with the comment about the maintenance of the State’s AAA credit rating being critical to the strategy. The Opposition agrees that the State’s AAA credit rating must be maintained. His Excellency, using the words offered to him by his Executive Council and his Treasurer, went on to say:

However, a number of key aspects of financial management are outside its control.

Those are the most important words spoken in this term of the Parliament, because financial management of the State is now outside the control of the Carr Government. The Government is dependent on its conference to get the go ahead for electricity privatisation. I still say that no Premier would take the political risk that this Premier is taking unless the fix was in but, as His Excellency pointed out, financial management is outside the control of the Carr Government. Sadly, the Government in this State is dishonest, as it has not been prepared to talk about the true state of debt in New South Wales. The debt in New South Wales is not the $13.5 billion to which the Treasurer keeps referring; it is well in excess of $30 billion. The Treasurer conveniently ignores the $15 billion which this State owes and must honour for all public servants under the State’s superannuation schemes.

If a Premier and a Treasurer cannot tell the truth about how much the State owes on a day that national debt is acknowledged around Australia as a political issue, and if our Premier and Treasurer will not concede the truth about the State’s debt, that is the clearest evidence that the financial management of this State is outside the Government’s control. The Carr Government has lost control of financial management in this State. As observed in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, we have a big-spending, high-taxing government at a time that interest rate decreases are saving the public purse an unexpected $177 million. The people of New South Wales must ask the Premier where the money has gone. The Government has put taxes through the roof. New South Wales has gone from having the lowest rate of tax growth to having the highest rate of tax growth. Where has the money gone? Why is the Government crying poor? How can the Government find money for stunts and political indoctrination exercises such as the electricity privatisation gabfest when its budget, according to its caucus briefing paper, is in serious trouble? In 1994, as Leader of the Opposition, the Premier promised:

Along with our core goals of capping spending, balancing the budget, freezing taxes and restraining debt I commit a Carr Labor Government to a fifth core fiscal goal to cut business taxes specifically, to cut the burden of payroll tax.

The Carr Government has failed comprehensively to honour four of those five fiscal goals: capping spending, as there has been a 16 per cent increase in spending; balancing the budget, as there is a $300 million deficit after three years; freezing taxes, with 13 tax increases in two years; and cutting payroll tax, as there has been an increase of $88 million in payroll tax per year. The Premier and the Treasurer have by their own yardsticks failed to provide prudent financial management. The financial management of this State has gone out the window under the Carr Government. The Government has squandered the benefits of inheriting in 1995 the best performing economy in Australia. I conclude this contribution as I began: the State is drifting and the drift must end. The Treasurer says that the outlook for the next two years is bleak. I say that it is critical that a new government, a coalition government, be elected within 18 months, so that the drift can end, a new direction can be set and financial management of New South Wales can be restored.

Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [10.41 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the honourable member for Badgerys Creek in reply to the Governor’s Speech.

Mr O’Farrell: Tell us about privatisation.

Mr CLOUGH: Wait for it. I intend to speak about the social responsibilities of government, the provision of employment and looking after the welfare of the people of New South Wales. I listened for a few minutes to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say, in particular about electricity privatisation. The Leader of the Opposition challenged the Government to provide certain things. However, he has himself indicated that a coalition
Page 209
government would sell the electricity undertaking, and he did not speak of providing any of the safeguards that he required from the Government. I assure the House that privatisation of electricity will be opposed at all levels by me and in the unlikely event that it is passed at the ALP State conference I will cross the floor and vote against it in this House.

Mr Photios: Hear! Hear!

Mr CLOUGH: The Opposition need not be so complacent; Opposition members will cross the floor and vote for privatisation. Privatisation of electricity in this State is a betrayal of electricity workers. My electorate has two power stations and a number of coalmines associated with the supply of coal to power stations. I have already given the workers in my area an undertaking that I will cross the floor and vote against the privatisation of electricity. However, that is not the major theme of this contribution. The Governor outlined the Government’s legislative program for this session. This Labor Government has been an abysmal failure in its efforts to date in representing the people that the Australian Labor Party traditionally represents, the working men and women of this State. The managerial class has, however, blown out of all proportion.

Public services have been corporatised and privatised, resulting in job losses - not amongst those who could bear the cost of unemployment but amongst those who could least cope with it. I refer to railway workers, power workers and those at the lower end of the economic scale. Very few managers have disappeared out of the system. The previous Government emasculated the New South Wales Government railway system to such an extent that few people today use an outstanding rail system that operates throughout the State; the accent is on roads and on pandering to the petrol companies, the motor vehicle companies and those who provide that form of transport, which is slowly but surely clogging transport lanes in New South Wales whilst the railway system stands idle.

The track between Wallerawang and Rydal has been discontinued, it is not used. The track has been cut at the level crossing at Rydal and it no longer exists. It was a tragedy that a Labor government should recall David Hill to manage New South Wales railways. In the past few days I received a complaint from a constituent that passenger luggage services were to be discontinued. I spoke to the Minister for Transport about the matter and know that he is not happy about it, but apparently David Hill has decided that the luggage and cloakrooms at Sydney railway stations will be closed, resulting in the loss of 110 jobs. Those job losses will affect not people who can afford to lose their jobs but people whose wages are their only income, the little blokes. Those workers have responsibilities, they have homes to pay off and cars on hire purchase. They will be in danger of losing their cars and they will struggle to make mortgage payments on their homes.

I joined the Australian Labor Party on 1 January 1948 as a representative of the little bloke. When I eventually became a member of Parliament I maintained that role; I represented the bloke who did not have any power or the ability to buy the courts, as rich people seem to do in Australia today. My task was to look after the little bloke, the fellow who works for his living and is dependent on the Australian Labor Party to represent him. Today I regrettably state that the Labor Party has lost its way. We have a responsibility to look after the little people, to keep their jobs and to maintain a certain standard of living. However, the gap between the higher-paid officials and the lowly workers has widened beyond recognition.

Under Peter Cox in the Wran Government the State railways were known as New South Wales Government Railways, the Public Transport Commission and then the State Rail Authority. David Hill was put in charge of that body and wholesale sackings commenced. However, what David Hill did in the days of the Wran and Unsworth governments is only a fraction of what the coalition did when it came to government in 1988. At Bathurst there were 53 locomotive enginemen, but the lot were sacked. Train services operated from Bathurst to Sydney on a daily basis, but the former Government cut those out. The coalition instituted government bus services to feed in from places such as Dubbo and Orange, through Bathurst and Lithgow, to utilise the interurban systems. Eventually the coalition sold those buses, at a fraction of their cost, and enormous losses were incurred by the Greiner Government.

My electorate now has a second-class transport system. At the weekends commuters cannot travel between Lithgow and Bathurst unless they are able to catch the one bus going over or the one bus coming back. The XPT service operating in that area goes the wrong way - it is a wonderful service for those in Sydney who wish to travel to Dubbo or to the western part of New South Wales, but it is not much good to the people living in the Bathurst-Lithgow district. During the week the Government skited about providing an extra train a week to Broken Hill and an extra train a week to Griffith.
Page 210
What an achievement! After 2½ years in government all we can find is one train that services both centres.

The railway system is crying out for support, for a number of reasons. The major reason it needs support is to get cars and trucks off the roads and to provide a degree of safety for people travelling to the west of New South Wales. Councils in my area are campaigning. I know that the Deputy Leader of the National Party favours the upgrading of the Great Western Highway to a four-lane highway all the way from Bathurst to Sydney, with the railway line beside it doing absolutely nothing. That is not the only area in which people in country areas of the State are being disadvantaged. We in the bush are paying dearly for the Olympic Games. We will not get anything out of it. We will not have the money to attend the Games; probably we will be able to watch the events on television in the comfort of our homes. People in country areas are suffering because funds are being transferred from a variety of services to other priorities.

The banking system is out of control. Small country branches are being closed down, because the Keating Labor Government allowed that to happen. I have never been as ashamed of a Labor government as I was of the previous Labor administration in Canberra and the way it cut the standards of living of the little person. I am not a disillusioned member of the Labor Party; I am just an old-time member of the Labor Party. I will devote the rest of my life to trying to right the wrongs that have been perpetrated on the working men and women of New South Wales. I intend to do that at all levels of Parliament, with or without the help of my Labor Party colleagues - and preferably without any help at all from the Liberal and National parties, for whom I have very little regard.

People in rural New South Wales are subject to the maniacal decisions of the Treasurer of New South Wales, who wants to go down in history as being the first Treasurer to balance the budget and pay for the Olympic Games as well. That is pie in the sky, that is impossible to do without cutting out the requirements of people in country New South Wales. As I said earlier, I will devote the rest of my time in this Chamber to rectifying some of the imbalance that has occurred. Country hospitals have to battle for funds. In the city, big teaching hospitals which have clout in the right areas can get as much money as they want for health services. In the bush they are battling. I pay tribute to the Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for acting upon every argument I have put to him. He has recently achieved superb results in my area. But he has had to struggle with Treasury, which is dominated by officials who were appointed by the previous Government.

This Government has not had the brains to wake up to the fact that governments come and governments go but the bureaucrats go on forever. They will see this Government and the next government out unless the principle of economic rationalism, which they have been working on for so many years, is changed. As long as the bottom line balances, nobody gives a damn about the people who depend upon services. There are many things we can do to help people. I refer in particular to those who are driving uninsured motor vehicles because they cannot afford comprehensive insurance. The green slips trumpeted by the Greiner-Fahey Government cost $176 for third party insurance, and a $40 fee was imposed to cover the backlog of claims under the previous Government. That impost will never go away.

Other States, particularly Western Australia, which has an insurance commission, have handled these issues in a much better way. I note that the Court Government is to sell the Western Australian insurance commission because the commission has apparently denied insurance companies the income they expect to receive, and generally do receive, under Liberal and National Party governments. An insurance commission in New South Wales could provide cheaper third-party insurance. It could provide a limited form of comprehensive insurance to protect the uninsured working man from losing everything if he has an accident while travelling to work in an old car. That could be done but there is no will to do it, and nobody in the Government is prepared to stand up and fight for it except those who are regarded as old-fashioned, as living in the past, as having lost track of what is happening in the modern world.

The Berlei factory in Lithgow recently closed down. The women who worked there did so because they needed the money, not for the fun of it. In clothing factories such as that of Berlei workers sit at rows of sewing machines, doing their jobs. Berlei is owned by Pacific Dunlop Limited - surely the most rapacious of Australian companies after CRA and BHP. It is not moving offshore to achieve a better product; it is moving offshore to make a bigger profit.

Gloweave Consolidated, the shirt manufacturer, recently indicated that a shirt can be produced in New South Wales for $10.40. That company is going offshore because a shirt can be produced in
Page 211
Indonesia for $2.10 or in China for $1.80. The only reason the company is going offshore is to achieve a bigger profit, to make more money for shareholders, and to hell with the jobs of those who have done their work for many years. The women who work at the Berlei factory at Lithgow have a record of repairing a great percentage of the garments made in China and other cheap-labour countries to make them suitable for sale in New South Wales.

The Australian Labor Party must, as a matter of urgency, review its policies. It must consider what it is doing, it must consider why it was established and it must stand up and work for the worker. It must realise that balancing the books is not the end result. I am proud of having been a member of the first Wran Government in 1976. When first elected as Premier, Neville Wran was told by Treasury, "Premier, we can give you a balanced budget." Neville asked the Treasury officials not to waste his time, not to give him a balanced budget that would lose the election, but to come back with a budget that would win him an election. That is the name of the game in politics. That is why Labor Party people walk around in the middle of the night putting brochures in letterboxes, why they man booths all day and why they work so hard. They recognise the advantages of having a friendly government that will look after them.

There are many disillusioned people in country New South Wales, people who have for many years pinned their faith on the Labor Party. I have been in the Bathurst area for 21 years, and those people are my friends. They have told me that if I retire they will not vote Labor. I advise them that if they do not vote Labor they should vote informal, that they should not vote for the Nationals. Until we recognise that we are here to look after the people of New South Wales who cannot look after themselves, who do not have the money, the influence or the access to the courts that rich people have, we are fighting a losing battle. I make no apology for the speech I make today. I have thought about it very carefully and I believe that everything I am saying would be supported by the majority of constituents that I represent. [Extension of time agreed to.]

What I am saying today is extremely important, and I believe in it intensely. If New South Wales is to be governed properly, it has to be governed by the Labor Party - by a reformed Labor Party that is prepared to consider the problems that affect people in New South Wales. We cannot turn over the management of this State to the coalition parties. We know what the coalition parties give us; we had seven years of them. We put up with a reduction in services in their many smart deals. I refer in particular to the Port Macquarie hospital, which the coalition Government privatised. That hospital is costing more now than it would have had we built it ourselves.

I refer to the new hospital that has been built at Lithgow. This Government has allocated $26 million, I believe with the personal support of the Minister for Health, and I thank him greatly for it. The deal that was put by the coalition to the people of Lithgow three years ago was, "We will provide $7 million; you raise $17 million but we will give you no guarantees. If you fail and you cannot pay off the loan that you raise or if anything happens we will not take it over; we will privatise it and give it to somebody else." If anybody doubts that that is the case I have the documents, the speech and the press release, issued by then Premier John Fahey stating that that was exactly what the coalition would do.

In areas other than health country New South Wales is paying the penalty for the Olympic Games in Sydney. Education in my area is going along well. The Minister for Education and Training is achieving what he set out to do. Education in New South Wales is at least on a par with that in other States - it is probably a little in front. But other issues must be dealt with if we are to ensure that country New South Wales gets a fair go. The first thing we have to do is make absolutely certain that additional funding is taken out of Treasury. Treasury should be excluded from decisions with regard to the provision of services. We should not ask Treasury, "How much money will you give us to do this?" We must say to Treasury, "These are the services that must be provided for country New South Wales. These are the services that are necessary. Now you go out and find the money to provide them." That is what I believe to be Treasury’s job. The people at Treasury are a bunch of economic rationalists who do not understand anything other than the bottom line, whether the budget balances or does not. That type of thinking can lead this State only to absolute ruin.

I have heard the Leader of the Opposition talking about credit ratings and such things. I cannot understand why some firm of accountants or financiers in the United States should have an influence on the credit rating status of New South Wales. I go back a long way, to the days when Rex Connor, a Minister in the Federal Government, decided that he was going to buy back the farm. We know what happened: overseas financial interests killed the Whitlam Government. It was dismissed by a conglomeration consisting of international financiers, the American Central Intelligence Agency and a number of other people, because the Labor
Page 212
Party was trying to do what it wanted to do - buy Australia back so that we could have a country in which Australians could live and prosper. Of the firms providing services in Australia, 88 per cent are owned overseas.

I refer now to the proposition to privatise electricity, the most important subject confronting us. The Leader of the Opposition came to Lithgow and gave all the assurances that he would naturally give in opposition, none of which he meant. He said, "Of course we will privatise electricity but we will use the money for debt reduction. We will get rid of the debt by selling off the electricity generation and distribution system." One has only to examine what happened in England after privatisation of electricity there to see that prices went through the roof. One need only look at the split up of the electricity system in New South Wales to see the chaos that has been caused. During the period of this Labor Government 4,600 electricity workers have lost their jobs in New South Wales - 2,000 in the generation industry and 2,600 in the distribution industry.

The Government has set up electricity boards which have no appreciation of the fact that people living in country New South Wales need assistance to connect to the electricity grid. The other day someone from the northern electricity area rang me. He has to pay $54,000 to get the power on. There is no reason that every person in New South Wales should not have their power connected for nothing. There is no reason that every electricity subscriber should not be paying the same rate for electricity. That is not happening, because governments - both coalition and Labor - have failed to recognise that they must provide electricity as a public service, at a cost that people can bear. There is no reason that there should not be a uniform electricity tariff in New South Wales. There is no reason that there should not be one electricity generating unit. The ridiculous undertaking that has been given in regard to the policy brought forward by Professor Hilmer in regard to competition should be withdrawn.

A very senior official of the Labor Party and I went to a meeting at Cootamundra eight or nine months ago. He stood up and said, "I have never heard anything as silly as breaking up the Electricity Commission of New South Wales so that one half can compete against the other." The proposal is something one might expect to come from a mad hatter’s castle: split up the best and biggest generating unit in this country so that each half can compete against the other. It would be like my having two stores, having discounts in the first store and wondering why the second store was going broke. It is a simple philosophical argument that we should have one electricity generator and one distributor.

The Treasurer has appointed many electricity boards scattered around New South Wales. Honourable members will be pleased to know that most members of the boards are members of the National Party. In my area people fight like hell to get a decent board appointed. Each board member receives $30,000 a year and the chairman receives $60,000. The board meets once a month. A member of the board in my area will become a Legislative Councillor next week. He will lose his $30,000 a year. Why should we pay such sums to members of boards which are competing against each other? My local board has trumpeted throughout the district that it has been able to sell cheap electricity to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. BHP needs that sort of assistance; it is practically broke! It needs a small organisation such as Advance Electricity in Bathurst to provide it with cheap electricity! That is the greatest joke I have ever heard. It is selling electricity directly to the Commonwealth Bank in Melbourne. It will not be long before competition from the Victorian generators and distributors, owned by the Americans, with enormous financial backing, makes our people reduce the cost of electricity.

What has the subscriber gained? Not a damned thing. Five organisations were amalgamated into Advance Electricity. It has five separate domestic tariffs. It has not been able to reduce the cost of electricity to the domestic consumer by 1¢ per kilowatt hour. Yet big news can be made of the fact that Advance Electricity can provide cheap electricity to BHP. The time has come for the Labor Party to examine its constitution and the reason it was set up, and to make absolutely certain that it goes ahead with the type of programs that were envisaged by our forefathers more than a hundred years ago when they started the Australian Labor Party. I do not think that I am out of date. I have been in the party for 50 years and I believe that the reasons the Australian Labor Party was set up so many years ago are still valid today.

I believe that rubbing shoulders with the top end of town is a waste of time for the Labor Party. All it means is that we are laughed at and held in disrepute. A number of Ministers have said that they have personal contact with people in certain companies. If those people were asked whether they voted Labor they would just laugh. They do not. It is about time we woke up to the fact that we are here to support Labor Party people, workers, the people who are battling to keep their jobs. The greatest attack in history is being waged on the trade
Page 213
union movement by the Commonwealth Government. Rio Tinto and the miners in the Hunter Valley are prepared to use unlimited funds to break the union movement. I wish them well. The union movement will not be broken by overseas multinational companies. The union movement will survive in New South Wales - mainly because the people who have been appointed to positions in the unions realise how bad it was under previous governments and under previous management.

The industrial relations legislation of the Federal Government is designed to cause conflict, to pit one person against another. It is designed to foster a scab labour movement with non-unionists working in positions. In Cairns, northern Queensland, non-union labour is going to be used to load ships. If they succeed in getting the ships loaded I sincerely hope that the Seamen’s Union of Australia will not take them anywhere and that the ships sit there and rot. Trade unionism is the basis on which this country was founded. Nothing can take the place of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, and most trade unionists give a fair day’s work.

But how many times are members of Parliament contacted by constituents about industrial problems? They come regularly to me and say that they have not received their pay, they have been underpaid or they have been working 63 or 70 hours a week and are only getting paid a flat rate. The first thing I ask them is "What union are you in?" If they say "I am not in a union", the next statement they get from me is "I think you should be." I am then duty-bound to do the best I can for them, but my enthusiasm to help them is waning. The people who bludge on the trade union system do not become union members not because of an ideological opposition to unions but because they are too lousy to pay the union fees and do not believe they should be in a union.

On the other hand, I admit that some of the Sydney-based unions give very poor service. Only a short while ago I floated the idea of forming a union, called the Bathurst union, for the people of Bathurst. The idea has got as far as the Labor Council of New South Wales, but I do not think that it will get off the ground because the Labor Council will have factional opposition to it on the basis that the people who join the Bathurst union will leave other unions, which will probably weaken the union base.

My remarks this morning have probably raised a few eyebrows amongst my colleagues. I do not apologise for that in any way, because I believe implicitly in what I have said. As a member of the Labor Party and this Government I am committed to doing the best I can for working men and women because, after all, without their support, particularly in the city of Lithgow, I would not be standing here this morning.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Deputy Leader of the National Party) [11.11 a.m.]: While listening to the speech of the honourable member for Bathurst I could not help but feel enormous sympathy for him. He obviously feels that the Carr Labor Government has let him down on a philosophical basis and let down country New South Wales in an all-consuming way. I sympathise with the honourable member for Bathurst. He has lost his faith in his Premier and in his New South Wales party. Imagine how coalition members feel about exactly the same issues referred to by the honourable member!

This debate on the address in reply to the Governor’s Speech is being held in mid-term for one reason: the Premier prorogued Parliament. The Premier ordered a ceremonial opening to enable him to show that the Governor of New South Wales is out there performing ceremonially, and in some way to hoodwink the people of New South Wales into thinking that the Premier has not diminished the role of the Governor or of Government House. This whole process is very transparent. The proroguing of Parliament and the fact that it was the Premier who ordered the ceremonial opening have one purpose: to try to restore his stocks with those people who believe that he has acted dictatorially and unconstitutionally in the way that he has dealt with the role of Governor in New South Wales. To this day - and I am sure it will continue the next time petitions are read - petitions are still coming from multiple members in relation to this one decision that will haunt Bob Carr into the next election and out of office.

