LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday, 30th April, 1992
______
The President (The Hon. Max Frederick Willis) took the chair at 10.30 a.m.
The President offered the Prayers.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Order of Business
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.31]: I move:
That questions shall commence at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 5th May, 1992.
By way of explanation, the purpose of the motion is to assist the Chamber with regard to the Coral Sea celebrations.
Motion agreed to.
AIR SAFETY TAX
Matter of Public Interest
The Hon. BERYL EVANS [10.33]: I move:
That the following important matter of public interest should be discussed forthwith:
The effects of the new air safety tax on the air industry, rural industries and country people.
The Federal Government has announced the introduction of a safety tax on all aircraft, due to take effect on 1st July. Commercial aircraft operators already fighting to survive the recession, the past pilots' strike and the earlier imposed landing fees, are fighting for survival. Rural people once again are the ones who will suffer the most from this impost. It is incredible that the Federal Government continually hits at the little people and the disadvantaged. Transport and communication are perhaps two of the most important services for rural Australia. To out-price and overtax air services is a disaster. This proposed levy is to be paid by the holder of the certificate of registration for each registered aircraft. It will be assessed according to whether the registered aircraft is used for private, commercial or agricultural purposes, and will even apply to historic and ex-military aircraft. The Bosch inquiry of 1984 was established specifically to develop a method by which full cost recovery could be implemented without causing irreparable damage to a financially sensitive industry. The inquiry recommended that full cost recovery be introduced over 10 years from 1985. The Federal Government endorsed the recommendations and the industry generally went along with the sensible proposals engineered by Mr Bosch. To quote from the official ministerial release:
At the outset the Government recognises that certain functions to be undertaken by the Civil Aviation Authority should not be charged to the aviation industry, but should be paid for by the Government. Accordingly, the Government agreed to pay the Civil Aviation Authority for the following: the development of safety standards; the monitoring of compliance with safety standards; the maintenance of the capability to undertake search and rescue.
Page 3085
Today we have a situation where the Government has reneged on its commitment, and is using every increase in efficiency, not for the industry, but to fill the coffers of Treasury. The madness of the Government is incredible. This move will very likely force private owners to simply withdraw their aircraft from the flightline. If a thousand or more aircraft are progressively taken off the register and sold, probably overseas, surely the Civil Aviation Authority must realise the consequences of such a scenario. Any withdrawal of commercial operators will aggravate the situation even more. The insidious part of the levy is that it is a straight-out payment in the first year, it is trebled in the second year, and is more than quadrupled in the third year. The operators do not believe that safety regulation costs should be recovered from the aviation industry. The Federal Government is suggesting also that a counter-terrorism response group be included in the safety package. Surely that should be the responsibility of the community as a whole, not just of the aircraft industry. As we look at a fee-for-service, it is well to remember that industry members pay the Civil Aviation Authority for the implementation of standards, with regard to individual requirements such as aircraft worthiness and pilot licensing.
Industry also pays for the cost of en route navigation, terminal air traffic controls and infrastructure costs to the Civil Aviation Corporation, the Federal Airports Corporation, or other airport owners as appropriate. I wish to explain also that the Commonwealth Government clearly accepted in the Civil Aviation Bill 1988 "that costs of standard selling and ensuring compliance with standards be funded from the budget and that the Civil Aviation Authority perform these functions under contract". The so-called safety contract with the Civil Aviation Authority has been variously estimated at about $60 million for 1992-93. But with estimated cost savings and the removal of overheads in subsequent years, costs are expected to reduce to about $45 million by 1994-95. The Federal Government, by reneging on the previous agreement about the safety contract being a public benefit and a charge against the public purse, is asking industry to meet these costs progressively and that payments to the Civil Aviation Authority be terminated. I will have much more to say on this very important matter as it will affect in a devastating way all aircraft services: general aviation, where light aircraft will be classified as being used either for private or for commercial purposes; charter operators; and the larger operators, who will most probably collect the tax from their clients, thus forcing an increase in air fares. The loss of air services to country people would impact on the economy and on tourism, rural industries and employment, to mention just a few. No industry exists alone. The multiplier effect knocks on one door after another. I hope the House will allow me to present more detailed evidence concerning the importance of this motion.
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.42]: I support the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. Beryl Evans. Honourable members will recognise that this so-called aviation safety levy is just another tax imposed on the aviation industry by a government in Canberra which is concerned only about putting more money into its coffers at the expense of the Australian community. The people in this State rely heavily on the use of aircraft for all sorts of purposes - for recreational flying, moving goods and produce, agricultural work and travelling for essential business, medical or family reasons. This new tax will add to the many financial burdens that people already have to contend with. The tax is just another blatant example of Canberra's disregard for country people and the aviation industry. We well know that both groups have been hard hit by the recession. In particular, the rural sector has been upset by a downturn in commodity prices and climatic influences. The aviation industry has been decimated by such events as congestion at Sydney airport, the pilots' dispute of 1989, the Gulf War, higher fuel costs, and continuing price increases in practically all areas.
Page 3086
One of the worst aspects of this impost is not just that it is a new tax on top of all other charges but that the Federal Government is reneging on its earlier promises. When Canberra was considering setting up the Civil Aviation Authority in the mid-1980s it appointed Mr Henry Bosch to lead an independent inquiry into costs attributed to the aviation industry and to cost-recovery measures. The 1985 Bosch report considered that the industry should meet some of the costs, and this was accepted. Aircraft owners and those flying the airways pay their way. They pay aircraft registration fees, which cover costs of certification; they pay for their various licences and the costs involved; and they pay for the use of navigation facilities, air traffic control and aerodromes. However, a component of aviation industry regulation is concerned with the setting of standards and seeing to their enforcement. This area of work is at the very core of a safe industry. It provides and oversees the rules to govern safe operations.
In 1985 Henry Bosch clearly saw this as an area of government responsibility, to be free of industry influence. He recommended that this was clearly a public benefit and that the costs involved should be met from the budget. Canberra accepted this concept. In 1988, when the Civil Aviation Authority was set up, industry was informed that the Government would provide necessary funding for standards-setting and enforcement. Now, only four years later, all of that has been thrown away. Canberra is disregarding its expert advice and is now consumed in money grabbing. Ironically, the smaller people will be the hardest hit - the very people that the Federal Labor Government says it is looking after. Small commercial aircraft operators have been singled out in a discriminatory way. The operator of a small, six-seat to eight-seat aeroplane will have to pay about an extra $6,000 a year by 1995. That is a completely new charge. These people are the backbone of the aviation industry in this State. They provide small passenger services, fly people on charter, carry freight, provide joy flights and engage in a large range of air activities for business enterprises.
Times are hard for these people. At present many of them barely make a profit. Their whole enterprise has been based on the high costs of owning and operating aircraft. They have had to cope with increasing Civil Aviation Authority and airport costs in other areas being thrust on them by the Federal Government. Their business plans have been finely tuned to minimum levels of profit in this competitive environment. To have an extra $6,000 a aircraft each year dumped on them is unbearable. Many small operators will not survive. In the present environment they could not pass on the costs. The larger and more regular operators are also hard hit. Charges to them are even higher, but often their higher frequency operations with greater passenger loads will allow them to spread the costs. Nevertheless, costs will have to be passed on to travellers and we will all have to pay more for our tickets. This aviation safety levy is being imposed at a time when that sector of the industry is trying to regroup and become more efficient. How disheartening these extra charges must be for it.
I understand that some time ago the Federal Government said that there would be consultation with the industry about this levy. That promise appears not to have been lived up to in the spirit which those concerned might have expected. It appears that Canberra has been telling the industry that the charges will be applied progressively, whether they like it or not. Industry has had discussions with Canberra only in that context. Consultation, as we all understand it, should be more open and wide-ranging to canvass all the issues involved. There have been no meaningful discussions about the principle involved or the need for the charges to be raised by a discriminatory tax: nor has any interest been shown by the Federal Government in possible alternatives. Are we then to assume that Canberra is the sole repository of all wisdom in this country, or that it can completely ignore the views of a large section of the community? If these
Page 3087
regulatory activities were no longer seen as a public benefit to be funded from the budget, it would have been sensible for other revenue sources to have been explored and to more equitably spread the costs among all users. As it is, a passenger on a typical air commuter route in New South Wales will have to pay an extra tax component, measured in dollars, for every flight he or she undertakes. Passengers on main interstate routes will have to pay considerably less than a dollar. Those flying on charter services or engaging aircraft for other forms of air work will have to pay considerably more per capita.
A more sensible approach to meeting these costs would have been for Canberra, in the public interest, to have continued to fund these costs from its budget. After all, we are dealing with air safety - an area which none of us wants to see compromised. It is ridiculous for the industry and for aircraft and service providers to be paying directly for their own safety oversight. Sensibly, the industry should be kept at arm's-length from that sort of involvement. Undoubtedly there are better solutions to meeting these funding needs other than those now being proposed by Canberra. Several years ago the Federal Government called for an independent report. There is no reason now to go against those expert recommendations and what was accepted then. The Federal Government should not meddle in issues such as safety in a vitally important industry without again ensuring an independent and public inquiry into this matter. Only in this way can a fair solution be found. I support the motion.
Motion agreed to.
The Hon. BERYL EVANS [10.49]: Once upon a time aviation in Australia was so important that the Government fostered its development. Aircraft opened up this continent and the infrastructure catered for commerce and defence alike. The Government was grateful and publicly supported the industry. The Hawke Government, followed by the Keating Government, has continually sniped at industry. We have now reached a stage where this latest Federal Government tax will almost completely destroy the private aircraft industry and commercial charter services. Let me outline some background to these new moves by the Federal Government. In 1984 the Federal Government commissioned Mr Henry Bosch to lead an independent inquiry to examine and report on the costs attributed to the Australian aviation industry. The Bosch report recommendations were accepted and implemented by the Government in 1985. Basically, every expense was passed on to the industry except for safety regulations and search and rescue. These, according to Bosch, provide a community benefit. In 1990 the Federal Government chose to ignore these recommendations as Senator Collins, Minister for Shipping and Aviation Support, announced that the aviation regulatory service provided by the Civil Aviation Authority would be progressively cost recovered from 1st November, 1991, and that the government safety contract would be phased out over three years.
In April 1991 the Minister announced that the first phase of the withdrawal of the Government's safety contract payment to the Civil Aviation Authority would take effect from the beginning of 1992-93 and that, with the exception of search and rescue costs, the Civil Aviation Authority would be required to recover the full cost of safety regulation directly from the aviation industry from the beginning of 1994-95. The Minister subsequently delayed the start date for the phasing out of the safety contract for 12 months, not through government generosity, but because of unresolved legal implications on the introduction of a tax to replace the safety contract. It is now planned to table the Aviation Safety Levy Bill during the autumn sittings of Parliament for resolution before the next financial year. Let me explain what that means. The Civil
Page 3088
Aviation Authority, as a result of the ministerial direction, has developed options by which it could recover the cost of the safety regulation services. This is planned at the rate of $10 million for 1992-93, $30 million for 1993-94 and $45 million for 1994-95. There is to be a system of a flat fee per aircraft for some aircraft categories and a maximum take-off weight and related formula for other categories.
The proposed criteria for determining the aviation safety levy are: for private aircraft it will be a $175 flat rate fee; for agricultural aircraft it will be $350 for non-Avtur and $650 for Avtur; for commercial aircraft up to one tonne it will be a $450 flat rate fee per aircraft; for commercial aircraft over one tonne and under 20 tonnes it will be $450 for the first tonne and $606 for every additional tonne; for commercial aircraft over 20 tonnes it is a calculation of $2,730 multiplied by the square root of the take-off rate minus one. Even commercial balloons and gliders will be charged a $100 flat rate fee per craft. Typical per annum costs for the following selected commercial aircraft in 1992-93 are: for a jumbo jet $54,163.22; for an Airbus $34,152.28; for a Fokker 28 $15,469.73; for a Bandeirante $3,298.20, and for a Chieftain $1,630.48. These charges would more than quadrupled by the third year. This is a completely new tax. There are no offsets. The general aviation industry is in recession and this is a bad time to suffer new charges. The first payment is due on 1st July, 1992, for a full year. There appear to be no pro rata provisions for someone operating commercially for a shorter period. Furthermore, figures have been shown for only the first year.
There is the potential for costs to rise by a factor of three in the financial year 1993-94 and by four in the financial year 1994-95 and in subsequent years. This will depend on the actual cost of safety regulation services provided by the Civil Aviation Authority and on any new formula yet to be determined. Further problems are created by the fact that there is no detailed breakdown of annual costs for safety regulation, nor have all recipients been identified as to who would be eligible for safety regulation services. In developing a tax structure, the Civil Aviation Authority has not worked on the basis of ability to pay but has been attempting to match the tax with the task by structuring the tax so that it bears a reasonable relationship to the regulatory costs of the major sectors of the industry. The reaction from the industry is a complete rejection. First, it maintains "that safety regulation costs should not be transferred to the aviation industry which should not, therefore, be required to pay the proposed tax in 1992-93 or in future years"; second, "that the various sections should not pay more than their fair share of the cost of safety regulation".
It is difficult to understand why this Federal Labor Government continually keeps knocking the aircraft industry and services to this country. Australia has such a large expanse of land that air travel is the quickest and most logical form of transport, particularly for people who live in remote areas. It was the same Federal aviation Minister, Senator Bob Collins, who introduced peak period charges for all aircraft landing at Mascot airport. It is a flat across-the-board landing rate for all aircraft, which on economies of scale affects short-route and small aircraft to a much greater extent than the large aircraft on long routes. Senator Collins said that these fees are one of a range of options being examined for easing traffic congestion. The means to ease congestion at Mascot is simply a third runway. I am not really sure where we are with that development, given that since 1969, eight studies have been conducted. That is, one study every two and a half years. The result of those studies is that the need for a second Sydney airport has been identified. I am still waiting to see some concrete laid for that airport. The Federal Government conveniently forgets how many country people it needs to service. I must remind it that the count exceeds 1.5 million people.
Page 3089
One very telling factor which I have no doubt encourages the Government to apply new taxes is the 1988 figures. There were 211,725 total aircraft movements at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, carrying about 11.2 million passengers, which generated an estimated airline revenue of $4,200 million, which goes directly to the Federal Government. New South Wales subsidises other airports and other things throughout the country. The Australian Owner Pilots Association is so incensed by the reneging on the safety contract and the means by which the industry is continually being ripped off that it is urging its 11,000 plus members not to pay the tax. The logistics of this non-payment is that invoices will be issued to aircraft owners during September. There will then be a three-month moratorium while owners finally decide in which category their lighties, if I might call them that, are to be classified. If payment in full is not received by December, proceedings to eventually deregister the aircraft will be activated. As the aircraft owners say, if, for instance, several thousand light aircraft were deregistered, almost simultaneously, where would this leave the Government on the eve of a crucial election? The May 1992 issue of the publication Australian Aviation said:
This Government has taken every single opportunity to suck more and more money from an industry that is currently fighting for survival.
It has taken in every way possible, using every hard won efficiency from both the Civil Aviation Authority and the Federal Airports Corporation to reap more and more revenue for its own purposes at the expense of those who generate that revenue in the first place. Australian aviation thinks that it is high time that the Government became accountable for its continual greed.
In the past 24 hours I have spoken with a number of concerned people. Australian Airlines, Ansett and Qantas have sent a deputation to Minister Collins, putting very plainly to him their objections to this tax. Yesterday a questionnaire was sent out to regional airline operators asking for constructive criticism of this proposed levy and suggestions on how the costs may be recovered. The following are some of the suggestions: first, most people in the community benefit from aviation safety legislation, either directly or indirectly. The levy should not be aimed at only aircraft owners. Second, Australian aviation is getting less but paying more. Third, anyone can make a profit running a monopoly - and I say this in relation to the Civil Aviation Authority. Fourth, safety regulation is already paid from the Federal Government fuel levy. Fifth, the Federal Government should use excess CAA profit and its taxes to pay for safety regulation. Sixth, the CAA should have an elected board of directors drawn from industry and, seventh, the proposed tax is regressive and will force many aircraft owners who currently charter or lease their aircraft to revert to private use only. Aviation took decades and dollars to build to its present level. Australia can no longer waste this resource at a crucial stage of our development just to balance the books in the short term.
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.1]: The Hon. Beryl Evans has raised as a matter of public interest the imminent changes to Federal legislation which will make the air transport industry fully responsible for the cost of safety regulation. I understand that legislation may be introduced into the Federal Parliament as early as next Wednesday. The urgency of this matter is underlined by the failure of the Federal Government to consult with the industry before the bill was tabled. This Federal bill is a direct rejection of the earlier promises of the Federal Government that safety regulation was a public responsibility to be properly funded from taxpayer revenue. Indeed, each year there was a budget allocation to fund the setting and enforcement of safety standards by the Civil Aviation Authority. This followed from the Government's own report, in 1984, which concluded that the costs associated with the setting and enforcement standards for
Page 3090
regulatory services should not be recovered from the industry itself. The bill will impose that budget allocation on the air transport industry and the Hon. Beryl Evans has competently addressed the consequences in New South Wales. However, these inequitable safety changes must also be seen in the context of other changes being made by the Federal Government. There has been a series of often unco-ordinated changes to the air transport industry over the past five years.
To fully understand how this latest imposition is the final penalty that will ground the aviation industry I shall look at some of the major changes. First, the Federal Government set up two independent business enterprises to control aviation. The Federal Airports Corporation began operations in 1988, while the Civil Aviation Authority commenced six months later. Suddenly the industry was paying bills to these two bodies that did not have to consider the overall impact of their new pricing regimes. An early change was that a levy was placed on aviation gasoline to fund some of the operations of the Civil Aviation Authority. This was done because the authority found it impossible to work out a way to charge a large section of the rural general aviation industry for services. The CAA admits that the levy is a blunt instrument but says that no other option was available. Curiously, the Civil Aviation Authority Act forbids any taxing mechanism such as a levy, so it is collected through the Department of Transport and Communications. The tacit admission of this scheme is that the Federal Government is unable to introduce a user-pays regime because it does not know who the users are. This is the identical dilemma facing the Federal Government in bringing in safety tax. A blunderbuss approach will penalise the whole industry simply to balance the Federal books. Part of this fuel levy tax was siphoned off to fund rural airports. The Federal aerodrome local ownership plan - known as ALOP - has been in operation since 1958 with the essential feature that the airport owner, usually local government, is eligible for 50-50 financial assistance from the Commonwealth for both maintenance and approved development. Most airports in rural New South Wales were part of the ALOP scheme. Cudal, Belmont and Maitland are the only airports with scheduled air services that are privately owned.
Regardless of the tax, the Federal Government in 1989 announced its intention to withdraw from ALOP over five years. Past capital investment will be written off but no further development funds will be available. The shires and councils that already own the local airports are being "invited" to take over full responsibility. In instances where the Commonwealth retains temporary ownership, it also will cease its system of uniform charges and begin full recovery of operating costs for each airport with a "reasonable" upper limit. The introduction of higher "location specific charges" is intended as an incentive for local government to take over the airport. Airport closure will be the inevitable outcome if the preceding steps are unsuccessful. This would be a disaster for rural communities. The long-term consequence of the end of the aerodrome local ownership plan is likely to be that many airports deteriorate because revenue will not be able to support maintenance programs. Either that or other local community projects will inevitably be compromised. ALOP was progressively being wound down by withdrawing Federal funding for rural airports by 1994-95. Negotiations were continuing between airport owners and the Commonwealth when the Federal Government announced in the one nation statement of 26th February that the ALOP withdrawal would be accelerated so that all transfers would occur by 1992-93. That allows only 14 months for local government to budget for airport maintenance and development. This is extremely difficult in the current economic downturn.
Page 3091
Despite the early end to the Federal program, the revenue projections provided by Prime Minister Keating at the time suggest that the Federal Government will continue to collect the aviation fuel levy for a period after the termination of the program. The Premier has also written to the Prime Minister to present the view that the aviation fuel levy should be phased out. Prime Minister Hawke responded that the levy would be phased out when practicable. It is noteworthy that the Commonwealth pursues conflicting pricing policies for its own profitable business concern, the Federal Airports Corporation, and for the aerodrome local ownership plan. In the case of its statutory authority, the Federal Government condones a universal pricing policy across the 23 capital city airports. This means that charges at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport are too high because they are needed to subsidise loss-making airports in other States. In contrast, the withdrawal of the Commonwealth from rural airport funding includes provision for location specific charges. These are designed to fully recoup costs at individual airports. Whereas it is acceptable for the Federal Government to rob Peter to pay Pauline, it denies the same collective courtesy to local government. An airport provides a foundation for the local community's economy to develop and diversify. The fact that population and employment levels are the two most common determinants of air passenger demand reflects the importance of airport development to the local community. This economic welfare at a regional level contributes to the development of the State. This will remain true as the economy recovers from depressed rural commodity prices and the economic recession.
Coincident with the business cycle, there is a fundamental shift from primary to tertiary industry in some regions of the State. This is most apparent in the influence that tourism growth, diversification of education institutions and demographic changes are having on air transport. Although an airport is a community resource, its worth is only realised as a component of a network. Justification for an airport may therefore come more from the need to be part of the system than the use they individually receive. This is proven in times of natural disaster where a local airport is an essential and effective link in the emergency services system. For example, each year the New South Wales Air Ambulance Service averages more than 3,500 landings at rural airports. The citizens of Nyngan were dependent on the ferry flights into the town during the disastrous floods. Local airports are thus an integral part of the demographic distribution of services. Yet the Federal changes to the funding arrangements suggest that the profits of the capital city airports it owns are more important.
There is no better example of this than the sorry saga of surcharges at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Peak period charges at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport were initially proposed in March 1989 as part of the Federal Government's decision to proceed with the third runway. But the combined opposition by the State Government and rural groups forced the Federal Government to delay the proposal. Regardless, peak period charges for scheduled passenger services were introduced on lst January, 1991. The Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads, the Minister for Transport and the Air Transport Council have consistently opposed peak period charges as unnecessary at the present level of demand and while alternative capacity enhancement measures are available. In July 1991 the Federal Airports Corporation conducted a review of the first three months' trial period. It was astonishing that the Federal Airports Corporation could conduct a review of peak period pricing and never mention the revenue it was making. Imagine a bank manager who did not mention the payments on a loan.
Not surprisingly, the Federal Airports Corporation was satisfied that peak period pricing was a good thing. Subsequently the Minister for Aviation endorsed the report, despite the objections of the State Government, some airlines and many rural
Page 3092
communities. The Federal Airports Corporation charges adversely affect demand for intrastate air services. Where the increases in ticket prices do not turn away passengers the disruption to convenient flight times does. This impact is likely to worsen with any extension of the peak period surcharge. Amazingly, the Industry Commission has now suggested that the Federal Airports Corporation extend the charges to include additional hours either side of the peak periods. The intrastate air transport industry cannot survive such avarice and complicity among the Federal agencies. Even without the extended hours, Aeropelican Airlines noted a passenger drop of 11 per cent because of schedule changes. Hazelton Airlines partly blames the charges for reductions in service to some airports. Yanda Airlines reports that patronage has fallen where flights were consolidated. Eastern Australia Airlines has noted a shift in travel patterns despite wasted capacity in the peak hours.
It must be concluded that peak period pricing is a revenue raising exercise disguised as demand management. Ironically the Federal Airports Corporation has demonstrated that the aim of peak period pricing has not been achieved: delays in the morning peak have not been reduced in spite of the suppression of aircraft movements in that hour. The State Government will continue to oppose peak period charges while there is no alternative airport for rural air services in the Sydney basin. The third runway will be the saviour of the intrastate industry, provided the airlines and charter operators can survive that long. Since it was elected in 1988 the Government has championed the runway and is gratified that the Federal Cabinet finally saw the wisdom of the State position - as gratified as the residents of the currently noise affected properties east and west of the airport. Importantly, in the environmental impact statement new noise data showed that the number of people seriously affected by noise to the north of the airport would actually be 20,500, rather than the larger figure given in the original forecasts. For comparison, the combination of the third runway and quieter aircraft in the long-term 2011 scenario will be roughly equivalent to the impact of the heavy traffic experienced during the bicentennial year.
