The President (The Hon. Max Frederick Willis) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The President offered the Prayer.


Royal assent to the following bill of the previous session reported:

HomeFund Restructuring Bill

The President reported the receipt of a message from His Excellency the Governor transmitting a copy of a despatch from the President of the Senate of the Commonwealth dated 1 February 1994 notifying that a vacancy had happened in the representation of the State of New South Wales in the Senate, through the resignation of Kerry Walter Sibraa on 1 February 1994.

The President reported the receipt of a message from His Excellency the Governor transmitting a copy of a despatch from the President of the Senate of the Commonwealth dated 24 February 1994 notifying that a vacancy had happened in the representation of the State of New South Wales in the Senate, through the resignation of Bronwyn Kathleen Bishop on 24 February 1994.

Motion by the Hon. J. P. Hannaford agreed to:

That the messages be taken into consideration on the receipt of messages from the Legislative Assembly dealing with the same subject.

The President reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

Mr President -

The Legislative Assembly desires to acquaint the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution

That Malcolm John Kerr be discharged from attendance upon the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and that Michael John Richardson be appointed to serve on such committee.

Legislative Assembly K. R. Rozzoli
1 March 1994 Speaker

The PRESIDENT: I announce to the House the death on 27 January 1994 of Major Edward Harris Humphries, aged 79 years, a former member of this House. On behalf of the House I have extended to his family the deep sympathy of the Legislative Council in the loss sustained.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places.


The President, in accordance with section 78(1) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, laid upon the table the Report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption on Investigation into the Relationship Between Police and Criminals. The President, under section 78(3) of the Act, authorised that the report be made public.

The President, in accordance with section 78(1) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, laid upon the table the Report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption on Investigation into Collins v. Ryan. The President, under section 78(3) of the Act, authorised that the report be made public.


The President tabled the Annual Report of the Legislative Council for the year ended 30 June 1992.

Ordered to be printed.


Suspension of certain standing orders agreed to.

The President nominated the following honourable members to act as Temporary Chairmen of Committees during the present session: the Hon. Franca Arena, the Hon. Richard Thomas Marshall Bull, the Hon. Beryl Alice Evans, the Hon. Dr Marlene Herbert Goldsmith and the Hon. Andrew Bruce Manson.

Page 20

Bill read a first time.



The Clerk of the Parliaments announced receipt of copies of Report No. 6 of the Standing Committee on Social Issues entitled "Sexual Violence: The Hidden Crime, Inquiry into the Incidence of Sexual Offences in New South Wales: Part 1", dated December 1993.


Petition praying that the House not pass the Azzopardi Inquiry Bill 1993, received from the Hon. J. P. Hannaford.

Petitions praying that because of the detrimental effect of throw-away packaging on the environment, legislation be introduced imposing a mandatory deposit on all containers sold in New South Wales, received from the Hon. Jan Burnswoods and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

Petition praying that because of the public health risk associated with the homosexual and lesbian mardi gras parades, and their offensive and blasphemous nature, the House will take all steps necessary to prevent such future parades through the streets of Sydney, received from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Petition praying that the House oppose Government proposals to legalise brothels and that urgent action be taken to clean up vice, disease and exploitation, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile.


The PRESIDENT: Order! For the information of honourable members, I advise that I intend to follow the procedure adopted last session when members seek the call for notices, to allow only one general business notice of motion to be given by a member on each call from the Chair. This practice will not apply to Ministers or to members giving contingent notices of motion.

[Notices of Motions]

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Hon. R. T. M. Bull to give the same notices of motion that have been given by the Hon. J. H. Jobling?

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is quite in order for this procedure to be embarked upon, tedious though it might be.

Suspension of certain standing orders agreed to.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [3.10]: I move:

That the following Sessional Orders be adopted:

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 10A be amended to read:

10A. Upon the President taking the Chair each day, if there be a Quorum present as provided by the 10th Standing Order, he shall offer the following Prayers:

"Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory, and the true welfare of the people of our State and Australia.

Our Father, which art in Heaven: Hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil: For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever, Amen."

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, this House shall meet for the despatch of business at 10.30 a.m. on Monday, Thursday and Friday and at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday and Wednesday each week.

(1) That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, Questions shall commence at 4.00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and at 12 noon on Thursday and Friday.

(2) If, at the time for interruption:

(a) a division is in progress, the division shall be completed and the result announced;

(b) the House is in Committee of the Whole, the Chairman shall leave the Chair and report progress,

and any business then under discussion, if not disposed of, shall be set down on the Notice Paper for a later hour of the sitting.

That, during the present Session, a copy of every Petition received by the House shall be referred by the Clerk to the Minister responsible for the administration of the matter which is the subject of the Petition.

That, during the present Session:

(1) Whenever a Minister shall intimate to the House that Bills specified by the Minister are cognate Bills:

(a) such Bills may be introduced upon one Motion for leave and be presented and read a first time together;

Page 21

(b) one Motion may be moved and one Question put in regard to each of the several stages for the passage of such Bills through the Council; but

(c) such Bills shall be considered separately in Committee of the Whole.

(2) When Bills sent from the Assembly are reported by the President as cognate Bills, the first reading and subsequent stages shall be proceeded with in a similar manner.

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of any other party or group, where such leadership has been previously announced to the House, or a Member nominated by any such Leader, may speak to a ministerial statement. The remarks of any speaker shall not exceed the time taken by the Minister in making the statement.

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered:

(1) On any Motion for adjournment to terminate a sitting:

(a) the Question shall be put not later than 15 minutes after such Motion has been moved or, when a Minister desires to speak or is then speaking, at the conclusion of the Minister's remarks;

(b) any Member may speak for 5 minutes on matters not relevant to the Motion, but shall not refer to matters which are otherwise not in order.

(2) Proceedings shall be interrupted at 4.15 p.m. on Thursday and 3.45 p.m. on Friday to permit a Motion for adjournment to be moved, if a Minister shall think fit, to terminate the sitting.

(3) If, at the time of interruption:

(a) a division is in progress, the division shall be completed and the result announced;

(b) the House is in Committee of the Whole, the Chairman shall leave the Chair, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

(4) When any business under discussion, if not disposed of, is interrupted by operation of this Sessional Order, the debate shall stand adjourned and be made an Order of the Day for the next sitting day at the end of Government or General Business, as the case may be, fixed for that day (but so as not to preclude the operation of Standing Order 67), unless a motion is moved without amendment or debate for the adjournment of the debate to another day (to be stated).

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, Members pairing on any division shall be recorded by the tellers and the names of all Members so paired shall be recorded upon the tellers' lists and printed in the Minutes of the Proceedings and Hansard.

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, a Minister may, before the House proceeds to the business of the day, make a statement in relation to any matter or matters raised on the Adjournment at a previous sitting.

That, as soon as practicable after each periodic Council election and whenever change shall occur, announcements may be made in the House as to the leadership in the House of parties or groups represented at such elections and of which parties or groups there are two or more persons who are Members of the House.

That, during the present Session and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the procedure in relation to Questions on Notice is varied, as follows:

(1) Notices of Questions shall be handed to one of the Clerks at the Table during the sitting of the House, duly signed.

(2) The Clerk shall enter in a Questions and Answers Paper printed and circulated to Members, Notices of Questions in the order in which they are received.

(3) The reply to a Question on Notice shall be delivered to the Clerk and shall appear in the Questions and Answers Paper.

(4) During any adjournment of the House, replies to Questions on Notice may be delivered to the Clerk who shall cause a Questions and Answers paper to be printed and circulated.

(5) A Questions and Answers paper shall be printed and circulated on any prorogation of the House.

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 191 be amended to read:

191. After the third reading the Bill shall be deemed to have passed the House and the Clerk shall so certify, and the Bill shall be sent, with a Message, to the Assembly for concurrence.

That, during the present Session and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders:

(1) When any Bill, except a Bill sent from the Assembly, has been read a first time and ordered to be printed the second reading may be moved forthwith or made an Order of the Day for a later hour or for a future day. Immediately following the second reading speech by the mover, debate thereon shall be adjourned until a future day which shall be at least five clear days ahead.

(2) Provided that if a Minister declares a Bill to be an urgent Bill and copies have been circulated among Members, the Question "That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill" shall be put forthwith, no debate or amendment being allowed. On such Question being agreed to, the second reading debate and subsequent stages may be proceeded with forthwith or at any time during any sitting of the House.

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered:

(1) A Member may make a Motion, pursuant to notice given at a previous sitting "That the following important matter of public interest should be discussed forthwith (here stating the matter to be discussed)".

(2) On the day proposed for bringing on such Motion it shall be called on immediately before the House is to proceed to the consideration of business set down on the Notice Paper for that day, except business taking precedence under Standing Order 55.

Page 22

(3) When the Motion has been made, the Question shall be decided without amendment or debate except a statement by the mover and a statement by a Minister not exceeding 10 minutes each.

(4) If the Question is decided in the affirmative, subsequent discussion of the matter shall not exceed one and one half hours, whether on the same or subsequent sitting days, excepting the reply of the proposer.

(5) The speech of:

(a) the Member proposing the matter;

(b) the Minister first speaking;

(c) the Leader of the Opposition, or a person nominated by the Leader, first speaking when the Motion has been moved by a Member of the Government,

shall not exceed 15 minutes each. The speech of any other Member or the proposer in reply shall not exceed 10 minutes each. Every Member shall confine himself or herself to the one subject in respect of which the motion has been made.

(6) When discussion of such a matter is adjourned until a subsequent sitting day the Order of the Day for its resumption shall take precedence of all other business on the Notice Paper for that sitting day except business taking precedence under Standing Order 55.

(7) Only one such matter shall be proceeded with on any sitting day, but this provision shall not operate so as to preclude the resumption of an adjourned discussion and one such matter being dealt with.

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, the House shall proceed each day with its ordinary business in the following routine:

(1) Formal Business under Standing Order 57.

(2) Presentation of Petitions.

(3) Notices of Motions.

(4) Any proposal under Standing Order 13.

(5) Ministerial Statements.

(6) Ministerial replies to matters raised on the Adjournment.

(7) Motions and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper.

That, during the present Session, and notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders to the contrary, on any amendment proposed in the House or Committee of the Whole, the Chair, unless otherwise determining, will put the question "That the amendment be agreed to".

That during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 171 be substituted as follows:

171. After the second reading of a Bill, unless the Bill is referred to a Select or Standing Committee:

(a) the President may inquire of the House if leave is granted to proceed to the third reading of the Bill forthwith; or

(b) a motion may be made "That the President do now leave the Chair, and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the Bill in detail", which shall admit of no debate or amendment, or a future day may be appointed for the purpose.

That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered:

Whenever the President has several Messages from the Legislative Assembly to report transmitting Bills for concurrence, the President may inquire if leave is granted for procedural motions for the first reading, printing, suspension of Standing Orders (where applicable) and fixing of sitting day for second reading to be dealt with on one motion without formalities.

That during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered:

(1) Government Business shall take precedence of General Business on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and after 4.15 p.m. on Thursday each week;

(2) General Business shall take precedence until 4.15 p.m. on Thursday each week.

These sessional orders are the same in substance as those adopted last session, and copies have been circulated to members.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Leader of the Opposition) [3.11]: In supporting the motion of the Minister I simply urge that it is time that those sessional orders which have been customary should become part of the standing orders.