The New South Wales budget is in disarray. The finances are beyond the control not only of this Government but, as the Governor said, of anyone. As an indication of how badly the State’s finances have been managed the Governor has been compelled to say that he does not believe that the Government can restore the situation. That is the essence of his reference to forces being so great as to affect the budget. It means that the Government has let the finances get so out of control that it is incapable of restoring financial order in New South Wales.

This State led Australia in financial management. This State cherished the AAA rating
Page 214
and taught the other States quite a few lessons in financial management. Of course, those lessons have been taken up by Victoria. New South Wales was regarded as an example even throughout the world. Very few sovereign governments throughout the world - and I include state governments in the United States - have an AAA rating. This Government is trying to lose that rating and it is trying so hard that the Governor has said that the finances are out of control.

There has been a blowout in transport, health and education spending, as well as in many other areas. It is lucky for the State that there has been something of a windfall in stamp duty as a result of a relatively overheated property market, because the fact that the budget has blown apart, with the recurrent consequences, means that the finances cannot be restored even in subsequent years. The damage is so fundamental that when the windfalls stop coming the carcass will be exposed to be in financial ruin in such a recurrent way that it may take many more years to recover.

The budget has blown out by the order of $1 billion. As I said, thanks to other revenues that perhaps were not expected there will be a deficit of some hundreds of millions of dollars rather than more. But this Government budgeted for a surplus. Everyone knows that a government can budget for anything it likes. The needle can be turned on any of the assumptions - inflation, growth and employment assumptions. The Government can almost do whatever it likes. It can even pretend that it will impose considerable financial stringency on all government departments; it can rein in capital expenditure - the oldest trick in the budget book. The easiest way to do something in the budget is to stretch out the existing capital budget and not add to it. Of course, that diminishes the level of capital expenditure in the current year and easily makes available hundreds of millions of dollars to play with.

The Government did all of that: it even consumed what is called the Treasurer’s discretionary fund. That fund, which used to have in it an amount of something like $100 million, is used in the event of disasters such as a big storm or flood, so that funds are available to carry out emergency work. The Government even used that fund to try to mask the overall and underlying budget situation that it has created in this State. As I said, anyone can produce a budget. The whole emphasis is probably quite wrong in that it concentrates on the budget rather than the actual outcome at 30 June. In May each year we focus on the Government’s predictions that result from the way in which it has manipulated the assumptions - and they have been shown to be wrong - rather than look at the financial result of the previous year and the financial result when the next month expires, because the financial year expires at the end of June. The real issue here is the current status of the budget, not what assumptions can be tinkered with next time round to see if yet another false surplus can be produced.

This is the essence of budgeting. But the budget has come apart completely, despite the fact that the Government has increased 13 taxes and introduced seven new taxes. Never mind reading anyone’s lips and spelling LAW, the Government has introduced seven new taxes. The bed tax put the hotel industry totally offside with the Labor Party. Land tax sends a shiver through the spine of anyone who owns a residential establishment in New South Wales. Admittedly the Government has targeted the high end only, but everyone knows what happens with bracket creep and how amendments are made subsequently to extend the net. It is the oldest, easiest, and most obvious way to introduce a tax. It seems relatively painless to start with, but let it grow and let it extend like blancmange. Stamp duty on insurance may be hidden in the insurance premium and the Government is hoping that insurance companies will have to wear the opprobrium for it. Car insurance, home insurance, general insurance - vital commodities and basic expenditure - have been increased.

Registration for motor vehicles valued at more than $40,000 or $45,000 has been increased. Everyone knows that the cost of vehicles has risen to such an extent that this net now covers the majority of vehicles. The totally hated poker machine tax, another new tax, in our licensed clubs has resulted in the shelving of virtually every capital project, every plan for expansion of community-based clubs. It has also completely dried up all the funds clubs have been able to spend in support of vital community organisations. Licensed clubs in country areas are a vital source of funds in support of hospitals, charities and youth groups and a vital part of the infrastructure. But this Government has wiped out the ability of clubs to assist community organisations.

The profligacy of spending by this Government is absolutely breathtaking. As soon as the Government was elected it broke the promise on tolls. It did not take the Government too long to decide it would spend $75 million per annum under this funny scheme it has created in relation to the M4 and M5. Expenditure of $75 million for the life of the M4 and M5 tollways over 30 years adds up to
Page 215
$2.5 billion of political expediency. This would have to be the largest and most reckless financial transaction of any government in the Commonwealth of Australia. An amount of $2.5 billion would be well spent on a lot of hospitals, a lot of schools and a lot of roadworks. Much could have been achieved with such an amount, but the Government has locked in the people of New South Wales to spending $2.5 billion at the expense of schools, hospitals, roads and police, services which are being shredded because the Government has blown its budget on this incredible promise of $2.5 billion.

The Minister for Roads has destroyed the integrity of the 3 x 3 road funding program. He has taken money from that program and spent it elsewhere. He has completely undermined any faith in the 3 x 3 program. The coalition will restore the 3 x 3 program to its proper basis. The coalition will ensure there is equity in road funding. The Government will give $21 million to the private consortium building the Eastern Distributor to erect a nice decorative canopy outside the Art Gallery, across the Cahill Expressway. But what for? Is it at least an attractive canopy? Will it be landscaped nicely? Will the view from the office of the Art Gallery be nice? Will there be a sculpture on it? Maybe it is just a supporting structure for a sculpture.

I can assure honourable members that $21 million could be put to good use in country areas. That would look after a lot of people in country areas. It is a wonder the Government can find any money. I am very appreciative that the Government was able to scrape together $3 million to repair four broken-down bridges in the country, but it was really hard to get that commitment. Imagine what could have been done if, for example, we did not have to have this decorative canopy. Why is the Government spending $624 million over a three-year period to produce a completely free M5 East? The road was promised as a tollway by the previous Government. It was announced as a tollway by the preceding Minister for Roads in the Carr Government. Yet this Government has decided to attack road funding to the tune of $624 million, and increasing, over the next 2½ years.

Can honourable members understand what that will do to the roads budget? That is $200 million-odd per annum out of the statewide roads budget for one single project. It ought to be a tollway: first, to ration its use and produce some environmental outcomes, and, second, it ought to be the distributor and trans-urban link it is supposed to be, rather than a local traffic jam, which is what the Minister is creating. He is wasting a huge amount of money that could have been spent on black spots and safety improvements all over the metropolitan area, the Newcastle region, the Wollongong region, the north coast, the central west and the far west of New South Wales. But all these areas will now be deprived of the funds that the Minister will spend on projects that ought to be funded differently.

People in the Upper Hunter lost faith in the Government a long time ago. The honourable member for Bathurst put it quite mildly. People have lost faith in the police restructure, which is already undergoing a review when it is barely cool. They fear the consequences of the loss of police numbers in the Upper Hunter. There is even a review of the police and community youth clubs and the question, according to the terms of reference, is whether the Police Service will continue to support and resource PCYCs - a vital piece of youth infrastructure. There has been a loss of funding for health and for roads. Figures reveal a reduction in funding for roads, particularly in my electorate.

The Government has forced the amalgamation of rural lands protection boards, despite the fact that the Minister for Agriculture said that he would not force such amalgamations and that there would be self-determination. They are totally funded by the ratepayers anyway; there is no government contribution. It is not as if the Government will save one penny. Merriwa, a small town in my electorate, has been ravaged by Government decisions to reduce State Government departments and trading enterprises such as the depot for the electricity distributor. The number of Telstra employees has been reduced. In the private sector two banks have closed, leaving only one bank open. Yet we have a mad Minister for Agriculture who wants to amalgamate the Merriwa RLPB, with its 1.5 employees, with the nearby Mudgee RLPB, resulting in the loss of the RLPB in Merriwa and, presumably, its 1.5 employees. That amalgamation will gain nothing for the Government.

Presumably the Government and/or the Minister for Agriculture must take some form of pleasure in adopting such a hard line on this decision and holding that line. He wants to see this through, regardless of the consequences. People have rallied in the streets of Merriwa. They have held public meetings and they have received a flood of correspondence. People from Merriwa are in Parliament House today, talking to members of Parliament. They are doing absolutely everything they possibly can to fight the amalgamation. They are contributing to a fighting fund to try every legal avenue. Can the Government not see how important it is for a small town like Merriwa, fighting for its
Page 216
survival, to say: this is the last straw; we are going to fight this one all the way and we are going to win. And the people of Merriwa will win.

Mr Price: Did you fight the banks, too?

Mr SOURIS: My forum is the Parliament, and I am attacking the Government because of its decision. The honourable member for Waratah should be ashamed of himself: he comes from the Hunter, he knows what the media is saying, and he knows what impact this is having on small communities. The honourable member for Waratah knows that the Catholic bishop of Newcastle has written an open letter to the Minister for Agriculture - and I have never known a Hunter Valley bishop to do such a thing. This decision is hurting people whilst providing no gain to the State’s finances. Why is the Government hell bent on doing this and hurting a small town in my electorate, Merriwa? There is lot more football in this yet - we have a long way to go, and we intend to win. [Extension of time agreed to.]

The Upper Hunter has received virtually no capital expenditure. Capital funding allocated to government departments by the previous Government has been removed by this Government. The previous Government had capital works programs for schools, hospitals, et cetera - and now they are gone. Scone public school is in disarray; although it is the worst state of repair of any school in my electorate, it is not on any capital works list. In other words, no schools in my electorate will receive capital list funding. The Upper Hunter electorate comprises 35,000 square kilometres, 10 shires and 14 towns, yet not one of its schools has received capital works funding. The Government is obviously discriminating against country people.

Subcontractors in my electorate have lost millions of dollars because of maladministration by the Minister for Public Works and Services in the conduct of two government bodies - the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Department of Public Works and Services. The RTA completely botched its supervision of the $43 million reconstruction of the New England Highway over the Liverpool Range. The contractor went broke - mainly because of lack of supervision, lack of integrity, by the RTA - and many small contractors lost money. Honourable members may not know what $30,000 or $40,000 means to a person with a one-truck operation, but I can assure them it means a lot. The contractor at Mudgee High School went broke. The Department of Public Works and Services did not supervise the job, and allowed it to get to the point where the failure of the contractor meant that many subcontractors in the area lost money.

Recently in response to the country impact summit, the Premier said, "Country impact statements will be conducted whenever a Government decision impacts on country New South Wales. The country impact statements will help to shield small communities against Government decisions and the loss of jobs." Those statements are a complete farce. Despite the Premier having issued a 10-page set of guidelines to government departments, we have not seen one country impact statement, one public consultation, one call for public submissions, one visible assessment process, one shire council asked whether it would like to make a submission, or one published report of a statement.

I refer to the greatest insult of all. The Minister for Agriculture wrote in reply to a firm of solicitors about the Merriwa Rural Lands Protection Board. The boards were forced to amalgamate, and when asked about country impact statements, he said, "Of course I did one; it was attached to the back of my Cabinet minute. It has Cabinet confidentiality, it is a secret." I have been a member of Cabinet and I know what those impact statements are - and they are not what we thought the Premier promised. At the back of every Cabinet minute there is a financial impact statement, a family impact statement, a social impact statement and, now it seems, a country impact statement. It is usual for all the statements to fit on a single page. They form an addendum by the Minister putting forward the Cabinet minute; an appraisal by the Minister presenting the Cabinet minute of what the impacts might be.

That is not a public process. How can it satisfy what the Premier promised the people of country New South Wales when he said that he would have an independent process involving public consultation that would shield small country communities from government decisions of this nature? There has not been one piece of evidence of any country impact statement process ever being conducted in the proper way. The Carr Government has betrayed the rural media, which championed the summit; the Shires Association of New South Wales; the New South Wales Farmers Association; and all the people who attended the country summit and believed the Premier, who, it now seems, ceremoniously announced the decision without the slightest intention of honouring it.

Page 217

No effort has been made to alleviate the problems of country areas, such as doctor and funding shortages. In addition, there are no initiatives for rural transport services; there has been no extension of rail freight - for which everyone is screaming; there has been no extension of rail passenger services; and there has been no form of equity for isolated schools. Where is the decentralisation? When are we going to hear about that? A couple of hundred jobs over four years does not amount to decentralisation. government members need to work out the definition of decentralisation. They should know that it means a shift of some Government departments to the country, that it has a serious connotation.

When are we going to see a real country industry plan? When are we going to see some real initiatives for value adding agricultural produce? When are we going to see a rural tourism plan? When are we going to see some regional development? When are we going to see some rural infrastructure programs? When are we going to see some serious attempts to solve the problems that the Great Western Highway presents to us as the gateway to the central west? When are we going to see some water conservation initiatives? When are we going to see some value adding in the forest industry, instead of exporting raw materials and reimporting them at seven times the export value? When are we going to see a decentralisation program? The Government has betrayed the people of country New South Wales and while the Premier has given these assurances - which have been accepted in good faith; country people generally accept people in good faith - his Ministers have savaged the country in a way never seen before.

We have seen the loss of housing funding; the sell-off of the land bank of the Department of Housing; the closure of the forest industry; the reduction in water entitlements - entitlements that are vital to inland irrigation and industry; the ignoring of the impact of the Wik decision, especially in the Western Division; the reduction in road funding; the closure of educational administration; the mergers in electricity distribution; the mergers in the Department of Land and the Department of Water Conservation; and the loss of jobs in virtually every government department located in the country. In addition, we have lost faith in the police restructure, which is also a threat to jobs in country areas. The Government has abandoned the night train services through the Hunter, which had operated for only 12 months. The Address-in-Reply gives us the opportunity to give a mid-term report card to the Carr Government, and the result is an emphatic double-F, with no chance for a post-examination.

Mr PRICE (Waratah) [11.40 a.m.]: What an interesting dissertation by the Deputy Leader of the National Party! But what a pity he did not tell us how to unravel the State and Federal implications of many of his statements. He should recall the various changes made by the former Government that had to be corrected by the Carr Government.

Mr Scully: It spent $50 million on Luna Park.

Mr PRICE: As the Minister for Roads just said, one has only to remember Luna Park. I commend the Government for its many initiatives and for the program presented by the Governor in his Speech. It was a pleasure to hear about the past initiatives of the Government and its plans for the future. At the moment the major problem is Federal funding. We have only to look at the various areas in which the Federal Government has cut back funding for the States, and particularly New South Wales.

I will speak briefly about the education portfolio, which in the last two budgets has received increased funding. This Government has been confronted with a Federal Government policy that has devalued public education. What astounds me is the attitude of the Federal Minister for Schools, Dr Kemp, to the transfer of per capita funding from public sector education to private sector education. As I have connections with private schools I support the balanced distribution of education that we currently enjoy in this State. But this Federal Government’s reduction in funding and its move away from a fair and equitable distribution for public sector education is foreign to me and to the people I represent.

Public schools have a number of disadvantages. They cannot expel students at random. They cannot decide to dismiss a student because of an inability to pay fees. If a student is expelled from a private school for what might be considered a relatively minor misdemeanour - as happens from time to time - where does he or she finish up? The law requires that everyone should have an education. Children expelled from private schools finish up in the public school system, as do children who, sadly, fall within the special school category. Many disabled and handicapped children who are not eligible for admission to a private school have to rely on the public education system. A safety net should be provided.

Page 218

The transferring of funds from one system to another, no matter how small it may seem at the moment, will increase. That means that funding for special schools and the implementation of the McGraw report will become more and more difficult. Training facilities available at our tertiary institutions will be reduced. It will be extremely difficult for teachers to carry out their hard task, which will become less attractive over time. On Monday I was pleased to open extensions to the swimming pool complex at Cameron Park Special School. That school has 31 students, 15 full-time and part-time teachers and about 30 volunteers. The children at that school are profoundly disabled, both mentally and physically. It is quite remarkable to see how that school works and to witness the dedication of the teachers and the volunteers. It is a sober sight to anyone who has children who are not physically or mentally handicapped. Honourable members should regard themselves as extremely fortunate if their children are not physically or mentally handicapped.

Nevertheless, society accepts children such as those; it looks after them and provides the best education for them to enable them to get the maximum benefit from life. This problem, which will not go away, must be addressed. The children attending Cameron Park Special School cannot be mainstreamed; they rely heavily on the support of the Department of Community Services for the provision of physiotherapists and other assistance. Hunter Orthopaedic School, in my electorate, is operating in association with the Hunter Area Health Service. The children attending that school, who have profound physical disabilities but still have their mental faculties, are being assisted to enable them to live full lives. Fortunately, some of those children are able to be mainstreamed, but those suffering muscular dystrophy rarely live past the age of 20.

Any attack on public education is an attack on these children and their families. No administration should refuse point blank to recognise the difficulties being experienced by these children, who are poor in terms of physical ability. More assistance should be offered than has been offered to date. The Federal Government’s funding cuts are a disgrace. They have impacted on this Government and it cannot cope with these problems. I hope that the Federal Government takes this matter on board and corrects these problems as soon as possible. Dr Kemp’s recent statement relating to literacy was attacked by three conservative State governments and by the New South Wales Minister for Education. Dr Kemp said that if literacy did not improve he would reduce the special literacy fund. That is like appointing elite sportspersons to positions at the Institute of Sport and saying, "If you do not win a gold medal the first time around I will not only throw you out but also close down half the institution." Is that compassionate support for people who need assistance in our community?

The Federal Government has no understanding of the difficult circumstances people are experiencing. It is about time that some of our Federal Ministers wandered through my electorate and other-inner city electorates to see how difficult it is for families to survive and to provide any sort of additional education for themselves and their families. The Federal Government has to face up to its educational responsibilities. We should not worry too much about the private sector. From what I have seen, most private schools are doing pretty well. However, we should take account of the rest of the population who are severely disadvantaged at this time - a situation which can only get worse. In the health area much criticism has been made of the waiting times in our hospitals, even though there has been a $1 billion increase in health funding in the last two State budgets. That should be compared to the record of the previous Government.

We will never have enough money for health. What is the Federal Government doing to assist us? What is the Federal Government doing in relation to private health funds? Last night Dr Wooldridge told us that the Federal Government had approved a 15 per cent increase in private health fund fees. Those naughty private health funds have done it again! In spite of all the chest thumping the fees are going up in excess of any income tax concessions that the Federal Government will allow next year for those in private funds. This whole thing has become a farce, and more people will drop out of the system, because not a lot of people in Australia earn more than $70,000 a year. The Federal Government has approved that funding increase and has placed more pressure on the public system, but it refuses to increase funding for the existing public health system to cater for those who wish to opt out of private health insurance and look to the public system for health maintenance in the future.

The Federal Government’s last budget removed its $34 million contribution towards dental health funding in this State. New South Wales or any other State in Australia cannot fill that gap, and the community still has to come to terms with that disaster. The man in the street does not necessarily understand the difference between State and Federal funding, but he knows that State hospitals deliver the services that he requires. It is appalling that the Federal Ministry for Health, in its cost-cutting
Page 219
exercise, has sentenced the poor and the elderly in our community to no reasonable dental care.

I turn to some other aspects of how our State budget is affected by the relationship between the State and Federal governments. For example, the State budget provided $10 million upfront for the Hunter Advantage Fund, which affects both your electorate, Mr Acting-Speaker, and my electorate. We are still waiting for the Federal Government to provide matching funds. A few hundred thousand dollars were spread around, but I do not see any matching $10 million anywhere at this time. It seems that BHP will conclude its steel making within the next two years, so more than 2,000 extra people will be out of work. Those jobs will disappear forever. Not only will the existing holders of the jobs be out of work, but the jobs will not be available to those who follow.

I appeal to the Federal Government to be more realistic in the way it supports the Hunter. It is all very well to say that the Hunter has some defence contracts. However, the bulk of those defence contracts were entered into under the former Labor Federal administration. No extension of that program has occurred under the present Government. In fact, the ANZAC frigate contract for modules for the fourth vessel was almost lost. Fortunately, Forjacs Engineering has been able to take over the old Submarine Corporation’s slipway at Hexham, which was formerly the Carrington slipway operation, and may re-establish a form of shipbuilding in that area. But that company will need support, from not only the State Government but the Federal Government - in fact, principally from the Federal Government.

At the moment the company is surviving on private subcontracts. If shipbuilding is to return to the Hunter in any meaningful way, apart from the minehunter program at Carrington, the Hexham project will need support and it will need the opportunity to quote on vessels of a reasonable size that can service the Australian community and perhaps the export market as well. Page 8 of the Governor’s Speech referred to road programs in provincial and non-metropolitan New South Wales. This morning I received a facsimile, directed through one of the radio stations, from Senator Tierney, who is one of the high-spending travellers of the Federal Government.

Mr O’Farrell: A great representative of the Hunter.

Mr PRICE: Yes, absolutely. Senator Tierney is a wonderful person who can spend it all before he has even got it. I do not blame Senator Tierney for doing his Minister’s bidding this morning, but honourable members may be surprised to learn that they have opened the flyover from John Renshaw Drive onto the New England Highway. It is not finished; it will not be finished until December, but there are two strips of tar. Poor old John has lifted up the barrier and moved it to one side and told the ABC that there will be no other official opening. Well, they did not advise me. I guess we did not pay for it, although we constructed it and we designed it. The Keating Government funded it. They did not even bother to advise the local Federal member. I find that very interesting; it is wonderful public relations. Up until now we have always had a bipartisan relationship in that part of the world, but the Federal Government is not interested in bipartisan approaches on anything. That is a fairly large project, with about $11 million of Federal money and about $1.5 million of State money.