The stance of the State Government was endorsed by an attitudinal survey conducted to assess claims made in the submissions related to the environmental impact statement. That survey found that 57 per cent of the 1,200 respondents were in favour of the third runway; of the respondents who will be noise affected, 47 per cent still favoured the project. I have no doubt that a similar survey in country regions would find 100 per cent in favour of the third runway. The State Government's stance has been an important component of the bid for the 2000 olympics. Sydney can now legitimately claim that its airport is undergoing a transformation. New runways, terminals, equipment and procedures will ensure that Sydney airport will remain a first-rate international facility at the turn of the century. At least in this goal both the Federal Government and the New South Wales Government are committed to the pre-eminence of Sydney as the main port of entry into Australia. Sydney airport will remain the base for Qantas, and that airline alone plans to triple its fleet over the next 20 years. Therefore, it is with great interest that New South Wales observes the current changes to the competitive market announced in the one nation statement. The proposal to combine the Australian and New Zealand markets must be considered together with the privatisation of Qantas.
The State Government will be most concerned to ensure that Sydney remains host to a dynamic major international airline. The track record of the Federal Government in bleeding its commercial enterprises suggests that the State will need to be as diligent as the aviation industry in opposing the safety tax when it comes to the sell-off of Qantas. In the context of all these initiatives and changes the safety tax is supposed to be a final transformation introduced by the Civil Aviation Authority. A common
Page 3093
theme of the various changes over the past five years is that responsibility, and possibly liability, is being transferred from the Commonwealth to the air transport industry. This includes local government as owners of rural airports. However Federal changes are being made without any apparent cross-reference to their combined effects on the industry. Further, there is no consideration for the fact that the savings to the Civil Aviation Authority will be cancelled out by additional costs to the industry. For example, the Civil Aviation Authority is reviewing air traffic control tower services at Albury, Coffs Harbour, Tamworth and Wagga Wagga. The Civil Aviation Authority clearly wishes to limit tower services at country airports. The level of service at Tamworth is proposed to be reduced. Coffs Harbour is likely to have reduced hours of operation. Reports on Albury and Wagga Wagga are yet to be completed.
I have reservations about seemingly rational decisions by the Federal Government based on supposed gains over a limited period which would appear to be less than the life of the investment. Further, the Federal Government does not address the psychological factor that an existing tower may add to safety consciousness of pilots. Tamworth has been chosen by Ansett-British Aerospace as the location for its flying training college to serve the South-east Asian market. The State Government has supported Tamworth City Council to establish the flying college. That college must have air traffic control to be a credible training facility for airline pilots in the fastest growth aviation market in the world. Both of these centres are a focus of industry development by the State Government, while the Federal Government seems to be working in the opposite direction. The long-term aim of the Civil Aviation Authority seems to be the transfer of responsibility for air traffic control tower services to the airport owner. Local government would be reluctant to assume such specialist functions within its services and certainly local government would be loath to take on financial responsibility to the benefit of the Civil Aviation Authority budget. New South Wales is concerned also about the impact of the combined effect of the air space changes suggested under the air space management and air traffic services proposal. The changes announced by the Civil Aviation Authority to air space management outside radar coverage involved a large area of low level air space and many aerodromes served by scheduled air services. [Time expired.]
The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [11.16]: And it came to pass the bureaucrats sat down in Canberra and they said: "From 1st July let us have a new tax, let us ensure that the private commercial operators pay, pay and then pay again. Let us see how we can maximise the charge; $45 million would indeed be a nice round figure. Let us aim for that". "To hell with the industry in the country", say the power brokers in Canberra; "Don't worry about the former intentions, proposals and promises; let us see is we can destroy the aviation industry in New South Wales; let us see if we can inconvenience the country industries, business and people and let us see how quickly we can do it". This proposed tax might well just achieve that aim, whether it be in respect of our international carrier, Qantas, or a major competitor - one of many - United or others which bring tourists, business people and others to see Australia, to work here and assist our industry and who wish to transfer to the local and domestic carriers, whether it be the largest of our domestic carriers, Ansett, or one of the smaller ones such as Yanda. The extra costs that will be incurred under this proposal will make country travel and travel within Australia and New Zealand just that much more expensive. It is expensive right now. Even private owners will have to pay a great deal more. I should like particularly to refer to Yanda, which was mentioned by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Yanda happens to be the airline that I choose to use. It is not a very big airline; it has four what I would describe as middle-aged Piper Chieftain aircraft, which are 9-seater twin engined planes which can carry ten people if one person occupies the right-hand seat. They fly in and out of small airports, a number of them unsealed, and supply a regular commuter service to many people in outback New South Wales.
Page 3094
The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Bang Bang Airlines.
The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: Indeed it is affectionately known as Bang Bang Airlines. Without those services, those who travel on that airline would be denied their ability to travel, to move supplies in and out and would be greatly disadvantaged in comparison with the rest of the people living in urbanised areas. Already we have the impost of landing costs in peak times of $200. That may be very well if it were scheduled into a large airline, but for a small airline it has a dramatic effect on the cost of an each-way ticket. The results have led to the rescheduling and reduction of services in an attempt to contain costs for country people. I hope that the threat to move the commuter airlines to Bankstown has been satisfactorily put to bed and will not return. If it does, it will effectively in one stroke wipe out the commercial commuter airlines in New South Wales.
This safety tax impost will make marginal commercial operators extremely marginal. Many airlines are only now getting back to where they were before the air pilots' strike. In my own area, commuter airlines are used by country people to fly in experts in the power generation and mining industries. Recently the Director General of Nedo flew to Australia from Japan, translated to a commuter airline to fly to the Hunter Valley and was able to fly out of the Hunter Valley that afternoon. If that service were not available these businessmen might not make visits to the area. Country areas must have the facility to bring in experts who can set up new machines, repair large draglines or transport a part urgently needed. That is paramount to employment in the mining and electricity generating industries. Time is of the essence. Commuter airlines enable tourists to partake of what is on offer in many country areas throughout New South Wales. The commuter airline industry will assist in the setting up of the new equine centre in Scone and will facilitate the speedy transport of horses. People will be able to attend both the proposed TAFE college and the new track and training facilities, which were encouraged by the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith.
The tax will affect the ability of commuter airlines to service the State's needs. The number of people employed in the commuter airlines is often ignored - pilots, staff who service the airports, who maintain the airport, the surrounds, and council staff. Many small country towns will be dramatically affected if the commuter airlines close down, taking away the jobs generated by the industry. A train is available but the ability to travel in half to three quarters of an hour, rather than the four to five hours it would take by train or the six to eight hours is would take by road, is paramount. Many people did not realise that the peak hour landing tax was responsible for the recent closure of many commuter airlines. The tax impacts on the cost of travel and has forced many airlines to close down their services to outback New South Wales. The lack of air services to outback New South Wales continues to affect business. The peak hour landing tax on my chosen airline, which flies a Navajo Piper Chieftain, starts off at $1,670 in the first year, doubles to $3,340 in the second year and will be in excess of $5,000 in the third year. That tax may push a small airline over the edge and into bankruptcy. It is not possible to continue to milk the small airlines.
If the Federal Government is serious about decentralisation, it should acknowledge that industries set up in country areas that have a regular commercial service and a good sealed airstrip to enable them to fly in people who can deal with engine overhauls and private plane maintenance, as well as to attract regular agricultural service industries such as air pasture, sowing and deliver supplies necessary to run farms efficiently. This is all part and parcel of the country airline industry. Why are the Federal bureaucrats and Federal Government intent on penalising the people of rural New
Page 3095
South Wales? How serious is the Federal Government in attempting to destroy the commercial commuter airline industry? Does the Australian Labor Party pay lip-service to decentralisation?
Is this new air safety tax nothing more than a grubby, money grabbing exercise to boost consolidated revenue? It will be totally deleterious to commuter airlines not only in New South Wales but also in other States. It will affect country tourism because people will not be able to move in and out of tourist areas quickly. Country industry that needs to have its parts and dispatch its commercial products urgently, whether agricultural produce, flowers, fruit or vegetables, will be seriously disadvantaged. There is no doubt that members of the Federal Australian Labor Party and their so-called colleagues in this State could not give a damn about rural New South Wales. They obviously consider country people as second-class citizens and country industries as unimportant. So much for the much lauded decentralisation. [Time expired.]
The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.26]: I speak to the matter of public importance entitled "The New Air Safety Tax". I believe the imposition of this tax, as from 1st July, to be dangerous, economically and socially, to New South Wales. It is prejudicial to the rural industries of New South Wales; it is prejudicial to the tourist industry of New South Wales; it is prejudicial to small business in New South Wales; and it is prejudicial to the decentralisation movement, in which I believe. The Country Manufacturers Association, with which I have a notable rapport built during the establishment of the Australian Labor Party's attempts last year to save payroll tax concessions for country manufacturers who were overlooked and ignored by the coalition Government, is speechless. Transport and communications keep New South Wales going.
I base my remarks fairly and squarely on the State of New South Wales. I exclude from them international flight movements. We have in this State the Air Transport Act 1964, amended several times to be now the Air Transport Act 1964 reprinted as at 13th October, 1987. The Act, an Australian Labor Party initiative, prohibits in certain circumstances the carriage by aircraft of passengers or goods from one place to another within New South Wales, except under the authority of a licence granted by the Minister for Transport, amended the State Transport Co-ordination Act 1931, the Air Navigation Act 1938 and the Transport Act 1930; and had purposes connected therewith. Of course, and unfortunately, our State's legislation is always subject to legislation to the contrary passed by the Federal Parliament. The idea of this bill, which was a Labor Party initiative, was to protect the consumer. By laying down the conditions to be abided by when a person applied to fly, it sought adequate insurance of aircraft pilots and passengers who travelled in this State. It introduced a licensing system so that the operator rather than the aircraft was licensed. Of course, the State had no control over the registration of aircraft; that was a Federal matter. In the years I have been a member here I have often thought, when reading of problems in the intrastate industry, that the State of New South Wales should exercise the muscle that that legislation provides. Unfortunately the legislation dealing with the matter introduced by the Hon. Beryl Evans falls to the ground because the Federal Government has the last say.
But I am having my say today. I have told the Federal Government what I think of this tax. The Federal Minister who has supported me in my shadow portfolio responsibilities has been left in no doubt by me about what we think in New South Wales. I have never believed so much in States' rights - I certainly did not a few years ago - as I do with this matter. I know from the 18 years that I had a mulga block in the
Page 3096
southwest of Queensland - I have discussed this matter with the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith many a time - how intrastate carriers have fought not just against fire and flood but against every conceivable area of bureaucracy one could imagine. One cannot travel 700 miles from Brisbane efficiently without flying. Of course we all know that it is cheaper to fly to Paris than it is to fly to Bourke on a per kilometre basis. That is another story and one day someone will do something about it. I am outraged by this proposal. No one in New South Wales would want air transport safety jeopardised in any way. I am suggesting that the Federal Government should look at this State's Air Transport Act and allow us do the licensing. If the Federal Government remains adamant on this matter, let it find some alternative funding arrangement.
The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH [11.32]: I extend my congratulations to the Hon. Beryl Evans for raising this matter of public interest, that is, the effect of the new air safety tax on the aircraft industry, rural industries and country people. I was delighted to hear the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. B. H. Vaughan. I am sure they reflect the attitude of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales. I request that he pass on those remarks, together with remarks already made and those to be made, to his colleagues in Canberra so that they will understand fully and appreciate that this is a bipartisan approach and that we are all concerned about this insidious tax. Once again we are witnessing an attack by the Federal Labor Government on country people. The proposed new air safety tax will have a marked bearing on general aviation, particularly country services. General aviation and commuter services are already heavily burdened with charges, such as landing fees and departure fees so far as Sydney airport is concerned, and this new tax - to be known as the air safety tax - will place further burdens on those services. The effects of the tax will flow on, resulting in fewer services, fewer aircraft, and disadvantages for country people.
In order to fully understand the situation it is necessary to examine the historical background to the tax. Following the 1990 budget decision that the aviation industry specifically pay the cost of safety regulation, the Federal Government asked the Civil Aviation Authority to develop a system for recovering this cost. Legal factors have required that this be achieved by the taxation structure rather than by levying charges on a fee-for-service basis. At the Civil Aviation Authority-industry consultation meeting on 19th April, 1991, the Minister announced the first phase of the withdrawal of the government safety contract. Payment to the Civil Aviation Authority will take effect from the beginning of the 1992-93 financial year and, with the exception of search and rescue costs, the Civil Aviation Authority will be required to recover directly from the aviation industry the full cost of safety regulation from the beginning of 1994-95. Since late 1990 the Civil Aviation Authority has been developing options for the structure of the cost recovery system and has been consulting industry on these options. Some of the options considered include weight-related registration fees, weight and distance-related levies, fuel excise, negotiated annual fees and so on.
In developing a tax structure the Civil Aviation Authority has not worked on the basis of ability to pay but has been attempting to match the tax with the task by structuring it so that it bears a reasonable relationship to the regulatory costs of the major sectors of the industry. Costs for safety regulation have not previously been recovered directly from the industry and the traditional categorisation by the Civil Aviation Authority of industry for safety regulation purposes does not always allow a simple taxing system. For example, maintenance organisations have not been approved in a way that allows them to be categorised objectively for taxing purposes. Late in 1991 and following representations from various industry interests, the Civil Aviation Authority set up a joint working party with industry to identify and develop for consideration by
Page 3097
industry options for the future structure of the safety tax. After an initial look at improving the structure for 1992, which is to be reviewed before the end of the year, the working party is focusing on options for the longer term structure of safety regulation cost recovery. The working party has no decision-making role. Its function is to assist the Civil Aviation Authority to develop and table for consultation with the aviation industry options for recovering safety regulation costs in the future. All sectors of the industry have objected to the Government's decision and two primary concerns expressed to the Civil Aviation Authority are:
(1) Safety regulation costs should not be transferred to the aviation industry which should not therefore be required to pay the proposed tax in 1992-93 or in future years; and
(2) The various sectors should not pay more than their fair share of the cost of safety regulation.
The proposed levy is to be paid by the holder of the certificate of registration for each registered aircraft, assessed according to whether the registered aircraft is used for private, commercial or agricultural purposes. The rate of levy now proposed is calculated to raise $10 million in 1992-93. Earlier proposals envisaged a levy requirement for 1992-93 of $15 million, but partly because of further cost cutting within the Civil Aviation Authority the funding requirement is now reduced. For private aircraft a flat levy of $175 per aircraft is to be payable, irrespective of weight. For agricultural aircraft a flat levy is payable in respect of aircraft used primarily for agricultural purposes, at the rate of $650 per Avtur aircraft - that is, jet fuelled aircraft - and at $350 per non-Avtur aircraft. This is horrific. Here we are talking about agricultural aircraft and about the importance of agriculture to this State, yet agricultural aircraft are being slugged with this huge impost. For commercial aircraft a levy of $450 will apply for aircraft of up to one tonne maximum takeoff weight. Commercial aircraft above that weight, up to and including 20 tonnes, will pay a levy calculated on the basis of $450 for the first tonne plus $605 for each additional tonne. It can be seen that the aircraft that will be taxed most will be smaller, general aviation aircraft and commuter aircraft. With effect from 1st January, 1991, the landing fees for aircraft of all descriptions were increased severely.
During the peak period of Monday to Friday, between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. and between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m., a fee of $250 per landing is charged in addition to the basic weight-related charge and departure fee of $250. Those fees apply to regular public transport aircraft operating scheduled airline services. The effect of these charges was well summed up in an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday this week in which it was reported that air operators are threatening to boycott the new tax. Indeed, some 11,000 operators claim they are being blatantly ripped off by the Federal Government and say the new tax will send hundreds of them to the wall. It is the smaller aircraft that will suffer, certainly not the larger ones. Already services to country areas have been curtailed, and with the imposition of this new tax it is certain that services will be further curtailed, thus affecting the movement of people to and from country areas. The coalition has always worked strongly for decentralisation of people in industry. If we are to ensure that this policy is adhered to and further enlarged, we need all the support we can possibly get from the Federal Government.
Last Sunday when the Premiers met in Melbourne they discussed the question of finances, and every State agreed that if we are to maintain services to people, not only in the city but in the country, we will have to receive more money from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth bends over backwards to increase taxes at the very expense of country people particularly. This new tax will have to be passed on to
Page 3098
commuters. Already air fares in country areas are at a ridiculously high level, as has been discussed this morning, and this tax will make the situation even worse. No one knows exactly what will happen with this tax, whether it will double in the next year, or treble in the year after, or even go higher. It will only be to the detriment of country people. Its effect on rural industries will be quite marked as stated by the Hon. J. H. Jobling.
Before this inquiry was held, the Federal Government bore the cost at anything up to $74 million of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation and maintenance organisations. The Government has now reneged on this. Other forms of transport do not have to bear this safety tax. Road transport, rail transport and marine transport do not. As I said earlier, the cost for general aviation and commuter aircraft to land in Sydney is prohibitive and many of the general aviation aircraft now use Bankstown. I call upon the Federal Government to review this matter, to immediately cancel this tax and to retain the present system. By doing that the Government would be showing its genuine concern for country people. [Time expired.]
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.42]: I support this matter of public interest. The moves by the Commonwealth Government to force aircraft operators to pay the new air safety tax is the latest instalment in its cost recovery program and its crippling of general aviation in Australia. It is interesting that this matter of public interest has been moved by a member of the Liberal Party, the Party which at Federal level will be asked by my Federal colleague, Senator Janet Powell, to join with the Democrats in opposing the bill introducing these charges when it comes before the Senate. The bill, which I may say nobody has yet seen, as it has not yet been introduced into the House of Representatives, will take the principle of user-pays to a ridiculous extreme. The cost of the Civil Aviation Authority's safety procedures, the setting of safety standards and their enforcement, which used to be met by the Government, will now be foisted on the industry.
The Democrats believe that air safety is the responsibility of the Government; that all people benefit from it and to make aircraft operators pay it would be highly discriminatory. In order to understand the unjust nature of this tax it is necessary to look at the history of general aviation in Australia and also to examine the Federal Government's cost recovery program. First we must recognise that the aviation industry is highly diverse. There are not only large commercial airlines but also smaller domestic airlines and light aircraft operators. Not all of them require the same safety facilities. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots' Association has often pointed out that the Department of Civil Aviation is an oversized bureaucracy. There are 11,000 aircraft operators in Australia but only a small percentage, about 10 per cent, have any regular operational requirement for the services of the Department of Aviation. Most of the operations of the majority of light aircraft are conducted away from major airports and a large proportion of general aviation is conducted outside the range of the Department of Aviation radar and radio coverage.
During the past decade the Federal Government has sought to impose the cost of the aviation bureaucracy on the industry it is supposed to service. In doing so, it implicitly suggests that there is little public benefit in aviation. Peter Patroni, President of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots' Association, put it neatly when addressing an Aviation Law Association Conference in 1986. He said, "If air commerce is not of value to the Australian community then the Federal Government has no reason to continue as a major element in it". I would say that because air safety has benefit for the wider community,
Page 3099
the Government should be involved in it and should not treat it as if it were a private affair. The 1984 Bosch report on Aviation Cost Recovery did not accept that there was great public benefit in aviation, but since then the Government has gone beyond the recommendations of the Bosch report in imposing taxes and charges on the aviation industry. The Government has imposed a 17 per cent increase in air navigation charges and aircraft registration fees. Bosch recommended a reduction. The Government moved to a position of over-recovery of air navigation charges in one year. Bosch recommended a gradual phasing-in over a period of eight to 10 years. The Government failed to reduce the size and cost of the Department of Aviation. Bosch recommended substantial reductions. The Government substantially increased fuel excise tax outside the Bosch recommendations.
It is not the large airlines but the small operators - particularly rural industries and country people - that suffer from the imposition of these charges. Our country airlines are vital to people living in rural New South Wales. Once again country people are being slugged by the ALP in Canberra. It is also unfair that most of the services being provided at great expense are not required by 85 per cent of the aircraft operating in Australia. Indeed the air space, air traffic control system was primarily designed to accommodate the needs and desires of the airlines - the segment with the fewest number of planes. It was not designed to accommodate the needs of general aviation. There seems to be a mistaken belief that only the wealthy are involved in and the users of general aviation. This is not true, particularly if we bear in mind the number of country people already suffering from the recession. The whole thrust of the commercial aviation industry at the moment is to provide low cost air travel. Unfortunately this price war is only helping holidaymakers. It is very cheap now to fly to Cairns or to Ayers Rock. There are no cheap commuter flights from Sydney to Wagga Wagga, Sydney to Nowra, Sydney to Dubbo, or to major country centres in New South Wales. The proposed charges will make these flights even more expensive.
I support the motion moved by the Hon. Beryl Evans, and I was glad that it was supported on behalf of the Opposition by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and also by a member of the National Party, the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith. I hope that they will all be lobbying their Federal colleagues and the Opposition federally to support the Australia Democrats in the Senate. My colleagues have informed me that they intend to take a very strong line on this bill and I hope that this will not prove to be another occasion when the coalition in opposition rattles its sabre, figuratively, but then meekly votes with the Government. Country New South Wales will not forgive it if it does that with this measure. I hope that the bill will be defeated when it comes before the Senate and that coalition members in the Senate will heed the very good advice given by members of their parties in this Parliament today.
The Hon. R. T. M. BULL [11.50]: It gives me pleasure to support the matter of public interest proposed by the Hon. Beryl Evans, and I congratulate her for having recently raised various important matters of public interest. I am sure all honourable members appreciate the work she does in researching them and the background material she provides us so that we may better understand their importance. The Federal Government has decided to impose another tax. Perhaps this has occurred because of the avaricious nature of Federal departments which are milking money from one sector of the economy or another. On this occasion it happens to be the aviation industry. I endorse the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and other honourable members about the impact that this tax will have on small air commuter services in New South Wales. There is no doubt that from time to time all honourable members have had to use those services. Sometimes we need country members such as the Hon. Beryl Evans to draw to the attention of the House the importance of these operators to the future of country New South Wales.
Page 3100
Some time ago - in the period that Barrie Unsworth was Premier - I recall listening to the then Minister for Transport addressing the House. I am sure he regretted his comments as soon as he made them. In answer to a question from a member of the Opposition regarding airline services and opportunities available to small commuter airlines to use Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, he said, "This Government is not concerned with piddling little air services at places like Lake Cargelligo". I have to admit that I was responsible for drawing this matter to the attention of the honourable member for Murrumbidgee at that time, who conveyed it to the people in his area. Honourable members would appreciate that it did not go over very well. From time to time Federal and State governments make decisions with scant regard for the impact they will have on smaller country air services. I have no doubt that larger airline operators will suffer this extra cost. The impact on commuters and users should be reasonably minimal. But small country commuter aircraft such as those that operate from many country areas, for example the Navajo services to which the Hon. J. H. Jobling referred, will be affected.
An article in Tuesday's Sydney Morning Herald reports on the plight of Fly Australia Charters, which operates from Bankstown aerodrome. What sort of impact will the imposition of this levy have on the charter industry? I am sure that from time to time every honourable member has had an opportunity to use the charter services available at Bankstown to reach some remote part of New South Wales. It is expected that operators will be charged approximately $1,600 in the first year and up to $5,000 in the third year. Obviously, a lot of operators will go to the wall. Many of them will decide that it is not worth running their aircraft as they will not make any money. New South Wales will lose those services. I would like to comment briefly on the impact that this tax will have on tourism. Tourism, one of the growth areas not only in New South Wales but also in other States, relies largely upon the use of aircraft to transport tourists to far distant areas of Australia - some of the best areas that tourists wish to visit. There is no doubt that this tax will be passed on to potential customers in the form of higher air fares. This will result in fewer people travelling and diminishing tourist revenue.
