Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 28 October 1999, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Thursday 28 October 1999

______

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Report

Mr Speaker announced, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, receipt of the report entitled "Investigation into Aboriginal Land Councils in New South Wales: Report on investigation into travel allowance and expense claims by the Councillors of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Councils" dated October 1999.

Ordered to be printed.

COMMUNITY PROTECTION (DANGEROUS OFFENDERS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 October.

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield - Minister for Police) [10.01 a.m.]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned.

Question put.

Division called for and, pursuant to sessional orders, deferred.

MANLY DAM ARDEL SITE

Debate resumed from 21 October.

Mr BARR (Manly) [10.02 a.m.], in reply: The motion calls on the Government to enter into negotiations with the Federal Government and Warringah Council with a view to contributing to a buy-back of the Ardel site. In his contribution the Minister for the Environment stated that there were limitations on the discretionary funds available to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. He said that the focus was on meeting the highest priority heritage conservation goals rather than simply securing politically satisfying outcomes for individual members of Parliament. I have great respect for the Minister as a person and as a Minister, but that comment was unfortunate.

The Ardel site is environmentally extremely sensitive and important. Its significance has been underestimated. In the matters that have gone before the Land and Environment Court all of the issues have not been adequately explored. The Minister gave examples of the sorts of problems he faces in regard to financing. He said that the Government paid $320,000 for the Bolivia Hill site, north of Glen Innes, which covers 1,720 hectares. That amount would not even buy a block on the Ardel site.

Two issues are involved. The first is whether the site is of great significance environmentally, and the second is how to go about purchasing it. The Minister said that, though areas of high conservation value in urban regions may be under threat, nothing can be done to solve the problem because it would be too expensive to do so. For inhabitants of the Sydney metropolitan area whose open space and bushland have been rapidly eroded, that is a significant issue. The metropolitan area of Sydney has a population of more than four million. They are as entitled to have quality conservation areas preserved as anyone is in other parts of the State.

These issues must be resolved. The Government should examine the matter in detail. It is not satisfactory to say simply that the cost of preserving these sites in metropolitan areas is too great and therefore nothing can be done. Another issue relates to the heritage value of this site, which over the years has suffered because of the failure to acknowledge its significance. The site is located at the headwaters to Manly Dam, the only freshwater dam along the foreshores of Sydney.

The honourable member for Wakehurst will understand that I have had a lot to do with this issue because the site is at the head of the catchment area in my electorate, and it is an important issue for my constituents. The true value of the Ardel site has not been properly examined in the court cases. Warringah Council has not met its responsibility to
Page 2294
ensure that the site receives recognition. I cite as an example that recently Manly Council resolved to allocate $5,000 towards a consultancy study of the water quality control pond, a matter about which New South Wales Fisheries had expressed concern. New South Wales Fisheries was not a party to the second case before the Land and Environment Court.

Manly Council requested Warringah Council to provide half of the funding, $2,500, but that has not happened. In essence, the old guard on Warringah Council, when seeking re-election, stated that they were firmly committed to doing something about the Ardel site. But at the first opportunity they squibbed it and refused to fund the consultant to examine the water quality control pond, which was one of the critical issues for that development, as the technology is not fully understood and New South Wales Fisheries required an outside consultant. That will be done, but not by Warringah Council. I point the finger also at the Heritage Council. In January 1996 a letter was written by one of the eminent members of the Heritage Council in which he said that members of that council had examined the site to determine its heritage value. He said:

While we were only able to view the site from its margins (due to cyclone wire fences) we could not find any evidence of this being a special or exceptional piece of bushland whose incorporation into the Manly Dam Reserve was essential.

The margins from which representatives of the Heritage Council viewed the site was the car park. That was the essence of their site inspection, which is quite outrageous.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

Division called for and, pursuant to sessional orders, deferred.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Precedence of Business

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield - Minister for Police) [10.09 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow:

(1) the taking of private members’ statements from 11.30 a.m. at this sitting; and

(2) Government business to take precedence of general business from 12.30 p.m. at this sitting.

The purpose of the second part of the motion for suspension is to enable several second reading speeches to be delivered, so that Opposition members will have available to them the second reading speeches and the bills. I suggest that any response by the honourable member for Gosford to my moving this motion should be tempered by the fact that many members want to make a private member’s statement today because debate on the Premier’s motion for a yes vote to the referendum of 6 November continued until the rising of the House to the exclusion of private members’ statements.

Mr Hartcher: Absolutely. It was for the yes vote.

Mr WHELAN: No-one supported the no case. Yesterday the House decided unanimously to support the yes case. There was not one opposing vote. The motion I have moved will enable members to make private members’ statements today on two occasions, first, at 11.30 a.m. and then at the normal time at 4.15 p.m. I hope I do not hear complaints that private members’ day is being eroded. This motion is about giving members an opportunity to make a private member’s statement.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.10 a.m.): The Leader of the House said that he hoped he did not hear complaints that private members’ day was being eroded. Private members’ day has been eroded as private members’ business was eroded yesterday. The reason we do not have private members’ day today is because of what happened yesterday. It was a solemn farce! As the Leader of the House said, yesterday was taken up with a debate about a yes vote for the 6 November referendum. No attempt was made to engage in constructive debate on the referendum issue. The House was invited to participate in debate on the Premier’s motion endorsing the yes vote. That was consistent with the position of the Australian Labor Party, and that is all. If the ALP wishes the referendum to be lost on 6 November, it is going the right way about it because it is identifying the yes case with the ALP.

Mr Fraser: And Gough.

Mr HARTCHER: Yes, with Mr Whitlam, Mr Hawke and the much unloved Mr Keating. That is all the ALP has done. It is being too smart by half; it has shot itself in the foot. People have different views on the republic. It is not a question of being for or against a republic; it is whether people are for or against the issue being properly debated in this House. It was certainly not debated properly yesterday. It was rammed through by the Premier because he wanted to be the Sir Henry Parkes of
Page 2295
1999. He was not even present for the vote at the end of the debate. He did not even close the debate on his own motion. That is typical of the Premier.

Traditionally in this House the member who moves a motion closes debate on the motion by replying to the contributions given by other members, and a vote is then taken. That is what we all do, but not this Premier. He moved the motion and walked out of the Chamber after posing for the camera - which he does so well. He always makes his point while looking directly at the television camera. We have all become familiar with that technique. We are starting to learn the procedure. I must take exception to one thing that was said this morning in this House, and that is that the Minister for Information Technology, the Hon. Kim Yeadon, looks like the Leader of the House. They should each see their lawyers because -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! As the honourable member for Gosford has reminded the Chair on many occasions, the standing orders provide that members must move substantive motions if they take umbrage at what has been said by other members.

Mr HARTCHER: Once again private members’ day goes by the wayside at the behest of the Government. I will not labour the point. This motion is another example of the arrogance that the Government has for the Parliament. As I have said before, the people of New South Wales are slowly realising that this Government could not give a damn about what they think - and that was demonstrated by the fact that the Premier would not intervene in the Olympic Games ticketing dispute to help ordinary battlers get tickets. He has taken a stand-aside attitude to the matter. But, at the end of the day he is the Premier. He cannot be like Sir Henry Parkes and walk away from the issues of the day. The Parliament is a deliberative body, and it is a reflection on the image of the Government if its deliberations are interrupted to suit the whim of the Government. The Government will reap the whirlwind it now sows.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

Division called for and, pursuant to sessional orders, deferred.

UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES "UNEQUAL IN LIFE" STUDY

Mr STONER (Oxley) [10.15 a.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the University of New South Wales study titled "Unequal in Life";

(2) notes the ranking in that study of Nambucca Heads, Bowraville and mid North Coast amongst the 30 most disadvantaged communities in New South Wales;

(3) condemns the inaction of the Government in relation to the closure of the Midco Abattoir last year, resulting in the loss of jobs to the local economy; and

(4) calls on the Government to give priority to these areas in the post 2000 jobs plan, which is currently biased towards metropolitan areas.

My comments today are about what I consider to be the single most important issue facing this Government: the serious state of social and economic inequality in New South Wales. Yesterday I was pleased to receive bipartisan support to give precedence to this motion, which refers to the Vinson report sponsored by the Jesuit Social Services entitled "Unequal in Life".

A cartoon published in Tuesday’s Sydney Morning Herald highlights cleverly what has happened in this State: the creation of a great divide between city and country. My motion is about the Oxley electorate, particularly the Nambucca shire, and the implications of this Government sitting on its hands in relation to the closure of the Midco Abattoir. As the cartoon so effectively illustrates, this issue has enormous importance for regional and rural New South Wales.

The Vinson report dramatically depicts the serious and social economic disadvantage felt by the people of country New South Wales. The charts on pages 35 and 39 of the report show only small pockets of disadvantage in Sydney, but the whole of country New South Wales is categorised as either disadvantaged or severely disadvantaged. The North Coast in particular with its rapidly increasing population is shown to be almost entirely disadvantaged.

The honourable member for Murray-Darling also has a few worries - apart from the obvious! The shocking conclusion of the Vinson report is that the most disadvantaged areas experience 4¼ times the average level of child abuse, 3¼ times more calls for emergency assistance, three times the number of court convictions, three times the incidence of long-term unemployment and twice the number of low income households.

I am deeply concerned that the Government seemingly has no plans to address this fundamental issue of equity. Its policies are contributing to the widening gap between city and country. In its post
Page 2296
2000 jobs plan all the action, infrastructure development and investment is in metropolitan areas. The only measure of any value to the bush is the policy of decentralising government agencies to rural centres - a policy pinched from the National Party. All the job creation projects have been in marginal Labor electorates: Tweed, South Coast, Bathurst, Wollongong and Maitland.

The plan has not been administered on a needs basis, as the Vinson report might suggest; rather it has been done on a purely political basis. Indeed, far from addressing this awful social inequity in the bush, the Government is increasing that inequity through policies such as compulsory competitive tendering for local governments; cuts to Countrylink, TAFE, State Forests and other agencies in regional areas; rationalisation of country hospitals; anti-farming legislation such as the Native Vegetation and Conservation Act and State environmental planning policy 14; the decimation of the timber industry; and now the so-called rationalisation of country greyhound clubs.

The so-called Country Labor faction has meekly stood by while the economic rationalists in the Carr Cabinet have wielded the axe. It is a weak and ineffectual creation of the Sussex Street marketeers. Dairy deregulation is just around the corner, and the only response by this Government is $2.1 million - paid for by the farmers themselves - for counselling. As we speak, the Federal National Party is holding the Regional Australia Summit to discuss policies to assist the bush. We do not stick our heads in the sand over this issue - as this Government does - because we live in the bush and we have been the only voice for country people for generations.

Bowraville, Nambucca Heads and the mid North Coast are listed among the 30 most disadvantaged communities. As sad as that fact is, the classification in the Vinson report that almost the entire Nambucca shire is seriously disadvantaged comes as no surprise. Last year the largest employer in the shire, the Midco Abattoir, closed, putting almost 300 people out of work. When that closure was announced the community rallied, through its co-operative, to buy the abattoir. They asked the Premier for help. Could the Government underwrite a $5 million loan? The community did not want any money - just the Government’s assurance to underwrite a commercial loan. The Premier said he would look into the matter, and the community was hopeful; however, no advice was forthcoming, right up to the day before the tenders closed. The community heard nothing and had to chase the Minister, who told them that no help would be forthcoming. The reason given was that the Treasurer felt that it would affect the State’s credit rating!

The impact on the Nambucca shire of the withdrawal of these 300 pay packets has been horrendous. Small businesses have closed, unemployment and poverty has gone through the roof, and with it social dysfunction has exploded. Sadly, in this idyllic setting, drug and alcohol abuse, petty crime, child abuse and family breakdown are at unacceptable levels, and they are increasing. The Vinson report clearly shows the situation in the Nambucca shire. If honourable members do not believe me, I suggest that they ask the former member for Bathurst, who now lives in Nambucca Heads.

On the positive side, this debate presents the Government with an ideal opportunity to right some of the wrongs the Nambucca shire has suffered. An urgent requirement is a new tourist information centre, which will help the area to better capitalise on its natural beauty and to grow its tourism industry. Clearly, replacement industries in the Nambucca district are urgently required, and tourism is a major strength for the area. The Midco Abattoir facility is still in existence, but it is currently used as a cold storage facility for the Wingham Abattoir. Simply to bring an abattoir to the district to utilise that facility - there has been enormous capital investment - will again create much-needed jobs in the Nambucca shire.

There is enormous potential also for an aquaculture industry in the Nambucca shire, which has an abundance of land and water and has a perfect climate. Again assistance is required to assist with feasibility studies and the other technical information that the shire and its economic development committee require to get the aquaculture industry started in the Nambucca shire. A major upgrade of the Macksville pool from a 1950s Olympic pool to a regional facility with a hydrotherapy pool, gymnasium, training area and games room has been proposed by council. All of these suggestions would create jobs but need State Government assistance to be realised. The Nambucca shire is one of the poorer local government areas, and certainly the rates base of Nambucca Shire Council does not match that of other richer shires, particularly metropolitan shires.

Unfortunately, in July this year the Nambucca shire was badly affected by floods and has a damage restoration bill for roads, bridges and other earthworks of $2.4 million resulting from this natural disaster. Council has approached the Minister
Page 2297
for one-off assistance as it cannot cope with costs of this magnitude. In conclusion, the situation outlined by the Vinson report is of major concern to every citizen of this State. At least in relation to the Nambucca shire the Government has an opportunity to partly redress some of this appalling inequity. On behalf of the residents of the Nambucca district, I ask the Ministers concerned to investigate the opportunities I have outlined and respond on each of those issues.

Mrs LO PO’ (Penrith - Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women) [10.25 a.m.]: The bread-and-butter job of the Department of Community Services [DOCS] is to work with and support the most disadvantaged families and communities in New South Wales. On a daily basis district officers must confront and deal with families struggling to "keep their act together" because of poverty, dependence on income support benefits, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, lack of parenting skills and lack of social and family support networks.

I am well aware of the Vinson report entitled "Unequal in Life", which was commissioned by the Melbourne-based Jesuit group. The report’s findings hold no surprises for either me or my department. I might add that the communities included in the ranking of the 30 most disadvantaged communities in New South Wales are also, as we say in this area of human services, "known to DOCS". I do not wish to engage in an argument along the lines that the patch of New South Wales that encompasses the electorate of the honourable member for Oxley is more disadvantaged than other patches of New South Wales. This would be a pointless exercise. What is more critical is what the Government is doing to assist these disadvantaged communities, both in the short term and long term.

Nonetheless, it is important to put the issue in context by noting that if a cause-effect relationship is being drawn between disadvantaged communities and the incidence of child abuse and neglect, the following picture emerges. DOCS is divided into 16 areas across the State. The highest number of reports of child abuse and neglect of children for the 1997-98 year was recorded in the south-west Sydney area, 6,136 reports, followed by the Hunter area, 3,271 reports; the Nepean area, 3,146 reports; and the Cumberland Prospect area, 2,716 reports. Honourable members will note that the North Coast does not feature in any of those statistics. The Department of Community Services ranking of social disadvantage is based on the special economic index provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which is based on the 1996 census. The index contains the following endorsement:

This product is specifically tailored to meet our needs, as it targets families with children rather than other client groups. For this reason we may expect Tony Vinson’s report to vary from the our results.

The mid North Coast and far North Coast areas are ranked fourth and fifth - not first and second - in terms of relative social disadvantage. It is this index that is used by DOCS to allocate financial and human resources throughout the State. Based on this information, in the past 12 months the Director-General of the Department of Community Services has allocated additional resources to the North Coast area. During this decade there has been a significant migration of families to the North Coast and the mid North Coast as they seek a better quality of life for themselves and their children. Climate, lifestyle and opportunities for cheaper accommodation have all been irresistible magnets. This migration pattern of the nineties has resulted in a significant demographic profile change for areas such as Nambucca and Kempsey. This in turn has impacted on the demands placed on government departments such as Community Services, Health, and Education and Training.

No doubt the Vinson report will add value to the task of social welfare planning. However, the Carr Government is already well aware of the locality of disadvantaged communities, and we have been proactive in responding to the needs of these communities since we first came to government in 1995. Additionally, I am pleased to say that at the commencement of our second term of government we have a raft of innovative programs to address the needs of disadvantaged communities and disadvantaged families. We took those programs to the electorate in March this year and we received ringing endorsement for them from the people of New South Wales.

I shall briefly highlight some of the key initiatives being undertaken by the Government. I refer firstly to Families First. The Government has committed $54.2 million over four years for this whole-of-government initiative to strengthen family relationships, reduce child abuse, and better prepare children for school. The program was initially established in three areas: the far North Coast, the mid North Coast and south-west Sydney. Some exciting and innovative services have been developed in these areas. The mid North Coast has recurrent funding of $1.3 million from 1999-2000 for Families First initiatives.

I have met with some of the staff who are successfully running Families First funded services
Page 2298
and I am impressed by their creativity and their commitment to making a difference in the communities in which they work. Education in successful parenting and strengthening communities has lasting benefits for families that suffer from isolation. Last year I had the pleasure of meeting some of the service providers and families involved in programs of this nature in south-west Sydney. I was impressed by the stories of empowerment and the very practical differences these programs were making in the lives of families.

One of the very positive aspects of the services in south-west Sydney has been the strengthening of relationships between communities and agencies who are there to help, such as the departments of Community Services, Education and Training, Housing, Health and Police. Some of the services that have been developed include specialised home visiting services for new families and at-risk families; parenting groups; playgroups; services that target health and nutrition, violence, and drug and alcohol dependence; and services for young mothers.

We believe that Families First will provide long-term benefits to the families and communities of this State. It is a long-term proactive and preventative program. Rather than waiting for a crisis and applying a bandaid, government and communities work together to provide support and assistance to families before problems get out of control. Widely quoted studies from overseas show the cost effectiveness of early intervention programs - every $1 spent will save $4 on other services within three years, and $7 by the time they are adults. We know about the importance of close and warm relationships between children and parents in the early years of life.

If parents have not bonded with their children in the first years of their life somebody else will - it may be somebody in the pinball parlour or some paedophile around the corner. But if parents have not bonded with their children, the children will be vulnerable. I cannot stress that strongly enough. We now know that child neglect is a greater predictor of juvenile involvement in crime than child abuse. We know that children who do not get enough positive interaction with a parent in infancy are at high risk of growing into teenagers who have no sense of connectedness with their community. We know that families who feel alienated from their community are more likely to tolerate antisocial behaviour in their teenagers, especially when there is violence in the home.

Backed up by this wealth of research on the benefits of early intervention, the Government has been prepared to commit a further $29.9 million over four years to extend Families First across the State. The strategy will cover families with children up to the age of eight years, with particular emphasis on children up to three years old. There are approximately 750,000 children under the age of eight years in New South Wales and around 60 per cent of all reports to DOCS relate to children up to eight years of age. Participating government agencies include the Ageing and Disability Department, area health services, the Cabinet Office, the Department of Community Services, the Department of Education and Training, the Department of Health and the Department of Housing.

The Families First service framework incorporates health visitors, with health professionals to undertake home visits to assist all mothers of newborn babies; volunteer home visitors, with experienced parents trained and matched to families to provide advice, practical skills or babysitting for a few hours per week; early intervention teams, with specialist interdisciplinary teams to provide assistance to families under stress; and local development programs, which will be established to develop informal supports and networks in struggling communities, such as those with high unemployment rates or those experiencing rapid growth or decline. I know that the honourable member for Oxley is representing his community, but he got it wrong when he said this Government has done nothing in his area. We have targeted his area. We recognise that there is some need and disadvantage in his area. We have put dollars into it. Perhaps he does not know that it is working because he is not in touch with his community.

Mr Stoner: We want jobs. There are no jobs.

Mrs LO PO’: That is the bottom line. He is not worried about humanitarian services, about disadvantage, about people suffering domestic violence. All he cares about is some financial cost to his town.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [10.35 a.m.]: I am disappointed that the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women fired a few shots across the table. Talk about cause and effect: she is now leaving the Chamber. At the end of the day, yes, we are concerned about jobs. The cause is the low socioeconomic base on the mid North Coast and its effect is major problems within the community. Yesterday the Minister for Health stood in this House and told us about the two drug and alcohol councillors who will be appointed to the
Page 2299
mid North Coast area. What is not understood within this House, especially by members on the benches opposite, is that the mid North Coast health service area runs from Taree to north of Coffs Harbour.

It would take you 3½ hours, driving at 110 kilometres per hour, to get from one end to the other. However, the Government intends to appoint only two people to identify the problems and to offer assistance to those who are identified within the Vinson report. I congratulate the Jesuits on the report, which identifies need. It is all very well for the Minister to come into this Chamber and say that we cannot talk about cause and effect. While ever the Government does not address the lack of jobs within regional New South Wales and incomes continue to slide, the social problems will continue to increase. It is like the boy putting his finger in the dyke: as soon as one hole is blocked another hole appears.

The Government needs to understand that employment is, and will continue to be, a major problem in that area. Last week the honourable member for Miranda led a debate in this House about the closure of banks. The Hon. Tony Kelly, a member in the other place, issued a media release in my electorate saying, "Fraser defends banks". It is mischievous. Banks in regional New South Wales close because, to a large extent, they do not have the income. This Government is getting rid of middle-management jobs from regional New South Wales. We have seen jobs lost in Agriculture, the Department of Land and Water Conservation, Public Works, TAFE, hospitals, forestry and the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Those jobs bring good clean money into our towns, and that money goes around those communities 3.6 times. The community is devastated when such jobs are lost. Where is Country Labor on this issue? Where is the Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs? Where is the honourable member for Tweed? Recently the operating theatres in his hospital closed, but we have not heard boo from him. Country Labor is an apologist for the Carr Labor Government, which is dragging jobs out of regional New South Wales. The other night the Minister for Regional Development, Harry Woods, was in Woolgoolga. When the regional chamber of commerce requested that the Minister meet regularly with it to discuss these issues he referred them publicly to the department. They did not want to know about it.

This same Minister, when asked in the estimates committee whether he had an office in Clarence, said, "Where is Clarence?" It is his electorate. He has no idea. He will not assist the Woolgoolga Chamber of Commerce to fix the Woolgoolga Lake. Yet 2½ years ago he and I met jointly with the Woolgoolga Chamber of Commerce. When he was questioned about that recently he did not know, he could not remember. Is this the sort of attitude we should get from a Minister who purports to be a leading light in Country Labor? What happened when the steelworks in Newcastle closed? A $10 million assistance package was provided by the Government. Why? Because it is Labor heartland. On a proportional basis the mid North Coast lost far mor jobs in the forest industry, and the Minister for Forestry, who is at the table, knows that full well.

We need proactive measures. The Government must recognise the needs of these areas and stop ripping the heart out of country New South Wales by transferring government jobs from the towns. It should talk to local and regional chambers of commerce and assist local business. It is all very well to provide services to address alcohol problems, violence in the homes, and so on, but until local people have adequate incomes and an improvement in their standard of living, until socioeconomic conditions improve, those problems will continue. The Government must listen to local people and assist them. It should not be ripping jobs out of regional New South Wales while at the same time creating jobs to deal with domestic violence and other such problems. Give regional New South Wales real jobs that will produce real incomes.

Mr HICKEY (Cessnock) [10.40 a.m.]: I am astounded that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour would bag the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs, the Hon. Harry Woods, for not doing anything for rural New South Wales. That is especially so when the National Party would not agree to a pairing arrangement to enable the Minister to attend the rural summit. In effect, the National Party prevented the Minister from attending that summit. It is hypocritical of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to bag the Minister when the National Park denied the Minister a pairing arrangement. I wish to speak to paragraph 4 of the motion and to the closure of the Midco abattoir last year. The closure of that abattoir at Macksville in July 1998 resulted in the loss of 260 jobs. The abattoir had operated at a loss for some time.

The Department of State and Regional Development made $20,000 available for a study to assess the viability of the Midco abattoir, and that study was put out to all prospective tenderers. Midco abattoir was purchased by Wingham Beef Exports
Page 2300
Pty Ltd, which reactivated the freezing works and rendering plant, employing a total of 25 people on the site. A further 30 former Midco employees were employed by the company at the Wingham abattoir. Wingham Beef Exports has no intention to reopen or strip the meat processing plant at Midco at this stage. The problems at Midco are symptomatic of the meat industry generally. Recently there have been a number of closures and reductions in activity among New South Wales country meatworks.

The Hunter has experienced the closure of Aberdeen abattoir and there have been recent problems at the Scone abattoir. Further rationalisation is likely as the industry adjusts to the competitive conditions prevailing in both local and overseas markets. Significant changes are facing country meatworks across New South Wales. Those include an over supply of meat in the international market, and that has led to a reduction in both quantity and prices of meat exported. The Asian economic crisis has significantly reduced demand for imported beef and by-products in Asia. The domestic market for red meat has become increasingly competitive, and as a result meat is losing its market share to poultry and seafood. If abattoirs are to survive and remain viable in this current climate, they need to adapt to the modern, competitive environment in meat processing.

The meat industry, as it faces those challenges, will have the assistance of this Government. The State Government already has acted to address the issues confronting the sector. It has done that through the establishment of the Country Meatworks Working Party, comprising industry and Government representatives, to examine the impact of structural changes and develop a strategy for the industry’s future operation; through utilisation of assistant schemes, such as the Regional Economic Transition Scheme [RETS], to help regional centres affected by structural adjustment to reposition their economic base; and by adopting a proactive approach through the agribusiness alternatives program to assist producers to diversify into new products and markets.

The working party has commissioned a consultancy by Hassall and Associates to examine the current state of the industry and to provide options for a possible restructuring package. The Premier has written to the Prime Minister seeking support for joint action on this issue, and requesting Federal financial support for any restructuring package. Whether it be Midco, Aberdeen or Scone, country meatworks are facing problems. I can tell the honourable member for Oxley that the State Government, through the Department of State and Regional Development, will continue to monitor the problems and address the issues.

Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [10.45 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the honourable member for Oxley. It is sad that I must support the motion because another 16 jobs have been lost in my home town at the Norco plant. That is another co-operative. Those job losses are on top of the 50 jobs lost in the meat company this year.

Mr Hickey: Why?

Mr GEORGE: The honourable member for Cessnock should listen and I will tell him why. He has just finished highlighting problems in the New South Wales meat industry, which had already lost 42 jobs. I am grateful that the honourable member for Cessnock highlighted those problems. This leads me to the question: Why has Grafton abattoir been given financial support when no other abattoir in this State has received the same support? I am the first to agree that the meat industry in this State has problems. As I said yesterday, the meat industry faces problems not only with supply of livestock but workers compensation and payroll tax disadvantages compared with Queensland and other States, enabling operators in those States to put it all over their New South Wales counterparts.

Mr Orkopoulos: But we have cut payroll tax.

Mr GEORGE: Have we? It is $4 million dearer in New South Wales than it is in Queensland to employ the same number of workers due to the differential in payroll tax between the States. Workers compensation, assuming the same number of workers, costs $7 million more in New South Wales than it does in Queensland. That is a total disadvantage of $11 million facing the New South Wales industry. The honourable member for Cessnock knows that Grafton abattoir has been given Government support. However, meatworks in the electorates of Lismore and Oxley are in trouble; the problem is not isolated to the meatworks in just one electorate. Why was Grafton given preferential treatment? Perhaps the member who represents that electorate - the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs - might explain.

The New South Wales meat industry needs help. However, the motion is not isolated to loss of jobs in the meat industry; it relates to jobs being lost in rural New South Wales. Yes, Casino has been singled out for a job strategy, and I thank the Minister for that. Unfortunately, things are not happening quickly enough. We need jobs and
Page 2301
government support for those communities, which are losing jobs at the rate of 50 some two weeks ago and 16 more this morning. Regional communities cannot afford to lose those jobs, regardless of who the local representative is.

Mr Hickey: Why didn’t you give Harry Woods a fair go and give him a pair to go to the rural summit?

Mr GEORGE: Because his time is better spent in this House working out ways to help the industries that need assistance. These problems must be addressed urgently, regardless of who represents these New South Wales electorates. I know that the Scone abattoir needed help, but it was not forthcoming.

I make a plea for assistance on behalf of the meat industry, as I have done previously. However, this motion relates to problems at Kempsey. The Vinson report highlighted the problems in rural areas, where support is needed. Casino has been singled out for a jobs strategy and I encourage the Minister for Regional Development to get on with providing jobs in country areas. The continued loss of those jobs will result in rural communities being unable to provide the produce and commodities that cities so rightly deserve. I make that plea in support of the motion.

Mr CAMPBELL (Keira) [10.50 a.m.]: I was amazed to hear the contribution of the honourable member for Lismore - he obviously does not support the decision of John Anderson to hold the national Regional Australia Summit in Canberra. He said as much. Quite clearly the New South Wales National Party does not support its counterparts at the Federal level because it refused to provide a pair to allow the Minister for Regional Development to attend the summit. However, the Government has an interest in these matters and made arrangements for the Minister to be present.

I refer to the fourth paragraph of the motion, which states that there is bias towards metropolitan areas in the post-2000 jobs plan. The Coalition has failed to sustain that argument. This Government has a strong post-2000 jobs plan for all of New South Wales, not just metropolitan areas. Because of direct and indirect strategic assistance 10,000 jobs and more than $1 billion of investment has been pumped into country New South Wales during the past four years. This excludes projects such as the Visy mill, which the Carr Government helped to secure and which will create some 980 jobs in regional New South Wales. The Government also understands that jobs creation and investment is not spread across the board. That is why it has hard and strategic policies to assist those communities to find new job opportunities.

The Government has instituted the Regional Economies Scheme in Kempsey - in the electorate of the honourable member for Oxley - which has suffered from economic setbacks. This scheme aims to secure new opportunities in communities where traditional industries have contracted. It has helped Lithgow, Blayney, Cobar, Eden, Gunnedah, Goulburn, Bombala and Aberdeen - hardly a bias to metropolitan areas. Indeed, it is an undeniable fact that New South Wales has the lowest unemployment rate in all of Australia at 6.9 per cent. Much of that is due to the Government’s policies, which have created a climate for encouraging new investments and new job opportunities.

The Government has provided almost $1.2 billion worth of tax cuts to families and businesses since 1995, with another $4.3 billion to be provided by 2003. For example, the Government dropped the $43 car registration levy imposed by the Greiner Government, lifted the tax-free threshold for payroll tax and cut payroll tax to 6 per cent. In the past four years the Government has done more to ease the burden of payroll tax than the Coalition did in its seven years in office. In 1996 the Government increased the tax-free threshold for payroll tax from $550,000 to $600,000, saving almost 20,000 small businesses some $4,700 each. This year the Government will cut the payroll tax rate from 6.85 per cent to 6.4 per cent and it has passed into law further cuts that will bring the rate down to 6 per cent by 2002. This will return the rate to the level that applied prior to the Greiner Government’s tax increase in 1990.

The Government has secured some very exciting projects in its post-2000 jobs plan. It has identified more than 22 new projects, such as transport initiatives and private investments. The construction of high-speed rail links between the city and the Central Coast and the Illawarra will assist the 25,000 people who drive to work each day from those two locations. At present the average travel time from the area I represent - Wollongong - is more than 1½ hours. The construction of this high-speed rail link will reduce that time by approximately 20 minutes. These projects represent $796 million in investment, a huge public investment, and is 36 per cent of the Olympic capital works program.