Motion agreed to.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier) [3.12]: I wish to make a ministerial statement. Earlier today I tabled the Ombudsman's report concerning the decision to withhold the award of the 1988 higher school certificate mathematics marks to Christopher Barnes. I certainly accept that this is a serious matter and would like to deal with the recommendations made in the report. First, the Board of Studies has now awarded the 1988 higher school certificate mathematics marks to Christopher Barnes. Second, the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs, being the officer responsible for the administration of the board, is investigating formal action under the disciplinary provisions of the Public Sector Management Act in relation to the senior officer named in the report recommendations. The issue of compensation is one for Mr Barnes and will be considered if and when a formal application is made.

Third, the Department of School Education will not make application for an ex gratia payment of $25,000 to the person named as assisting in the investigation. As a result of the Ombudsman's report the board has asked the Crown Solicitor to review the processes and procedures applied to the assessment of allegations of cheating. In addition, and in response to a series of recent events - including the Christopher
Page 23
Barnes case and confusion as to the dissemination of board publications - I have asked the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs and the former deputy director-general of the Premier's Department to undertake a review of the bureaucracy of the Board of Studies. This will ensure support provided to the board is efficient and effective. The review will be completed by the end of April this year. I have the utmost respect for the members of the Board of Studies, a widely representative and erudite group. These reviews do not relate to the members of the board itself, but rather to its bureaucracy and support mechanisms. I believe that the actions I have outlined comprehensively address the concerns raised in the Ombudsman's report.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Leader of the Opposition) [3.13]: That really was an abysmal response by this Minister, who is as culpable as is anyone in this disgraceful matter. There was not one word of apology from the Minister. One had only to look at her face to realise that she had been dragged kicking and screaming into making this ministerial statement to the House. Look at her face now. The Ombudsman's report on the Barnes' case is a damning indictment of the handling of that case by the Board of Studies and of the failure of this Minister to take any appropriate action.

The report was a response to a complaint made by the shadow minister for education in another place. It gives a disturbing picture of the activities of the bureaucracy in supporting the Board of Studies, from denial of procedural fairness to failure to put forward to the board key evidence supporting Mr Barnes' case. But this House should note the failure of the Minister in the Barnes affair. The Minister could have taken any number of steps to speed up justice for Mr Barnes. She either could have asked the board to review its decision or could have instituted a fast tracked special inquiry. Instead she let it drag on for five years.

It is worth recalling that the Ombudsman's report has been in the Minister's hands since last November. It is also worth noting that in his report the Ombudsman recommends that independent advice be sought as to whether "there is a case for prosecuting the general manager of the board under the disciplinary provisions of the Public Sector Management Act for breach of duty". In other words, there should be independent advice as to whether there is a case for prosecution. I may have misheard the Minister, but what I gathered from the statement she made this afternoon was not that independent advice was being sought, but that some bureaucrat - I did not hear the designation - is reviewing the matter. What sort of independence is that?

The cover-up remains, the injustice continues. One of the two people who are to conduct the review announced by the Minister either yesterday or the day before is Mr Warren Grimshaw, the head of the Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs. That is a totally inappropriate choice. Mr Grimshaw is not only a member of the Board of Studies but also the person responsible for the board's staff. In other words, he will be reviewing himself. The appointment totally compromises the independence of that review. The Government should establish a completely independent review - [Time expired.]


Motion by the Hon. Marlene Goldsmith agreed to:

That the House take note of the Report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues entitled "Sexual Violence: The Hidden Crime, Inquiry into the Incidence of Sexual Offences in New South Wales: Part 1", dated December 1993.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith.


The PRESIDENT: I wish to advise the House that I intend to follow the procedure adopted last session in allocating members the call on the adjournment debate in rotation amongst the parties represented in the House.


The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of a copy of the Speech made on Tuesday, 1 March 1994, by His Excellency the Governor, which is recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.18]: I move:

That the following Address be adopted and presented by the Whole House to the Governor, in reply to the Speech which His Excellency had been pleased to make to both Houses of Parliament:

To His Excellency Rear Admiral Peter Ross Sinclair, Companion of the Order of Australia, Governor of the State of New South Wales in the Commonwealth of Australia.

May it Please Your Excellency -

We, Her Majesty's loyal and dutiful subjects, the Members of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our thanks for Your Excellency's Speech, and to affirm our sincere allegiance to Her Most Gracious Majesty.

We beg to assure Your Excellency that our earnest consideration will be given to the measures to be submitted to us, and that we will faithfully carry out the important duties entrusted to us by the people of New South Wales.

We join Your Excellency in the hope that, under the guidance of Divine Providence our labours may be so directed as to advance the best interest of all sections of the community.

It is a great honour for me to move the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply to His Excellency the Governor's Speech. The people of New South Wales have been most fortunate to have the leadership
Page 24
and companionship of Rear Admiral Peter Sinclair and his gregarious and charming wife Shirley. Together they have brought a new and vigorous approach to communicating with and meeting the people of New South Wales. The opening of Government House was carried out in unprecedented fashion.

The Governor uses historical research in order to add to the depth and quality of his speeches on official occasions. The Legislative Council is now 170 years old. Although we have celebrated the Fiftieth Parliament of New South Wales, in fact we have proceeded to 65 Parliaments in this, the mother of Parliaments in Australia. It is pleasing that a bill to prevent discrimination on the ground of age was passed during last session. The history of New South Wales shows that this Parliament has been an integral part in the development of responsible government in Australia. The New South Wales Parliament has evolved into a sophisticated democratic institution of world standard.

The aim of the New South Wales Parliament and all its members should be to respond to the wishes of the people of New South Wales for a stable, reliable and accountable government. From its earliest colonial days the gradual development of responsible government has had its foundations in the Westminster system, headed by the constitutional monarchy. I treasure the history of this Parliament, the protection of common law and the resultant freedom of expression and action available to the people of New South Wales.

My Italian forebears left the strife of 1880s Europe and found here a haven in which to flourish in peace. The welcoming hand of Sir Henry Parkes is still commemorated; the grant of land at New Italy, which is now a regular meeting-place for celebrations, was most welcome. The museum, restaurant, exhibition centre and Park of Peace at New Italy will soon be joined by a conference centre. I thank the Government for its foresight and continued development of projects such as these which stand as a monument to the cultural diversity of our pioneers. From the first Greiner Government to this Fahey Government keen interest and support has been forthcoming for this great community effort at New Italy. I mention, in particular, the efforts of Floriano Volpato and his committee for making these dreams come true.

As the Premier, the Hon. John Fahey, said on Australia Day prior to his tackle of the would-be assailant of the Prince of Wales:

The issue confronting New South Wales today is how to manage the next step of our evolution without damaging our very foundations. We must carefully consider the social and political structures that will serve us well in the second century of our federation and should not ignore the success of our present structure. Our British heritage, with its commitment to free speech and personal freedom, cannot be ignored. Any debate about republicanism must be thoughtful and thorough and, because it affects all Australians, it must include all Australians.

Republicanism must not be used as a tool for short-term political gamesmanship. If the debate is hijacked and waylaid, political and community leaders will have betrayed future generations of Australians. If at the end of a thorough, informed and thoughtful process Australians choose to become a republic, it will not mean that these ties can be cut. There is no reason to believe that we would not continue as a constitutional monarchy.

Recently the New South Wales coalition Government has achieved far-reaching reforms of the balance between Executive Government and the accountability of the Parliament to the people. These changes, heralded in 1988 when the Liberal Party and National Party achieved government, have led to the betterment of good government and the quality of services to the people of New South Wales. These changes stand in stark contrast to the centralist directions taken by the arrogant, imperialistic Federal Government of Prime Minister Paul Keating. The lack of accountability by the Federal Government is best exemplified by the recent exposure of the "sports rorts" affair and the Ros Kelly whiteboard, the changes to the Federal House of Representatives standing orders relating to question time and the abusive attitude of the Prime Minister towards the Senate and the House of Representatives. Added to that is the callous and undemocratic way in which the replacement of Senator Sibraa has been undertaken. The lead taken by this Government since 1988 has revolutionised government in New South Wales. It has led Australia in microeconomic reform, so much so that the Prime Minister is now insisting that all other States follow that lead.

Until recently the Federal Labor Government has talked much about microeconomic reform but little action has been taken. One should contrast the major changes in industrial relations legislation and practice in New South Wales, its open and fair enterprise bargaining, with the mean and piecemeal approach by the Federal Government. The turmoil on the waterfront and its negative impact on New South Wales' trade is testimony to the subservience of the Labor Party to its trade union masters. I make the point that the 55 members who have had to be re-employed on the waterfront following the recent strike in Sydney have no work to do. In spite of the narrow tax base and the continued reduction of our share of the Commonwealth tax intake, which has robbed us of billions of dollars, and despite the intervention by the Federal Government to ensure that a record 52 per cent of grants to the State are tied grants - which the Prime Minister now has said he will rectify - the New South Wales Government has met the challenge with reform and restructure to ensure that, through good government, services to the people of New South Wales are improved and enhanced.

The maintenance of our triple-A rating by good management is a credit to the Government and saves the people of New South Wales a huge sum in interest payments. The money can be spent on improving the lot of our people, especially families. Improved services, record levels of capital investment and falling State debt are a remarkable trifecta, and all this at a time of record depression and recession. The successful bid for the Year 2000 Olympic Games has generated a new spirit of optimism and confidence in New South Wales. Tourism is booming and bookings
Page 25
for conferences and conventions worth $540 million have been made between 1994 and the year 2000. It is a significant achievement for the Government and the people of New South Wales. It is a huge morale boost. The successful Olympic bid has injected great confidence in the people of this State and nation. They feel they have earned recognition and support from the international community.

The Sydney 2000 Olympic Games provides a fitting example of a project in which the public-private partnership is an absolute necessity. We will not do a Darling Harbour on this one - no massive debts that cost us an Eastern Creek raceway a year, no special Acts, no suspension of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. We must get it right. The 2000 Games will be the single most important event that projects the confidence of our city, State and nation.

It is important also because it underpins one of the main aims of the Government - a growth in jobs. It is a tragedy that Australia has an unemployment rate of almost one million; it is a personal hardship for all those affected. The latest figures from January show unemployment has dropped in New South Wales by 0.5 of 1 per cent to 10.4 per cent, making New South Wales the second best State for employment in Australia. More than 80 per cent of the reduction of unemployment in Australia in the past 12 months has resulted from job growth in New South Wales. It is pleasing to see that over the past 12 months 85,000 people have found part-time or full-time jobs, that is, 56 per cent of all jobs have been created in New South Wales.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Part-time or casual?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Part-time. Furthermore, the New South Wales campaign to attract the regional headquarters of multinational companies to Sydney is beginning to pay off. Vodafone, the third operator of MobileNet in Australia, will be moving to Sydney. The company estimates that its investments will generate 5,000 direct and indirect jobs and $1 billion in investments by the year 2000. Cathay Pacific has started construction of its new headquarters at Castle Hill and BT Australasia has been lured from Hong Kong to Sydney. These multinationals are bringing new technology, jobs and capital to New South Wales. These and other initiatives will ensure further jobs growth in New South Wales.

The Government's attention to regional development has been constant, and some exciting developments are taking place in rural New South Wales. If only the Federal Labor Government would come through with its promise to the sugar farmers of northern New South Wales. If the money it promised at the last Federal election was forthcoming, development of the port of Yamba could take place, and many agricultural opportunities would arise for people on the far North Coast.