Australia is looking to become a prime tourist attraction both for domestic and international travellers. However, the aviation safety levy will help to kill that off. People will not journey the long distances that are made attractive only through plane travel. If the Federal Government goes ahead with this tax, it will go a long way towards decreasing the tourist dollar. This initiative will also kill off small aviation business where demand is elastic. We must be responsive to changes in price and demand. If the Federal Government imposes this tax there will be fewer travellers. Aviation business will be affected, as will all businesses involved in tourism. In these times of economic hardship, any small increase in prices will mean the postponement or cancellation of a trip. People cannot and will not pay higher costs or higher air fares. Unfortunately, this is another Federal tax which will produce further hardship for small business. We have come to expect this total disregard by the Federal Government for small business in this country. The Labor Party has been consistent in discriminating against small businesses and in lessening their chances of survival.
After perusing some of the information that has been provided to me it is obvious that the Aviation Safety Levy Bill will be introduced in Canberra next week or some time in the near future. That legislation has not been well thought through. The Civil Aviation Authority has not been able to provide industry with a detailed breakdown of its annual cost of safety regulation. The identification of that cost is essential to ensure that the correct expenditure is attributed to safety regulation services and that there is no cross-subsidisation. I do not know how industry can go along with a Federal Government
Page 3101
proposal which has not been properly costed. The Civil Aviation Authority is not making available the exact costs which industry will be paying. Previous speakers in this debate referred to the Bosch report. Clearly, the Federal Government has reneged on agreements with the industry which were made after the Bosch report. The Bosch report recommended:
. . . regulatory costs should continue to be separated from other costs, that costs associated with setting and enforcing standards for regulatory services should not be recovered, and where practicable, the Department of Aviation should devolve responsibility for regulatory services to the private sector. In addition, the report recommended that the Department, in consultation with industry, should construct a plan to attain full cost recovery of regulatory services, other than those associated with setting and enforcing standards, within ten years.
There is no doubt in my mind that the issue of public safety is a matter of public interest. It should be evident to all honourable members that the public would be best served if the Government retained control over costs. These costs affect all members of the community. It is hard to sustain the proposition that they should be shared by all small commuter and charter operators. All State members of Parliament should lobby their Federal colleagues on this issue. I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby for their perception in this matter. This issue - one about which we should all be concerned - will probably involve honourable members crossing party lines. Honourable members interested in decentralisation and the future of country towns, the population and New South Wales outside Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong should be very much opposed to the proposal, which will have an impact on the aviation industry. [Time expired.]
The PRESIDENT: Order! Pursuant to sessional orders, business is interrupted for the taking of questions.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
BIGGA ROAD
The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy, representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads. Was the Minister present at the grand opening of the newly sealed Bigga Road on 28th March? In what capacity was he present? Is Bigga Road the main access road to the properties of the Minister and the Hon. D. J. Gay? Did the road sealing program cost between $3 million and $4 million? Is the Minister aware that residents of nearby Taralga and Oberon are still seeking upgrading of their road, which appears to have been neglected by the State Government?
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: What an extraordinary question from the honourable member. It just shows how little she and other members opposite know about country New South Wales. I shall go through the various parts of her question seriatim. The answer to her first question - was I present at the opening of the Bigga Road - is yes. I was present not only in my capacity as a local resident but also in my capacity as a Minister. I was delighted to be there because I was present not only for the opening of the newly sealed section of the Bigga Road, but also to unveil and open a lookout named in memory of my late father. I was very pleased to be there, yes. I donated the land on which the lookout is situated. I want to make that clear to this House. The Bigga Road, however, provides access for me and a lot of other people as well.
Page 3102
The Hon. Franca Arena: I see.
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The honourable member does not see, because she has never been there. Until she goes there, she should not be so stupid. The Bigga Road provides access not only for me, but for hundreds of other people who live in the Bigga district. They also want to travel from Crookwell, through Bigga, to Reids Flat, Cowra and other places. It does not, however, provide access to the property of the Hon. D. J. Gay, because he does not live anywhere near Bigga. That just shows how bad the honourable member's information is. I received a message that someone from the Labor Party was sniffing around at the Crookwell Shire Council. Therefore, it is no surprise to me that the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann asked this question. I am not sure what she is implying by her question other than trying to make a bit of mischief.
The Hon. Franca Arena: Roads for the boys.
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The honourable member should just hang on and I shall explain it to her. Her ignorance in this matter will become manifest in a very short time. Honourable members should be aware that the Bigga Road is a rural local road. As such, it is maintained by the Crookwell Shire Council. Road funds for construction of that road did not come from the State Government. So far as I am aware, not one cent of State Government money has been spent on the Bigga Road.
The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Some of it has.
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I shall let the honourable member elaborate on that at a later time. I can tell her that the bicentennial funds and the local roads construction funds that were spent on the road were Federal funds.
The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Not all of them.
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I am not aware of any State funds that were involved, but I shall inquire into that. The truth is that those funds were allocated to the Bigga Road by the Crookwell Shire Council, not by the New South Wales Minister for Roads. I completely support the decision made by the Crookwell Shire Council. If the honourable member had done a bit of research, she would have found that I was a member of the Crookwell Shire Council that made the decision to spend the money on the road.
The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Did the Minister declare his interest?
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I did declare my interest. When I was on the Crookwell Shire Council I announced that I lived on the road and I thought it would be a good idea to seal it. I can assure the honourable member that so far as my having any influence whatever on the allocation of funds to the road since I have been a member of Parliament and a Minister, the answer, of course, is no. I turn to the other roads the honourable member spoke of. She talked about Taralga Road and the road to Oberon. The Minister for Health and Community Services knows about that because his mother lives at Taralga. Under the previous Labor Government not one red cent was spent on Main Road 248, which is the road that goes from Taralga, through Crookwell, to Boorowa. I remember that a former colleague of the mob opposite, the Hon. Norm King, after he had had a very long dinner one night, cast numerous insults upon a lot of people who lived on that road. He said that while ever the Labor Government was in office, no money would ever be spent on that road. I am delighted to say that, thanks
Page 3103
to the representations of the Hon. D. J. Gay, the honourable member for Burrinjuck, the honourable member for Monaro and me, two significant 3 x 3 grants were allocated to Main Road 248, between Crookwell and Bigga. I can inform honourable members also that the people in that area are very grateful. Main Road 256 is another road on which not a red cent was spent by this lot opposite when they were in office. I am delighted to say that under the 3 x 3 program $140,000 was spent on that road.
The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: $140,000! What about $4 million?
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: What about the nothing, which is what you lot spent in 11 years? Let us get real about it. The honourable member would not even know where Taralga is. Oh, she does know where Taralga is. I know she knows where Taralga is. It is all dropping into place now. I am not sure what the honourable member was trying achieve by her question other than being mischievous. Not only has she got it wrong; she has got it horribly wrong. The truth is that while they were in government it spent as little as it could possibly spend in the country. Most Labor Party members would not know where they were going in the country. I know that the Hon. Judith Walker has moved to Ballina. The Government is delighted she is still a member of this House in preference to the former member for Camden, who might take her place. The truth is that this lot opposite would not have a clue about the country, never cared about the country when the Australian Labor Party was in office, and God help the country if they ever get back into office again.
BIGGA ROAD
The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: I ask the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy a supplementary question. Will he now undertake to spend money upgrading and sealing Main Road 256 to Oberon?
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The upgrading and sealing of Main Road 256 from Taralga to Oberon is, of course, a priority of the Mulwaree Shire Council and the Oberon Shire Council. When the next 3 x 3 program moneys are allocated I hope there will be some money available for that road. I shall pass on the strong representations for sealing Main Road 256 made by the honourable member to my colleague the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads. In the unlikely event that the Australian Labor Party gets back into office, I hope the honourable member will continue her vociferous remarks. I hope, though, that the road is sealed long before that happens.
ARMENIAN STUDIES
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs. Given the substantial population of Armenians living in New South Wales, will the Minister advise the House whether Armenian will be offered as subject in the higher school certificate?
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the Hon. Patricia Forsythe for her interest in language studies in New South Wales schools in particular in those representing significant community languages in New South Wales and Australia which might not currently be part of the broad and rich offerings in language studies.
The Hon. Franca Arena: The Armenians have three schools of their own.
Page 3104
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I am somewhat startled and disappointed at the derogatory and dismissive tones of the interjections by the Hon. Franca Arena, given her public purported interest in the area of multicultural education.
The Hon. Franca Arena: On a point of order. I am personally offended by the remarks of the Minister, who said that I used derogatory terms regarding the Armenian schools. I never said such a thing. I have the greatest esteem for the Armenian community.
The PRESIDENT: Order! If the honourable member takes offence at the remarks of the Minister, she should specify the words that she finds offensive. If she wishes to make a personal explanation she should do that at the appropriate time.
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Following significant representations from people in the Armenian community, actively supported by my friend and colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, the Board of Studies has determined that next year the Armenian language will be offered as a subject for study for our higher school certificate. As a result the Board of Studies is actively involved in the preparation of a appropriate syllabus which will be available next year in our schools as a 2-unit course of study for year 11. Therefore, the initial examination will be held in 1994. This matter may not be as important in other states of Australia. However, New South Wales has recognised its importance to the approximately 24,000 identified people of Armenian background living in Australia, more than two-thirds of whom live in Sydney. Those who have connections and friends within the Armenian community will be aware that those living in Sydney are fairly concentrated in particular areas of Sydney. It is my expectation that a number of schools on Sydney's lower and upper North Shore would welcome the opportunity to offer Armenian as a 2-unit course of study for the New South Wales higher school certificate. I thank the Hon. Patricia Forsythe for her important question and congratulate her on actively pursuing this matter, culminating in this timely success for the Armenian community.
ANTI-RACISM
The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I ask the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs a question without notice. The anti-racism policy statement which the Minister launched recently states clearly that the director-general will allocate resources to regions and schools for the implementation of the policy. Will the Minister detail to the House the nature of the allocation made for the implementation of such anti-racism policy in the various regions?
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I am pleased that the Hon. Franca Arena has seen fit to recognise the importance and relevance of our anti-racism policy, particularly as it is a cohesive and strong policy statement representing a first in education in New South Wales. The honourable member must be bitterly disappointed that, despite her active involvement in the New South Wales Labor Party and her work on the Education Commission and in ethnic affairs, she was unable to persuade the Labor Party to develop such a policy during its 11 years of government. It must be a bitter pill for her to swallow that the coalition Government has developed such a strong and highly regarded policy. It is true that resources will be allocated and this is a matter of great importance in the implementation of the policy. I assure the honourable member that the tardy behaviour of the former Labor Government in implementing and following through on policy is certainly not demonstrated in the coalition Government.
Page 3105
CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask a question without notice of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot hear the honourable member's question because of conversation taking place across the Chamber.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Is it a fact that the Federal Government has introduced legislation to restrict the operations of contractors and subcontractors, particularly in the building industry? What negative impact would this anti-contractor, anti-small business legislation have on the economy and employment situation in New South Wales?
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: It is obvious that this is an important and valuable question. It comes as no surprise to all honourable members that the Labor Party, both federally and at State level, is preoccupied with protecting its union mates. The question asked yesterday by the Hon. A. B. Manson is a clear indication of the preoccupation with union privilege that has bedevilled our society. The Labor Party could not give a damn about those people who create the national wealth, which is spread around for the benefit of the community. I shall pass the honourable member's question on to the responsible Minister who will give a more detailed answer in the near future.
ABORIGINAL TEACHERS
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs. Will the Minister inform the House about initiatives to increase employment opportunities for Aborigines in New South Wales schools?
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the honourable member for his question and his continued interest in education in New South Wales. I am pleased to have the opportunity to inform the House that the number of Aboriginal teachers working in New South Wales schools has increased by 35 per cent since 1991. This year the department is employing 90 Aboriginal teachers in State high schools and, I am pleased to announce, an Aboriginal principal in one school, as well as more than 160 Aboriginal education assistants. Those figures show that major improvements have been made under this Government in the representation of Aboriginal people in the teaching profession. It is my hope and expectation that this growth will continue. The introduction of local selection on merit - which is bitterly opposed by members opposite - will mean that more Aboriginal teachers are likely to win promotions positions than occurred under the old seniority dominated structure. The Government is committed also to increasing the participation rate of young Aboriginal people in continuing education and training programs. Our Aboriginal education plan covers a wide range of initiatives for that purpose and this year has a budget of $8.4 million. That is a remarkable commitment in these difficult times. It is important to compare the amount invested in this area by the Government with the allocation of $5.4 million in 1988-89.
We are actively involved in encouraging initiatives in Aboriginal education and teacher training. Recently I approved the opening of a department-run Aboriginal pre-school in Broken Hill to increase access to pre-school education for Aboriginal children
Page 3106
in that city. That pre-school and four others that will shortly join it will increase employment opportunities for Aboriginal early childhood teachers and childcare workers, as well as give pre-school opportunities for Aboriginal children. Several other initiatives are in place to increase the number of Aboriginal staff employed in the Department of School Education. Over the next 12 months the department will have in place a fully co-ordinated Aboriginal employment strategy to further facilitate Aboriginal representation on staff, especially informations positions. Our anti-racism policy, mentioned earlier in question time, we hope will increase the level of integration, the degree of job satisfaction, employment and promotion of Aboriginal teachers in our schools and across the department.
ADVANCED SKILLS TEACHERS
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I address my question without notice to the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs. I refer to my question asked on 25th March relating to the allocation of advanced skills teacher positions and the discrepancies between the number of positions allocated and the number of eligible teachers in various clusters in country areas of New South Wales, which question the Minister has not yet answered. Similar problems have arisen in clusters in the metropolitan west region, and other regions I have no doubt. Has the Government's allocation of positions been designed deliberately to ensure that the positions cannot be filled by eligible teachers, thus saving the Government millions of dollars? Why are teachers not eligible for transfers to fill advanced skills teacher positions?
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I am surprised and horrified at what must be the machinations of mind of the honourable member, to even imagine that I, or my department, would be reluctant to fulfil our obligation in the area of the appointment of advanced skills teachers. Nothing could be further from my mind. I know that the development of guidelines and receipt of applications to ensure that the best is done in the appointment of advanced skills teachers are to the forefront of those working in personnel areas in the central office, the State office in Sydney and, more importantly, in our regional offices, as responsibility for school renewal devolves responsibility down to regions. The honourable member does not seem to be able to get herself out of this sense of the conspiracy theory about the Department of School Education. Though it may well be that with her background in the Teachers Federation and having in mind the nature of the Department of School Education many years ago there is some justification for her being in a time warp that causes her mind to develop these conspiracy theories totally, perhaps she would be well advised to cast that background and cultural mindset from her, now that she is a member of Parliament. If she were to realise that times have changed, perhaps she would undergo a cultural change. I remind her that this is a matter of importance to the department and to me, and that fairness will, of course, prevail.
ADVANCED SKILLS TEACHERS
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I ask the Minister a supplementary question. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain the rationale for the department's policy that where there are advanced skills teacher vacancies and fewer teachers are eligible in the cluster the positions cannot be filled under the rules.
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I wish the honourable member would take my well-meaning advice to heart and stop thinking that there is some tardiness or a conspiracy theory involved. The reality is that advanced skills teacher means precisely that: advanced skills teacher. It may surprise the honourable member that some areas -
Page 3107
admittedly they are very limited because the overwhelming majority of advanced skills teacher positions have been advertised and there has been a good response - such as small rural communities and outer metropolitan regions, as the honourable member would know, are traditionally areas where the teachers might be first year or second year college graduates, less experienced people. Does the honourable member seriously suggest that somebody in the first year out of teaching college should be considered as an advanced skills teacher? Surely she does not suggest that.
HOMEFUND
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I ask the Minister for Health and Community Services, representing the Minister for Housing, a question without notice. Is HomeFund charging borrowers more than $2.5 million a year in excess repayments? Is it a fact that there is a 10-day gap between borrowers making repayments and the consequent reduction in what they owe? Is it a fact also that borrowers are forced to pay more than 27 per cent of their income in repayments, in spite of the existence of a ceiling? What action will the Minister be taking to rectify the situation?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The question asked by the honourable member has been the subject of newspaper reports for some days and has been properly addressed by the Minister for Housing. HomeFund has been doing outstanding work in New South Wales in providing assistance for those who need access to finance to enable them to get homes. The basis upon which HomeFund operates is by the payment of a guaranteed level of salaries. It is not related to interest rates but rather to a percentage of the borrowers' salaries. That percentage is not being exceeded. The program is working through a whole range of funding providers. The way the system works is that extensive consultations are available between borrowers and those funding providers to make certain that the level of payments borrowers are obliged to make under their mortgages does not exceed that guaranteed limit. We are aware that in some circumstances some funds have made advances which were outside the guidelines and those are the subject of investigation, in some cases investigations by the police authorities. Those particular cases are being addressed. As to the amount of excess payments to which the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby referred, I am not able to give an answer about that or the 10-day gap, but I will get the answers to her later. I am able to inform the honourable member that HomeFund is not operating improperly. It is providing a proper level of support and assistance to those who are in need. Where people are experiencing financial difficulties protocols are available to ensure that those difficulties are able to be overcome. Mechanisms which have been drawn upon by a large number of people, are available, to obtain mortgage relief. Their circumstances are being fully addressed.
If the honourable member is aware of any particular circumstances which are causing her concern, I would be pleased if they could be drawn to the Government's attention. Those cases could be immediately examined and addressed. In the community at the moment many are experiencing significant hardship as a result of the economic conditions, but I am assured that the way in which HomeFund is operating is to address the needs of particular people who are in hardship. For those who become unemployed, the fund is geared to the level of income that is being received and the mortgage has to be reviewed accordingly. Notwithstanding that relief, and whatever else can be done, some HomeFund borrowers - a couple do come to mind - were in such necessitous circumstances, through their other borrowings outside the HomeFund scheme and overdrawing of accounts everywhere, that their overall financial position had forced them to dispose of their homes. But that is not a matter that relates to the administration of HomeFund. Their circumstances arose because they had overextended themselves generally from other borrowings. Unfortunately the only asset they had was their home and their assets had to be realised in order to meet their other expenses.
Page 3108
SUBSTITUTE CARE
The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health and Community Services. Can the Minister confirm that steps are being taken to implement the Usher report to reform the provision of substitute care for young people in New South Wales?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I thank the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith for this question because she has shown a considerable interest in this particular matter, which has been of interest to all members of the House. The question does allow me the opportunity to bring to the House once more the Usher report and to remind members of the significance of that report and of the Government's commitment to reform in the area of substitute care. Honourable members will recall that the report identified some major conflicts of interest in the provision of substitute care in New South Wales, primarily on the basis that the Department of Community Services is a major provider of the service. I have given a commitment to the House that this conflict will be addressed and resolved. However, I am the first to acknowledge that the task of assessment, consultation and implementation of the report's 53 recommendations is one of great complexity that will require an extraordinary range of skills. I am therefore delighted to announce that I have established a committee to pursue the practical implementation of the Usher report.
Owing to the nature of substitute care, its role in both the private and the government sectors, its interaction with other government agencies and bodies and, of course, the myriad demands and needs of the children themselves, a committee structure is the most appropriate way to deliver the broad band of experience that is required, yet remain focused on the important task - to implement the report and pursue meaningful change. The committee will include Jan Shier, the director of care and protection in the department and Ken Buttrum, assistant general manager of the southern division of the department. Other members of the committee will be the chairperson of the association of children's welfare agencies, Brother Gerald Burns and the chairman of the Usher report, Father John Usher of Centacare. Also to be appointed to the committee is Rod Feltham, a representative of the Health and Related Employees Union, the nominee of the Labor Council of New South Wales. The chairperson of the implementation committee will be Mr Jim Hetherington. He has extensive experience at senior levels in both public and private sectors, having held senior managerial positions in the Federal departments of community services and health and social security.
When I first brought the Usher report to the attention of the House I promised I would ensure that the chairperson on the implementation process would be independent. I can now assure the House that I have achieved just that. Mr Hetherington will guide the development of the strategy which will lead to the implementation of the principles of the report. It is most important that the chairperson be independent, because in the final analysis it is the children and young people who fall into the need for substitute care whom I am committed to helping. I do not believe that the spirit of the Usher report would be met by anything less than a high degree of independence from the department and the industry. To assist the implementation committee I have also given an undertaking that the Foster Parents Association, at this time represented through the Hunter Foster Parents Association, will be given the opportunity to have continuing access to the committee's deliberations. This may be through the formation of a special reference group which could comprise other major players in the substitute care area. Given the extraordinarily high proportion of State wards who are of Aboriginal or Koori background, I have also decided that it would be appropriate to establish an Aboriginal reference group to specifically advise the implementation committee on issues relating to Aboriginal youth.
Page 3109
There are no quick or easy solutions in the area of substitute care. The problems are complex, sensitive and often tragic. They are at best and at worst human problems. My goal is for the implementation committee, with the guidance from the two expert reference groups, to begin to make the community's response, which encompasses the Government's role and responsibility, more responsive and appropriate for the individuals involved. I believe that the process I have announced is the best method to achieve this with the important qualification that, as the Usher report correctly identified, we must continue to place increasing emphasis on preventative measures to ensure that substitute care is used only when necessary. I am acutely aware of the need to improve targeting and co-ordinating of resources, if necessary, across government.
Given the constraints upon government in these difficult times existing resources must be used as efficiently and effectively as possible. Issues of demarcation between certain government departments may be of importance to some; they are of secondary importance to the clients we are attempting to assist. With that in mind we shall proceed to co-operate with all the relevant agencies, advisory groups, including the Child Protection Council, to ensure that preventative measures are as effective and well co-ordinated as possible. I wish the implementation committee well. I will be monitoring its progress assiduously. This will not, as one newspaper suggested when the Usher committee was announced, be another deja vu exercise. As the journalist in that case intimated, there is a plethora of reports in this area and precious little action. All the issues are complex and they will have to be re-evaluated constantly and hopefully addressed in a sensitive, compassionate and commonsense way. I will keep the House informed of progress.
HEALTH CARE WORKERS
The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council. During the Industrial Relations Bill debate in this House certain assurances were given by letter to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and read into the Hansard from the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment regarding legislation proposed to be introduced by the Government for the protection of certain people required to carry out certain medical procedures having regard to their consciences. When can we expect the promised legislation?
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I apologise to the honourable member for not having an instant recall of the detail of the question but I accept the validity of what he puts to the House. I will check the detail with the relevant Minister and provide an answer next week to the House.
ELECTRICITY TARIFFS
The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy. I note that electricity tariffs have recently been announced. Will the Minister advise the House how those tariffs will affect small business and domestic consumers in this State?
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I thank the honourable member for his question. The electricity tariff package for 1992-93 is very good news for the people of New South Wales because it will have the result, I think for the first time in history, of a 3 per cent cut in charges to small business, a freeze on industrial tariffs, and a ceiling for domestic tariff increased of 2.6 per cent. This package has been drawn up bearing in mind the
Page 3110
primary objectives of the Premier's vision statement - employment and economic recovery. Of course, that is something that members opposite have no concept of whatsoever. It is estimated that total savings to commerce and industry will be about $100 million. As electricity is a significant cost factor for most businesses, this will be a major boost for employment prospects and for this State's competitive position with the Australian and South Pacific countries. County councils will be allowed to increase rates up to, but no more than, the 2.6 per cent projected consumer price index figure. Pensioner rebates and rebates for customers on specified life support systems will increase in line with residential tariffs. Minimum charges to domestic, rural and general supply customers will increase by a maximum of $10 per quarter, with the exception of pensioners whose minimum charges will be increased by no more than the 2.6 per cent consumer price index figure. The figure of 2.6 per cent is the estimate by New South Wales Treasury of the consumer price index for 1991-92, and that figure is significant lower than its projection of 4.2 per cent for the financial year 1992-93.