In the region I represent the Government has strongly supported information technology and telecommunications industries such as Wireless Data
Page 2302
Service and Nortel Networks. Metals processing such as the Port Kembla copper project and manufacturing such as Socotherm, which has a strong tourism plan, will provide a regional tourism gateway to centres across the State. The Government is committed to moving government jobs out of Sydney. More than 200 jobs in the Department of Land and Water Conservation will go to country New South Wales. The Superannuation Administration Authority has moved to Wollongong, the Police Infringement Processing Bureau has moved to Maitland - hardly the city - and the Department of Local Government has moved to Nowra. The Carr Government has a strong jobs plan for the next century. The honourable member for Oxley, who moved the motion, and those who support it do not have a clue.

Mr STONER (Oxley) [10.55 a.m.], in reply: As I said earlier, this is the most important issue facing this Government today. It is the bread and butter issue about the haves and have-nots, between the city and the country - the great divide. I was disappointed that neither the Premier nor any high-powered Minister contributed to the debate - we heard contributions from merely the Minister for Community Services, the honourable member for Cessnock and the honourable member for Keira. We need an economic response to this solution, not more bandaid solutions or welfare. We need an economic blueprint for country New South Wales, not just for Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong.

The Minister for Community Services said that the Vinson report was no surprise. Why then is the post-2000 jobs plan spending $4 in the city to every $1 spent in the country? The Opposition appreciates the Families First Scheme and other measures to ease social problems in disadvantaged areas, but it is only a bandaid solution. We are attacking the symptom rather than finding a solution to the problem of poverty. The solution can be found through economic measures such as the post-2000 jobs plan, which must be targeted to areas of greatest social and economic disadvantage, as outlined in the Vinson report.

The Minister also spoke about the ranking of the Department of Community Services, and suggested that the North Coast ranks fourth or fifth. That is pure semantics. She tried to denigrate the veracity of the Vinson report. Policies are needed to create jobs in the country. The honourable member for Cessnock referred to the Government spending $20,000 to assess the viability of an abattoir. Big deal! Where was the Government when the community wanted to buy the abattoir and run it as an ongoing concern? The community wanted the Minister to provide an assurance on a commercial loan.

Mr Fraser: A guarantee.

Mr STONER: A guarantee; that is all it wanted. He gave us the history of the Midco closure and waffled generally about the meat industry. However, he did not provide any concrete solution. I have a solution for Country Labor if it truly wants to help people in these areas: stop compulsory competitive tendering and job cuts in Countrylink and country railway stations, TAFE and State Forests, and stand up to the economic rationalists in Cabinet. I challenge Country Labor to stop the rationalisation of country greyhound racing clubs. The Treasurer boasts about a big budget surplus. He should provide infrastructure projects in the areas identified in the Vinson report on the North Coast of New South Wales.

I have some great suggestions. People will not use the road from Kempsey to Armidale, which is an unsealed and dangerous State highway. Improvements to that road would have enormous economic benefits for the Oxley and Armidale electorates. It is unfortunate that the honourable member for Northern Tablelands is not in the Chamber to back me up. Apart from creating construction jobs, work on that road would have enormous tourism and economic benefits for the region. The Maria River road, which is the subject of petitions that I have presented, is an economic money spinner for the area. The sealing of 20 kilometres of that road would provide jobs, and, similarly, improvements to the roads from Comboyne to Wingham and Comboyne to Kew would create economic spin-offs.

Those infrastructure projects should be funded by the government surplus, which has been achieved by ripping jobs out of hospitals and other agencies in country towns. The surplus should be spent on infrastructure, bricks and mortar, to provide long-term economic benefits to those areas. Replacement agriculture industries are needed, particularly with the deregulation of the dairy industry. I call upon the Minister for Agriculture to support my motion for a structural adjustment package for the dairy industry.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Page 2303

Ayes, 34

Mr Barr Mr D. L. Page
Mr Brogden Mr Piccoli
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr George Mrs Skinner
Mr Glachan Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Stoner
Ms Hodgkinson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr Torbay
Mr Kerr Mr J. H. Turner
Mr McGrane Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Maguire Mr Webb
Mr Merton Mr Windsor
Ms Moore
Mr Oakeshott Tellers,
Mr O’Doherty Mr Fraser
Mr O’Farrell Mr R. H. L. Smith

Noes, 46

Ms Allan Mr McBride
Mr Amery Mr McManus
Ms Andrews Mr Martin
Mr Aquilina Ms Meagher
Mr Ashton Ms Megarrity
Mrs Beamer Mr Mills
Mr Black Mr Moss
Mr Brown Mr Nagle
Ms Burton Mr Newell
Mr Campbell Mr Orkopoulos
Mr Crittenden Mr E. T. Page
Mr Debus Dr Refshauge
Mr Gaudry Ms Saliba
Mr Gibson Mr Scully
Mr Greene Mr W. D. Smith
Mrs Grusovin Mr Stewart
Ms Harrison Mr Tripodi
Mr Hickey Mr Watkins
Mr Hunter Mr Whelan
Mr Iemma Mr Yeadon
Mr Knight
Mr Knowles Tellers,
Mrs Lo Po’ Mr Anderson
Mr Lynch Mr Thompson

Pair

Ms Seaton Mr Markham

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

COMMUNITY PROTECTION (DANGEROUS OFFENDERS) BILL

Second Reading

Deferred division

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will proceed with the deferred division on the question: That the debate be now adjourned.

The House divided.

Ayes, 46

Noes, 34

Pair

Mr Markham Ms Seaton

Page 2304

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Precedence of Business

Deferred division

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will now proceed with the deferred division on the question: That the motion be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes, 46

Noes, 34

Pair

Mr Markham Ms Seaton

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

MANLY DAM ARDEL SITE

Deferred division

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will now proceed with the deferred division on the question: That the motion be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes, 34

Noes, 46

Pair

Ms Seaton Mr Markham

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

WINDSOR ROAD UPGRADE

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [11.17 a.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the Government’s recent announcement that it intends to spend $200 million on upgrading Windsor Road;

(2) applauds the Government’s new-found interest in this important western Sydney arterial road;

(3) expresses its concern at the 10-year time frame proposed by the Minister for Roads and the fact that the plan is to widen only 10 kilometres of this 30 kilometre long road from two to four lanes; and

(4) calls on the Government to widen all of Windsor Road from two to four lanes within two years to service the growing population in Sydney’s north-west sector.
On Friday 3 September this year the Government announced that it would spend $200 million to upgrade Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road. Superficially, one might think that would benefit the people I represent and those whom the honourable member for Londonderry, who is in the Chamber, represents. Indeed, one might think it would benefit people represented by all honourable members in the north-west of Sydney.

What was glossed over in the media coverage of the announcement was that the upgrade would be carried out over a 10-year period. Not only will it be carried out over 10 years; the Government is talking about upgrading only 10 kilometres of a 30-kilometre road. I have some serious concerns about that because of the rate of growth in the Rouse Hill development area. I know that the honourable member for Londonderry shares my concerns. He was present at the announcement of the $200 million plan to upgrade Windsor Road, and he will be aware that the north-west sector is the fastest growing part of Sydney.

My electorate of The Hills has the largest population of any electorate in New South Wales; it is already 8.9 per cent over quota. The electorate of Riverstone is more than 5 per cent over quota. According to the Government’s urban infrastructure management plan, in June 1998 the first release area within the Rouse Hill development area had a total remaining development potential of 19,456 residential lots, of which 10,950 are expected to be developed, not within the next 10 years but within the next five years. Development of the first stage of the Rouse Hill development commenced in 1992, and 4,436 lots had been developed at June 1998.

We are talking about almost five times the number of lots that have already been developed being produced in the Rouse Hill development area. What is the access road to that area? What is the only arterial road in and out of the area? It is Windsor Road. Considering the congestion on Windsor Road, any proposal to upgrade one-third of the road over the next 10 years will be a complete disaster. The honourable member for Baulkham Hills and the honourable member for Hawkesbury will make that point strongly in this debate. The upgrade will be a disaster because it is totally inadequate.

It is proposed to accommodate a further 25,000 people and 8,000 additional lots in that area over the next 10 years. Honourable members would have read in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald that there is enormous pressure on developers and on the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning to release more land in the area because of the expansion of Sydney’s population. People are coming to live in The Hills because of the lifestyle we offer. It is a particularly nice part of the world, it has free-standing homes and green trees, and the M2 provides good access to the city.

However, there is one problem, and that problem is Windsor Road. Windsor Road links Kellyville and the Rouse Hill development area with the M2. Windsor Road is so bad that representatives of Baulkham Hills shire council, Blacktown City Council and Hawkesbury City Council, in a deputation to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads on 9 September 1998, predicted that as the section of Windsor Road between Old Windsor Road and Schofields Road has an average movement rate of 1,680 vehicles an hour, travelling at an average speed of less than 20 kilometres an hour, the average speed along that stretch of road will be zero by 2006.

What has been described as Sydney’s longest parking lot will become a reality. It will be a parking lot; there will be no movement whatever along Windsor Road. The Government’s proposal is a four-year, $60 million strategy. The proposal is not new; it had already been announced and was in the pipeline. Most of the work will be done on Old Windsor Road, because the idea is that traffic will be routed along Old Windsor Road. Indeed, there is
Page 2306
a bizarre proposal that the intersection of Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road should be closed or partially closed. If the intersection of Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road is closed, I shudder to think what would happen if there was a major accident or emergency on Old Windsor Road. Emergency vehicles simply would not be able to get through.

The Government announced its plan as a new strategy, but it is not new. There is nothing new in the four-year plan. The 10-year plan is supposed to deliver a four-lane divided carriageway between Schofields Road and Garfield Road, a new Rouse Hill deviation with new signals at Annangrove Road, a new deviation between Schofields Road and Mile End Road with right turn bays to Rouse Hill Road and Mile End Road, and new traffic signals at the Victoria Avenue intersection which services the Castle Hill business area. However, all those things put together will still not resolve the problems resulting from the enormous growth taking place in Kellyville.

I encourage honourable members who have not seen it for themselves to go to the beautiful Hills district and see the growth that is taking place there. It must be experienced to be believed. Then they will understand why I have moved this motion today. It is imperative that the Government’s program be amplified and that the time frame be brought forward. Barry Calvert - I suspect most honourable members have forgotten that name - was the Labor Party’s candidate in the seat of Hawkesbury at the 1995 election. During the election campaign he promised that a Carr Labor Government would widen Windsor Road to four lanes between Windsor and Kellyville within its first term of office. That would have been done by now.

That was the Labor Party’s promise - and we know how good Labor Party promises are! Windsor Road between Schofields Road and Old Windsor Road will be widened. That will have only a short-term effect on the traffic congestion in my area. The Government needs to move forward on this issue. My local papers were scathing about the proposals because they recognised that the plan was not big enough and the time frame was too long. They understood that the only way that the tens of thousands of people moving into the area, which has no government-run, dedicated public transport, will be able to get to work or take their kids to school will be to use Windsor Road. Clearly, that will be inadequate as the road has only a single lane in each direction.

I do not like to introduce the road toll into such debates, but one person is being killed on Windsor Road almost every two weeks at the moment. It is absolutely appalling. The tragedy that that is creating for my constituents and the level of concern in my local community must be dealt with. I do not believe the Government has taken those matters into account, and I do not believe it is fair dinkum about fixing Windsor Road. The Government has reacted to the strong campaign for action which the honourable member for Baulkham Hills, the honourable member for Hawkesbury and I have waged in the area, but it is too little and it will not be done soon enough.

It is necessary for the Government to carry out Labor’s 1995 promise to widen Windsor Road to two lanes each way immediately. We are calling for that to be done within the next two years. That is feasible if the Government has the will to do it. People moving into the area deserve better from the Government.

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads) [11.27 a.m.]: The honourable member for The Hills is a joke. I just cannot believe his temerity in raising this issue in the House in view of his record and the record of the previous Coalition Government on the upgrading of Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road. We have been concerned for some time about the condition of Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road. The honourable member for Londonderry and the Minister for Education and Training have had a number of meetings with me about this issue. I sat down and worked through the issue with them.

Representatives of the councils in their electorates have also met with me. The honourable member for Hawkesbury has also talked to me about this issue. Some time ago the Government gave a commitment to spend $60 million over four years to upgrade roads in the area. I am astounded that the honourable member for The Hills could suggest that the upgrading of Schofields Road is not a major addition to the improvement of Windsor Road. I am not sure where the honourable member for The Hills lives. The honourable member for Hawkesbury lives at Bowral. Perhaps the honourable member for The Hills lives at Moss Vale.

Mr Richardson: What a load of nonsense!

Mr SCULLY: The honourable member for Hawkesbury does live at Bowral. The honourable member for The Hills has little idea about what we are doing on Windsor Road. When one reads The Hills Shire Times one gets the impression that there has not been an election. It is as if the Liberal Party controls The Hills and that the Coalition members in
Page 2307
the area and The Hills Shire Times have somehow managed to secure funds for Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road. Madam Acting-Speaker, I have to say via you to the editor of The Hills Shire Times -

Pursuant to resolution debate interrupted.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

______

DAIRY INDUSTRY DEREGULATION

Mr R. H. L. SMITH (Bega) [11.30 a.m.]: I speak today on the possible deregulation of the dairy industry within the farm gate. This is an extremely important issue not only within my electorate of Bega but also in most rural areas of New South Wales, particularly along the eastern seaboard. The issue was brought up yesterday in an urgent motion in this House but because of standing and sessional orders only two Opposition members were permitted to speak in the debate. It is disappointing that the Government did not allow a wider debate on such an important issue.

The House would be aware that the manufacturing and distribution of milk have already been deregulated and that deregulation outside the farm gate was intended to bring a more efficient dairy industry from the farm gate to the consumer. In practice, there has been a rise in the price of whole milk in the supermarkets, with major retailer reaping a bonanza. At the same time returns to dairy farms have been significantly reduced. In other words, there has been a move from a restricted regulated regime straight through to a monopoly for the big supermarkets.

There is now a major push from Victoria for deregulation within the farm gate. This push seems to be coming from the major manufacturing companies in Victoria, particularly Bonlac and Murray Goulburn. These manufacturing companies have close contact with their dairy farmers and I believe they are misleading Victorian dairy farmers as to what the result might be of deregulation within Victoria. What happens in Victoria is extremely relevant to New South Wales. It does not matter what the New South Wales Government or the industry does; the decision lies with Victorian dairy farmers and the new Labor Government in Victoria.

The simple fact is that Victoria produces 63 per cent of Australia’s milk. It appears that at the moment Victorian dairy farmers, with the assistance of the manufacturers, believe that deregulation is the way to go. However, the new Victorian Government has indicated that it will carry out a plebiscite of dairy farmers. If they indicate that they wish to deregulate I presume the new Labor Government in Victoria will carry out their wish. If this happens it will create heartache within the New South Wales dairy industry, when many of our producers having little option but to exit the industry or increase the number of cows they milk. The move would have a traumatic effect on farmers and their families. It would also have a significant impact on towns such as Bega because of significantly reduced spending power resulting from the expected drop in income to the farmer.

Within the last week Coalition rural members have met representatives of all sections of the industry here in Parliament House. Reg Smith, President of the Dairy Farmers Association, explained to us the association’s view on the proposal for deregulation. It is the association’s view that deregulation is inevitable and that it should proceed in an orderly manner rather than allowing the industry to disintegrate and fragment bit by bit.

Reg Smith visits the New South Wales Parliament regularly to brief New South Wales country members on his association’s activities. Last week Coalition country members also met with concerned dairy farmers, many of whom are based in the Bega Valley. They spoke at great length on the consequences to the Bega Valley farmers and community if deregulation should occur and milk prices fell within the ambit of five cents per litre, 10 cents and 15 cents per litre. Their views were a result of a professional study which concluded that the outcome of deregulation on Bega is quite bleak.

Mr Moss: Point of order: The honourable member for Bega is out of order. According to a ruling by Speaker Murray, in private members’ statements members may briefly allude to a matter arising earlier in proceedings but may not develop an argument in response. Dairy industry deregulation was debated yesterday. The honourable member is not alluding briefly to the issue; he has based his entire speech on the issue. He is clearly out of order and you should direct him to resume his seat.

Mr R. H. L. SMITH: To the point of order: In private members’ statements members are allowed to speak on any issue concerning their electorate. It does not matter whether the issue was brought up this day or on previous days.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Mrs Beamer): Order! I have been listening carefully to the speech of the honourable member for Bega. The point of order may have been more relevant if it had been taken earlier. However, the honourable member
Page 2308
was referring specifically to issues affecting his electorate and I will allow him to continue.

Mr R. H. L. SMITH: I do not think that anybody in the industry believes that the $1.8 billion compensation package will be sufficient considering that the farmer will have to pay tax on this money. [Time expired.]

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION COMMISSIONER BARRY O’KEEFE, AM, QC

Mr GIBSON (Blacktown) [11.35 a.m.]: I rise today to seek support from the ICAC committee of this Parliament to have a very close look at some concerns I have about the outgoing commissioner, the Hon. Barry Stanley John O’Keefe, AM, QC. This great protector of public office and public moneys should be asked whether he was appointed Chief Judge of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court on 19 May 1993, which just happened to be one day before his sixtieth birthday on 20 May 1993, knowing full well that to qualify for the State superannuation scheme you have to be a member before you turn 60. It would seem that Commissioner O’Keefe was very lucky or worked the system to his greatest advantage.

The ICAC made public yesterday my defamation case against the Honourable Barry Stanley John O’Keefe, AM, QC, but failed to say how much money was spent to defend the commissioner. I was paid with an ICAC cheque. I would like the ICAC committee to investigate this. I took legal action against Commissioner O’Keefe personally, not the ICAC, and it was for conduct not within his charter. The defamation did not happen on my case; it happened at a public meeting, nothing to do with my case. He toyed with my reputation whilst on a frolic of his own.

I would also ask the ICAC committee to look at the travel taken by Commissioner O’Keefe and Mrs O’Keefe during the last five years, especially upgrading business class travel to first class on many trips. I want to know whether this was paid for by the ICAC. My phone has been running hot with information along these lines over the previous few months. I also ask the State Attorney General to look at the contract of Commissioner O’Keefe. Apparently, he is supposed to return to the Supreme Court as a judge. I took action against Commissioner O’Keefe and won. He was found guilty of being biased and sacked from the case, the first time in the legal history of this nation that this has happened. He behaved disgracefully in that case.

I ask the Attorney General one simple question: How could someone found guilty of being biased take up a position as a judge in the very court in which he was found guilty? A judicial inquiry should be called to look into the Independent Commission Against Corruption under the stewardship of Commissioner Barry O’Keefe. I would like to know whether there is any useful role for this expensive man to play in public life. What is the state of this man in public life? Will he be pensioned off or will he continue to be a burden on the public purse?

I do not know whether it is a rumour or whether it is true, but apparently he is the leper of the legal system, and it has been suggested that the Supreme Court will not accept him for re-appointment at any cost. I have nothing against, and indeed support the institution of, the ICAC. I believe that I am on safe grounds in asking the questions that I have raised in the Parliament today, mainly because, according to all advice, and legal advice, I have received, Commissioner Barry O’Keefe is the leper of the legal system. His contract states that he is supposed to return as a Supreme Court judge. I do not think he should do so. Anyone found guilty of bias by the Supreme Court could never take on a position as a Supreme Court judge. Imagine anyone coming before Commissioner O’Keefe in his role as a Supreme Court judge knowing that he had been found guilty of bias by the Supreme Court.

I ask the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Attorney General to look close and hard at this case. I believe that the very essence of the Parliament in which we work is put on trial. It is all very well for the commissioner and for the ICAC to uphold the traditions of the commission, but we must all make sure that we have total faith in the person who is the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. I do not, and that is apparent from what I have said today. However, there is sufficient evidence to warrant a judicial inquiry being called into Commissioner O’Keefe, and particularly his stewardship over the past five years.

VETERINARY LABORATORY TESTING FEES

Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [11.40 a.m.]: I raise concerns that have been expressed in my electorate about veterinary laboratory testing fees. On Tuesday the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation sought to give the House information that he said would allay the fears of country members about statements being made in the media in recent days regarding charges imposed by New South Wales Agriculture.

Page 2309

In the past some tests were charged for by New South Wales Agriculture. For example, a worm test in sheep or cattle would be charged for if the owner simply wanted to check for drenching. However, if a clinical problem such as scouring was being investigated, no fee was payable. Likewise, if a test for Johne’s disease was carried out to enable stock to be moved to Queensland, a fee was charged; but no fee was payable if Johne’s disease was tested for as part of a scour investigation.

The previous charge system worked well because it differentiated between direct user benefits and providing data for disease surveillance purposes and supporting producers in a time of need, such as when stock deaths occurred. The new system does not make any such differentiation. All tests are charged for. As appears in the Hansard proof from Tuesday, the Minister made a glaring mistake when he used the word "enzootic". The term refers to diseases known to be present in a specific region and is the veterinary equivalent is the word "endemic". Brucellosis and tuberculosis were once enzootic to Australia but are now exotic. I believe that the Minister meant to use the term "zoonotic", which relates to a disease that is transmissible between animals and humans.

I note that according to the schedule of fees a whole range of zoonotic diseases will be charged for, including salmonella, brucella abortus, leptospirosis, Q fever, toxoplasma and erysipelas. The surveillance for notifiable diseases will be actively discouraged by charging. For example, when a producer has a veterinarian investigate a scouring cow a number of tests routinely are carried out for copper, worms, fluke and other diseases. Under the new policy the producer will be hit with a bill for $150 for those tests, but will obtain the Johne’s disease test free of charge.

I challenge the Minister on another issue: the concept of routine testing needs. Routine tests are important to Australia for they demonstrate that this country has a healthy bank of disease investigations, even for garden-variety conditions, and show that Australia is seeking to detect these diseases. Several hundred cattle brains examined during a year and found to be from a variety of background conditions provided valuable data to verify this country’s claim to be free from bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE].

Many exotic diseases, particularly in their mild forms, can closely resemble local diseases. This was apparent in the investigation of what is now known as Newcastle disease in chickens in western Sydney last year. These fees represent another cost that is being passed on to stock owners, who are battling to work their way out of the rural recession. The introduction of these fees is laboratory closure by stealth. Reduced laboratory submissions will lower the level of disease monitoring and surveillance, which are vital for the New South Wales and Australian livestock and livestock products trade.

Rather than face the high cost of laboratory fees, producers and veterinarians alike will treat on speculation instead of on sound diagnostic grounds. This could increase reliance on veterinary chemicals and thereby reduce consumer confidence in food quality and residues. The partnership in New South Wales between the field presence of district veterinarians and accessible laboratory support is unmatched in Australia. Historically, boards have provided a veterinary service to New South Wales Agriculture at no cost, on the understanding that laboratory services were provided by the department.

It is unreasonable to expect full cost recovery for these services, as they benefit the whole community. In the present climate of publicly demanded regulations this is unfair. Beef producers and rural land protection boards in my area will not be able to afford the laboratory tests. I ask the Minister on their behalf to review his decision and to discuss the issue with producers and rural lands protection boards before any further action is taken.

DEATH OF SENIOR SERGEANT DAVID BELL

Mr HICKEY (Cessnock) [11.45 a.m.]: I bring to the attention of honourable members the death of Senior Sergeant Dave Bell at Cessnock police station on Monday 25 October. I extend my sincere sympathies to his wife, Noelene, and their four daughters. The Cessnock community has lost a truly remarkable police officer who was extremely dedicated to his position as team co-ordinator and worked very hard building up the morale of the men around him. I first met Dave Bell at the Cessnock police station in early April and was impressed by his positive attitude to his team and his devotion to the community. He was quick to point out that if any problems existed with manning levels, as had been constantly heralded by the former Mayor of Cessnock, Merv Pine, those problems lay with District Inspector Phelps for not allocating the necessary manpower to Cessnock.

Merv Pine’s continued concern in itself had placed pressure upon those at the Cessnock police station to perform above and beyond the normal benchmark, first to appease the mayor and, second, to avoid pressure being applied to the men at the
Page 2310
station. Dave Bell raised the issues that I had referred to him: the manning of the station and police carrying out the duties of corrective services officers during court sitting days. He suggested that it would be more beneficial for front-line policing if those duties were returned to corrective services officers.

While being shown around the station by Dave I asked him about the job of escorting prisoners from the holding bays to the court, which I considered left the police in a dangerous situation. Dave was concerned about the safety of the officers but suggested that I should raise the matter with the Minister and the department. Dave Bell’s record shows clearly what the community knew already: that he was a dedicated officer.

Senior Sergeant David Bell joined the New South Wales Police Service on 31 July 1972. After attending the Redfern academy he was stationed at No. 24 division and later worked at Miranda, where he performed highway patrol and general duties. He was promoted to the rank of constable on 11 September 1973. On 28 July 1974 Senior Sergeant Bell was transferred to duty on the metropolitan special traffic patrol car crew, and performed duties in that role until 30 September 1975, when he accepted a transfer to Maitland highway patrol. In 1977 he was promoted to the rank of constable first-class, and he devoted 11 years to this specialist class of duty. In 1981 he was promoted to the rank of senior constable.

Senior Sergeant Bell transferred to East Maitland police station in a general duties role, and in the same year achieved the rank of sergeant third-class. On 25 June 1988 he was transferred to Maitland station, where he served the community for eight years. On 14 December 1988 he received the National Medal, which rewarded him for 15 years of police service. The following year he received a commendation for his devoted duty during the Newcastle earthquake. On 28 August 1996 Sergeant Bell was promoted to the rank of senior sergeant when he took up the position of patrol tactician at Cessnock police station. He later performed general duties.

At the time of his passing Senior Sergeant David Bell was stationed at Cessnock station as the team co-ordinator for all staff at Cessnock and outlying stations. Affectionately referred to by police and colleagues as "Dave", Senior Sergeant Bell had a unique form of respect from police of all ranks. He was a great believer in preserving the traditional ideals, attitudes and respect instilled in police during their early police days. He shared a concern for each and every person at the station, as well as the community in general. His workmates have described him as a true gentleman and scholar.

In the short time I knew Dave, I realised that was completely true. He expected from his troops a high standard of professionalism but showed equal fairness in his discipline. Nothing was a problem to him, especially when it came to his men. His door was open at all times to anyone with a concern or problem, and his confidentiality was always assured to all. I believe that, because of Dave Bell’s service to the Cessnock community, his memory should be highlighted.

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield - Minister for Police) [11.50 a.m.]: The untimely passing of Sergeant David Bell at the age of 50 is tragic. It is, indeed, a great tragedy for his wife, Noelene, and his four daughters and granddaughter. David was much loved, not only by his family but by everyone who serves in the Police Service in the area in which he worked. He was a great and strong member of the community. Yesterday I spoke to his widow and expressed sympathy for the untimely loss of such a dedicated officer. It appears to be true that the harder one works the more dedicated one becomes and that often leads to an early and untimely death. That seems to be what happened in this case.

Dave worked very hard in both the community and the Police Service. He was well respected and revered by other police for the work he did. This is a sad time. Such is the depth of feeling in the community about the untimely passing of such a wonderful police officer who was dedicated to law enforcement in New South Wales and spent so much time looking after the community that I have asked the Deputy-Speaker to represent me at Dave’s funeral today. He will be sadly missed by everyone in the New South Wales Police Service.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [11.52 a.m.]: People dealing with the Government should have confidence that the Government will have the integrity to pay them appropriately for work done. It is a matter of concern that members have to raise before this House the ongoing problem that so many contractors have in receiving payment from the present State Government. Recently a constituent wrote to me:

Dear Mr Hartcher,

I’m contacting you because I’m having some problems getting paid from NSW Ambulance.
Page 2311

Back in June the okay was given to repair a snap on tune scope. The unit was repaired and returned to Point Clare ambulance centre. An invoice was given to the gentleman in charge on July 20 1999. I contacted accounts in Sydney on 20 August. At that time I was told there was no money to pay, but would be called back the following week. When I was told $500 would be paid in a week, the remainder 2 weeks later, which I agreed to, the remainder still hasn’t been paid.

I contacted Sydney today -
which was 25 October -

but was told they still don’t have any money. The last grant was two weeks ago and there’s nothing left. As to when I could get paid the clerk told me to talk to his boss. On my conversation with him he told me the same. I ask him if they made a practice of soliciting goods with no money to pay the said goods. We are now 97 days since invoice date. I’ve been recharged $653.55 to my account.
This is an ordinary contractor on the Central Coast doing business with a government department, the New South Wales Ambulance Service, and he cannot get paid for the work he had done. He has since been informed by the pay clerk of the New South Wales Ambulance Service that accounts are being paid only if they are dated before April 1999. As the contractor’s account is dated July, he will have to wait at least another three months to be paid.

It is extraordinary that the State Government should operate almost as an offender under the Crimes Act. The Crimes Act provides that it is an offence to obtain a benefit by deception. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Government is obtaining a benefit from many contractors. It obtains the use of the contractors’ labour and materials, and is practising deception when it pretends that they will be paid speedily, or at least within 30 days or 90 days, when in fact they will not be paid within that period.

If the Government were entitled to accept payment from any person for services it performed, one would question whether it would allow such conduct to occur. I invite the Government to reply to my comments. More significantly, I invite the Government to pay people who do business with it, including business contractors on the Central Coast. I urge the Government to ensure that contractors who do business with it are told up front when they will get paid so that they do not enter into contracts to provide goods or services with false expectations. This is a deplorable situation, and I urge the Government to take action in relation to it.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury - Parliamentary Secretary) [11.57 a.m.]: If, as the honourable member for Gosford said, the contractor expected to be paid within 90 days - and he specified "expected" - and is still waiting for his money, I believe he would have been made aware in the first instance that he would have to wait for some time to receive his money. If the contractor was not made aware of that, he should have made it his business to find out when he would be paid. The honourable member for Gosford has raised a trivial issue. He could easily rectify the matter by writing to the Minister responsible and asking to have the matter resolved.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Mrs Beamer): Order! The honourable member for Gosford will cease interjecting.

Mr MOSS: The honourable member for Gosford complains about a contractor who expected to be paid within 90 days. As I have said, no doubt the contractor would have been made aware in the first instance that he would have to wait for some time to receive his money. The Government does not welsh on paying its bills.

FRANK BAXTER JUVENILE JUSTICE CENTRE

Ms ANDREWS (Peats) [11.59 a.m.]: Last week I brought to the attention of the House the official opening on 9 October of the Frank Baxter Juvenile Justice Centre. I now wish to address the House in relation to the new juvenile justice centre and about the former Mount Penang Juvenile Justice Centre. The Frank Baxter Juvenile Justice Centre was constructed in record time at a cost of $23 million. The quality of the workmanship is second to none and is a great credit to all those involved. During the construction period many Central Coast residents were employed on the site. In addition, a number of local suppliers were called upon to provide building materials, furnishings, landscaping, and so on. All in all, the Central Coast economy benefited enormously from this huge project.

The centre includes high-tech surveillance with closed-circuit television and state-of-the-art communication equipment, which all adds to the new security dimension within the centre. Very importantly, the new centre includes a medical centre, classrooms, a library, job skills workshops, a visiting area, a gymnasium, swimming pool, sports areas, and eight self-contained accommodation units named after prominent Central Coast geographical features visible from the high ground on which the centre is located. The names of those units are Peat, Tasman, Nurranga, Elliot, Katandra, Strickland, Penang and Bouddi. The complex was designed to comply with the recommendations of the Royal
Page 2312
Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and conform with the national standards for juvenile detention facilities. Most of the recreational facilities will be available for community use.

Tribute is paid here to the former superintendent of the Mount Penang centre, Mr Terry Gould, who continues on as the superintendent of the new centre; Ms Genni Byers, co-ordinator of case work; and all other staff members of the centre, who are totally dedicated to their work. Due to their efforts the juvenile justice centre at Mount Penang has succeeded in providing opportunities to young juvenile detainees to make positive choices in their future lives. I am confident that this will continue to be the case in the new Frank Baxter Centre. The support, training and education provided to young people at the centre have enabled many young detainees to completely turn their lives around.