In fact, that project is the first State highway to have soundproofing provided by a State government, following the change of policy of the present Government. The former Government did not recognise the problem, but the present Government does, and has paid for it; but the Federal Government has opened the road even before it has been finished. It does not matter about punishing the natives; let us just make a quick grab. But that is okay, because I suspect that there will be one or two other grabs made by other nearby members who can see certain advantages in that. Again, it is a worry for the constituents to do that sort of thing suddenly, overnight, with no-one knowing about it. It will cause some disruption in the local area, and it will not necessarily prove to be quiet for Senator Tierney or his team, because if the noise readings are of the levels that we expect, there will be a massive outcry from the people who live alongside the road. It is a worry to them, and it is an issue on which we can get some additional mileage, courtesy of the Federal Government.

Public housing in my electorate has slowed dramatically simply because the Federal Government, again, has withdrawn $31 million. The Federal Government is trying to transfer the provision of public housing to private entrepreneurs. That did not work before, so why will it work this time? Meanwhile, a significant number of people are not able to look after themselves and are being left on the scrap heap, to sleep in parks, on beaches or in hostels. If this is a caring Federal Government assisting the States, it has the strangest way of showing it. Given the recent High Court decisions on franchise fees, which cost this State $112 million directly, and on the liquor licence refund of $130 million following the breakdown in the transitional
Page 220
arrangements between State and Federal governments, one has to wonder what is really happening.

A number of aspects of the Governor’s Speech demonstrate progress in New South Wales, not the least of which are the environmental protections proposed for the State, particularly with waste disposal. Those arrangements are now coming into play, committees have been formed to ensure that a 60 per cent reduction in waste is achieved by the turn of the century, and it is amazing how well the community has responded to the recycling opportunities that are now available. There has also been legislation to provide for air and water pollution, and to expand the cover for endangered species. The flora and fauna of this State need protection. We need development, but it must proceed in a practical and sane manner and with sensitivity. I believe that the Government’s program for the future is exciting and will provide benefits. Certainly money is a problem; there is no doubt that there will be further negotiation with the Federal Government as a result of the problems created by the Federal budget cutbacks. The community recognises that, and this Government recognises it.

Direct Commonwealth funding has been cut by $529 million this financial year, and local government funding alone has been reduced by $11 million; but a $540 million cutback does not seem to rate at all. The Opposition has been seeking to interject, and that indicates its concern with its colleagues in the Federal Government. The Opposition does not have the ability to control that; its members cannot control themselves. It is extremely interesting to watch the play at the moment. What will the Federal Government do with all its extra employees? How will it shed them? How will it look after them? I assure honourable members that it will not look after them by cutting back on State administration and State budget figures generally. If all the States do not receive support from the Federal Government in a sensible measure within a short period of time, there will be incredible problems with our health and education systems. I do not know how other States will handle that, but I know that this State will do its very best to ensure that every dollar gained will be spent wisely for the benefit of the people of New South Wales.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mrs Harrison.

Suspension of standing and sessional orders, by leave, agreed to.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.59 a.m.]: I move:

That unless otherwise ordered:

(1) The House shall meet during the Spring sittings as follows:

Tuesday 23 September 1997 2.15 p.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Wednesday 24 September 1997 10.00 a.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Thursday 25 September 1997 10.00 a.m. - until the conclusion of Private Members’ Statements

Tuesday 14 October 1997 2.15 p.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Wednesday 15 October 1997 10.00 a.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Thursday 16 October 1997 10.00 a.m. - until the conclusion of Private Members’ Statements

Tuesday 21 October 1997 2.15 p.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Wednesday 22 October 1997 10.00 a.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Thursday 23 October 1997 10.00 a.m. - until the conclusion of Private Members’ Statements

Tuesday 11 November 1997 2.15 p.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Wednesday 12 November 1997 10.00 a.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Thursday 13 November 1997 10.00 a.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Friday 14 November 1997 10.00 a.m. - until the conclusion of Private Members’ Statements

Tuesday 18 November 1997 2.15 p.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Wednesday 19 November 1997 10.00 a.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Thursday 20 November 1997 10.00 a.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Friday 21 November 1997 10.00 a.m. - until the conclusion of Private Members’ Statements

Tuesday 25 November 1997 2.15 p.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Wednesday 26 November 1997 10.00 a.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Thursday 27 November 1997 10.00 a.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Friday 28 November 1997 10.00 a.m. - until the conclusion of Private Members’ Statements

Tuesday 2 December 1997 2.15 p.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Wednesday 3 December 1997 10.00 a.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Thursday 4 December 1997 10.00 a.m. - until the conclusion of Private Members’ Statements

(2) (a) At 10.30 p.m. the business then before the House or Committee shall be interrupted and fixed by the Speaker as an Order of the Day for tomorrow and the Minister shall forthwith move "That this House do now adjourn".

(b) If at the time of interruption a division is in progress, the division shall be completed and the result announced.

(c) Upon the conclusion of any item of business at or after 10.15 p.m. and before 10.30 p.m. a Minister shall forthwith move "That this House do now adjourn".

(d) A motion of the adjournment of the House may be moved by a Minister at an earlier hour.

Page 221

(3) A Minister may move, at any time without leave, a motion without notice that the House continue to sit beyond the time specified for the adjournment with the question being determined without amendment or debate.

I ask honourable members to note that Friday 14 November, Friday 21 November, and Friday 28 November have been set down as sitting days. As a result of legislation arising from the recommendations of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service it will be necessary for the House to sit on those days to enable proper debate and for those bills to be returned from the upper House. The Government wants those bills to proceed but does not wish to rush the legislation through Parliament without proper debate. Since the Carr Government has been in office Parliament has sat for more days and hours than at any time during the term of the former coalition Government. No doubt the Opposition will jump up and down -

Mr O’Farrell: Are you including the upper House in this?

Mr WHELAN: How could one possibly include the upper House when it sits from 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.? I am serious about the sitting days. It annoys me that the honourable member for Manly says there is no consultation. Every Tuesday at 1 o’clock a Minister goes through every bill and gives an explanation of the legislation to all Independents in this House and crossbench members of the upper House. That is a hands-on approach and provides direct access to a Minister or the person drafting the bill. Obviously that means nothing. The House sits long hours, though traditionally oppositions say it does not sit long enough. All 99 members of this Chamber heave a great sigh of relief when they get out of here because, like it or not, the Parliament works long hours. Members have duties other than their duties in this Chamber and the decisions they have to make on the legislative program.

I would like Parliament to rise at about 10.00 p.m. each sitting night. However occasions may arise on a Tuesday or a Wednesday night when Parliament will sit an extra hour if that extra time provides a logical means to conclude debate. That would not cause too much inconvenience to members and would enable them to deal with the legislative proposals before the House. Given the daily program - with question time, urgency motions, private members’ statements and the use by the Opposition of dissent motions - there is little opportunity for the Government to deal with its legislative program, and we acknowledge that. The only opportunity for the Government to deal with those matters is on Wednesday mornings or from 7.30 p.m. At present the House is debating the Address-in-Reply. That gives Opposition members the opportunity to take a wide sweep at the Government. It gives Government members the opportunity to rightfully praise the Government for the good work it has done throughout New South Wales.

The Government can manage its program with the proposed sitting days. As I said earlier, this Government has sat for more days and hours than the former Government, and it has done so without the necessity to gag debate. Yesterday the House debated the use of the gag. It is a fact of life that governments have historically gagged debates and have applied the guillotine in order to bring a program to a conclusion. That will continue. It will not be used randomly; it will be used sparingly. The Government will use the gag and the guillotine when its legislative program is such that there is no choice available to the Government, and when the goodwill of the Opposition towards the Government’s legislative program ceases.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [12.05 p.m.]: At the beginning of this year the Government circulated a program of sitting days, which was adopted by the House, for the budget and spring sessions of the Parliament. As a result of prorogation that resolution is now invalid. The Government has now put before the House a new set of dates. Honourable members have heard the somewhat honeyed words of the Leader of the House in presenting the new list of dates. However, he failed to inform the House that he has eliminated six sitting days from the program, namely, the weeks of 28, 29 and 30 October and 9, 10 and 11 December.

Essentially the Leader of the House spoke of the need for the Government to be able to present its program to Parliament. That is undenied. It is also undeniable that the program needs to be dealt with, although the use of the guillotine and gag would tend to militate against that. However, he ignored the fact that members have the right to present matters for consideration by the Parliament. This is done by private members’ bills and general notices of motions. Already the notice paper contains 10 private members’ bills awaiting submission, 14 bills awaiting further second reading debate and 80 notices for consideration, and all of this to be dealt with in the limited number of days left in the spring sittings.

Mr Whelan: Only because I agreed to put 79 on.

Page 222

Mr HARTCHER: He is all heart! All those matters need to be dealt with in the limited number of days left for the spring sitting. Accordingly, there is little time available to debate these motions, especially if towards the end of the sitting the Government insists upon Government business being dealt with on Thursdays normally allocated for private members’ days. The Opposition is not confident that private members’ rights will be respected and protected. Accordingly, I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by:

(a) omitting the dates -

Friday 14 November 1997
Friday 21 November 1997
Friday 28 November 1997

(b) inserting the dates -

Tuesday 28 October 1997 2.15 p.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Wednesday 29 October 1997 10.00 a.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Thursday 30 October 1997 10.00 a.m. - until the conclusion of Private Members’ Statements

Tuesday 9 December 1997 2.15 p.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Wednesday 10 December 1997 10.00 a.m. - 10.30 p.m.
Thursday 11 December 1997 10.00 a.m. - until the conclusion of Private Members’ Statements

These dates were proposed by the Government and adopted by Parliament. Without telling anyone, the Leader of the House has removed those approved dates from the sitting program. The Opposition believes there should be a set program so that Government business and private members’ business can be properly debated. If the Government runs out of things to do, it can acknowledge that by adjourning the House early. The Government does not have a great program to present to the House. The Governor’s Speech, delivered on Tuesday, was an indication of that; it was short and skimpy and contained little detail, because there is very little that the Government wants to do for the people.

The main issues that the Government is now concerned about, which occupy the pages of the newspapers and the air time of radio and television stations - issues like TAB privatisation and electricity privatisation - were not mentioned in the Governor’s Speech, yet both these issues will require major legislation to come before the Parliament. No time is allocated by the Leader of the House for the debate of those extraordinarily important items. Is the Government trying to send a signal that it has already given up on the TAB privatisation or electricity privatisation?

Is the white flag being waved from the Premier’s office on the eighth floor? Are the Treasurer and Premier no longer proceeding with those major items of Government initiatives and parliamentary legislation? We do not know: there is dead silence. The Minister for Police does not interject. The honourable member for The Entrance, who is always ready to defend his constituents, does not interject. If ever a man were ready to defend his constituents, it is the honourable member for The Entrance. He is a great supporter of the club movement; he stands up for the clubs and they love him. He is popular in club land, although he has not been inside a registered club for three months.

The honourable member for The Entrance has 1,100 families of power workers in his electorate and has not had one word of his about electricity privatisation reported in the Central Coast Express Advocate for three months. I am sure he keeps churning out press releases and that the editor of the Central Coast Express Advocate keeps spiking them. It is terrible that the honourable member for The Entrance is ignored by the media when he speaks out on these important issues.

[Interruption]

He provokes me by his very presence in the Chamber. The Opposition is keen to have these issues debated. The Leader of the House does not want them debated; he has not allocated time for them. If he will guarantee that these 100 motions, eight new bills, and 13 bills at their second reading stage will be debated in the spring session, the Opposition will agree to his program. But the Leader of the House will not give that guarantee. We know from his record - and I hope he is not insulted by this comment - that when the time comes he will suspend standing orders and use private members’ Thursdays for Government business. He will stand piously at the rostrum and say that the Government must have time to get its program through.

The Opposition believes in the charter of reform, as I said last night. Opposition members believe in the rights of private members. We believe that Parliament should have enough time, in the interests of the taxpayers and citizens of this State, to debate the important matters which should be put before it, including electricity privatisation, the TAB privatisation and the lousy performance of this Government. If an election were held now, only 35 per cent of the electorate would vote for this Government - that would cause a flurry on the central coast and throughout New South Wales. The
Page 223
Opposition believes that these issues need to be properly addressed. We do not accept the skimpy program of a few days that the Government has allocated.

[Debate interrupted.]

Mr SPEAKER: I draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of the Ambassador for the United Arab Emirates, His Excellency Khalifa AlFalasi. I welcome you to this, the most prestigious Parliament in Australia.

[Debate resumed.]

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [12.15 p.m.]: I support the honourable member for Gosford and all true democrats in this House. This is the people’s Parliament. Each of us is here to represent the people of our electorates. It is not a matter of coming in here like some worker on an assembly line on which one simply raises one’s hand or marches across the factory floor in order to get a certain result.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [12.16 p.m.]: I move:

That the question be now put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Armstrong Mr O’Farrell
Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Brogden Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Photios
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Downy Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Ms Ficarra Ms Seaton
Mr Fraser Mrs Skinner
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr J. H. Turner
Mr Kinross Mr R. W. Turner
Dr Macdonald Mr Windsor
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr Oakeshott Mr Kerr
Mr Carr Mr Blackmore
Mr Hunter Mr Collins
Mr Markham Mr Glachan
Mr Nagle Mr MacCarthy
Mr Rumble Mr O’Doherty
Mr Sullivan Mr Small

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr O’Farrell
Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke
Mr Brogden Mr Phillips
Mr Chappell Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Ms Seaton
Ms Ficarra Mrs Skinner
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr J. H. Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Dr Macdonald
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr Oakeshott Mr Kerr
Page 224
Ms Allan Mr McManus
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Neilly
Mr Clough Ms Nori
Mr Crittenden Mr E. T. Page
Mr Debus Mr Price
Mr Face Dr Refshauge
Mr Gaudry Mr Rogan
Mrs Grusovin Mr Scully
Ms Hall Mr Shedden
Mr Harrison Mr Stewart
Ms Harrison Mr Tripodi
Mr Iemma Mr Watkins
Mr Knight Mr Whelan
Mr Knowles Mr Woods
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po’ Tellers,
Mr Lynch Mr Beckroge
Mr McBride Mr Thompson

Mr Collins Mr Carr
Mr Glachan Mr Hunter
Mr MacCarthy Mr Markham
Mr O’Doherty Mr Nagle
Mr Rumble Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Sullivan Mr Small

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): I take the opportunity to note the attendance in the gallery of students from Bedgerabong Public School in the electorate of Lachlan. I welcome you to the Parliament.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr O’FARRELL (Northcott) [12.36 p.m.]: A Governor’s Speech is meant to set out the Government’s key legislative and policy proposals for the current session of Parliament. One wonders why it took this Government 2½ years to have the Governor deliver an opening Speech. For many of us the reason lies in something that is not mentioned in the Governor’s Speech, but which is anticipated by most sections of New South Wales, and that is, debate over the privatisation of the State’s electricity assets. A review of yesterday’s media, Tuesday’s electronic media and the media leading up to the opening of Parliament on Tuesday, clearly reveals the hand of the Premier seeking to divert attention from his problems over electricity privatisation. It speaks volumes for the integrity of the Premier that he is prepared to traduce the reputation of Parliament in the interests of his political career.

Other than his mother being an O’Farrell, I do not have much in common with the honourable member for Bathurst. In my time in this place I have found him to be an honourable, honest man, who is true to his beliefs. They are not my beliefs, but they are his beliefs and he holds them firmly. As someone who strongly supports the two-party system, I believe all parties would be strengthened by having men and women represent them who hold their beliefs as strongly as does the honourable member for Bathurst. It speaks volumes for the state of the Labor Party in this State and for the state of leadership this Government provides for this State that the honourable member for Bathurst, who is probably the most loyal Labor supporter on that side of politics, during this debate had to make the criticism he was forced to make of this Government. All members on that side of the Parliament should hang their heads in shame. On Tuesday the Governor said:

The Government is determined to meet fully its core responsibilities for the State’s health, education, transport and police services.

Regrettably, within my electorate of Northcott nothing could be further from the truth. In each of those areas - health, education, transport and police - the Government fails to meet its responsibilities. Hornsby hospital, a public hospital, has been subject to continuing cutbacks since this Government came to office. Like many hospitals around the State its waiting lists today are much greater than they were when Labor came to office. Currently 390 people are on the waiting lists for Hornsby hospital - 100 more than when the Labor Party came to office on a promise to halve waiting lists. Hornsby has a very strong and vibrant branch of the Labor Party. Its members are still waiting for this Labor Government to honour its promise to halve hospital waiting lists.

The Hornsby accident and emergency service is no longer able to operate 24 hours a day because of cutbacks this Government is forcing on its administration; three successive years of Government cutbacks. The Northern Sydney Area Health Service slated the closure of Hornsby hospital at a time when Neringah private hospital - a hospital that is leased from the State - was slated for closure. The good news is that following a deal,
Page 225
following some political heat, Neringah managed to stay open, on the basis that some beds would be transferred from that hospital to Hornsby hospital. Honourable members will not be surprised to learn that those beds have not eventuated at Hornsby hospital under this Government.

The story is similar with respect to education in my electorate. There are a number of great public schools in my electorate, including five high schools, three of which - Cheltenham Girls High School, which has 1,272 students; Pennant Hills High School, which has 1,337 students; and Cherrybrook Technology High School, which has 1,314 students - suffer a plague that is common in many electorates, that is, demountable classrooms. Cheltenham Girls High School has 13 demountables, Pennant Hills High School has eight demountables, and Cherrybrook Technology High School has 19 demountables. Recently I placed a question on notice asking the Minister for Education and Training what action is being taken to replace the demountables. Surprise, surprise, his answer was: none.

The Minister said that demographic trends will take care of the problems at Cherrybrook Technology High School and Pennant Hills High School. I have news for the Minister: the demographics are heading in the opposite direction. He said that there are currently no plans to replace demountable classrooms at Cheltenham Girls High School. The Government cannot rely on a shonky argument about demographic trends; they are not heading in the right direction in Cheltenham. This Government has made a blatant decision not to replace the 13 demountables that plague that high school.

When the Government asked the Governor to talk about it being prepared to meet fully its core responsibilities for the State’s education services, the electors of Northcott laughed. Yesterday I listened to the Minister for Education and Training talk about computers in schools. Earlier this year when computers were distributed in my electorate, the schools in which the parents and citizens associations had actively raised funds to provide computers were penalised. A school that had not set money aside for computers got all the computers it wanted; schools that had done the hard yards - had held fireworks nights, sausage sizzles at the local hardware store, et cetera - and raised money to put computers in classrooms were penalised. That is not a fair and equitable education system; that is not meeting the core responsibilities of the State’s education system.

I refer to the higher school certificate review. Professor Barry McGaw said at page 9 of his review that the higher school certificate is to provide a context within which schools have the opportunity to foster students’ physical and spiritual development. One of the Government’s proposals in relation to HSC reform is to remove one unit studies in religion from the curricula. There has been a lot of debate about one unit general studies - there has been some applause in response to the announcement of its abolition - but there has been no debate about the abolition of one unit studies in religion. Professor McGaw said that the higher school certificate and schools generally - public and private, church and non-church - should provide some spiritual development for their students.

I believe that this subject should be retained for two reasons: it provides some relief from the sectarianism that we have seen in this State and other States in past years; it breaks down some of the misconceptions about religion - be it a Christian religion or a non-Christian religion, be it my religion or someone else’s religion. This one-unit course has also meant that students can get credit for work that is mandatory in church schools, but that is optional - and popular - in State schools. The Minister for Education and Training is not meeting his core responsibility when he presides over proposals to eliminate one-unit studies in religion from the HSC.

The Government has failed to meet its core responsibilities in relation to transport in the electorate of Northcott. The honourable member for The Entrance has some knowledge of this matter. On an almost daily basis I receive letters from him, addressed "Dear Colleague", telling me why the RTA will not provide one thing or another. In May the M2 motorway opened, a wonderful piece of engineering, which is providing great travelling times to people in my electorate and further west - it extends from Blacktown to the city. However, the opening of the M2 has resulted in some secondary traffic issues in surrounding suburbs. Beecroft and Cheltenham residents have been battling for some time to get the RTA to address some of the issues. For example, traffic is speeding down Beecroft Road - the speed limit is 60 kilometres an hour, but the average speed is 72 kilometres an hour, according to local government and RTA testing. However, it has not been possible to get increased enforcement.

Vehicles that should be accessing the M2 via the Pennant Hills Road interchange are cutting
Page 226
through Beecroft and Cheltenham. The RTA and the local council will not address the issue. The Government will not seriously address the inequity of the M2 toll at Eastwood. If one joins the M2 at Pennant Hills Road, heading towards Blacktown, one pays $1.50 to the end of the line, which is further than if one travels eastbound from Pennant Hills Road to the city. However, people who travel from Pennant Hills Road to the city pay $2.50. To achieve increased usage of the M2, a $1.50 toll should apply to eastbound traffic from the Pennant Hills Road interchange. However, the Government will not respond to the suggestion.