I am immensely proud of our public service, now that it has been restructured and given encouragement to operate with an unparalleled efficiency and commitment to improved services. The enterprise agreement with 30,000 nurses - an historic agreement - underlines the Government's recognition of the sterling efforts by nurses in our public health system.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: And they negotiated with the unions.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I am reminded that this was negotiated by the unions. Another person with whom the Government negotiated strongly was a person for whom I have high regard, Miss Pat Staunton, another person in the same boat as the Hon. Franca Arena - dealt a blow by her union mates and the Right of the New South Wales Labor Party.

I congratulate a number of New South Wales public servants who have received awards in the 1994 Australia Day honours list: Mr John Conde, the Chairman of Pacific Power, for transforming a debt-laden State authority into a successful trading enterprise; Mrs Gabrielle Kibble, Director-General of the Ministry of Housing, Planning and Urban Affairs, for her personal and professional commitment to planning and the environment and her exceptional record of achievement; Mr Peter Sheridan, for his work with the State Emergency Services; Mr Walter Baker, for 40 years of exemplary service as an audit officer; Miss Susan Pearson, for her outstanding commitment in serving as Associate to the Chief Justice of New South Wales since 1982; Mr Gregory Woodburne, for pioneering significant advances in technical and further education; and Mr Jack Wilton, for his involvement with volunteer emergency services.

I also mention with some sadness the imminent retirement of the Director-General of the Premier's Department, Mr Dick Humphry. Mr Humphry has had a strong public service career spanning 40 years. He has worked in the Commonwealth and in two State governments and has been at the centre of the changes that have taken place in New South Wales. On his retirement the director-general commented that the reforms of the senior executive service in New South Wales had been a benchmark for the public service in most Australian States and Territories. The Parliament and the people of New South Wales owe Mr Humphry a great deal in achieving that goal. He is a person from whom one could seek worthwhile advice. Most Ministers took advice from Mr Humphry from time to time. Certainly senior public servants and many other people have had the advantage of Mr Humphry's wisdom. I wish him the very best in his new role as Managing Director of the Australian Stock Exchange. It will be a great boost for the betterment of the people of New South Wales.

The high levels of functioning by the New South Wales public service gives pride to the Government and to members of the public service. This performance can be contrasted with the continual growth of the Federal public service, and in particular the Federal Department of Health, which has now grown to an army of 5,914. Not one direct service to patients is provided by any of those Commonwealth
Page 26
public servants. Well might Senator Graham Richardson examine his own eye when looking to waste and exploitation in other parts of the community.

The operators of Government trading enterprises also deserve congratulations. Not only have they delivered a higher quality of service than has previously been delivered - and more efficiently than it was delivered - but their dividends are contributing funds for other services.

Pacific Power should be singled out and congratulated. In this year alone charges for industrial and commercial users will drop by between 3 per cent and 6 per cent, saving them about $85 million. This will allow those businesses to improve their performance and gain a competitive edge, at the same time improving private job prospects. The Government's reforms have continually returned measurably improved services to taxpayers. Often these days a capital development comes in under the estimates for time and cost. These results are due to the reduction of costs for goods and services purchased by the Government under its open tender process for those projects. The best current example is the saving of $250 million over five years resulting from the tendering out of the Government Cleaning Service. At the same time the service's staff have been looked after. The saving of $83 million a year from hotel services in our public hospitals is equally dramatic and is due to tendering out. All these savings have been used to provide better health services. The Standing Committee on State Development has been helpful in encouraging the Government in this regard.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Self-praise is no recommendation.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I was praising other committee members, including members from both sides of the House and the crossbenches. This is a good example of the Parliament working with the people and the Government to achieve a greater result. This sentiment echos throughout the Governor's Speech. As the Premier said recently:

The community has a right to expect that the Government will deliver the best possible services and public facilities on time and within budget.

Despite the fears expressed by the Labor Opposition and the trade union movement, the Government has made huge savings by contracting out its services. Despite a destructive and obstructive Opposition, the Government is ploughing on with its long-term objective of managing the State better and providing the people of New South Wales with the best possible services. The open and accountable tendering process, coupled with proper documentation, has resulted in demonstrated savings and improved services. This is in stark contrast with the Federal Labor Government, which operates in the construction industry with its wholly-owned subsidiary, Australian Construction Industries, in a most unfair and unaccountable way.

I refer now to education, which was a matter of considerable comment in the Governor's Speech. School retention rates reached an all time high in New South Wales in 1993, with 73 per cent of government school students staying on until year 12. The higher school certificate has been under review and the Board of Studies has received submissions on the future of the certificate from 800 groups. There will now be a commitment to provide more core skills assessment during examination. The 1993-94 State budget for schools increased by 5 per cent to $3.4 billion. That enabled the Department of School Education to employ an additional 400 teachers, to increase funding for equity programs by $400,000, and to add $5 million to the welfare package.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Over what period?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Over a year. The new kindergarten to year 6 English syllabus has been finalised and provides renewed emphasis on grammar, spelling and written communication. It demonstrates a commitment by the Government to improving literacy standards. The Government has also sought to promote tolerance, understanding, respect and traditional values through anti-racism policies and general grievance procedures introduced to schools this year. Community involvement in schools has been positive. School councils have been established in 55 per cent of New South Wales schools, promoting community involvement in defining school aims, philosophies, use of resources and priorities. The Bureau of Crime Statistics found that people are 10 times safer in schools than they are in the community.

The Government has announced a crack-down on violence, widening the power of principals to deal with offenders and banning weapons and school gangs. The Parliament's Standing Committee on Social Issues is also investigating the wider issue of youth violence. New South Wales is the only Australian State where school sport is compulsory. The Government is investing $73 million a year in school sport. I thank the Minister for the huge number of schools constructed on the North Coast of New South Wales in the past five years. I also congratulate the high school students of that area who responded with the best higher school certificate results achieved in that region.

Tourism is the largest money spinner in New South Wales, generating about $8 billion a year and employing 150,000 people. New South Wales is Australia's number one tourist destination, receiving 70 per cent of all international visitors and 30 per cent of all domestic tourists. A sharp rise in the number of Asian tourists has strengthened the position of New South Wales as Australia's premier destination for overseas visitors, with an increase of 15 per cent in this market compared with the same period last year. To increase our attractiveness as a tourist destination the 1993-94 State Budget included an increase of more than 46 per cent in the budget of the New South Wales Tourism Commission, and a new aim by the commission to encourage visitors to Sydney to venture
Page 27
elsewhere throughout the State. This resulted in the "Seven Wonders of New South Wales" advertising campaign launched in October by the Minister. The campaign has already reaped a 25 per cent jump in New South Wales holiday sales. The 41,000 TAFE students who are studying tourism will provide professional support for this important growth industry. The Olympic Games will result in an extra 90,000 new tourism jobs and will generate $3 billion in revenue. The Minister and the Government are to be congratulated on these programs and results.

Last year the State Government introduced innovative ways of reducing the amount of sludge entering Sydney's waterways. More than $400 million will be spent this year on upgrading and improving sewerage systems throughout Sydney. In August 1993 a ministerial task force was established to ensure a co-ordinated response to the problems that affect the river systems. The Premier announced that the Environment Protection Authority would take responsibility for monitoring the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system. The first comprehensive approach to the problem of lead contamination and its associated health effects began this year with the formation of the lead task force. It will be responsible for reducing the excess lead in the environment, which can cause serious health problems. This means reducing lead in petrol and in the air, as well as reducing lead in historical sources such as dust, soil, paint, water and wastewater.

The Government has allocated $3.4 million this financial year for Sydney councils to improve and expand the domestic kerbside recycling program. The EPA is encouraging Sydney councils to increase the recycling of household materials by providing financial incentives and by reporting on the recycling performance of councils. This has led to more than $5 million being paid to councils under the councils recycling rebates scheme. The Government is also encouraging waste minimisation, recognising that it will require more than recycling to reduce the impact of waste disposal on the environment.

The principles and strategies of the Government's commitment to a culturally diverse society for this State are now almost fully completed. The New South Wales charter of principles for a culturally diverse society set this vision and will provide direction to agencies wishing to develop their own statement of intent as a signal of their willingness and commitment to operate under the charter. The Ethnic Affairs Commission is guiding agencies in the preparation of statements. The statements will encourage agencies to promote the value of multiculturalism and will help meet the needs and aspirations of the richly diverse society that we enjoy in New South Wales.

The women's health launch by my colleague the Hon. Ron Phillips was a major statement of the Government's commitment to women's health - an unprecedented commitment to the advancement of women at work in the country, the city and at home; in education; in illness prevention and treatment; in sport, and in protection from violence. The record number of women coalition members in senior ministerial and parliamentary positions is outstanding and unparalleled anywhere in Australia - in fact, probably in the world. So much for the talk of Prime Minister Keating! The action is with the coalition and this State.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Both in quantity and quality.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Absolutely. Although there have been recent legislative changes relating to the legal profession, I look forward to further reform, especially the professional standards legislation. The Government has already rewritten all health profession bills, including the Health Care Complaints Bill. These reforms were carried out after wide consultation.

The transport portfolio has experienced another great year and exciting developments are ahead. I personally thank Minister Baird and former Minister Wal Murray for their steadfast support and development of high quality, safe travel in rural New South Wales. The three XPT services to the North Coast are a massive step forward. As well, the massive drop in the number of road accidents and fatalities has been most impressive and has saved much suffering for the people of New South Wales. But where is the Federal Government? It is still taxing diesel in the same way as it taxes petrol for cars, but returns nothing to the railways. It withdrew from the black spot program, which was a major part of the one nation statement. It withdrew its share of funding for the Pacific Highway.

By any standards used to judge health, New South Wales health has never been in better shape. This year the Government will spend a record $5 billion on health initiatives. A record $1.1 billion will go to greater western Sydney; a record $914 million will go to rural New South Wales; and, in particular, a record $134 million will be spent in the Richmond-Tweed districts. This is growth of approximately 25 per cent in real terms since 1988. A record amount of $1.4 billion is being spent on hospital construction. Average waiting time for elective surgery is 28 days. The waiting time and the number of people waiting is reducing. The Government will treat 1.1 million inpatients - 44,000 more than were treated last year. In real terms that number is equal to the population and age distribution of the city of Albury being admitted to hospital extra in a year.

The Government will provide 17 million occasions of care and an extra one million emergency treatments in emergency departments. Direct employment will be provided for almost 100,000 people. In total, the Government runs one of the biggest hospital and health systems in the world. However, the paradox is that despite this foundation for success, in spite of the record dollars and levels of service, despite enjoying some of the best health care and health care facilities in the world, we do not have the best health status in the world, nor can we claim to have the best health system in the world. It is the
Page 28
Government's goal to build the best health system in the world. It is the Government's determination to have the quality of its health care system recognised as the best worldwide.

The Government is taking several key actions to achieve that goal. The first is the move to establish a national health policy. Last year three national health summits were held, involving all State health Ministers and the Federal Health Minister; the fourth will be held shortly. New South Wales was the driving force behind the national health summit, and I refer in particular to the efforts of my colleague the Hon. Ron Phillips, the Minister for Health. At the first two meetings the Ministers agreed on three important principles: first, that the national health policy would be developed with an outcomes focus; second, that the Australian health system would operate within the structure of Medicare; and, third, that the national goals and targets for improving the health of the nation would be developed, focusing particularly on cardiovascular disease, cancer - especially breast cancer in women - injury prevention and mental health. Those four areas are responsible for 80 per cent of deaths in Australia and are the main reasons for access to health services.