It is pleasing to note that this year a number of the detainees are sitting for the Higher School Certificate. I wish them every success in their examinations. Mr Rob Dixon, the principal of Girrakool school, attached to the centre, and his teaching colleagues from the Department of Education and Training devote a lot of time and effort to helping the young detainees to obtain a formal education. It is mentioned, too, that Girrakool school has successfully participated in the Greening of Schools program, run under the auspices of the environmental trust. The facilities offered at Girrakool school are now operating from within the new centre.

When the Gosford Farm home for boys was established in 1911 much of the 800 acres of land was predominantly used for training the boys in dairying and other farming activities. In latter years, whilst the dairy and piggery had been retained at the juvenile justice centre, more emphasis has been placed on providing vocational training for the detainees. There are eight vocational trainers attached to the centre, and the courses offered to the young men include mechanics, carpentry, commercial cleaning and catering. TAFE courses such as bricklaying and forklift driving are also available.

Worthy of special mention in this House is the fact that a ladies auxiliary was established at Mount Penang approximately 30 years ago to raise funds to assist the centre in purchasing recreational and camping equipment. Members of the ladies auxiliary also provide support to young detainees who do not receive any visitors. Mrs Jean Daley is the current president of the ladies auxiliary. I take this opportunity to thank Mrs Daley and all members of the ladies auxiliary, both past and present, for their interest in, and concern for, the centre’s young detainees. It is hoped that the important role played by the ladies auxiliary in the former Mt Penang juvenile justice centre will be continued in the Frank Baxter Centre. I am sure that it will.

The Aboriginal cultural program will be continued within the new centre. Included in that program is the Aboriginal dance group called Djuanjang. This group, which performed at the official opening of the new centre, is in high demand both on the Central Coast and in Sydney. These performers, who are young Aboriginal detainees, are very creative and also do Aboriginal art. I have had the opportunity to see some of this art and, believe me, the artistic skills of these young men have to be seen to be believed. They are outstanding. The Frank Baxter Centre marks a new era in the provision of juvenile justice in this State. The centre’s facilities will ensure that the programs provided over more than eight decades of serving the needs of troubled boys and young men are not only continued, in the main, but are strengthened and improved.

FISHING INDUSTRY DEREGULATION

Mr OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [12.03 p.m.]: This afternoon I wish to refer to changes in the fishing industry affecting the electorate of Port Macquarie, the North Coast and New South Wales. In particular, the deregulation of the commercial fishing sector from next Monday will bring significant changes to the buying and selling of fish in New South Wales and will mean a complete overhaul of the structure of co-operatives in New South Wales. Commercial fishers who at present are required to sell their catch through a market such as a co-operative in future will have the choice not to do so. That will come into effect next Monday. Those commercial fishers will be able to sell to any registered fish receiver, or they may themselves register a business as a fish receiver and sell their own catch direct to the community.

Before I deal with the concerns regarding deregulation, operative from next Monday, I note that at the moment the department does not have a director-general with any corporate knowledge following the bizarre sacking, at 9.30 a.m. yesterday, of the Director-General of Fisheries, Dr John Glaister. The Minister did not have the courage to eyeball his director-general and talk to him in person about why he was sacking him. Rather, just like happened four years ago when the former Minister for Fisheries, Bob Martin -

Page 2313

Mr Watkins: Point of order: Private members’ statements afford members an opportunity to raise issues of concern in their electorates. The honourable member began by speaking about fisheries in his local area, but subsequently launched into a political tirade against a Minister who is in the other place and therefore not able to respond to the honourable member’s comments. Further, the honourable member is raising a matter that is about four years old. It is inappropriate that he pursue those matters by way of a private member’s statement.

Mr OAKESHOTT: To the point of order: As I represent an electorate in which fishing is a key industry, I suggest I have the right to express the concerns of industry representatives regarding changes within the fishing industry.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Mrs Beamer): Order! In private members’ statements members may raise matters relevant to their electorates. They should not refer to matters outside their electorates unless they are brought to their attention by their constituents. The honourable member for Port Macquarie should confine his remarks to matters affecting his electorate.

Mr OAKESHOTT: I would hope I am staying within the bounds of a private member’s statement by expressing the concerns of the local industry about changes that are happening within the executives of New South Wales Fisheries and the impact that those changes are having on the local fishing industry. Those executive level changes made in the past couple of days are impacting on the local industry, and that is of great concern. I express concern also about changes in the Government’s policy and approach to the New South Wales fishing industry, particularly regarding restricting access versus share managed fisheries.

The Coalition has argued strongly that there are benefits at the local level from share managed fisheries. It is interesting that the role of a head within the fisheries executive has enabled the Government to come on board with the Coalition and support share managed fisheries. Currently before the Land and Environment Court is a case involving interpretation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act regarding commercial licensing and potential recreational saltwater licensing. Those matters have an enormous impact on the ground.

If the recommendation of 9 December proposes significant changes for commercial licensing of the fishing industry, I hope the Minister will have in place options to ensure that we will all have fish on our table at Christmas, as is the concern of the industry lobby group Profish. I started this private member’s statement talking about the impact of fishing industry changes on co-operatives, which employ good people, as does the commercial fishing sector in Port Macquarie and elsewhere in New South Wales. With the Minister’s drive for competition, from Monday we will have enormous changes to the co-operative structure. I would hope that reports that argue that we will lose eight New South Wales co-operatives are inaccurate. I hope the Minister will pick up the pieces. [Time expired.]

GEORGES RIVER COMMUNITY SERVICES

COMMONWEALTH BANK CYCLE CLASSIC

Mr GREENE (Georges River) [12.08 p.m.]: I wish to speak about a number of issues that relate to the Georges River electorate. The first is the Georges River Community Services organisation. I had the pleasure of attending the annual general meeting of that organisation last Thursday evening. Georges River Community Services has been running for close to 30 years in the Hurstville municipality and surrounding areas. It has been doing a magnificent job in serving the needs of residents. It was a great opportunity for me to attend the annual general meeting and it was a privilege to address that fine organisation. The work that the organisation does within the community is well respected. I congratulate the previous president, Nola Fenech, on the work that she and her committee have done in overseeing the work of Georges River Community Services.

This diverse organisation greatly depends on the generosity of volunteers, who give their time at the executive committee level and by providing various courses and opportunities for people in the local area. Those opportunities range from adult learning activities through to before and after school care at local schools. The work these volunteers do is fantastic. I particularly mention the work of Joan Vaughan, Secretary of Georges River Community Services. She will be taking on that role again this year. Early in 1999 Joan received an OAM as a reward for her community service, which is of great benefit to our local community. I publicly congratulate her on that work.

Although the work done by the whole organisation is fantastic, I also particularly note the work of its co-ordinator, Sue Smith. One Monday per month I visit the Georges River Community Services office at Mortdale to make myself available
Page 2314
to the local residents who wish to meet with their local member. I appreciate the support I receive from the organisation. In my private member’s speech last week, I mentioned the great role that volunteers play in our local communities, not only in Georges River but throughout the whole of New South Wales. There is no doubt that the infrastructure of our nation would not survive without the generosity of volunteers within our community.

The second matter I wish to speak about is the Commonwealth Bank Cycle Classic. Last Saturday I attended the first criterium of that event. The event, which has been run since 1982, is promoted by Mr Phil Bates, the current Hurstville City Council Citizen of the Year. Phil has received an AM for his services to the community and, in particular, to cycling. The present stage of the classic is being held at Centennial Park. It is worth reflecting on the enormous contribution this international cycling event brings to New South Wales. Phil Bates has done an enormous job promoting cycling and, through this event, New South Wales.

Earlier this week the cycle classic proceeded up the north coast of New South Wales to Port Macquarie. The cyclists have since made their way back to Sydney, and the classic will finish on the weekend in Canberra. This event gives international exposure to New South Wales. The Minister for Sport and Recreation, who is present in the Chamber, through his department supports the Commonwealth Bank Cycle Classic. Undoubtedly, he and the Minister for Tourism are appreciative of the promotion of country towns and New South Wales in general through the national and international media coverage of this cycling event.

I congratulate Phil Bates on the work he has done. Hurstville City Council also strongly supports this event. The first criterium, held at Kempt Field, took place in difficult and wet conditions. I congratulate the cyclists, who are some of the finest athletes in the world, on their performance. They showed enormous skill, talent and courage participating in what was a dangerous event in wet conditions. It was a great pleasure and privilege to be in attendance on that occasion.

CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [12.13 p.m.]: I raise the issue of catchment management committees [CMCs] across New South Wales. Several weeks ago my attention was drawn by the chairman of the Brunswick Valley Catchment Management Committee to proposed changes. The Brunswick Valley Catchment Management Committee was established by the former Coalition Government, and was one of the last CMCs established in this State. There are 45 catchments across New South Wales and most, if not all, have their own CMCs. As I understand it, the Government is proposing the amalgamation of CMCs into regional committees. It would seem that this change is largely being driven by a need to cut costs. That sort of policy strikes at the very heart of catchment management principles.

The key principle is that each catchment has its own characteristics and ought to be managed accordingly. For example, the Brunswick Valley catchment is fairly small and quite different from the adjoining Richmond catchment. The Richmond catchment has a large flood plain, the Brunswick Valley catchment does not. Both of these catchments form part of my electorate. However, under the proposals the Government is currently considering it is likely that the Brunswick catchment, Richmond catchment, possibly Tweed catchment and perhaps the Clarence catchment - which is an even bigger catchment than Richmond - will be brought together in a regional catchment arrangement. That strikes at the fundamental principle underlying catchment management.

If the Government is concerned about the cost of running catchment management committees it should look not so much at amalgamating the committees but at reducing their size. At present the committees comprise, on average, 22 or 23 members. There is pressure on the civil servants because they are being overtaxed by having to attend the many CMC meetings. As I said, instead of amalgamating the committees the Government should look at reducing their size to 12 or 13 members. That would reduce the cost of transport and other expenses associated with the meetings and also probably produce better outcomes.

Most of the CMCs across New South Wales will cease operation on 31 December. There is uncertainty about what will happen after that. Obviously, time is running out. A couple of years ago a review of the catchment committees was undertaken. However, the regional committee proposal being considered by the Government was not recommended by that review. There is no doubt that the Government is considering this proposal. During the estimates committees the Minister was asked what his intentions were. He said at the estimates committee of 16 September:

The Government is working on what sort of regional catchment management committee system we have. I am not yet in a position to give you final details about the number of committees that will exist after the process.
Page 2315

The rumours circulating in New South Wales are that the 45 catchment committees will be reduced to 11 or possibly 15, depending on who one talks to. This is a dangerous move and strikes at the very heart of the principle of catchment management. I am grateful to the people of the Brunswick Valley Catchment Management Committee and the Richmond Catchment Management Committee who drew my attention to this matter several months ago. I call on the Government and the Minister to reconsider this approach. If the Government is looking at a whole-of-government approach to resource management it must ensure that it gets the fundamentals right. In this case the Government is overriding the fundamental principles to achieve some cost savings. That is inappropriate.

TORONTO POLYCLINIC

Mr HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [12.18 p.m.]: Last Friday morning I attended the first birthday celebrations of the Toronto Polyclinic. Gathered at the function were many community representatives, the hard working polyclinic staff, the Chief Executive Officer of the Hunter Area Health Service, Katherine McGrath, the Mayor of Lake Macquarie City Council, Councillor John Kilpatrick, his wife Ellen, and numerous health officials. In particular, I mention the Manager of Toronto Polyclinic, Mary Downey, and the Lake Macquarie City Council community services representative, Elizabeth Delaney.

A number of community representatives celebrated the first year of operation of the polyclinic. It was opened last year by the then Minister for Health, Dr Refshauge. It has certainly proved to be popular during its first 12 months of operation. For many years the local community and the then local member - my father - lobbied the Government for such a clinic. I am proud to say that the Carr Labor Government delivered on that facility. The $5 million polyclinic is located in James Street, Toronto, and was provided in response to the wishes of local people to have access to health care close to where they live and in their homes.

Previously, people who live on the western side of Lake Macquarie had to travel to the John Hunter, Royal Newcastle or Belmont hospitals to gain access to many of the services that are now locally available. The polyclinic provides more services than people think, including community health and nursing services, home visits and an after hours medical service which operates Monday to Friday from 6.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m., Saturday from 12 noon until 10.00 p.m. and Sunday from 10.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m.

The polyclinic also provides medical imaging services, including X-rays for the after hours clinic; pathology services are available seven days a week; the mental health services clinic is open two days a week; the drug and alcohol services clinic is open three days a week; there is a weekly sexual assault service clinic; there are child health services on Monday to Friday; there are child dental health services with the Hunter Dental Health Service clinic from Monday to Friday; and there is a weekly antenatal services clinic where a general practitioner and obstetrician work together in a shared care service model. It is good that local general practitioners are involved in that clinic.

The polyclinic also operates a diabetic education services clinic on four days a week; a monthly oncology services clinic - a first for the western side of Lake Macquarie; Aboriginal health services provided monthly by the Awabakal Medical Service; a weekly hearing service clinic provided by Australian Hearing services; geriatric services, including a monthly gerontology clinic; and rehabilitation services - not previously provided - with a multidisciplinary team comprising an occupational therapist, a physiotherapist, nurses, a social worker and a speech pathologist for people requiring rehabilitation from more than one health care professional.

It can be seen that an excellent service is being provided in the new $5 million facility at Toronto by a collaborative approach to health care working with the Aboriginal Medical Service, local general practitioners and Better Hearing Australia. It is certainly a model for future delivery of community and local health services throughout the State. I particularly point out the primary care medical service with pathology and X-ray facilities, a first for the Westlakes area and something that people have been crying out for for many years. It is fantastic that the people have got this medical service; it is what they wanted. I congratulate all the staff of the Toronto Polyclinic. They have worked hard during the past 12 months. My office has heard only praise for the facility and the services it provides. Those services could not be provided without the well-trained health professionals at the Toronto Polyclinic. I congratulate Mary Downey and her team, and I wish them all the best in their future operation.

REDFERN STREET BEAT PROJECT

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [12.23 p.m.]: The Redfern Street Beat project is in urgent need of immediate help. For the past 17 months the project has provided safe transport and outreach services to approximately 100 young people living in the South
Page 2316
Sydney area. Those young people are 18 years and younger, and approximately 80 per cent are Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander youth. Street Beat operates a safe transport service for young people. It encourages young people who are on the streets late at night to accept lifts in its bus to their homes or another safe place. Other agencies working with young people, or young people themselves, can call the bus if they need safe transport. Apart from operating in the inner city, the bus has safely transported young people to Ashfield, Canterbury, Marrickville, Leichhardt and suburbs around Botany Bay.

The service benefits both young people and the wider community. It enables young people to remove themselves from situations where they might be at risk either to themselves or to others. The service also provides information to young people who use it and refers them to relevant support services, such as drug and alcohol services. The service liaises with the police, the Department of Community Services [DOCS], youth refuges and other agencies. It works with homeless youth on the street. The bus drivers work closely with the child protection or adolescent units of DOCS in matters involving youth under 16 years of age. Through its transport service, liaison service and street work it is working to reduce the risk of young people becoming involved in alcohol or drug abuse or getting involved in activities which could draw them into crime.

The numbers of young people helped by the service are significant. For example, during the period June 1999 to September 1999, 1,097 young people - 639 boys and 458 girls - received safe transport. The average age was 16 and the majority were aged between 14 and 17. It is a brilliant service and I raise it today not only to give it praise but because its important work may soon stop. Funding for the project is about to run out. Unexpected outlays on repairing the bus, without which the service could not operate, have eaten into its funds. Attempts to secure funding for the service have so far failed.

The project applied for funding through the second round of National Elicit Funding - Community Partnership Initiative but it will not know the results of its application until the end of the year. Even if the project receives funding, which is by no means guaranteed, the continuity, reputation and respect it has earned during the past 17 months will be severely disrupted, if not destroyed. Often calls are heard to get young people off the streets, particularly in the Eveleigh Street, Redfern, area. It could be said that the Street Beat project is doing exactly that but it is doing it in a way that is sensitive to the needs of young people.

Street Beat gains their confidence and helps them with the information and support they so desperately need. The project deserves and needs the community’s support. Making available the vital bridging funding this project needs could make a significant difference to the lives of many young people who need the service. I therefore call upon the Minister for Community Services to meet with representatives of the Street Beat project with the object of ensuring that this important child safety initiative survives.

Mrs LO PO’ (Penrith - Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women) [12.27 p.m.]: Street Beat is making a useful contribution to improving the safety of young people in the Redfern area. My understanding is that the local police in the Redfern area are involved with the project. Is there a steering committee of local youth groups?

Ms Moore: Yes.

Mrs LO PO’: I am sure that the honourable member for Bligh is aware that there are a number of initiatives occurring in the Redfern area. Twelve months ago the Government set up the Redfern-Waterloo co-ordination project, which has just completed a comprehensive review of youth services. That project is designed to take a co-ordinated approach to a range of initiatives and projects in the Redfern area, to prevent fragmentation of the services and to avoid duplication and overlap of the services available. I have been in touch with the office of the Minister for Police and brought this matter to his attention. He will look at the service and refer it to the Redfern-Waterloo co-ordination project.

Ms Moore: It is the bridging funding which is needed.

Mrs LO PO’: Yes.

Private members’ statements noted.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Bill: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion, by leave, by Mr Face agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow resumption of the adjourned second reading debate on the Liquor Amendment Bill.
Page 2317

LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 October.

Mr OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [12.29 p.m.]: I am pleased to lead for the Opposition on this bill. I inform the Minister and the honourable member for Murray-Darling that the Coalition will not oppose the bill, although the Minister should expect a minor amendment in the upper House. We understand and respect the Government’s rush to get the legislation through the House. We respect also the fact that the bill has not gone through the due processes of the House, but we understand the need for hotels to get their houses in order in the lead-up to the new year.

The bill contains six groups of amendments. First, it provides licensed venues in New South Wales with additional trading hours for the coming New Years Eve and millennium celebrations. I hope that the provisions will not apply for 2001. Second, the bill introduces a new category of community liquor licence so that small rural communities throughout the State that have been disadvantaged in recent years by hotel closures can continue to have ready access to local and convenient liquor hospitality services. I note the campaign on that issue by honourable members on both sides of the House, including the honourable member for Wagga Wagga and the honourable member for Murray-Darling.

Third, the bill introduces new flexibility in the Liquor Act for restaurants and nightclubs, including a provision for restaurants with fewer than 50 seats to apply for a liquor licence. Fourth, it introduces additional community safeguards concerning the sale of takeaway liquor by convenience stores and petrol stations. Fifth, it inserts further provisions in the Liquor Act for offences and penalties concerning proof-of-age cards, including the fraudulent manufacture of, tampering with and use of such cards. Finally, the bill contains a number of other miscellaneous and administrative changes to the Liquor Act.

In terms of the community liquor licence, I am pleased that the Government has taken action in relation to the impact of liquor licences being removed from small country towns. The shift of licences from country towns to metropolitan centres has had a huge impact on many regional areas. It is yet another example of the rural decline about which all honourable members are concerned and to which we are trying to find answers. While supporting the introduction of community liquor licences and the role they will play in many areas, I am concerned that the number of liquor licences available throughout New South Wales will increase. I hope that an increased number of licences will not lead to an increase in the consumption of alcohol.

I hope that these provisions are not the Government’s way of dealing with the issue while still holding on to the precious Treasury funds received from poker machines throughout the Sydney region. To a large degree, those poker machines are the reason that liquor licences are being bled from country towns towards metropolitan centres. Honourable members understand that hoteliers want to make a profit, so they transfer their licences to the city. However, that leaves towns with skeletal structures for social interaction among members of the community.

Up until now the Government has ignored the slow erosion of services in country towns. The full ramifications will not be understood until services are removed. Now that community liquor licences have been introduced we must ask questions rather than look at ways to retain licences in regional centres. Increasing the number of available licences will enable the Government to retain the poker machine tax. I hope that will not result in a further proliferation of gambling or liquor sales in New South Wales, and that the Government will address the social impacts of the broader issues relating to gambling and alcohol sales.

The Coalition supports the introduction of community liquor licences, which will help smaller rural communities. We respect the Minister’s actions in introducing this legislation. In terms of introducing new flexibility in the Liquor Act for restaurants and nightclubs, I urge the Minister to look at the impact that this will have on the handful of wine bar licences remaining. One wine bar in the local Port Macquarie community has just closed. The wine bar was well liked and the owners were very popular throughout town, but, unfortunately, it has gone to the wall. The owners are having trouble selling their business because market forces are having an impact on the licence for the wine bar.

New licensing arrangements have, to some degree, ripped the guts out of any marketable and fair sale of the wine bar licence. I hope that the Minister and the Government recognise that that problem relates to all the remaining wine bar licences in New South Wales. The Opposition supports the new provisions in the Liquor Act for offences and penalties concerning proof-of-age cards. Anecdotally, the fraudulent manufacture of,
Page 2318
tampering with and use of proof-of-age cards is much more widespread than has been recognised.

I hope that these changes will address the problems being experienced throughout the community. While the Coalition does not oppose the bill - indeed, we heartily endorse certain aspects of it, such as the community liquor licence provisions - the Government must deal with the social implications of more liquor licences across the board in New South Wales in the near future.

Mr BLACK (Murray-Darling) [12.36 p.m.]: At the outset I commend the Minister for introducing this important bill. I was heartened to hear that the Opposition supports the principles behind this amendment, in particular the issues relating to the community liquor licence, which was emphasised by the honourable member for Port Macquarie. The publicity in western New South Wales - and in Port Macquarie as well, I understand - as a result of the answer to a question some two months ago when this matter was first raised was favourable.

Communities in Balranald shire, such as Hatfield and Booroorban south of Hay, and in the Wentworth shire support this proposal. That is heartening because this is a social matter; it relates to quality of life. The Government has introduced the community liquor licence because the windfall profits that resulted from poker machines being put into hotels, particularly those in small communities, made the liquor licence, with the poker machine attachment, worth more than the hotel itself. The important features of the second group of amendments are as follows.

First, applications for the licence will be dealt with by the Licensing Court and may be granted to a person who will operate the licence on behalf of a non-profit community organisation when there is community support. In essence, this new class of licence will be community driven. Although a single person will hold the licence, it will be driven by a community organisation - and in many communities, the community organisation will be the community as a whole.

Second, the licence will be granted only in areas of the State outside the Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong areas, and I welcome that. The focus of these provisions is to return to towns what is a social centre for many of them. In granting a licence the court must be satisfied that there is no venue in the neighbourhood or its vicinity that provides hotel-like facilities. That will not be a problem in the Murray-Darling electorate because of the vast distance between hotels.

Third, the community liquor licence can be removed within the same neighbourhood. The premises and facilities must be suitable for the sale of liquor. I welcome the fact that gaming machines will not be permitted. Both on- and off-licence sales of liquor will be permitted, and I shall dwell on that for a moment. Because licences in western New South Wales have sold for $240,000 to $250,000 this year, some hotels - I name Milparinka, which is not a problem, and Topar, which I believe is - are selling their licences and taking out restaurant licences.

The difficulty with that is that people cannot take liquor away from the hotel; they can only consume it on the premises. This amendment is important for remote communities and for visitors, such as members of shearing teams. The fee for the granting of a licence is very moderate at $500. That is not excessive. It is within the financial abilities of stressed communities such as Hatfield to re-establish a liquor facility.

The community liquor licence will also be subject to the normal range of Liquor Act obligations and provisions that apply to other licences in New South Wales in relation to responsible service of liquor, quiet and good order of the neighbourhood, preventing the sale and supply of liquor to minors, discipline, disturbance complaints and so on. Local councils will have their normal roles and functions in regard to the licences. I conclude by saying that this is a great win for all regional and rural New South Wales. It addresses an unexpected result of the introduction of poker machines into hotels and the changing of licences from hotel licences to restaurant licences. It is good to see bipartisan support for the proposal.

Mr MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [12.42 p.m.]: I am very pleased that the amendment has been introduced. Since becoming the member for Wagga Wagga on 27 March I have become involved in the issue we are discussing: the loss of licences from country areas. I refer specifically to the community of Pleasant Hills, which lost its pub facilities. Brian Clancy, previous mayor of Lockhart, chairs a committee which is absolutely determined to have a community style licence for that centre.

The community has raised the money to buy the hotel residence and premises. Different forms of licences have been considered. Soon after the election the community wrote to me and representatives visited my office. They said, "Daryl, we are facing a problem. We are about to lose our social centre. The pub is our gathering place. It is the only facility that we have and the licence has been sold off." The honourable member for Murray-
Page 2319
Darling referred to licences being transferred from country areas to cities and major towns. This has been a major drama for us. The town of Milbrulong has also suffered the same fate.

I commend Brian Clancy and his committee, firstly, for achieving the goal of buying the building and, secondly, for their efforts to acquire a community licence, which will provide Pleasant Hills with a facility which is owned and run by the community. The licence will be non-transferable and will be subject to the regulations already in place under the Liquor Act. That is only right. The people of Pleasant Hills have good reason to celebrate.

As the honourable member for Murray-Darling said, other towns and regions that have suffered the same fate will be able to pursue the same path and gain a community licence for their area. I hope that Pleasant Hills will become the first community to apply for such a licence. I do not advocate the issuing of so many licences that present licences are devalued. Community licences will be available only to accommodate a community which has no other meeting place. I support the responsible serving of alcohol.

I do not advocate that liquor should be served everywhere. Community licences will be more appropriate in some places than in others, but certainly Pleasant Hills is an appropriate place. There was community uproar when Milbrulong recently lost its pub. A group of people in that town have been waiting for this bill so that they can apply for a community licence to give their town a social centre again. The amendment will be good news for them also.

This morning we debated the effect that rationalisation has had on rural communities. Many areas of regional and rural New South Wales have been defined as communities in need. This issue involves the fabric of regional and rural New South Wales. Facilities have been drifting towards the city. Because of the increase in the value of licences with the introduction of poker machines to hotels there was a transfer of licences to city centres. This morning in the debate there were not many suggestions about how to solve the problems of country areas. I see this bill as being only one small part of the solution to the problems.

The point I am making is that pubs are the focus of small towns. A pub is the gathering point, the place where people meet to exchange views and to celebrate the new millennium, Australia Day or Anzac Day. The bill is long overdue. It has been well thought out. Communities in my electorate that have been affected by the loss of licences will applaud it. I support the bill.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [12.49 p.m.], in reply: I sincerely thank the honourable member for Port Macquarie, the honourable member for Murray-Darling and the honourable member for Wagga Wagga for their support of the bill. They recognise that a speedy passage will allow its debate in another place so that it can be in place for the new millennium. As I have said, once the bill is passed other things have to be done to put in place the regulatory regime, and it is the Government’s desire for the many processes to be completed before Christmas. I appreciate what has occurred.

I understand why Opposition members dwelt for some time on the problems related to community liquor licences, because they represent country electorates. I have been aware of this difficulty since I became responsible for this portfolio. The provisions in the bill will not result in a proliferation of licences. The bill has been crafted in a way that will avoid the necessity to remove or close hotels. I acknowledge that it might be possible for someone to try to make a quick quid by taking over a licence.

The intention of the legislation is that people will have a central place where they are able to meet, as was mentioned by those Opposition members who spoke in the debate. I expect that no more than 20 of this new category of community liquor licences will be granted, because of the conditions that will be imposed. In particular, a community liquor licence will not be granted for premises located close to where there is an existing licence. I am aware of a request for licensed premises in the Wagga Wagga region to be allowed to have gaming machines to make the business more viable.

I make it clear that gaming machines will not be permitted in premises covered by these new licences. If that happened it would open a can of worms and would be of no benefit to the community. I have insisted that there be off-premises licences as well as on-premises licences, to enable people, many of whom drive long distances, to purchase alcohol to consume on the premises or to take away. Many of these establishments do not make a profit. Recently I asked an Australian Hotels Association representative to visit a couple of hotels in the Riverina region to ascertain the level of takings at the premises.

Page 2320

In one instance - admittedly it was 4 o’clock in the afternoon and patrons may not have attended by that time, though the hotel had been open since 10.00 a.m. - the takings were slightly under $25. No business can be run successfully on that basis. Most of the problems that have arisen have been caused by people wanting to separate the portion of the licence that relates to gaming machines. Successive governments have not been able to overcome the problem of overlicensing in some country towns. Many of those who lived on the outskirts of country towns no longer do so, because the farms can no longer support them.

The next major problem confronting the ministry is to attempt to overcome these problems. No government of any political persuasion would want to close a particular hotel or club, but provision must be made to enable people who operate those businesses to get out with dignity and at the same time not deprive the community of those facilities. One country town in the Northern Tablelands area has a population of about 1,500 and four hotels, four clubs and a bottle shop. The town cannot support that number of liquor outlets.

The honourable member for Port Macquarie raised an issue relating to wine bars. The former Coalition Government attempted to get wine bar proprietors out of a bind of unprofitability. When I became shadow minister about 60 wine bar licences were still in existence. Wine bar licences are a carryover from the former Australian wine licensing system. Many of the licences are held by companies such as McWilliams. The Bodega sparkling wine originated from licences that were granted years ago. The present Government has given the wine bars many concessions, including allowing them to sell beer in addition to wine and spirits.

Recently the Government received representations from wine bar proprietors seeking gaming concessions. I have news for them. While ever the Labor Party remains in office that will not happen; there will not be gaming machines in wine bars. The licence holders have had a fair run. The licences that were granted did not cost a lot. The former Government imposed conditions on those licences, after consulting with me as shadow minister, in regard to location. The bars were allowed to sell wine, then they were given permission to sell beer and spirits. No further concessions will be made. At present only about 15 of those licences remain in the State.

Various concerns have been expressed about community licences. I have received petitions from the honourable member for Wagga Wagga. If he wishes, I can accompany him to Pleasant Hills to commission the first community licence. The petitions that have been presented typify the country spirit. The honourable member was correct when he said that we have only touched the tip of the iceberg in regard to proof-of-age cards. I am in the process of writing to the Minister for Education and Training on the issue so that it can be brought to the notice of year 11 and year 12 students.

As I said recently, I have no doubt that the young people who abuse the system do not realise that they are committing fraud. They will be caught under the new system of photo imaging introduced by the Minister for Transport and me. If they are caught, they will deny themselves employment opportunities. The bill will provide enhanced opportunities for many thousands of businesses during the millennium celebrations and will meet the reasonable needs of the people of New South Wales. It makes for better licensing laws and will overcome many community problems. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Order of Business

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield - Minister for Police) [12.57 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the member for Murray-Darling to make a statement concerning the registration today of Country Labor by the New South Wales Electoral Commission.
This is an important day.

Mr R. H. L. SMITH (Bega) [12.57 p.m.]: This was meant to be private members’ day, but that was cancelled so that debate on urgent bills could proceed and Ministers could present their second reading speeches on other bills. The Government is playing politics with regard to Country Labor. Everyone is aware that Country Labor is a joke. Members of Country Labor have done nothing for the country. It is time the Labor Party faced the facts and met the challenges facing rural New South Wales. Labor is in government now and can do whatever is necessary for the country without Country Labor. This motion will further erode private members’ day. We oppose the motion.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

Page 2321

The House divided.