The recently established Independent Pricing Tribunal has not had time to review the package closely but has commented that in most overseas countries electricity prices are set on the prospective consumer price index figure rather than on the consumer price index figure for the previous year. However, the Premier and I agreed that this year it would be unfair to change the tariff setting basis and we have therefore stuck to the lower costs that will flow to the consumer from using the current consumer price index estimate for this financial year of 2.6 per cent rather than the estimate of 4.2 per cent. It is important to remember that for a number of years non-commercial electricity tariffs have been contained at the expense of commercial tariffs and often for short-term political purposes. This has led to tariff distortions that have sometimes priced New South Wales out of the market when companies have been making investment decisions between States. Residential electricity prices in New South Wales are the cheapest of the Australian mainland States. That relative advantage in residential tariffs will be maintained, while continuing the Government's gradual process of removing cross-subsidies between tariff classes.
Full consumer price index increases to obsolete tariff classes are designed to encourage those consumers still on those tariff classes to transfer to mainstream tariffs, in line with the recommendations of the 1990 independent tariff enquiry. Minimum charges relate mainly to infrequently used premises, such as holiday homes, bus shelters and so on. As I mentioned before, pensioners are exempt from that $10 per quarter minimum charge increase. Revenue earned from these customers does not cover the fixed cost of providing electricity services. In effect, all other customers are subsidising these uneconomic customers. In the past three years maximum increases have been limited to 8.1 per cent, 3.5 per cent and 3.4 per cent respectively, and this year an overall possible maximum increase of 0.6 of a per cent. That is a far cry from the years when members opposite were in government, when the late Minister Paul Landa in one year increased electricity tariffs by 30 per cent and by huge amounts subsequent to that. If honourable members needed a demonstration of this Government's success in microeconomic reform and in ensuring the efficiency of the electricity generating industry, it is this year's tariff.
ANTI-FEMALE MAGAZINES
The Hon. ELAINE NILE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Is it a fact that the Western Australian Labor Government has introduced legislation to remove offensive
Page 3111
anti-female magazine posters and magazine covers from public display in that State? Will the New South Wales Government urgently introduce similar legislation as government policy, especially to remove offensive magazines and posters such as Picture, Post, and Penthouse from public display?
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I have to admit to the honourable member that I am not aware of the move she speaks of in Western Australia but I will have the matter checked and the relevant information sought from the Minister.
CHILD PROTECTION INTERVIEWS
The Hon. R. D. DYER: I ask the Minister for Health and Community Services a question without notice. Is it the usual practice in child protection matters for two officers of the Department of Community Services to interview a child in respect of whom a notification has been made, with one of those officers recording in longhand the questions of the other officer and the child's answers? Does the Minister agree that this can be a relatively inaccurate and inefficient practice? Will the Minister give some consideration to officers of his department engaged in the child protection area being provided with tamper-proof recording equipment so that children's statements can be recorded with much greater accuracy?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Of the many questions raised by the honourable member, this is a useful one and I will take up the suggestion and supply a detailed response to him.
MENTAL HEALTH
The Hon. S. B. MUTCH: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health and Community Services. Following the release of the New South Wales strategic plan for mental health services on 13th April, will the Minister explain its implications for the people of New South Wales?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Mental health services is an important issue. The strategy document, entitled "Leading the Way", outlines the future direction of mental health services in this State over the next decade. The New South Wales Government has forged ahead with a host of major service developments over the past four years, including an extensive program of building and refurbishment work in psychiatric hospitals, general hospital psychiatric units, special care units for aged people with mental disorders, and the extension of community mental health services. Despite economic constraints, exacerbated by the Commonwealth Government's cutback of funds to this State, a major commitment of capital funds has facilitated massive improvements in mental health services. These developments are numerous. New acute psychiatric admission units have been opened at Gosford, Nepean, Blacktown and Manly hospitals. The capacity of the unit at Coffs Harbour hospital has been increased.
Psychiatric suites have been provided at Broken Hill and Dubbo hospitals. A new psychiatric rehabilitation facility has been provided at Shellharbour hospital to obviate the need for people from the Illawarra region to be transferred to Sydney for long stay treatment. Special units for the confused and disturbed elderly have been opened at Tamworth, Wagga Wagga, Long Jetty, Wingham, Goulburn, with two at Lottie Stewart Hospital and one at Mount Druitt Hospital. The redevelopment of psychiatric hospitals is advancing well. Two new rehabilitation units have been opened at Kenmore Hospital and 20 cottages have been provided at Cumberland Hospital. Two wards have been
Page 3112
completely refurbished at Gladesville Hospital. A new hospital and a rebuilt admission unit have been provided at Macquarie Hospital. Major construction programs are well under way at all other psychiatric hospitals.
The Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association has been provided with a new rehabilitation facility at Harris Park and additional community supported accommodation for people with mental illness provided in southern Sydney, southwestern and western Sydney, southwest region, North Coast Region and in the Wentworth area. New or expanded community mental health services have been funded in southwestern Sydney, Wentworth, southern Sydney, eastern Sydney, North Coast, New England, and southwest region. Child and adolescent mental health teams have been established and expanded in southwestern Sydney, western Sydney and on the North Coast. A new acute admission facility will open later this year at Westmead Hospital Child and Adolescent Mental Health Unit which will help eliminate the past practices of admitting adolescents to adult psychiatric units for want of a more appropriate facility. Psychogeriatric outreach services have been provided for the North Coast, New England and Orana and far west regions.
Other important achievements in this previously neglected area have included the introduction of new mental health legislation in 1990. The Mental Health Act 1990 is based on the principles of treatment and care being provided in the "least restrictive" environment, the rights of people with mental illness and disorder to treatment which respects their dignity and worth, while acknowledging the rights of the community to be protected. Another important achievement, the Psychologist Act, for the first time provided for the registration of psychologists in this State. Mental health service standards are being raised through greater emphasis on integrated service networks, promotion and funding of service oriented research, improved data collection and information flow, and through policy development. Monitoring and quality control of mental health services has strengthened the State's two larger psychiatric hospitals; Cumberland and Rozelle have achieved full accreditation from the Australian Council of Health Care Standards.
A new policy framework was identified as vital to complement these advances. The document "Leading the Way" creates service goals and objectives and establishes strategies, priorities and targets for service providers. The document embraces the emphasis of modern mental health service practice upon early interventions and assistance to individuals in their own environment, thus minimising the need for protracted periods of hospitalisation resorted to in the past. At the same time the importance of high quality in-patient admission services, primarily located in general hospitals and able to meet the needs of the local community, is stressed as a vital component of a comprehensive service network. The need for these services to form integrated support networks for clients forms a key principle within the policy along with that of services being strongly linked to general health service, that is, the principle of mainstreaming. Both these principles form the cornerstone of the proposed national mental health policy.
The policy also recognises the diversity of the New South Wales community requiring mental health services and seeks to provide guidance as to service access issues associated with the special needs of particular groups and preferred approaches to meeting these needs. Thus access should not be limited by geographic location, social barriers, economic barriers, age, cultural and ethnic barriers and disabilities arising from other sources including physical illness. In releasing this policy I have also called for all agencies which deliver services in the mental health area to develop a guarantee of service statement. I envisage that this statement will provide in plain English details of
Page 3113
all existing client services and how those services operate and may be accessed. Information on the ways consumers can make a complaint will also be provided. Such initiatives are in keeping with the Government's commitment to ensuring that its agencies are accountable to the people of New South Wales. The orientation of these measures is particularly important in the mental health field. Mental health services in New South Wales are acknowledged as the best in Australia. I am determined that the services will continue to develop and that standards improve. The Government's commitment to improving mental health services remains steadfast and the recognition by the World Health Organisation of our standards is in fact welcomed.
ABORIGINAL LANGUAGE TEACHING
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs: what efforts are being made to teach local Aboriginal languages in schools throughout New South Wales? Would it not be appropriate that both white and Aboriginal students in each tribal area have at least some knowledge of the local Aboriginal language and the customs of the local Aboriginal people?
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the Hon. R. S. L. Jones for his question. I would be delighted to ask the Department to collate those examples and instances where the teaching of local Aboriginal languages does in fact occur. There is nothing formal in relation to Aboriginal language study programs that requires the study of the local Aboriginal language per se. In the area of language study, which I referred to earlier in question time, no Aboriginal language is the subject of language study, save for example for the higher school certificate. Apart from that formal study of languages, I know that in various areas of New South Wales local schools, as part of either their local area study or their local history study, look at aspects of the Aboriginal history of the local area; that is to say there is in fact from time to time an informal study of the language. Particularly in areas that still have a high proportion of Aboriginal children, as part of the Aboriginal support programs - which can include all sorts of cultural activities - the study of the language, in either a formal or informal way, and in conjunction with the Aboriginal community, does occur. I do not have to hand specific examples and frequency of those occurrences. Given the honourable member's obvious and general interest in this area, I will be more than happy to collect what material is readily available or to find people in the department with whom the honourable member may discuss the matter further.
PRISON POPULATION
The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council: has the Minister seen a report from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research which shows the New South Wales prison population is twice the number of that in Victoria? Can he advise the Houses of the possible reasons for this difference?
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I thank the honourable member for his timely question. I guess most members would have seen reports in today's media that indicate as a result of research from the Bureau of Crime Statistics -
The Hon. Ann Symonds: He said it; he said "statistics".
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I did get it right. What I should have said was "from the State Statistician". The report revealed that as at November 1991 New South Wales had a prison population twice that of Victoria. The bureau's director,
Page 3114
Dr Weatherburn, advised that this has in fact been the case for at least a decade, which I felt was an interesting comment. Dr Weatherburn further advised that the higher imprisonment rate is not the result of New South Wales courts gaoling a higher proportion of offenders.
The Hon. Ann Symonds: It is just they are staying there longer.
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: Patience. Dr Weatherburn advised in his research report that it is also not as a result of New South Wales prisoners spending longer periods in gaol. That might interest the Hon Ann Symonds, who I see is genuinely surprised by that. Dr Weatherburn advises the higher imprisonment rate in New South Wales is the result of a much higher arrest rate. I guess one could argue the higher arrest rate could be due to a more efficient police force or more bad guys, or even dumber criminals. However, we should remember that the same Dr Weatherburn, the State Statistician -
[Interruption]
I made that point earlier.
The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Is that the same Dr Weatherburn who said there was more domestic violence in the western suburbs?
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: It could have been. Getting back to the task at hand, recently this same State Statistician reported that crime rates in this State are falling. For example, there was an 11.5 per cent drop in breaking and entering in New South Wales during a time of deep recession. The actual crime rate, as recorded by the national Statistician, is falling so on the basis that there is good evidence to suggest that crime rates are falling in New South Wales and that the number of people arrested is much higher than in comparable States, it is reasonable to assume that the police in New South Wales have got their act together better than the police in Victoria. Today I was particularly encouraged to read - and this was purely coincidental - that the Victorian Commissioner of Police, Mr Kel Glare, has admitted that his police service is losing the crime fight. He said:
. . . police were losing the battle against crime "utterly and completely".
Mr Glare went on to admit:
Victoria had the worst rate of car thefts, burglaries and assaults in the Western world.
Shock, horror! It is obvious that the Victorian Commissioner of Police is keen to get a budget increase. I am sure the Minister for Police in Victoria realised this morning, after a statement like that, that the Victorian police department wants an increase in its budget. As I said earlier, New South Wales has a falling crime rate and a prison population twice that of Victoria. We are catching the bad guys and we are putting them away. In 1988 we said to the people of New South Wales that we would fix up what at that time was an appalling mess in the justice system in this State. This only proves that our system has worked well. Over the past few years there has been a significant drop in the road toll, car thefts and breaking and entering. The way in which the New South Wales Police Service has rallied to support the community and to provide a service which, in my independent assessment, is one of the best in the western world, is one of the spectacular success stories of the Greiner Government.______
Page 3115
CO-OPERATIVES BILL
INTERPRETATION (AUSTRALIA ACTS) AMENDMENT BILL
CRIMES (IDENTITY OF OFFENDERS) AMENDMENT BILL
Formal stages and first readings agreed to.
[The President left the chair at 1.5 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]
PRINTING COMMITTEE
First Report
The Hon. B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [2.32]: I bring up and lay upon the table the First Report of the Printing Committee. In doing so, I should like to pay tribute to the work of the committee.
Ordered to be printed.
AIR SAFETY TAX
Matter of Public Interest
Discussion resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [2.33]: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on this important matter raised by the Hon. Beryl Evans. The Federal Government seems not to understand the workings of the aviation industry or, indeed, of any industry. Its proposed legislation is the equivalent of allowing only buses and trucks to use the roads for 30 years and the manufacturers of those forms of conveyance to pay their way and then asking the manufacturers to pay for the introduction of Commodores. The Federal Government's legislation would strip the present industry and ask it to pay for the development of new industry. It is tough enough to make a quid in any industry these days, but it is even worse to ask existing industry to carry the burden of some proposed future industry. I speak only after receiving considerable advice from Howard Hughes Industries. In your younger days, Mr President, you would probably have heard of another Howard Hughes, who invented a wonderful plane called the Spruce Goose. When you visited Disneyland you may even have seen the Spruce Goose at Long Beach. However, the Howard Hughes that I speak of is an innovative aircraft manufacturer in Ballina.
The Hon. Beryl Evans will know Mr Hughes, because her husband purchased one of the world's leading ultralight planes from Mr Hughes when he visited Ballina barely 18 months ago. Mr Hughes's ultralight aircraft are designed and built to world standards and they have been approved by the Civil Aviation Authority. But without any change of a nut or a bolt Mr Hughes will be asked to pay a special, increased tax in this country to market his product just so that at some future date some other manufacturer might manufacture another aeroplane. That is just the sort of nonsense one can expect from the comrades in Canberra. This debate is important, for it will bring to the attention of the wider community the increased costs it will have to bear for airline travel. In a country like Australia, where airline travel is, perforce, for medical and business reasons a necessity, not a luxury, any increase in taxation on such an industry increases
Page 3116
manyfold the cost for the community. It is a bit like tariffs. However, the proposed tax is an internal tariff, not an external tariff. I am sure there will be ways by which people importing secondhand aircraft from overseas can get away with not paying the new tariff.
The Hon. Beryl Evans: As soon as they are registered they pay it.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Is it any wonder they have trouble selling aeroplanes to anyone in private aviation? The Federal Government does not understand and has absolutely no feel for the business of private aviation in this country. It is the private aviator who perhaps runs a crop dusting business or otherwise assists primary production who will suffer greatly. So will the public travelling on privately owned airlines. I hope Australia Airlines will soon become privately owned and that Qantas will start to be operated as a privately owned company instead of being a lapdog to the Federal Government, which appoints Federal Government members to the board and practises feather-bedding. It is ludicrous to put a tax on Australia's aviation industry to provide a future benefit. That benefit is hard to understand when this country is in the depths of a depression and the industry is trying to build itself up to the stage where it is large enough to become self-supporting, let alone export. Mr Hughes, who is a very good operator, a good designer and a good builder of high-quality ultralight planes, for which he has a decent market, is being stultified by the Federal Government's activities, as well as those of organisations such as the Federal Airports Corporation, which has introduced outrageous landing taxes for the aircraft he builds. I wholeheartedly support this matter of public interest moved by the Hon. Beryl Evans. In recent times she has raised a number of issues of major public importance, which this House has debated, making it a much more relevant, community-based House, which is as it should be. Over time I hope this trend will continue. I support the Hon. Beryl Evans in widening the debate and putting forward the aspirations of people on the North Coast who are trying to properly participate in this competitive business.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.40]: On behalf of the Call to Australia group I join with the Hon. Beryl Evans in her concern about the new air safety tax and its effects on the air industry, rural industries and country people. I would prefer to have had added the following words "That this House condemns" or "rejects the new air safety tax". Obviously that is the intention of the mover and of other speakers. Prior to the Civil Aviation Authority being set up in 1988, the Federal Government had accepted and implemented the 1985 Bosch report recommendations into aviation safety regulation cost recovery. Industry was to pay for certain services and the Government was to meet the costs of safety standards setting and compliance as a public benefit. Essentially on a fee-for-service basis, industry members pay the Civil Aviation Authority directly for the implementation of standards in so far as their individual requirements are concerned - aircraft worthiness, pilot licensing and so on. Industry pays also for the cost of en-route navigation, terminal air traffic control and infrastructure costs to the Civil Aviation Authority, the Federal Airports Corporation, or other airport owners. Some other airports are in the hands of local authorities, and in some cases local government authorities, where appropriate.
On the other hand, the Commonwealth clearly accepted in the Civil Aviation Bill 1988 that the "costs of standard setting and ensuring compliance with standards be funded from the budget and that the Civil Aviation Authority perform these functions under contract". The so-called safety contract with the Civil Aviation Authority has been variously estimated at about $60 million for 1992-93. With cost savings and removal of overheads in subsequent years, the identifiable standards setting and compliance costs are expected to reduce to about $45 million by 1994-95. The Federal Labor Government, led by Prime Minister Keating, is reneging on that previous agreement about the safety contract being a public benefit and a legitimate charge against the public purse.
Page 3117
The proposals being put into legislation for presentation to Federal Parliament in early May are that industry should progressively meet the costs and that payments to the Civil Aviation Authority be terminated. Industry cost recovery payments will be phased in over three years as follows: it is estimated that in 1992-93 the figure will be $10 million; in 1993-94 $30 million and in 1994-95 $45 million. Recovery is planned on a per aircraft, per annum basis and related to aircraft maximum take-off weight. The typical per annum costs for commercial aircraft in 1992-93 are: for a jumbo jet, $54,000; for an airbus, $34,000; for a Fokka 28, $15,000; for a Shorts 360, $7,000; for a Bandeirante, $3,300; and for a Chieftain, $1,600. These costs per aircraft would quadruple by the third year. Small non-commercial private aircraft would pay a flat rate of approximately $250 per annum. Operators of small aircraft would pay a flat $250 tax or an additional licence charge.
The industry is strongly opposed to this new tax. Many small operators cannot afford it and it may force them out of business. The larger operators carry sufficient passengers per annum to spread the costs on a per capita basis - certainly less than $1 a ticket. However, the smaller Chieftain regular public transport operators may have to charge up to $2 a ticket extra. Many complaints have been received from small aircraft charter and commercial operators in the general aviation sector, particularly those who do not have regular operations to offset costs. We support the criticisms of this new tax. It is interesting that although Mr Keating is constantly attacking the Federal Opposition over its attempts to re-organise the taxation system in this country, the Federal Labor Government is now bringing in its own tax. This new tax does not contain any offsets. The industry is in recession, partly caused by the policies of the Federal Labor Government. This tax is a flow-on from the Federal Labor Government succeeding in breaking the power of the Pilots Association. That is what that dispute was all about. At that time the Hawke Labor Government, obviously with Mr Keating's full concurrence, set out to smash the Pilots Association as a body strong enough to negotiate with airline operators to protect their interests. Its members were deserted by the remainder of the trade union movement and left to hang on their own.
The Federal Labor Government is to be criticised for breaking its previous undertakings. The general aircraft operators have struggled to meet other costs; this is not the only one but is perhaps the straw that may break the camel's back. This new tax discriminates against and adversely affects the smaller operators and will force many of them out of business. The Federal Government said the industry would be consulted about the tax but this has been only a window-dressing exercise; there has not been discussion about the principle, the need, or the alternatives. This new tax will come into effect from 1st June for a full year. Again, the taxation system has been completely changed, where people are paying quarterly and, in this case will be paying in advance. There is no pro rata provision for anyone operating commercially for a shorter period. For those reasons we support the motion moved by the Hon. Beryl Evans. We would add that we condemn this new air safety tax on the air industry.
The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN [2.48]: I am pleased that members support the motion of the Hon. Beryl Evans. I congratulate her on raising this vital issue to rural New South Wales in particular, but not forgetting our city cousins who are also vitally affected. Our present economic climate has unfortunately been caused by the Federal Labor Government, which is responsible for this proposed legislation. Surely the Federal Government will take note and not rush this legislation through. It should consider the matter and introduce sensible fees in the longer term. No wonder country people believe that New South Wales is only Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. This type of legislation can only adversely affect decentralisation. We have already witnessed the
Page 3118
devastation created by the Federal Government's peak period landing fees on country air services. Recently I attended a ceremony where the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs laid a foundation stone and pointed out how a regular air service was critical for decentralisation to Orange. Had the air service not been regular, Orange would not have been selected. Peak period landing fees have devastated country services by increasing costs, reducing frequency of services and changing the peak period, as has happened at Mascot. There have been losers all round. The only gain has been to the coffers of the Civil Aviation Authority.
Do aircraft operators have to meet fuel charges although the Federal Government is withdrawing from the aerodrome local ownership plan? No decision has been made on that issue. It must be addressed as quickly as possible. It does not matter which organisation or industry one considers in the bush, there is no fat left to tax. In fact, there is very little lean left. This point must be addressed by the Government quickly. The buying power of rural producers and country operators has dropped dramatically. There is almost a two-tier system operating in the country. Our city cousins are in a similar position. Governments cannot continue to raise taxes simply because someone has a bright idea that they need money for something or other. Costing and its implementation must be carefully considered. The bickie barrel in the country is empty. It is far too early for the Federal Government to introduce the aviation safety levy, for many reasons. Those who read today's debate will understand that the issue has been dealt with adequately. All honourable members who have spoken in the debate have supported the remarks of the Hon. Beryl Evans, who has introduced a timely topic. I hope that the Federal Government will take note of the debate.
The Hon. BERYL EVANS [2.52], in reply: I thank my colleagues for their support. It is satisfying when one raises a matter for discussion that is as important as this matter of public interest and all honourable members have the same viewpoint, including my friends from the Opposition. I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who expressed similar sentiments to those of Government members about the proposed tax. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services supported my remarks. He mentioned the problems that are occurring throughout the State's airports. The Federal Government has been handing back all the airports in the State to councils, without providing any assistance at all. That Government takes from Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport every year a gross income of about $4,200 million to cross-subsidise other major airports in Australia. That irritates me intensely. In a speech I made on the Budget I said that if the State Government owned Mascot and revenue from that source came to the State, there is no way that the Kingsford-Smith airport would have been allowed to remain in its present chaotic situation. That money could have been spent for the benefit of this city and this State. The Federal Government is willing to take that money and cross-subsidise main aerodromes but refuses to offer any cross-subsidisation to smaller airports throughout the State. It has a one-eyed approach.
The smaller airports in remote areas of New South Wales are extremely important, not simply because they provide passenger services but because they are used for the transportation of patients and accident victims to hospitals in the city and for agricultural purposes. Those small airports should not be allowed to deteriorate, but should be maintained to the greatest extent possible. Another matter that disturbs me is that if this bill ever hits the deck in Canberra, it contains some suggestions regarding extension of the shoulder periods for landing fees at Mascot. Again that will disadvantage country people. The problem charter aircraft operators have in catering for their clients who use those services is to placate their clients, who are business people or those coming to Sydney to keep medical appointments. They want to be able to fly to
Page 3119
Sydney and meet those appointments and return as soon as possible. Because of the restrictions placed on landing times and the increased fees it is impossible for many country areas to accommodate those people. If an hour is to be added on either side of those shoulder periods, it will become even more difficult for country people to make quick return trips to Sydney for essential reasons. The added taxation will increase the cost of pilot training. All air schools will have to meet the increased taxes on their aircraft. That will increase the cost of a pilot's licence, which is already excessive. Again that will be detrimental. We need to have young people trained to replace the existing pilots so that Australia's air services, which are renowned, can be maintained.
I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his comments. I thank also the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby of the Australian Democrats and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile of Call to Australia for their contributions. It has been wonderful to find that one has the support of all parties when one criticises the Federal Government. The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith spoke about the importance of tourism to this country. That is a major aspect of the State's economy. If it is not possible to fly tourists around the country at a reasonable price, the industry will suffer a downturn that will adversely affect the economy. Tourism generates employment opportunities. That has been recognised by governments throughout the world. A report written in 1984 by the Bureau of Industry Economics established that tourism accounts for 4.8 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product. In 1989 tourism's contribution to the New South Wales economy was $7.2 billion. About 34 per cent of Australia's annual tourism expenditure is derived from the domestic market, which will be hit badly by the Federal Government's proposal. The industry consultant meeting held on 15th April examined costs and expenditures in the industry. It was expected that there would be a slow and uncertain recovery of the domestic economy over the next 18 months, balanced against emerging signs of reduced economic growth of some of Australia's major trading partners.