The policy will establish a clearer co-ordination of administration, funding and delivery of health services. It will ensure that services are aligned to provide consumers with clear pathways through the health system, ensuring continuity of care, regardless of who is responsible for funding, providing and administering the services. This commitment to reform is historic and unprecedented, and provides a national context for everything the Government is doing in New South Wales. The second action the Government is taking involves health outcomes. Increasingly, the Government knows that the success of health policy must be judged by health outcomes - not what goes into the system, but what comes out; not how much activity goes on, but how that activity makes people healthier. In this respect there has been a shift in emphasis in the health debate to focus on wellness, on maximising the opportunities for individuals to experience good health so that they can live more satisfying lives without an excessive reliance on health care.

The third key action the Government is taking to make New South Wales health world class is the customer focus initiative. The New South Wales health system has a proud record of providing quality health services for the people of New South Wales. As last year's patient satisfaction surveys indicated, 95 per cent of patients were satisfied with the treatment they received, with country hospitals showing particular qualities. But the key to good customer focus is a constant focus on improvement. The Government should always strive to offer better services. The people of New South Wales who visit the State's hospitals and other health services in ever increasing numbers now expect to be treated in high quality surroundings, with courtesy and respect. Most importantly, they expect to be treated with the best medicine available. They should not and will not be disappointed.

The key, of course, is quality: quality facilities; quality services for prevention, palliation and cure; and quality of care. As part of this push, the Government expects everyone in New South Wales Health to analyse new ideas, to examine the way they do things and to think about procedures they can adopt to better suit their circumstances and those of their customers. This type of questioning is essential to the provision of health care in the 1990s and to the establishment of a customer focused organisation that anticipates and provides for customer needs; that seeks out and uses feedback to improve; that takes prompt, positive action in relation to customer identified problems; and that has the commitment at all staff levels to maximise customer outcomes.

Customer focus is an investment in staff, in staff practices and in better ways of doing things and delivering health services. The best example of that relates not only to staff contacts with patients and other customers, but also to the way in which the Department of Health and the Government deal with their staff. In other words, they deal with staff as though they are valued customers also. One of the benefits of the historic enterprise agreement for nurses is the major pay rise they have received and the new pay rises to come if surveys show that patient satisfaction continues to improve. These pay rises will provide additional pay of up to $66 a fortnight for senior nurses and $20 for junior nurses. Nurses will negotiate with the department to work out their performance indicators. Local management and the local Department of Health people will be accountable for determining with staff and the union the nature of the agreements and how they operate. Other benefits flow for the staff and for the administration of the Government's system as a result of that enterprise agreement.

Ultimately, concentration on customers will lead to constant improvements, constant quality gains and better health. But how will the Government know if it is improving? How can the taxpayers be certain of just how good New South Wales Health and hospitals are? The Government intends to make the New South Wales health system not just one of the best, but the best in the world. To achieve a world class health system, the Government needs appropriate benchmarks for all aspects of the health system; constant review of its products, services and outcomes; constant measurement against the world's best; and assessment of what is the world's best practice in health and how it can implement changes to achieve best practice if it does not already occur.

The first step is to choose key processes in hospitals which, if performed better, will significantly improve service and or reduce cost. Across the system the Government must examine standards to make interstate and international comparisons. Ultimately, the benchmark process will be the vehicle for programs and strategies to introduce international best practice in New South Wales. Part of the Government's commitment to be the best is better infrastructure. The 1970s and 1980s were lost decades in health. The government of the day failed
Page 29
to make the necessary investment in health infrastructure and health services. New South Wales fell behind with its obligations to the sick and the needy. It failed to keep pace with population growth, the movement of people and the demands of an ageing population. As a result, when the Liberal Party-National Party Government came to office it faced significant infrastructure deficiencies in greater western Sydney, the Central Coast, and particularly the North Coast. The cost of addressing this inherited problem is approximately $2 billion for the essential backlog alone.

Country areas were particularly harshly treated, especially the North Coast, where no effort at all had been made to keep pace with population growth. The Government is trying to catch up. Currently $1.4 billion worth of construction is under way. The Government aims to rectify the problems by the year 1997. The problems will not be eliminated, but they will be rectified substantially. Across rural New South Wales major upgrading work is under way at Albury, Wagga Wagga, Moruya, Batemans Bay, Lismore, Tweed Heads, Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie. In this financial year work will commence at Byron Bay, Walgett and Orange. Country people will benefit also from the new $315 million children's hospital nearing completion at Westmead and the redevelopments under way in the city, at Randwick, St George Hospital, Liverpool Hospital and Nepean Hospital. The scope and commitment to improving health care infrastructure in Australia are unprecedented. They are an essential part of building the world's best health system.

The sixth key area the Government is tackling is management reform. One cannot have a world class health system without the correct management structure. That is why country areas have moved to district health services. These reforms, which came into effect in July last year, have been the most far-reaching that the management and administration of rural health services have ever known. The old system had served the country well, but was outdated and unable to keep up with the revolutionary changes in health care currently under way. The move to districts is aimed directly at streamlining administration and improving the networking of services. The Government wants to ensure that vital dollars are directed at expanding services and that the services provided are appropriate to the changing needs of the community. No one would have a complaint with that objective.

However, we cannot move to improved outcomes, international best practice and better management without access to the right information. That makes the information technology program critical to the whole process. The installation of new computer systems will enable districts to manage and control their finances better and ensure that resources are directed towards the highest priorities. We are planning the introduction of new clinical computer systems to provide information to assist nurses, doctors and other health care professionals in delivering quality care. Those systems will ensure that information is provided where and when it is needed. It will reduce the burden of paperwork and patient waiting time and prove to be convenient for both patients and staff. I should like to comment on rural mental health services in particular. Over the past few months mental health has certainly been pushed forward in the minds of the public, but quite honestly I have been disappointed.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Pursuant to sessional orders, business is interrupted for the taking of questions.



Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, Minister for Justice and Vice President of the Executive Council, representing the Premier and Minister for Economic Development and the Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services. In view of widespread confusion in the community concerning the New South Wales Police Service over the conflicting statements of the Premier and the Minister for Police, will the Government clarify its current policy concerning the rights, entitlements, salaries and benefits of police officers who have been accused of and or charged with an offence but have not yet been found guilty or have been convicted? What action will the Government take to ensure that charges and proceedings against police officers will be dealt with promptly, efficiently and justly with no further two-year or three-year delays?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has asked an important question. I shall ask the Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services to give me a detailed answer to put on the record and to clarify without doubt the honourable member's concerns. However, the latter part of the honourable member's question, that is, the delay in dealing with some of the charges that come before the courts, relates to my portfolio. It is my desire that these types of cases should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. The changes made in court administration over the past few years have brought about a significant reduction in the delay in bringing on major committals and trials.

Honourable members will recall that around this time last year I announced the appointment of three additional judges to the District Court to deal with 167 very old criminal trials, some of them involving police officers. It is not just the criminal justice system that has led to some cases being dealt with over a lengthy period; it is the way in which the system is used or abused by some defendants and, no doubt, their solicitors, on instructions. Let me give an example of the type of matter that has been brought to my attention. A matter that has been around for several years in the District Court can be
Page 30
finally listed for hearing, but shortly before the hearing the client sacks his solicitor and his barrister and seeks to appoint unheard of members of the legal profession. As a consequence, the matter has to be relisted. If the matter is likely to take several weeks or months of hearings, it might be 12 to 18 months before a judge is found who has sufficient time to deal with it. That is the sort of game that is being played. It may be that a matter is listed for hearing and, all of a sudden, a key witness is sick.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: Or dead.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: If a witness is dead, the trial will go ahead. Recently a trial went ahead even though the defendant had absconded. People do apply for adjournments of their cases and get them. Another classic game is played in committal courts. A party will say, "The matter will take two weeks, your Worship". It is not easy for a magistrate with a busy schedule to find two free weeks. Matters are being listed six or nine months ahead in an attempt to find two free weeks. Halfway through a two-week trial a defendant will say, "I need another two weeks"; the case is delayed a further nine months. Halfway through that two-week period the defendant says, "I need another two weeks"; the case is delayed for two or three years. I hope to deal with that problem very soon.

I have suggested to the Government that I should be provided with funds to put in place a panel of acting magistrates. If a defendant turns up and says, "My case is likely to go for two or three weeks", the magistrate will say, "That is all right. We will start in two or three weeks' time". We will then draw from the panel of acting magistrates someone who has nothing to do other than deal with these matters. We will be looking at people like retired magistrates who will be able to be recalled.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: And you will extend their years.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: That will extend their years. I will be looking at a number of strategies to deal effectively with those defendants who know how to play the legal game. Some of the police officers to whom the honourable member referred know how to play the legal game. I do not say they are the only ones. But I am looking at a number of strategies to try to ensure that long-delayed cases are brought on for hearing expeditiously.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism and Minister Assisting the Premier. In view of the Ombudsman's report on the complaint concerning Mr Christopher Barnes, will she now apologise to Mr Barnes on behalf of the Government and on her own behalf for her complicity in delaying justice for Mr Barnes?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: The question asked by the Leader of the Opposition displays a fundamental ignorance of the workings of the New South Wales Education Reform Act and the functions of the New South Wales Board of Studies. That is somewhat astonishing, given that the Leader of the Opposition was a member of this Chamber and participated vigorously in debate on the legislation in 1990. The Opposition, the Call to Australia group and the Australian Democrats suggested that the New South Wales Board of Studies demanded increased representation to ensure no ministerial dominance on the board. They also insisted that the Minister should have the most limited role in its operations. It is absolute hypocrisy! I believe that the words spoken by the Leader of the Opposition in that debate in 1990 will come back to haunt him.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Why will you not apologise?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister is entitled to answer the question in whatever way she pleases.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I would find it difficult to believe - and I would be astonished if other honourable members did not have similar difficulty - that the Minister of the day should have the right to award, to not award or to determine higher school certificate marks for any student in this State. Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we should bring into disrepute this world-class credential. Opposition members speak about years of delay. The Board of Studies made a determination in 1989-1990.

That determination was not accepted by Mr Barnes. I guess he had a right to so complain. It is not true to say that the board did not make a determination. It did. The determination was that it would not award the marks to Mr Barnes. He took exception to that decision and obviously strongly disagreed with it. He referred the matter to the New South Wales Ombudsman. The Ombudsman investigated the matter for two years. One can scarcely say either that the New South Wales Board of Studies is responsible or that I as the relevant Minister am responsible for two years of investigation by the Ombudsman.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You had the report in November.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: The New South Wales Ombudsman provided a draft report towards the end of last year, inviting comment and consultation. That was not the report; it was a draft report inviting further consultation pending the final report. It was communicated to the Ombudsman that the Board of Studies had serious doubts about the conclusions reached by the Ombudsman. I sought that officers of the Board of Studies be allowed to meet the Ombudsman to put those concerns to him. The Ombudsman refused to meet the officers of the Board of Studies and then produced his final report.