Ayes, 45

Ms Allan Mr Lynch
Mr Amery Mr McManus
Ms Andrews Mr Martin
Mr Aquilina Ms Meagher
Mr Ashton Ms Megarrity
Mrs Beamer Mr Mills
Mr Black Mr Moss
Mr Brown Mr Nagle
Ms Burton Mr Newell
Mr Campbell Mr Orkopoulos
Mr Crittenden Mr E. T. Page
Mr Debus Dr Refshauge
Mr Face Ms Saliba
Mr Gaudry Mr Scully
Mr Gibson Mr W. D. Smith
Mr Greene Mr Stewart
Mrs Grusovin Mr Tripodi
Ms Harrison Mr Watkins
Mr Hickey Mr Whelan
Mr Hunter Mr Yeadon
Mr Iemma Tellers,
Mr Knowles Mr Anderson
Mrs Lo Po’ Mr Thompson

Noes, 31

Mrs Chikarovski Mr D. L. Page
Mr Debnam Mr Piccoli
Mr George Mr Richardson
Mr Glachan Mr Rozzoli
Mr Hartcher Mrs Skinner
Mr Hazzard Mr Slack-Smith
Ms Hodgkinson Mr Stoner
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr Torbay
Mr Kerr Mr J. H. Turner
Mr McGrane Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Maguire Mr Webb
Mr Merton Mr Windsor
Ms Moore Tellers,
Mr Oakeshott Mr Fraser
Mr O’Doherty Mr R. H. L. Smith

Pair

Mr Markham Ms Seaton

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

COUNTRY LABOR

Mr BLACK (Murray-Darling): I thank the honourable member for Bega for calling a division and bringing all members of this House into the Chamber to hear what a great day this is. It is the day the Electoral Commission granted formal registration to Country Labor as a political party in New South Wales. This is formal recognition that Country Labor is a political force in this State and has delivered, and will continue to deliver, for country families and businesses.

Labor Party members who live in country towns can now apply to join Country Labor rather than the Australian Labor Party. Rural Labor Party branches can choose to become Country Labor branches. Candidates in country electorates will run under the banner of Country Labor - a genuine, rural-based political party representing country issues in this Parliament and in the wider community. Country Labor may have been registered today, but its members have been working hard for many months. Country Labor continues to campaign on the major issues of petrol prices, rural railway lines and country hospitals.

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

Mr BLACK: In the past six months Country Labor has moved urgent motions and asked questions on matters such as water reform, competition policy, dairy deregulation, Newcastle disease, mice and locust plagues, land management, and country jobs. Those issues were all raised by Country Labor, and they all met with flippancy and abuse from the National Party. The people of country New South Wales will not stand for that sort of behaviour from National Party members of Parliament. The days of country families happily sending National Party members of Parliament to Macquarie Street year after year without expecting them to raise local issues have long passed. National Party members need to wake up to the fact that their constituents expect them to deliver, as Country Labor is delivering.

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

Mr BLACK: The Hansard record speaks for itself. Since the election I have asked 10 questions without notice on country issues. Those questions related to rural aged care, railway lines, road grants and country doctors. I have asked more questions than the entire National Party backbench have asked. Eleven National Party backbenchers have asked nine
Page 2322
questions between them. One member of Country Labor has asked 10 questions. What do the people in National Party electorates have to do to get a question asked on their behalf?

Yesterday we heard the maiden question from the honourable member for Monaro. The major issues in Monaro are water allocations and the future of dairying. The honourable member’s question was on Olympic swimming. Four country members of Parliament have not asked anything at all. They are the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, the honourable member for Albury, the honourable member for Lachlan and the honourable member for Bega. I make a prediction: by pure coincidence those honourable members will ask their maiden questions today.

Let me get back to Country Labor. The registration of any new party is likely to be dogged by controversy, and Country Labor was no different. Last week the New South Wales Nationals charged down to Francis Street, Darlinghurst, to lodge a series of objections to Country Labor. The objections were many and frenzied, and included: one, that Country Labor should not exist; two, that people would mistake Country Labor for the National Party; and three, that Country Labor was a breakaway, disaffected faction that would overthrow the Government and destroy democracy as we know it. The Electoral Commission very sensibly ignored those National Party objections and granted registration to the new party.

Country Labor is well represented in this Chamber. Country Labor seats include the Tweed, Clarence, Maitland, Cessnock, Port Stephens, Bathurst, Kiama, South Coast and Murray-Darling. From Tweed Heads to Nowra, and from Lithgow to Broken Hill, Country Labor members of Parliament are out and about, working for a fair share for country families. And their numbers are growing all the time. This morning I was reading the Land. In the agribusiness section I uncovered a major article about a campaign to protect bank branches. The article named a New South Wales member of Parliament - not the Leader of the National Party, not even the honourable member for Murray-Darling. It was the honourable member for Miranda - who might become an associate member of Country Labor - making a late defection to Country Labor. Country Labor comes to town!

You may ask: Where has the National Party gone? I can tell you. I understand the New South Wales Nationals have been celebrating their eightieth birthday at a small ceremony at their State headquarters adjacent to Wynyard railway station, overlooking The Rocks. They are the boys from Carrington Street - a collection of stockbrokers, lawyers and small-scale accountants, nibbling their birthday cake as they look out over the harbour and ponder whether to write any policies. In closing I draw attention to a question asked earlier today in the House.

This morning a lone National Party member of Parliament, the honourable member for Oxley, stood in this Chamber and made an impassioned attack on the Minister for Rural Affairs. "Where is Harry Woods?" he cried. "Why won’t he go to Canberra to take on the economic rationalists?" I am forced to admit the Minister for Rural Affairs is not present in the House today. He is in Canberra, taking on the economic rationalists. The Minister, a member of Country Labor, is attending the National Rural Summit, organised by Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, to debate rural issues. The Minister does not have a parliamentary pair for this summit - because the Coalition refused him one.

Today, the rural summit will debate the effect of a free market on rural industries, including the dairy industry, which faces deregulation and the loss of hundreds of jobs. The New South Wales dairy industry is centred around the electorate of Bega. The Liberal member of Parliament for Bega is the one who refused a pair. I conclude by repeating that this is a great day for Country Labor, and for regional and rural New South Wales. I confidently expect and predict that Country Labor will be established in each of the other States of this great Commonwealth. Country Labor will continue to be the success that it now is.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT (SEXUAL ASSAULT COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE) BILL

Bill received and read a first time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Bill: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Sexual Assault Communications Privilege) Bill, which originated in the Legislative Council, to be passed through all stages at this sitting.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT (SEXUAL ASSAULT COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE) BILL

Second Reading

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield - Minister for Police) [1.15 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.
Page 2323

The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Sexual Assault Communications Privilege) Bill seeks to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 by re-enacting the provisions of division 1B of part 3.10 of the Evidence Act 1995, with modifications, in order to address issues arising out of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Young (1999) NSW CCA 166 and the experiences of those working with the privilege since the Evidence Act provisions were commenced. The principal purpose of the bill is to redress the finding of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Young’s case that the sexual assault communications privilege enacted in division 1B of part 3.10 of the Evidence Act did not apply to the production of documents by subpoena. The court also declined to extend the common law doctrine of public interest immunity to encompass sexual assault communications.

The consequence of the decision in Young’s case is that a person who is entitled to assert the privilege when an attempt is made to adduce evidence of a sexual assault communication in a criminal proceeding is unable to assert the same privilege when a document is produced to the court by way of a subpoena or other procedure. The practical result of this decision is that a party - usually the defence - may inspect sexual assault counsellors’ notes obtained on subpoena, unless a court takes the view that there is no legitimate forensic purpose in allowing such access. This is so even if later in the proceedings an attempt to adduce such material in evidence may be thwarted by the present provisions of part 3.10 division 1B of the Evidence Act.

The Government always intended that the sexual assault communications privilege should be capable of application in appropriate cases at all stages of the trial process. So that there is no unwarranted disclosure of confidential communications made by a sexual assault victim, I now introduce this bill. Because sexual assault communications privilege is primarily invoked in the course of criminal trials, the bill transfers the sexual assault communications privilege from the Evidence Act into the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and applies the privilege in criminal proceedings - which are defined as proceedings relating to the trial or sentencing of a person for an offence, whether or not it is a sexual assault offence - and includes proceedings relating to an order under part 15A of the Crimes Act, which relates to apprehended violence. The bill also amends the Evidence Act to apply the privilege in civil proceedings which arises out of the same acts as constituted an offence, or alleged offence, in earlier criminal proceedings.

The test for setting aside the sexual assault communications privilege in this bill is the same as that in the Evidence Act provisions the bill replaces. It is applied both in relation to documents sought to be produced and to the adducing of evidence. In both circumstances the court must be satisfied, before it permits inspection of the document or documents or the adducing of the evidence, that the contents of the document or documents or the evidence to be adduced has substantial probative value; that other like evidence is not available; and that the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of protected confidences and protecting the principal confider from harm is substantially outweighed by the public interest in allowing inspection of the document or documents or the adducing of the evidence.

It will not generally be possible for the court to have enough information about the case which will be presented at preliminary criminal proceedings - which are defined as meaning committal proceedings and bail proceedings - to determine whether maintenance of the sexual assault communications privilege should be allowed. For this reason the bill provides for an absolute privilege at this stage. In a similar vein, the bill provides for the court to put aside a determination on whether a document should be produced to a party for inspection to a point in the proceedings when it is able to apply the test.

The bill also addresses a number of other issues arising out of Young’s case and the experiences of those who have worked with the legislation since its proclamation. Specific matters addressed in the bill include the definition of "counselling communication". In R v Young Justice James observed that the only confidences capable of protection under the current Evidence Act privilege were the alleged victim’s own ruminations or, more happily expressed, the alleged victim’s own confidential communications.

Clearly, potential access by defendants to the views of others involved in the process of sexual assault counselling - such as the counsellor’s responses to a protected confider, or observations or treatment details concerning a protected confider communicated between counsellors who are concerned with the same case - will result in the therapeutic basis for the counselling being undermined in just the same way as if the protected confider’s own ruminations were accessible. Accordingly, the definition of "counselling communication" is expanded to incorporate all communications made in the course of counselling,
Page 2324
including communications by a counsellor to the confider, between counsellors about a protected confider and communications between a counsellor and a person present to facilitate the counselling session - for instance, the non-abusive parent of a child sexual assault victim.

I shall now deal with the definition of "document recording a protected confidence". Young’s case also raised an issue concerning what amounted to the contents of a document for the purpose of the privilege. So as to clarify this issue a definition of what amounts to a "document recording a protected confidence" is provided in the bill, to the effect that it includes any part of a document that records a protected confidence and includes any report, observation, opinion, advice, recommendation or other matter that relates to the protected confidence made by a protected confider. Next I deal with the definition of "protected confider". Because the definition of "counselling communication" has been expanded, the definition of "protected confider" now includes any person who made a protected confidence.

The victim, or alleged victim, of a sexual assault who makes or receives a protected confidence or about whom a protected confidence is made is defined as the "principal protected confider". Other protected confiders may include counsellors or persons present in a counselling session for the purpose of facilitating the counselling. The principal protected confider, the alleged victim of the sexual assault, is the person for whom maintenance of the privilege is most important.

For this reason, the notice provisions have been amended in the bill to formalise a process which has been put in place by the police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning notification of the principal protected confider about the intention of a party to adduce evidence of otherwise privileged material. The bill also requires other protected confiders to be notified where possible. However, there is scope for the court to give leave to permit inspection of documents or the adducing of evidence where notice has not been given to confiders - other than the principal confider.

The notice provision has also been amended to provide guidance as to the information to be provided in the notice. Notwithstanding the increased range of communications that may be protected by the privilege the bill makes it clear that only the principal protected confider is able to consent to the privilege being waived. To provide certainty with respect to whether or not consent to the privilege being waived has been given, the bill requires that the consent must be in writing and specifically refer to the particular document or evidence which may be otherwise privileged.

As to cognate amendments to the Victims Compensation Act 1996, it has become apparent that it is relatively common for defence counsel in sexual assault matters to seek access to material used in an application for victims compensation. This material may include information arising from a counselling relationship. A cognate amendment to the Victims Compensation Act seeks to categorically close this avenue of investigation. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr R. H. L. SMITH (Bega) [1.24 p.m.]: The bill has been debated and examined in detail in the other place and the Opposition does not oppose it.

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield - Minister for Police) [1.25 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Bega for his co-operation on this important bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

CRIMES (SENTENCING PROCEDURE) BILL

CRIMES (ADMINISTRATION OF SENTENCES) BILL

CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SENTENCING) BILL

Bills introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [1.28 p.m.]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce three substantial bills that constitute an important reform of the criminal justice and correctional systems in New South Wales. In substance, these bills are not about the creation or abolition of criminal offences. Nor are they about an increase or decrease in the maximum penalties
Page 2325
available for such offences. These bills implement a number of reforms recommended by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission in its report on the law and practice of sentencing. Some of the reforms are in the nature of fixing ambiguities in pre-existing legislation and streamlining aspects of the criminal justice and correctional systems. Useful new sentencing provisions are also provided for. A brief history of the involvement of the Law Reform Commission with this issue is useful.

In April 1995, the Attorney General gave a reference to the Law Reform Commission requesting that it inquire into the laws relating to sentencing in New South Wales with particular reference to the formulation of principles and guidelines for sentencing as well as the rationalisation and consolidation of current sentencing provisions, the adequacy and use of non-custodial sentencing options, the adequacy of existing procedures for release of prisoners, and any related matters.

The Commission divided the reference into three phases. The first phase, involving an evaluation of the general principles of sentencing laws, is the subject of the report on sentencing - report 79. A discussion paper was released in April 1996. More than 50 submissions on the proposals put forward in the discussion paper were received, in addition to consultation undertaken by the Law Reform Commission. The report was released in April 1997. It contains a large number of recommendations.

The recommendations chiefly concern the mechanics of sentencing, streamlining and clarifying the existing sentencing law, and reforming those areas of the law that have been the subject of judicial complaint and some community concern. With these bills, the Government is implementing many of the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations. Bearing in mind the length and complexity of the three bills, I do not propose to work my way through each clause and to provide a commentary. Members should avail themselves of the time between this speech and the debate to read the bills carefully and apprise themselves of the Law Reform Commission recommendations where appropriate. I will now provide a brief outline of the structure of each bill. I will then proceed to enunciate the goals that the Government intends to achieve in the legislation.

I turn first to discuss the contents of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Bill 1999. A principal object of this bill is to amalgamate and re-enact provisions in the following Acts: the Community Service Orders Act 1979; the Crimes Act 1900; the Criminal Procedure Act 1986; the Home Detention Act 1996; the Justices Act 1902; the Periodic Detention of Prisoners Act 1981; and the Sentencing Act 1989. It does that in regard to provisions which relate to the sentencing of offenders.

Part 2 of the bill is headed "Penalties that may be imposed". Division 1 of part 2 is headed "General" and deals with sentences of imprisonment generally. Division 2 of part 2 is headed "Alternatives to full-time detention" and deals with periodic detention and home detention. Division 3 of part 2 is headed "Non-custodial alternatives" and deals with community service orders and good behaviour bonds. I mention those headings to make the point that the bill distinguishes between, on the one hand, periodic detention and home detention and, on the other hand, non-custodial alternatives to imprisonment.

Periodic detention and home detention are two ways of serving a sentence of imprisonment. Full-time detention is another way of serving a sentence of imprisonment. How a sentence is to be served and administered is dealt with in the sentencing administration bill. Clause 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Bill requires a court, when sentencing an offender to a term of imprisonment of six months or less, to make a record of reasons for imposing such a sentence, including reasons for deciding that a penalty other than imprisonment is inappropriate.

At present, a court does not have to give reasons for such a sentence, although section 80AB of the Justices Act 1902 prevents a magistrate from imposing a sentence of imprisonment "unless satisfied, having considered all possible alternatives, that no other course is appropriate". The wording of clause 5 is in line with recommendation 40 of the Law Reform Commission’s report. Obviously the Government is not attempting to fetter the sentencing discretion of courts.

The Government is implementing recommendations which will require courts to consider alternatives to imprisonment more carefully than was previously the case. This package also completes a continuing reform whereby the word "recognisance" is replaced with the word "bond", implementing recommendation 16 of the Law Reform Commission. Provisions relating to bonds are contained chiefly in division 3 of part 2 and part 8 to the bill.

Bonds are a commonly used non-custodial sentencing option, where the offender is released
Page 2326
conditionally upon entering the bond or recognisance to be of good behaviour. As a condition the court may fix a sum of money as a surety. In the past there has been some confusion over terminology. Both terms "bond" and "recognisance" have been used to refer to the release of an offender upon probation. The Law Reform Commission considered the term "recognisance" to be archaic. The term "bond" appears to be more widely understood.

Provisions effecting the change in other legislation are set out in schedules 3 and 4 to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Bill. The change of terminology will simplify the sentencing system and facilitate understanding of the importance and effect of bonds. The next matter is the abolition of the power to impose bonds at common law. This is achieved by clause 97 of the bill. It implements recommendation 17 of the Law Reform Commission.

At common law, the courts have a power to impose a bond to be of good behaviour, with or without entering a conviction for the offence. This includes a power - commonly known as a Griffith’s bond - to release an offender pending sentence in order to assess the offender’s behaviour and capacity for rehabilitation before imposing the sentence. These powers will now be set out in the bill. Clause 9 sets the general power to impose a bond. Clause 10 relates to non-conviction bonds. It includes the provisions previously found in section 556A of the Crimes Act.

The Law Reform Commission recommended that the Crimes Act be amended to provide that bonds should be imposed for a maximum period of five years. The recommendation is in keeping with a scheme of uniformity, and is in line with other sentencing reforms. Clause 44 will require the court to first set the term of the sentence to be imposed and then set a non-parole period which is the minimum amount of time the prisoner must be kept in detention in relation to the offence. Detention can be by way of full-time imprisonment, home detention or periodic detention.

In the ordinary course of events, the non-parole period will be three quarters of the term of the sentence unless the court decides there are special circumstances, in which case it can impose a lesser non-parole period. Crucial changes introduced by the Sentencing Act 1989 - the abolition of all remissions and that three-quarters of the term must be spent in detention unless there are special circumstances - are in no way changed by this or any other amendment. Truth in sentencing will remain.

Clause 44 (2) ensures that a court which varies the statutory ratio must record its reasons for doing so. Although identical in all respects with the minimum term of the Sentencing Act 1989, the bill restores the term "non-parole period". This reflects what really happens in sentencing. The term of the sentence is the actual period the prisoner may spend in detention. The non-parole period is the minimum period a prisoner must serve before being eligible for release.

The Sentencing Act 1989 tried in section 5 (1) to change the way sentences of imprisonment were imposed by the courts. In theory, a court was required first to set a minimum term which must be served and then to add a period during which the prisoner could be released on parole. In practice, things were not quite so simple. The two-stage sentencing process has been described by the present Chief Justice of New South Wales as "quite artificial". The Law Reform Commission report, on pages 179-180, was similarly critical, noting:

The mere statement of a minimum term and additional term cannot effectively convey all the purposes of punishment. It is only once a head sentence has been set that the court can determine the minimum term, that is, the period which the offender must, in justice, serve in gaol.
Clause 44 implements this part of the Law Reform Commission’s recommendation. The bill reintroduces the imposition of suspended sentences as a sentencing option in our criminal courts. This measure, which constitutes an implementation of recommendation 20 of the Law Reform Commission, may be found at clause 12 within part 2 of division 3. Suspended sentences involve the court imposing a sentence of imprisonment and then suspending its operation and releasing the offender on specified conditions. The offender is liable to a term of detention if the conditions are breached.

The primary purpose of suspended sentences is to denote the seriousness of the offence and the consequences of re-offending, whilst at the same time providing an opportunity, by good behaviour, to avoid the consequences. Their impact on the offender is, however, weightier than that of a bond. Suspended sentences will only apply to sentences of not more than two years imprisonment. Other measures of note contained in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Bill are as follows.

Concern has been expressed that on occasions victim impact statements had been used by offenders to embarrass or intimidate their victims. Subclauses 28 (5) and (6) provide that the court may make victim impact statements available on such conditions as it sees fit. These conditions must
Page 2327
include conditions preventing the offender from retaining copies of the statement.

Currently, section 444 of the Crimes Act deals with the power of magistrates to impose cumulative sentences. Generally, it provides a limit on that power, but not with regard to sentences for assaults on correctional officers committed whilst inmates are in custody serving sentences. Section 444 of the Crimes Act, as it currently stands, is a complicated provision. Although it is a section that must be construed frequently in the criminal courts, containing as it does provisions limiting the power of magistrates to impose cumulative sentences in certain situations, such exercises are too often fraught with difficulty.

Part 4 in division 2 of the bill contains a clearer and more practical redraft of section 444 and other related provisions concerning concurrent and consecutives sentences. Sentencing guidelines have already made a significant impact on sentencing law and practice in New South Wales. Amendments incorporated into clause 37 will allow for the Attorney General to apply for a sentencing guideline in relation to any offence or category of offences. Previously, applications could only be made with respect to indictable matters. Now guidelines will be able to be sought for summary offences. Clause 39 ensures that the Director of Public Prosecutions may intervene in proceedings following a guideline application.

I now turn to consideration of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Bill. This bill sets out how offenders are to be dealt with following sentencing. It takes the place of sentence administration provisions in the Correctional Centres Act 1952, the Community Service Orders Act 1979, the Periodic Detention of Prisoners Act 1981, the Sentencing Act 1989 and the Home Detention Act 1996. The bill is divided into 13 parts. Part 1 sets out the name of the Act, its commencement date and definitions. Parts 2 to 4 set out how offenders who have been sentenced to imprisonment are to be dealt with. These parts relate to full-time inmates, periodic detainees and home detainees.

Part 5 covers offenders serving community service orders. Part 6 covers the granting of parole. Part 7 covers the revocation of periodic detention orders, home detention orders and parole orders, and requires the Parole Board, the revoking authority, to follow the same basic procedure in respect of the revocation of all of these orders. Part 8 covers the constitution and powers of the Parole Board.

Part 9 covers the Serious Offenders Review Council. Part 10 covers the position of Inspector-General of Corrective Services. Part 11 covers correctional administration. Part 12 covers the engagement of contractors. Part 13 covers the custody of persons during proceedings. Part 14 covers general matters and contains provisions about the victims register, disclosure of information, quarterly reports to the Supreme Court as to persons on remand, the making of regulations, and other miscellaneous matters.

The bill also contains five schedules: a schedule relating to the Parole Board, a schedule relating to the Serious Offenders Review Council, a schedule relating to the inspector-general, a schedule relating to official visitors, and a schedule of savings and transitional provisions. Honourable members will find words and expressions used in the bill defined in a dictionary located at the end. One of the definitions in the dictionary is that of "serious offender". This term has been redefined to include an offender who is serving a sentence, or one of a series of sentences, where the term of the sentence, or the combined terms of all of the sentences in the series, is such that the offender will not become eligible for release from custody, including release on parole, until the offender has spent at least 12 years in custody.

At present, the corresponding part of the existing definition of "serious offender" in section 59 of the Correctional Centres Act 1952 simply states that a "serious offender" includes a person who is serving a minimum term of 12 years or more. The existing definition required amendment as it omits an offender serving a fixed term of 12 years or more and also omits an offender whose cumulative terms total 12 years or more. Clauses 25 and 26 are based on the existing section 29 of the Correctional Centres Act 1952. Section 29 gives power to the Commissioner of Corrective Services to grant leave of absence to an inmate to do various things, such as participate in the work release scheme.

The section lists some activities subject to a leave order and other activities subject to a leave permit. Clauses 25 and 26, on the other hand, distinguish between a leave order, by which the commissioner may require an inmate to be absent, and a leave permit, by which the commissioner may allow an inmate to be absent. A leave order would be used, for example, to require an inmate to attend a police interview. A leave permit would be used, for example, to allow an inmate to attend work release.

Page 2328

Clause 26 also contains a new basis for the granting of a leave permit, that being residence at a transitional centre. The Department of Corrective Services has for some years successfully run the Parramatta Transitional Centre for up to 21 female inmates. The centre is a bridge between the institutional routine of a correctional centre and the living skills that an inmate needs to re-integrate into the community. At present, inmates residing at Parramatta Transitional Centre do so under section 29 orders. Clause 26 makes specific reference to permits to reside at a transitional centre.

Clauses 75 and 76 relate to powers which are currently located in the regulations. As these powers to confiscate property and to sell unclaimed property affect individual rights, they have been relocated to the Act rather than left in the regulations. Clause 113 grants power to the Commissioner of Corrective Services to increase the number of hours which an offender serving a community service order must complete, up to a maximum of 10 additional hours. The commissioner will only be able to increase an offender’s hours in circumstances which will be prescribed in the regulations. Essentially, such circumstances will arise when an offender commits a minor breach of a community service order, such as late attendance at a work site without reasonable cause or excuse. Clause 113 is in line with recommendation 23 of the Law Reform Commission’s report.

Clauses 111 to 117 relate to the administration by the courts of community service orders. Unlike the comparable sections of the Community Service Orders Act, clauses 111 to 117 do not refer to a "supervising court". The concept of "supervising court" has been deleted. Under the new provisions the function of the supervising court, such as extending time allowed for completion of a community service order, may be carried out by the sentencing court. Clause 115 sets out a court’s powers when considering an application to revoke a community service order for breach of the conditions of the order. Under this clause the court may revoke the offender’s community service order and deal with the offender in any manner in which it could have dealt with the offender had the order not been made.

The significance of this is that clause 115 does not state, as does existing section 23 of the Community Service Orders Act 1979, that a breach of a community service order is a separate offence. This change implements recommendation 22 of the Law Reform Commission’s report. Clause 135 sets out in some detail the general duty of the Parole Board when the board considers an inmate’s application for parole. Existing section 17 of the Sentencing Act 1989 sets out the board’s general duty. The wording of clause 135 is in line with recommendation 62 of the Law Reform Commission’s report.

Clauses 162 to 182 standardise the terminology relating to revocation of periodic detention orders, home detention orders and parole orders. Under these clauses the term "revocation" is uniformly used, whereas under existing law "cancellation" is used in regard to periodic detention orders and "revocation" is used in regard to home detention orders and parole orders. Clause 195 increases the potential number of community members of the Serious Offenders Review Council from three to nine.

An increase in the potential number of community members will give the review council more flexibility in arranging meetings and will enable the review council to spread its workload over a greater number of people. No more than three community members will attend any one meeting of the review council. In concluding my remarks about the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Bill and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Bill, I can inform the House that one of the most important recommendations of the Law Reform Commission was that the statutory provisions relating to sentencing be consolidated in two separate statutes. I am pleased to report that this is achieved in these two bills.

I now turn to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Bill. The object of this bill is to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, the Crimes Act 1900 and certain other Acts so as to rationalise the provisions relating to criminal procedure, to abolish the penalty of "penal servitude" and the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours, and to make consequential amendments in connection with the enactment of the proposed Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and the proposed Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999.

The bill contains a number of preliminary provisions; however, the schedules to the bill are of considerable importance. Schedule 1 lists the Acts and instruments to be repealed. All will be superseded by the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and regulations under the Acts. Schedule 2 amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. It is proposed to transfer to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 certain provisions of the Crimes Act 1900 and of the Correctional Centres Act 1952. These
Page 2329
provisions deal with criminal procedure. In substance they remain basically unchanged.

It is also proposed to insert certain provisions into the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 consequent upon the abolition of the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours. These provisions will determine which offences are to be dealt with on indictment and which are to be dealt with summarily. The remaining provisions of schedule 2 insert appropriate definitions into section 3, make consequential amendments in relation to certain uncommenced Acts and amend the remaining provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to accommodate the proposed insertions and deletions.

Schedule 3 amends the Crimes Act 1900. Part 1 transfers to the Crimes Act 1900 certain provisions of the Correctional Centres Act 1952. These provisions deal with offences relating to places of detention. In substance they are unchanged. The bill also repeals provisions of the Crimes Act 1900 that will be superseded by the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Part 2 repeals the provisions of the Crimes Act 1900 superseded by the provisions to be inserted into the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 in relation to criminal procedure. It is also proposed to make consequential amendments to the Crimes Act 1900.

Part 3 abolishes the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours - I refer to new section 580E of the Crimes Act - and, where necessary, replaces references to "felonies" with references to "serious indictable offences", meaning indictable offences punishable by imprisonment for five years or more; and replaces references to "misdemeanours" with references to "minor indictable offences", meaning any other indictable offence. The Crimes Act 1900 is also amended to abolish the punishment of penal servitude - new section 580F - and, where necessary, to replace references to "penal servitude" with references to "imprisonment". The punishments of imprisonment with light or hard labour are to be abolished - I refer to new section 580G of the Crimes Act. The remaining amendments are consequential.

Schedule 4 amends other Acts and instruments. Part 1 makes amendments consequent upon enactment of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. Part 2 makes amendments consequent upon transfer of provisions from the Crimes Act 1900 to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Part 3 amends various Acts and instruments to give effect to the abolition of penal servitude as well as the abolition of the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours arising from new sections 580E, 580F and 580G to be inserted in the Crimes Act 1900 by schedule 3.

Schedule 5 amends the various Acts and instruments listed in schedule 5 so as to remove all references to penal servitude in provisions dealing with vacation of office. It must be noted that most of the amendments are mechanical in nature. However, I draw attention to some significant amendments. An important provision is the abolition of the distinctions between felony and misdemeanour. The Crimes Act 1900 reflects the ancient common law classification of offences as felonies or misdemeanours, very broadly according to their heinousness. An offence punishable by penal servitude is a felony - section 9; an offence punishable by imprisonment or the imposition of a fine is a misdemeanour - section 10.

The Interpretation Act 1987 also retains this arcane distinction. New South Wales is the only State that retains the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours. Very few differences between felonies and misdemeanours have been preserved by statute. One example is in the Constitution Act 1902, which provides that a person convicted of a felony is disqualified from holding public office or membership of Parliament. The courts, however, have held that no difference between felonies and misdemeanours is to be recognised with regard to the practice and procedure of criminal law.

Some offences under the Crimes Act have as one of their elements the commission of, or intent to commit, a felony - for example, sections 107, 109, 111, 112 and 113. It is proposed that these offences be amended so that an offence is established when a crime carrying a maximum penalty of imprisonment - namely, five years - is made out. A large number of consequential amendments will flow from this proposal. It will include a redraft of all criminal provisions which have as an element the commission of, or intent to commit, a felony or misdemeanour, or being an accessory thereto.

It should be clearly noted that the Constitution Act 1902 will be analogously amended with regard to the offences, convictions for which operate to disqualify a member of either House. This change is set out in part 3 of schedule 4. The Crown Solicitor advises that a referendum is not required for such an amendment to the Constitution Act. Closely related to that achievement is the abolition of the terms "penal servitude", "hard labour" and "light labour". The Crimes Act is full of archaic terminology and distinctions. For example, when a penalty involves a determinate term of full-time custody, the court
Page 2330
expresses the sentence as "penal servitude" or "imprisonment". The distinction rests primarily on the equally irrelevant distinction as to whether the offence is a felony or a misdemeanour.

Historically, the distinction between light labour or hard labour related to the form of punishment imposed. Under sections 432(1) and 554(1) of the Crimes Act a court has a discretion to order that an offender sentenced to imprisonment be kept to hard labour or light labour. Prisons no longer distinguish between offenders imprisoned for different classes of offences or punishment. Accordingly, the distinction is irrelevant and should be abolished. A number of consequential amendments will need to be made to Acts which maintain the distinction or the term "penal servitude", including the Banana Industry Act 1987 and the Casino Control Act 1992.

It is proposed that legislation dealing with the imposition of sentences of imprisonment should provide only that an offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and that the terms "penal servitude", "hard labour" and "light labour" be abolished. As members will be aware, the Crimes Act 1900 is an enormous piece of legislation. It contains provisions about substantive offences, procedural provisions and provisions about topics as diverse as apprehended violence orders, inquiries into convictions, and the arrest and detention regime. This bill will remove procedural provisions from the Crimes Act 1900 and place them in the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, fully implementing recommendation 84 of the Law Reform Commission’s report.