People in Beecroft and Cheltenham are suffering from noise pollution from the M2, despite the noise barriers. The RTA will not reveal to residents where it is doing its noise testing. Yesterday I put a question on notice asking the Minister for Roads to indicate where noise testing is taking place. These are simple issues that go to how people are able to live their lives in suburbs - whether in my electorate, the Minister’s electorate, or the electorate of the honourable member for The Entrance. People should be able to bring up their children and live with some degree of satisfaction; they should not be troubled by these sorts of issues.

I have seen the recent proposals of the State Rail chief, David Hill, to remove station staff, except during the morning peak period, from stations in my electorate. There are 10 railway stations in my electorate. On the northern line, I have stations at Cheltenham, Beecroft, Thornleigh and Normanhurst; on the North Shore line, I have stations at Waitara, Warrawee, Wahroonga and Turramurra. I worked for a former Minister for transport who, when the State Rail Authority put these suggestions forward and they were floated in the media, was subjected to an enormous attack by the current Minister for Transport. He said that taking staff off stations would be unsafe. If it was unsafe six years ago, why is it safe today? If people want to engage in insurance fraud, they should park their cars at Thornleigh railway station - 10 cars a day go missing. I regret that, although it is in my electorate, it is not a nice place. After 9.00 a.m. there will be no station staff at Thornleigh - and I suspect that more than 10 cars will be stolen each day.

Three nursing homes are located in Kitchener Road, Cherrybrook. More than 200 aged residents bought into their nursing home, retirement village or aged hostel knowing that a public bus service would get them to Pennant Hills railway station. When the Minister for Transport started fiddling around with subsidies to bus companies, that service was the first to go. Those people, who are in their seventies, eighties and nineties, now have to cross a four-lane road. The place where they cross is at the bottom of a hill. Once they have rounded a bend and they wish to go to Pennant Hills railway station or Pennant Hills shopping district they are confronted by traffic travelling at anywhere between 70 and 80 kilometres an hour. Despite constant pleas made to the Minister for Transport, the Government will not resume that bus service. On Tuesday the Governor said that the Government was determined to meet fully its core responsibilities for transport. What could be more of a core responsibility than enabling elderly residents at retirement villages, nursing homes and aged hostels to get to a shopping centre or railway station to visit their doctors or go to hospitals such as Westmead or Hornsby. This Government does not care. It certainly does not care about my part of Sydney.

I will not go on at length about policing. Pennant Hills police patrol, like patrols in many areas in this State, has been downgraded to a shopfront. Despite increasing crime rates this Government is not committed to providing additional beat police. In fact, it is rare to see police on the beat. The great thing about Pennant Hills - a middle-class area, about which I do not apologise - is that it is an area in which residents have been strongly supportive of policing efforts. For more than six years residents have provided a covert vehicle, an unmarked car funded by the community, to assist the Pennant Hills police patrol in its local fight against crime. Within a month of the reorganisation occurring the new command, which is centred at Eastwood, said, "We do not want your help. We do not want your car." The police department is not that well-funded that it can afford to turn its back on that sort of offer. No organisation, be it the police force or a business, should engage in that sort of bad public relations.

This State has a large police force, one of the largest police services in the world. Despite its size, it is apparent that it cannot do its work without the support of the citizenry. Turning its back on a covert vehicle is not the way to attract support from the community. As I look around the Northcott electorate it is obvious to me that this Government is not determined to fully meet its core responsibilities for health, education, transport and police services. Yesterday the Legislative Assembly’s Votes and Proceedings recorded the Governor as stating in his Speech:

The programs and proposals I have outlined on behalf of the Government depend for their success on sustaining the sound management of the State’s finances.

Page 227

I cannot recall that statement being made. I have a recollection of another statement being made which, when it was delivered, invited a certain degree of hilarity. As the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the National Party have said, this State’s finances are in an appalling mess. On 5 September the Treasurer stated in a publicly released document that all was well with this State’s finances. Yesterday’s media report had the Treasurer informing caucus:

The New South Wales Budget position has deteriorated dramatically since the Budget on May 6, 1997.

[Extension of time agreed to.]

The Treasurer, 13 days after publicly releasing budget figures for 30 June, informed caucus - not the public or the stakeholders in this State - that the 1997-98 budget forecast had been revised downwards from a surplus of $27 million to a deficit of $324 million. In each of the three budgets delivered by Treasurer Egan there has been an indication that tax receipts have been $1 billion above the budget forecast, which represents a $3 billion increase in tax receipts over the past three years. Government members have referred to cutbacks imposed by the Federal Government - imposed for good reason because of the poor economic performance of the former Labor Government. Before the last Federal election it was clearly indicated that there would be some economic rationalisation if the Howard Government was elected.

Government members have referred to cutbacks of $34 million here and $27 million there. I ask one question: what have the Treasurer and the Premier done with the $1 billion in additional tax receipts that they received in every budget that has been delivered? I have gone through the budget papers and cannot find a new program. I have referred today to a $3 billion increase over three budgets, which is twice the budget of the Police Service. That is more than the amount that will be spent on roads across the State this year. I cannot find an equivalent new program on which that money might be spent. Along with the Leader of the Opposition, I wonder where the money has gone.

I confess that I do not dislike the Treasurer but I am not prepared to stand by and let him do to the State what he did to the Cronulla workingmen’s club. I refer those honourable members who do not know the story about the Cronulla Labor and Workingmen’s Club to the many speeches made by the honourable member for Cronulla since his election 13 years ago. After he became president of the Cronulla Labor and Workingmen’s Club it was not long until that club ceased to exist. Despite this State’s parlous fiscal situation there is not a word in the Governor’s opening Speech about the single greatest challenge confronting this State - the future of State revenue raising in the wake of the High Court’s decision in Ha and Hammond - actions brought on by this State’s Treasurer. Other State Treasurers urged that the principle should not be tested in the High Court, but gung-ho Michael said, "We have to have an answer." In politics, as in the law, one should not ask a question if one does not know the answer.

Treasurer Egan was not satisfied. Ha and Hammond have resulted in the States being prevented from raising revenue through levying business licence fees on alcohol, tobacco and petrol. A decision which will cost the States $5 billion should have been mentioned by the Governor in his opening Speech. I thought it might have been a matter about which this Government was doing some work. I thought it might have been something in respect of which this Government would take the people of New South Wales into its confidence. It was not deemed worth a mention in the Governor’s Speech. The issue that arises from that is: what measures can New South Wales expect to be taken to replace those fees in future?

Gareth Evans, the Federal shadow treasurer, a man known for his economic expertise, suggested that the States should simply increase payroll taxes, introduce service taxes, reintroduce property and inheritance taxes and impose an additional surcharge on income tax. Treasurer Egan must come clean with the citizens of New South Wales. This Government must be prepared to give some indication of what it is intending to do to help replace the fees that have been struck down by the decision in Ha and Hammond. Unless that occurs people in this State will be fearful of those sorts of taxes being introduced. It does not take a genius to start to whip up some public concern about those sorts of issues. If I were in government I would be encouraging those people to give us some answers.

The last issue I wish to raise is the final report of the police royal commission’s investigation into paedophilia in New South Wales. This State owes Justice Wood a debt of gratitude for his work on this issue and his earlier work on police corruption. The past three years cannot have been easy for Justice Wood and his family. He certainly deserves the break that he is now taking. If the bushfires have been controlled he should currently be trekking between Machu Picchu and Lima in Peru. I was there recently with the Chairman of the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
Page 228
Like most people, I have been horrified at the evidence and revelations that that paedophilia inquiry uncovered.

Within a number of State agencies, some expressly concerned with the protection of children, there has been an abrogation of responsibility - this is not a political issue; it is a failure of all members of this House, past and present - to abused children and, in some cases, actual abuse has been occurring within the system. In his report Justice Wood addressed each and every area, including the Police Service, the Department of School Education, the Department of Community Services and the judiciary. While some believe he may not have gone far enough in naming names, he has actually done better: he has exposed the conditions that allowed paedophilia to flourish and he has proposed some solutions that hopefully may prevent it recurring.

Rather than seek to address the needs of the prurient, Justice Wood has actually addressed the needs of the abused and the potentially abused. I think it is a great pity that last evening the Hon. Franca Arena detracted from her achievement and that of the honourable member for Heffron in attaining the establishment of this inquiry by continuing to misuse parliamentary privilege and to cast unsubstantiated aspersions on members of this place, members of another place and members of the judiciary. No more serious allegation can be made about a person than to claim that that person is a sexual abuser of children. That is an allegation which, even if not substantiated, can ruin a public career. If Mrs Arena has evidence that any member of this Parliament or any member of the judiciary is a paedophile or a pederast, she has a duty to take that information to the appropriate authorities.

One of the strengths of this country is our judicial system. It is based on fairness, and it weighs up the evidence presented to reach a verdict. It is not enough for Mrs Arena to claim, as she did following the release of Justice Wood’s report, that the royal commission failed to act on her information, when she in fact failed to provide it with any corroborating evidence. As a member of this Parliament’s Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption, I was interested to read the report of the royal commission because of the committee’s discussions and arguments with the ICAC commissioner, Barry O’Keefe, about the file relating to the late Justice David Yeldham. Like others I was interested to learn whether Justice Yeldham had engaged in illegal activities. I was even more interested to learn whether the Special Branch had used its files to blackmail the judge when he was on the bench. Yet, when I read Justice Wood’s report I discovered that Mrs Arena’s disclosure of Justice Yeldham’s name last year actually prevented an undercover operation by the royal commission that may have answered that question. So, rather than Mrs Arena’s disclosures ensuring some definitive resolution of the matter, they in fact did the opposite. A man died, his reputation in tatters, and the most relevant issue to the public - whether he was coerced into illegal activity by this State’s Police Service - will never be resolved.

We can all peddle rumours in this place; we can all guarantee ourselves headlines. But unless we act in the public interest according to the law, we will actually achieve little in our careers. I dismiss Mrs Arena’s claims of last night. First, as the honourable member for Cronulla knows, the Leader of the Opposition gave a clear assurance to the Liberal Party in March that no deals would be done over the paedophilia inquiry, that the cards would fall where they fell: that if members of the Liberal Party were involved they would be exposed, presumably along the lines of the royal commission, that the Liberal Party would not agree to any political deal to stitch it up so that all parties in this place were protected. Second, I cannot imagine the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition doing a deal on anything at all.

I urge Mrs Arena to try to salvage her reputation and to act within the law. I urge her to put her evidence to the appropriate authorities and in that way achieve more than she has achieved to date. At times we can all become paranoid, at times we can all believe in conspiracies, but life is not that simple. I think Mrs Arena is certainly genuine in her attempts, but I think that she is afflicted by a sickness that causes her to blame others, to see conspiracies where they do not exist, and prevents her from seeing the damage she is doing to this State, to this institution, and to the institution of the judiciary.

Justice Wood made many recommendations in his report on paedophilia. I wish to comment on only one of those recommendations, and it is probably the one that I do not support. I am totally opposed to lowering the age of consent for homosexual sex. A few weeks ago Justice Fogarty of the Family Court said that whereas now the usual defence is, "Although the boy is only 16, he looked 18," if Justice Wood’s recommendation were accepted the defence would be, "Although he looked 16, he was only 14." That is a sobering comment from a person who regularly deals with such
Page 229
matters. It would be perverse if, as a result of a report on paedophilia, more people were exposed to sexual abuse.

I am confident that this Parliament will not approve a change in the age of consent, but I am less confident that activists will not seek to use antidiscrimination legislation to obtain the same end, and I urge colleagues who are vitally interested in this issue to remain vigilant. There are important issues facing this State and its citizens during this session of Parliament. I regret, however, that this Government is not providing the leadership expected or needed to deal with these issues. As evidenced by the opening speech provided by the Governor, the State is in for yet more of this Government’s ad hoc, media and faction-driven approach to policies and politics.

Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Harrison.

[Mr Speaker left the chair at 1.06 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [2.15 p.m.]: The report of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service following its paedophile inquiry constitutes the most thorough, authoritative and constructive of its type undertaken in the English speaking world. As will be clear from my statement yesterday, it provides the basis for a comprehensive and effective attack on this serious problem. It is disgraceful that a member of Parliament should seek to undermine the commission and destroy its effectiveness. That is what the honourable member in another place has attempted to do.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Yesterday I warned members not to interject. The Chair then had occasion to remove a member from the Chamber for the duration of question time. Members should refrain from interjecting.

Mr CARR: That can be the only consequence of her attempt to undermine the commission’s credibility through fantastic allegations of a cover-up. Nothing could be better or, rather, worse calculated to impede the real task - ridding the community as far as is humanly possible of this crime and, above all, protecting young children from all forms of abuse. What could be more calculated to persuade children that they would not be protected than the insinuation that the highest institutions in the land - the courts, the royal commission and both sides of the Parliament itself - were all in a conspiracy against them? Yet that is exactly what this member is trying to insinuate.

No amount of sympathy for the member’s anguish or attempt to understand the member’s motives can condone what she has done. The member has, of course, grossly abused parliamentary privilege. When the royal commission handed down its report, statements were made expressing disappointment that the report failed to name names. In fact, the report has plenty of names and a volume of the report that can be released after a current court case names other names. In fact, nothing in the report and the way the royal commission approached its job provides justification for what we have seen in Parliament. Once again I unreservedly support the royal commission and the royal commissioner in the way they approached their task. In a statement last night Franca Arena referred to "the cavalier fashion in which the commission has dismissed serious allegations which were made against judicial officers and members of Parliament". In its report the commission at 1.74 said:

Such assertions were totally without foundation, did not assist the Royal Commission in the discharge of its duties, and were potentially very harmful to those who were the subject of baseless rumour or innuendo. Particularly was this the case where the allegations were the product of malice, or where those who made the assertions were unprepared to provide the Commission with details or sources which could be tested, and could not be compelled to do so.

The commission made other references to this in connection with the Yeldham case. The member in another place claims that certain meetings took place between me and officers of my party, and between me and the Leader of the Opposition. Her method is indicated by the obliqueness of her allegations. She said:

. . . it is fair to assume that a meeting did indeed take place when the furore had died down.

"It is fair to assume"! What about proof? What about evidence? What about some hard facts? She said:

There was also another meeting which took place here at Parliament House late the following Sunday night between Bob Carr; the General Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, John Della Bosca; party president, Terry Sheahan; and other important figures in the ALP. Are these people going to deny the meeting took place?

Page 230

I had confirmation by security officers and others unable to talk about it publicly who could testify to it but are in fear of losing their jobs. I believe it was all to organise damage control.

In the period I have been Premier there has not been a Sunday night meeting between me and the Labor Party officers or anybody else at Parliament House. There just has not been such a meeting. There was no such meeting of party officers at any other time on a Sunday. There was no meeting with party officers about this matter on any other day of the week. There was no such meeting because there was no need for such a meeting.

Mr Collins: There was no meeting with me, either.

Mr CARR: As the Leader of the Opposition confirms, there was no meeting with him. I think there is a mutual suspicion that exists between my friend the Leader of the Opposition and me that would have precluded the sort of meeting that took place. In fact, I have racked my memory, but unless it was a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party about the Olympics in 1995, I do not think we have had a meeting. I am sure he is splendid company, and I can reveal to the House for the first time, I hope to his intense embarrassment, that when he won his Liberal Party preselection I and a mutual friend, John McCarthy, took him to a congratulatory lunch. In those days I was a journalist at the Bulletin and was looking for information about the Liberal Party. Justice Sheahan wrote the following letter to the Attorney General:

Dear Mr Attorney,

Accepting the constraints on my responding personally to published allegations involving me, I am writing to you to place on public record my categorical denial of ever attending any meetings, or having any discussions, with any person - let alone the Premier or the others apparently named - to secure any "cover up" at all of any alleged criminal or other improper behaviour by any person.

Mr Della Bosca has issued a similar statement, which is on the public record so I will not detain the House with it. There could hardly be a more serious allegation than this: an allegation that the Leader of Opposition and I, the Premier, conspired to subvert the royal commission. But there is a more serious allegation, and that is that not only did we conspire but the royal commissioner himself was part of this conspiracy. I reject this claim with contempt. The Leader of the Opposition is able to speak for himself in language that he chooses. The allegation has been made under parliamentary privilege. The matter cannot be allowed to rest with mere denials in this place. Such claims by a member of Parliament, however baseless, cannot be pushed aside. The public will require a more detailed response. I inform the House today that in view of the gravity of this situation the Government will establish a special commission of inquiry to inquire into and report on claims made by Mrs Arena of a criminal conspiracy to suppress names of individuals allegedly being investigated by the royal commission. In detail, the terms of reference are:

1. Claims made by Mrs Franca Arena to the effect that:

(i) a meeting took place between the Premier Bob Carr and the Leader of the Opposition Mr Peter Collins to plan the suppression of names of individuals allegedly being investigated by the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Service.

(ii) the Premier and Mr Justice Wood met and that "an agreement was reached to ensure that people in high places would not be named".

(iii) a meeting took place between Premier Bob Carr, John Della Bosca and Terry Sheahan at Parliament House to plan the suppression of names of individuals allegedly being investigated by the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Service.

2. Whether Mrs Arena had any evidence to support these claims which she made under parliamentary privilege.

The idea of the inquiry originated with the Leader of the Opposition this morning; I am happy to acknowledge that. The inquiry is to report to the Parliament by Tuesday, 14 October 1997. Discussions have been going on with the Opposition, which has been consulted about the terms of reference for the inquiry and the nature of the inquiry. There has been contact between the Cabinet Office and the Chief Justice, Murray Gleeson, to secure a senior judge to head the inquiry. There has been contact with the former royal commissioner, who is enjoying a welcome holiday in South America. He has consented to return to give evidence at the inquiry. So let there be a full inquiry into these allegations. But allegations that somehow I, the Leader of the Opposition and the royal commissioner are part of a criminal conspiracy are to be rejected, and rejected with contempt.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [2.28 p.m.]: I appreciate the opportunity on this occasion to be able to respond to a ministerial statement. I appreciate the brief notice given to me by the Premier a few minutes before the House resumed this afternoon. I cannot conceal my personal disgust at the claims made yesterday by Franca Arena in another place. I find her comments both deeply offensive and grossly defamatory. In my 16 years in politics I have never witnessed a greater
Page 231
abuse of parliamentary privilege than by Franca Arena yesterday. It demands action beyond mere censure. It demands the special inquiry that the Premier has just outlined that would impel Franca Arena once and for all to lay her cards on the table. She must be called to account.

As such, I welcome the Premier’s announcement today that there will be a special inquiry to lay to rest Franca Arena’s monstrous allegations. Members on both sides of this House are committed to fighting the notorious crime of paedophilia. I have never had any cause to doubt that. As such, I find it a matter of personal distaste that I should have to state for the public record today what should be beyond question: that under no circumstances have I protected or would I ever protect paedophiles, no matter who they are, no matter which position they hold. I say without a shadow of a doubt that would be the position of every member of this Parliament, including Franca Arena.

Franca Arena’s stand on paedophilia initially enjoyed my sympathy. I have had some compassion for the personal circumstances that led to her pursuit of this issue. But let me put a few items on the record today. While I acknowledge the very substantial efforts that the Government has made on the paedophile issue, I would seek to remind the House of the steps that I have taken as Opposition leader to combat paedophilia. The Opposition has repeatedly called for a children’s commission, long before the royal commission’s report recommended it. The Opposition supported the extension of the royal commission’s paedophile inquiry terms of reference. I called on Franca Arena to take whatever evidence she had to the royal commission in the interests of the New South Wales public. I was one of the chief critics saying that the paedophile report did not deal with the issue of naming names, even in a subtle way. Only yesterday I gave notice of legislation banning paedophiles from working with children on either a paid or a voluntary basis. Today I have successfully called for a special inquiry to test Franca Arena’s allegations, and I welcome the Premier’s announcement.

I have been reluctant to question Franca Arena’s commitment to the protection of children. Until now I have never had reason to question her motives. But she now exhibits the hallmarks of a reckless assassin. If she again refuses to give evidence to the inquiry announced by the Premier or cannot substantiate her claims before it, then her continued and unfettered access to the lethal weapon of parliamentary privilege must be considered and firm action must result. Never again must she or any other member be allowed to make the disgraceful accusations that we heard yesterday made under parliamentary privilege. What Mrs Arena said yesterday is a pack of lies peddled by someone who has developed a taste for notoriety.

As coalition leader in this Parliament I have to say that Mrs Arena has never substantiated the allegations that she has repeatedly referred to, allegations that led to a person taking his own life. She cannot substantiate the allegations she made yesterday against me, the Premier, his closest Labor associates - Terry Sheahan, a judge and former State President of the Australian Labor Party, and John Della Bosca, the current ALP State Secretary - and, more significantly, with respect to those people, the royal commissioner, Justice Jim Wood, who has done more than any individual in the history of this State to clean up police corruption. She has sought to traduce our reputations.

Who will she seek to assassinate tomorrow? Who will be the next target of her poisonous fabrications? As a Parliament how long can we tolerate a member so reckless with the truth, so contemptuous of the privileges of this Parliament? The inquiry that the Premier has announced is welcomed. It will be Franca Arena’s last chance. As coalition leader in this Parliament but, more importantly, as a human being and father of young children I am outraged by what Franca Arena said yesterday and what she has done to us as a Parliament. She smears the reputations not just of the individuals she named yesterday but of us all. She destroys the institutions and values that we hold sacred, and her infamy against us all must not be allowed to stand.