Page 31

The final report was provided and within a matter of days - not years - the Board of Studies looked at the recommendations made by the Ombudsman and made the determination on 22 February to provide the higher school certificate to Mr Barnes. Opposition members speak about years of delay, but they should realise that the five years of delay has not been the fault of the Board of Studies. The board made the determination on the 1988-89 higher school certificate; there was a complaint; the Ombudsman investigated the matter for two years; and upon receiving the report the board made a decision within a matter of days.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General and Minister for Justice. Will the Attorney detail what the Government is doing to indicate to the community that it will not tolerate the practice of female genital mutilation?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: This issue is of interest to all honourable members. I am pleased to be able to inform them that my colleague in the other place the Hon. Kerry Chikarovski, the Minister for the Status of Women, today announced that during this parliamentary session I will introduce legislation to make female genital mutilation illegal in this State. That will be done by means of an amendment to the Crimes Act that will include penalties of up to seven years' gaol. Female genital mutilation is the term used to describe a number of practices involving the mutilation of female genitals for traditional or ritual reasons. I emphasise that point, for I noticed in today's newspapers the comment was made that some people suggest its meaning should be confined to circumcision. In some ways the manner in which the procedure is carried out is almost barbaric.

Honourable members should be aware that the origins of female genital mutilation predate Islam, Christianity and other major religions. Tradition is the major contributor to the continuation of female genital mutilation, followed by religion and diminution of a woman's sexual sensitivity following that practice. Australians, with their cultural morés, regard this practice as unacceptable, although they acknowledge that it occurs in more than 40 countries. It is estimated that the procedure has been carried out on approximately 80 million women.

The immediate physical effects of female genital mutilation include haemorrhage, shock, infection and damage to nearby organs. The pain has been known to last for some weeks following the procedure and may recur throughout life. Such extreme pain suffered by young girls in their formative years could result in substantial psychological problems. The issue of female genital mutilation raises a number of serious considerations, ranging from the protection of young children to health and human rights. I note that recently the Family Law Council released a discussion paper on female genital mutilation in which it was observed that evidence relating to the practice occurring in Australia was, in the main, anecdotal. However, only yesterday the newspapers reported that a magistrate in the Children's Court in Victoria had placed two girls, aged two and four, on an 18-month protective supervision order following their genital mutilation.

The council recommended the introduction of Federal legislation to make it clear that the practice of female genital mutilation constituted a criminal act and a form of child abuse. I am told that the Commonwealth Attorney General was considering his options following that report, based upon international obligations adopted by the Federal Government under the convention on the rights of the child and also under the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. As the State Government wants to send the strongest possible message to those who practise female genital mutilation - that it is just not acceptable in this State - specific legislation outlawing female genital mutilation will be introduced.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: When?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I hope that it will be introduced before the end of the autumn session of the Parliament. I have been working on the issue for some time. I have examined the 1985 United Kingdom legislation. However, that is not as comprehensive as I would like the New South Wales legislation to be. I wish to note some exceptions that may be necessary, such as surgical reconstruction. The legislation will include that type of exemption but will ensure protection for women and children. One might well ask why the practice of the procedure has been allowed to continue in Australia and why it has not been addressed by medical ethics. I do not suggest that doctors are extensive practitioners of the procedure. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that the procedure is carried out by traditional midwives, and that might include grandparents or grand-aunts. Perhaps a few traditional doctors in specific cultures may also carry out the procedure.

The introduction of legislation by means of an amendment to the Crimes Act will make it clear that it is intended to cover all those who practise female genital mutilation. That will give support and comfort to those within those cultures who oppose the practice but, because of cultural issues, feel constrained to allow it to continue. The introduction of this legislation will provide much greater support within those cultural communities that do not wish this procedure to be practised.


The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs because it concerns New South Wales' very own Dreyfus affair. Given that the Minister has known about the Barnes affair since October 1991 and about the findings in the Ombudsman's report since November 1993, why did
Page 32
she not try to rectify the matter, seek a special inquiry under section 82 of the Public Sector Management Act or exercise her general powers under section 19 of the Education Reform Act?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will recall that I have indicated already that when I received the draft report from the Ombudsman late last year I had meetings with the President of the Board of Studies to discuss the matter. It will come as no surprise to honourable members that the Board of Studies, having made a determination on this matter some time ago, found itself in disagreement with the views of the Ombudsman. The board sought from me a meeting with the Ombudsman to pursue this matter further, following on from the Ombudsman's letter to me at the time of the draft report expressing his willingness to consult with me on the issue. The Ombudsman rejected the request for such a meeting and felt that nothing could be further gained, given that the Board of Studies at that time believed either that evidence presented had not been fully considered or that there was other evidence that had not been considered.

I recall that in his reply to me the Ombudsman said that he believed all matters had been taken into account and, as a result, the meeting did not go ahead. It was at that point, of course, that the Ombudsman finalised his report, the board considered it and, in the light of the recommendations, determined to give Mr Barnes his higher school certificate. I do not believe I have been remiss in any way.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Why did you not follow the Ombudsman's recommendation that the board should be prosecuted?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: It would be remiss of me to institute reviews on a draft Ombudsman's report rather than to await his final report. I should have thought that on a matter such as this I could be criticised for acting on a draft report rather than a final report. The matter was presented to the full board within a matter of days of receipt of the final report. The full board of the Board of Studies recommended that Mr Barnes be provided with the higher school certificate. Further action has been taken under the Public Service Management Act and a review is under way of the officer criticised severely in the Ombudsman's report.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Who is conducting that?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: If the Leader of the Opposition read part 5 of the Public Service Management Act, he would realise it is being conducted by the chief executive officer, namely the head of the ministry, Mr Grimshaw.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: He was a member of the Board of Studies.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: He is the chief executive officer. Advice has been sought from the Crown Solicitor on what steps should be taken in future when accusations of inappropriate behaviour or allegations of cheating are made. A further review will be undertaken of the general administrative functions of the board. Given that the Ombudsman's report was delivered on about 22 February, the action taken has been swift. I question whether it would have been appropriate for me to take such serious steps on the basis of a draft - not finalised - report from the Ombudsman, or indeed from anyone else.


The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: I ask a supplementary question. At the time to which the Minister referred, that is, the conflict between the opinion of the Ombudsman and the opinion of the board, with which of those entities did she agree?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: The President of the Board of Studies has felt strongly about this issue for a long period. He has had the backing of the full board of the Board of Studies to oppose the awarding of the higher school certificate to Mr Barnes. I was told of the strong disagreement with the draft report and the request to provide further information or to clarify further matters in the belief that the Ombudsman was incorrect, and I did my best to support the decisions and views of the board at that time.


The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Is the Attorney General, Minister for Justice and Vice President of the Executive Council aware that a consultative meeting was held on 22 February to discuss the draft women's action plan of the Department of Corrective Services? If so, what is his reaction so far to the community consultation process that the department has carried out on this important issue?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: For a long time the Hon. Ann Symonds and the honourable member have taken an extraordinary interest in female prison inmates in New South Wales and the policies that affect them. I trust that interest will be ongoing. I am advised that the department has prepared a draft plan for the management of female inmates in New South Wales. It is currently conducting extensive community consultation programs to assess the views of the community and women's interest groups. The department will not formally present my office with a copy of the report until it is confident that it has satisfied the community consultation process on the proposal. I commend it for that approach.

While the process is continuing it is not appropriate for me to comment in detail on the draft proposals, though it is my view that the draft policy is more comprehensive than recent media coverage would have us believe. Most of the media focus has been on the issue of mothers and their children, and though this is one of the most important and
Page 33
problematic areas in relation to women in custody, I am informed that it is only part of what the department has considered in its draft paper. Capital works implications have been analysed, as well as the management of women in custody from regional areas, education, classification and training. From the knowledge I have obtained during my visits to correctional centres throughout New South Wales, it is clear that the situation involving women in custody is serious and needs to be addressed. Because few women are given custodial sentences the belief has been that only two correctional facilities are necessary.

The Government is moving rapidly to change the concept that all women inmates should be accommodated together. It is inappropriate for maximum security inmates to be in close proximity to women classified as minimum security inmates. That view is shared by the majority of the community and the Department of Corrective Services. I have been informed that the current problem will be addressed by establishing further medium and minimum security facilities. The whole basis of the report has been the realisation that women inmates have been inequitably treated in the past compared with their male counterparts. Because the majority of inmates in the New South Wales correctional system are male, the bulk of correctional services programs are geared towards accommodating men, offering a range of programs to men and trying to locate them in facilities that are as close as possible to their families, believing that close contact with family influences their behaviour and makes them more determined to be released and reunited with family members.

That, however, has not been universally the case with women. Because there are only two facilities for females, the department had no choice but to locate female inmates within the Sydney metropolitan area. The two facilities for females are at Silverwater and Parramatta. Women are located also at Grafton, but I do not care to describe that as a facility for females. The department, in its draft report, has outlined some options to change this situation, and may even have included the establishment and upgrading of facilities at Broken Hill, where there is some accommodation, and upgrading facilities at Grafton.

The Department of Corrective Services has also considered upgraded educational and training programs for women in custody to provide them with skills to make them employable when they are released. Also, plans have been formulated for care of Aboriginal women, mothers and children in correctional centres, supervision of inmate mothers in the community, visiting conditions, and formulation of inmate committees. The women's action plan will provide the greatest level of equity for females in correctional centres ever to occur in this State. The Opposition has no policy on the issue of women in correctional centres, and its broad corrections policy is nothing more than a mirror image of the programs which have been implemented by the Liberal Party-National Party Government during the past five years. I must, however, note that the Hon. Ann Symonds has offered support for the policies which are being considered in these areas. The Leader of the Opposition has indicated bipartisan support in this regard, and my continued pursuit of reformist policies in this area will provide the Labor Party with some sort of reformist image, even though it has none of its own.

The Hon. Judith Walker: The Attorney General and Minister for Justice did not answer my adjournment debate speech on Mulawa last year.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I think I did. The Hon. Judith Walker was not in the House, but I recall that I addressed the issues she raised by providing some additional information. I believe items of information were made available to her which were not exactly correct. If the Hon. Judith Walker wishes to raise any further matters with me, I will be happy for her to do so. The department has recognised that there is a need to address issues in the area. I am committed to reform in female corrections, and I look forward to receiving a copy of the final report. I will make that report available to honourable members when it is available for release by me.


The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Leader of the House, the Attorney General and Minister for Justice, representing the Premier. What action is the New South Wales Government taking to promote and implement the International Year of the Family to support the traditional family unit, especially the mother in the home as the primary child carer? Has the Government rejected the recent homosexual submission calling for recognition of legalised same sex marriages as supported by the Young Liberals?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Yesterday the Government, through the Premier, announced a major program to bring the family together as part of the New South Wales Government's commitment to the International Year of the Family. However, in this day and age one must beg the question: what is the traditional family? I recently heard someone say that a single parent with children could not be regarded as a traditional family. That is difficult to address in the case of a widower looking after children. That illustration itself begs the question: what is the traditional family today? It must be recognised that in Australia today, unfortunately, 40 per cent of couples are divorced and have established other families. The extended family in that sense exists. Though the Government recognises married parents with children as traditional families, the Government must ensure that its programs recognise that the family unit is the cornerstone of our community. In recognising that it is a family unit, support should be provided for that family unit and should not cause the community to be any further disjointed and disrupted than, in a sense, it already is.