The intention behind the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 is to place in one statute all rules relating to criminal procedure, the prosecution of indictable offences, the listing of criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court and the District Court, and the giving of certain indemnities and undertakings. The Crimes Act 1900 contains a number of provisions pertaining not to crimes but, rather, to criminal procedure. It is desirable, in the interests of clarity and convenience, to remove those procedural provisions from the Crimes Act and to place them in the Criminal Procedure Act.

I invite the attention of honourable members to two important new provisions in this bill. The bill inserts new section 27D in the Summary Offences Act 1988. This new section creates the offence of possessing an offensive implement in a correctional centre, periodic detention centre, court cells or other place of detention. Just as the carrying of knives has, in recent years, become a problem in the community, so the carrying of knives has become a problem in the correctional system. Inmates are not, of course, permitted to carry knives as weapons. Inmates do, however, have access to knives, for example, when they work in a correctional centre kitchen, work in some of the correctional centre industries or participate in certain craft activities. Some inmates manufacture their own knives, which are known as shivs. A shiv may, for example, be a toothbrush or a comb which has been sharpened by rubbing it against a wall.

If an inmate is found in possession of a shiv or some other implement which the governor of the correctional centre considers to be a weapon, the inmate is charged with having committed a minor correctional centre offence. If an inmate uses a weapon to assault another person and the governor considers that the assault is reasonably serious, the governor will refer the matter to the police who may charge the inmate with criminal assault. If charged, the matter is heard by a criminal court and a criminal penalty imposed. New section 27D creates a specific offence of possessing an offensive implement so that when an inmate is found in possession of a weapon the governor has the option of referring the matter to the police. The new section will also apply to visitors to correctional centres and to any person found in possession of an offensive implement within the correctional system.

If a juvenile commits a serious crime and is tried in an adult court, the court should have the discretion to decide if there is a public benefit in naming the juvenile. There are some circumstances in which a juvenile should not receive the benefit of anonymity. Amendments to the Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 contained in part 2 of schedule 4 will achieve this significant and necessary change in the law. The implementation of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission is an enormous undertaking. I believe that the adoption of these recommendations by the Government demonstrates its commitment to worthwhile and long-term reform of the criminal justice system and the correctional system. I commend the bills to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr R. H. L. Smith.

[Mr Speaker left the chair at 2.00 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Page 2331

MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, MINISTER FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, AND MINISTER FOR RURAL AFFAIRS

Ministerial Statement

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [2.15 p.m]: The Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs is not present in question time today. He is attending the Regional Australia Summit, a bipartisan forum organised by Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson to work for solutions to major country issues. The Minister is not paired today because the Opposition refused him a pair to go to the conference.

Mr Hartcher: Point of order: Is the Premier making an announcement about ministerial arrangements or is he making a ministerial statement?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is making a ministerial statement.

Mr CARR: Question time has been too boring this week. I am trying to stir them up, to energise them. Come on, put a bit of life into it! Today’s Regional Australia Summit will debate the effect of free-market policies on country industries, including dairying. That is why our colleague had to be present there. The New South Wales dairy industry is facing hundreds of job losses from the prospect of deregulation. Dairying is the principal industry in the electorate of Bega, for example. It was the member for Bega who refused my colleague a pair to attend the conference. Can you believe them? The Minister for Gaming and Racing will take questions on behalf of the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs.

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes - Deputy Leader of the National Party) [2.20 p.m.]: Mr Speaker, I wish to advise the House that the Leader of the National Party, the Hon. George Souris, is at the Regional Australia Summit convened by John Anderson, the Leader of the National Party, which is of course the true voice of country New South Wales. We are very proud to have the Leader of the National Party representing country New South Wales at that summit, which is more than can be said for the Minister for Regional Development. His only contribution to country New South Wales is to increase the number of offices there. Mr Speaker, I can assure you that the National Party and the Liberal Party, which is also represented at the conference, will continue to be the voice of country New South Wales, not some sham party run out of Sussex Street with a leader who cannot even remember where he was last week, let alone know where he will be next year.

PETITIONS

Drug Reform

Petitions praying that the establishment of heroin shooting galleries be opposed and that consideration be given to the introduction of legislation for drug reform, received from Mr Fraser, Ms Hodgkinson and Dr Kernohan.

McDonald’s Moore Park Restaurant

Petition praying for opposition to the construction of a McDonald’s restaurant on Moore Park, received from Ms Moore.

Commonwealth Bank Kirrawee Branch Closure

Petition praying that the House will condemn the Commonwealth Bank for its decision to close the Kirrawee branch and urge all banks to maintain their current level of services and branches in the Sutherland shire, received from Mr Collier.

Firearms Legislation

Petitions praying that a committee be established to review the Firearms Act, received from Mr Fraser, Mr George, Mr Piccoli, Mr Slack-Smith, Mr Souris and Mr R. W. Turner.

Kings Cross and Woolloomooloo Policing

Petition praying for increased police strength at Kings Cross local area command and police foot patrols in Woolloomooloo, received from Ms Moore.

Surry Hills Policing

Petition praying for increased police presence in the Surry Hills area, received from Ms Moore.

Bondi Pavilion Olympic Stadium Proposal

Petition praying for opposition to the construction of a stadium at Bondi Pavilion for the volleyball event during the 2000 Olympic Games, received from Ms Moore.

Goulburn Base Hospital Services

Petition praying for opposition to any reduction in pathology services at Goulburn Base Hospital, received from Ms Hodgkinson.

Page 2332

Senior Citizen Equitable Travel Concessions

Petition praying that holders of pensioner concession cards and the Seniors Card receive equitable travel concessions on transport, received from Mr Fraser.

Windsor Road Upgrading

Petitions praying that Windsor Road be upgraded and widened within the next two financial years, received from Mr Merton, Mr Richardson and Mr Rozzoli.

Moore Park Passive Recreation

Petition praying that Moore Park be used for passive recreation after construction of the Eastern Distributor and that car parking not be permitted in Moore Park, received from Ms Moore.

Moore Park Light Rail

Petition praying that consideration be given to the construction of a light rail transport system for Moore Park, received from Ms Moore.

Syd Einfeld Drive Pollution Barriers

Petition praying that consideration be given to the erection of pollution barriers on the northern side of Syd Einfeld Drive, received from Ms Moore.

Woolloomooloo Wharf Redevelopment

Petition praying that the Woolloomooloo wharf redevelopment project include provision for a ferry wharf, received from Ms Moore.

Surry Hills Pedestrian Crossing

Petition praying that a pedestrian crossing be installed on Belvoir Street, Surry Hills, received from Ms Moore.

Countrylink Staffing Arrangements

Petition praying for the reinstatement of staff at Countrylink stations and travel centres on North Coast rail services, received from Mr J. H. Turner.

Animal Experimentation

Petition praying that the practice of supplying stray animals to universities and research institutions for experimentation be opposed, received from Ms Moore.

Animal Vivisection

Petition praying that the House totally and unconditionally abolish animal vivisection on scientific, medical and ethical grounds and that a new system be introduced whereby veterinary students are apprenticed to practising veterinary surgeons, received from Ms Moore.

Septic Tank Inspection Fees

Petitions praying that septic tank owners be exempted from inspection and registration fees, received from Mr George and Ms Hodgkinson.

Compulsory Competitive Tendering

Petition praying that the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering for roadworks in regional and rural areas be opposed, received from Ms Hodgkinson.

White City Site Rezoning Proposal

Petition praying that any rezoning of the White City site be opposed, received from Ms Moore.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

______

OLYMPIC GAMES TICKET ALLOCATION

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: My question is directed to the Minister for the Olympics. Given the Minister’s admission last night that the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games [SOCOG] television commercials were inaccurate, and given the view of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission that the Australian public was seriously misled by his advertising, will he agree to refund consumers the estimated $5 million SOCOG will earn as interest on credit card prepayment for tickets that in reality were never available?

Mr KNIGHT: Earlier today a delegation on behalf of SOCOG met with Allan Fels and officers of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. That delegation consisted of Jim Sloman, acting chief executive officer; David Richmond; Suzanne Williams, head of the legal department for SOCOG; and Gina Cass-Gottlieb, a partner of Gilbert and Tobin, which is the firm advising SOCOG on this matter.

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

Page 2333

Mr KNIGHT: Subsequently I have had a long telephone conversation with Allan Fels. Good progress has been made in discussions between SOCOG and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Both sides have entered into this process in a spirit of co-operation, rather than one of confrontation. Further discussions will take place later today and tonight.

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

Mr KNIGHT: On the assumption that these discussions will lead to an agreement on how to resolve this matter, a joint press conference between Mr Fels and me has been scheduled for 8.30 a.m. tomorrow. I have scheduled a special meeting of the SOCOG board for 7.30 a.m. to seek its endorsement of the proposals that come from tonight’s discussion.

LATEX ALLERGY

Mr MILLS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health. What is the Government doing to address latex allergies amongst patients and health care workers?

Mr KNOWLES: The use of latex in the health industry is widespread. Latex is found in products such as gloves, tubing, syringes, sheeting, stethoscopes, catheters, dressings and bandages. However, it is a little known fact that latex allergy affects as much as 6 per cent of the community. In the health system alone more than 6,000 health care workers across New South Wales are either known to be or likely to be affected by the allergy. The high-risk categories of people include operating room nurses, physicians and health consumers with repeated operating room exposure or long-term exposure to the use of catheters.

Latex allergy can have a serious impact on an individual’s health and can result in dermatitis, respiratory problems and, in extreme cases, death via anaphylactic shock. Only a few days ago I received a letter from a person with an extreme latex allergy which is life threatening. She cannot eat food that has been prepared by anyone using latex gloves, nor can she eat food that has a protein structure identical to that contained in latex. She cannot wear a bathing cap, is allergic to balloons and cannot use other latex products. Her letter to me was about the lack of alternatives to latex condoms in this country, despite polyurethane condoms being available in other parts of the world. In short, her life is extremely restricted because of the real possibility of anaphylactic shock.

The number of reports of allergic reactions to latex has increased in the past decade. The increase in incidence has been attributed to a range of factors, including the introduction of universal precautions to protect health care workers and others from the risk of blood-borne disease; the quality of latex products, especially those produced by manufacturers who are inexperienced in production and in storing materials that contain latex; a greater awareness of latex allergy; and better diagnostic methods. In recent times the Labor Council of New South Wales, the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Dental Association, the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy, the Royal College of Surgeons, area health services and the New South Wales Health Department have developed guidelines to assist health care workers to identify and manage latex allergy in the workplace.

They looked also at the appropriateness and practicality of minimising the use of latex products. The working party has now produced a draft policy document and best practice guidelines which will be published in a matter of weeks. The working party met this month to consider responses to the draft document after the first round of consultation. The finalised policy document will be published after a final round of consultation with consumers and health professionals. The key guidelines for dealing with this problem are that powder-free surgical gloves be provided to protect workers from infectious materials and that non-latex gloves be used in all other situations. They include food preparation, housekeeping and maintenance.

Within the hospital environment management should identify areas contaminated with latex dust for frequent cleaning, and in relation to pre-placement of health care workers, management must obtain baseline information on workers’ general medical history and develop a diagnostic check list for people identified as being at risk of latex allergy. Where these tests indicate possible allergic reaction, there should be specific testing for latex allergy and full evaluation by an allergy specialist.

The Health Department has already taken action to manage and prevent latex allergy amongst health care workers in our system. For example, the Ambulance Service maintains a non-latex glove policy and currently is undertaking an assessment of other equipment that may cause latex allergy. Area health services are working to identify alternative products that are low in latex content or non-latex and have taken steps to adopt universal low-protein, powder-free policies for sterile gloves. Latex-free operating equipment also has been made available for use in operating theatres.

Page 2334

In the Illawarra the health service has established a low-latex dental clinic at Kiama. Katoomba, Nepean and Hawkesbury hospitals have latex policies, whilst Westmead Hospital operates a latex-free ward. Most area health services have developed information packages for health workers on the prevention, assessment and management of latex allergy. These guidelines are an Australian first and will be used as the benchmark for guidelines in other States. They will be finalised in the coming weeks and will ensure that all health facilities work to create safer environments for staff and patients.

OLYMPIC GAMES TICKET ALLOCATION

Mr J. H. TURNER: I ask the Minister for the Olympics a question without notice. In view of today’s claim by Graham Richardson, the chair of his ticketing committee and the Premier’s personal appointee to SOCOG, that he was "in the dark room" and did not know all the details about ticketing, does the Minister stand by his statement to the House on Tuesday that Mr Richardson has his full and unconditional confidence?

Mr KNIGHT: Yes, as do all members of the SOCOG board.

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF OLDER PERSONS

Mr MARTIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. How is the Government recognising the International Year of Older Persons?

Mrs LO PO’: The honourable member for Bathurst was present at the launch I attended this morning, where I was joined by Noelene Brown from the Premier’s Council for Women and Jessica Rowe of Channel 10 in launching the Rediscovery Tour. This is the unique contribution of New South Wales to the International Year of Older Persons. Starting at the Eastern Creek Raceway on Friday 10 December the Rediscovery Tour will snake its way across the Blue Mountains and back, via Katoomba, Bathurst and Lithgow. The event will end with an entertainment spectacular on the steps of the Opera House three days later.

The latest research from the Ageing and Disability Department shows that adventure-seeking seniors in New South Wales are spearheading the flocks of empty-nesters taking flight to spend millions on travel. New South Wales seniors are the fastest growing segment of the Australian tourism market. They spend more than one-third of the $900 million expended annually by older people on domestic travel. It is no secret that people are living longer. At present 17 per cent of people are over 60 years of age. By 2041 this will increase to 30 per cent, from almost one in five to almost one in three people.

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

Mrs LO PO’: By the middle of the next century the median age of Australians will be 45, compared with 34 as it is now. Modern medicine, better diets and sheer positive thinking are keeping people alive longer, and the day will come when the fifties will be far removed from what they once were, the twilight years. Those in their fifties will be relative adolescents. Nevertheless, stereotypes persist. Many in society believe that age is something to fear, to pity and to dread. All honourable members know that nothing could be further from the truth. Becoming older is not the twilight, it is the highlight.

In the International Year of Older Persons we are rejoicing our age and our wisdom, our knowledge and our lives ahead. The international year is a celebration, not a commemoration. It is a celebration of a great resource. I am a great believer in the precious commodities of knowledge and wisdom being ploughed back into the community. At a time when older people should be recognised as part of the community’s prized possessions, too many people are ignoring what should be their valued advice. Older people have won most of life’s battles, and the rediscovery tour will be their own three-day victory lap.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on the Opposition front bench will cease interjecting.

Mrs LO PO’: I could not think of a more appropriate event to symbolise the sense of rediscovering our independence. Gone are the days when a trip to the country for older people was automatically associated with a bus ride. It is in this spirit of adventure and independence that I invite the people of New South Wales to take part in the rediscovery tour. The communities of Katoomba, Lithgow and Bathurst are extremely excited about the tour. The event will provide a genuine opportunity for city and country to celebrate the International Year of Older Persons together, and I thank the Minister for the Environment and the honourable member for Bathurst for their support.

In an era when the currency of the word "hero" is becoming increasingly cheapened, older people should be admired as the genuine role
Page 2335
models of our society. At a time when youth is celebrated and elevated in the most superficial way, many are quick to forget - if they ever knew - that so-called style can never precede or exceed substance. Oscar Wilde got it right when he said, "There’s nothing more amusingly arrogant than a young man who thinks of an idea and thinks it is his own."

One hundred years on, Oscar Wilde’s words survive to remind us about the importance of being earnest when it comes to cherishing the great resource of those who have really "been there and done that". Life is a learning experience, and it would be downright dangerous to ignore the lessons of the past and the very people who conquered trial and tribulation. They have lived to tell the tale, and all of us should be listening. In the spirit of the rediscovery tour, let the younger generations rediscover their ears!

OLYMPIC GAMES TICKET ALLOCATION

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: My question is directed to the Premier. Since both his Minister for the Olympics and the chair of the ticketing committee, Graham Richardson, the Premier’s personal appointee to SOCOG, have refused to apologise for the ticketing fiasco, will the Premier now do the right thing and apologise on behalf of the Government to the tens of thousands of Australian families who were duped into believing that they had a fair chance of obtaining good seats at the Olympic Games?

Mr CARR: The Government did not run the ticketing process, SOCOG did.

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

Mr CARR: What a day for the Liberal Party to talk about taking a better approach to any matter of State administration!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on two calls to order.

Mr CARR: Such is the administration of the Leader of the Opposition of the State Liberal Party that today we have learned that the Federal Liberals have had to sack the lot and move in an administrator. They have had to do it -

Mr Brogden: Point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Government members will cease interjecting so that the Chair is able to hear the point of order.

Mr Brogden: The question to the Premier was quite clear. It was whether he was willing to apologise for the ticketing fiasco. I ask you to direct the Premier to answer the question.

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

Mr CARR: One would think that the Coalition would recall its own 1993 legislation that set up SOCOG as a corporation with the same legal capacity and powers as a company under the Corporations Law.

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

Mr CARR: It was legislation of the former Coalition Government that set up SOCOG as a corporation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier needs no assistance from Government Ministers or backbenchers. They will cease interjecting.

Mr CARR: The legislation was passed in this place in 1993.

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

Mr CARR: The legislation was drafted by the Coalition when it was in government, and the Crown Solicitor advises that under the legislation passed in 1993 by the Coalition this Government is not able to direct or control the operations of the SOCOG board.

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

Mr CARR: It is not something we have devised. It is the former Coalition Government’s legislation.

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

Mr CARR: The former Coalition Government drafted the legislation. It devised it, presented it to the Parliament and enacted it. Let us return to the question of competent or incompetent management. Why has the Liberal Party appointed Tony Staley to move in and take over? Because the Liberal Party has been totally incompetent in running -

Page 2336

Mr O’Doherty: Point of order: My point of order is relevant under Standing Order 137. No-one could credibly believe there was any link between -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hornsby will resume his seat. If other members take frivolous points of order similar to the point of order taken by the member for Hornsby they will be accompanied by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the Chamber.

Mr CARR: The Opposition has the audacity to raise the competence with which the Olympic Games are being administered. This is a team that is so incompetent that its Federal colleagues have had to move in and take over. Presumably the honourable member for Hornsby will take a field command down to Woolloomooloo and erect a barricade to keep them out. Tony Staley has had to take over because under the present incompetent leadership the Liberals have a debt blow-out of $3.65 million since the last election.

In the election the Liberal vote sank to 24.5 per cent, the lowest in memory. There are even suggestions that the Riley Street headquarters will go under the hammer. It is a sad thing when the headquarters of a once great party may have to be sold to pay a debt that is the price of the most grotesque maladministration it is possible to imagine. Even Remo Nogarotto is hanging by a thread. I suggest that members opposite go back and read the SOCOG legislation. SOCOG is independent of Government; it is a corporation. Under the Coalition’s legislation the Government does not even have the power to direct SOCOG.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. I place the Deputy Leader of the National Party on three calls to order.

Mr CARR: If the Liberal Party wants to send a message to anyone about its capacity to run anything, let it start with its own headquarters, its own State branch. The people of New South Wales will never trust a team that cannot govern itself to govern the State.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mr NEWELL: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Housing. What is the Government doing to increase housing for families in need?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I commend the honourable member for Tweed for his strong interest in housing issues. The Carr Government has made a strong and enduring commitment to enhancing social housing for families in need across New South Wales. This year we will provide housing support to some 190,000 individuals and families. I am delighted to inform the House that that represents an increase of 4,500 on last year. The Government is determined to continue to build on its strong record and to provide increased and enhanced social housing options for families and residents in need.

To achieve this, we are undertaking a comprehensive long-term head leasing program that will result in hundreds more homes being provided for public housing clients. We have earmarked $170 million over 15 years for the program. That will allow some 105,000 homes in Sydney, the Illawarra, the Hunter and rural areas of New South Wales to be leased for up to 15 years.

This important program has the capacity to provide long-term housing for some 4,000 people. Given the investment it represents, it also has the capacity to provide some 1,000 jobs in the housing and construction industries across the State. We are aiming to house 4,000 people and, with the commensurate investment, support 1,000 new jobs. That is more homes and more jobs for New South Wales families in need. I am sure all honourable members of this House will agree that this is an important undertaking for communities, businesses and families across New South Wales. It is a great opportunity to provide support to those in need. It is a great opportunity to boost jobs into 2000 and beyond. It is a great opportunity to encourage private sector investment in an important initiative.

The Long Term Head Leasing program is part of a broader strategy seeking to involve a wider range of investors, including institutions, developers, builder and individuals in the delivery of public housing. Under the program the Department of Housing leases properties in the private sector in order to provide more public housing for low and moderate income families and residents. Head leasing properties from the private sector allows us greater flexibility in targeting areas of greater demand and in providing a greater variety of housing types. Up to 20 per cent of the properties that we plan to lease will be one-bedroom homes, specifically targeted to house elderly people.

We are calling for the private sector to invest in this important and worthwhile scheme. Next week, advertisements will be placed in print media across the State, calling for proposals from property owners, developers and investors with residential accommodation available. The program will provide
Page 2337
for both community and public housing tenants, and it will focus on high demand areas. Obviously, those areas are not confined to the city. We are planing more homes for rural and regional New South Wales. We are planning to lease further homes in Wollongong, Shellharbour, Shoalhaven, and in Wyong, Newcastle, Port Stephens, Greater Taree and the Great Lakes.

I am sure the honourable member for Gosford will be pleased that extra properties are planned for lease in Gosford, and I am sure that the honourable member for Port Macquarie will welcome homes planned for lease in Hastings. The North Coast, also a high demand area, also will be targeted under this new head leasing program. I know the honourable member for Tweed, who asked the question, will be particularly pleased to know that we will be targeting Tweed Heads, Byron Bay and Maclean. As the Premier has explained, the member for Clarence, the Minister for Rural Affairs, will be delighted to hear about extra units being provided for in Grafton, despite the fact that the Minister was not given a pairing arrangement by the Opposition for the important job that he is doing today. The Minister is still ensuring that the Housing needs of his electorate are being looked after.

In Sydney there are still high demand areas, such as Randwick, Leichhardt, Marrickville, Ryde and South Sydney, as well as Hornsby. Parramatta and Auburn and, in south-western Sydney the areas of St George and Canterbury, also are high demand areas. We will be targeting those areas under the head leasing program. The program means that for an outlay of some $15 million each year the department has access to between $200 million and $250 million in housing stock. This approach allows funds to be redirected from capital acquisition to much needed upgrading work for existing public and community housing.

The Department of Housing is interested in head leasing properties from investors and property owners at all levels and, as the rent is guaranteed by the Government, it should be particularly attractive to small-scale investors and individuals. As well as for small-scale investors, the mums and dads investors, this is a great opportunity to many in the private sector to become involved. And because leases on the properties will range in terms from 10 to 15 years, there is added security for anyone with an investment property.

This important scheme will inject millions of dollars into the New South Wales economy. It will also encourage the private sector to become involved in providing affordable housing. It will not only provide some 1,500 properties for those in need, but it will also work to provide those homes in the areas where demand is greatest. It will bring homes for some 4,000 low and moderate income earners while providing jobs for about 1,000 people in the housing and construction industries. I encourage interested parties to contact the relevant project director at the Department of Housing and to respond to advertisements to be placed next week.

MAIL ORDER PHARMACY

Mr WINDSOR: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Given the Government’s concern about drug misuse, does the Minister know why the Pharmacy Board of New South Wales does not prevent the activities of Pharmacy Direct in regard to the supply of addictive pharmaceutical and prescription-only pharmaceutical by mail?

Mr KNOWLES: I thank the honourable member for Tamworth for what is a very important question, one on which I think there will inevitably be bipartisan support about. The House no doubt always will support the status and importance of community pharmacists located particularly in rural and regional New South Wales. We talk a lot about the need to provide doctors and nursing staff for country towns, but it is often forgotten that it is the community pharmacist in the high street who provides so much advice to families in the dispensing of medication and drugs after their referral from their doctors.

The point that the honourable member for Tamworth raises is a relatively new phenomenon in this State, and one which is growing rapidly, that is, mail order pharmacy. That is a methodology of dispensing drugs to patients and consumers without the requirement of face-to-face contact with the community pharmacist. Sadly, I have to say that there is an issue, now a national issue, around this subject. These days, with the advent of the Internet, one does not have to be concerned about State borders; one can click on to the Net and order drugs from other countries and have them mailed to the home.

The consequence of this use of technology is a breaking down of some of the community barriers or structures that have been a traditional part of our medical and clinical support system. I place on record the Government’s support for the community pharmacist. I place on record my view that we are doing a great deal to encourage the development of community pharmacies, particularly in rural and regional New South Wales. Take, for example, our work in placing overseas trained doctors. One cannot
Page 2338
have a pharmacy operating in a town unless the town has doctors who will refer patients to the pharmacy as part of their business and form part of the pharmacy’s income stream.

From the work we have done in recent times to change New South Wales Medical Board rules to encourage the location of overseas trained doctors we are seeing the roll-out. The Premier announced just a few weeks ago the success of the scheme in the past four months. The Premier announced the placement of overseas trained doctors in towns in rural and regional New South Wales that had not had doctors for years. I should advise the House, in passing, that the score as at today is 35 overseas trained doctors, an additional seven in a couple of weeks, to towns that did not have doctors. As a consequence, pharmacists had been closing their shops.

There has been a great deal of discussion about this issue at a State level between the New South Wales Pharmacy Board and the Pharmacy Guild. The board and the guild have developed protocols and guidelines. We recognise that some of these mail order processes have been in existence for many years and that in some cases they are entirely appropriate, such as in remote rural communities or stations in the outback where it is impossible, simply because of the tyranny of distance, to have a pharmacist on every corner. It is a question of balance and one that has to be addressed sensitively and properly. We have to make sure that we recognise that in some country towns the pharmacist who was there even two years ago has gone, and probably gone for good.

We have to make sure that, in trying to strike a balance, we respect the needs of the individuals living in the towns. At the same time, we must ensure quality in the provision of medication, drugs and other allied health advice. My concerns with the concept of mail order pharmacy relates to problems in identifying the individual. It is interesting that all these so-called National Party rural representatives are simply not interested in an issue that affects the well being and health of every individual in their communities. We are witnessing a fundamental change in the way that drugs are dispensed in this action, indeed around the world, as mail order drug companies effectively push drugs onto unsuspecting and sometimes unnecessarily inquiring consumers.

Mr Windsor: It is a safety issue.

Mr KNOWLES: It is a safety issue, as the honourable member for Tamworth said. It is one thing to go to a doctor and be prescribed drugs to treat an illness. It is another thing to receive a catalogue in the mail with the offer "Buy these drugs, get some free", or to shop around on the Internet for the drugs of your choice. Those fundamentally different methods of clinical and health management need to be addressed. I assure the honourable member for Tamworth that, as part of a comprehensive approach, our starting point will be to reinforce the need for community pharmacies.

The Government will want to ensure that the identification of the individual is paramount and that orders for drugs are delivered in a timely manner, so that the need for and delivery of drugs are not separated by too much time. If this model is to continue, a system must be developed whereby the onus is taken away from the consumer and put back on the health professional to ensure that the drugs are required in the first place, and are properly prescribed and administered. I thank the honourable member for Tamworth for his question. I place on record the obvious interest he has in his community. I also note the failure of Opposition members to take an interest in what is clearly a vital issue for their constituencies.

SCHOOLS JOINT FUNDING PROGRAM

Mr MARTIN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education and Training. How is the Government helping schools fund capital works projects?

Mr Scully: Another Country Labor question.

Mr AQUILINA: As the Minister for Transport said, another Country Labor question. I thank the Country Labor member for Bathurst for his question. I am pleased to advise the honourable member and the House that more than 150 schools -

[Interruption]

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should not laugh, or I might take his funding away. I am only kidding! More than 150 schools will soon share in almost $3 million under the Carr Government’s joint funding program. The joint funding program was introduced to help schools fund projects, such as the construction of shade shelters, covered outdoor learning areas, game courts, libraries, multipurpose spaces, halls and sports stadiums. This unique program allows schools to fast-track capital works projects and gives local residents an opportunity to participate in ventures that enhance their local school and community facilities.

Page 2339

During the past four years $12.5 million has been allocated to the program. More than 630 capital works projects have been fast-tracked, benefiting thousands of students and hundreds of school communities across the State. In 1999-2000 the Government has set aside $2.6 million for the program. Schools will receive up to $300,000 to assist with the cost of capital works projects. The joint funding program is yet another example of how the Carr Government is working hard, in partnership with school communities, to improve educational facilities for students across the State.

A number of projects, such as the construction of a sports stadium at Kandos High School - which I visited with the Country Labor member for Bathurst earlier this year - are being jointly funded by local councils. I congratulate the honourable member on gaining that sports stadium for Kandos High School. Other projects are being undertaken in partnership with parents and citizens associations, community organisations and other government agencies.

This funding comes on top of the additional $1 million the Government allocated to 70 schools in June to commence work on projects early. The majority of these schools were located in regional and rural New South Wales, in places such as Albury, Gilgandra, Warialda, Berrima, Hay, Nyngan, Gulgong and Ardlethan. I am pleased to announce that a large proportion of this latest funding will also go to country schools, such as Canobolas Rural Technology High School, Inverell High School, Inverell Public School, Narrandera Public School, Broken Hill High School, Bourke Public School, Dunedoo Central School, Kooringal Public School, Warialda High School, Wee Waa Public School, Orange Public School, Condong Public School, Talbingo Public School and Bellingen High School, just to name a few.

Mr Fraser: Hear! Hear!

Mr AQUILINA: I am glad to receive the endorsement of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. Schools in metropolitan and regional New South Wales will also share in the funding. These include Sefton Infants School, Coogee Public School, Bass Hill Public School, Fairvale High School and Brisbania Public School on the Central Coast. I note that the honourable member for Gosford is not present.

Mr Hartcher: He certainly is!

Mr AQUILINA: There he is - he has moved seats. Also included are Minto Public School, Prestons Public School, Figtree High School in the Illawarra, West Wallsend Public School, Sussex Inlet Public School, Bomaderry High School on the South Coast and Leichhardt High School. A large proportion of this year’s funding will be used to construct covered outdoor learning areas and shade shelters. These facilities enable teachers to conduct outdoor lessons and activities, while ensuring that the children remain protected from the weather and harsh effects of the sun.

A number of projects will benefit the entire community. For example, there is the construction of a hydrotherapy pool at St Marys Senior High School and a library at Russell Lea Infants School at Drummoyne. At Byron Bay High School the Government will jointly fund the construction of a $160,000 performing arts teaching space. At Batemans Bay High School a covered outdoor learning area will be built. Shade shelters will be built at Boggabilla Central School and Collarenebri Central School. These new facilities will particularly benefit students in those areas, which experience extreme temperatures.

In response to representations from the honourable member for Miranda, at Miranda Public School the Government has allocated $25,000 towards the upgrade of the library. At Kirrawee High School $30,000 has been set aside to assist with the cost of constructing a shade shelter. I might have to revise this plan - there are too many Coalition electorates represented here! Entire school communities are benefiting from the joint funding program. At Point Clare Public School students and teachers are enjoying their new covered outdoor learning area, which is being used for outdoor lessons and activities and at recess and lunchtime. Previously the school had no shaded area, but was able to secure funding under the joint funding program to construct the covered area.

Students at Culburra Public School are benefiting from the construction of a similar shade shelter, which was completed in March. At Glen Innes High School the Government contributed $20,000 towards the construction of a covered outdoor learning area, which students have been using since January. A similar story can be told at Moss Vale High School, Karabar High School, Cootamundra Public School, Jannali East Public School, Loftus Public School, Nyngan Public School, Alma Public School, Warren Central School, Croppa Creek Public School and Tacoma Public School. This latest funding is in addition to the Government’s $206 million school capital works program.