Petitions praying that the office of Governor of New South Wales not be downgraded, and that the role, duties and future of the office be determined by a referendum, received from Mr Blackmore, Mr Brogden, Mr Chappell, Mr Collins, Mr Debnam, Mr Downy, Ms Ficarra, Mr Glachan, Mr Hartcher, Mr Hazzard, Mr Humpherson, Dr Kernohan, Mr Kerr, Mr Kinross, Mr MacCarthy, Mr Merton, Mr O’Doherty, Mr O’Farrell, Mr Photios, Mr Richardson, Mr Rozzoli, Mr Schipp, Mr Schultz, Ms Seaton, Mrs Skinner, Mr Smith, and Mr Tink.

Page 232

Petitions praying that the heroin addicts program in Israel be evaluated with a view to establishing a similar program in all States of Australia, received from Mr Oakeshott and Mr Rixon.

Petition praying that the maternity ward and birthing centre at Camden District Hospital be retained, and that the hospital be retained as a general hospital, received from Dr Kernohan.

Petition praying that Ryde Hospital and its services be retained, received from Mr Tink.

Petitions praying that, in line with the Inspector General’s report of 1993, permanent dedicated police officers be retained at police and community youth clubs, received from Mr Beck, Mr Blackmore, Mr Richardson and Mr Rixon.

Petition praying that Riverwood police station not be closed or downgraded, received from Ms Ficarra.

Petition praying for extra funding for capital works at Gloucester Public School, received from Mr J. H. Turner.

Petitions praying that the Child Punishment Bill not be amended in such a way that prevents parents using the equivalent of the biblical "rod" to discipline their children, received from Mr Fraser and Dr Kernohan.

Petition praying that telecommunication carriers not be allowed to erect transmission structures within close proximity of residential homes, schools, child-care centres, hospitals, and aged-care centres, received from Mr Brogden.

Mr COLLINS: How does the Premier justify his Treasurer spending $100,000 on a two-day, all-expenses-paid Kings Cross conference for 300 union delegates in a last ditch effort to bolster his electricity privatisation plan? Why did the Premier allow this abuse of taxpayers’ money, given that this week the Treasurer officially admitted that this State’s finances are in serious trouble?

Mr CARR: There, it is gone - the bipartisanship, the happy co-operation - all vanished, all gone up in smoke. The coalition used to spend more than that on its cosy little gatherings of senior executives, on all those management conferences up in the Blue Mountains and elsewhere. I am sure honourable members remember the 1991 State election and the focus on waste and mismanagement. The coalition was quite incorrigible. I remember being at the tally room at the Royal Agricultural Society on election night 1991, and there was Dick Humphry with a silver service smorgasbord for senior executives of State government agencies and departments to celebrate the thumping re-election of the Greiner Government on a platform of good management. It was all laid out. The table was groaning with the plenitude of cornucopia. The crisp white linen was on the table.

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

Mr CARR: There it was, the crisp white linen, the succulent turkey, the canvas-backed duck, the glittering champagne bottles in ice - it was all laid on.

Mr O’Doherty: On a point of order. The Premier has had long enough for his preliminaries. The question is about the profligate spending of $100,000 of public money on unionists. The point of order is relevance.

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

Mr CARR: That was the approach of the coalition. I am advised that the purpose of this meeting is to allow the work force to have a say in how its industry should be run. This is a curious question, when one considers the source: a man who
Page 233
spent a cool $1 million on a public relations firm to sell his budgets. The taxpayers had to fork out. There is a great Labor Premier tradition here: we never pay for a drink.

[Interruption]

If that is an attempt to reflect on the morality of electricity industry delegates, it is to be deplored.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Pittwater will cease interjecting.

Mr CARR: We are the team that has cleaned up Kings Cross. The former Treasurer gave $1 million of taxpayers’ money to a public relations firm to sell his budget, yet he is now criticising this Government in relation to a genuine worker participation exercise.

Mr THOMPSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism. What is the Government doing to ensure that taxi operators and drivers comply with the required standards?

Mr LANGTON: In May last year the Department of Transport established the taxi compliance task force to monitor the industry’s compliance with the new regulations. Recent regular task force activity has resulted in unprecedented enforcement of new regulations covering taxi driver safety, cleanliness and presentation, service levels, and passenger safety and comfort. The task force has been patrolling the central business districts of Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong, the central coast, Sydney airport and inner Sydney suburbs. It has been examining taxis for body damage, vehicle cleanliness, compliance with driver uniform requirements and general vehicle quality.

Between 1 May 1996 and 31 August 1997 more than 10,000 taxis were inspected, 117 were immediately ordered off the road, and 967 non-compliance notices and 385 infringement notices were issued. In addition to the task force’s regular enforcement activity, it occasionally has a blitz on taxi standards. The task force’s most recent blitz - Operation Zero Tolerance - was carried out from 21 August to 31 August. During that 10-day period, 1,658 inspections took place, 228 non-compliance notices were issued and 34 taxis were immediately ordered off the road because of major defects.

Of the 228 infringement notices issued, 29 were for drivers failing to wear a uniform, 11 for an inoperable emergency boot release, eight for the driver smoking, and five for the taxi operator failing to fit a child restraint bolt. Other infringements were issued for dirty and untidy taxis, failure to display driver authority, standing in no-standing zones - including bus zones - and failure to accept a hirer. The majority of taxi drivers and operators do the right thing. However, a small number do not, and they are the ones who stand out in people’s minds. They are the target of the blitz.

A taxi operator was asked to show cause as to why he should be allowed to keep his accreditation when his cab was found to have 49 serious defects, including a major steering fault, oil leaking from the transmission, cracked shock absorbers, four bald tyres, a broken left-hand engine mount, a fast meter, doors that were difficult to close, damage to the seat belt, insecure door handles, an insecure liquefied petroleum gas conduit to the tank, an inoperable boot safety release, and a broken left headlight. Thanks to the work of the task force, this taxi is no longer on the road and the operator’s accreditation has been cancelled.

Operation Zero Tolerance has been an enormous success. It has sent a clear message to operators and drivers who are not complying with the new regulations. In addition to the work of the task force, we rely on passengers to report noncompliance. For example, sometimes drivers do not know where they are going and they are called in for retesting. We have withdrawn the accreditation of a number of drivers who failed the retest on locality knowledge.

I am confident that the enforcement campaign will send a clear message to the taxi industry and the community that the Government will not tolerate shoddy performance from operators or drivers. I assure honourable members that the taxi compliance task force will continue its monitoring of the industry to ensure that the people of New South Wales and our visitors have a world-class taxi service.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On behalf of the honourable member for Northcott, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of students from Hornsby Girls High School.

Mrs SKINNER: Does the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs approve of the Premier and the Treasurer spending $100,000 of taxpayers’ money on trying to convince unions to support electricity privatisation
Page 234
when he cannot pay 100 nurses at Sydney’s new Children’s Hospital? What action will he take to ensure that this money is better spent on desperately needed services in his portfolio?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I refer the honourable member for North Shore to the answer given by the Premier. I add that the honourable member for Pittwater was with the company that received $1 million from the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Treasurer, to sell his budget. He should give the money back.

Mr MOSS: What details can the Premier give of Government support for the 1998 Sydney Festival?

Mr CARR: We are determined to make the Sydney Festival one of the world’s great art festivals. The new director of the festival, Leo Schofield - who is the third director in the festival’s history - has produced a terrific schedule of events. People planning to depart Sydney next January should think again because we will have a splendid festival. The program will soon appear in the Sydney Morning Herald and people should study it carefully and get their tickets now. Leo Schofield has done a sterling job. We recruited him from Melbourne, where he ran the Melbourne Festival with great success. He has a wealth of experience in the arts and he is committed to Sydney. We are fortunate that he is now devoting his talents and energies to this festival.

In addition to the next three Sydney summer festivals, he is contracted to be the artistic director of the major Olympic arts festival, Harbour of Life, in 2000. He will help to co-ordinate these great events for Sydney and for the Games. The Sydney Festival has a new board, which is on a secure financial footing. The recent reforms of the Lord Mayor have been beneficial. The board is a small body that represents the major stakeholders - the Government, the city and the principal sponsor, Channel 9. Channel 9 is one of the great art sponsors in the world.

When the Government took office it separated Carnivale from the Sydney Festival. Carnivale is now a separate multicultural arts and community celebration with its own board of management, and the new structure has benefited both festivals. The 1998 festival is enjoying an increase in Government funding from $820,000 to $1.5 million. The festival will boost tourism - which my colleague the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism welcomes - and the economy.

Mr Schofield has succeeded in attracting an increased level of corporate sponsorship - an increase from approximately $2.1 million in 1997 to approximately $4 million in 1998. Much of the increased support has come from Government agencies, such as the Sydney Cove Authority, Tourism New South Wales and the Darling Harbour Authority. Energy Australia has made an outstanding long-term commitment to the festival. Continuing core support comes from Channel 9 and our two major media organisations, Fairfax and News Limited. I pay tribute to all the sponsors of the festival.

The board’s 1998 sponsorship target of $3.5 million has been comfortably exceeded, with confirmed sponsorship of $3.834 million, and possible additional sponsorship exceeding $4.3 million. These are unprecedented figures. I do not want to give away the details of events as they will be announced tonight by Mr Schofield, except to say that they include a visit to Sydney by a leading symphony orchestra and a trilogy of players from one of the world’s great theatre companies. This will be the biggest Sydney Festival to date. In one year the Sydney Festival has become the largest annual event of its kind in Australia. I know that all honourable members will join me in wishing it great success as it emerges over the next few years as one of the world’s great art festivals.

Dr MACDONALD: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. In view of concerns expressed over budget allocations at the opening of Parliament, will the Premier proceed with the establishment of the parliamentary management board to give members greater control over the budget and the operations of Parliament?

Mr CARR: I will continue to give consideration to the concept of a parliamentary management board. Perhaps it has greater appeal at this time than it has had at any other time. I will give the honourable member a response. I think it is a decent suggestion.

Mr O’DOHERTY: I direct a question to the Minister for Education and Training. Has Quakers Hill High School, which is situated in the Minister’s
Page 235
electorate, informed him on three separate occasions in the past two weeks that as many as 16 classes a day could not be taken due to the unavailability of casual teachers? Does the Minister agree that the $100,000 being spent by the Treasurer on an electricity talkfest would have been better spent addressing the teacher shortage in western Sydney?

Mr AQUILINA: All schools have been staffed appropriately for the commencement of each term and vacancies which occur throughout the term are filled as quickly as possible. That includes Quakers Hill High School. The department assists principals to engage the services of casual teachers when permanent staff are absent from schools. Schools may request from the school staffing unit in Blacktown lists of teachers who may wish to be employed in a casual capacity in their geographic location. That includes Quakers Hill High School. The department advertises regularly in local and interstate press for qualified teachers interested in casual teaching to contact the school staffing unit. The response has been pleasing.

The school staffing unit is processing all casual teacher approvals as a matter of high priority. After the announcement I made yesterday about the computer link for all schools that will be able to be achieved a lot more efficiently than before. The names and contact details of newly approved casual teachers are provided to district officers on a weekly basis and that information is distributed to principals. District superintendents are encouraged to advise the school staffing unit if schools have any difficulty in obtaining casual teachers. Principals contact the school staffing unit in the case of emergency situations due to the lack of the availability of casual teachers. Mobile teachers may be appointed to a school or across a group of schools which experience difficulties in obtaining casual teachers.

High school principals should take advantage of the provision of the teachers’ salaries and conditions award - this goes to the heart of the issue - which will enable them to allocate up to six additional teaching periods per term to permanent teachers to replace absent colleagues. The department is developing a range of long-term strategies to ensure the availability of casual teachers. These include the setting up of a casual teachers employment agency to deliver a regular flow of casual teachers to schools and the use of the Internet to publicise casual teacher vacancies.

Mr WOODS: Will the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health advise what the Government has done to secure better services for people suffering from kidney disease?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member for Clarence has had a continuing interest in the important issues of rural health and the improvements that this Government is making on a regular basis throughout New South Wales.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Carr Government has provided $3.5 million to secure a better service for patients with kidney disease. Hundreds of renal patients across New South Wales are now benefiting from a major upgrade of home dialysis machines. A $3.5 million investment by the Government has dramatically improved the quality of home dialysis technology for people across this State. The Government is determined to enhance the quality of the service and to support those who want to have their dialysis at home. Two weeks ago I announced that 140 people would receive new haemodialysis machines. Those machines will go to kidney disease patients across the State - on the central coast, the greater Murray and Illawarra areas, the mid-north cast, south-western Sydney, New England, Macquarie, the mid-west, south-eastern Sydney, western Sydney, the south coast and the northern rivers area.

A further 120 home patients across the State will be able to treat themselves overnight by using a new type of peritoneal dialysis machine. These new machines will significantly improve a patient’s quality of life. They will mean less disruption to the lives of patients and their families. In some cases they will even enable patients to return to work or to school. This new technology reduces the risk of long-term complications and also prevents some of the more serious disabling side effects caused by the older dialysis machines, such as hypotension, nausea and vomiting. Patients will be less likely to suffer fatigue, they will be able to sleep better and they will sustain higher energy levels. This new technology will bring great benefits to people whose lives are marked by a great deal of disruption and discomfort.

Patients who need renal dialysis have suffered an irreversible deterioration in their kidney functions. It is a condition characterised by a greater than 95 per cent reduction in renal function. Dialysis maintains the chemical balance of the patient’s blood. The new machines will ensure a more rapid correction of that balance. In New South Wales 50 per cent of the 2,000 people who have end-stage renal failure undertake dialysis at home. One-quarter of them are from rural areas. To further improve services for rural patients, including those being dialysed in hospital, the Government is funding the development of a distance education course to assist rural nurses in the provision of dialysis care.
Page 236
Securing these valuable initiatives will improve services for patients with renal failure.

The new dialysis machines are now being distributed to patients. They are having a dramatic effect in improving the quality of the lives of hundreds of patients throughout New South Wales. This Government is determined to improve health services for people, wherever they live and whatever their needs. A $3.5 million investment in dialysis machines is another sign that this Government is securing a better future for people with kidney failure. It is focusing particularly on those in rural New South Wales.

Recently I had the privilege of meeting a number of patients who have started using these new machines and who were trained in their use in Sydney. A farmer from the far west of New South Wales who, out of the blue, was struck with a serious renal condition, ended up with chronic end-stage renal failure. It would have been devastating for him if he had to visit a hospital on a regular basis for his dialysis treatment. However, this new machine is able to dialyse his blood and pull out the toxins faster and more efficiently than the old system. He can now have his dialysis treatment at home, continue working on the farm and continue the tourism enterprise that he is building up in that part of rural New South Wales. Basically, he can get on with his life with minimal disruption because this Government has provided the money for new machines, giving patients like him a better future.

Mr ANDERSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Minister for Public Works and Services. What progress has been made on the Government’s $90 million upgrade of the M4 Motorway?

Mr SCULLY: I know the honourable member for St Marys has a strong interest in the upgrade of the M4 Motorway. In fact, half the members of Cabinet have a strong interest in the M4 upgrade.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for the Environment will cease interjecting.

Mr SCULLY: For those members opposite who do not know where the M4 is, this upgrade is one of Sydney’s most important road projects. The Government is putting $90 million into this upgrade.

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

Mr SCULLY: The project will widen the Government-owned, non-tolled section of the M4 between Church Street, Parramatta, and Mulgoa Road, Penrith, from four to six lanes.

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

Mr SCULLY: From Parramatta to Penrith the four-lane roadway will be increased to six lanes - a 50 per cent increase.

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

Mr SCULLY: The 10-kilometre Statewide Roads section of the M4 is also being progressively upgraded from four to six lanes. At the outset I thank all motorists who use the M4 for their patience during the upgrade. I am aware that work on the project has slowed traffic on sections of the motorway, causing longer travel times than would otherwise be the case. I am sure all motorists would appreciate that the safety of both workers and traffic during construction requires lower speeds. Nevertheless, I understand the frustration of motorists who have been inconvenienced. I want to reassure those motorists that the delays are temporary, and will be more than offset by the improvements which will flow when the project is completed.

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

Mr SCULLY: The Roads and Traffic Authority is continuing to reassess ways of reducing the impact of the construction work. The first opening of an extra westbound lane occurred on 11 August. That opening provided an additional lane for the 6.5-kilometre stretch between the Prospect services centre and Roper Road. To help traffic flow, the Government took the opportunity to open the extra lane on a temporary basis from 3.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m. each day until final road surfacing takes place in warmer weather later this year. When that work is completed, the speed limit will increase to 100 kilometres an hour from the current temporary speed limit. However, the extra lane has already improved afternoon traffic flow, particularly by tackling the congestion near Wallgrove Road.

I am pleased to be able to announce today that the next opening of an extra lane will occur next week. This will provide a third westbound lane on the 3.5-kilometre section between Roper Road and
Page 237
Mamre Road. It will mean that there will be a third westbound lane over a continuous 10-kilometre stretch of the motorway. Work is also proceeding well on tackling congestion for citybound traffic. I am advised that the first additional citybound lane - from Coleman Street, Mays Hill, to Church Street, Parramatta - is scheduled to be ready for opening next month. Work on the extra citybound lane east of Mamre Road has also been brought forward to help improve morning peak conditions around Roper Road. The upgrade of the M4 will provide much safer travel conditions for a large number of city motorists. The people of western Sydney, in particular, will benefit from more secure road conditions and better travel times.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Pittwater.

Mr SCULLY: Under the previous Government, the road safety and road improvement needs of western Sydney were thoroughly and utterly ignored.

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

Mr SCULLY: The M4 upgrade is an important part of this Government’s strong program to redress that neglect.

Mr ARMSTRONG: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Will the Premier reveal the names of the barristers commissioned to provide independent legal advice on western division leases, and their experience in native title matters? Does not the advice leave open the possibility that certain western lands grazing leases are not subject to native title?

Mr CARR: Yes, I am happy to reveal the names. John McCarthy, QC, and Jeff Kildea were an entirely appropriate choice when the Government sought an external opinion on this matter, for the following reason. Mr McCarthy happens to be the barrister who represented the claimants in the first case on native title at Crescent Head. It was the first settlement of a native title claim on mainland Australia. The level of proof of continued occupancy of the land and the several other tests were excruciatingly detailed. It is fair to say, as a result, that no barrister in this town has as detailed a knowledge of native title as Mr McCarthy. The fact is that he represented the native title claimants in the one settlement of a native title claim in mainland Australia. Moreover, this man was appointed a Queen’s Counsel -

Mr Tink: The Bar Council would not allow -

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

Mr CARR: Well this is not the Bar Council, and the Opposition asked this question. Mr McCarthy was appointed a Queen’s Counsel by that Labor stalwart, John Dowd - in a very different manner from that in which the Leader of the Opposition became a Queen’s Counsel. Mr McCarthy has appeared in numerous important cases in superior courts, including the High Court. In fact, he represented the Commonwealth in the Voyager litigation in the Supreme Court. Mr McCarthy and Mr Kildea are also pre-eminent in New South Wales in the area of native title, as I have already mentioned in respect of Mr McCarthy. Their learning and understanding of native title law is not theoretical, it is not academic; it is practical, precise and profound.

Mr Phillips: Wrong!

Mr CARR: No. It accords with the advice the Government received from its professional legal advisers, and, as I said in this House yesterday, it is not discordant with the Commonwealth advice that is floating around. The Commonwealth advice is that the quality of the advice of these practitioners is in fact unique in this fairly new area of Australian law. Mr McCarthy and Mr Kildea do, as I have said, hold a place in Australian history as the counsel for the first successful native title applicants. Is it suggested by honourable members opposite that the Government should rule those two barristers out and go to someone with a less precise knowledge of this specialised law? If members opposite have a proposal for inclusion in the Commonwealth legislation currently before the Commonwealth Parliament, drafted by their political colleagues, they should go to them. It is their law, Commonwealth law; it is their legislation.

Honourable members opposite should not try to run a deceitful campaign, putting resolution of this matter back on the Government. The Opposition should go to its colleagues in the Commonwealth Parliament. Go to Tim Fischer - bucket loads of extinguishment Fischer - I suppose he would be better off weaving straw hats. They should go to their brilliant colleagues in Canberra, who have
Page 238
undertaken in their infinite wisdom and measureless knowledge of the statutes to resolve this problem with their precious 10-point plan.

Mr ARMSTRONG: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Premier make that advice available to the Parliament and support western lessees in obtaining clear title to their leases?

Mr CARR: The advice will be made available to the Parliament, as I have made it available to the Commonwealth. When I spoke to the farmers, as my ministerial colleague can confirm, I said that we would get a second set of legal advice because the advice on the table to them from the Crown Solicitor did not support their case. My colleague will correct me if I am wrong, but we said that we would get alternative advice.

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

Mr CARR: The Government has gone to the best available source. We have gone to the bloke, compromised as he may be by a friendship with me and the Leader of the Opposition, who happens to be the unrivalled source of advice on this matter. Poor McCarthy, to end up being the number one expert in New South Wales on native title.

Mr Photios: Doesn’t he do your redistributions?

Mr CARR: Not only does he do our redistribution submissions with infinite skill and persuasion, as our presence on this side of the House confirms, but the presence on this side of the House of the honourable member for The Entrance in particular also confirms that he does very well in disputed cases.