Planning for 1992-93 has been based on the following assumptions: inflation would be 4 per cent; growth of the civil aviation revenue base with the internal sector would be worth 4 per cent, the domestic sector minus 2 per cent and general aviation 1 per cent. That gives a weighted average growth of 0.6 per cent for 1992-93, more than 2 per cent lower than the long-term historical average. Those figures give some idea of the problems for the aviation industry over the next 18 months. The projection of financial outcomes for 1991-92 to 1993-94 is interesting. A comparison was given for the next three years. Revenue for 1991-92 was expected to be $7.9 million, and to drop to $6.5 million in 1993-94; expenditures were expected to be down because of that. The profit and loss before tax was 26.3 per cent in 1991-92 and would increase to 50.7 per cent in 1993-94. But the amount of taxation the Civil Aviation Authority provided to the Federal Government in 1991-92 was $6.3 million and in 1993-94 it was expected to be $15.9 million. That is staggering.
The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: What impact would the goods and services tax have on that?
The Hon. BERYL EVANS: I will deal with that. The GST will not have an effect on those figures. I will not be led off chasing some red herring to satisfy the whim of the honourable member. The amount that will be paid by the industry to the Federal Government is $10.5 million in 1991-92, increasing to $45 million in 1993-94. It is incredible that any industry can be asked, particularly in the current financial situation, to find $10 million in the next financial year, more than $30 million the following year and $45 million the year after that. Our aviation industry will not be able to exist, and
Page 3120
that situation will rest on the head of the Government. This tax should be looked at very carefully because, as the private owners have said, they will fight this proposal to the very end, as far as they possibly can. If necessary they intend to initiate their fight with the Government when it is due to face an election. Next Tuesday at Bankstown airport the private owners will gather in protest. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile should have no doubt at all that my press release will request a complete and utter withdrawal of this proposal. It is most important to this country, particularly for our development, that our aviation industry survive. It must be financial and it must help all those people who have worked so hard to build it up.
Discussion of matter of public interest concluded.
STATUTORY APPOINTMENTS LEGISLATION (PARLIAMENTARY VETO) AMENDMENT BILL
Bill received and read a first time.
Suspension of certain standing orders agreed to.
FIGHTBACK PACKAGE
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.1]: I move:
(1) congratulates the Federal Liberal and National Parties for producing their visionary Fightback/GST reform package; and
(2) calls upon the Keating Labor Government to go to an early election in order to allow the people of New South Wales and Australia to choose between the policies of the coalition and Labor and to give the Liberal and National Parties the opportunity to quickly implement the fightback package for the sake of all Australians.
In August last year the Federal Opposition announced its determination to reshape the Australian tax system. In November 1991 it released the details of its package called "Fightback! - Taxation and Expenditure Reform for Jobs and Growth". The dramatic reforms proposed in the fightback package were produced in response to the hunger so evident in the Australian people for their parliamentary representatives to make a generational change in government policies and promote attitudinal change to bring about a more productive Australia. The Liberal and National parties aim to create more incentives and opportunities for all Australians to work harder and be rewarded for their work; to save and invest. This country has the fourth highest personal tax burden of the 24 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and is well above the average of the seven major industrial countries. It is significantly greater than in the newly industrialised countries of our region, the countries that the new Prime Minister says are in the region containing this country's future. Net PAYE tax has increased by almost 30 per cent under the Hawke-Keating regime that, unfortunately for all of us, has lasted almost a decade. Our workers face high tax rates at low income levels, and the situation has worsened under Hawke and Keating. Workers on two-thirds of average income face a marginal tax rate of 38c plus a 1.25 per cent Medicare levy. Workers on average income faced a marginal tax rate of only 30c at the end of the coalition's last term in office. Average income earners now pay 38c plus the Medicare levy, and it is fast approaching 46c plus the Medicare levy. Most taxpayers now face a marginal tax rate of 38c or more, and 16 per cent face a marginal rate of 46c or more plus the Medicare levy.
Page 3121
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: How much does Mr Bond pay, or Mr Packer?
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: We could say a lot about them and their friends. Such high marginal rates imposed on low to middle income earners is unacceptable. They provide a serious disincentive to work additional hours, to opt for additional shifts and to move towards promotion in the workplace. After the promulgation of the fightback package the Australian Labor Party got a bit of a hurry on. It changed treasurers and even the prime ministership.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It changed treasurers twice.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Yes, the Federal Government had a few treasurers in a short space of time. It produced a little document called "one nation".
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: There is only one page.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Is it now being called "Divided Nation"?
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: That is right, and the honourable member will note it does not display the Australian Labor Party logo in order to avoid having the Australian flag with the Union Jack.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: We will probably have to pay for the printing of this sort of outrageous stuff.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It can be bought at the Government Bookshop; it has been produced at taxpayers' expense. I do not propose to spend much time on the one nation package at this time.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Divided nation.
The Hon. Elaine Nile: Do not call it one nation.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Divided nation, as Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile said. But I will outline some of the proposals in the Government's fightback package, the way to rebuild and reward Australia. A feature of the fightback package is, of course, a goods and services tax. It is timely to remind honourable members what Messrs Hawke and Keating thought about a goods and services tax when they were not as tired and less irritable than they are these days. In 1985 on the "Sunday" program Mr Hawke said:
Unless there is a source of income in the consumption area, then the mass of Australians - the ordinary taxpayers - are not going to be able to get the substantial cuts in personal direct taxes to which they are entitled.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: And they did not get those cuts, did they?
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: No, they did not. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 14th June, 1985, Mr Keating said:
If we don't as a nation adopt this proposal -
That is his proposal for a consumption tax:
Page 3122
- then you won't see significant reforms in this country in taxation for the balance of this century.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: And we did not.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: He was right. It needs a new government to do that; Mr Keating was unable to deliver the goods. On 8th June, 1985, Mr Keating also said:
Right back through my first days as Treasurer I'm on record as favouring an indirect tax.
Bob Hawke, again on another "Sunday" program in 1985, said:
It will be a tragedy for Australia if we baulk at tax reform because it might hurt me, here, it might hurt you there.
Well, he got hurt: he got knifed. The Federal Opposition brought out a tax reform package when he was still Treasurer and everybody was bleeding all over the place. He was one of the ones who bled most. Paul Keating is reported in the Weekend Australian of the 9th June, 1989, to have said:
If this sort of proposal -
That is Paul Keating's proposal:
- does not get up, one has to decide if there's much point in someone like me worrying about the Australian institutional process, and in Australian institutions, very much longer.
I am not quite sure how much he worried -
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: He wept.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: He wept. Keating also said:
At the moment we all have to buy the necessities; if you're not buying them you can't live. And you buy them now out of your after-tax income, after it has suffered these very high oppressive marginal rates . . . What we are saying is you buy the same necessities but out of your relieved income tax.
But he did not practice what he preached. Bob Hawke said:
Now I believe that ordinary Mr and Mrs Australia want a fairer system and a more efficient system. I believe that they will respond positively to this proposal.
Mr Hawke also said in July 1985:
It contains, we believe, the elements required to achieve significant tax reform and a most effective way of achieving a fairer, simpler, tax system.
We agree with that and thank him for assisting in the writing of speeches that will lead to the next Federal election. Australia needs a dramatic reform package, such as fightback. This country is suffering its worst recession in 60 years. The country has had a number of Treasurers in recent times and one of them, John Kerin, confirmed the need for reform on 16th October last year. Out of the mouths of babes come words of wisdom.
The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: What about the recession we had to have, that
Page 3123
our present Prime Minister referred to?
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: The recession we had to have will be stuck down his throat for time immemorial. It is the failed economic policies and strategies of Pope John Paul Keating that got this country into such a mess whereby nothing short of a radical rewrite of policy will be of benefit to future generations of Australia. Unemployment hovers around the 10 per cent mark. In the whole of the era during which Hawke and Keating were at the crease that figure fell below 6 per cent for only three months. That era saw batting for Australia collapse. Total Commonwealth tax collections increased from just under $41 billion in 1982-83 to more than $93 billion in 1990-91. For the farm sector - the productive sector of this country's economy - they presided over the removal of virtually all programs that helped boost export competitiveness. In April 1989 they went so far as to remove direct Commonwealth involvement in drought funding. We have seen the staggering bloating of gross foreign debt, growing from just under $36 billion when they came to office to the present figure of about $166 billion. The current account deficit was less than $7 billion in 1982-83 but is more than double that now, at the end of Hawke's prime ministership; it rose to a staggering $22 billion in 1989-90. The inflation rate in Australia was higher than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and European Economic Community averages for the six years from 1985 to 1990. Interest rates have been consistently higher than those of our major competitors. Bankruptcy figures are a tragedy. We used to think that about 5,000 bankruptcies a year was a worry but now we see the same number of bankruptcies in one quarter.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: That is Keating's growth industry. That is his idea of overcoming unemployment - more receivers, more liquidators, more people to deal with the human misery that is the direct result of his policies.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: More debt collectors. Like Whitlam the wrecker, Hawke and Keating brought this country to its knees. It is a pity Mr Keating does not get on his knees more often.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: He will not be happy until we are all kissing the ground.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: All grovelling for food. Mr Keating should get on his knees, but in the right place and at the right time. It is time that income tax rates in this country were lowered. The Hewson-Fischer government, to be elected to office at the next election, will deliver the largest personal tax cuts in Australia's history. It will reduce net PAYE tax by $13 billion in two phases. The first phase will be put in place in October 1994 and the second in 1996. There will be incentives for taxpayers to work, save and invest. That is the objective of the package. The reform program of the Hewson-Fischer government will create almost two million jobs and halve the unemployment rate caused by Hawke and Keating. It will provide a dramatic stimulus to productivity and to economic growth. Australia needs a government which sees its proper role as providing a framework of policy and equal laws within which individuals, families and businesses are allowed to fulfil their potential and to plan with certainty and with confidence. We believe that the implementation of policies aimed at building incentives, opportunities and rewards for individuals is the most effective way of overcoming the serious economic and social problems that Australia now faces.
Page 3124
Australia needs major reshaping of the tax system to bring this country into line with its major trading partners. The package of economic policies will provide Australians with new incentives to work, save, invest and export - the fightback package. We will re-establish our international competitiveness as we move into the 1990s. This country must, as a matter of urgency, trade its way out of the debt crisis that Prime Minister Hawke and Prime Minister Keating have created. The tax reforms will be implemented in the context of the commitment by the Liberal Party and the National Party to smaller government, involving major cuts in government spending and a lowering of the overall tax burden. The central elements of the new approach include the following. The present inefficient and unfair system of wholesale sales tax will be abolished. It will be replaced by a broadly based goods and services tax which removes tax on exports and business imports and provides rebates on the GST payable on fuels used in farming.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It will make it cheaper to produce sugar.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Sugar - a natural part of life. Another element of the new approach is to significantly lower the tax on a wide range of consumer products and at the same time widen the tax net to catch tax cheats in the black economy. A significant reform of the present income tax system is to tackle the long overdue job of simplifying it and providing substantial personal tax cuts. The revenue raised by the GST over and above the abolition of the wholesale sales tax will be used to provide a compensation package covering low income earners, pensioners and beneficiaries and, along with reductions in government expenditure, substantial personal tax cuts. The reforms include major changes to our industrial relations system, emulating at the national level the historic reforms which passed through this Parliament last year. Another aspect is extensive microeconomic reform, especially in the areas of transport, communications and privatisation. The introduction of the GST is only one component of a much larger, overall tax package. The goods and services tax must be seen in the context of the overall package of reforms designed to give Australia a competitive and highly productive economy. What is wrong with our present tax system?
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Heaps.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Heaps - it is too burdensome.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is only high because the Government has to keep collecting the money because it does not know how to stop spending.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: No, it wants to keep ripping it off people. Personal taxes are too high. Inflation has pushed more and more Australians into higher tax brackets. High marginal rates of tax destroy incentive for wage and salary earners to work harder and to save. Our present tax system is unfair, voluminously complex, kills incentive and reduces the ability of industry to compete. The burden of tax is too high. The philosophy contained in the fightback package provides that governments should oversee a tax system that rewards those who are willing to make the extra effort, allows them to save and to profit from that extra effort, enhances self-respect through making personal independence possible, and provides those in poverty and genuine need with every opportunity to improve their standard of living. The tax system should not distort investment decisions so that resources are wasted and growth is undermined. A tax framework which allows people to make sensible investments is crucial to prosperity. Our current tax system has failed on every one of those criteria. The tax system presided over by the Labor Government undermines the incentive to work harder and to save more
Page 3125
because of the crippling marginal tax rates imposed on low and average income earners. Australians do not have an incentive to save. The tax system rewards tax cheats who trade in the black economy. There is avoidance and evasion because of loopholes and administrative complexities. On the other hand, PAYE taxpayers in particular have been disadvantaged by inflation and high taxation. The tax system has created poverty traps for many Australians who are denied any real opportunity to work harder and to be rewarded for it.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They cannot get jobs.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Many of them have given up. The system has imposed major costs on the private business sector which should be the driving force in job growth via the sales tax system. Then there is payroll tax, excise tax, customs duties, compulsory training and superannuation levies, a counter-productive application of the capital gains tax, and many other cost burdens. Rising tax burdens have discouraged exports, favoured imports, destroyed jobs and unnecessarily raised costs to consumers. The Federal Labor Government has presided over an increased tax burden on us all, but particularly for low to middle income earners because Labor has failed to contain and reduce waste and duplication in government spending and because of the encouragement given by Labor to dependence on government welfare. To rebuild this country we have to rebuild the foundations of Australian prosperity and provide real opportunities for all Australians. Australia is afflicted with a ramshackle and discriminatory wholesale sales tax system introduced by the Scullin Labor Government back in 1930, in response to the Great Depression. It is an extremely inefficient and inequitable form of revenue raising and should be replaced for the 1990s. The hidden sales tax on common household products commonly raises $10 billion through purchases made by Australian consumers. Sales tax receipts under Hawke and Keating have increased in real terms by 53 per cent per adult since 1982-83.
Average weekly earnings have actually declined in real terms over the same period, so the sales tax has gone up 53 per cent per adult and average weekly earnings have declined in real terms over the period of the Hawke-Keating Government, which is one of the reasons why it will be thrown out by the people whose standard of living has declined. The wholesale sales tax system is both arbitrary and discriminatory. The three separate sales tax rates of 10, 20 and 30 per cent are levied on some goods but not on others. Luxury items frequently go untaxed, making the wholesale sales tax system highly inequitable. Items such as caviar, mineral water and oysters go untaxed while chocolate biscuits, soft drinks and ice cream are taxed at various rates. Approximately $1 billion, or 10 per cent, of the sales tax burden falls on exports.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Does it really? Ten per cent?
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Yes, 10 per cent of the sales tax burden is on exports, which is pretty stupid for a so-called export nation. Of course that reduces our international competitiveness. Numerous exemptions make the sales tax system both complex and costly to administer. As anyone in business knows, trying to work out the sales tax system is a great problem in the first place. Australia thus labours under de facto consumption tax but with none of the advantages of the Liberals' and Nationals' goods and services tax proposed in fightback. Expenditure reform is necessary and that is an essential item for the whole economic package of the alternative government of Australia. A Hewson-Fischer Government, as part of its reform package, will reduce the size and therefore the cost of government.
Page 3126
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: It is only a matter of when, not if.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Exactly. Waste will be reduced, thereby allowing people to retain more of what they earn. This will improve individual freedom of choice and reduce the unnecessary dependence of people on government. That of course is an essential element in the philosophy of both the Liberal and National parties. When we win government we will be reflecting that philosophical bent into our legislative package. The flip side of the coin is that by saving taxpayers' money and culminating abuse on the welfare system, the new government will be free to increase assistance to those in genuine need. Goodness only knows there are plenty of those as a result of a decade of Federal Labor.
The Hon. L. D. W. Coleman: Before we start?
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Yes, without even trying. There are five guiding principles underlying the fightback package. First, we are going to lower taxes and bring in a fairer tax system, which will boost the incentive to work, save and invest. That requires a reduction of wasteful and unnecessary Federal Government spending. It also requires structural reform of the tax and welfare system, so individuals will be given a clear choice and positive incentives when making decisions about whether or not they will work overtime, save another dollar, or invest the money in a business venture for the future. The second of the five guiding principles is that we are going to bring in a tax system that will make the Australian economy more internationally competitive and productive. This can be achieved by: abolishing inefficient and distorting taxes, for example, the wholesale sales tax, payroll tax, and petroleum excise; changes to the Government Statistician; removing taxes on business inputs and exports; and through productive investment and reducing tax avoidance and tax evasion. The third guiding principle is that we are out to make the operation of the tax system transparent and easy to understand for the ordinary taxpayer.
The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: That will be a pleasant change.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It will be a pleasant change and very long overdue. The real burden of tax will no longer be increased through hidden ad hoc changes to wholesale or payroll tax rates or through automatically indexed increases in excise or in other Federal taxes hidden from the view of the taxpayer. No longer should effective marginal tax rates be increased by allowing increased wages to push average taxpayers into even higher tax brackets. The fourth guiding principle is that the new Federal government will put in place a tax system that raises the revenue necessary for government programs in the most efficient and effective way. Now, there is too much reliance on personal income tax. It is distorted by indirect tax arrangements, and it loads heavy costs onto business and exports. It is neither efficient nor effective. The fifth guiding principle is to have a tax system that builds a stable and reliable base for public expenditure programs in both the Commonwealth and State sectors. The State government sector will move to a new tax-sharing arrangement, with the abolition of payroll tax being a major feature in the reforms. As well as all of those five principles, there will be more scrutiny of government programs so that assistance goes to those who most need it, with greater efficiency in the way the programs are managed and in the delivery of services. Where there is duplication we will eliminate; where programs are redundant, they will be wiped out of existence. Australians do not get value for money when they pay their burdensome taxes and the Federal coalition is going to change all that.
Page 3127
PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner has the call.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: There are some key reforms that I have mentioned and I will go into detail now about personal income tax reforms. The Hewson-Fischer Government is going to slash personal income tax by 30 per cent, that is, $13 billion. The tax free threshold will go -
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Give the battler a break.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: The motto "Give the battler a break" is a good one. The tax free threshold will increase from $5,400 to $7,000, so at least another 320,000 low income earners will pay no tax. Marginal tax rates will be cut across the board with middle income earners being the main target for the cuts. That will mean that 95 per cent of taxpayers will face marginal rates of 30c or less. Under Labor at the moment - the same Government that Bob Hawke said in 1985 had marginal tax rates that were crippling people - more than half of all taxpayers face a rate of 38c or more and, of course, some face up to 47c. In the future Australians will be able to double their taxable income and still pay a marginal tax rate of 30c. In fact, taxpayers will be able to earn up to $75,000 and pay a lower rate of marginal tax than those who earn more than $20,700 pay.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Why can the Labor Government not stand aside and allow the people of Australia the opportunity to benefit from these policies?
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner has the call and does not need the assistance of other honourable members.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: A new tax free saving scheme will be introduced, whereby interest income on new savings, up to a limit of $1,000 a year for a single person and $2,000 for a married person, will attract a rebate of 30c in the dollar. At National Party conferences over the years people have been crying out for more incentive to save money.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: With justification.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: With justification, because at the moment they feel there is no point; they feel they are just wasting their time and their efforts. The corporate tax rate will be increased to 42c so that it is aligned with a significantly reduced top marginal personal income tax rate.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Mr Bond and Mr Skase will not be affected by that.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Probably not, but we will shed crocodile tears for them. Tax avoidance through incorporation will be eliminated. My side of politics will guarantee to taxpayers the return of revenue from tax bracket creep.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That is very original.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It is very original. We will provide tax rebates up to $400 for low to middle income earners who take out private health insurance. People over 65 will enjoy an additional tax rebate. High income earners will be encouraged to take out private health insurance via a Medicare levy surcharge. Is it not time that the Medicare system was fixed up? Is it not time that we fronted up to that problem to ensure -
Page 3128
The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: It never worked.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It has never worked.
The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: It is fundamentally flawed.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It is fundamentally flawed and it is time that this problem was tackled head on. The limit of the dependent spouse rebate for eligible families will go up to $41,679. Low income earners will be more than compensated for the impact of the GST through a GST credit system. A range of other changes will affect personal income tax, such as the new superannuation tax rebate, the abolition of the lump sum tax, a new tax free personal savings scheme, a lower and revised capital gains tax and reduced fringe benefits taxes. The Federal Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Tim Fischer, when releasing the fightback package in concert with the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Hewson, said:
This is the most dramatic policy package ever put to the Australian people. It will revitalise our great nation. The coalition package will bring fairness, equity, competition and incentive back into the Australian way of life. This is the policy to take Australia into the year 2000 and beyond.
It certainly is the most comprehensive and in-depth set of policies ever put up for judgment by the Australian people. Long-awaited tax reform is only one part of the package. The goods and services tax is only one of the elements to tax reform. The Federal Liberal and National parties propose many other reforms of great moment which will determine whether this country continues to make the grade or whether it goes down the chute. The proposed cuts in immigration levels, which is only common sense, have widespread community support. An amount of $3 billion will be allocated for schools and universities in Australia and, as I mentioned earlier, the health system will be dramatically revamped to ensure that older citizens, in particular, have improved access to it. Dramatic reforms are proposed for our infrastructure - ports, railways, road transport and aviation. We will not do to aviation what the Federal Labor Government is proposing to do with its air safety levy, which we have just been discussing. We propose also reforms for power generation and shipping. The Federal Leader of the National Party, Mr Fischer, has long been an advocate of such fundamental reform of Australia's infrastructure. He must be given credit for being years ahead of the debate on these issues, which need to be put fairly and squarely on the national agenda. I point out to honourable members, in particular the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, that Mr Fischer's cry for infrastructure reform has belatedly started to excite the interests of members of the Labor Party.
The Hon. L. D. W. Coleman: You have forgotten about western rail.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Because that is west of the Blue Mountains members of the Labor Party are not concerned about it.
The Hon. L. D. W. Coleman: They do not understand it.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Members of the Labor Party do not worry about the Blue Mountains. Reform of the labour market is regarded by the New South Wales Government and by the Federal Opposition as of the highest priority - getting it right and putting the national economy back on track. Many of the reforms now operational in New South Wales will be copied into Federal industrial relations law and
Page 3129
practised after the next election; and that is not before time. The tax reform section of the package will abolish seven taxes. It will make great inroads into improving the well-being of various sectors of the community.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: We now have a 100 per cent improvement in the attendance of members of the Opposition. They are showing an interest in economic matters.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I am very happy that members of the Labor Party have decided to double their interest in this important debate on reforming the economy of Australia - a matter to which they have not paid much attention over the past nine years. It is pleasing to see two members of the Opposition who are interested in this debate. Our senior citizens have been given careful thought in the composition of this package; even citizens in Labor Party electorates. Earlier I mentioned the proposed interest in the tax free threshold. Pensions will go up by 8 per cent. However, indexation of pensions will remain. There will be a fairer assets test than exists now - a matter of particular importance to all those who live west of the Blue Mountains, or who are rural retirees. There will be no goods and services tax on health. Health will be zero rated, as will education. There will be no GST on local government rates and, of course, rent will be exempt.