Mr Hazzard: What about Dee Why school?

Page 2340

Mr AQUILINA: It must be a comment on the local member, because I do not remember anything about Dee Why school. This year’s State budget provides a record $6.9 billion for education and training in New South Wales, an increase of almost $1.2 billion, or 22 per cent, since 1995. A great commitment to education by the Carr Government! About one-third of the total education and training budget goes to country New South Wales. Good on you, Blackie! In this year’s budget, funding has been allocated for planning to start on the new primary school at Jerrabomberra. The honourable member for Monaro is getting his school, despite what the local media says. It was very naughty of the member to say in an article that the funding has lapsed. He should not have said that.

Funding has been allocated for new high schools at Tuncurry - the Deputy Leader of the National Party is nodding his head - Brunswick Valley and the Tweed. A further $1.6 million has been allocated to begin work on stage one of the new enlarged senior college at Dubbo. Funding has also been made available for major upgrades at Cessnock, Thurgoona in the electorate of the honourable member for Albury, Glen Innes, Leeton and Queanbeyan TAFE campuses. The Government has built new schools at Ben Venue in the electorate of the honourable member for Northern Tablelands, Buxton, Pottsville, Evans Head, Kingscliff, Orange, Wagga Wagga and Parkes.

I am proud to say that the joint funding program is a fine example of the Carr Government working with local communities to ensure that all students, regardless of where they live, have access to a first-class educational facility. The Government will continue to work in partnership with schools to ensure the best possible educational outcomes for New South Wales families. I thank the Country Labor member for Bathurst for his question.

RAIL SERVICES STAFFING

Ms HODGKINSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. In addition to slashing Countrylink rail services and staffing across the State, and having XPT trains arriving at unattended stations with little or no station security, does the proposed joint venture between Railway Services Australia workshops and a French company threaten up to 54 rail jobs in Goulburn and, further, up to 186 jobs at Bathurst, Chullora and Granville workshops?

Mr SCULLY: The honourable member has asked three or four questions in one, but I will endeavour to deal with them. Hypocrisy is not a crime - if it were, most of the members opposite would be in gaol. Only a few weeks ago the honourable member for Vaucluse said that if the Coalition gets into government it will axe 5,000 jobs from the New South Wales public sector. A Coalition member has now asked me about the loss of 54 jobs in Goulburn - which is not true anyway - when the Coalition has given an ironclad commitment to axe jobs. The Coalition is seeking a mandate in March 2003 to sack 5,000 people from the New South Wales government public sector. The honourable member for Vaucluse will be in charge of the hack and slash of the New South Wales government sector.

Mr Debnam: Point of order: The Minister for Transport is misleading the House. The report he is talking about is the Premier’s report from Professor Bob Walker from the New South Wales Council on the Cost of Government.

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

Mr SCULLY: The honourable member for Vaucluse told the Sunday Telegraph of 10 October that forced redundancies would be aggressively pursued if there were insufficient volunteers. There it is: 5,000 people. I seek the leave of the House to table the article.

Leave not granted.

Mr SCULLY: The question of the honourable member for Burrinjuck referred to railway workshops at Chullora, Goulburn and Bathurst. I do not know whether honourable members - particularly the honourable member for Burrinjuck - have been to workshops and know what goes on there. The workshops maintain and upgrade wagons.

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

Mr SCULLY: Some of the contracts for the wagon work at Goulburn, Chullora and Bathurst have been in decline. Railway Services Australia [RSA] is endeavouring to look for opportunities to provide more secure work for the workers at Chullora, Bathurst and Goulburn. RSA has explored this situation with a company called Alstom Australia Ltd, which can provide technology, possibly cheaper spare parts, and overseas and internal opportunities. RSA, with Leighton, has won work in Hong Kong, Victoria and other places in Australia to provide opportunities and jobs for New South Wales rail workers. I told the RSA that it should continue to pursue opportunities to provide
Page 2341
enhanced work and greater security for the men and women who work on the railways.

This has not been finalised. In fact, a proposal with Alstom is particularly directed at the Chullora workshops, and not so much to the Goulburn and Bathurst workshops. The honourable member for Bathurst is fair dinkum about this matter. He did not engage in a stunt in the House to try to get publicity in his electorate. He came to see me and said that he is concerned about the men and women at the Bathurst and Goulburn workshops. The honourable member for Bathurst said, "As a Country Labor member of Parliament, I am concerned about the security of workers across country New South Wales. I want you to do all you can to protect the jobs of people in the workshops at Bathurst and Goulburn." I told him, "I will endeavour to do just that" - and I meant it.

I thank the honourable member for Burrinjuck for the dorothy dixer. I met with the chairman, the chief executive and the RSA board at 9 o’clock yesterday morning. I told them that I expect the board to do all it can to pursue work opportunities at Chullora, Bathurst and Goulburn, to maintain sufficient work and to protect as many jobs as it possibly can. The Government will continue to do that.

Ms HODGKINSON: I ask a supplementary question. In light of the Minister’s answer, will he guarantee that no jobs will be lost in Goulburn?

Mr SCULLY: I can guarantee that this Government and Country Labor will never ever pursue a hack and slash of the public sector, unlike the honourable member for Vaucluse.

Questions without notice concluded.

RURAL RAIL SERVICES

Personal Explanation

Mr DEBNAM, by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation. The Minister for Transport was clearly misleading the House when he failed to point out that in the same newspaper to which he made reference there was a letter that said:

Your article "Coalition to axe 5000 jobs" . . . failed to mention that the proposal to reform the bureaucracy actually came from the Carr government - as did the estimate of jobs affected.

The Coalition has simply drawn attention to the Government’s failure to embrace its own report, recommendations and savings.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! When making a personal explanation the member for Vaucluse must comply with the standing orders. At present he is not explaining to the House how his character has been impugned by the statement of the Minister.

Mr DEBNAM: The Minister for Transport has attempted to smear me in this House. If the Minister was actually to tell the whole story he would point out that the Council on the Cost of Government reported to this Government that its public sector -

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

CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS

Murray-Darling Basin Salinity

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [3.18 p.m.]: Last Friday in Canberra the Federal Minister for Community Services, Warren Truss, released a report on the salinity crisis within the Murray-Darling Basin. That matter is the most important issue that should be debated today and it is certainly more important than the matter raised by the shadow minister for police.

Police Service Discipline

Mr TINK (Epping) [3.19 p.m.]: My motion should have precedence because -

Mr Whelan: Point of order: First, the honourable member’s motion should not have precedence. This matter has been outstanding for a long time and it is on the public record. I take the point that the matter the honourable member intends to raise has been referred to in the Ombudsman’s report which was delivered to the Parliament and released publicly yesterday. Further, I am advised that the constable referred to, namely, Constable X, was served with a section 181D notice on 21 October 1999.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has made a number of valid points. However, it is not for the Chair to determine whether the urgent motion of which the honourable member for Epping has given notice should proceed. That is a matter for the House to decide. Members will undoubtedly take the Minister’s remarks into account.

Page 2342

Mr TINK: My motion should have precedence because it will enable the House to explore the Ombudsman’s concern that the Police Service did not notify the Ombudsman’s office of a new complaint against a convicted stalker, Constable X. Previously, the Ombudsman’s office has reported to the Parliament that the Police Service has failed to notify its office about complaints. Once again the Police Service has failed to notify the Ombudsman’s office about a complaint, and that must be explored urgently.

Mr Gibson: Point of order: I have raised the same point of order many times in the House. The honourable member for Epping must convince the House why his motion is more important than that of the Minister for Agriculture. Under the standing orders he has no leave to debate the substantive motion or to explain the situation. All he is entitled to do is to tell the House why his motion is more important and should be debated today.

Mr TINK: My motion should have precedence. The Minister for Police and members opposite are running a deliberate campaign of raising points of order to cover up the embarrassment in the Police Service in terms of reporting to the Ombudsman, who is an officer of the Parliament, about further complaints against a convicted stalker who remains a member of the New South Wales Police Service.

Mr Gibson: Point of order: As I said a couple of minutes ago, the honourable member must tell the House why his motion is more important and should be debated today. He is totally outside the standing orders and he should be sat down.

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

Mr TINK: My motion should have precedence because last time this matter was raised in the House the Commissioner of Police promised the Ombudsman that Constable X would be removed if he breathed out of tune. A further complaint has been made against Constable X, following numerous previous complaints. When will action be taken? When will the Minister ensure that the Police Service reports matters to the Ombudsman as required by law?

Mr Whelan: Point of order: I indicate to the House that the notice the honourable member says has not been issued was issued on 21 October. Therefore, there is no necessity to debate this matter.

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

Mr TINK: My motion should have precedence because the House must make it clear to the Government and the Police Service that hiding complaints against police is not good enough. Serious complaints made against police must be dealt with according to the Ombudsman’s requirements. Repeated promises have been given and they have not been kept. [Time expired.]

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

The House divided.

[In division]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford has advised the Chair that the Opposition inadvertently called for a division. I will now call off the division.

Mr Hazzard: You call off divisions all the time.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair does not make that decision. The Chair has been told that the Opposition does not want the division to proceed.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House does not agree to the division being called off, so it will proceed.

Mr O’Doherty: Point of order -

Mr E. T. Page: Point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Hornsby sought the call first.

Mr O’Doherty: Mr Speaker, pursuant to standing orders I ask, in view of the confusion in the Chamber, that you restate the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have already put the question.

Page 2343

Ayes, 49

Ms Allan Mr Lynch
Mr Amery Mr McBride
Ms Andrews Mr McManus
Mr Aquilina Mr Martin
Mr Ashton Ms Meagher
Mrs Beamer Ms Megarrity
Mr Black Mr Mills
Mr Brown Mr Moss
Ms Burton Mr Nagle
Mr Campbell Mr Newell
Mr Collier Mr Orkopoulos
Mr Crittenden Mr E. T. Page
Mr Debus Mr Price
Mr Face Dr Refshauge
Mr Gaudry Ms Saliba
Mr Gibson Mr Scully
Mr Greene Mr W. D. Smith
Mrs Grusovin Mr Stewart
Ms Harrison Mr Tripodi
Mr Hickey Mr Watkins
Mr Hunter Mr Whelan
Mr Iemma Mr Yeadon
Mr Knight Tellers,
Mr Knowles Mr Anderson
Mrs Lo Po’ Mr Thompson

Noes, 23

Mr Barr Ms Moore
Mr Brogden Mr O’Doherty
Mrs Chikarovski Mr O’Farrell
Mr Debnam Mr Richardson
Mr Glachan Mr Rozzoli
Mr Hazzard Mrs Skinner
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr Torbay
Mr Kerr Mr Windsor
Mr McGrane Tellers,
Mr Maguire Mr Hartcher
Mr Merton Mr R. H. L. Smith

Pair

Mr Markham Ms Seaton

Question resolved in the affirmative.

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN SALINITY

Urgent Motion

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [3.34 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the release of the Murray-Darling Basin Salinity Audit by the Federal Government in Canberra last week;

(2) recognises that salinity will worsen over the next century if nothing is done to address the problem; and

(3) calls on the Coalition to support the New South Wales Government’s native vegetation and water reforms in light of the findings of the salinity audit.
I have highlighted this issue in the past in reply to a question without notice from the honourable member for Dubbo. He has continually raised the issue with me in relation to the effects of salinity on his electorate. Many honourable members attended the briefing I organised at Parliament House a few weeks ago about the predicted spread of salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin, 57 per cent of which is accounted for by New South Wales. Salinity is a national problem and therefore needs a national approach. This Government is showing great leadership in addressing the problem.

In response to the salinity audit the Premier announced that the Government will convene a summit in Dubbo in February next year. It will give all interested groups and experts the opportunity to exchange information and ideas on how to tackle the salinity problem. The summit will be a major step in the development of a comprehensive and effective salinity management strategy for New South Wales by June 2000.

The job will be completed by a special Cabinet committee which I will chair in my role as Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Also on the committee will be the Minister for Forestry; the Minister for the Environment; the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs; and the Treasurer. This State process will be complemented by the preparation of a draft salinity management strategy for the whole of the Murray-Darling Basin, also by June 2000.

Last Friday in Canberra the Murray-Darling Basin salinity audit was officially released on behalf of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council by the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Warren Truss, and the Federal Minister for the Environment, Robert Hill. "The Salinity Audit" is an important technical report. It is the first of its kind and is based on sound scientific principles, modelling and data. The audit establishes a trend for salt mobilisation in the landscape on a river valley by river valley basis.

It is a major advance in our capacity to predict the future impacts of salinity if there are to be any new management initiatives. The report revealed that
Page 2344
the threat of salinity will increase over the next 50 to 100 years in both urban and rural areas. In the Lachlan and Castlereagh rivers, for example, standard drinking water quality levels will be exceeded in 50 years, according to the report, while in the Macquarie, Namoi and Bogan rivers standard drinking water quality levels will be exceeded within the next 20 years. Salt level in those three rivers will exceed acceptable thresholds for irrigation uses within the next 100 years.

The audit also reveals that the spread of salinity will threaten our major wetlands, including the Great Cambung Swamp, the Macquarie Marshes and the Gwydir wetlands. The report has given the community a serious wake-up call. Last Friday I welcomed the report on behalf of the New South Wales Government as it provides us with a strong foundation for future decisions on the management of salinity both in New South Wales and across the whole basin. This initiative will build on the achievements in Murray River salinity under the 1989 Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council salinity and drainage strategy.

In future we must address not only the spread of river salinity but also dry land and ground water salinity. Above all, this means that New South Wales must continue with the water reform process and tighter controls on further clearing of native vegetation. The Federal Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, has already supported the policy reforms. In the second part of the motion I call on the State Opposition to do the same. This is a very important political statement in relation to the Coalition.

Despite members of the Coalition in Canberra saying that we must continue to tighten up land-clearing laws in New South Wales, the State Opposition has consistently taken an opposing position. In fact, the National Party has not asked a single question, made a single statement or raised a motion on a major issue of salinity in the life of this Parliament.

The latest statistics available under the Native Vegetation Conservation Act show that, since the legislation came into effect in January 1998, farmers across the State have applied to clear 264,673 hectares of land. Most of those applications have come from the Central West and Barwon regions. Of those applications processed to date, about 141,000 hectares have been approved for clearing. I should emphasise that those approvals have stringent conditions attached and mostly involve thinning operations as opposed to the broad-scale tree removal that many people fear so much.

In the past the Government has been criticised for supposedly hampering development by use of these clearing laws. In the light of what is contained in "The Salinity Audit" I can conclude only that the Government showed leadership and foresight by introducing clearing controls back in 1995. All honourable members will acknowledge that wonderful initiative by my colleague the Hon. Kim Yeadon when he was Minister for Land and Water Conservation. "The Salinity Audit" highlights that further action must be taken to reduce the current rates of clearing and to substantially increase revegetation in New South Wales.

In addition to its water and native vegetation reforms, the New South Wales Government has implemented a range of other programs and initiatives in an effort to combat salinity. The expansion of farm forestry is one example. A few weeks ago I opened New South Wales Agriculture’s farm forestry advisory unit in Tamworth, in the presence of the honourable member for Tamworth and the Minister for Forestry, the Hon. Kim Yeadon. I also signed a memorandum of understanding with the Minister that will facilitate the expansion of farm forestry to help manage salinity. I know that my ministerial colleague intends to speak to this urgent motion.

The two portfolios for which I have responsibility are already spending millions of dollars on salinity issues. About $11 million a year is being spent on direct salinity programs by the Department of Land and Water Conservation. The department is spending a further $9 million on salinity-related programs. Of that total of $20 million, $6.5 million a year is being spent on land and water management plans and $3 million a year on the salt action program. In addition to those amounts New South Wales Agriculture spends more than $2.5 million annually on salinity programs, apart from related work carried out by research staff on salt-tolerant crop varieties.

Research, extension and education services are of continuing importance and have a major role to play in any new management strategy. In future we will build upon, integrate and strengthen those various programs so that they continue to be part of a comprehensive and targeted strategy. This is all about getting the best results from our joint investment at all levels of government and the wider community. Local communities are doing their best also to fight salinity.

Again I congratulate the people of Wagga Wagga for their initiatives in carrying the battle against dryland salinity in their city. Only last week
Page 2345
Wagga Wagga City Council received a Landcare award in recognition of its work to combat salinity. Elsewhere, the North West Catchment Management Committee announced recently that it will develop a catchment plan to fight salinity in the Namoi region. The key strategies of the plan will be to raise awareness of salinity in the area, to develop best management practices to optimise water use, and to encourage revegetation of the catchment.

I applaud this proactive proposal and wish the community of the Namoi region every success with their plan. I endorse their view that, "In order to succeed in combating salinity we will need agencies and landholders to work closely together." Obviously, already the New South Wales Government is making a big effort to support local communities to deal with this problem. I call on the State Opposition to forget its politicking on native vegetation and to put forward a commonsense view by supporting the principles of the Government’s Native Vegetation Conservation Act.

I am sure that the Opposition wants to promote efforts to manage salinity, and the acceptance of the Native Vegetation Conservation Act would be an excellent beginning to that process. The report that is the subject of this motion is the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council document headed "The Salinity Audit". It has a subheading: "A 100-year Perspective, 1999". By leave I table that publication.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [3.44 p.m.]: At the outset of my contribution to this debate I seek to set the record straight. First, I should comment on the report that has been tabled and put forward the Opposition’s view on the Government’s response to the general issue of salinity, which is not new but has been around for some time. The report was released last Friday and is of critical importance to New South Wales and Australia. A salt poisoned river system has the potential to impact severely on agriculture and will create massive social and economic problems in regional New South Wales.

The Murray-Darling Basin stretches over one million square kilometres and has a gross production worth $20 billion. The region produces 40 per cent of Australia’s agricultural wealth. The basin is home to two major river systems, amongst the world’s biggest, which are prone to major changes in flows and average yield. Most of the basin lies just 200 metres above sea level, throwing up obvious drainage issues which need to be dealt with carefully. As the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Warren Truss, pointed out when releasing the report, some of the engineering projects of the past produced dramatic results, but the message from the audit is that these measures will not be enough in the future.

Whilst engineering will continue to play a role, there will need to be an expansion of land management measures to maintain the level of production in the basin. As the report bears out, action must be taken now to prevent currently highly fertile areas from ceasing to support communities which are so dependent upon them. The tentacles of agriculture stretch right to the heart of every Australian city. Not only will Murray-Darling communities suffer from salinity, but every person in New South Wales and Australia will be affected by it.

The report concluded that average river salinities will rise significantly, exceeding the critical thresholds for domestic and irrigation water supplies and the riverine environment. Within 20 years the river salinity at the key monitoring station at Morgan in South Australia will have returned to the levels experienced in the 1970s and 1980s, overtaking the achievements of the salinity and drainage strategy. Already the total economic impact is estimated to be $46 million a year. That will increase further with the projected 330 electric conductivity increase over the next century.

The study found also that the cost to agricultural users, especially horticulturists, is much higher than was previously estimated. The audit found also that there is a future hazard for some rivers, including the Macquarie, Namoi, Lachlan, Castlereagh and Bogan rivers, and those who are dependent on them as a source of water. Average river salinities will rise significantly, exceeding the desirable thresholds for domestic and irrigation water supplies in many tributaries and exceeding critical levels in some reaches.

The salt mobilisation process across all the major river valleys is on a very large scale. The annual movement of salt in the landscape will double in the next 100 years, according to the report. The salinity and drainage strategy has gained us a 20-year reprieve against rising salinity in the lower Murray region. Land and water management plans and adoption of best practices in irrigated agriculture have brought a level of salinity control. There is a sound basis for deciding on future investments in associated engineering works.

"The Salinity Audit" clearly identifies the severity and scale of the salinity threat to the Murray-Darling basin if there is no new management intervention. The audit has identified
Page 2346
where improvements can be made, and the national Land and Water Resources audit’s dryland salinity monitoring program will provide further guidance. With this thorough audit now complete, a map has been laid out to enable us to move towards environmental and agricultural sustainability in the long term. As I said earlier, salinity is a challenge that must be shared by everyone in the community and requires total commitment from all persons and all governments.

In his contribution the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation referred to the Coalition’s position on native vegetation. I invite him to read my contribution to the second reading debate when the former Minister introduced the Native Vegetation Conservation Bill. If he refers to Hansard he will find that the Coalition has never opposed the principles underlying the Act.

Mr Yeadon: I heard you on the John Laws program.

Mr D. L. PAGE: What we oppose fervently -

Mr Yeadon: What did you say then?

Mr D. L. PAGE: The Minister should read the speech that I made in that debate. What the Opposition opposes are the mechanisms that the Government has tried to implement. It has introduced an inappropriate mechanism under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to try to manage a natural resource which is not properly handled by an urban-oriented Act. That is the major problem the Opposition has with that legislation. The Minister nods his head. The management plans are supposed to supply the answers to vegetation management. How many of those has the Government introduced, though the legislation has been in place for several years?

Mr Yeadon: Plenty of them.

Mr D. L. PAGE: We had a policy - and I am happy to quote from it - of dealing with this important issue of native vegetation in association with the provisions of the Soil Conservation Act. We want to make resource management more integrated. That is a very different approach to that taken by the Government. Every time a new environmental issue comes up, the Government passes new legislation. Our policy was to integrate the management of native vegetation and soil conservation.

Mr Yeadon: You had no policy.

Mr D. L. PAGE: Let us get the record straight so far as that matter is concerned. We had that policy, and it is available for anyone who wants to read it. I turn now to the Carr Government’s hypocrisy in relation to salinity. Given the importance of this report, one would think that the Government would have a fairly serious policy framework within which to operate. Because it is not a new issue, one would think that the Government would have taken steps to actively help promote native vegetation, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin. But in a letter dated 30 November 1998 the Native Vegetation Advisory Council, a body set up under the Act to advise the Minister of the day on the priorities for native vegetation, recommended a series of priorities to the Minister. The top five priorities relate to the Murray-Darling Basin.

What has the Government done about the Native Vegetation Management Fund? It has allocated $15 million to that fund over three years, that is, $5 million a year. For the first two years the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation has allocated $2 million to both the north-east forest agreement and the south-east forest agreement. That represents 40 per cent of the total amount of money that the Minister has available in the Native Vegetation Management Fund for regional forest agreements. Those regional forest agreements do not relate to the Murray-Darling Basin; they relate to the North Coast and South Coast of New South Wales.

Mr Amery: Where we receive a lot of applications for clearing.

Mr D. L. PAGE: Compared to the Murray-Darling Basin these areas that are the subject of forest agreements are areas of high biodiversity. Yet, the Government is allocating 40 per cent of the Native Vegetation Management Fund to those two regional forest agreements. As I have said, the Minister received written advice from the Native Vegetation Advisory Council informing him where the priorities lie in New South Wales, but those forest agreements are not even referred to in that advice.

Let me explain to honourable members where the native vegetation priorities lie. The first priority region is the Darling riverine plains, where priority vegetation types include box woodlands, riparian vegetation, native grasslands and wetlands. The second priority region is the south-western slopes and the mid Lachlan area, where priority vegetation
Page 2347
types include grassy white box woodlands, red gum, yellow box, and many other types of vegetation. The third priority region is the Riverina. The fourth priority region is Nandewar in the north west of the State, and the fifth priority region -

Mr Amery: You’ve got a minute left. Get to the point. I can’t see your point.

Mr D. L. PAGE: If the Minister cannot see my point, I have serious doubts about his capacity to administer this fund. Obviously, the Minister is not allocating scarce resources to enhance native vegetation which has been identified by the State’s top advisory council. Under the Act that council must report to the Minister and the Minister is supposed to heed its advice. The Minister is not allocating money to high-priority areas identified in writing to him by his own council. Instead, he is allocating them to the south-east forest agreement and the north-east forest agreement.

The establishment of regional forest agreements has already cost at least $10 million or $15 million, yet the Minister is allocating 40 per cent of the Native Vegetation Management Fund to those two regional forest agreements. I am sure any responsible person would agree that the Government’s actions in this regard are irresponsible. The priority areas have been identified in the audit report prepared by the Native Vegetation Advisory Council, and the Minister is allocating resources to low-priority projects instead of high-priority projects.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Information Technology, Minister for Energy, Minister for Forestry, and Minister for Western Sydney) [3.54 p.m.]: Hello, Don. Welcome to native vegetation vindication day!

Mr D. L. Page: Point of order: It is customary in this House for members to address other members by their appropriate titles.

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

Mr YEADON: I welcome this opportunity to speak about the pressing problem of dryland salinity. Dryland salinity and land degradation is a major and environmental and economic issue facing country New South Wales. It has emerged as one of the greatest threats to the State’s land and resources, and the regional communities they support. This is a priority issue for the New South Wales Government, as signalled by the Premier’s announcement at the Australian Labor Party’s State conference of a salinity summit early next year and the creation of a special Cabinet subcommittee on salinity.

Tree planting is one of the key activities needed to stop the progress of dryland salinity. By planting new forest and woodlands we increase transpiration of water from deep in the soil, preventing or reversing rises in water tables. As Minister for Forestry, I can inform the House that there is a growing awareness of the benefits of the establishment of forests and trees as a commercially and environmentally beneficial activity in rural regions across Australia.

Our experience in talking to private investors interested in new forests suggests that they have a variety of motives. Some want to invest in traditional forestry products. However, in more and more cases they are interested primarily in forests as carbon sinks or in other products such as biomass energy, feedstock for charcoal production, biofuel and linking these activities with land repair. The recognition of the broader carbon, salinity and land repair benefits of trees provides a commercial incentive for rural land-holders to view planting trees as a new business opportunity and an option to diversify on-farm income while addressing dryland salinity in their region. It is a win-win situation for investors, land-holders and the environment.

The New South Wales Government is leading the way in providing commercial solutions to major environmental problems - regulation on the one hand, and commercial incentives on the other. The Government has a comprehensive approach to all issues. I am pleased to be able to inform the House today of a new Government initiative to address this problem through a pilot salinity control project. Yesterday, State Forests of New South Wales and Macquarie River Food and Fibre signed a memorandum of understanding to develop a pilot project involving the planting of 100 hectares of new forest on critical recharge sites in the upper Macquarie River catchment in the central west of New South Wales. The memorandum of understanding reflects the shared commitment of the parties to develop an innovative, cost-effective and market-based approach to addressing the problem of dryland salinity.

Recent studies have confirm that dryland salinity is a serious and growing threat to water and soil quality in the Macquarie Valley, with the potential for significant negative impacts on natural ecosystems, agriculture and rural and urban communities in the region. Planting new forests in upper catchments can reduce the spread of dryland
Page 2348
salinity by reducing run-off, maintaining watertables at safe levels, and preventing the rise of salt into the root zone and surface layers of the soil. The Macquarie catchment pilot salinity control project is designed to explore the potential for establishing a market for the environmental service provided by planted forests in reducing dryland salinity.

The memorandum of understanding between State Forests and Macquarie River Food and Fibre introduces the concept of trading in salinity credits as a potential way of attracting the commercial investment necessary to fund large-scale reafforestation of recharge areas in key Murray-Darling Basin catchments. State Forests will establish 100 hectares of new planted forests in selected Macquarie River subcatchments on land leased from local land owners. Macquarie River Food and Fibre will pay a fee for the transpiration service provided by the new forests.

The new forests will be planted next winter at sites selected with assistance from the Department of Land and Water Conservation. I commend the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation and his department for the great co-operation with State Forests on these issues. Sites and species selection will take account of other potential commercial opportunities, including generating carbon credits, biomass energy and harvesting timber products.

The memorandum of understanding is part of a series of initiatives that the New South Wales Government is undertaking to address the issue of salinity. Other work involves the establishment by State Forests of 50 demonstration tree plantings in a zone from Wagga Wagga to Glen Innes, and from Moree to Narrandera. The trial program will help identify the number of trees that need to be planted in each catchment. The tree plantings and a range of other initiatives are being undertaken in a co-operative spirit under a memorandum of understanding signed by me as Minister for Forestry, and my colleague the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation in Tamworth last month. The honourable member for Tamworth was also in attendance when that memorandum of understanding was signed.

This memorandum embodies the Government’s desire to work with rural communities to address this major environmental issue and at the same time generate wealth, jobs and new economic activity in rural communities. This work is the beginning of a concerted effort and comprehensive approach by this Government to address this major problem.

Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [3.59 p.m.]: Dryland salinity is a very important issue. It is a cancer in country New South Wales. Honourable members would note that I did not support the urgent motion of which the Minister had given notice being dealt with. The reason I did not do so is that I agree with the Government that this is probably the most crucial environmental issue west of the range in New South Wales. I did not support the Minister’s urgent motion being dealt with because the third part of the motion calls on the Coalition to support the New South Wales Government’s native vegetation legislative arrangements. I do not support the current native vegetation arrangements. I agree with the honourable member for Ballina that the wrong vehicle is driving the native vegetation arrangements in this State. We should not use the Environment Planning and Assessment Act.

I invite the attention of the House to the sorts of things that are happening as a consequence of those arrangements, particularly with respect to the grassland issue. The arrangement is not encouraging the farming community to preserve grasslands, and hence slow down run-off, prevent erosion and promote a number of environmental issues involving the farming community. It is actually encouraging the farming of grasslands before the 10-year-period is up. The arrangement in place needs changing because it is counterproductive to the supposed aims of the native vegetation legislation: a better environment for the farming community in particular but for New South Wales in general.

A number of mixed messages are coming through on salinity. The farm dams policy is encouraging the farming community to keep water on the farm. The Government’s market-driven system encourages the use of all water, in the most efficient way, thus activating sleeper licences. I urge the Government to look closely at that policy. If all sleeper licences on various existing catchments are activated - which, under the system of applying market forces, might seem popular at the moment - more water will be used than should be used and is currently being used. I agree with the Government’s policy on the encouragement of credits. Only a moment ago the Minister spoke about salinity credits. However I do not concur with use of the application of market forces to free up water licences, with intervalley transfers and so on.

There is one other matter that the Government should look at closely with a view to addressing dryland salinity. I am particularly aware, from my service on the Premier’s Regional Investment
Page 2349
Committee, of the numerous applications that are made for major farm forestry arrangements. I congratulate the Minister on the initiative that he launched in Tamworth recently, but some barriers are being put in the way of people who want to invest in farm forestry on a major scale. Some of those barriers are put up by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, some by National Parks and Wildlife and some by other bureaucracies that have, in their words, a greater environmental agenda than the attack on salinity.

Salinity should be the focus. It should be the main priority west of the range. The honourable member for Ballina alluded to the fact that there is confusion about environmental aspects east of the Great Divide and west of the Great Divide. I agree with him. An eastern environmental policy is being imposed west of the range, where it will not work. We risk the application of a water policy in the north of the State that is exactly the same as the policy for the south of the State. Anyone who has been involved in an irrigation or farming community recognises the very real differences in soils and subsoils and in the way in which water is transmitted in those irrigation areas.

They are different areas. The south has major problems with transmission; those problems do not exist in the north of the State. The policy that is arrived at to control and treat this cancer has to have some flexibility. It is useless imposing an overall State plan and hoping it will work everywhere. The solution for a particular area must involve consultation with the relevant farming communities and the broader regional communities.

Mr BLACK (Murray-Darling) [4.04 p.m.]: At the outset I refer to the extraordinary behaviour of the National Party today in respect of this matter. Though the House has just voted on this vital issue, it is my understanding that not one member of the National Party was present in the Chamber on the division to determine the vote. I understand they may have been outside, in the Speaker’s Garden, having a smoke. This matter is of primary importance, especially to western New South Wales. It is of primary importance to many communities throughout the State.