Mr NEILLY: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Will the Minister announce what benefits will flow to the Hunter and Gunnedah regions from the joint project involving the Government and the Japanese company, New Energy and Industrial Technology Organisation - NEDO - in exploration for new coal deposits?

Mr MARTIN: The honourable member for Cessnock is a member of my caucus subcommittee and an enthusiastic champion of mining development in New South Wales. His enthusiasm should be an example to all members opposite. Considerable benefits will flow from the joint project for exploration for new coal deposits between the Carr Labor Government and the Japanese New Energy and Industrial Technology Organisation, otherwise known as NEDO. This is international investment in New South Wales that will result in jobs and security.

The mining industry is mentioned on the front pages of today’s print media. It is having a hard time: world mining prices are generally down, profitability has been cut and the industry is being forced to restructure. It is a time when the industry is looking for leadership, for innovation, for incentives to get new mining projects under way in order to create a climate to provide security in the mining industry. This Government is committed to meeting all those aims by encouraging mining exploration and research and providing incentives for the industry.

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

Mr MARTIN: Our continuation of the $35 million, six-year Discovery 2000 project and initiation of the $15 million Broken Hill exploration project are just two instances of which honourable members will be aware. I am pleased that the Government has recently added a further project to promote mining exploration and research in New South Wales.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the National Party has been asked to remain silent.

Mr MARTIN: On 13 August I signed an international agreement for a joint coal exploration research project between the Department of Mineral Resources and the New Energy and Industrial Technology Organisation of Japan.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the Deputy Leader of the National Party on three calls to order.

Mr MARTIN: The project aims to develop exploration technologies to delineate coal seams in geologically complex deposits. It will take three years and have a budget of between $10 million and $15 million, the bulk of which will be provided by the Japanese Government. This is a continuation of the successful joint project between NEDO and the Queensland Department of Mines and Energy. The field work will take place in the Caroona area of the Gunnedah Basin. The first year’s work will involve trial gravity surveys, seismic surveys and drilling.

Page 239

The project is of such significance that it has been included as part of the Australia-Japan 1996-1998 friendship anniversaries program, which celebrates the centenary of the establishment of the Japanese Consulate in Sydney. Any reasonable person would surely welcome such an agreement with open arms. It is the development of innovative, best-practice technology for the coal industry. It is technology that can be applied to other vitally important New South Wales coal developments. The Japanese Government is providing the bulk of the finance while the New South Wales Government is providing the expertise of the geoscientists from the Department of Mineral Resources and mapping data on the area.

This is testimony to the high regard in which our mining research and technology are held by a major trading partner and world economic power. It demonstrates that the Japanese believe mining has a future in New South Wales and that conditions are stable for the investment of a large sum of money. This Government is happy to provide employment to those involved in the project. The results of the project will be increased benefits for miners, not to mention increased exports. In addition, this joint project frees up a considerable amount of money for the Government to use on other worthwhile projects. It is a project worthy of the highest commendation.

In fact, the Deputy Leader of the National Party claimed that the project was of great significance for the Gunnedah Basin, as reported in the Namoi Valley Independent of 26 August. He suggested that any new coalfields resulting from the joint venture could support a power station, and I thank him for that. Despite this clear endorsement of the enormous benefits of the project, his colleague the honourable member for Myall Lakes contradicts that and complains. He claims that it is a slap in the face for local industry, that it undermines confidence in the local industry to undertake such exploration, and suggests that the local industry is not competent. He refers to deals with the Japanese, which is not very diplomatic. The honourable member for Myall Lakes questions why the agreement was ever entered into without a 100 per cent guarantee of job opportunities. These are the comments of someone who does not understand his shadow portfolio. At a time of employment cuts in the mining industry, his comments are harmful.

Mining exploration is speculative. It needs strong Government incentives and encouragement, especially in the early phase, and the Government recognises that. Seldom are 100 per cent guarantees given at the outset, especially in geologically complex areas such as those covered by this project. How many successful mining projects would have got under way if an ironclad, 100 per cent guarantee had been required before the exploration phase was even entered into?

Such an approach is short-sighted, to say the least. The honourable member for Myall Lakes has made it very clear that he will not go the extra yard. I suspect that he wants merely to do to the workers that he tries to represent what is being done at Hunter Valley No. 1. The old economic rationalists do not accept that who dares wins! This joint project is a valuable addition to the State’s coal exploration efforts. The bulk of the funding will come from the Japanese Government. The major contractors and equipment used in the operation will be sourced locally, not from overseas as was suggested by the honourable member for Myall Lakes.

A Bowral firm, Engineering Computer Services International, will provide artificial intelligence and computer models and a Brisbane firm will provide advanced seismic collection and analytical technology. The Japanese Government has agreed to disavow any commercial interest in the project beyond its supply of funding and development of exploration technology. This proposal will create 300 jobs in the Gunnedah region. The agreement is a perfect example of joint projects between governments. This type of project, which can be accomplished by those on this side of the Parliament, should be applauded by everyone in this House and not knocked by members opposite. I thank the honourable member for his question.

Dr REFSHAUGE: I have a supplementary answer. Yesterday the honourable member for North Shore asked me a question about legal costs expended by the New South Wales Department of Health. I report to the Parliament that the legal cost for South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service to respond to the suit brought by Cynthia Kardell has been $320,000 over three financial years. The matters that were defended in the action continued over a period of years, almost exclusively during the term of the previous Government. The legal cost for South Western Sydney Area Health Service to be appropriately represented at the coronial inquest into the death of Mrs Colleen Campbell was $17,500.

The legal cost for South Western Sydney Area Health Service to be appropriately represented at the
Page 240
coronial inquest into the death of Mr David Wafer was $10,500. The legal cost for South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service to be appropriately represented in a civil action taken against it on behalf of Allison Carter was $10,000. The legal cost for New South Wales Health for the defamation action taken by the then Minister for Health Peter Collins to sue Michael Ryan was $180,000. The legal cost for New South Wales Health to defend the inappropriate siting of the inner west hospital at the time of the former Government was $50,000.

Mrs Skinner: On a point of order. My question specifically related to the costs of the court cases. The Minister is wasting the House’s time with irrelevancies.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The legal cost to New South Wales Health to privatise Port Macquarie Base Hospital was $510,000. There is a substantial difference between a hospital being represented in matters dealing with patient care and employee relations, as has occurred under this Government -

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: - and a department taking politically motivated legal action at the behest of a Minister, as occurred under your Government. If the honourable member for North Shore is suggesting that hospitals should not be represented before coronial inquests into the deaths of patients, it is a policy position which conforms to her unusual standards.

Questions without notice concluded.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [3.33 p.m.], by leave: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow consideration forthwith of the motion of dissent from Mr Speaker’s ruling given this day for tomorrow by the member for Gosford, followed by private members’ statements.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [3.34 p.m.]: An urgency motion is before the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The honourable member for Gosford will direct his remarks through the Chair.

Mr HARTCHER: An urgency motion is before the House on the vital issue of electricity privatisation. Yesterday also an urgency motion was before the House on the vital issue of electricity privatisation. I know that I am a bit paranoid but one starts to get a sneaking suspicion that Government members do not want to have a debate about electricity privatisation. Would people really draw that conclusion? Yesterday a motion suddenly came upon us congratulating Athens on its winning bid for the Olympic Games for the year 2004. It was so enormously relevant and important that it had to be brought forward straight away so that everyone could talk about Athens and the year 2004.

The fact that the Leader of the Opposition had foreshadowed moving a motion on electricity privatisation was not so consequential. In two weeks time there will be a conference and we will all take a corporate box at that conference. If they are selling corporate boxes, we are buying. We want to be there, we want to watch it. It will be better than the Christians and the lions. It will be a little ripper and we want to be there.

Mrs Skinner: Good value.

Mr HARTCHER: The honourable member for North Shore said that it is good value. It is not only good value, it is the best value going, other than the Festival of Sydney coming up in 1998. They should get Mr Schofield to orchestrate it for them. It will be good watching Bob do the twostep. It will be good watching Michael as he weaves in and out between the Right and the Left dodging punches. He will be ducking more punches than Mike Tyson. Members are here to debate serious issues. The serious issue the Opposition wants to debate is why the Governor did not talk about electricity privatisation.

Mr Whelan: This is on a dissent resolution.

Mr HARTCHER: We are talking about why you are trying to stop the electricity privatisation debate.

Mr Whelan: You will have your urgency motion.

Mr HARTCHER: You are trying to delay it.

Page 241

Mr Whelan: For an hour?

Mr HARTCHER: Yes, for an hour. It means something to you because at 4.15 p.m. the standing orders operate.

Mr Whelan: No, I have excluded them. You did not listen.

Mr HARTCHER: Do you want to change the motion again?

Mr Whelan: No.

Mr HARTCHER: Forget it. The simple fact is that electricity privatisation is the most vital issue facing this State at the moment. People want to know about the Premier’s inability to be able to achieve his own program within his own party. The Opposition wants to know the detail of what the Premier has to offer the people of New South Wales. He wants to take 200 trade union officials and ensconce them in luxurious accommodation at a cost to the taxpayer of $100,000 while he bends their ears and twists their arms to get support for the privatisation. They will get information and detail which have been denied to this Parliament. A $25 billion sale of the State’s assets is proposed by the Government, and the Parliament is being denied repeatedly the opportunity to debate it.

At every level and at every opportunity the Premier, aided and abetted by the Leader of the House, seeks to change the routine of the House. They seek to manipulate the standing orders and procedures of the House simply to disguise their lack of a policy and their fear of what is going to happen in two weeks time. We will debate this issue and sooner or later Government members opposite will have to vote. The honourable member for Kiama will have to stand up and vote when the motion is put, as will the honourable member for Bankstown and all those other members who like to go to caucus and say that they will never support the privatisation, that they will fight against it all the way. Like the honourable member for Gladesville, the toxic incinerator kid, all of them are determined to say in caucus that they are against it. Let them come into this House and vote against it. Let the honourable member for Bathurst put his feet where his mouth is and cross the floor to this side and vote against privatisation. He was good this morning, he should be good this afternoon and display the courage of his convictions. [Time expired.]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will read the notice again.

Mr Whelan: I would be happy to, but just before I do, I would like to make it very clear that it was never intended that we would not have the five minutes for urgency in the House to make a decision.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is speaking in reply.

Mr Hartcher: There is no reply under the standing orders.

Mr Whelan: I am explaining to the House that we will save a lot of time, if the honourable member wants to. The priority for the House is dissent, then private members’ statements, then the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will have his -

Mr Phillips: That is not the motion the honourable member moved. He moved a motion, he has spoken to the motion, we have responded. The motion has to be put. He cannot run this place like a rabble.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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

Page 242

Mr Beck Mr Oakeshott
Mr Blackmore Mr O’Farrell
Mr Brogden 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
Ms Ficarra Ms Seaton
Mr Fraser Mrs Skinner
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr J. H. Turner
Mr Kinross Mr R. W. Turner
Mr MacCarthy Mr Windsor
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Ms Moore Mr Kerr
Mr Hunter Mr Armstrong
Mr Markham Mr Glachan
Mr Nagle Mr O’Doherty
Mr Rumble Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Sullivan Mr Small

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [3.50 p.m.]: I move:

That this House dissents from the ruling of Mr Speaker on 17 September 1997 when he ruled the statement of the Premier in reply to a question from the member for Badgerys Creek was not a ministerial statement.

Yesterday the honourable member for Badgerys Creek asked the following question of the Premier:

My question is directed to the Premier. What is the Government’s response to the recommendations of the police royal commission’s investigation into paedophilia?

The Premier gave a detailed reply and dealt with the recommendations that have been made by the royal commission and the Government’s response thereto. He said:

That were 140 recommendations . . . I say at the outset that it will take some time to put all of them in place. However, the Government will put legislation to the Parliament this session.

The Premier then detailed the Government’s response - its procedures and legislation - to the various issues raised by the royal commission. Each response is a proposed action of the Government. Some involve legislation, others involve administration. The standing orders do not deal with what constitutes a ministerial statement; that is stipulated by rulings from the Chair. Speaker Ellis made the following relevant ruling from the Chair:

A statement made by a Minister upon public matters which announces some policy of the Government or which informs the House of some action which has been or is proposed to be taken involving some administrative policy constitutes a ministerial statement.

This is distinct from a normal question, which seeks information from a Minister on what the Government is doing or has done. The question of the honourable member for Badgerys Creek sought the policy of the Government in relation to child protection, which was outlined. That is a good thing - no-one disputes that. However, the House must determine whether the Speaker should have classified the Premier’s answer as a ministerial statement or an answer. Why the distinction between the two? The Leader of the Opposition, or his delegated spokesman, has the right to reply to a ministerial statement. Why does that apply to policy matters? They deal with issues that the Parliament should consider, such as matters of policy, not something that has happened that the Government is reporting on, explaining or defending. Parliament must have the elements of a proper debate - a policy announcement by the Government and a reply from the Opposition. That is the purpose of the ministerial statement rule; that is exactly what happened yesterday.

The Opposition submits that the Premier was stating the Government’s policy in relation to paedophilia and the findings of the Wood royal commission. What else was it announced as? What else was it reported as? What else was it anticipated as? We anticipated that the Government would reply to Justice Wood and state its program to protect the children of this State from sexual abuse and paedophilia. If the Parliament is not to be a sounding-board for the Premier’s voice but to be a debating Chamber to discuss major policy initiatives, it needs provision for ministerial statements. This is a major policy initiative and it is appropriate that the Leader of the Opposition, or his delegated spokesman, have the opportunity to reply as is granted by the standing orders. That opportunity was
Page 243
denied repeatedly by you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday I drew your attention to the following ruling by Speaker Kelly:

Ministerial statements are covered not by the standing orders but by usage and practice. Statements of public importance which announce and touch on some policy of or proposed action by the Government constitute a ministerial statement.

My submission to you was rejected, although it relied on a ruling by a previous Speaker. Subsequently, the honourable member for Ermington said of the Premier:

He is dealing with the detail. In every sense of the words, unqualified, this is a ministerial statement.

The submission of the honourable member for Ermington was refused by you, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai then drew your attention to rulings by Speaker Ellis and Speaker Kelly. He cited the following ruling of Speaker Ellis, which can be found on page 87 of Decisions from the Chair:

To preserve the rights of members during Question Time, when replies to questions are to take the form of Ministerial Statements they should be deferred until the time allotted for questions has expired.

The submission of the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai was denied by you, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition then said that the Premier was making a ministerial statement - he said that the Premier admitted that it was a ministerial statement. Again, you denied the submission. Finally, the Leader of the National Party raised the issue of the ministerial statement, which was also denied by you, Mr Speaker. It was put to you five times that this constituted a ministerial statement, and five times the submission was refused. An important point is that it was drawn to your attention very early in question time that the Premier’s reply was a statement. You were given an opportunity to make a ruling - such as that the rights of members during question time would not be disturbed and the Premier’s ability to give a full and comprehensive answer could be maintained, rather than waiting for the Premier to give his entire reply and then judging it. That would have been unfair to the Premier and to the House. Even though that matter was raised, it was not considered by you - it was denied.

Let me take the House to the content of the Premier’s answer. What makes it a ministerial statement? The Premier acknowledged that there were 140 recommendations. He made major policy announcements, he referred to the creation of the Child Protection Enforcement Agency, he pledged the commitment of the Government to continue the role of the Child Protection Enforcement Agency, and he announced that four joint investigative teams were operating, that four more were to begin - as was the recommendation of the royal commission - and he reported on their activities. He said:

. . . work has begun on the remainder of the recommendations which relate to the key areas of the Children’s Commissioner, complaints handling, pre-employment screening, and investigations against staff. Let me now turn to some of the specific recommendations . . .

The Premier’s cardinal statement was:

My government supports the creation of a register of sex offenders.

That is a significant issue in our community. A lot has been written about it and there is much argument in the community about it. It is a major policy initiative. It may be expressed simply as "the creation of a register of sex offenders", but it is a major issue that must be debated. That is why the Leader of the Opposition should be given an opportunity to respond. The Premier then went on to detail what constitutes a register of sex offenders. [Time expired.]

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [4.00 p.m.]: This is another try-on. I could say a lot of things about Speaker Kelly as I was a member of Parliament when he was here. I noticed that the honourable member for Gosford did not refer to rulings made on 4 April 1989 by Speaker Rozzoli concerning a similar matter. Speaker Rozzoli said:

It is clear to the Chair that the Premier is referring to action which has been taken as a result of recommendations from the Commission of Audit.

Premier Greiner was referring to a commission of audit but Premier Carr was referring to a royal commission. Speaker Rozzoli said:

It is clear that that action involves things that will happen in the future. I point out to members of the Opposition that in answering a question a Minister has to give facts and information about certain things or he may give facts about matters and initiatives which are proposed by the Government. This answer clearly falls into the latter category.

I remind the House that the question asked yesterday by the honourable member for Badgerys Creek was:

What is the Government’s response to the recommendations of the police royal commission’s investigation into paedophilia?

The Premier responded to that question. The initiative referred to yesterday is the same sort of initiative that Premier Greiner referred to on 4 April 1989. Former Speaker Rozzoli ruled that the answer
Page 244
given by Premier Greiner was in order. Yesterday the New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr, tabled a document. Speaker Rozzoli ruled that the answer given by Premier Greiner was not a ministerial statement. Premier Greiner referred to the Government’s approach to the commission of audit, government expenditure of $103 million and steps taken in relation to various government organisations. He concluded by saying:

As honourable members will agree, the Government has responded positively to the commission’s wide-ranging proposals for reform. In conclusion I repeat that the Government has essentially accepted about 95 per cent of the recommendations of the Commission of Audit. I therefore take the opportunity of tabling a document which provides a detailed response on the progress of the Government in implementing the proposals of the Commission of Audit.

Premier Carr did not do that yesterday. Speaker Rozzoli ruled that the answer given by Premier Greiner was not a ministerial statement. Clearly, the answer given yesterday by the Premier was not a ministerial statement. Yesterday when I took a point of order I referred to page 88 of Decisions from the Chair and to a ruling by Speaker Rozzoli at page 5744 of Hansard of October 1988. When the former Government was in office the member for The Entrance, Mr Graham, asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Terry Metherell:

My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Is he aware of widespread public concern about the need for improved discipline in government schools? If so, what action is the Government taking in relation to school discipline?

The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs responded at length to that question, and he canvassed every possible matter that could be canvassed. Subsequently Speaker Rozzoli said:

The determination of whether an answer comes within the ambit of a ministerial statement depends very much on the question that was asked. The object of asking questions is to obtain information about the subject-matter. To this stage the Minister has been answering the question that was asked. If in giving the factual information in that answer he touches on matters of Government policy, that does not of necessity make it a ministerial statement. I would be concerned, of course, if the Minister took the answer beyond the general limits that I have laid down. But at the moment he is in order.

Dr Metherell’s answer filled three pages of Hansard. He referred in that answer to the Government’s general policy. Yesterday the honourable member for Badgerys Creek asked the Premier:

What is the Government’s response to the recommendations of the police royal commission’s investigation into paedophilia?

That was a very general question, and so was the question that I was asked immediately after that, which referred to the action proposed by the Police Service. As Minister for Police I was asked what I was doing about that matter. There was not a peep from members of the Opposition when I answered that question and used the same terminology that was used by the Premier. No points of order were taken on the matters I raised in the long answer I gave this Chamber. The Opposition referred to a ruling made by Speaker Kelly but it ignored rulings made by Speaker Rozzoli.

[Interruption]

The ruling given by Speaker Rozzoli does not help Opposition members. Two of the rulings made by Speaker Rozzoli assist only the Premier. I believe that the rulings made by Speaker Rozzoli were fair-minded. I am mindful of the fact that Speaker Rozzoli made those rulings with Premier Greiner in mind. It was important for the Government to place on the record its initiatives and to enable public debate on the recommendations of the commission of audit. Premier Greiner detailed what the Government intended to do in relation to the Commission of Audit. He referred to government expenditure and, on concluding his speech, tabled the recommendations and a list of future government actions. As I said earlier, Speaker Rozzoli ruled that the answer given by Premier Greiner was not a ministerial statement. In all seriousness, the statements made yesterday by the Premier and by me came within the guidelines of the ruling given by Speaker Rozzoli and clearly they were in order. Dissent motions such as this are put-up jobs without foundation. All honourable members should vote against this dissent motion.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.10 p.m.], in reply: The Wood royal commission is one of the most significant royal commissions ever to have been held in this State. It raised major issues that confronted the community, it affected the very lives of tens of thousands of young children, it aroused massive community interest, and it involved the expenditure of $70 million of taxpayers’ money. Justice Wood made 140 recommendations. If the response to that massive issue of community concern, that enormous expenditure of public money and that vast plethora of recommendations does not constitute a ministerial statement, justifying a reply by the Leader of the Opposition - and the only issue here is whether the Leader of the Opposition should be allowed to reply - I ask the Leader of the House what would constitute a ministerial statement.