Page 34

The Hon. Elaine Nile: You are placing emphasis on child care rather than on the mum who makes sacrifices to stay at home and look after the child.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The approach the Government is taking is to recognise the need to support children within a unit and to attempt to provide as cohesive a unit as exists within the community - whether children are in the custody of a single parent, an adoptive parent, grandparents or other members of an extended family. Members of the family must be able to support each other. One of the biggest problems experienced within the community today is the disrupted unit. Community pressures are great on all members of the family because of income needs, with both family members working and unable to support the children or even to support themselves. That leads to a breakdown within the marriage.

One of the initiatives the Government will consider this year will be to promote an industrial relations environment that will allow maintenance of the family unit in those families with two adults in the family working. It may require totally flexible working hours and encourage the community to consider more flexible working hours. Another option which the Government is seeking to encourage is for employers to adapt child care arrangements to meet new industrial approaches that will allow children to be closer to the working environment. When I was Minister for Community Services, trials were made of some of those programs. Finance was provided for some workplaces to build child care establishments within the working environment and to offer financial support for those establishments as part of a trial program.

While many would favour what I describe as the small "t" traditional family, it must be recognised that we are a totally diverse community and that programs must be put in place to try to maximise the opportunity for the unit to stay together and for its members to support each other. It is recognised that those units will break down from time to time. However, if debate can be encouraged on the reasons for such disruption and such breakdowns, and if the causes of that environment can be addressed, this year will have been a success in focusing on those issues. If we start the year believing that at the end of the year a significantly changed social environment will have been effected, we are deluding ourselves. The Government will endeavour to implement the programs by which discussion of these issues will begin, and to start trial programs on these issues, so a decade of change will ensue from this year. The Government also will support others in their initiatives during the year.


The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I ask a supplementary question. The second part of my question asked what the Government was doing about the submission from the homosexual community on so-called same sex marriages.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I have not seen the submission. It is not a submission that is likely to be favourably received. Obviously we will look at the statement.


The Hon. R. D. DYER: I ask the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs a question without notice. Does the report of the Ombudsman into the Board of Studies decision not to award a higher school certificate to Christopher Barnes recommend that the board "seek independent legal advice as to whether there is a case for prosecuting its General Manager under the disciplinary provisions of the Public Sector Management Act for breach of duty"? Has the Minister independently sought such advice since she received the report? Will the Minister announce forthwith what action the Government will take in response to that recommendation?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Several steps have been taken since I read that part of the report. On 28 February the executive director of the Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs, Mr Grimshaw, wrote to Mr Lambert, the President of the Board of Studies in the following terms:

Following upon the Ombudsman's Report, it is now necessary to give attention to several issues as follows:

1. Recommend disciplinary action against John Cook.

2. Proposed review of the Board's procedures in dealing with allegations of cheating and associated matters.

In so far as John Cook is concerned the Ombudsman refers to disciplinary actions under the Public Sector Management Act 1988. Although the Board may wish to express a view in relation to any disciplinary action to be initiated, any decisions in this regard rest with me. I will, of course, liaise as necessary with you in relation to the actions I propose in line with the Public Sector Management Act.

Concerning the second point above, I would be grateful for advice on the work to be undertaken by the Crown Solicitor in reviewing Board procedures. I would be glad of advice on any terms of reference you have agreed upon.

Thank you for your assistance in these matters.

Of course, I discussed the matter first briefly and then at some length with the Premier. I have written to the Premier stating that the bureaucracy supporting the New South Wales Board of Studies, as provided for by section 48 of the Public Sector Management Act, will be reviewed, such review to be completed at the end of April. Yesterday I received advice from the Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs that preliminary instructions have been given to an independent firm of solicitors regarding the Ombudsman's recommendations pertaining to John Cook. Even lawyers among members opposite, who are so keen to suggest that stringent and swift action has not been taken, would agree that there has been a veritable flurry of activity on this issue.

Page 35

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing. I am gravely concerned about the adverse effect that doomsdayers and howldowners may have on the tentative recovery of the Sydney property market. I ask the Minister: Is there a scintilla of truth in the assertion by the Leader of the Opposition that 40 per cent of government-owned buildings in the central business district are vacant, or is this another vacuous rumour? What is the Government doing about the management of its property portfolio in the central business district?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: It is very unfortunate that the Australian Labor Party has chosen to launch its election campaign for the 1995 State election with a flurry of what can only be described as lies, lies, lies. We witnessed the spectre of the Leader of the Opposition in the other place twice in one day being caught out, first, telling lies about the situation with his own office - almost a decade ago he was a Minister in the New South Wales Government - and, second, attempting to tell lies to the public about water pricing. To compound those lies, the Leader of the Opposition in this House, the Hon. M. R. Egan, appeared in an empty office, which may or may not have been in the State Office Block, standing behind a photocopy machine.

What was he doing behind that photocopying machine? Was he trying to carry out a bit of moonlighting photocopying for the Labor Party because it owes $10 million? Was he trying to save a few bucks? What was he doing behind the photocopying machine? Many people are asking that question. The Leader of the Opposition in the other place likes to have two bob each way - that is why they call him two bob each way Carr. He tried to allege that the Government had done something wrong in saving $100 million for New South Wales taxpayers by leasing the Governor Macquarie Tower from the State Authorities Superannuation Board and at the same time criticised the State Authorities Superannuation Board for leasing space to the Government. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. In his allegations that 40 per cent of all government office buildings in the CBD were empty the Hon. Bob Carr deliberately misled the public of New South Wales because -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Would you like to accompany me on an inspection?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The difficulty with the Hon. M. R. Egan is that he does not understand the occupational health and safety regulations of New South Wales otherwise he would know that progressively over a long period of time - it started when the Opposition was in government - we have been emptying out government buildings and removing asbestos and other harmful products from those buildings. We have received advice that the State Office Block must be completely rid of all asbestos. Asbestos will be removed from that building, the building will be refitted, the lifts will be replaced -

[Interruption]

If the Leader of the Opposition bothered to read the announcement six weeks ago by the Government -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Premier Fahey said the Premier would not be moving.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The Premier will be moving in approximately the middle of 1995.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: If asbestos was a danger, the Premier would be long gone now.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The Premier is still in that building. The Government has just taken a lease on the Governor Macquarie Tower, which is not yet finished. As soon as the tower is finished the Premier and those remaining government departments in the State Office Block will be moving and the asbestos will be removed. The Leader of the Opposition insinuates that the Government should be refilling the buildings with public servants so they can all be subject to asbestos contamination. That is obviously the care that the Labor Party has for the workers of New South Wales; it wants to put them all back into the buildings! Madam Deputy-President, I am experiencing difficulty making myself heard.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Beryl Evans): Order! The level of interjection is much too high.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting by his interjections that there is no danger posed to the public from asbestos and that the Government should not be removing asbestos from its buildings. Is that what he is saying?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: That is not what I am saying.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I would like to see him go down to the Trades Hall and voice those opinions, because it was his mates at the Trades Hall who precipitated -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I am saying that if there were any danger the Premier would not be there.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The Leader of the Opposition is saying that the Government should not be removing the asbestos from the State Office Block. Let us go back to what Bob Carr said the other day. He listed 10 buildings and said that there was an alarming vacancy rate in those 10 buildings. Two of the buildings that had the highest vacancy rate - one is not even completed - are not even owned by the State Government. The Hon. Bob Carr got that wrong. That is 46 floors of the 70-odd floors that he said were vacant.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: They are owned by the State Authorities Superannuation Board.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: Exactly. The Leader of the Opposition criticised the fact -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: It is owned by the public sector.

Page 36

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: Yes, but it is not owned by the New South Wales Government. The New South Wales Government pays a commercial lease to the State Authorities Superannuation Board. It was the same member who criticised the Government for leasing space from the State Authorities Superannuation Board. He was trying to have two bob each way. The Government is trying to empty the State Office Block so that all things necessary to bring that building up to occupational health and safety requirements can be done. The Labor Party did not like the favourable publicity the Government received for the very good deal it did about Governor Macquarie Tower, with the State Authorities Superannuation Board, which was announced about a month ago. The Opposition took about one month to respond, which led to the honourable member appearing behind a photocopy machine.

The Governor Macquarie Tower deal involves a 12-year lease of 30,000 square metres, which is the biggest single lease in Sydney commercial property history. That deal will pave the way for the Government to refill progressively those government buildings - the State Office Block and the Department of Education building in Bridge Street - as they are refurbished and as they have the asbestos removed. The Government can then redress the policies put in place by the Labor Party when it was in office when a lot of private lease space in the central business district was taken up by government departments, which led to an alarming vacancy rate in government buildings in that area.

In a radio interview the other day Mr Carr tried to lie to the public by claiming that when the Labor Party was in government it did not lease private office space. I am quite sure that my ministerial colleagues and others would be able to name a number of privately-owned buildings in the city that were leased by the Labor Party when it was in office. These sorts of pork pies, which the Labor Party likes to trot out, do not go down well. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition received absolutely no coverage for the allegations he made, apart from the statement on radio 2GB and a feeble attempt in the Daily Telegraph Mirror with a photograph showing the honourable member hiding behind a photocopy machine, indicates how much credibility the Leader of the Opposition has with the media in Sydney.

It is noteworthy that the whole campaign of the Opposition against the Government's reform of government trading enterprises has been marginalised by the Council of Australian Governments agreement reached in Hobart last Friday. On that occasion the Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, lectured the States on the need to reform government trading enterprises. It will be extremely difficult for the Opposition to continue to criticise what the Government has been doing for six years. All of a sudden Paul Keating has discovered that the Government in New South Wales has been doing the right thing for the past six years. All State Premiers, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have signed an agreement to say that they will follow the same path. This obviously stings the Leader of the Opposition. One can see it in his face. The Labor Party will have a very hard time in the next 12 months trying to justify the outlandish and outdated position it has taken.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I direct my question to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism and Minister Assisting the Premier, representing the Minister for Health. Can the Minister explain why hospitals in Sydney's west have not been provided with nuclear medicine equipment known as triple-headed gamma cameras used in the detection of a variety of illnesses, including epilepsy and heart disease? Is it a fact that Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Prince of Wales Hospital, Royal North Shore Hospital and St George Hospital have all been provided with this machinery, but Westmead Hospital, which is a primary health care centre in the west, has been denied this vital piece of equipment? Is this yet another case of the Government ignoring the health needs of western Sydney? When will Westmead Hospital be given this necessary medical equipment?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby for the courtesy she extended to me by giving me some prior warning of this question because until recently I did not know what a triple-headed gamma camera was. However, thanks to the information provided to me by my colleague the Minister for Health, I inform the honourable member and the House that multiheaded cameras, whether they be dual or triple-headed, are accepted as preferable to single-headed cameras. In recognition of this fact, I am advised that the Department of Health plans progressively to install multiheaded cameras according to need, as cameras in New South Wales public hospitals require replacement.

Triple-headed gamma cameras are the instrument of choice for limited specialised applications such as investigations of the brain. They are useful tools in the investigation of conditions such as epilepsy and Alzheimer's disease. However, they are not necessarily the machine of choice for the more general nuclear medicine investigations in high demand such as lung, bone and heart scans. I am advised by my colleague that the only triple-headed camera in New South Wales is at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, which seems a little at odds with the honourable member's comments. Perhaps that is something we can pursue later. However, I understand that a number of dual-headed cameras have been installed or are about to be installed in New South Wales public hospitals.