We propose also a goods and services tax credit system to ensure that pensioners are not worse off as a result of the reforms. We propose tax rebates for health insurance - a system which worked before Labor mucked up the health system in this country. Medicare will stay, but it will require a much needed revamp. Bulk billing will go out the window, but not for pensioners and beneficiaries. For the rest of us who indulge in what I think is a form of corruption by participating in bulk billing when we can afford not to take the option, the current system is an absolute nonsense. Pharmaceutical benefits will increase. There will be more cash for voluntary community aid organisations. The genuinely needy in this country, who increase at a rapid rate because of the Federal Labor Government's overall policies, will have access to cash, which will be handed out by the grass roots community organisations.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They will be able to get some smart pills under the national health scheme from Mr Keating.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: They will need more than a smart pill; they will need a miracle. There will be a savings scheme so that as an individual increases his or her savings the interest paid will reduce. The Federal coalition parties will scrap compulsory retirement, and discrimination against older people will be eliminated by a new government. It is pleasing to see a Federal Opposition learning from a coalition Government in office and translating a lot of its legislation to the Federal statute books. There will be a pension bonus scheme to encourage workers to stay in the work force longer. Fuel issues are important to the fightback package. As honourable members know, drivers pay 26c a litre in petrol tax. Petrol excise will be scrapped by the new Government, and after introduction of the goods and services tax the effective tax rate will be about 7c a litre. There will be a 19c a litre reduction in the price of petrol. A person with a small car will have $11 left in his pocket every time he fills up with petrol at a bowser. That in itself is a dramatic reform. Self-funded retirees have been looked at carefully by the Federal coalition. Perhaps the most important change for those people will be the changes in marginal tax rates. Like everyone else, they will benefit from the overall reform of the economy. Also, those with incomes up to $50,000 who do not receive a benefit at the moment will receive a pharmaceutical benefits concession card.
Page 3130
The family allowance will be doubled for families earning up to $30,000, and there will be a 50 per cent increase in the allowance for those earning $30,000 to $40,000 a year, with a 6 per cent increase for the $40,000 to $50,000 bracket. That is a tremendous increase in benefits for families. There will be a cutoff so that wealthier families who do not need the money that is at present put into their bank accounts will not receive the allowance in the future; it can be diverted to the more needy people in our society. The benefits of the whole package are concentrated at the bottom end of the scale. Many Australians get caught up in the capital gains tax system without realising it. Under the reforms, an allowance of $3,000 in capital gains will be tax free each year. Share transactions for self-funded retirees will be more satisfactory, and more attractive as a result. Small investors will get a better deal from the Federal Government after the election. Lump sum tax on superannuation will go, and people will have more incentive to enter a superannuation scheme in their early years in the work force.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: So that people can be self-reliant in their retirement, not leaning on the Government.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: So that people can be self-reliant. Lump sum benefits will have an upper limit of $300,000. The remaining portion of any benefits will be taken as a pension. The capital component of annuities will be tax free, and the income component will be taxed at a much lower rate than at present. The National Party is particularly concerned that overall reforms look after the interests of primary producers and those dependent upon them. The Federal Treasury quickly assessed that Australian farmers under the fightback package will be better off to the tune of $1 billion once the package is implemented. The mining sector will be $677 million better off, and the manufacturers will be $5 billion better off. Under present tax regimes Australian exporters face a disadvantage of 5 per cent. The abolition of Commonwealth fuel excise will markedly cut farming input costs. Farmers will pay 26c a litre less for diesel fuel and petrol used on and off farm for business purposes, and the price of petrol for their personal use will be cut by 19c a litre. Fuel price cuts will contribute to lower freight costs, particularly in livestock transport and hay and fodder cartage. But lower freight costs across the nation will ease the burden. That will be of direct benefit to the taxpayers of New South Wales. The cuts will apply to avgas, as was mentioned earlier, which is just as well, given the new tax proposed by the Federal Government. I hope it will be chucked out of office before the legislation goes through. Lower avgas prices will reduce costs for aerial agricultural work - crop dusting, superphosphate spreading, aerial mustering, and the like. Farm operations will, therefore, become more competitive.
The full rebating of the goods and services tax on business inputs, which will apply to farmers and non-farmers alike, will help to cut farm operating costs. The exemption of exports from the goods and services tax, on top of the benefits of lower fuel and production input costs, will substantially increase the competitiveness of Australia's exports on world agricultural markets. Larger agricultural operations will benefit from the abolition of payroll tax, and a lowering of fringe benefit tax and capital gains tax will also benefit parts of the agricultural sector, both directly and indirectly. A review of depreciation allowances to ensure they meet the needs of farm industries relative to their tax and economic situation is welcome news also. There will be a review of the operation of income equalisation deposits as well as fringe benefits tax in remote areas, but tax averaging will be maintained, at the insistence, of course, of the National Party. There will be quicker and more effective anti-dumping and countervailing procedures to ensure fairer trade. Anti-dumping preliminary findings will be in place in 65 days, and final hearings will have to be concluded in 155 days instead of the present 255 days. Those fairer trade practices are of particular interest to the Federal Leader of the National Party, Mr Fischer.
Page 3131
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: That might have saved Cowra.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: That is right. The Edgell's factory at Cowra would not be in its present trouble if an election were held tomorrow. Then we could fix up the problem of farmers at Cowra. The tax incentive for investment in income equalisation deposits - IEDs - will increase their relevance to farmers, and tax averaging will be maintained. Other specifics included in the package for rural folk include an increase in the isolated children's boarding allowance to $2,400; elimination of the assets test for assistance for the isolated children's scheme; no assets tests for retirees living on the family farm; reinstatement of household support as a grant or payment to farmers as a better welfare net than unemployment benefits; and, in addition, the remote area allowance and zone rebate is to increase by at least 25 per cent. More mobile screening units for breast cancer and osteoporosis will be provided for rural areas. Farmers and their families will benefit from the generality of the dramatic reforms as well as from specific items included for their particular benefit.
It is interesting to note how the fightback package compares with the two nation statement for farmers in Australia. How will farmers be affected if one compares both these packages, one from the alternative government and one from the Government that is doomed to die. The fightback package provides for a complete overhaul of the tax system to slash personal income tax by about 30 per cent, that is, by $13 billion. In Paul Keating's two nation package, low income earners such as farmers will not receive a cent from Labor's tax cuts. We will raise the tax free threshold from $5,400 to $7,000, resulting in another 320,000 low income earners paying no tax, but Labor's two nation package does not change the tax threshold. Ninety-five per cent of taxpayers will pay personal income tax at a marginal rate of 30c in the dollar or less but in the two nation package only 75 per cent of taxpayers will pay personal tax at the marginal rate of 30c or less. In the fightback package we guarantee the return of revenue from tax bracket creep to the taxpayers. What does the two nation policy do? It does absolutely nothing.
Comparing our proposed abolition of wholesale sales tax with Labor's hidden consumption tax, which raised $9.4 billion in 1990-91, the National Farmers Federation estimates that that will add $170 million to farm costs. What does Labor propose? It proposes lower wholesale sales tax on non-luxury cars from 20 per cent down to 15 per cent, reducing the cost of the average family sedan by about $800. But this does not include utilities and trucks, which of course are commonly used by primary producers. The fightback package abolishes fuel excise, which currently pumps $6.6 billion per annum into government coffers. The National Farmers Federation estimates that excise is paid on almost half of all fuel used on the farm at a current rate of 28c a litre. Petrol for private motorists will be 19c a litre cheaper under our package when the fuel excise is abolished. In comparison the two nation document will do nothing on that score.
The Federal coalition will introduce a goods and services tax to take the indirect tax burden off producers and tax and goods and services at the correct point in the production cycle, that is, at the point of consumption. GST paid on farm inputs, fertiliser, agent's fees, fencing and so on, will be rebated fully. GST will not be charged on exports. What is Labor's proposal and answer? Its answer is to do nothing. In fact, Labor taxes exports to the tune of $1.7 billion annually. We will return the IEDs as an effective scheme for farmers to put income aside as insurance against seasonal downward fluctuations in income. However, the Federal Labor Government will simply review the IED scheme yet again. That will probably mean more inadequate fiddling at the edges
Page 3132
of that National Party scheme. Under our package farmers will be given full relief from capital gains tax when they sell one farm and buy another, provided that the sale price is not more than $5 million. Labor's response: nothing. Capital gains tax on the sale of a farm by retirees aged 60 years and over will be abolished when those gains are under 10 times average annual earnings. Again Labor does not have an answer to that. What do the farmers organisations say about all of this? The Wool Council of Australia says of the coalition's fightback:
Implementation of this package would provide the necessary incentive for Australia to overcome its current economic problems.
The abolition of Federal excise on fuel will benefit all Australians, particularly those living in remote and regional areas of Australia.
The Coalition's GST package provides a substantial benefit to export industries.
What does the United Graziers Association in Queensland say about Labor's two nation document? It states:
The Federal Government's "one nation" plan . . . fails to provide substantial relief to primary industry and promotes a high risk strategy that may not be achievable in the longer term.
The statement directly avoided taking the hard decisions to put in place meaningful structural adjustment.
Of the fightback package the New South Wales Farmers Association stated:
This is the first genuine, positive attempt by any political party to put together a package that substantially helps business . . . and so creates jobs.
Lower fuel costs mean that all families in regional Australia will now pay a smaller transport component in the cost of everything they buy.
Of the Labor Party's package the New South Wales Farmers Association stated:
The Federal Government's economic package has missed the main event, by failing to give business the confidence it requires to build.
If this is the Government's response to the Opposition Fightback! package, it is obvious they have been knocked out in the first round.
The Victorian Farmers Federation said of our package:
It is the best initiative for farmers to come out of Parliament in decades and is a major win for the farm lobby.
The reduction in fuel prices will have a substantial flow-on effect in the economy, particularly outside the metropolitan areas.
The changes proposed as part of the health policy remove many of the current inequities faced by farm families.
The VFF compliments the Coalition on the compensation package for social security from which many farmers benefit at the present time.
Those people are only in the social security environment because of the Labor Government. Of the fightback package the VFF stated:
Page 3133
With a week to assess Mr Keating's package, farmers and business are not inspired by the economic plan.
The ambitious goals of increased productivity are not likely to pay for the $16 billion Government expenditure over the next four years.
Farmers believe the big spending package will blow out debt and inevitably force up interest rates.
For Paul Keating to offer wage increases tied to the OECD CPI is a sell-out. The first time in a decade that Australia's CPI is lower than the OECD average, the Government changes the rules.
The Pastoralists and Graziers Association said of fightback:
The greatest danger posed by the GST is that it will prove to be so well received that the Government will delay the next election for as long as possible, hoping for a miracle to boost its re-election prospects.
The Grains Council of Australia said of two nations:
The statement did little to restore confidence in a grains industry so severely undermined by the volatility of subsidy corrupted international grains markets.
Primary producer bodies that have met in the past couple of weeks have updated that negative assessment.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: There is no such thing as a level playing field.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Definitely not; there never was a level playing field. The farmers of Australia will be advantaged by the National Party's work on the wool tax, which has been reduced to below 10 per cent, a level that the National Party said all along was correct. The industry now agrees. The coalition will restore confidence in the wheat industry with its current policies on underwriting. A realistic and uniform assets test will be used to determine eligibility for all pensions and benefits. The assets test for the assistance for isolated children's allowance will be replaced by an income test only. Again for people west of the mountains that will be a great benefit. There will be no assets test; in fact there will be only an income test for old-age pensioners and retirees living on the family farm under certain circumstances. Household support will be reinstated as a grant or payment to farmers in short-term financial difficulty, as it offers a better welfare net than unemployment benefits do. Families in extreme financial hardship will not face an assets test for Austudy, family allowances or any other welfare benefits. An income test will apply, but only an income test. The Labor Party has no response to that. Remote area allowances and zone rebates on income tax will increase by at least 25 per cent. Again Labor does not have a response to that. The Federal Opposition's fightback package -
The Hon. D. J. Gay: Unlike one nation.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: No, it has been decided that it is two nations; our friends from Call to Australia have renamed it correctly. The fightback package is based on an honest assessment of Australia's current problems and how we can fulfil our great potential as a country. It is a program that puts forward bold measures across a wide range of policy issues. It is unprecedented for any Opposition in Australia's history. It is an integrated package of reforms aimed at giving the Australian people greater control over their own lives and a reliable framework of policy to restore their prosperity.
Page 3134
The Hon. D. J. Gay: It is not a new tax; it replaces an old tax.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: It involves the abolition of taxes.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: That is right, seven taxes have gone out the window. As the National Farmers Federation said, the Liberal Party and National Party have delivered on many key farm sector policies. We anticipate that farm transport costs alone will be reduced by about 16 per cent. The overall economy will benefit substantially from microeconomic reform. These microeconomic reform policies are of special interest to primary producers and the National Party. The package is a much-needed contribution to national debate and firm evidence of the vision and commitment to economic reform of the Liberal Party and the National Party. The abolition of sales tax alone will save the farm sector $170 million a year. On the other hand the Federal Government's own analysis has shown that the existing ramshackle, indirect tax system disadvantages all Australian exports. We must tackle all of the problems that face the exporting sector. The current indirect tax regime places all Australian exporters at a 5 per cent disadvantage compared with their international competitors. There may be no stimulus to the economy from the statement released by Mr Keating. Markets obviously are concerned at projections for growth, inflation and productivity, and have noted that future tax cuts are unfunded. All economic commentators have noted the unfunded nature of the two nations document.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: I like that two nations; the expression really sums it up.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It has become more relevant in recent times, especially since Pope John Paul Keating's visit to Papua New Guinea and Indonesia when he tried to turn one nation into two nations. We believe that real national leadership of itself does not lie in exploiting the unpopularity of a failed Government. We must address national problems realistically and define strategies to overcome them. We believe that there needs to be generational change in the direction of public policy, in the role that governments play in people's lives and in community attitudes. We do not believe that it was the right thing to do to surprise the Australian people with the coalition's policies after the next election. We have had the honesty to come up with a package that the people can examine in great detail before they go to the polls. By providing a dramatic boost to productivity and economic growth the reforms set out in this fightback document are designed -
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What about the microeconomic reforms?
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Later in the debate I am sure my colleagues will examine in more detail the microeconomic reform aspects of the package. Unfortunately the document and the package have so much detail that I am running out of time. That is regrettable, because I could speak for days about the document. By providing a dramatic boost to productivity and economic growth the reforms set out in the document are designed to provide two million new jobs and halve the unemployment rate by the end of the 1990s.
The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: What did the Chairman of the National Party of New South Wales have to say about the GST?
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: The Hon. D. J. Gay said today that it is excellent. He said that in person while sitting next to the honourable member.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: It is excellent.
Page 3135
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: The job-destroying policies of Labor, centralised regulation of the labour market, the promotion of union power -
The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: What about the canegrowers?
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: The honourable member should not worry about the canegrowers. Mr Goss and Mr Swan have been given a caning by the canegrowers. They did not get anywhere.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: You will not sweeten that one nation document.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It is sour. The job-destroying policies of Labor, centralised regulation of the labour market, the promotion of union power, compulsory levies, high taxation, big spending and government inefficiency will all be reversed under the new government. Fightback is a program that will stabilise and reduce our foreign debt, which is making Australia one of the most vulnerable economies in the world. The Liberal Party and National Party program is designed to bring about a major change in attitudes that will make all these goals possible. It will restore incentives to work and save. Once again people will have a chance for financial independence and will be able to break free of their dependence on government. They will be able to have a soundly based confidence in the future of this country. The burden of income tax will be greatly reduced. Marginal rates will be slashed and the taxation system will be reformed to make it simpler and fairer. There will be an unprecedented attack on government waste and inefficiency. A program of privatisation will enable the essential services of government to be provided more effectively and at less cost. Australia, with the quality of its people and the advantages of its great natural resources, should be a nation of expanding economic opportunity, rising living standards and social progress. Yet over recent years it is clear that we have been held back from making the most of our opportunities and that many other countries with fewer natural advantages are achieving much more. When Pope John Paul Keating goes overseas he must be embarrassed, particularly in a country like Indonesia, to see the fantastic economic growth, especially in export primary industries and manufacturing industries.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: Do you not, as an Australian, feel great to see the Prime Minister going overseas to make announcements about our flag?
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I think it is an absolute disgrace. I hope that on the economic side of things he did actually learn something about how other countries manage their economies.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: He only makes these announcements to hide his own -
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: A diversionary tactic and that is all it is. He will come undone on that score. He has really gone over the top. Getting down on his knees every day probably will not save him.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: The fightback is a terrific document. I could make it a little better but it is great as it is.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I think that is the great thing, as the Hon. D. J. Gay has said. The coalition has brought out the fightback package in time for the Federal election so that people can look at the depth and breadth of the program; and where there is some refinement that people such as the Hon. D. J. Gay feel can be made, they have the opportunity -
Page 3136
The Hon. D. J. Gay: Only small.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Even the little bits, and that is one of the great things about the participatory and democratic structure of the Liberal Party and National Party as we go into the Federal election. The only reason the Federal Government brought out its two nation document was that the coalition produced its statement and the Australian Labor Party did not have one. It did not have a vision for Australia. The Australian Labor Party had to produce a little document to match the coalition's vision for the future of the nation. The role of government in the new era, when the Federal coalition comes to power, will be properly defined so that it can concentrate on providing a fair and certain framework of rules for private activity. The government will protect the weak in the community and concentrate on advancing public interest rather than just particular favoured interests - the old mates syndrome of the ALP. Social objectives are just as important as economic goals. Standards of education and training will be raised to world class levels. The elderly and retired will have a more equitable protection plan than in the past. The unemployed will be given active assistance to re-enter the work force and upgrade their skills. Too many Australians are currently suffering from the plight of unemployment and lack of confidence about their own future and that of their country. For a whole generation, governments have failed by promising more than they have delivered. The Government is responsible for our current difficulties because it has robbed people of the freedom they need to build the kind of country they want. There is really only one question which Australians should be asked: are you less prosperous and less optimistic now than when the Hawke Government came to power nine years ago? The answer -
The Hon. J. H. Jobling: That is a fairly easy answer. Yes, yes, yes. The answer is yes.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Nobody opposite denies the answer is yes and, if so, an alternative is put forward in the fightback package. It is time for Australians to fight back, to take up the hope that is offered in the coalition's document. It is time for a new generation of leadership and government for our country and I certainly have very great pleasure in reiterating that this Chamber should, at the appropriate time, support this motion congratulating the Federal Opposition on its fightback package and calling on the Labor Government to go to the people at the earliest possible opportunity. I certainly look forward to the next couple of months. Once the Prime Minister gets to the earliest point at which he can have a half Senate election and a House of Representatives election, the coalition looks forward to an election date after 1st July. We were there before and we will win. Fightback will put the nation back on track.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner.
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE UPON ROAD SAFETY
The President reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:
The Legislative Assembly desires to acquaint the Legislative Council that on Wednesday 29 April 1992 it agreed to the following resolution -
That the Joint Standing Committee upon Road Safety have leave to make a visit of inspection to the United States of America and Canada.
Page 3137
And the Legislative Assembly requests that the Legislative Council pass a similar resolution.
Legislative Assembly K. R. Rozzoli
30 April, 1982 Speaker
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Motion by the Hon. Virginia Chadwick agreed to:
That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday, 5th May, 1992, at 2.30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs) [4.17]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
SWIMMING POOL FENCING LEGISLATION
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [4.17]: I wish to bring to the attention of all honourable members a letter sent by the Australian Consumers Association to the Premier of this State dated 1st April in these terms:
The Consumers' Association has watched with interest and concern the debate on the Swimming Pools Act. Overwhelmingly this debate has focused on issues of financial hardship, invasion of privacy and aesthetics. Very rarely has the real issue of young children's safety been discussed.
On the few occasions when safety has managed to come to the forefront the argument has taken one of two turns.
Firstly, it has been suggested that the drowning or serious immersions are the result of inadequate parental supervision; that is, the parents of the victims are said to be at fault and the rest of the community should not be required to pay for their remiss behaviour. The Consumers' Association rejects this callous and outdated viewpoint absolutely. It is unrealistic to expect parents to never be distracted.
Secondly, the Pool Fencing Action Group (PFAG) has engaged in some distortion of the statistics. Echoed in the minority viewpoint of the Review Committee, the assertion is that requiring isolation fencing will actually increase the risk of infant drowning. This is based on an academic manipulation of the statistics by including the so-called "swimming immersions"; that is, the statistics include as breaches of isolation fencing, immersions that resulted from children getting into difficulty when they were in the water with parental permission. In these "swimming immersions" (from Pitt's Brisbane study), the patients were conscious and able to talk to the medical staff that treated them, unlike those who were classified as serious immersions. When you disregard this wilful distortion it is worth noting that there was not one serious immersion in the Pitt Study where isolation fencing was installed and functioning. This compares with five instances where consumers had perimeter fencing of the type favoured by the PFAG group.
The NSW Swimming Pools Act of 1990 has been the model legislation for other States. Queensland has already followed suit. The legislation gives a very clear message that NSW cares for its most vulnerable citizens, babies and infants. It would be a great loss to step down from this strong and unequivocal position and to have legislation that is only second rate compared to our Northern neighbours.
Page 3138
I urge Cabinet now that it is deciding on the fate of this legislation to do so on the basis of the core issue, the safety of young children. While some people may be more concerned with the appearance of their gardens, governments need to deal with the fundamental social issue.
The letter is signed by Louise Sylvan, Manager, Policy and Public Affairs Department, Australian Consumers Association. I trust that this letter will receive the consideration of Cabinet and that the proposed changes to swimming pool legislation will not take place.
DISABLED PERSONS
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [4.21]: I bring to the notice of the House a matter of great concern, anxiety and interest to me and a matter that I believe should be of equal concern to other members of the House. For a long time it has been the policy of governments in New South Wales to try to facilitate the accommodation of those who suffer either physical or mental disability so that they can live, so far as possible, in normal circumstances in the community. Since the implementation of the recommendations of the Richmond report that situation has applied to people who suffer some degree of mental impairment. It must be realised that sometimes that independence in the community is fragile and needs to be protected carefully by the community. Where services are needed they must be applied sympathetically and carefully. I raise this issue because recently considerable publicity surrounded an incident in a country area. I will try to avoid mentioning any information that would identify the person or the region, although honourable members will probably be familiar with what I am referring to. This person living in a country area was found to be in a sad situation. Occasionally the individual lapsed into spasms or fits of behaviour which, by any standards, would be unacceptable to the rest of the community. The sad truth of the matter is that most of us are ill equipped to deal with those circumstances, and in this case it fell to the police to restore order so that people could protect others from the circumstances in which they found themselves.
I hope that honourable members will acknowledge that this is not a party political issue but is one that we should apply ourselves to diligently in order to achieve a solution. Once the police were called in to act, a chain of events took place because facilities were not available within hundreds of miles of the particular country community to render the type of services required to stabilise this person's behaviour and to allow her to go back to a normal life and home. I raise this matter because the publicity that surrounded it, and specifically named the person, the home address and the degree of mental impairment, resulted in that person being assaulted within one week of that publicity. It demonstrates how circumspect we must be about issues that we consider require publicity and public attention. I hope that as a result of my speech this afternoon the attention of various Ministers will be focused and sharpened on this issue so that the services that are required to help these people live in the community will be made available. I commend the police who were involved for their actions. They did everything they could over weeks and months to help this person and to achieve a balance between that person's needs and the needs of the community. I regret that I cannot name the police involved or the country region because that would bring undue publicity to the person involved and may result in a repetition of the incident to which I referred earlier and which I regret so much.
GLADESVILLE HOSPITAL
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [4.25]: I wish to bring to the attention of the
Page 3139
House a heartless political letter. Previously I have raised in this House the case of a 17-year-old girl suffering schizophrenia who is a patient at Gladesville Hospital and who was raped on Sunday, 23rd February. She was raped by a person who was able to drive undetected into the grounds of the hospital and, within shouting distance of the recreation area, was able to entice the girl into his car. The reply of the Minister for Health Services Management to representations by the girl's father is totally callous. The father is quite properly concerned about security - or I should say lack of security - at Gladesville Hospital. The Minister commences his letter by saying that the woman is a voluntary patient. This is of little relevance but the Minister seems to be using it as part of his cop-out. It is hurtful to the woman's family that the Minister implies that she is a voluntary patient at that hospital and because of that the Government need do nothing to ensure that she is safe while at the hospital. The problem is that the Government will not take any responsibility for what has happened. By that failure we cannot be sure this will not happen again.