Page 245

It has become the practice in this House during the past three years that a ministerial statement is only so termed when the Minister so elects. There is no other criteria for determination. This is the most significant royal commission we have had in the life of this Government; the most expensive in the history of New South Wales. Paedophilia is one of the major issues confronting the public, and the Government’s summary of a detailed response involving legislation, policy, administration and personnel, all set out by the Premier yesterday, would, by any criteria of any reasonable person, constitute a ministerial statement within the traditions, customs and usage of this House - and that would entitle the Leader of the Opposition to reply. All that is at stake is whether the Leader of the Opposition should have 12 minutes to reply to the Premier, but the Premier is not prepared to risk the Leader of the Opposition upstaging him, just as the Leader of the Opposition upstaged him this afternoon when he made his ministerial statement on Franca Arena.

The Premier made a ministerial statement about Franca Arena. The unfortunate utterances of one woman in another place warranted a ministerial statement, but a major inquiry that took three years, cost $70 million, and involved the whole community on a massive public issue was not? No reasonable person would draw that conclusion. The Leader of the House was disingenuous in selectively quoting Speaker Rozzoli and seeking mischievously to draw a web of connection between the fact that Speaker Rozzoli is of the same political party as Premier Greiner, to whom his ruling referred. But the issues were not canvassed in detail, and when one looks at the depth of the issue and at the integrity of the rulings of Speaker Rozzoli, one will see there is a dramatic difference. The Leader of the House should not hang his head in shame because if he had to do so every time he was disingenuous he would not have a head on his shoulders. But the Leader of the House should be embarrassed for having so misquoted former Speaker Rozzoli. The coalition does not accept the ruling given by the Speaker yesterday and accordingly has moved this motion of dissent from it.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr O’Farrell
Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke
Mr Brogden Mr Phillips
Mr Chappell Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Ms Seaton
Ms Ficarra Mrs Skinner
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr J. H. Turner
Mr Kinross Mr R. W. Turner
Mr MacCarthy Mr Windsor
Dr Macdonald
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr Oakeshott Mr Kerr

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

Mr Collins Mr Carr
Mr Fraser Mr Hunter
Mr Glachan Mr Markham
Mr O’Doherty Mr Nagle
Mr Slack-Smith Mr Rumble
Mr Small Mr Sullivan

Page 246

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion of dissent negatived.

Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow consideration of the question "That the motion for urgent consideration of the member for Miranda be proceeded with", before consideration of private members' statements.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.22 p.m.]: This motion is urgent because this House needs an explanation from the Premier as to why he is wasting taxpayers’ money to entertain unionists to try to convince them to make a decision on an issue that he has already decided. The Premier and Mike Egan have already decided that the electricity industry will be privatised. The deal is done.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. It is clear, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, that he should speak specifically to urgency, not to the motion. He should confine his remarks to urgency and nothing else.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is usual at this stage of debate to allow the honourable member to enter into some discussion.

Mr PHILLIPS: We need an explanation from the Premier as to what is the deal that he has already done and why he is bypassing the ALP conference. It is irrelevant. He cannot get his way with the ALP conference. The town hall is good enough for the ALP conference but the Hyatt at Kings Cross is the venue that is needed for the unionists.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, I repeat that the honourable member’s remarks should be limited to urgency. He cannot speak to the motion. He cannot start to deal with the substance of the motion. Nor can he engage in personal attacks on other members of Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Standing orders provide that the member has to establish the urgency of his motion. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has not attempted to do that. He is fully aware of the standing orders and I am sure he will adhere to them from now on.

Mr PHILLIPS: Mr Speaker, this matter is urgent because the Treasurer is about to make a decision to book the Hyatt hotel, to spend $100,000 of State taxpayers’ money on unionists to try to convince them, to wine and dine them into making a decision. This House needs to debate the matter before that decision is made. The only decision they will have to make before the venue is booked is what is on the menu. I have a copy of the menu that has been sent to the Labor Party. What has to be decided for these unionists -

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. If ever there was a glaring example of the abuse of the processes of this House, this is it. How funny it may be is irrelevant. What is urgent about a member being permitted to read out a hotel menu? The honourable member is clearly out of order and I ask that you direct him to resume his seat.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member may continue but he should bear in mind that he has to establish the urgency of his motion.

Mr PHILLIPS: Mr Speaker, this matter is urgent because the unionists need to know what con trick will be played upon them following their being invited to the soiree at the Hyatt hotel. It is like having a last cigarette before execution. They have to understand that the only decision they will have to make is their choice off the menu, because the decision about privatisation has already been made. This matter is urgent because the Premier should explain to the House what deal he has done about privatisation. Why is he ignoring the ALP? What deal has he made with Della Bosca and the trade union movement behind closed doors? What decision has been made? The unionists of this State are being taken for a ride. [Time expired.]

Question - That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Miranda be proceeded with - put.

The House divided.
Page 247

Mr Armstrong Mr O’Farrell
Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke
Mr Brogden Mr Phillips
Mr Chappell Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Ms Seaton
Ms Ficarra Mrs Skinner
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr J. H. Turner
Mr Kinross Mr R. W. Turner
Mr MacCarthy Mr Windsor
Dr Macdonald
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr Oakeshott Mr Kerr
Ms Allan Mr McManus
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Neilly
Mr Clough Ms Nori
Mr Crittenden Mr E. T. Page
Mr Debus Mr Price
Mr Face Dr Refshauge
Mr Gaudry Mr Rogan
Mrs Grusovin Mr Scully
Ms Hall Mr Shedden
Mr Harrison Mr Stewart
Ms Harrison Mr Tripodi
Mr Iemma Mr Watkins
Mr Knight Mr Whelan
Mr Knowles Mr Woods
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po’ Tellers,
Mr Lynch Mr Beckroge
Mr McBride Mr Thompson

Mr Collins Mr Carr
Mr Fraser Mr Markham
Mr Glachan Mr Hunter
Mr O’Doherty Mr Nagle
Mr Slack-Smith Mr Rumble
Mr Small Mr Sullivan

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [4.36 p.m.]: I wish to raise a problem relating to noise on the M2 Motorway in the vicinity of the Terrys Creek Bridge. This problem became apparent to me even before the opening of the M2 when I attended an open day and heard a number of buses carrying visitors over the expansion joint on the Terrys Creek Bridge making a significant sound, even to those on the motorway carriageway. After the road was formally opened I received a number of letters from various constituents. In a letter dated 27 May Mr Lawrenson wrote:

What I was unprepared for was a quite unacceptable noise that, I feel, is the result of vehicles crossing a grate or expansion gap on the approach to Terry’s Creek bridge travelling west. This is causing a booming type noise that echoes through the gully and can be heard the total expanse of Gloucester Road. I am finding this noise most frustrating and annoying and I am sure other local residents must be also.

I have tried numerous times to ring the complaints number for the M2 . . . and have been unsuccessful in reaching them.

On 2 June Mr McCallum of 58 Gloucester Road likened the noise to a giant drum, thunder, artillery fire or fireworks. The matter has also been the subject of local press comment. Concern has been expressed by Scott Thomson and other residents of Crimea Road, referring to the noise being similar to a Chinese drip water torture, never stopping, 24 hours a day. On 27 May Len Smith wrote suggesting that it was similar to loud percussion sounds, and other constituents have written in similar terms. Mr White telephoned the builders, Abigroup Limited, and the Roads and Traffic Authority on 19 June, both of whom said they were aware of the problem and were investigating the matter, but indicated at that time that nothing had been done.

In addition to being aware of the problem before the motorway was opened, yesterday morning I visited Gloucester Road at the end of peak hour to see the current state of play and met local resident Chris Bilkey there. I stood at the top of Gloucester Road and could hear a very disturbing sound. There is the general noise level that one expects consistent with a motorway in the area but this sound was quite distinctive and would be maddening to anyone living in the immediate vicinity. I am informed that this type of sound does not necessarily show up on acoustic testing but neither would I expect the sound created by the Parliament’s division bells to show up
Page 248
on a test either. All honourable members would agree that the noise from bells similar to division bells over an indefinite period, albeit at a lesser rate, would be equally maddening, and that is the problem residents experience.

I have had correspondence with the Minister for Roads. I was told as recently as the beginning of this month that the joint venture proposes to carry out a trial whereby the asphalt at one of the expansion joints will be removed and replaced at a lower level, and other work is also being investigated. I simply point out that it is some months down the track since this problem became apparent. The response to the noise that is affecting people has been extremely ordinary. I am unsure whether the primary responsibility rests with the roads department, the Roads and Traffic Authority or the joint venture. We have been trying to get to the bottom of that. I indicated to the Minister today that I would be speaking about the matter this afternoon. I want to get a more specific idea of who is responsible for this matter and whether it is considered that this type of noise falls within the responsibility of the joint venture. I consider that is something the Minister can and should put on the record.

Obviously, from that point on it is critically important to fix the problem and to fix it in a hurry. Much of the noise seems to be a booming sound emerging from underneath the carriageway of the bridge. There may be some capacity to install baffling that would not impede the flow of traffic and would dampen down the noise at both Crimea Road and Gloucester Road. It is time for dramatic and quick action. A number of months have passed since the matter was raised. The responsibility has to be sheeted home to the appropriate body. I want to know who that is and I want action taken quickly.

Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [4.41 p.m.]: Last Saturday, 13 September, I had the honour of attending the fiftieth anniversary celebration of St George School in my electorate of Rockdale. St George School evolved from humble beginnings when in 1949 a group of parents with disabled children formed a small school which was accommodated in a church hall in Bexley. It was known as St George Spastic School. The hall soon proved to be inadequate and a cottage was purchased in Carlton, becoming the school’s location for the following five years. As the number of children increased, the school was again moved, in 1953, to its present site in Alexandra Parade, Rockdale.

In 1970 it was decided to rebuild the school and with the help of the then Department of Education and $85,000 raised by parents and friends the present premises were officially opened by Sir Roden Cutler on 27 November 1971. It was then known as the St George School for Crippled Children. Today it is known simply as the St George School. Since the school’s early years the type of students attending has changed from those with physical disabilities and mild, if any, intellectual disability to students who have severe and multiple disabilities but for whom the primary disability is physical. With the development and implementation of exemplary programs at the school and the heightened profile of the school within the community, demand for the services it offers has increased and the numbers of students and staff have risen accordingly.

The principal of the St George School is Mr Ken Hickling, who is a true professional in this specialist field of education and a person who enjoys the confidence and trust of the students in his charge and their families. In his address last Saturday Mr Hickling recounted his experiences at the school and reflected on why the school has reached and maintained such a splendid standard. Referring to the time of his appointment, Mr Hickling said:

Education was entering an era of teamwork and change, two concepts being hailed as vital to education and demonstrated as being even more critical in special education. So with those two important elements, good people and a mandate to renew and change, the St George School community developed a vision which in turn became our mission to become the best educational facility of its kind in the country. I believe we’ve made it.

I believe we have made it for these reasons. We are totally committed to learning. Not only to the teaching and learning programs for the students enrolled in the school, but to all members of our school community learning together. We operate as a team, not just a group of people who work together but a true team of people with shared beliefs and goals, committed to the collaborative process.

He went on to say:

And I’m proud to say our team is made up of some of the most experienced, highly qualified and dedicated staff currently working in the field. These people include teachers, teacher aides, therapists (all disciplines are covered: speech pathology, occupational therapy and physiotherapy), technical assistance, a conductor (the best one outside Hungary), a music therapist and the most fantastic secretary and general assistant.

Further, he said:

If the expertise needed is not covered by the people who work

Page 249
here permanently, then we seek out experts from other places and get them involved as part of a short term "situational team".

The richness and diversity of the school team is enhanced by volunteers from the local community who assist the professional staff in many different ways. Students from surrounding schools undertake work experience and community service there. The families of the children who attend the school also contribute in a big way. They are regarded as the most crucial members of the team and without their involvement and the focus they provide the programming process would be incomplete. Everyone involved in the St George School truly epitomises what a school community is all about. The school has a very active parents and citizens association that is dedicated to helping the school and its students, especially in the area of fundraising.

A very active and interested school council plays a significant part in school governance with input to the major decisions that affect the school and assist in setting the school’s direction. Again, families are involved in program development and, where possible, program implementation. Families are considered to be an integral part of the St George School team. The school was one of the first in Australia to run a pilot program in conductive education which was developed in Hungary at the Peto Institute. This holistic system of education teaches students with motor disabilities to take an active and conscious role in their own development and to function independently.

The school’s integration program enables students to socialise with their non-disabled peers in community settings, school and post-school environments, preparing them for life in the adult community. This is truly one of the great teaching and learning institutions in its field in Australia. The principal and staff at St George School believe it is the best. From what I have seen and learnt, I agree with them. I enthusiastically congratulate everyone associated with the St George School on providing 50 years of dedicated quality education and wish them the very best for the future.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [4.46 p.m]: I am delighted to endorse the comments of my colleague the honourable member for Rockdale in commending the work of St George School for specific purposes and congratulating the school community on its recent fiftieth anniversary. I am aware of the innovative programs and excellent teaching and support provided for students with severe physical disabilities who attend the school and for their families. The expertise of the principal, Mr Ken Hickling, and his staff has also contributed to the development of special education in this State. Examples of this include the trialling of the senior teacher’s aide position, involvement in the development of protocols for the administration of prescribed medication and of health care procedures, and participation in the design of a training course for teachers' aides.

Further, Mr Hickling is one of a number of people working closely with the Board of Studies in developing materials to support the access by students with special education needs to kindergarten to year 6 syllabus documents. Special education materials to support the English kindergarten to year 6 syllabus have already been distributed to schools while those to complement the PD-Health-PE syllabus are nearing completion. Work has commenced on the mathematics and human society and its environment syllabuses. In the area of child protection, Mr Hickling has contributed to the development of the video Child Protection: Everybody’s Business and brought a special needs perspective to that excellent teaching resource.

St George School has also developed a close relationship with Macquarie University. A joint project is being conducted to develop and trial programming procedures for students with high support needs. The outcome of this project has the potential to enhance the education of high support needs students across the State. The St George School for specific purposes epitomises the dedication and skills of teachers and support staff in our public education system in catering for special needs students in our schools for specific purposes, support units and regular classrooms. I am delighted to be able to commend the school and its principal.

Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [4.48 p.m.]: I wish to voice the concerns of firearms owners within my electorate and particularly Richard Mould, the State President of the Field and Game Federation, about the effect of the current gun laws and regulations on their sport of clay target shooting. Clay target shooters are not able to retain their category C shotguns, which perform a semiautomatic function. In the United States such shotguns can be either two shot or three shot. On 30 September these firearms will become prohibited in New South Wales, which will disadvantage the sport and its New South Wales competitors at international standards. Many of the shotguns are gas operated, thus enabling women, disabled people and minors to operate them without
Page 250
risk of injury to their shoulders.

I appeal to the Minister for Police and the Minister for Sport and Recreation to take these facts into account when considering firearms regulations and the Firearms Act. When the firearms legislation passed through this House all honourable members recognised the need to provide greater flexibility. The Western Australian Government, the Queensland Government and the Northern Territory Government have already recognised the need for finetuning. In a media statement of 15 September, the Minister for Police in Western Australia, John Day, said:

Proposed changes to the Firearms Regulations will provide greater equity among clay target shooters in Western Australia.

Police Minister John Day said under the proposed changes a member of an approved club who shoots clay targets for national or international competition would be permitted to retain their Category C Shotgun.

That is a step in the right direction and one that New South Wales should take. I also speak on behalf of those who operate skirmish fields in my electorate and also on behalf of the Skirmish Paintball Operators Association of New South Wales. Until recently paintball operators were permitted to use both single-shot and semiautomatic markers. For the purposes of the Act a marker is described as a firearm. Considerable discretion is needed in this regard. I understand from correspondence from the Skirmish Paintball Operators Association that the interpretation of the Commissioner of Police is that semiautomatic markers are semiautomatic firearms, so that on 30 September they will become a prohibited firearm. Such an interpretation will result in considerable cost for this sport, which is flourishing across Australia.

I again ask that the Minister for Police take into account that when we passed legislation through this House we realised that some finetuning would be required. Interpreting a semiautomatic paint marker as a semiautomatic firearm is ridiculous in the extreme. Perhaps the Minister should discuss this with the Commissioner of Police to find a way to solve both of these problems prior to 30 September. My great concern is that without an extension of the amnesty period from 30 September, a lot of firearms owners who willingly want to comply with the new laws will be unable to do so because of administrative congestion or some inequity in the legislation, such as those to which I have referred with regard to clay target shooters and those involved in the sport of skirmish. I appeal to the Minister for Police, and I thank him for coming into the Chamber to respond. I hope he will be able to provide some positive information for those involved in both of these very legitimate sports.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [4.53 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for notifying me that he would raise this matter here today. As the honourable member acknowledged, this is a vexed issue. I took advice from the Commonwealth Attorney-General, who advised me that the Field and Game Federation takes part in and nominates teams for international clay target events. He also advised me that the Australian Clay Target Association is the only body which nominates official Australian teams for the three levels of competition identified by the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council on 10 May 1996. As the honourable member would be aware, the principle of permitting access to category C shotguns by a restricted class of clay target shooters was to ensure effective representation.

I point out to the honourable member that the Farmers Federation wrote to me and I supported the thrust of a letter to the Commonwealth Attorney-General to extend the amnesty. I got no joy from the Commonwealth Government. It is a matter that the honourable member will have to take up with the Commonwealth Government. I have extended the period in which farmers can, indirectly, ensure compensation and get a licence. Any farmer who takes a weapon into the police station right now will have that firearm returned if a licence is granted. If a licence is not granted, compensation will be paid. I am urging farmers to follow that course. The provisions relating to paintball were transferred from the Prohibited Weapons Act to the Firearms Act in June 1996. It has been made easier for players to participate in paintballing by licensing ranges rather than individual players. The Government will allow individuals to possess paintball guns, rather than force them to leave guns at the ranges. In August 1996 the acting commissioner proposed that in line with the APMC resolutions the use of semiautomatic paintball guns should cease, and that has been the case since September 1996.

Ms ANDREWS (Peats) [4.55 p.m.]: I wish to speak briefly on that aspect of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service that deals with police and community youth clubs. As honourable members would be aware, one of the recommendations of the final report of the royal commission queried whether police officers should continue to be attached to full-time duties with PCYCs. I am pleased that the Minister for
Page 251
Police has announced that a review into the role of police within PCYCs has commenced. Submissions to that inquiry are now being invited from anyone who has an interest in police and community youth clubs. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on taking that initiative, as police and community youth clubs are now run successfully in many parts of the State and I would like to see them prosper and grow under the guidance and direct involvement of police officers on a full-time basis.

In the Woy Woy peninsula area there is a strong move, which I have fully supported, to establish a police and community youth club at Umina Beach in the former Electricity Commission depot, which had been empty for some time until Gosford City Council recently purchased the complex from the State Government to convert the area into recreational areas for the local community. I supported the council’s moves to procure the depot, making direct representations to the State Treasurer, Michael Egan. A few weeks ago all Gosford city councillors endorsed the move for the establishment of a police and community youth club within the Osborne Avenue complex. Brisbane Water local area commander, Max Ebrill, has also given his total support to this move. Recently I was reading through media releases of the Minister for Police, which is something I do on a regular basis, and read with much interest that the mobile police and community youth club’s van would be heading down to the south coast and Nowra area after operating in the Mount Druitt and Blacktown area.

I quickly penned a letter to the Minister for Police seeking his assistance to have the mobile van visit the central coast, and Umina Beach in particular. It is with much delight that I am now able to advise my constituents that the mobile police and community youth club van will be on the central coast from 26 September to 5 October 1997. It will be located on site in Osborne Avenue to coincide with the holding of a public meeting on the proposed PCYC on the evening of Monday, 29 September. The mobile van will provide local residents with the opportunity to see first-hand just how a PCYC operates, and the variety of facilities it offers. I thank the Minister for so promptly arranging for the mobile van to visit Umina Beach and other locations on the central coast. The Umina Beach Police and Community Youth Club will be the first such club established in the entire region but, hopefully, it will not be the last.

I am of the firm belief that if we had more police and community youth clubs around the State we would not have nearly so much trouble with vandalism, hooliganism, under-age drinking or, sadly, teenage suicides. Young people need places to go so that they can participate with their peers in recreational activities of their choosing. The Peats electorate has very few places at which young people can meet during their leisure hours. The proposed police and community youth club will provide a much-needed facility. The proposed police and community youth club to be conducted under the auspices of the Police Service is receiving widespread support from the local community, as it considers it a positive response to meeting the dire needs of a large number of young people who reside in the Woy Woy peninsula area.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.00 p.m.]: I am pleased to announce that I have arranged for the mobile police and community youth club to visit the central coast from 26 September to 5 October. It was the ability of the honourable member for Peats that led to those arrangements being secured, and full credit must be given to her. I was overjoyed to hear that Gosford City Council has made a commitment, involving substantial funds, to build a PCYC at Umina. It is tremendous news for the central coast. I look forward to officially opening the first PCYC on the central coast in the very near future. I congratulate the honourable member for Peats and the Gosford City Council on taking such a step.

The honourable member for Peats also mentioned the PCYC inquiry, which resulted from Justice Wood’s recommendation. As the honourable member knows, an independent review has already been undertaken. The recommendation has been implemented by my appointment of Bruce Callaghan to conduct an independent inquiry. I am keen that Mr Callaghan seeks the views of everyone in the PCYC movement. Public consultation is vital to that inquiry and also includes members of Parliament. I have specifically asked Mr Callaghan to ensure that he writes directly to all members of Parliament to provide input into the Government’s decision-making process.