In 1990 Westmead Hospital received $630,000 for a new gamma camera. At that time multiheaded cameras were not used widely. These cameras are a significant cost. However, as replacement equipment is required at Westmead Hospital I am sure
Page 37
multiheaded cameras will be considered. In relation to the assertion in the honourable member's question which implied a neglect of the very important western suburbs by the Government, I draw the honourable member's attention to the initiatives taken by the Government over the past five years, and to an announcement by my colleague as recently as 14 February, which included an extra $122 million for new services in the west in addition to the record-breaking $1 billion budget of last September.


The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I ask the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs why she has appointed Mr Grimshaw, the head of the Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs and a member of the Board of Studies, during the period of the Ombudsman's report to review problems in the Board of Studies staff? Is there not a difficulty about the perceptions of independence in relation to this appointment in the circumstances of the Barnes' case? Will the review mentioned today by the Minister under section 48 of the Public Sector Management Act cover all relevant matters concerning the staff and functioning of the Board of Studies? Will the result of the review be made public?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: The answer to the honourable member's question is quite simple. Mr Warren Grimshaw is a member, in the formal sense, of the Board of Studies. However, the honourable member might recall that it was determined in debate on the Education Reform Bill in 1990 that, in a formal sense, Mr Warren Grimshaw, Chief Executive Officer of the Board of Studies, is not President of the Board of Studies; he is Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs. To say that Mr Grimshaw is an unusual choice to be involved in a review of the administration of the board because he is a member of the Board of Studies clearly displays a sad ignorance of the Act, which has him as Chief Executive Officer. I would have thought he would have been an integral part of and fundamental to the review. I recently approached the retired deputy head of the Premier's Department, Mr Harry Eagleton, and asked him whether he would be involved in the review. It is my understanding that Mr Eagleton, upon his retirement, was the most senior and long-serving public servant in New South Wales. I trust not only his judgment in looking at an administrative review; I also trust his independence and his integrity.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.


The President reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

Mr President -

The Legislative Assembly having resolved to meet the Legislative Council for the purpose of sitting and voting together to choose persons to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignations of Senator Kerry Walter Sibraa and Senator Bronwyn Kathleen Bishop, requests the Legislative Council to name the place and hour for such meeting.

Legislative Assembly K. R. Rozzoli
Sydney, 2 March 1994 Speaker

Motion by the Hon. J. P. Hannaford agreed to:

That the Legislative Council agrees to meet the Assembly for the purpose of sitting and voting together to choose a person to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Senator Kerry Walter Sibraa and to choose a person to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Senator Bronwyn Kathleen Bishop, in the Legislative Council Chamber, on Tuesday 8 March 1994, at 3.30 p.m.

Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly advising it of the resolution.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.05]: It is a shame that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby was not present earlier when I referred to the widespread support for this Government by the people of western Sydney. Prior to question time I was speaking about rural health and I expressed disappointment at the way in which the Mental Health Act has been pushed forward in the public's mind over the past few months. Honourable members would be wrong if they thought I was concerned and believed the Government was doing the wrong thing. To the contrary. In fact, I am convinced that our policy on this issue is correct. My disappointment begins with the coverage given to the Burdekin report. The media and the general community do not understand what we are trying to do. Equally, they do not appreciate the vast steps forward which have already been taken.

The aim and objectives of the national health policy and the State plan are in line with international objectives and trends: to provide the best possible care within the least restrictive environment. While not abandoning the notion that some people will always require secure long-term care, the advent of treatments and new drugs has given new freedom to thousands of people with mental illness who can now live quite successfully in the community with adequate back-up. In some parts of this State we have dedicated staff running award-winning services that are talked about all around the world. In other parts of this State we have dedicated professionals working with stretched resources who are in need of additional resources. We all recognise that there are still gaps in the system. The Government is committed to addressing them.

In the past five years the Government has increased the proportion of funding spent on community-based services from 20 per cent to 40 per
Page 38
cent. In that same time frame there has been a 60 per cent increase in funding for mental health services - to more than $289 million each year. The mental health services budget remains protected. In rural areas the Government has come part of the way towards achieving its objective of providing accessible services for all those who require them. The difficulties in recruiting and retraining mental health professionals in rural areas is an issue which is yet to be fully resolved, but the Government intends to pursue it over the coming year. Similarly, the alarming incidents of suicides by people in rural areas, particularly young males, is an issue which needs to be faced by health professionals, but more importantly by the community as a whole.

I would like to say a few words about Aboriginal health. The Government is clearly focused on health outcomes - how to improve tangibly the health status of Australians. The rhetoric will mean little if we do not work towards improving the health status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who, statistically, are the least healthy of all Australians. All honourable members would be aware that there have been numerous reports and analyses of the health needs of Aboriginal people. We are all too aware that health status can be linked with economic and social issues. A more focused approach is being pursued in the health portfolio. The Government has already made a commitment that, within a decade, 1 per cent of the global health budget will be spent on Aboriginal health needs.

Other initiatives this year will include the construction of the first Aboriginal primary health care posts at Cabbage Tree Island, Caroona and Tingha. Funding has also been made available this year for districts to employ Aboriginal hospital liaison officers to assist Aboriginal people in accessing mainstream health services. Midwives have been employed to provide prenatal and postnatal care for Aboriginal women in isolated areas. In addition, area and district health services are now required to prepare strategic plans for the improvement of Aboriginal health for 1993-94 and onwards. These plans are to be based on Aboriginal Health Goals for New South Wales, a project which was released and launched by the Minister in December 1993. On the basis of these strategic plans Aboriginal health targets will be included in the performance agreements of district health managers and area chief executive officers. They will be judged on their performance.

Clearly, we are making progress but we also need to step up our effort. Do we have one of the best health systems in the world? I believe we do. The quality of health professionals and the current standard of health care in New South Wales are high by any standard. The Government does not pretend to have all the answers. It does not pretend that there are not weaknesses in the system. Although improvements must be made, New South Wales will start from a high level. The Government can point to concrete pathways - and I use that word advisedly - to ensure that our system will get better very soon. New South Wales Health will soon be recognised as an international pace-setter. In fact, the Government believes it will soon be able to claim, and have recognised as an inescapable fact, that New South Wales Health is the best system in the world. However, the Government cannot do that on its own. It needs the commitment, involvement, concern and effort of everyone in New South Wales Health to make that happen. In conclusion, in my maiden speech I referred to a quotation taken from a maiden speech in this House in 1970 by the Hon. H. J. A. Sullivan. He used a quotation from the President of the inaugural responsible Legislative Council, the then Chief Justice, Sir Alfred Stephen. After his resignation as President in 1857 Sir Alfred prayed:

. . . I trust to be spared for many years to take part in the deliberations of the House; to contribute my humble aid in the passing of laws that shall bear the test of examination and of time; and to assist in establishing irrevocably the opinion, amongst all classes, not only that this Chamber is an invaluable auxiliary in Legislation, but, from the learning and intelligence, the unselfishness and single-mindedness of its members, their courtesy in debate, their love of justice, and their earnest search after truth, that it is an honour to the Constitution, and the Country, to which it belongs.

I thank honourable members for this great honour in moving the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply to His Excellency's Speech. I wish all honourable members Godspeed in their preparations for this debate.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [5.11]: I am honoured to second the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply to His Excellency the Governor's outline of his Government's legislative and financial proposals for this the Fourth Session of the Fiftieth Parliament of New South Wales. I extend my congratulations to His Excellency and Mrs Sinclair upon another outstanding year of sustained public service for and with people across the State of New South Wales. There is a certain keenness in the air at the resumption of this parliamentary session. Underlying every day's parliamentary and extra-parliamentary activity by each one of us is the knowledge that we are involved in the longest election campaign yet to be conducted in this State.

Members of the National Party and the Liberal Party are very much looking forward to this marathon event, which effectively starts today. Appropriately, His Excellency began his address by recalling the horror of the new year bushfires, which ashed so much of eastern New South Wales. All the people of New South Wales appreciate the personal interest His Excellency took in the damage done to lives and property, in what can be described accurately as a conflagration. It was fortunate that normal pastoral conditions did not obtain in much of the State's hinterland. This freed up emergency services so that experienced bush fire fighters could leave home and help out in crisis areas. That applied to other parts of Australia as well.

I know of one firefighter who at that time of the year would have been on virtual 24-hour alert in his home area in the southeast of South Australia, an area that was horribly afflicted on Ash Wednesday in
Page 39
1983. But because of earlier unseasonal rain he could leave a message on the kitchen table for his family, saying, "Gone to New South Wales fires. Not sure when I'll be back". It was almost inevitable that when that firefighter returned home from helping to save homes in the Blue Mountains he would be called out to local fires. Sure enough, that did happen, though they were quickly brought under control. Those of us who grew up in those parts of Australia where firefighting was just as much a part of Christmas Day as having roast turkey for lunch, can all too easily relate to the trauma that afflicts metropolitan families who have had no previous experience of the threat that bushfires present, especially in the type of conditions that prevailed on those frightening days last January.

It is painful to realise that frightening lessons have been learned by so many people in the greater metropolitan area of Sydney only because of such a dire threat to their lives and homes. There is an obvious need for more clear mass communications in times of such emergencies, in both small and large communities; certainly here in the capital of New South Wales that is so. Along with many other citizens, no doubt, I have made that point to the Cabinet subcommittee that is examining the impact of and the lessons to be learned from the bushfires of 1994.

His Excellency's address referred to the Government's intention to introduce any legislative amendments that are necessary to implement recommendations arising from the Cabinet subcommittee bushfire review, and which relate to existing laws, in this autumn session of Parliament. That is swift action indeed. The Cabinet subcommittee, headed by the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Premier, the Hon. Ian Armstrong, did a great deal of valuable work prior to the resumption of this Parliament. We all look forward to its recommendations, along with the important, independent and expert findings of the coroner. His Excellency naturally referred to the success of Sydney's bid for the 2000 Olympic Games. He said:

The confidence engendered by the winning campaign will provide a significant boost to employment, tourism and investment in the New South Wales' economy.

Members of the National Party are pleased to note that already significant contracts relevant to the 2000 Olympic Games have been won by businesses in regional and country areas of the State. For example, Teasco Pty Limited, based at Wagga Wagga, has won a $200,000 contract to design, draw and fabricate seven aluminium skylights for the aquatic centre roof. Krone (Australia) Pty Limited of Berkeley Vale near Gosford has supplied three scoreboards for the athletic and aquatic centres for $1.7 million; Protective Fencing of Gosford has provided two kilometres of chainwire mesh for site fencing, for $100,000; and Daracon Engineering Pty Limited of Newcastle has provided earthworks, roads, and drainage at the Homebush site, at a cost of $9 million and utilising Newcastle labour. Likewise, other Newcastle labour was used for $3 million worth of landscaping work by Paramount Landscaping Pty Limited of Newcastle.