The Minister says that the girl got into the car without any apparent force. Another patient reported the incident to staff, but the car had been driven off by the time that report was made. The Minister said, "Open institutions such as hospitals and schools are always liable to be exposed to such difficulties and it is only personal vigilance that can minimise the danger". What an unbelievable thing for a Minister responsible for hospitals to say about a girl suffering from schizophrenia, that she should have been more vigilant. This girl is in Gladesville Hospital precisely because she is unable to be personally vigilant, as the Minister puts it. She lacks the ability to be responsible for herself. She is in the care of a public hospital because of that fact, yet this Minister implies that a very ill 17 year old made the decision to get into a car with a stranger and to have sex with him. I am disgusted by his attitude. The Government seems very concerned about property but it cares little about people. I back up that assertion by quoting the Minister, who said that security services at Gladesville Hospital have been carried out by outdoor staff. He said:
They provide a service which focuses on the security of property. On weekends the property security service is operated at night only.
The Minister admits that there is no security for the safety of patients and nothing at all during the day on weekends, that is, there is no security for people as opposed to property. The only so-called security at the hospital is carried out by some staff members who have done a security course and work overtime as security officers watching over property. Any person is able to drive through the hospital grounds and prey on defenceless patients. The Minister has asked the Northern Sydney Area Health Service to review security of staff and patients at the hospital. As there is little security there, I would not expect the review to take long. I should point out that there have been at least six other incidents of this type within the area administered by that health service in recent times. I ask the Minister to take into account the welfare of patients, to have the hospital grounds patrolled properly by security officers and to publicise this fact. Only then can we be secure in the knowledge that we have done what we can to protect patients. As the Northern District Times stated in an editorial on lst April, "Public knowledge that hospital grounds were well-policed could be sufficient deterrent to unsavoury types". If the Government continues to do nothing, it is simply giving the message to deviant people that the grounds of the hospital represent a safe area to commit their crimes.
I refer to another problem with security at Gladesville Hospital. Though it is a separate issue I believe it may have contributed to the rape. When the nurses home
Page 3140
was open in the hospital grounds there were always staff around, coming and going, because they lived there. It was a disincentive to people entering with criminal intent. However, on 31st January - just three weeks before the rape in the hospital grounds - this Government evicted all the nurses following a battle in the Industrial Commission to keep the home open. The nurses argued that the closure of the nurses home would add a security risk. This Government replied that it had to demolish the building and would do so promptly and therefore there would be no added security problem. It acknowledged that leaving the building standing and empty would represent a risk. However, now - three months later - not only is the building still standing but there appears to be no plan to demolish it. This is clear from the fact that the Department of Health has recently employed a security officer to protect the building from vandals. Given the mismanagement and deliberate running down of facilities at Gladesville Hospital, it is hard to avoid the suspicion that the Government's real plan is to ignore the recommendation in the recently released options paper and to close the hospital down and sell the site off to developers. The young girl I have spoken of is a victim of the Government playing politics at Gladesville Hospital.
CALDERA ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [4.29]: It appears that not only is the Charitable Collections Act being used to harass environmental organisations on the far North Coast of New South Wales but also confidential information has been leaked to the media in a attempt to discredit these groups and citizens concerned about inappropriate developments in the Tweed shire. I expressed concern when Ian Causley introduced the new fund raising appeals bill last year that it had the potential to be used to frustrate and harass green organisations. Some National Party members have obviously picked up on this fact and, before the new Act has even been proclaimed, they have wheeled out the old act, the Charitable Collections Act 1934, in an attempt to halt criticism of the Tweed Shire Council by Caldera Environment Centre, the Tweed Electoral Lobby and the Tweed Conservation Trust. On 3rd March the Chief Secretary's Department sent an inspector to the Caldera Environment Centre to investigate a complaint from an unnamed developer that it was not a registered charity. Two days of looking at its financial records and membership rolls proved inconclusive. The Tweed Electoral Lobby has alleged that Don Beck, M.P., has held at least four early morning meetings behind closed doors in his electoral office to discuss ways of discrediting local greenies and to establish their own lobby group to push for certain development projects.
Despite wide press coverage none of the participants at these meetings has denied they took place and a barrage of letters and articles have subsequently appeared in local publications attempting to discredit environmental organisations and their representatives. The Tweed Electoral Lobby acknowledges that Mr Beck is entitled to meet with whomever he likes in his own offices, and indeed he has done so. Those in attendance at the closed meetings were Mr Don Beck himself, his wife Lynne, a local councillor, councillors Bob Brinsmead, Warren Polglase, Eddie Buchanan and Sid Williams. Developers attending the meetings were Gary Davey, Harry Ellis, Ken Hanson, and Frank Wilson. Also in attendance were John Todd of the United Business Front, a senior New South Wales police officer and ex-councillor and colourful North Coast identity, Tom Hogan. The Tweed Electoral Lobby has not only had its affairs investigated by the Chief Secretary but the spokesperson for the Caldera Environment Centre, Mr Paul Hopkins, was stopped by plain clothes police on the evening of 5th March and breathalysed. This test proved inconclusive and he was taken to the Murwillumbah police station and detained for more than an hour before he was tested a second time. The second test indicated that Mr Hopkins was well within the 0.05 limit.
I find it unusual that two detectives should be running around breath testing
Page 3141
citizens when a highway patrol and uniformed police normally undertake such duties. I find it most disturbing that an article appeared in the Murwillumbah and District Mail on Thursday, 12th March quoting membership numbers established during an investigation of the Tweed Electoral Lobby conducted by Mr Gary Nelson from the Chief Secretary's Department. It is well known that one of the developers at these closed-door meetings has declared that he was out to discredit the greenies. The investigator, Mr Nelson, appears to have been used in a political way to discredit various environmental organisations. I can think of no other reason why, if the investigations were genuine, any information obtained by Mr Nelson would find its way on to the front page of a local newspaper. Information gathered as a result of any investigation by the Chief Secretary's Department must surely be kept totally confidential. Inquiries to the Chief Secretary's Department by the Tweed Electoral Lobby have confirmed that such information is classified as strictly confidential. On 30th March it was established that the complaint by the unknown developer was made directly to the Minister. [Time expired.]
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at 4.32 p.m. until Tuesday, 5th May, 1992, at 2.30 p.m.
______
QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE
The following questions upon notice and answers were circulated in Questions and Answers:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) What financial assistance does the Department of State Development give to the small business sector to export?
(2) Itemise the assistance?
(3) How does the Department advertise the assistance?
(4) How many small businesses have responded to the offer?
(5) How many small businesses received and continue to receive financial assistance?
(6) What are the amounts of the assistance provided over the last four years?
(7) What are the amounts of assistance given at present?
(8) List those firms receiving such assistance?
Answer -
The Department of State Development does not provide direct financial assistance to small business to export. Services provided for small businesses are:
Page 3142
* information and referral;
* advisory;
* skills development and advocacy support.
As part of the advisory program, eligible businesses may be supported with a 50% subsidy towards the cost of employing a consultant to develop marketing, financial, quality or business plans. In some cases these plans would aim to prepare the small firm to export. The Department promotes availability of this program through its inquiry service, its network with industry, professional and educational organisations and through media releases. The Department also provides assistance to firms under its National Industry Extension Service (NIES) and Regional Business Schemes and some of the firms so assisted could be classified as small businesses.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: ASIAN FOOD AND BEVERAGE MARKET
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) What market share in the Asia Pacific region does the New South Wales Food and Beverage industry presently hold?
(2) What assistance has the Department of State Development given the New South Wales Food and Beverage industry to develop this market share?
(3) What assistance is the Department of State Development presently giving the New South Wales Food and Beverage industry to continue to develop this market share?
Answer -
(1) There are no reliable statistics currently available on the market share held by the New South Wales Food and Beverage industry in the Asia Pacific region as a whole. However, with regard to Japan (the largest market in the region), the New South Wales industry's market share is approximately 2%.
(2) The Department of State Development has assisted and continues to assist the New South Wales Food and Beverage industry through programs provided under the National Industry Extension Service (NIES), and through technology transfer programs. NIES programs involving food processing firms include World Competitive Manufacturing, Quality Assurance, and Strategic Business Planning. Current technology development and commercialisation programs are assisting the smallgoods industry and the confectionery industry. The processed seafood industry is being assisted through State Development networking with New South Wales Fisheries to develop aquaculture fish products. All these programs help the industry to develop market share in the Asia Pacific region.
(3) See answer 2.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: MINING IMPEDIMENTS
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
Page 3143
(1) What are the State controlled impediments to mining companies mining and exploring in New South Wales?
(2) What has the Department of State Development done to alleviate such impediments?
(3) What will the Department of State Development do to alleviate such impediments in order to stimulate the development of that industry?
Answer -
(1) Major impediments identified by industry task forces are:
* land-use competition over access to land for exploration and mining;
* time required for approvals for mining and related/proposals;
* transport issues;
* education and public awareness.
(2) State Development has been active in encouraging:
* microeconomic reform in Government-provided services such as transport;
* more fully-informed basis for decisions on land-use proposals in accord with the principals of ecologically sustainable economic development;
* greater liaison between project proponents, relevant authorities and the community;
* streamlining of project approval process.
(3) State Development will continue to encourage further progress in:
* microeconomic reform;
* balanced and informed decision making;
* improvement in project approvals processes; and
* efficient operation of Government services affecting the mining industry.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: BUSINESS INVESTMENT
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) What assistance has the Department of State Development given to New South Wales businesses to attract capital for long term investment?
(2) Does the Department of State Development plan to assist New South Wales businesses to attract capital for long term investment? If so, what are the plans?
Answer -
(1) State Development's main role is to help create a more competitive economy in New South Wales - for example, through international business development, more efficient provision of public infrastructure and through various industry-based programs designed to improve productivity and competitiveness of New South Wales firms. In this way, State Development contributes to the building of an economic environment in which all businesses are better placed to attract investment capital. State Development also provides direct assistance for major investment projects and co-ordination of government agency inputs and generally in facilitating project implementation.
Page 3144
(2) Yes. State Development's plan to assist New South Wales businesses to attract capital for long term investment is to continue with the current successful policies outlined in (1) above.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: OVERSEAS PRODUCT DUMPING
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) Does dumping of overseas resources and/or goods occur in New South Wales?
(2) What measures has the Department of State Development undertaken to assist New South Wales businesses adversely affected by such dumping?
(3) Does the Department of State Development plan to assist New South Wales businesses adversely affected by such dumping? If so, what are the plans?
Answer -
(1) As at 31 March 1992 there were 26 separate commodities imported into Australia subject to Anti-dumping/Subsidy Measures (Reference Australian Custom Notice No 92/59).
Having regard to the description of the commodities subjected to these measures it would be reasonable to assume that some if not all of the commodities have been offered for sale in New South Wales irrespective of their port of entry.
(2) Remedies available to New South Wales businesses adversely affected by dumping fall wholly within the Commonwealth jurisdiction. The New South Wales Department of State Development is closely monitoring the Commonwealth Government's measures and is representing their interests of affected New South Wales businesses in this matter.
(3) The Department of State Development plans to continue to assist affected New South Wales businesses by representing their interests to the Commonwealth Government.
NEWNES PLATEAU SAND EXTRACTION
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy -
(1) Is a sand extraction operation planned for the Newnes Plateau near Lithgow?
(2) Has an EIS been undertaken prior to the granting of exploration permits? If not, why not?
(3) Does exploration allow for the removal of sand from areas as large as one hectare?
(4) Does exploration allow for roading and drilling?
(5) Which areas in this exploration area are to be exempt from mining?
(6) Has the Minister for the Environment recommended that no sandmining take place North of the Bells Line of Road?
Page 3145
(7) What detailed information can the Minister provide as to the protection of Murrays Swamp, Dingo Swamp, Browns Swamp, and Dargans Creek.
(8) Are these areas habitat for Koalas, the Tawny Grassbird, Beautiful Firetail, Emu Wren, Fairy Wren, Lyre Bird, Glossy Black Cockatoo, Red-Necked Wallaby, Litoria Frog and Diamond Python?
(9) Do these swamp communities act as wildlife refuges and reservoirs?
(10) Is Dargans Creek a proposed nature reserve?
(11) Do these swamps release high quality water to local rivers during periods of low rainfall?
(12) Will the Minister ensure that no sandmining is permitted in this area?
Answer -
(1) Greater Lithgow City Council has advised that it has not received any recent development applications for sand extraction in the Newnes Plateau area. Sand winning is being undertaken at Newnes Plateau by two large sand quarries and a small one, producing specialist sand requirements for the Sydney market.
(2) Sand extraction is an extractive industry which generally requires development consent under Part IV of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Extractive industries as designated development, require the preparation of an EIS. Exploration licences are not issued for sand extraction.
Exploration licenses are issued to enable the search for minerals defined under the Mining Act. The decision to issue an exploration licence is considered under Part V of the EP&A Act whereby the "determining authority", being the Department of Mineral Resources would need to consider if the activity is likely to significantly affect the environment. If this is considered likely, then an EIS would need to be prepared.
On the 7 February 1992, the Honourable I R Causley, MP, the Minister for Natural Resources issued Exploration (prospecting) Licence No.877 pursuant to the Mining Act, 1973. The licence and subject conditions confers on the registered holder the right to prospect for clay.
(3) This is a question best directed to my colleague, the Honourable I R Causley, MP, the Minister for Natural Resources.
(4) This is a question best directed to my colleague, the Honourable I R Causley, MP, the Minister for Natural Resources.
(5) The Newnes Plateau Management Strategy for Winning of Sand (1990) does not exempt areas from extraction of sand or mining, but identifies areas of constraint. The areas of constraint are areas of interest or concern to one or more agencies and where significant impact may occur as a result of sand winning activities.
(6) The area north of Old Bells Line of Road is within these areas of constraint. The Minister for Natural Resources and not the Minister for the Environment may be in a better position to respond specifically to your question.
Page 3146
(7) This question should be directed to my colleague, the Honourable T J Moore, MP, Minister for the Environment.
(8) This question should be directed to my colleague, the Honourable T J Moore, MP, Minister for the Environment.
(9) This question should be directed to my colleague, the Honourable T J Moore, MP, Minister for the Environment.
(10) This question should be directed to my colleague, the Honourable T J Moore, MP, Minister for the Environment.
(11) This question should be directed to my colleague, the Honourable T J Moore, MP, Minister for the Environment.
(12) The Management Strategy is designed to handle additional needs and control future expansion of existing operations so that important environmental attributes are not substantially disturbed.
The Honourable Member can be reassured that specific sites found to be of environmental significance would need to be protected as intended in the strategy.
MINISTER OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: SMALL BUSINESS RESPONSIBILITY
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) Is the Minister responsible for small businesses in New South Wales?
(2) If so, will the Minister:
(a) define his Ministerial responsibilities to small businesses in New South Wales;
(b) itemise the responsibilities?
(3) If not, why not?
Answer -
The Minister for State Development is responsible for small business in New South Wales. The role includes ensuring that the needs of small business and its contribution to business growth are recognised in the process of regulatory and economic reform which is the central mission of this Government.
The Minister's Department of State Development administers a number of programs pertinent to the establishment, maintenance and growth of viable small enterprises. The Minister also has a policy advisory body of private sector individuals in the Small Business Development Corporation who provide input into policy making on the range of issues impacting on the management of owner-operated businesses.
As Minister responsible for Small Business, the Minister for State Development has been active in his efforts to represent the needs of small enterprises in government decision making. The Minister oversighted the bringing into effect of a Code of Practice between
Page 3147
retail traders and building owners on 1 January 1992, bringing to a conclusion a long consultative process with industry. The Minister is responsible for the achievements of the Small Business Service program within the Department. This program provides information and referral services, advisory support, skills development assistance and advocacy services. In 1991, over 50,000 contacts occurred between the Small Business Service and business owners.
BEGA VALLEY SHIRE ABORIGINAL SERVICES
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Service and Vice-President of the Executive Council representing the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -
(1) Is there a shortage of Aboriginal services in the Bega Valley Shire?
(2) Is there an Aboriginal Legal Aid Service based in Bega Valley Shire?
(3) Is there an Aboriginal Welfare Office in Bega Valley Shire?
(4) Is there currently an Aboriginal Community Development Officer working through the local CES?
(5) What actions will the Premier take to ensure that the needs of Aborigines in Bega Valley Shire are met?
Answer -
(1) Whilst there is a shortage of Aboriginal services in the Bega Valley Shire, the availability of services to any particular local government area must be assessed in relation to the resources available across the State and the relative needs of each area.
(2) No; the Aboriginal Legal Service based at Nowra services the Bega Valley Shire area.
(3) There is no Aboriginal Welfare Office based at Bega but the appointment of Aboriginal District Officers for the Department of Community Services regional office at Cooma is under consideration. There is sub-office of the Department of Community Services at Bega.
(4) No; this is a matter for the Federal Government and for the Aboriginal and Torres Strati Islander Commission.
(5) The Office of Aboriginal Affairs, the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission are in close contact with the Aboriginal organisations in the Bega Valley area and are supporting that community in identifying and meeting the needs of the area.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: OVERSEAS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) Has the Department of State Development developed, and engaged in "Business Development Programs" with North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany and with Colorado in the United States?
Page 3148
(2) What are the details of the programs?
(3) What have been the results of the programs?
(4) What finance has the Department of State Development provided the programs?
(5) What businesses in New South Wales have participated and are presently participating in the programs?
Answer -
New South Wales has business development agreements with North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany and the State of Colorado in the USA.
Within these arrangements, each State undertakes to promote an awareness of the others commercial opportunities among its own business community and to assist as required in identifying potential partners for trade, joint ventures, licence agreements and other forms of business collaboration.
No funds are directly allocated to these programs.
For further information see State Development Annual Report 1990-91 pages 31-32.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: SISTER STATE EXCHANGE PROJECTS
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) Has the Department of State Development initiated exchange projects between New South Wales and its sister states?
(2) For what purposes have these projects been initiated?
(3) What has been the financial cost to have these projects initiated?
(4) What are the details of the projects?
(5) What industries are involved?
(6) What businesses are involved?
Answer -
New South Wales has four Sister City/State Relationships; they are:
* Guangdong Province, Peoples Republic of China (established 1979);
* Tokyo Metropolis (established 9 May 1984);
* Seoul Metropolis (established 8 November 1991); and
* The Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (established 28 November 1991).
There have been no exchange projects to date within the framework of the relationships with Seoul and Russia although some New South Wales Departments are known to be considering possible initiatives with these states for future implementation.
Page 3149
For details of exchange projects between New South Wales and Tokyo and Guangdong see State Development Annual Report 1990-91 pages 30-31.
While State Development is the overall co-ordinating agency and provides secretariat services for Sister-State relationships it is not itself the initiator of particular exchange projects.
As far as the relationship with Tokyo is concerned, the majority of exchanges are initiated by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government with New South Wales departments and organisations being involved as either participants or host organisations.
The only exchange program in which State Development has been directly involved is an officer exchange program between New South Wales and Tokyo. This program commenced in March 1990 and terminates in May 1992. Within this program, State Development has been the principal host Department for exchange officers from the Tokyo Metropolitan Government visiting New South Wales. State Development also participated in this program by sending one of its officers to work within the Tokyo Metropolitan Government for three months from October 1991 to January 1992. The cost to State Development of this program over the two years of its operation will be around $36,500.
Project costs for all other programs are met by the individual government agencies and/or private sector companies involved.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: OUTDOOR ADVERTISING
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) Does Ordinance 55 of the Local Government Act mean that outdoor advertising will be deemed a town planning function and therefore require a development application?
(2) What additional cost will this mean to businesses operating in New South Wales?
(3) What financial assistance has the Department of State Development provided businesses operating in New South Wales to accommodate the change made pursuant to Ordinance 55 of the Local Government Act?
(4) What financial assistance will the Department of State Development provide businesses operating in New South Wales to accommodate the change made pursuant to Ordinance 55 of the Local Government Act?
Answer -
As the matters raised by Mr Vaughan concerns the administration of the Honourable Gerry Peacocke, MP, Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives, the question should be addressed to my colleague Mr Webster, Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy, representing Minister Peacocke.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: "CO-ORDINATOR GENERAL STATUS" PROJECTS
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
Page 3150
(1) Has the Department of State Development deemed particular development projects "Co-ordinator General Status"?
(2) What is the criterion for this status?
(3) What are the details of the projects that have been designated this status?
(4) What was or is the approximate or total value of each project listed in answer to question 3?
Answer -
(1) No. Projects are accorded Co-ordinator General Status by Cabinet.
(2) The criteria for this status is referred to in the (1990-1991) Annual Report of the Department on page 19.
(3) These projects are listed in the 1990-1991 Annual Report pages 21-23.
(4) These are also listed in the 1990-1991 Annual Report with the exception of the 3rd runway valued at approximately $320m and the F2 Castlereagh Expressway valued at approximately $300m.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) Is the Director General of State Development also the Chairman of the "Private Infrastructure Committee"?
(2) Does the Director General hold the position of Chairman as a consequence of his position as Director General of the Department of State Development?
(3) What is the connection between the "Private Infrastructure Committee" and the Department of State Development?
(4) Is the "Private Infrastructure Committee" funded by the Department of State Development?
(5) Who are the members of the Committee?
(6) What report or reports have the Committee issued?
(7) What proposals have the Committee suggested in stimulating and facilitating private infrastructure?
(8) Of the proposals listed pursuant to question 7, which proposals have been accepted and rejected by the Department of State Development?
Answer -
(1) Yes.
Page 3151
(2) Yes.
(3) The Private Infrastructure Committee is an inter-departmental committee which is serviced and supported by the Department of State Development.
(4) As it is an inter-departmental committee each Department funds the time utilised by their respective officers attending Committee business.
(5) The Private Infrastructure Committee comprises representatives from The Cabinet Office, Premier's Department, Treasury and the Department of State Development (chair).
(6) No reports have been publicly issued - the Committee reports to the Economic Development Committee and the Capital Works Committee of Cabinet.
(7) The Committee has not put forward specific infrastructure project proposals; it exists to provide a private sector/public sector interface through which private sector infrastructure proposals are assessed. When appropriate, the Committee also provides confidential advice to Cabinet Committees on issues relating to stimulating and facilitating private infrastructure.
(8) The Committee does not forward proposals to Department of State Development for acceptance or rejection; it provides confidential advice to Cabinet Committees which in turn direct departments including Department of State Development to undertake appropriate action.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIATION PROJECT
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) Has the Department of State Development introduced an environmental mediation project during 1991?
(2) What was the purpose of this project?
(3) What have been the achievements of the project?
(4) What programs has the Department initiated and plan to initiate in order to promote the project?
(5) What has been the financial cost of the project and promotional programs?
Answer -
(1) Yes.
(2) The purpose of the project is outlined in the 1990-1991 Annual Report of the Department of State Development at Page 26.
(3) The project increased debate on the use of mediation as an alternative method of resolution of environmental disputes.
Page 3152
(4) None. The introduction of a Practice Direction by the Land and Environment Court on Mediation and Issues Conferences from 1 May 1991 and the establishment of the Environment Protection Authority have undertaken any plans in this area.
(5) Actual expenditure was $17,468.
URBAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy -
(1) Are natural environments in urban areas protected by the National Parks and Wildlife Act or the Heritage Act, 1977?
(2) If the National Parks and Wildlife Act covers natural environments in the city, why did the Minister for Environment use the Heritage Act to protect Agnes Banks in 1989?
(3) Apart from Agnes Banks, 1989, can the Minister cite any examples of the Heritage Act being used by the Government to protect natural environments in urban areas?
(4) Is the "ministerial agreement" between former Planning Minister Mr Hay and Environment Minister Mr Moore concerning the use of the Heritage Act for natural environments in urban areas still current?