I advise the honourable member for Peats that I have gone as far as I will in telling Mr Callaghan what should be done. I have arranged for a forum to be held during this parliamentary session for interested members to discuss their ideas and concerns. That forum will be held at Parliament House on Wednesday, 22 October. No doubt honourable members will be notified about that date. Mr Callaghan’s report is expected by the end of the year. I encourage everyone who supports the PCYCs to forward a submission to Mr Callaghan to ensure that the right decision is made. I thank the honourable member for Peats for her contribution to
Page 252
this matter.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [5.02 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House and the Minister for Education and Training, to whom I have mentioned this matter, the dire need for the appointment of a permanent principal at Sawtell Primary School. The Sawtell community, the Sawtell Primary School council and the parents and citizens association wrote to me and to the Minister in April as follows:

Sawtell School has had the following Principals since 1989:

1989-1993 Mr Barnier (retired end of year)
1994 Mr Cattanach (took up position at Moree Primary School)
1995 Term 1 - Ms Tonkin (relieving)
Terms 2, 3, 4 - Mrs Martin-Duryea
1996 Terms 1, 2, 3 - Mrs Martin-Duryea
Term 4 - Mr Cheers (relieving)
1997 Term 1 - Mrs Martin-Duryea (took up position at Westlawn Primary School)
Term 2 - Mr Cheers (relieving weeks 1-4)

In term 3 the school has Mr George Gelagin as its principal. The school has begged for the appointment of a permanent principal. It is an excellent school with an excellent school council and tremendous parents and citizens association, but it needs to be able to go about its business knowing the school has a permanent principal. On several occasions I wrote to the Minister and to the Director-General of School Education about the matter. The last correspondence I received from the Minister was on 30 June as follows:

The principal’s position at the school has been filled on a relieving basis for the remainder of 1997, after expressions of interest from teachers in the district were considered by members of the school community. The position will be filled substantively from the beginning of 1998 in accordance with the staffing procedures.

Representatives of the school went to the Department of School Education and asked that a principal be appointed. They were told they could have either a lateral transfer under normal procedures or an appointment by merit selection. They proceeded through an extensive merit selection process and interviewed five applicants. Those applicants have a right to know the result of that process, as does the school community.

As at last week the school had been advised by the department that the position of principal at Sawtell Public School had been temporarily withdrawn. Apparently the documents relating to the procedure in which they willingly and happily participated have landed on someone’s desk in Sydney, who has now said, "Sorry, we will now withdraw this process. You will not get the appointment of a permanent principal in the new year", as had been guaranteed by the Minister. I do not know who will be the principal. Five people applied for the position and all were suitably qualified. I make it quite clear that I do not believe the problem rests with the Minister; rather it emanates from the department.

I ask the Minister to determine from whose desk the problem originated and to ensure that the decision is overturned so that the Sawtell school community, which has undertaken a tremendous job in trying circumstances since 1993 with temporary principals, is given an assurance that the process they followed by agreement with the department is confirmed and that the choice from the five applicants is confirmed immediately, or at least by 1998. The people and the students of the Sawtell community must have confidence in the system and be assured that the school will function with the appointment of a permanent principal. In its correspondence to me the school council said:

The Sawtell School Council also feels strongly that this decision on the part of the Department reduces the role of Sawtell School Council to mere tokenism, an issue that raises questions about the Department’s view of the role of School Councils in general.

More particularly, I add that it raises questions about the role the school council has played in the process to secure the appointment of a permanent principal. I ask the Minister to urgently investigate the situation, confirm the appointment of the applicant chosen by the school community and give the children of that primary school and its parents the confidence they rightly deserve. Sawtell Public School is an excellent school with a great teaching fraternity and parent body which has functioned under duress.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [5.07 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Coffs Harbour for the few minutes warning that he intended to raise this matter. I anticipate that he was given the unexpected opportunity to raise the matter this afternoon, which explains why he did not afford me earlier warning. However, in the intervening few minutes I made some hurried telephone calls. I am pleased to advise the honourable member for Coffs Harbour that information now given to me from the department is that the offer has been made to the person selected by the Sawtell school community as its principal, and that person has confirmed acceptance of the
Page 253
offer. Unless something goes terribly wrong in the communication lines, and I do not expect that to be the case, I am pleased to advise the honourable member that his urgent inquiries have received urgent attention and an immediate and urgent positive response.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [5.09 p.m.]: On Sunday, 7 September, The Entrance fire brigade celebrated its fiftieth anniversary. On that occasion the Government was able to present to The Entrance fire brigade a new fire truck, which is one of four delivered to the central coast this year, for Saratoga, Wyoming, The Entrance and Wyong. The Entrance fire brigade has served the local community for approximately 50 years. It began on 19 September 1947 when the district officer, Mr G. Eadie, arrived from Sydney with a Dennis Ace Fire Engine. This brand new engine was housed in a humble tin shed in Dening Street. This was the era before water was connected to The Entrance, so the fire brigade had to operate by taking water from house tanks, underground tanks, wells, the lake or wherever it was found.

The original station was manned by Mr W. Forster, captain, and its members were J. Glover Snr, A. Bourke, R. Barrass, R. Baker, G. Forster, G. Roberts. C. Kelner, C. Nelson and A. Carren. Reserve firemen were J. Glover Jnr, L. Comensoli, D. Batchelor, W. Mulhall and H. Fallon. In the early days all firefighters who were retained volunteers had to live within hearing distance of the fire bell to ensure a prompt and guaranteed response. The original fire captain, Mr Foster, hung his hat up for the last time in 1948. Mr Jack Glover was appointed captain on 17 November 1948, and he remained in the position until 1955. The fire brigade headquarters was transferred to a concrete building built by Mr Comensoli, who was appointed acting-captain between 1955 and May 1956. Mr C. Nelson was then appointed captain.

The Entrance fire brigade moved to its current $15,000 brick premises in Boondilla Road in 1969. At this time the members were Mr C. Nelson, Mr B. Moore, Mr G. Tickman, Mr R. Claydon, Mr C. Secomb, Mr G. Fitzhenry, Mr B. Ashbrook, Mr R. Frost, Mr S. Gibbons and Mr C. Morris. In 1972 a new fire engine valued at $17,000 was presented to The Entrance fire station by Fire Commissioner C. R. Kingsland. In 1975 the fire brigade lobbied for a permanent officer, but it was determined that the brigade was so efficient that one was not needed. In August 1979, after much lobbying, The Entrance fire brigade finally was granted its permanent officer, Ian Dempsey, and retained staff. Ian Dempsey, a colourful local character, retired from the fire brigade on 5 August 1993 after 14 years of serving the central coast. In March 1994 John Sinclair became the appointed permanent officer at The Entrance fire station, and he continues in that position today.

The Entrance fire brigade has had to respond to a number of interesting cases. One of the most unusual was on 18 January, when a small plane had to make a forced landing at Picnic Point. Following the landing, it was discovered that the plane could not take off south of The Entrance Bridge, so the fire brigade escorted the light plane across the bridge over to the north side where it then took off. In 1994 the brigade was heavily involved in fighting bushfires on the central coast. The Entrance fire brigade is also highly involved in community-based education. It makes frequent visits to pre-schools to give informal talks about safety in the home, to high schools to lecture as part of the curriculum, and to retirement homes to speak to the elderly about extinguishers and fire safety.

The fire brigade works closely with the major shopping centres to ensure that the fire drill evacuation process is in place so that staff and the public can escape in the event of a fire. The fire brigade is involved also in community displays. Each year it takes part in the emergency services day, which is co-ordinated by the police and held at Memorial Park, The Entrance. The Entrance fire brigade was highly commended by the New South Wales Fire Brigades. In a letter dated 3 July 1991 officers and members of The Entrance fire brigade were congratulated on and commended for their bravery at the scene of a house fire in Cornish Avenue, Killarney Vale. The officers and members risked life and limb to evacuate three occupants of the house.

I pay tribute to Barry Moore and the current serving members. Barry has been with the service for 38 of its 50 years of operation. He has been captain for the past 27 years and was awarded the Queen’s Medal and a national medal. I pay tribute to the current station officer, John Sinclair, who has been an officer for 21 years. He is a highly qualified officer and an asset to the area. Other members include Dave Edwards, Tammy Briggs, Brian Henry, Dean Butcher, Stephen Moxon, Christopher Wallace, Jason Heginbotham, Michael Marteene, Peter Chambers, Rodney Tabone, Roy Webb, Keith Hackett, John Morton and Stephen Humpries. [Time expired.]


Page 254
Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [5.14 p.m.]: Since 1947 The Entrance has developed from a sleepy little village where people went to recreate into a famous holiday place, especially for people from the metropolitan area. As a police officer I spent New Year’s Eve of 1969, 1970 and 1971 at The Entrance dealing with problems arising from people acting in an antisocial way. People were always trying to burn down the old wooden bridge. I remember discussing with Barry Moore and his colleagues the possibility of using the fire tanker to spray people in the main street who may become boisterous. As a consequence of the out-of-hand activities at The Entrance in the early 1970s, over a period of 10 months I spent a fair bit of time in court giving evidence. Positive action was taken to stem the problems at The Entrance because it was becoming a place where people did not want to spend their holidays. I congratulate all the people who have been involved in The Entrance for the past 50 years. It is now a thriving holiday resort and a place where people choose to live. Barry Moore and his officers continue to serve with distinction at The Entrance fire brigade.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [5.16 p.m.]: A number of social problems exist in the Cronulla electorate. First, I refer to antisocial behaviour and under-age drinking prior to football matches at the home ground of the Cronulla-Sutherland team. I am pleased that as a result of meetings between the council, police, members of the club and the State Rail Authority many of the problems associated with poor behaviour at the matches have been canvassed. The club brought forward the commencement time of the game to 6.00 p.m. on Saturday night, which resulted in considerable improvement in the antisocial activity. The club security staff were able to prevent alcohol being smuggled into the ground and under-aged drinking was thus prevented. Significantly more families attended the match, and the crowd comprised more than 17,000 people. I wish the Cronulla team, and its captain, Andrew Ettingshausen, the best for the grand final. Next season, if there are night matches, I will work with the club, the residents, the council and Cyprian Fernandez to minimise the dislocation that can occur.

The other behaviour to which I refer involves the degree of under-age drinking and alcohol abuse that occurs in the Cronulla area. I pay tribute to the patrol commander, Superintendent Karpik, a police officer who was very much involved in preventing alcohol abuse. I also thank Brian Breakspear. I hope that in the lead-up to the next season it will be possible for football players to attend local schools and youth clubs as role models. There is a need for community-based projects, with parents, police and social workers involved. This problem is not just one for the individual, but for the community as a whole.

I was a chairman of the ministerial advisory council on the liquor industry. During that period a number of reforms were instituted in relation to responsible drinking and under-age drinking, such as the introduction of proof-of-age cards. The Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development has shown a keen interest in ensuring that the reform process continues. If we are to have an orderly and civilised society, the rights of all citizens must be observed. Drunkenness leads to irresponsible behaviour. Youth suicide is another issue affecting my electorate. In the Sutherland shire there have been a number of meetings of the Rose Foundation. I am pleased that the St George & Sutherland Shire Leader has seen fit to publicise its meetings. Youth suicide is a tragic and growing problem in my electorate.

We must ensure, first of all, that young people have somewhere to turn for help and assistance, and know where to turn for that assistance. A human life is of infinite value. The work of the Rose Foundation has saved many lives, and that is something we should all be proud of. This is a community problem and it can only be solved by reaching out to the community so that young people know where to go for help; and so that parents are able to recognise the signs of a potential suicide and ensure they are in a position to also reach out for help.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [5.21 p.m.]: The honourable member for Cronulla has expressed a great deal of concern about the problems of under-age drinking and how they might be overcome. Although the problem is spread throughout the State, in seaside suburbs the tendency for young people to get out in public places and consume liquor seems to be more prolific - I do not know why, and I have no hard evidence as to the reason. I share the honourable member’s concerns about what happens at major functions. In recent times officers of the Department of Gaming and Racing have been visiting major venues, mainly racecourses, as a consequence of a misunderstanding on the part of some people that they can go to such places and act
Page 255
in an antisocial way, a way they cannot behave in a hotel, club or restaurant.

Football matches are no exception and, in fact, my officers, together with officers from the Police Service, have been examining issues related to the Sydney Cricket Ground and the Sydney Football Stadium as a result of unacceptable practices that have emerged over a period of time. We are seriously concerned about those who serve liquor, as well as those persons who want to consume liquor when they are intoxicated. We are concerned that they are not taking on board the harm minimisation tenets of the legislation passed by the New South Wales Parliament and the "No more it’s the law" campaign. So far as I am concerned, antisocial behaviour resulting from excessive consumption of alcohol is not acceptable in any circumstances. The reforms I have put in place in relation to harm minimisation and, more importantly, the enforcement package, have been reinforced by the fact that a particular country hotel went out of business for 72 hours recently. That resulted from a period of six months of problems which reached the stage that ambulance officers would not visit the premises. I give the honourable member an assurance that officers of my department will talk to him about the possibility of undertaking similar exercises in the electorate of Cronulla next year.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [5.23 p.m.]: It is with pleasure tonight that I advise the House of the results of a recent survey conducted by the Wyong Chamber of Commerce. The results of the survey were contained in a very detailed report and also summarised in a press release from the President of the Wyong Chamber of Commerce, Mr Mark Hoddinott, on 12 September 1997. In his press release Mr Hoddinott advised that the Wyong Chamber of Commerce had conducted a survey of its members in relation to issues surrounding the proposed redevelopment of Warnervale airport. In fact, 20 questions were asked in the survey, covering a broad range of issues including curfews, freight operations, environmental assessment, aircraft size and the impact of the Warnervale Airport (Restrictions) Act, which honourable members will recall I sponsored in this House in June of last year.

The response rate from Wyong Chamber of Commerce members was apparently extremely high and revealed a number of key issues which were important to those members. What I found interesting in the results was that Wyong Chamber of Commerce members considered that the Warnervale Airport (Restrictions) Act was not an unfair procedure. In other words, they endorsed the action of the Australian Labor Party and of the New South Wales Parliament and believed it was a fair and proper procedure in all its circumstances. It is important that a wide cross-section of the community believes that legislation promulgated in this House is reasonable and fair.

The almost universal view of members of the chamber was that an upgraded airport at Warnervale would be an asset to the central coast. That, again, is consistent with the Warnervale Airport (Restrictions) Act 1996 because the Act contains provision for a 1,200-metre runway at Warnervale. On 10 September, at an ordinary meeting, Wyong Shire Council considered the possibility of providing a 1,200-metre runway in accordance with the provisions of the Warnervale Airport (Restrictions) Act. The information that resulted from the survey indicated that chamber members wanted aircraft size limited to 70 passengers. In other words, they wanted the airport contained to 1,200 metres: they did not believe it was appropriate to have a 1,800-metre runway at Warnervale, based on the size of the aircraft they desired.

Even more important was the fact that they believed there was a need for environmental and noise impacts to be independently assessed; and, furthermore, that contract negotiations between Wyong Shire Council and developers should be transparent. That is certainly the case in the provisions of the Warnervale Airport (Restrictions) Act, because if council wants to increase the runway from 1,200 metres to 1,800 metres, there is provision to apply to the relevant Minister and independent noise and environmental assessments would take place at no cost to ratepayers. Another concern of chamber members was that Warnervale should not be used as an alternative international airport. Obviously, there are concerns about the eventual scope of the airport among chamber members.

Indeed, one of the concerns related to curfews and those surveyed believed the curfew should be in place between the hours of 9.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. That is a more onerous condition than applied in the Warnervale Airport (Restrictions) Act, because section 5 of that Act states that the curfew will apply from 10.00 p.m. each day until 6.30 a.m. the following day. Chamber members want an additional 30 minutes curfew. The council decision of 10 September - which I note was dissented from by the incoming mayor who was elected last night - sought a reduction in curfew hours. I congratulate Councillor Brennan on her election last night. I believe this is a new opportunity for Wyong Shire
Page 256
Council to work in co-operation with the Wyong Chamber of Commerce and with all State members of Parliament for the benefit of the Wyong community.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [5.28 p.m.]: I note that the honourable member has an abiding interest in the Warnervale air facility and the matters he raised in regard to the views of the Chamber of Commerce and Wyong Shire Council are pertinent. It seems that 1947 was a very busy year. As the honourable member for The Entrance indicated a few moments ago, that was the year in which the fire station was established in The Entrance. It is also 50 years since Wyong shire came into existence. I had much pleasure in being in the electorate of Wyong last weekend at the gathering of the clans and being one of the lead drum majors during a very delightful day. I am very sunburned, probably because there were no clouds in the area on that day. I wish Councillor Brennan well in her role as mayor. Councillor Doug Eaton who was present last weekend did not show proper protocols towards me as a Minister of the Crown, even though he knew I was there. I found that unusual, considering the fact that he and the person who was organising the event knew I was taking part even though I was not there in my official capacity. It may be that he is attempting to play politics. Usual protocols do apply at such events in a bipartisan way. I wish Councillor Brennan well. She will, from what I have heard, play a much better role in that regard. It was a great day at Toukley and the views of the honourable member for Wyong will be taken into account.

Mr TRIPODI (Fairfield) [5.30 p.m.]: I thank the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing for the attention he has given to the issues concerning my electorate. Problems are being experienced at the eastern end of my electorate - at the Villawood shopping centre, the Villawood housing estate and the Fairfield shopping centre. One of the first things I did when elected as the member for Fairfield was to take the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning through the areas in my electorate that were experiencing problems. One of the biggest problems affecting all three locations is urban decay. Those centres, which are quite old, have been deteriorating for a long time. The previous Federal Government, in its building better cities program, which was initiated by Brian Howe, recognised the need for urban centre regeneration. However, that is not a priority of the new Federal Government.

Areas requiring particular attention were not given that attention by the former State Government. I am happy that, since the election of the Carr Government, those areas have received the attention that they deserve. A number of businesses at the Villawood shopping centre, including the Commonwealth Bank and the Department of Housing, have closed. All that is left are a few chemists, a newsagency and a fruit vendor. Essentially, that constitutes the whole of the central business district. Aged people living in the Villawood area who are unable to use public transport do not have access to the shopping centres. While campaigning in that area residents brought to my attention the fact that they urgently needed a supermarket. My first priority was to place that matter on my agenda.

Once the Minister visited those areas in my electorate we went through a charette process; we invited public consultation and drew up plans for the revitalisation of the Villawood shopping centre. That process, which is now under way, slowed down quite considerably once it was placed in the hands of Fairfield City Council. It is not proceeding at the pace I should like it to proceed. The charette process enabled us to come up with a range of recommendations, including the opening of a street and the selling of commercial property held by the Department of Housing, to be better managed by private sector operators. Council is now holding discussions with potential supermarket landlords to build a supermarket and provide for the needs of the elderly people in this area.

When the Minister visited my electorate I took him to the Villawood housing estate, which is probably the worst area in my electorate and a focal point for poverty. Often when people who had waited for five, six or seven years for a Department of Housing home were eventually offered a place in the Villawood housing estate they begged me to try to get them another offer. They would rather wait for another five years than go into that housing estate; that is how bad it was. Villawood housing estate was a haven for criminals and a major centre for the distribution of drugs in that area. Essentially, it was run by criminal elements. The buildings were crumbling, the plumbing was not working and about $2 million was being spent each year on the maintenance of the estate.

Earlier this year, when the Minister visited my electorate, he announced that that housing estate
Page 257
would be demolished - the best decision that he has made regarding my electorate. Almost no criticism has been made of that decision. Neighbouring suburbs, people who live in that estate, the council and all other stakeholders have welcomed that decision. I understand that a review of this plan is being undertaken, but I hope that the two-year plan gets under way soon. People at this estate want an improved quality of life and some relief from the terrible living conditions that they have been subjected to over many years.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [5.35 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Fairfield for his kind comments and commend him for his extraordinary leadership and efforts on behalf of his constituents to achieve real improvements in these areas. The honourable member for Fairfield has listened to, helped and worked with members of his community through any number of consultations and meetings to achieve better outcomes for them. The problems associated with the Villawood and East Fairfield housing estates are chronic and long standing. This 1970s development was some sort of utopian planner’s ideal that was totally inappropriate for the social and economic imperatives of western Sydney. Today those problems have been exacerbated by historic underspending on maintenance, by poor design and
by poor original construction. The estate is simply beyond saving.

Added to that are the problems of drugs and crime, which make a recipe for social chaos that can be addressed only by tearing up the original plans and bringing in the bulldozers. This Government will knock down that estate and start again. It will protect the rights of existing tenants and ensure that they get quality housing in a revitalised area. The review about which the honourable member for Fairfield spoke is not my review - it is a review brought about by the churlish and shortsighted approach of the honourable member for Eastwood, who mistakenly alleged that I had spent a lot of money on this development and that that money should not be wasted by knocking the estate down. The honourable member for Eastwood needs a road map as he referred to the wrong estate. A review is being undertaken by the Auditor-General. I encourage those honourable members who do not know this area to visit the estate to obtain an understanding of what this Government is doing, which will make a fundamental difference to the lives of those people and rapidly improve the quality of public housing in western Sydney.

Private members statements noted.