The honourable member for Tamworth made some comments about woody weed. My only disagreement with the honourable member for Tamworth on that matter is that woody week has become a bigger pest than salinity, which says a lot about the problem of woody weed. I have here a copy of today’s issue of the Land. Some would say that is the organ of the National Party. I do not know about that because I think the Land is getting behind Country Labor. We have had good articles on the orange juice issue. Last Thursday’s issue had an excellent editorial on where the National Party is going. Today’s issue carries the headline "Basin salt to double in 100 years". That surely should have been the trigger that mobilised the National Party to support the Government on the issue before the House.

I salute the Hon. Kim Yeadon, Minister for Forestry, and his press release headed "Trading off salinity". The Minister referred to that in his contribution to this debate. The bottom line was the agreement reached with the people on the ground, in this case Macquarie River Food and Fibre, to do something about the matter of salinity. I wonder where the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, the honourable member for Lachlan and the honourable member for Barwon were when the division was called. They may have been outside having a smoke; I do not know. But they were not in the Chamber to take part in the vote on this matter.

From my perspective as representative of the electorate of Murray-Darling, 57 per cent of the Murray-Darling basin lies within New South Wales, and the electorate of Murray-Darling covers a great deal of that area. As has been alluded to in the House, salinity is a problem right across the State. However, as the honourable member for Tamworth has said, the salinity problem is most serious in the area on the best side of the Blue Mountains, in the west. Let me give the House some idea of the magnitude of the problem. Currently, the River Murray is draining 2.1 million tonnes of salt per year from the Murray-Darling Basin into the Southern Ocean. But much of the salt is not going into the ocean. In places like Dareton, for example, pumped ground water has a salinity content twice that of the ocean.

Let me turn to some of the predictions being made about the quality of the water in our major rivers used for drinking and irrigation. These are the facts. The lower River Murray, monitored at Morgan, will exceed the 800 electrical conductivity [EC] units threshold for drinking water within the next 20 years. At Morgan, by 2020 the salt content of the water will probably exceed the acceptable level for drinking water at least 50 per cent of the time. There will be floods, and there will be dry periods, but 50 per cent of the time at Morgan that level will be exceeded.

This chronic position will mean that by 2020 we will not be able to grow oranges at Morgan or
Page 2350
irrigate other crops simply because of the salt content of the water. The Macquarie, Namoi and Bogan rivers will exceed that threshold within 20 years. In fact, they will exceed the 1,500 EC threshold for irrigated crops within the next 100 years, and from time to time within the next 20 years. With the Lachlan and Castlereagh rivers it is the same story. This major issue that the Government is seriously pursuing is being dealt with on a bipartisan basis in the sense that it may well have a large input from Country Labor but it has a lot of support from the Australian Labor Party. This issue will not go away. It requires the support of the total community. I conclude by saying shame, shame, shame on National Party members for not being present when there was a vote on this matter.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [4.09 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who contributed to the debate. The shadow minister for land and water conservation acknowledged that he supports the legislation, which is the subject of this motion. I welcome that aspect of his contribution. I congratulate the honourable member for Murray-Darling on his second great speech in this House, which has been made on the very day that the Country Labor Party has been registered by the New South Wales Electoral Office. The honourable member for Murray-Darling spoke of a number of agricultural products that will be affected if the salinity levels reach those predicted in the report. There has been too much debate that native vegetation clearing and water reform is contrary to agricultural production.

As the honourable member for Murray-Darling said - and as has been highlighted in reports for many years - the spread of salinity is far more dangerous to agricultural production than, as the doomsayers argue, the introduction of environmental policies. Environmental policies, water reforms and native vegetation clearing will support a sustainable agricultural industry for generations to come, not just next year’s crop. I congratulate the honourable member for Murray-Darling on clearly outlining to the House the need for the Government’s strategies on the environment, water reform and native vegetation if we are to have a viable and sustainable agricultural industry.

I thank the honourable member for Tamworth for his contribution. He said that he did not agree with aspects of the motion that supported the Native Vegetation Act. I acknowledge the concerns he raised about the legislation. However, the honourable member spoke about the inappropriateness of having one policy on water reform and native vegetation that applies to the whole State. He has missed the point. The regional vegetation and water committees are making recommendations and policies specific to their valleys and catchments. Whilst the legislation may seem to apply to the whole State, it contains the framework for the setting up of the regional vegetation committees, which will devise different plans and policies for the various catchments and valleys in New South Wales.

Although there have been delays in the making of such plans, I will not rush the committees into making wrong decisions. I want them to make their decisions on the strongest and best advice available. I take on board the honourable member’s comments. The honourable member for Tamworth and the honourable member for Ballina argued that it was inappropriate that some aspects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act are included in this legislation. As I said at the beginning of my speech, despite the difficulties in the legislation referred to by Opposition members, on an objective assessment, our clearing rates are still very high. The Federal Minister for the Environment has written to me and to the Minister for the Environment to remind us that our clearing rates must be improved if we are to meet the national obligation, which was agreed to at the Kyoto conference, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Although the Opposition has criticised these so-called tough native vegetation laws, the comment from Canberra indicates that our clearing rates are still too high. We have to address that. I again thank the Minister for Forestry for his positive contribution and the announcement today of his memorandum of understanding between State Forests and the Macquarie River Food and Fibre, which involves the plantings of 100 hectares. The Minister also talked about carbon credits, which will open up the debate significantly. The Minister began his speech by saying, "This is native vegetation vindication day." To a great extent, that is true. With the introduction of State environmental planning policy 46 and this legislation, the political record will show that in the long term the Minister’s policies are vindicated and the criticisms against him unwarranted. I commend the motion to the House.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Bill: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow:

(1) private members’ statements to be postponed to allow the introduction and progress up to and including the Page 2351
Minister’s second reading speech of the Pesticides Bill; and

PESTICIDES BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [4.15 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.
The Pesticides Act 1978, which is 21 years old, is outdated and in many ways unworkable. It is not providing the level of protection that is needed for individuals and communities in rural and urban New South Wales. The bill is a vital part of this Government’s comprehensive program to modernise environmental protection legislation. The bill delivers on the Government’s firm commitment to improve the management of pesticide use in New South Wales as a matter of priority.

Another major initiative to reform pesticide management has been my recent announcement of the Government’s commitment to the Chemcollect scheme. The scheme will provide for the one-off collection and disposal of farm chemical waste throughout the State. The New South Wales Government has committed up to $4.3 million to the scheme. This will be matched by equal Commonwealth funding. It is backed up by a commitment from the farm chemical supply industries and the farming sector to properly manage such wastes in future through waste prevention and other measures supported by a collection scheme.

It is well understood that pesticides play an important role in supporting agricultural and other industries, and that their use has led to improvements in productivity, better quality produce and more competitive primary industries. However, it is also widely understood that pesticide misuse can cause serious problems. Pesticide residues in livestock and produce have caused trade difficulties, and there is growing awareness of the potential for adverse impacts on human health, property and the environment if pesticides are not used with the utmost care.

The community and the Government are unable to continue with the untenable situation whereby serious misuse of pesticides has often not been able to be dealt with under the Pesticides Act 1978. We have also not been able to use regulatory options other than prosecution for minor offences. A modern regulatory regime of tools is essential to provide the most effective and fair means of deterring future misuse. This bill has been carefully formulated after more than two years of comprehensive public consultation and with the benefit of the pesticides inquiry undertaken by the Standing Committee on State Development and its "Report on the Use and Management of Pesticides in New South Wales".

This bill seeks to promote the proper use of pesticides; address community concerns relating to the potential adverse impacts of pesticide use on human health, property, trade and the environment; remove duplication and improve consistency with the National Registration Scheme; and provide for focussed and collaborative implementation of the reforms. It is important to clarify that the bill will not impact significantly on those who use pesticides responsibly. Users who follow label and permit directions, who assess each application situation thoroughly prior to using the pesticide and who take all reasonable actions to ensure that non-target impacts are avoided will not have any problems in meeting the new requirements.

However, those who have not taken adequate precautions in the past, who might have allowed drift onto a neighbour’s land by spraying in strong winds in the direction of a nearby neighbouring residence or susceptible crop, will need to seriously lift their game. This bill will now provide the tools to bring such people into line and allow the rest of the community to get on with their lives and their businesses. The bill proposes clear objectives for pesticide management in New South Wales. Clause 3 is framed around the principles of protecting and minimising risk to human health, the environment, property and trade and encouraging the development of collaborative and integrated policies.

These objectives will provide an unambiguous message that there must be balanced consideration of social and economic aspects of pesticide use consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development - and will provide a reference for judicial interpretation. The bill recognises that the New South Wales arrangements for pesticide management must be integrated with the national scheme. In 1995 the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals [NRA] was established to evaluate and register agricultural and veterinary chemicals and to control their supply up to and including the point of sale.

Page 2352

All State and Territory governments and the Federal Government agreed that the National Registration Authority should be given the resources to take over these responsibilities from the States. This agreement culminated in the enactment of the national Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code 1994 - Agvet code - which establishes the legal framework for the evaluation, assessment and registration of pesticides, and governs the distribution of pesticides up to the point of sale. Beyond the point of sale, State laws are required to control the use of pesticides and enforce National Registration Authority directions.

It is time to repeal those parts of the Act which are now redundant as a result of the establishment of the National Registration Authority. The bill will improve and streamline implementation of the National Registration Scheme. The bill will provide powers to require New South Wales users to follow all the directions and conditions which result from NRA registration and review processes, and that any National Registration Authority restrictions on the supply and use of pesticides are enforceable in New South Wales. I referred earlier to the serious inadequacy of the prosecution powers under the existing Act.

Even on the rare occasions that prosecutions can be mounted the small penalties imposed by the courts to date do not present a meaningful deterrent. The bill will change this by modernising offences that have become outdated and by substantially increasing the maximum penalties that can be imposed for breaches of the bill. An illustration of how the present Act is sorely deficient may assist to underscore the need for new offence provisions. Suppose an aerial spray plane is applying pesticides to a field adjacent to a public road.

A person riding a motorbike is travelling along the road towards the field in question. A moderate wind is blowing in the direction of the road. The plane continues its operations as the rider approaches. The rider sees spray mist land on himself and his bike, including droplets on his visor. He later advises the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] that he had a severe headache and felt nauseous for up to two days later. Blood tests reveal a low blood cholinesterase level, indicative of organophosphate pesticide poisoning. The pilot of the plane advises that he did not see the motorbike rider.

This case could not be prosecuted at present because it requires proof that the pilot intended to cause injury to the motorbike rider. Under the present Act, it is not sufficient that the rider is harmed; the action has to be wilful and without reasonable cause. The bill provides offences so that situations like this can be prosecuted with more certainty in the future. It is appropriate that the pilot be prosecuted in these circumstances because he allowed spray to drift onto a road where it is likely people will be passing, and thereby caused injury. It is not relevant that he did not see the motorbike. The pilot could have either not sprayed in those wind conditions because of the risk that drift was going onto the road or, recognising that risk, been extremely vigilant to ensure that he did not spray when there was traffic on the road.

Given the hazardous nature of pesticides, the objective of the offence provisions is to send a clear signal that a diligent approach to pesticide use is essential. The underpinning philosophy is that misuse should be unacceptable particularly in situations where neighbours and public are harmed or put at risk of harm to their health; the property of neighbours or the public is harmed or put at risk of harm, including risks to trade; the animals or plants beyond the farm boundary are put at risk of harm; and non-target native animal species on-farm are unnecessarily harmed.

The bill creates two kinds of offences to achieve these objectives. The lower order offences are strict liability offences that deal with those situations where there was not an intention to cause harm. The higher level offences are more serious culpability offences that deal with those situations where there is wilfulness or negligence involved and harm or a likelihood of harm has resulted. The new strict liability offences in clauses 10 and 11 will focus on persons who use a pesticide in a way which causes or is likely to cause injury to any person, damage to any property, or causes harm to non-target animals or plants. The intention of the strict liability provisions is to encourage users to plan spraying activities, exercise proper care and take into account important considerations such as spraying in suitable conditions.

In the case of agricultural land, the offences will not apply to injury, damage or harm that occurs on the farm where the pesticide is used in order to avoid duplication with other legislation that regulates operations on farms. These include occupational health and safety legislation that covers injury to farm workers, the Native Vegetation Act 1995 which covers damage to native vegetation on a farm by pesticides, and the Stock (Chemical Residues) Act 1975 which protects domestic and export markets from residues in stock. In addition, farmers have common law rights they can exercise for any damage caused to their own property by a spray
Page 2353
contractor they have employed to apply pesticides on their land.

Similarly, it is not the Government’s intention that residents be liable for offences where the harm to animals or plants is confined to their own private property. It is recognised that such harm is not likely to be significant. These new offences will be particularly useful in those cases where the user failed to consider the consequence of their actions and did not take appropriate precautions. This would mean that prosecutions of incidents such as where children are accidentally sprayed while waiting at a school bus stop would have much greater likelihood of succeeding. Careful attention has been paid to the manner in which, the terms "injury" and "harm" have been defined in the bill.

The environmental offences have been focused on harm to plants and animals, terms which are defined clearly in the bill. The concept of damage to property includes the economic loss that a person suffers as a result of damage to crops, livestock, produce and other items. A statutory due diligence defence that is to apply to these strict liability offences is set out in clauses 10 and 11. Pesticide users will not be liable if they establish that the offence occurred as a result of causes over which they did not have control and the user took reasonable precautions and used due diligence to prevent the offence occurring. Most incidents involving harm from pesticides can be prevented by the user with proper planning and taking reasonable precautions to avoid causing harm to people, property or non-target plants and non-target animals.
Basic precautions that users should take in any pesticides application include: spraying in suitable weather conditions so that spray does not drift outside the target area; ensuring that spraying does not take place if people are downwind of an application and likely to be exposed to the spray; providing adequate buffer areas between the application and a sensitive environmental area or dwellings; providing adequate instructions and training to employees before spraying is carried out; assessing potential risks for harm prior to application and taking steps to minimise risks; using equipment for the job that minimises or prevents off-target impacts and obtaining all relevant information from the landowner about surrounding sensitive and susceptible areas.

If after having taken these precautions unavoidable harm is caused, then in most cases a person would not be liable. I stress that the harm that is caused must be unavoidable. If harm to persons or property is inevitably going to occur despite all reasonable precautions being taken, then the pesticide application should not occur and alternative measures need to be adopted. The bill provides a very strong deterrent against wilful or negligent misuse of a pesticide. Pursuant to clauses 7 and 8 an offence will occur where wilful and negligent misuse of a pesticide results in injury or a likelihood of injury to a person; damage or a real likelihood of damage to property; or harm to non-target animals or plants.

This offence would not apply to any injury, damage or harm that occurs on a farm or market garden where the pesticide is used. Similarly, residents would not be liable for offences where the harm to animals or plants is confined to the residential premises that they occupy. These exemptions do not apply to threatened or protected animal species. These offences are aimed squarely at a class of persons applying pesticides without regard to the interests of others, or where a spray contractor who is aware or should be aware of the risks of harm that might occur, goes ahead with the application regardless of the consequences.

A person who applies pesticides in windy conditions next to a preschool, resulting in spray drifting onto children playing in the preschool yard, would be prosecuted under these offences. The onus will be on the EPA to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person intended to commit the offence or should have prevented it occurring. This is a heavy burden of proof that the EPA must satisfy and will ensure that there is appropriate justification for pursuing these serious offences.

The bill proposes an offence for a pesticide user who causes material harm to protected or threatened animals wherever a pesticide is applied. The focus will be on instances when material harm arises. The onus will be on the Environment Protection Authority to prove that material harm had occurred and that it was caused by the wilful or negligent action of the pesticide user. Deciding whether the harm is material will depend on whether the harm is significant or substantial. The factors that will be taken into account include how many animals are harmed, the scarce or endangered status of the harmed species, whether or not the species is abundant in the local area, and the impact the harm to the species has on the functioning of the local ecosystem.

The bill substantially increases the maximum penalties for proven offences to highlight the significance of the offences involved. The maximum penalty for wilful or negligent misuse of a pesticide will be $120,000 for an individual and $250,000 for
Page 2354
a corporation, and for strict liability offences the maximum penalty will be $60,000 for an individual and $120,000 for a corporation. The bill increases to $20,000 the maximum fine a Local Court may impose for any offence. The increased penalties will provide an extremely strong deterrent for pesticide users who to date have faced much smaller fines. To date, the maximum penalty ever imposed by a court under the Pesticides Act is $10,000. This bill will signal to the courts that the community and the Parliament expect higher fines to be imposed for pesticide misuse.

Pesticide labels are a core foundation of proper pesticide use. The directions on each label are carefully worded by the National Registration Authority [NRA] following detailed assessment of the product to ensure that use according to the label will not result in adverse impacts. Clause 15 requires that a person must strictly follow all instructions on a label. This will include any instructions about the situations in which the use of the pesticide is permitted; the pest to be controlled by the pesticide; the equipment with which the pesticide can be applied; any restraints or restrictions on the use of the pesticide; safety directions and other human health-related matters; record keeping, training and notification requirements; and protection of the environment, livestock and crops. These instructions are predominantly aimed at protection of health and the environment, property and trade.

A further improvement is clause 15, which provides for a clear offence for a person who breaches a requirement of a National Registration Authority permit. This clause will allow the application of pesticides at a reduced concentration rate or frequency unless the directions on the label explicitly preclude such use. This will bring New South Wales into line with other States and international pesticide management strategies, and make an important contribution to pesticide risk reduction. It is important at this point to stress that while following the label and permit is essential, it is not the only obligation on pesticide users. In addition to the crucial step of following such directions, many other factors need to be taken into account by pesticide users prior to and during an application.

These factors would typically include making sure that the right chemical for the job has been selected; that appropriate equipment is used which is well maintained and calibrated; that information on factors such as nearby sensitive areas or crops, school bus times and possible hazards for spraying is considered prior to spraying; and that conditions are right for spraying, such as wind strength and direction, temperature and humidity, and the likelihood of rain within 24 hours of spraying. It is only by planning and taking into account all the relevant factors surrounding a pesticide application that the risk of harm to persons, property or the environment is minimised.

It is important that pesticides users understand the way the harm offences in clauses 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 that I discussed earlier interact with the label offence in clause 15. It is not possible for label directions to cover all circumstances. Even if pesticide users comply with all the label and permit directions they may still be liable if they cause harm to people, property or non-target animals and non-target plants. Compliance with such directions will not be a defence if these harm offences are breached.

It is important that pesticides are stored in a container that bears the registered label for the pesticide to prevent accidental misuse. There have been incidents when pesticide users have stored pesticide solutions in soft drink bottles. This has led to pesticide poisonings. Clause 16 establishes an offence which aims to prevent the storage of pesticides in unlabelled and unsafe containers, such as soft drink bottles, buckets and other unidentified or household containers. I see this as a very important provision in the bill because it should go some way towards preventing avoidable accidents and injury with toxic pesticides.

For practical reasons, this provision will not apply to the keeping of pesticides in aircraft spray tanks and ground equipment for short periods during or between spray operations. Nor will a person be liable if his pesticide container becomes damaged or leaks and he needs to transfer the pesticide to another container for a very short period. However, within a reasonable time, the person will need to obtain a suitable container for the pesticide and affix the registered label to it. The maximum penalty for the improper storage offence is $10,000 for an individual and $20,000 for a corporation.

Decisions about the application of pesticides on land are often shared between the pesticide applicator, the occupier of the land and a consultant who provides advice and direction on optimal pesticide application. In cases in which there is a clear line of accountability and direct involvement and control by the land occupier or consultant it is appropriate that the occupier or consultant be held liable for any offence that may occur. This is achieved through two mechanisms: common law vicarious liability applies to offences under the bill; and under clause 111 any person who causes or
Page 2355
permits another person to commit an offence is also liable for that offence.

For example, a land-holder or consultant may be liable when there is a failure to provide to an applicator essential information that only he could have known and as a result of not having this information the applicator commits an offence. In addition, if a land-holder provides incorrect information which the applicator was entitled to rely upon, the land-holder may be liable for any offence committed by the applicator. Land-holders may also be held liable if they mislead the applicator or if they pressure or coerce an applicator to do a job in poor conditions.

This proposal does not in any way reduce the responsibility on pesticide users to make their own decisions about whether to spray in a particular situation. They will need to make the usual checks before doing an application to ensure that no off-target impacts occur, such as checking the wind direction and strength, checking that people, stock and susceptible plants and crops are not at risk of being sprayed, and checking that their equipment is appropriate, well maintained and calibrated.

To achieve greater consistency with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, and in response to suggestions made in public submissions, non-monetary penalties will be included in the bill. Under clauses 92 to 101 courts will have new options for requiring those convicted to undertake a recognised training course, carry out an environmental audit of activities, do remediation works, take steps to prevent the offence from recurring, and reimburse a public authority for reasonable costs involved in clean up or remediation associated with a pesticide offence. These types of penalties will not be applied in every case but courts will have the option of imposing them, depending on the facts in the particular case.

Such powers will give the courts greater flexibility in dealing with breaches of the Act so that the most appropriate and environmentally beneficial penalties are imposed. Currently the Act does not give guidance to the courts on matters to consider when imposing a penalty. In some cases low penalties have been imposed for matters involving a serious misuse of pesticides. Courts have tended to place emphasis on a defendant’s good character and prior good record and to focus less on the defendant’s culpability or the extent of harm caused.

Clause 109 provides that in sentencing the court may consider the extent of harm caused as a result of the offence, the practical measures that may have been taken to avoid that harm, the offender’s culpability for the offence and whether the person was following the direction of an employer, whether the harm could have been foreseen and, in the case of corporations, whether it is a family-owned or sole practice business. Currently, prosecution is the only enforcement mechanism available. There is a need for better management of minor offences. The bill introduces penalty notices for offences, which will save time and avoid legal costs; and no criminal conviction is recorded.

Persons aggrieved with being issued a penalty notice may elect to have the matter heard in court. Consistent with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the maximum penalty for a penalty notice for the most serious offences will be $1,500, although lower penalty levels are likely for less serious offences and for individuals. Codes of practice, guidelines and best management practice documents are extremely useful components of the pesticide management system. Typically, they are developed by industry in consultation with the Government and other stakeholders or by the Government with similar collaboration. They set out in detail procedures that users should follow to ensure that their use of pesticides minimises the risks to others. The bill allows for such codes of practice and guidelines to be formally recognised under the legislation.

The aim is to assist industry to adopt best practices in pesticide use which should encourage development of professionalism in pesticide use and a strong sense of industry self-discipline. Compliance with an adopted code will not be mandatory. However, the codes will be a point of reference for the EPA when deciding whether to prosecute. The courts can also take into account compliance with relevant aspects of the code when considering whether the user was negligent and in setting penalties.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority [CASA] endorses aircraft as suitable for aerial pesticide application. Currently, ultralight aircraft are not endorsed by the CASA for aerial pesticide application. The bill, at clause 43, would prohibit attaching spray equipment to aircraft not endorsed for pesticide application. This correctly leaves the CASA with responsibility for determining the suitability of aircraft. The bill will also enable the EPA to direct a person to take clean-up action that will reduce an ongoing risk of harm to health, property, the environment, or trade.

Consider an incident where an urban pest controller applied pesticides in a home for the
Page 2356
treatment of cockroaches and left pesticide dust covering the kitchen benchtops, cooking appliances and utensils. Under the current legislative regime the EPA has no power to give a direction, and the residents may need to vacate the house. The powers provided in this bill will enable the EPA to direct the pest controller to clean up the pesticides so that the house was fit for residents to occupy.

The EPA will also be able to issue a prevention notice to a land occupier in a particular case when pesticide use is likely to pose a threat to human health, property or the environment. For example, the EPA could issue a prevention notice to restrict pesticide spraying where a persistent pattern of poor spraying practices has not been corrected after warnings and advice from the EPA.

An important tool for the management of pesticide issues on a statewide or regional basis is provided by the ability of the EPA to make orders relating to the manner in which pesticides may be applied. An order has been made under this provision that restricts the aerial application of pesticides near homes and public places. The power to make orders does not currently include ground application of pesticides, which is also capable of causing harm. The bill removes this anomaly under clauses 38 and 39.

The consent of the Minister is currently required to make orders for aerial applications and will also be required for orders for ground applications. The maximum penalty for failing to comply with an order or a clean-up or prevention notice will be $60,000 for individuals and $120,000 for corporations. To enable authorised officers to perform their functions safely and effectively, the bill provides them with additional powers. Such powers will bring the inspectorial powers in line with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

A particularly important initiative of the bill is the establishment of a Pesticide Act Implementation Committee. This legislation has been developed in close collaboration with the community and it is intended that key sectors also will be involved in its implementation. The committee will be a forum for key stakeholders to provide the Government with valuable feedback and advice on the implementation of the initiatives in this bill, particularly on regulations, orders and codes of practice developed during the implementation phase.

The committee will have up to 13 members. Community and industry representation may be provided from the following areas: pesticide product supply and management, pest control operators’ practices, environmental impact of pesticide application, the use of pesticides in agriculture, aerial pesticide application practices, catchment management, promoting ecologically sustainable development, and local government.

State government representation may include the Environment Protection Authority, New South Wales Agriculture, WorkCover New South Wales, New South Wales Health and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. To ensure relevant expertise is provided to the committee, other representatives may be invited to provide input on relevant issues as needed. This will allow for input on a needs basis without making the committee an unworkable size.

The bill proposes regulation-making powers in relation to record keeping and training by pesticide users under clause 119. In terms of record keeping, the expectation is that a regulation will be developed which requires that records of pesticide applications are kept by all commercial users of pesticides, including farmers, noxious weed authorities, council sprayers and any other persons using pesticides as part of their business. Record keeping is widely recognised as fundamental to best practice use of pesticides. It is the cornerstone of agricultural quality assurance programs such as Cattlecare, Flockcare and Winecare and is a requirement of major retail chains such as Woolworths.

The intention is to formalise these requirements and extend them across the commercial spraying sector. It is not intended that there will be any obligation on people who use pesticides in their home for domestic purposes, such as weed control in their garden, to keep records. The records would not be onerous for users to keep and would include: the pesticide applied; the time and date of application; the rate of application; the location and area where the pesticide was applied; the name, address and contact details of the person who used the pesticide; and the weather conditions at the time of application.

In terms of training for pesticide users, regulations including training specifications for classes of ground applicators will be developed and implemented. The implementation committee will have a clear role in the formulation of all regulations under the bill during the implementation period. The Government recognises that although there has been extensive consultation on these reforms, it would assist the implementation of the reforms if there were a program to explain the provisions to stakeholders.

Page 2357

The Environment Protection Authority will explain the purpose and effect of these provisions to stakeholders and the commencement of the various parts of the bill will fit in with that program. In conclusion, the effective management of pesticides is an increasingly important issue in urban and rural New South Wales. The Carr Government is committed to providing New South Wales with legislation that will promote the safe and responsible use of pesticides. The introduction of this bill is a significant step in the Government’s reform of pesticide management.

This bill brings forward a balanced approach that modernises outdated offences, provides a mechanism for the input of relevant stakeholders in the pesticides field during the critical implementation phase, and repeals outmoded provisions. It improves efficiency, enhances the tools for ensuring responsible and effective use of pesticides and sends a clear message that landowners must take their share of the responsibility for guiding pesticide application. I am confident that this bill will provide the level of protection that members of the community are seeking for themselves, their families, their crops and livestock and the environment. I look forward to honourable members supporting this most important environmental reform. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr R. H. L. Smith.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

______

DAIRY INDUSTRY DEREGULATION

Mr NEWELL (Tweed) [4.47 p.m.]: On Tuesday last this House debated and agreed to an urgent motion moved by the honourable member for South Coast. The motion recognised the effect of deregulation on the New South Wales dairy industry as being nothing short of devastating. I wish to contribute further to the debate and put on record my support for the motion moved by the honourable member for South Coast. The dairy industry has been a bulwark of consistency in regional New South Wales for more than 20 years.

The stability in the industry made it the keystone of rural economies. The North Coast has benefited greatly from the industry’s productivity and efficiency. Industry servicing and processing are major employers. I am greatly concerned that deregulation of the industry could be considered and spoken about as a fait accompli when it is acknowledged, both within this House and by industry representatives, that as many as one-third of farmers could leave the industry if deregulation is proceeded with. What other industry would allow such a course?

It is not as if the farmers are inefficient. In fact, the contrary is true. Of all the rural industries, milk production is the most efficient converter of renewable resources - grass, water and sunshine - into a saleable food product. The Dairy Market Support Scheme presently in place is due to end on 1 July 2000. Essentially, the scheme, instigated by John Kerin, then Federal primary industries Minister, collects a levy and distributes the money to farmers producing manufactured milk.

All sections of the industry have been aware for a long time that the scheme is about to end. Yet the Federal Government has done nothing or precious little in anticipation of the expiry date. The Federal Liberal and National parties have signed off on a compensation package which is just pathetic. They have not developed any industry plan for the future. The dairy industry is a major segment of our rural industries. It is a major export earner for Australia, yet the Liberal and National parties insist on a hands-off approach - the economic rationalist approach in its purest form.

I cannot understand how the National Party, struggling to retain contact with its constituency, can close its eyes to the devastating impact on rural and regional communities which will come with deregulation cart blanche. The compensation package that the National Party has agreed to is poorly targeted. Compensation received by farmers will be reduced by taxation. John Howard will end up with almost as much of the compensation as will the farmers.

There is an exit plan for which no farmer will qualify. I emphasise that no farmer will qualify. The Senate inquiry into dairy deregulation has warned that "the social and regional impacts will be severe". Yet the Federal National Party is still supporting the national competition policy and deregulation. If State National Party members are fair dinkum in what they say in this House, why are the Feds not dropping deregulation?

Why is the Federal National Party not pushing for or demanding that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] restructure the net benefit test on deregulation? Deregulation beyond the farm gate has brought no benefit to consumers. Obviously the National Party considers
Page 2358
that the benefits of the massive extra profits now going to retailers as a result of this initial deregulation outweigh the losses suffered by consumers. Deregulation at the farm gate similarly will not produce net benefits. National competition policy may work when there are a lot of buyers in the market, but it is a disaster when there are few buyers and many suppliers who are left unprotected as price takers.

The Federal Government must address this inequity and be prepared to act against it in the overall interest of Australians. That applies to any situation, and that is what differentiates the Australian Labor Party from the other side of politics. Those in rural industries have realised that the conservative side of politics will never deliver this to them. An industry plan is essential. Threats by the two Victorian processors to enter the New South Wales whole milk market and their potential to effectively take control should be viewed by the ACCC with alarm rather than used as a vehicle to promote concentration of market dominance.

The plebiscite and poll that are to be taken in Victoria as a result of the election promise by the Labor Government in that State offers some hope to New South Wales farmers. However, with the politics that are occurring in Victoria at present with Bonlac and Murray Goulburn funding a no campaign, one can only hope that the farmers in Victoria will not succumb to that campaign. It is regrettable that Norco, the processor and distributor based in Lismore, has not planned ahead or positioned itself to remain a player in the industry. On my estimation Norco, a household name in New South Wales and Australia, has only 18 months to two years of viability left. I hope I am proved wrong.

COMPULSORY THIRD PARTY INSURANCE PREMIUMS

Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [4.52 p.m.]: I raise a matter of great concern to the people of Baulkham Hills and other residents of New South Wales. It affects Baulkham Hills particularly because the electorate has no public transport and hence many families are obliged to use motor vehicles as a means of transport to and from work and for other journeys. They are concerned about the increasing cost of green slips. Before coming to office and again recently the Government indicated that legislation would be brought before the Parliament to reduce the cost of green slips by up to $100. That has not occurred. For most motorists the average decrease has been $70.