(5) If so,
(a) What precisely is the nature of this agreement?
(b) Does the agreement mean that the NPWS has responsibility for the natural lands in the cities?
(6) Where the Lands and Environment Court has ruled on a development which has since been abandoned, does this lessen or negate State powers over this land?
Answer -
(1) Both Acts can be used to protect the natural environment in urban areas.
(2) The National Parks and Wildlife Act was amended in 1987 to facilitate urgent interim protection over areas of natural significance. Prior to that amendment the Heritage Act was the only mechanism available to provide conservation orders over natural areas. Apart from interim Protection Orders (effective 12 months) the National Parks and Wildlife Act provides for conservation agreements involving projects which could affect environmentally sensitive areas. The then Minister for Planning placed the Permanent Conservation Order under the Heritage Act over Agnes Banks at Penrith on 10 March 1989, as it was considered the appropriate mechanism at the time.
(3) The following examples are provided where action was taken under the Heritage Act to provide protection over the natural environment in urban areas:
* Mt Wilson Precinct - Blue Mountains - 21/10/88
* Barrenjoey Headland and Isthmus Palm Beach - 22/01/82
* Natural Area - Vegetation and Road Reserve Eastwood - 26/02/88
* Eastern Headland - Malabar - 12/02/88
(4&5) There has been no such agreement nor does one exist.
Page 3153
(6) In general terms the Land and Environment Court, by its decisions, cannot negate or lessen the powers of the State over any land. However, the Honourable Member's question appears to raise complex legal issues and cannot be answered in a generalised way.
EGG LABELLING
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs -
(1) Do some New South Wales egg producers sell battery eggs falsely labelled as free range eggs?
(2) What action is being taken to stop this?
Answer -
I am not aware of any current problems of producers marketing eggs as free range which were in fact produced under cage production systems. There has been considerable debate about the alleged misrepresentation of eggs as free range. This remains an issue for my colleagues the Minister for Health and the Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives.
Public complaints about the labelling of food products should in the first instance be directed to the Department of Health, for consideration under the labelling provisions of the Food Act. Should this not be satisfactory, the matter will be referred to the Department of Local Government and Co-operatives for consideration under the Fair Trading Act.
2,4-D AERIAL SPRAYING
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs -
(1) Did aerial spraying of the pesticide 2,4-D take place on North Ocean Shores Development land at Yelgun, in Byron Bay Shire, on July 17 1991, from approximately 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.?
(2) Were any complaints received from residents whose property was affected by drift from the spraying?
(3) If so, what action was taken on the complaints?
(4) Is it illegal for 2,4-D to drift onto adjacent property?
(5) Was the helicopter involved in the spraying detected by residents making runs outside the boundaries of North Ocean Shores Development property?
(6) Did the spraying occur in a variable breeze?
(7) Did an officer from the Department of Agriculture visit the home of Mr Stan Scanlon, of Jones Road, Yelgun, on 22 July 1991?
(8) Did the officer take any samples to attempt to verify the complaints?
Page 3154
(9) If not, why not?
(10) Were residents on surrounding properties notified of the spraying before it occurred?
(11) Have residents in the area suffered from ill health due to the spraying of 2,4-D at North Ocean Shores?
(12) Did one resident, Mr Tom Fysh, who was walking his dogs along the road, adjacent to North Ocean Shores, pass through a wall of mist which had drifted across from the area being sprayed?
(13) Did he subsequently suffer ill health effects such as tingling eyes, nauseousness and stinging sinuses?
(14) Has the Scanlon family suffered from diarrhoea, vomiting, lack of energy, insomnia, bleeding from the bowl and shortness of breath following each spraying operation at North Ocean Shores?
(15) Have any studies been done to examine the effects of 2,4-D on human health?
(16) If so, are the results of the studies available to the public?
(17) If no studies have been made on the effects of 2,4-D, does the Department plan to undertake any studies while the spraying continues?
(18) Has 2,4-D been banned in a number of countries including the United States, due to its effects on human health?
(19) Are there alternative ways to eradicate the groundsel bush which is being targeted by the spraying?
(20) Has there been any noticeable change in the numbers of groundsel bushes in the North Ocean Shores Development land?
(21) Will the Minister act to ensure that residents will be protected from any continued misuse of 2,4-D at North Ocean Shores?
Answer -
(1) Aerial spraying of 2,4-D took place on north Ocean Shores Development at Yelgun in Byron Bay Shire on 17 July 1991, from approximately 8.00am to 10.30am.
(2) There were complaints but investigations indicated that no property had been affected by off target drift.
(3) The complaints received were investigated.
(4) Yes. It is an offence under the Pesticide Act (1978) to cause 2,4-D to be deposited onto adjacent properties.
(5) The main concern of officers from the Department of Agriculture was whether or not pesticide order PO-AIR-1 was breached. This order requires that pesticides not be released from an aircraft closer than 150 metres horizontally from an inhabited dwelling
Page 3155
or public place. The terms of this order were adhered to. However, in most aerial spraying operations, it is necessary to fly outside the target area for the purposes of manoeuvring or ferrying chemical. If this is done without releasing pesticide, it is permissible under the Pesticide Act.
(6) The spraying took place in light variable wind conditions.
(7) Yes.
(8&9) No samples were taken for the purposes of testing for traces of 2,4-D. There were many 2,4-D sensitive plants in the area adjacent to the sprayed area, namely bananas, vines, and cucurbits. These plants will exhibit strong symptoms of 2,4-D damage below the limits of analytical determination for 2,4-D. These nearby susceptible plants were monitored and no symptoms of damage were evident.
(10) The ground crew and the organiser notified some of the nearby residents before spraying. This is not a legal requirement, but something they chose to do. I understand that Mr Scanlon was not notified.
(11) I am not aware of any of the residents of the area suffering ill health due to the spraying of 2,4-D.
(12&13) Mr Tom Fysh did not make a formal complaint to the Department of Agriculture.
(14) I am advised that Mr Scanlon has been referred to the Department of Health on several occasions to discuss his concerns over his health and that of his family.
(15&16) Many studies have been carried out on the effects of 2,4-D on human health. These studies and the results have been evaluated by the National Health and Medical Research Council (N.H.M.R.C.). At this time the N.H.M.R.C continue to support the correct uses for this chemical.
Substantial reviews of 2,4-D have been undertaken by the World Health Organisation (1984 & 1987), the Evatt Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents and Australian Personnel in Vietnam (July 1985), the Canadian Centre for Toxicology (23 March 1987). All of these studies have resolved in favour of the continued use of 2,4-D subject to controls.
(17) Not applicable.
(18) 2,4-D has not been banned in the United States. It is still the most widely used herbicide on the North American continent. I am not aware of any major bans on the use of 2,4-D.
(19) Other herbicides can control groundsel bush, but these alternatives can kill a wider range of off-target species and are therefore less environmentally acceptable.
(20) I am advised that the North Coast County council is satisfied with the current level of control of groundsel bush.
(21) The Minister and the Department of Agriculture will continue to ensure that aerial spraying is carried out according to controls under the Pesticide Act (1978).
Page 3156
CAVES BEACH LAND REZONING
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy -
(1) Does the Hunter Regional Plan (1982) and its Draft Amendment (1989) require that land such as that at Caves Beach owned by Gordon Pacific be carefully assessed before rezoning can be considered?
(2) Was a direction given under Section 117 of the EP&A Act requiring a Local Environment Study of this area?
(3) Was this Local Environment Study prepared and exhibited?
(4) If not, why not?
Answer -
(1) No. Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 1984 (Amendment No.16), prepared for the Caves Beach site owned by Gordon Pacific Ltd, was gazetted on 10 February 1989. Hunter Regional Environmental Plan No.1 which applied at the time provided a framework and guidelines for the preparation of local environmental plans by councils within the Hunter Region.
(2) A Ministerial direction, applying generally throughout the State, required the preparation of an environmental study in those instances where environmental protection zones are proposed to be altered or removed. Departures from this direction require justification.
(3) No.
(4) Pursuant to the provisions of section 74 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the Director of Planning agreed that an environmental study was not necessary, having regard to the statement of environmental effects prepared by the applicant's consultants and the special report of Council's City Planner which were exhibited with the draft plan and to the involvement by a large number of relevant authorities.
DISABLED DRIVER PARKING SPACE INFRINGEMENTS
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Co-operatives -
(1) Has a Government decision restricted Local Councils from imposing penalties of no more than $45 for non-disabled people in parking spots set aside for disabled drivers?
(2) Will the Minister ensure that Councils are free to set their own penalties for this offence?
(3) Will the Minister recommend a fine of $200?
Answer -
(1) From 1 February 1992, on-the-spot fines for all offences in free council carparks, including parking illegally in a disabled space, have been standardised at $45 (in parity with the offence of "exceeding a time limit" under the Traffic Act).
Page 3157
However, the maximum penalty for these offences remains unchanged at $500. Local Councils may continue to proceed by way of summons and in such cases it would be for the Court to determine a penalty up to this maximum.
(2) No. On-the-spot fines were standardised at the request of the Local Government industry to enable Councils to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their operations through the use of the computerised administration facilities of the Police Service Infringement Processing Bureau (SEINS).
(3) A general examination of the level of penalties is being conducted in the context of the Local Government Act Review. I anticipate that this will provide an opportunity for a separate offence in relation to disabled parking spaces at a higher level of penalty.
SOUTHWEST SYDNEY COMMUNITY SERVICES
Dr Burgmann asked the Minister for Health and Community Services -
(1) Is the Government committed to housing Sydney's increasing population in the South-West Sydney region?
(2) Will the Community Services District Offices, promised for Camden and Picton, not now be opened until at least April 1993?
(3) If so, how will this affect Child Protection and other such support services in the South-West Sydney region?
Answer -
(1) Does not fall within the portfolio of the Minister for Health and Community Services.
(2) I am not aware that promises had been made to open offices in the Camden and Picton areas or that these offices would not now be opened until April 1993.
At present, the Department of Community Services' Campbelltown Community Services Centre is responsible for the provision of services to the Camden and Picton areas.
Provision of services in the South-West Sydney and Macarthur Areas will be determined by the Department of Community Services in the context of detailed three-year plans for these Areas, to be developed in July 1992.
The plans will address identified needs in the Areas and will take into account projected population change over the three-year period.
Support services will reflect the priority needs of the South-West Sydney and Macarthur Areas within available resources.
(3) Child Protection and other support services are provided to clients in their homes or in the community and are not effected by the location of the offices at which staff are based.
CAMDEN AND CAMPBELLTOWN HOSPITALS NURSES
Dr Burgmann asked the Minister for Health and Community Services -
(1) Are positions at Camden District and Campbelltown Hospitals formerly filled by experienced nursing staff now being filled by Enrolled Nurses and recent graduates?
Page 3158
(2) If so:
(a) how much money will be saved as a result;
(b) what is the ratio of experienced nurses to Enrolled Nurses and recent graduates now compared to the period preceding the introduction of this policy;
(c) is this affecting the standard of health care received by patients in South-West Sydney?
Answer -
(1) Between October 1991 and March 1992 at Camden Hospital one Registered Nursing position was converted to an Enrolled Nursing position. In February 1992, four newly graduated Registered Nurses were employed. In previous years the hospital has employed three.
Campbelltown Hospital, when if first opened in 1977, was staffed with an all Registered Nurse staff. This situation continued until 1990 when, consistent with the policies and directions given by the New South Wales Department of Health, some Enrolled Nurses were employed in selected areas. However, in the last two years Campbelltown Hospital has employed approximately 15 new graduates each year. This year only two recent graduates have been employed.
(2) (a) Some savings are made by employing Enrolled Nurses rather than Registered Nurses. Both Enrolled and Registered Nurses earn different salaries depending upon their year of service. The weekly salary for a 3rd year Enrolled Nurse is $413.10. A 3rd year Registered Nurse base weekly salary is $498.40 - a difference of $85.30 per week or approximately $4,450 per year before oncosts.
(b) Camden Hospital has always employed Enrolled Nurses so there has not been a recent change in policy in this regard.
The ratio of Registered Nurses (R.N.) to Enrolled Nurses (E.N.) at Camden Hospital for two months and six months apart is as follows:
October 1991 - 8.05 R.N. to 1.0 E.N.
March 1992 - 7.93 R.N. to 1.0 E.N.
The nursing staff establishment of Campbelltown Hospital is 260.9. There are currently 17 Enrolled Nurses working at Campbelltown and one on Maternity Leave. This represents a ratio of approximately 15 Registered Nurses to every one Enrolled Nurse and is well above the state average of Registered Nurses to Enrolled Nurses employed in public hospitals.
(c) These minor adjustments to the staffing mix have not altered the high standard of health care received by patients at both Camden and Campbelltown Hospitals.
CAMDEN AND CAMPBELLTOWN HOSPITALS ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS
Dr Burgmann asked the Minister for Health and Community Services -
Page 3159
(1) Are there no orthopaedic surgeons available for emergency treatment at Campbelltown or Camden District Hospitals and do emergency cases have to be taken to Liverpool or Westmead Hospitals for treatment?
(2) If so, will this situation be remedied given the planned population expansion in the South-West Sydney region?
Answer -
(1) A specialist orthopaedic service is not available at Camden Hospital. Emergency cases are transferred to Campbelltown or Liverpool Hospitals.
At present, orthopaedic services at Campbelltown Hospital are provided by one Visiting medical Officer Orthopaedic Surgeon. Depending on the severity of the case, patients are either managed at Campbelltown or, where this is not possible, stabilised and transferred to the closest available hospital with orthopaedic beds. This is usually Liverpool Hospital, but may on occasions be Westmead.
(2) No orthopaedic service is planned for Camden Hospital for some time.
Campbelltown Hospital conducted interviews for an additional three Visiting Medical Officer Orthopaedic Surgeons on Monday 13 April 1992. Following the appointments of selected applicants, the hospital will provide a full orthopaedic service. It will only be necessary for patients subject to major trauma to be transferred from Campbelltown Hospital to Liverpool Hospital.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: REGIONAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) What encouragement has the Department of State Development given to the private sector to develop regional airports?
(2) What regional airports have been identified by the Department as requiring development?
(3) What regional airports have been developed?
(4) Which private sector businesses have been involved in any development and are they New South Wales based?
Answer -
(1) The Department of State Development has assisted in the establishment of the British Aerospace/Ansett Flying College at Tamworth, and the development of Quirindi and Gunnedah airports, and of the proposed International Aircraft maintenance facility by Matrix Aeronautics at Newcastle (Williamtown) Airport.
(2) As a result of the findings of the New South Wales Tourism Development Strategy (1990) State Development chaired a task force "to support Coffs Harbour City Council proposal to upgrade the Coffs Harbour Airport on a joint value basis with the private
Page 3160
sector". The Coffs Harbour City Council and the Government accepted the Task Force's recommendations and an agreed development strategy announcement was made on 28 February 1992.
Also the Department of State Development was represented on an interdepartmental steering committee chaired by the Department of Transport which prepared the Regional Airports Development Strategy (RADS). The strategy forecasts show that local demand will require the upgrading of Albury, Armidale, Moruya, Scone, Singleton, Taree and Upper North Coast (Ballina/Casino/Lismore) during the period of the forecasts viz 2015 and indicates that the threshold for regional expansion of truck services will be reached by Coffs Harbour in 1998 and by Port Macquarie in 2006.
(3) Tamworth (British Aerospace/Ansett Flying College).
(4) Matrix Aeronautics - Registered Office: Queensland
British Aerospace - Headquarters: South Australia
Ansett - Victoria.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: BADGERY'S CREEK AIRPORT
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) Has the Department of State Development established a full-time special task force to examine issues regarding the construction of the Badgery's Creek airport?
(2) Who are the members of this task force?
(3) What is the budget of this task force?
(4) What recommendations to date have come from the task force?
(5) Has the Department implemented any recommendation or recommendations that have come from the task force?
(6) If so, which recommendation/s?
Answer -
(1) The Department of State Development has not established a full-time special task force to examine issues regarding the construction of the Badgery's Creek airport. The matter is, however, currently on the agenda for consideration by the recently formed Western Sydney Economic Development Committee.
(2-6) Not applicable.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: MANUFACTURING PROCUREMENT PROCESS
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) What steps has the Department of State Development taken to improve the actual procurement process for New South Wales firms wishing to participate in proposed manufacturing projects?
Page 3161
(2) What are the details of any such improvements?
(3) What further improvements will the Department make to the procurement process?
Answer -
The Department is the proponent of New South Wales industry in the Government procurement process. Current policies supporting New South Wales industry are:
* The 20% preference margin applied against imported content in government procurement;
* The New South Wales and Australian Civil Offsets programs which direct between $100m and $200m of orders to New South Wales industry per annum;
* Re-evaluating the role of the Industrial Supplies Office to include support for suppliers to major Government contracts to identify local sources of supply.
2. See Part (1).
3. The Department believes that New South Wales industry will benefit through greater uniformity in procurement policies across Australia and New Zealand. It is proposing policies which improve purchasing policy uniformity with other States, the Commonwealth and New Zealand and encourage local industry to become more internationally competitive.
The Department also promotes local industry capability to key procurement decision-makers in the public sector.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: INDUSTRY INVOLVEMENT IN DEVELOPMENTS
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) Does the Department of State Development request potential developers to identify the level of involvement of New South Wales industry in any proposed project?
(2) Does the Department use this level of involvement as criteria for assessing the proposal?
(3) What importance does the Department place upon the level of involvement of New South Wales industry in the proposal?
(4) Does the Department monitor the level of involvement?
(5) Does the Department make this information public? If so, how?
Answer -
(1) Yes. While the development of and procurement for a venture is a commercial decision, the use of competitive local suppliers is encouraged by State Development. Within the Australian Industry Technology Council forum, New South Wales, together
Page 3162
with other States, Territories and the Federal Government, has developed a policy framework for a consistent approach in respect of Australian industry involvement in major projects. This policy framework has the support of principal local industry groups.
(2) Yes. Where appropriate industry development criteria can be written into major Government tenders and contracts, or where assistance has been provided in project location decisions.
(3) The level of involvement of New South Wales industry in a proposed development is specific to each proposal. While recognising that the choice of suppliers is a business decision for the specific developer the Department is encouraging the growth of New South Wales and Australian supplier networks.
(4) Yes - through best endeavours performance agreements.
(5) Significant local industry participation in major projects is publicised in the course of normal Ministerial press releases and conference presentations.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: EMPLOYER TRAINING ACCREDITATION
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) Has the Department of State Development streamlined the accreditation process for New South Wales employers seeking accreditation to train their respective employees?
(2) If so, how has the Department streamlined the accreditation process?
(3) How many more employers sought accreditation in light of the streamlining?
(4) Will the Department continue to streamline the process? If so, how?
Answer -
As the matters raised by Mr Vaughan concern the administration of the Honourable John Fahey, MP, Minister for further Education, Training and Employment, the question should be addressed to my colleague Mr Pickering, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing Minister Fahey.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY- TERTIARY INSTITUTION COLLABORATION
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) Has the Department of State Development established a program or programs to facilitate collaboration between New South Wales tertiary education institutions and New South Wales manufacturing industry?
(2) When was or when were the programs implemented?
(3) What are the details of each program?
Page 3163
(4) What is the cost of these programs?
(5) Will the Department continue the program or programs?
(6) Will the Department develop the program or programs?
(7) What section of the Department is responsible for the program or programs?
(8) What New South Wales tertiary institutions are involved?
(9) What New South Wales manufacturers are involved?
Answer -
(1) Yes. Funding for Innovation, Research & State Technology (FIRST) Scheme and the Teaching Company Scheme (TCS).
(2) FIRST - The first projects were approved in February 1988.
TCS - Approval for State involvement was given on 19 December 1985, and is currently operative.
(3) FIRST is a New South Wales Government initiative to encourage the collaboration of Government and industry on commercialising innovative products and processes developed in both public and private sectors. A non-interest bearing advance of up to $50,000 is awarded on a dollar for dollar basis, repayable upon the successful commercialisation of the product or process.
The TCS projects funded by New South Wales fosters the collaboration of tertiary education institutions and the New South Wales private sector on carrying out and commercialising research and development. $22,000 is granted per annum for two years.
The National Teaching Company Scheme (NTCS) is a Commonwealth initiative. Projects not Federally funded are forwarded to respective State Governments for funding.
(4) Commitments to date total $2,297,230 for FIRST, and $476,564.33 for TCS.
(5) Yes.
(6) Development of FIRST and TCS will be reviewed from time to time along with other DSD programs.
(7) The Technology Branch is responsible for both these programs.
(8) New South Wales Tertiary Institutions:
Cumberland College of Health Sciences - TAFECOM
Hunter Institute (now Newcastle University - University of New South Wales
Macquarie University - University of Technology Sydney
Sydney University - University of Western Sydney
TAFE - University of Wollongong
Page 3164
(9) New South Wales Manufacturers:
Ausonics - Metal Manufacturers
Bioclone - Quantum Technology
Biocycle - Rescare
Biodental - Rundies
Bioquest - Samuel Taylor
David Brown Gear Industries - Sunbeam Corporate
ICI Australia - TCG
Industrial Microwave Applications Ltd - Utilux
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: EXPORT ENTERPRISE CLUSTERING
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) What enterprise clustering projects has the Department of State Development implemented to encourage New South Wales firms to export?
(2) What are the details of each project?
(3) What firms are involved?
(4) Have such projects increased export levels of New South Wales firms? If so, by how much?
(5) Will the Department continue the projects?
(6) Will the Department develop the projects?
(7) What is the cost of running the projects?
(8) What is the cost to New South Wales firms in participating in such projects?
(9) What industries have been involved?
Answer -
(1) State Development is supporting (7) pilot projects based on the principles of cluster development or enterprise networking. Most are designed to encourage exports. All projects are supported through the National Industry Extension Service (NIES).
(2) The projects are:
* Envirolink Development Project - to develop and market electronic pollution monitoring equipment.
* Engineering Services Network - to collectively market engineering equipment and services to South East Asia.
* Australia Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation (ANSTO) Enterprise Network - to develop the commercialisation of nuclear medicine diagnostic equipment.
* AOTC (Telecom/OTC) Suppliers Cluster Development Project - to develop a network of telecommunications equipment supplies and to provide support for the overseas trade program of AOTC.
Page 3165
* Singapore Design Network - to place a design broker in Singapore to service the South East Asia regions through a consortium of New South Wales and Victoria design consultancies.
* Chamber of Manufactures Facilitation Development Project - to co-ordinate network projects in targeted industry sectors through the Chamber acting as an industry catalyst.
* Australian Membrane and Biotechnology Research Institute Ltd (AMBRI) Enterprise network - to develop the commercialisation of AMBRI biosensor technology, involving local firms and the CSIRO.
(3) Names of firms are "commercial-in-confidence".
(4) It is too early to know the extent to which the projects have increased export levels of the firms involved.
(5) Yes.
(6) Yes, subject to assessment of the effectiveness of the projects.
(7) Approximately $255,000 of Commonwealth NIES funds has been allocated to the seven projects. New South Wales NIES has contributed approximately $70,000 in addition to staffing costs associated with project administration and delivery.
(8) NIES funds provide subsidies to participating firms to meet 50% of firms' cash costs. The participating firms contribute the remaining 50%.
(9) Industries involved are: Environmental Management and Equipment; Engineering Services and Equipment; Nuclear Medicine; Telecommunications Equipment; Design Services (Architecture, Product Design, Graphic Design, Furniture Design); Food Processing; Metal-Based Engineering; Biotechnology.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT: NATIONAL INDUSTRY EXTENSION SERVICE
Mr Vaughan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs representing the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism -
(1) To what extent has the Department of State Development utilised the services and operation of NIES in the networking of current New South Wales exporters and potential New South Wales exporters?
(2) Will the Department increase its utilisation of NIES? If not, why not?
Answer -
(1) No. The NIES program referred to was a system for assisting exporters in their dealings with the customs department. It is no longer offered by NIES as it was sold to OTC a number of years ago.
(2) See answer 1.