Specific groups of motorists and road users have been faced with an increase in costs rather than a reduction. I refer to those who own commercial vehicles. A number of my constituents have complained that the new legislation will hit the registration of anything other than private vehicles, including four-wheel drive vehicles and utilities. Truck owners will be affected dramatically. Drivers of semitrailers will have to pay $600 more than they were required to pay previously. I received a copy of a letter sent by a constituent named Geoff Hendy to the Premier in which he said:

Dear Mr Carr,

I noted with keen interest, after your re-election as premier, one of your promises was to appoint John Della Bosca to overhaul the greenslip (CTP) policies in this state. You then went to the media and boasted that the job was done. Greenslips would be reduced by a substantial amount, I think the figure of $100 was mentioned.

I own and drive a heavy vehicle (29 tonne GVM) and recently received my CTP renewal, and it has gone up by $60 per quarter or $240 per year. I rang several insurers and was told that only privately owned motor cars with comprehensive insurance and driven by a person over 25 years of age would qualify for this reduction. My truck is comprehensively insured, I have never made a claim on CTP and I am over 25 years old. I am a family man with a house, wife and children. I am a professional driver and have completed the T.E.T.A. driver training course. In other words I am not a "cowboy", not a truckie but a professional driver trying to make a living.

It is obvious by your political rhetoric regarding this issue that this was nothing but a political lie, letting everyone think what a great bloke Bob Carr was until the CTP bills came in.
Later the letter proceeded:

I thought the Labor Party was for the worker, but you have raised the price of greenslips for those who use a vehicle for work.
He said other things, but the significant point is that this man has had an increase of $240 a year in the cost of his green slip. It was a laudable and worthwhile idea to reduce the cost of green slips. Everyone supports that concept, but in reality the public has been disappointed. The reduction of up to $100 has not been forthcoming. On the contrary, those who own trucks or four-wheel drive vehicles have been required to pay more. One of the reasons is that a three-tiered system has been introduced for the calculation of premiums.

Green slips are a problem for commercial drivers but also for young people. In the Baulkham Hills electorate young people are compelled to drive their vehicles because no other form of transport, except private buses, is available. Many of them own cars that were built in the 1970s, the type of car the average student can afford, and must pay
Page 2359
$530 a year for a green slip. That is considerably more than is paid by those who have newer cars.

This matter concerns many residents of the Baulkham Hills electorate, not only commercial drivers who have to pay substantially more than they paid before, principally because of the three-tiered system. This is reflected in increased registration costs for heavy vehicles which fall into the lowest category, as the legislation allows for a range of high-risk third party policies amongst insurers. I ask the Government to revisit the whole issue of green slips.

JURY SERVICE

Mr MOSS (Canterbury - Parliamentary Secretary) [4.57 p.m.]: A constituent, Mr Joe Gardner, approached me and expressed his frustration in regard to jury service. In the latter part of 1998 Mr Gardner was advised by letter of the possibility of his being required for jury service. Being a responsible citizen he resolved to co-operate. He was happy to do so on the assumption that if called once, he would not be called again for at least another year. However, when he was eventually summonsed the company for which Mr Gardner works was undergoing a restructure in which he was involved in no small way. Therefore he applied, with the support of his employer, for an exclusion. That was subsequently granted.

At that time Mr Gardner advised the authorities that the restructure project would be completed at the end of February 1999. The restructure lasted longer than was anticipated and within that time Mr Gardner’s role within his company changed, resulting in his having greater work responsibilities. Within days of the end of February - as if someone had been waiting to pounce on him - Mr Gardner was called up for jury service again. This time his application for exclusion based on work commitments was rejected. He cancelled all appointments and ceased planning other work, only to be instructed eventually, by way of a recorded message, that the panel on which he had been called was not required.

Mr Gardner was summonsed for jury service again in August and was told that the case would be heard in the Supreme Court and could last for four weeks. At that stage Mr Gardner contacted me. Based on the previous run-around he had experienced, I made representations in an endeavour to have him excluded from service. I have learned that a member of Parliament who attempts to contact the Sheriff’s Office to assist a constituent is afforded the same poor service as everyone else. The number I was advised to phone had a recorded message instructing me to phone on the following Monday for information about the panel to which Mr Gardner had been allotted.

I was then obliged to apologise to Mr Gardner and tell him that I was unable to help, as I could not contact anyone directly to discuss the issue, despite phoning during normal office hours. Mr Gardner again had to cancel work commitments, only to be told once more that his services were not required. In early September he was put on notice again, only this time he was instructed to phone on no less than four separate occasions before ultimately being advised that he was not required.

Earlier this month Mr Gardner received another summons to attend for jury duty. Although not chosen again, I believe he will not be called upon for at least 12 months, as on this final occasion he underwent a jury room ballot and selection process. As a result of Mr Gardner’s experience, it is obvious to me that a person can continue to be called upon until he or she either serves or makes it to the jury room selection. Given the number of times my constituent was called, I strongly feel that the jury selection process should be overhauled.

On numerous occasions in less than 12 months Mr Gardner’s career performance was interrupted by his being summonsed for jury service. Whilst I appreciate the need for jurors, it would seem that those who are administering the selection process have no regard for the disruption caused to people in the work force when they are called time and again. As Mr Gardner’s livelihood depends on his work performance, he has assessed a loss of approximately seven weeks of income and associated bonuses.

Furthermore, due to time lost in cancelling and rescheduling work, each occasion on which Mr Gardner was called for jury duty ostensibly amounted to his serving. I suggest that thousands of people may be similarly affected. I suggest that a person should not be summonsed for jury service more than once in a 12-month period, or twice if an exclusion has been granted. Surely that would be possible. Given the population of our State it should not be too difficult to extend the list of eligible jurors, if necessary, to limit the number of times a person may be called. I urge the Attorney General to give this matter serious consideration, as it would seem that the current system is oblivious to the work commitments of those who are called upon to serve as jurors.

Page 2360

COMPULSORY THIRD PARTY INSURANCE PREMIUMS

Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [5.01 p.m.]: I, like my colleague the honourable member for Baulkham Hills, raise the issue of green slips. I understand that when the changes to the accident insurance system were unveiled in this Parliament the Government told motorists that they could expect a substantial reduction in premiums, declaring that the average family would save $100 a year. In fact, the Premier told the media, "It’s not often you get to put $100 in the pockets of families." The Premier was certainly right about that, because insurers have now confirmed that most motorists will get reductions well below the $100 promised by the Premier. Among the many complaints I have received is a letter from Mr J. D. Brackenrig, of J. D Brackenrig Haulage, which reads:

I cannot believe that any government or insurance company can justify the increase of approximately 105% considering there has been a considerable amount of media coverage regarding the reduction in green slip prices.

There is no way I can pass this increase through my pricing structure with regard to such items as fuel which has increased this year by nine cents per litre. I am forced to wear this increase.

This increase on C.T.P. Insurance Policies takes the cost of my C.T.P. Insurance from $4,705.00 to $9,875.00 (on five trucks) leaving me $5,170.00 worse off.
Another constituent sought advice about whether he would be eligible for the publicised $100 reduction in premium. My office approached the company with whom he was insured, the GIO, who advised that as he had made a claim on his car insurance policy last year when he had an accident, his compulsory third party [CTP] insurance would be affected and he would not receive the reduction. Another constituent who approached my office was not pleased when he learned that because the amount varies depending on individual circumstances he may not receive the $100 reduction.

The Government may seek to apportion the blame for increases in green slips, but the reality is that it was happy enough to tell the broader community that, on average, green slips would be $100 cheaper. That smacks of the Olympics ticketing fiasco. Motorists never stood a chance. They went in the raffle and did not receive the $100 prize that was clearly advertised by the Government when the legislation was passed. I am sure all honourable members of this House have received similar complaints about the price of green slips. I call on the Carr Government to address the issue.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury - Parliamentary Secretary) [5.06 p.m.]: This is the second occasion tonight that this issue has been raised during private members’ statements. It was first raised by the honourable member for Baulkham Hills. It is obviously a serious concern for both members. Whilst the Government may - and I emphasise the word "may" - not have intended that the reduction would be passed on to businesses, it certainly did not intend that the cost of any reduction to motorists would be transferred to the business sector.

However, as the honourable member for Lismore and the honourable member for Baulkham Hills rightly pointed out, the business sector - those who handle haulage businesses and drive other forms of trucks - still suffer as a result of increases in green slips. The honourable member for Baulkham Hills read a letter that had already been passed on to the Premier. I trust that the honourable member for Lismore will also pass his representations on to the Premier, and I am sure that they will be taken seriously. This Government does not aim to deliberately increase green slip insurance on any code of motoring.

CENTRAL COAST FIREFIGHTERS BALL

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [5.07 p.m.]: Last Saturday night I attended the Central Coast Firefighters Ball, which was the second such ball to be held in recent times following a suspension of the event for more than a decade. Given the spirit of camaraderie and esprit de corps displayed on the evening, I am sure many more will be held in the future. The ball was reinstituted by Zone Commander Keith King and his staff. Guests included Regional Commander John Anderson and Beverly Anderson; Deputy Regional Commander Bob Lewthwaite and Pam Lewthwaite; and Keith’s partner, Gwenda King.

The occasion was also used to present awards to local firefighters. In particular, Captain Terry Mead, the Station Commander of Wyong Fire Brigade, was presented with the clasp to the National Medal signifying 25 years service to the New South Wales Fire Brigade. I learned on the evening that Terry had not applied for this award, that he had actually served 29 years, and next year will be his 30th year as a firefighter with the New South Wales Fire Brigade. Retained firefighter Kerry Bosley, who recently transferred from Ettalong brigade to Kariong brigade, was presented with his National Medal for 15 years service.

I was pleased that the contributions of the respective spouses were also acknowledged. I have
Page 2361
known Terry and Jenni Mead for 15 years, and I can testify to their contributions to the community. I particularly commend Jenni for her contribution in the home, given that firefighters can be called out at any time of the day or night and their needs are ongoing. Jenni has a job outside the home, and she has looked after the children throughout Terry’s 29 years of service with the fire brigade. I commend also Bernie Cinders and the Hot Butts for the excellent entertainment they provided on the night. It was an impromptu performance, but I understand it will be repeated in the future.

In 1994 the eastern coastline of New South Wales was ravaged by rampant bushfires. The Central Coast was cut off and thousands of people were accommodated at Wyong Racecourse and the Gosford Youth Centre. There was a real threat that the fire would jump the F3 and rage through the ridgeway. The coast was on full alert for a national disaster. I had the opportunity to view the situation from the air, and realised how vulnerable the Central Coast population was to bushfires. I noted also the massive increase in housing and industry. It impressed upon me the need for a huge injection of funds to build up firefighting resources on the Central Coast.

In 1995 I met Ken Ferguson, the then regional commander, who advised that it had been determined that following the upgrading of Sydney’s fire prevention plan, an upgrade of the Central Coast fire prevention plan was the next priority. Since then, coupled with the change of Government and given the leadership of the Minister for Emergency Services, there has been a tidal wave of activity on the Central Coast.

A fire prevention strategy is being developed for the whole of the Central Coast. New equipment, new services, new staff, new buildings are either under way or in the planning or development stage. The coast this week has taken delivery of two ground monitors that are used in major fires to provide large streams of water such as were required at the Walker Bros timber yard fire at north Gosford. That equipment had to be transported from Sydney. The current brigades on the Central Coast are Budgewoi, Ettalong, Gosford, Killarney Vale, Saratoga, Terrigal, The Entrance, Toukley, Woy Woy, Wyong and Wyoming. Up to six new stations are included in the strategic plan, with completion over the next three to four years.

As I said earlier, a whole range of activities are taking place to improve firefighting services on the Central Coast. I pointed out that that improvement was needed. It was needed in the sense that during the 1994 fire the firefighting limitations of the Central Coast were discovered. Also discovered was how important it is to expand those services, because large industrial areas, high schools, primary schools and other community facilities were then under the guardianship of the Bush Fire Brigades. Changes that have occurred over the past 50 years have outstripped all facilities in the area.

My congratulations go to all of the firefighters on the Central Coast, both permanent and retained, and also to our bush fire fighters on their contribution over the past 50 years. They have made a great contribution to our community, and they all deserve the congratulations of the community. The contributions of all of those firefighters are much valued, and I thank them for their continued commitment to service to our community.

CRONULLA OLYMPIC GAMES BUS SERVICE

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [5.12 p.m.]: Some time ago I spoke about the need for transport to the Olympic Games for people in the electorate of Cronulla. On 19 July I wrote to the Chief Executive Officer, Olympic Roads and Transport Authority, as follows:

I am writing to request that the Easter Show bus service and the Olympic bus service from Miranda to Homebush be extended to commence and terminate at Cronulla.

Feedback from my electorate indicates that the Easter Show bus service from Miranda to Homebush has been very popular with commuters during the Easter holiday period.

However, there is a logical need that this service now be extended to Cronulla, being the far eastern boundary of the shire and where a large proportion of the population reside. Cronulla is also the public transport interchange for the outlying areas of Kurnell and Bundeena.

Residents would benefit greatly from the service. Cronulla has a large area for bus bays and extensions of the service that would greatly alleviate the parking and traffic problems presently associated with joining the bus at Miranda.
Might I say that in that regard there was a blast from the past from the Minister for the Olympics, who put out a press release on 25 August 1998 saying:

Olympic ticket holders living as far from Sydney as Scone and Dungog in the north, Bathurst in the west, Goulburn in the south-west, and Nowra in the south will be able to travel free on the public transport system on the day of their event, SOCOG president Mr Knight announced yesterday.

"A ticket to an Olympic event would entitle the holder to use the CityRail network and the Olympic bus network after the event as often as they like after 4.00 a.m. to give them time to celebrate in the city or elsewhere and still take transport home," Mr Knight said.
Page 2362

People living or staying in outer suburban and regional areas will be able to attend Olympic events, then travel free to places like The Rocks and join late-night festivities and travel home for free.

With many tickets to events such as archery to be priced as low as $10, buying an Olympic ticket will be cheaper than buying a rail ticket from the extremes of the CityRail network.
Of course, back in August last year we did not know that Mr Knight was not going to be exactly Robin Hood; that he would be a reverse of Robin, actually taking tickets from the poor to give to the rich. Lately we have heard a lot about Country Labor, but it seems that constituents of the Cronulla electorate live in a different country; they do not seem to enjoy those sorts of benefits. They are entitled to be told where they stand in relation to a bus to the Olympics. As I indicated, this matter also affects Miranda. Once again I draw to the attention of the House my request, and I seek the courtesy of a response to it.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury - Parliamentary Secretary) [5.17 p.m.]: The honourable member for Cronulla seems to be arguing that somehow people in rural areas and in areas further out than Cronulla will be able to get to the Olympics free of charge. He implied that Cronulla constituents will lose out because they do not have an Olympic bus service. However, he failed to point out that there is a CityRail service to Cronulla. Those travelling from Cronulla to the Olympic Games by rail will have a free service. I can appreciate the honourable member wanting a bus service for his constituents as well, and his representations tonight may assist in that regard. However, he should not imply that the good citizens of Cronulla will be worse off than the citizens of areas further out, especially as the people of Cronulla will be able to use the CityRail services to the Olympics free of charge.

Later,

Mr KERR: In view of the remarks of the honourable member for Canterbury, under Standing Order 73 I seek the opportunity to make a brief explanation. In no way was I critical of what was being provided for country people. In my view, it is no more than their right. We are all Australians, and the benefits and rights that are being enjoyed from this Olympic period should be extended to all Australians. As I said, I in no way intended to be critical of what is happening in the country. Country people are doing it tough, and they are likely to do it a lot tougher under this Government.

COMMONWEALTH BANK KIRRAWEE BRANCH CLOSURE

Mr COLLIER (Miranda) [5.18 p.m.]: I wish to update the House on the decision of the Commonwealth Bank to shut down its branch at Kirrawee, a suburb of the Miranda electorate. Kirrawee has only one bank, the Commonwealth Bank. It has been there for 38 years. The Commonwealth Bank has decided to shut the Kirrawee branch on 19 November. One shopkeeper described the bank as the drawcard to the area. Denise of Glens Real Estate said a lot of people go there to do their banking and shopping. She said it is a family shopping centre, and that all the shopkeepers know each other and get on well.

John Dau, owner of the Kirrawee Bakery, said closing the bank will affect his business. He also said, "I don’t know why they are closing it." Steve Samaras of Kirrawee Charcoal Chicken said people come from the factories to the bank at lunchtime and buy food from his shop. "The lunchtime trade will fall," he said. "This is a nice present from the bank just before Christmas!" Bert Thompson from Kirrawee Cellars said, "We need banking facilities here. Often there is a problem with EFTPOS, and we have to go across the road to get bank staff to fix it up." Shelley Eades, the local drycleaner, came to Kirrawee after the closure of the National Bank at Sylvania forced her to move her business. Now she faces the same problem again as the Commonwealth Bank shuts its doors in Kirrawee.

The business people of Kirrawee know the importance of the bank to their shopping centre. We are not talking about fly-by-nighters or footloose businesses. Here we are talking about business people who are well established in a shopping centre - the hairdressing salon, which has been there for 16 years, the pet shop for 11 years, the butcher for 10 years, the mower shop for nine years, and the hot bread shop for six years. I could go on and on. Today, a number of those shopkeepers left their businesses or employed casuals to enable them to attend the Commonwealth Bank annual general meeting at Darling Harbour. They attended with myself and residents of the Kirrawee area. We stood out in the hot sun, because we were not allowed by the large raft of Commonwealth Bank security guards to go into the foyer of the building.

Outside we protested quietly, holding signs such as "Save Our Bank", "Don’t Shut Kirrawee", and "Leave Kirrawee Open". That is how much the people of Kirrawee care about having a bank in their suburb. The Commonwealth Bank says that those people will not be affected by the closure of the Kirrawee branch. But, clearly, the shopkeepers of Kirrawee know otherwise. The bank tells us that the newsagency will provide some service to customers, but it will not provide business banking services to the shopkeepers of Kirrawee, who have been loyal to the bank for so many years. In the words of Cathy Pool, the owner of the florist shop, "Kirrawee will die."

Page 2363

Yesterday I hand delivered a letter to Mr David Murray, Chief Executive Officer of the Commonwealth Bank, requesting a meeting. I trust that Mr Murray will meet with me and the shopkeepers, and not send a less senior officer to explain why the bank is being closed. What about the aged and the elderly? Mr Haworth, from the Healthsense Pharmacy at Kirrawee, said, "A lot of elderly persons use the bank. They have difficulty using ATMs and EFTPOS." Mr Viren Khetia of Kirrawee Pharmacy said, "A lot of elderly people live around here. They have been drawing their pensions here for a very long time."

On Monday I spoke to Doctors Nair and Findlay of Kirrawee. They told me that many elderly patients have attended their surgery very distressed about the closure of the bank. When Mrs Stella Whyburn, aged 87, went to make a deposit, she was shocked to find that her bank was closing down. She said, "It’s disgusting. We are all pensioners where I live and everyone will find it difficult." One senior citizen told a local reporter that she was so disgusted she would close her account and sell her Commonwealth Bank shares. The elderly of Kirrawee keep a large number of title deeds, wills and personal papers at the branch. These seniors are very concerned about the safe custody of their precious documents. One senior asked, "Where will they go?"

The shopkeepers, the elderly and families of Kirrawee are extremely concerned about the effect of the closure on their livelihood and their way of life. The shopkeepers took up a petition and collected 2,206 signatures from their customers in only the past week. That number represents about a quarter of the population of Kirrawee. The petition asks this House, amongst other things, to condemn the bank for closing this branch. I presented that petition to the House today, the same day on which the Commonwealth Bank held its annual general meeting in Sydney. At that meeting shareholders were asked to increase remuneration to the directors and executives of the Commonwealth Bank. That remuneration is linked to profit. Once again, it is profit before people.

RURAL ASSISTANCE

Mr R. W. TURNER (Orange) [5.23 p.m.]: I take the opportunity to talk about a property I visited last weekend some 80 kilometres out of Broken Hill. The property, known as Sturts Meadow Station, is owned by Peter and Mary Bevan. A former Kidman property, it has been farmed continually since the 1800s. The property is comprised of 75,000 hectares, or 180,000 acres, and runs approximately one sheep to 20 acres. I extensively toured this well-run property. The fencing was in A1 condition, there were a considerable amount of ramps, as opposed to gates, and the concrete water troughs were full of fresh, clean water. The houses and shearing sheds were in good order, and the shearers’ quarters were excellent. I slept in the shearers’ quarters overnight and found them to be comfortable.

The property produces about 350 bales of wool per year and has 300 head of cattle. Whilst everything looks good on the surface, the owners do not see any light at the end of the tunnel. Peter and Mary are third-generation farmers, and their son lives on the property with his wife and children. Last year, out of the 350-odd bales, the Bevans grossed $150,000, but their shearing costs were $72,000. Among other costs they had to pay a power connection rebate of $10,600 for the electricity that was connected five or six years ago. Prior to that, the property relied on generators.

The owners do not believe wool prices will improve; they are desperate to learn which way they will go. Some years ago they laughed at the prospect of selling the property and told potential buyers to go away. Now they are seriously considering any offer they get from bodies such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which has been buying properties in the area. Ecotourism is regarded as the salvation of the area.

Last weekend I also visited Sturt National Park, which is on the Queensland border. I talked to a shopkeeper in Tibooburra, which is situated on the edge of the park. He admitted that the Tibooburra township is doing far better from ecotourism than it has for the past 10 or 20 years from the local grazing properties. We have to face up to the fact that these people desperately need assistance. They have been through droughts, floods and fires. However, it seems that wool prices will not improve.

Some properties have transferred to goat herds, and are running them successfully. The transfer involves expensive alterations to fencing and yards. The properties that run goats tend to have off-farm income or are owned by businessmen who live in Adelaide or Sydney. There are very few farmers totally reliant on their properties who are able to afford to sell their sheep and buy goats and to upgrade the fences and yards.

We have to face the fact that soon we may have to assist these farmers out of farming, and perhaps into ecotourism. That industry has enormous
Page 2364
potential, with many tourists from Australia and overseas visiting the area. A considerable number of people from Europe and the United States of America have already toured through the area. With a degree of desperation the local community regards that industry as its salvation. With the mine at Broken Hill closing in five or six years time, it is generally considered that tourism will be the salvation of that great city. If we could combine the attraction of Broken Hill with national parks developed along the same lines as Sturt National Park, we would go a long way towards keeping the bush alive and the people who live there in work.

RICHMOND HIGH SCHOOL PRESENTATION DAY

Mr ANDERSON (Londonderry) [5.26 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of this House a magnificent group of young people, most of whom live within my electorate. On Tuesday 12 October I had the privilege of attending Richmond High School presentation day. On that day, the school presented the Commissioner of Police, Peter Ryan, with a cheque for $35,450, which the school had raised from fundraising activities for Red Nose Day. The school has embraced this charity with a passion. Over the years it has raised considerable amounts of money. This year was certainly its best effort. The sum of $35,450 is a benchmark that will be hard to achieve in the future. However, the school has set a target to improve on that sum.

The activities the school students engaged in were imaginative, not the least of which was the creation of a large red nose in the centre of their playground. They invited students from other schools in the area to join them. With 1,500 children all wearing red, a photograph was taken from an RAAF aircraft. The result was a novel photograph of a large red disc. The school has an outstanding record in many areas. A number of its students have been recognised this year for their excellence in education. Some teachers have been acknowledged, Mrs Pat Pilgrim receiving the Minister’s award for excellence in teaching. That is the sort of environment our young people enter.

The activities of Red Nose Day were organised and participated in by the children. A core group of the 1999 student representative council did most of the organising. Mrs Pat Pilgrim worked with the following students: Andrew George, captain; Cherie Cronshaw, captain; Melinda Williams, vice-captain; Rodney Brennan, vice-captain; Kristy Northen, Nicholas Richardson, Alaina Gorham, Georgina Wheadon, Matthew Vella, Damian Northen and Nicole Kohegyi. They all put in a tremendous amount of effort to ensure that the day’s activities turned into a week’s activities with a sensational outcome.

The school’s unusual assembly hall is a large concrete dome similar to an igloo, the likes of which I have never seen before in any other school. In 1994 the school covered it in red material making it appear to be the largest red nose in Australia, and probably the world. On that occasion they raised a great deal of money. In the past the young people who have taken up this charity as their own personal challenge have raised more than $100,000. It is obvious that the school puts in a tremendous amount of effort.

I congratulate the principal, Mr Ken Gill, and all of the teachers at Richmond High School on participating in the activities and on raising the funds. The school is already planning next year’s activities. It wants them to be bigger and better so that this deserving charity will receive a bigger return. I offer my congratulations to all the people at the school, particularly the students who have done so wonderfully well.

Mr STEWART (Bankstown - Parliamentary Secretary) [5.31 p.m.]: On behalf of the Government I offer my wholehearted congratulations to Richmond High School. The hard work in the community of the students has been acknowledged by the honourable member for Londonderry in his contribution. It is an outstanding achievement in anyone’s books for a school to raise $100,000 during an 11-year period for the sudden infant death syndrome research.

Knowing the difficulties that schools face with their own curriculum needs and day-to-day activities, raising money from an extracurricular activity is particularly commendable. On behalf of the Government I congratulate the principal, Ken Gill, the teachers, staff, and parents. I particularly congratulate the students who have worked so hard towards achieving this goal. The honourable member for Londonderry is an outstanding member who works extremely hard with his local schools to help them succeed in fundraising programs.

COMPULSORY COMPETITIVE TENDERING

Mr MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [5.33 p.m.]: Last week I spoke in this House about the visit of country mayors to this place and about their concerns. The Premier claimed that the mayors were here to have tea and biscuits with him. I said that was not the case, that they were here to complain about competitive tendering. The mayors of
Page 2365
Tamworth, Dubbo and Wagga Wagga have no particular political persuasion but were here to complain loudly about the effects that competitive tendering will have on their councils.

Those councils have now been joined by the Riverina Eastern Region Organisation of Councils [REROC] which includes the councils of Bland, Coolamon, Cootamundra, Culcairn, Gundagai, Holbrook, Junee, Lockhart, Temora, Tumbarumba, Tumut and Urana. They have combined to complain about the effects that competitive tendering will have in their areas. A letter has been sent to me by the Council of the City of Wagga which states:

Dear Sir,

. . .

Council has been advised that it has been fortunate enough to be identified as being eligible for assistance under the Government’s "Small Town Sewage Scheme". Council staff are currently working with officers from the Department of Land and Water Conservation, on the development of a number of village and small town sewer schemes, under this arrangement.

During the process, we have become aware of a Departmental requirement, that any construction work be carried out under "Design and Construct" contacts, with bids being limited to a small number of out of town contractors. Council finds this requirement quite unacceptable as it does not seem likely to result in any cost saving, but will mean the councils and local contractors are excluded from the process and all work will be carried out by out of area, itinerant contractors.

The recent public demonstrations over RTA road funding arrangements give some understanding of the community’s reaction to procurement arrangements, which exclude local council and contractors and which package work in such a way as to favour out of town itinerant contractors.
They are the concerns that are being expressed loudly by rural councils, including the councils in my area. A new report about rural poverty has been mentioned in this House today. The report also raises other rural concerns such as the need for pubs in small regional centres to be licensed so that they can try to hold the fabric of the towns together by providing social meeting places where people can gather. Policies such as the one I have mentioned, compulsory competitive tendering, do not help small regional centres. In fact, according to the letter to which I have referred such policies work against them.

I ask members of the Government who represent rural constituencies to seriously consider trying to effect a change to this policy because the small towns in rural and regional New South Wales will pay the price. Compulsory competitive tendering affects all regional and rural areas and has been spoken about loudly from the back of trucks in the main streets of Wagga Wagga, Tamworth and Dubbo as well as in REROC. Everyone is concerned about the effect of such arrangements. For the benefit of the regions, I ask honourable members on the other side of the House who purport to represent rural New South Wales to stand up and fight to change the policy.

REGIONAL AUSTRALIA SUMMIT

Mr McGRANE (Dubbo) [5.38 p.m.]: This afternoon I commend the Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the National Party and Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, for conducting the Regional Australia Summit which is now taking place in Canberra. Whilst there has been widespread criticism of the invitation list to the summit, many eminent people from all tiers of government, service agencies and the private and rural sectors are participating.

I note that John Anderson has invited as one of the keynote speakers Professor John Allen, Director of the Centre for Rural Community Revitalisation and Development at the University of Nebraska. Nebraska, a rural State in the north-east of the United States of America, previously faced the same problems and outlook as regional Australia. Nebraska has now moved forward and is on the path to recovery. Regional Australia, like Nebraska, has the will to move forward. It has the people, and all it needs is the support of both Federal and State governments working as a team.

I commend the Minister and the Government for conducting the summit, but I do not commend them for its timing. The summit is taking place shortly before another issue of great importance to Australians, the referendum on the republic. The regional summit has been completely overshadowed by debate on the referendum. It is a shame that the summit is not receiving national prominence because it deserves and needs publicity.

Regional Australia is important to all of us. Country Australia, including the food processing industry and transport, creates many jobs in metropolitan areas. For example, 51 per cent of all food processing in New South Wales is located in Sydney. Only the meat industry has been regionalised - and many speakers have referred to the problems associated with that industry. The regional summit should look at assistance packages for the meat industry in regional Australia.

I hope that the summit is not simply another public relations exercise, another talkfest. When the
Page 2366
Federal Government was re-elected last year many things were promised. The then Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Tim Fischer, made big promises in regard to regional development. He promised a super ministry under the stewardship of John Anderson to look after regional Australia and take a prosperous regional Australia into the next century. It has taken the Minister a long time to get the summit happening, and time is paramount.

The Federal Government has lost its way in looking after regional Australia. It is time the Federal Government grasped the nettle. The recent election result in Victoria was unfortunate. The recent loss of an unlosable election by Jeff Kennett has made the Federal Government and other governments in Australia aware of how people react when they do not get a fair go. It has made all governments more proactive. Governments must work in partnership with regional communities to stop the decline and to help the regions develop for the benefit of Australia.

It is not simply a matter of having a wish list that can be presented to Federal and State governments of the day. We should all work as a team because we all need a great regional Australia. The Government has funds available that could be injected into regional New South Wales and regional Australia. It is up to us to ensure that our colleagues in the Federal Government honour their commitments. If the Federal Government is committed to regional Australia the private sector will follow with an influx of money. The creation of jobs is important to the development of regional New South Wales and regional Australia. However, funding will not follow if good infrastructure is not developed.

Mr STEWART (Bankstown - Parliamentary Secretary) [5.43 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Dubbo for expressing concern for and a strong understanding of country people in regional New South Wales who work hard for New South Wales and Australia. The difficulties that these people face with the decline of regional areas have resulted largely because the Federal Government’s emphasis has not been properly focused. I concur with the honourable member’s comments about the national rural summit. Although repeated requests had been made for a summit, particularly by Country Labor members, the important summit taking place now was ill-timed. It is disappointing that Country Labor members could not attend the summit, because the Opposition would not agree to pairs for any divisions.

The emphasis of this important summit is to tackle head-on the problems associated with a decline in regional and country areas. As the honourable member said, a team effort is needed to tackle the problems. We need to co-operate with each other and work towards a common goal. That focus can only be achieved through co-operation. It is disappointing that the Opposition has not shown that co-operation in New South Wales. The Government will focus on and deliver to the people of country and regional New South Wales, as it has done for the past five years. That will be done in consultation with honourable members who represent country areas.

Private members’ statements noted.

House adjourned at 5.45 p.m. until Tuesday 9 November at 2.15 p.m.

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 28 October 1999, Corrected Copy)

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links