Alcan Pty Limited at Kurri Kurri has supplied $500,000 worth of aluminium to manufacture sheet metal roofing and Hawkesbury Valley Engineering at Windsor has installed irrigation systems at a cost of $300,000. Another Windsor enterprise, Aquacool Pty Limited, has manufactured four fibreglass cooling towers for the aquatic centre, valued at $100,000. Southwall Engineering Pty Limited of Camden has manufactured about 100 tonnes of secondary formwork for the aquatic centre, valued at $500,000. The roofing of the aquatic centre was built by Chadwick Industries (South Coast) Pty Limited of Wollongong for $4.8 million. BHP Pty Limited at Wollongong provided 700 tonnes of steel for the manufacture of the aquatic centre's roof, for $2.8 million. These projects mean that $200,000 has already flowed into the Wagga Wagga local economy; $2.1 million to the Central Coast; $12.5 million to the Newcastle-Lower Hunter area; $1.5 million to Windsor-Camden; and $7.6 million has been injected into the Wollongong economy from the success of the Olympic bid.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Normoyle's have received a big contract.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Normoyle's at Young in the Central West of the State also have benefited. The Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Ports, the Hon. Ian Armstrong, announced last year that a preference system for Australian content would apply to the Olympic construction process. This will encourage New South Wales companies to participate fully in the tendering process for the construction of the Olympic Games facilities and could give them an extra boost to win contracts over foreign bids. Australian tenderers are being given a preference boost to their final bids of up to 20 per cent, according to the level of Australian content. Opportunities are available for regional industries to benefit directly from the lead-up period to the Olympics. It is to be hoped that more and more of them will strive to take a share of the action.

I understand that since the last summer Olympics Barcelona has benefited from an extraordinary influx of tourists whose imaginations were captured by the telecasting of the Olympic Games in 1992. Obviously the tourism implications for Sydney before and after the year 2000 Olympic Games, let alone for the Games themselves, are enormous. It is important that regional New South Wales gears itself to soaking up a significant proportion of that tourism business. In referring to his Government's plans for the family and community services portfolio His Excellency mentioned that 1994 is, of course, the International Year of the Family. As the recently retired Director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Don Edgar, wrote in his institute's journal in August 1991, the United Nations International Year of the Family has as its theme: "Family resources and responsibilities in a changing world".

This will have its own form in Australia, but will still focus on increasing public awareness of, and developing policies that recognise, the central place of
Page 40
family life in child, moral and economic development and personal and social well-being. The key United Nations objectives for this year are to increase policymakers' awareness of family issues and to ensure that all policies promote family well-being and strengthen family support. It is hoped that the international year will encourage families to participate in the decisions that affect them, discourage family dependence on the State, enhance families' autonomy and encourage more responsible parenthood. Close attention will also be paid to the changing status of women. As Don Edgar has said, the family is a huge topic; almost everything touches on the support of family life. Dr Edgar wrote:

Stronger families are seen as the most effective preventative measure against instability, crime, juvenile delinquency, drug and alcohol addiction, and lack of care for dependent family members, children, the aged and the disabled. It is seen as important that the International Year of the Family encompasses the diversity of family forms and cultures. The family is seen not simply as the sum of individual family members but as a unit involving a set of relationships and processes.

Already this year we have heard from many political leaders on this topic of the family. Perhaps none has been so articulate as the New South Wales Premier, John Fahey, who yesterday launched the International Year of the Family and who two weeks before that had this to say on the subject:

We . . . unequivocally reaffirm our respect and support for the family. The family transforms our human instinct for affiliation into the lessons and experiences which shape our sense of what is fair, our sense of justice and responsibility to others. Families teach us the significance of some quite basic values - trust, respect, tolerance, reliability, honesty and a genuine feeling for the needs of others. It is within this framework of a family's pragmatic mix of love and discipline that our sense of ourselves and our confidence as individuals is nurtured.

We know that families form the basis of a society in which individuals have the chance and the obligation to exercise their social responsibilities and their concern for the common good. [The family] is not about [so-called] nuclear families. It is also not just about `ideal' families either. We live in an imperfect world. It's made up of imperfect people and imperfect families. So-called traditional nuclear families may be far from perfect when you scratch the surface. We must be blind or stupid if we pretend that child abuse, domestic violence, and rape are not some of the shadows behind the idealised family. To deny these outrages is to confirm the caricature [of families from a 1950s American television series].

Likewise, it is wrong to suggest that one parent households are not able or competent to offer these [positive] values. Surely though, it goes without saying that, for children, having two committed, loving and supporting parents is better than one. One caring and loving parent is better than none.

If we keep the words of the Premier in mind throughout the year as policymakers we will have the best chance of strengthening families, something all honourable members believe they must do. In his Speech His Excellency spoke about education and training. Many people in the gallery yesterday listening to the Governor's Speech noticed that education was given priority. That is not surprising, given the budget outlays involved but, of course, the Government is always striving to improve the education system. The Liberal Party-National Party Government is almost six years old but the zeal for educational and training reform is still very much evident.

In outlining the Government's continued outstanding commitment to excellence in education and a greater emphasis on training, His Excellency referred to an important pilot program that is now in its final year of a three-year appraisal phase. I refer to the parents as teachers pilot program, a program that is symbolic of the Government's innovative and forward-looking approach to education. The pilot program is in place at the Tolland Public School at Wagga Wagga, Manly Public School and Sadleir Public School at Liverpool. Presumably, it is no coincidence that the pilot program received special mention in the Governor's Speech in this, the International Year of the Family. The program is based on the philosophy that parents are their children's first and most influential teachers. Recent research shows that a child's success in school is influenced by early experiences in the home. The program helps parents make the most of the crucial early learning years, giving children the best possible start in life. A home-school partnership promotes confident parents and happy, competent children.

The parents as teachers program was developed in the early 1980s in Missouri in the United States. It has served as a model for replication in most other American States and in other countries, one of the most notable being New Zealand, which has a fine reputation in the field of early childhood studies. Through parents as teachers, parenting consultants help participating parents recognise the everyday learning opportunities in their children's lives, beginning at birth. The consultants provide parents with practical information and guidance in helping their children develop skills that are essential to later learning.

Of course, an increasing body of research shows that the home environment and parental involvement are integral to children's education. In research carried out by Cairney and Munsie entitled "Beyond Tokenism: Parents as Partners in Literacy", published by the Australian Reading Association, it is claimed that learning is a social process which has its beginning in parent-child relationships which are based on shared meaning. The home provides both the beginning and the foundation for learning. The Manchester survey carried out in 1967 on children and their primary schools - an inquiry chaired by Lady Plowden in the United Kingdom - found that the major forces associated with educational attainment are to be found within the home. The results of that survey indicated that the school contributed 18 per cent towards the child's school attainment, the neighbourhood contributed 20 per cent and the home contributed 62 per cent.

Research done by P. W. Builder in 1980, published in the "Australian Journal of Reading", highlighted the value of providing in-school remedial meetings for parents of poor readers so that they
Page 41
could share their concerns with others and learn how to support their children's efforts with reading. The research showed that since parents have been involved, the majority of children have shown a vast improvement in attitude, behaviour and attainment and have shown every chance of reaching their potential. As it happens, that is the first object of the Education Reform Act 1990 which refers in its objects to "assisting each child to achieve his or her educational potential".

In 1989 the Government's Committee of Review of New South Wales Schools found that parenting, particularly early parenting, has the greatest environmental influence on the educational outcome of the child. Recently, in the wake of the release of the draft women's action plan for New South Wales correctional institutions, mentioned earlier by the Attorney General, publicity was given to one aspect of the draft plan, namely, the dilemma with inmates and the care of their young children. An inmate who was interviewed on radio about this aspect of life in prison said it was assumed that people knew about parenting. She suggested that this was not so. Many people agree that this is because families and extended families are smaller these days than they were years ago. Don Edgar, in an article published by the Institute of Family Studies entitled "The Development of Competence", said:

Even those who know about cultural bias, language codes, and the restricting effects of poverty on our children, often still harbour in their intellectual hearts a view of intelligence that is unitary, general, inborn, not dependent upon the social opportunities given children to activate their potential and fully grow. We are so concerned with the latest structures of schooling and curricula disciplines that we forget they are notations and codes for skills of problem-solving based on the situation every person faces in early childhood. So we neglect early childhood, put little money or effort into helping parents stimulate and develop their child's multiple intelligences, fail to see that neglect at this stage becomes "stupidity" later on, with enormous economic and social cost to the nation. We assume that "parenting" comes naturally, we neglect "teaching" parents about their great influence on early learning, valuing what they do, or neglect providing wider resources for parents to enhance their impact on the child's emerging intelligence.

Therefore, it is more than appropriate that the parents as teachers program rated a reference in His Excellency's Speech because it addresses such issues. As we focus on ways of strengthening the family unit - an objective which all mainstream political parties seem to agree is desirable and urgent - the program is a excellent model, ripe for adaptation and for takeoff beyond the small number of communities of parents and children who have been lucky enough to be included in those pilot programs. A number of other honourable members have taken a personal interest in the pilot studies and, with me, will be closely monitoring the future of the pilot program during the International Year of the Family. We will be interested in how the pilot program might be adapted so that it is dispersed throughout the State, nipping in the bud many of the problems that governments have to deliberate upon later in a child's life if they go, as it were, off the rails, because of learning disabilities, juvenile delinquency or criminal involvement.

Referring to families, His Excellency said in his Speech, "My Government has made a major commitment to the women of this State". Rear Admiral Sinclair detailed actions that flow from the Premier's women's policy statement that was launched late last year. In referring to the International Year of the Family, His Excellency mentioned the forthcoming announcement of the work and family strategy, which will recognise the need to combine employment with family responsibilities so that, among other things, workers will be able to achieve a better balance between their work and family responsibilities. That fits in with one of the United Nations specific themes for the International Year of the Family, namely, helping women and men combine family and vocational responsibilities.

In 1994, therefore, the New South Wales Government has a most propitious mix of portfolios in the capable care of the Hon. Kerry Chikarovski. That one Minister is in charge of industrial relations and, therefore, workplace reform and the status and advancement of women means that this theme of the International Year of the Family will receive perhaps more attention in New South Wales than in many other parts of the world. Just as New South Wales has been the leader in creating a separate full-time Ministry for the Status and Advancement of Women, it is likely that under the Liberal Party-National Party Government women and men in the New South Wales work force will have opportunities for the meshing of vocational and family responsibilities, which will enhance the quality of working and family life.

I turn to employment and economic development. His Excellency referred to the distress caused to the community by the present high levels of unemployment and assistance to people who are the most disadvantaged in the labour market. However, it is pleasing to note the latest positive trends in New South Wales job statistics. The number of people in work in New South Wales continues to rise, with an increase of 9,000 jobs in January. The steady participation rate of 61.6 per cent has also meant a reduction both in the unemployment rate, from 10.6 per cent down to 10.3 per cent, and in the number of people unemployed, down 8,000 people. Since the beginning of the financial year employment in New South Wales has grown by 46,900 people, which is 34 per cent of the national employment growth of 138,600 in that time.

The number of people unemployed in New South Wales has fallen by 16,600 - that is, 45 per cent of the national fall. The unemployment rate in New South Wales has declined from 11 per cent to 10.3 per cent while falling from 11.1 per cent to 10.6 per cent nationally. That, of course, is excellent news and we hope that trend continues. Also on the business front the Governor noted that the Government has received the report of an inquiry into red tape. The responses to that inquiry are eagerly awaited by many in the business community who are still critical of the level of red tape that presents impediments to doing business in this State. Certainly those of us who are members of the Standing Committee on State
Page 42
Development undertaking the inquiry into regional business have encountered this criticism in a number of places in New South Wales, and we look forward to studying the recommendation of the report by Mr Sturgess in due course.

There is mention of a strategy to assist the small business sector by increasing opportunities for small business to sell and supply government and by better co-ordinating and marketing government services for small business. In line with this strategy, a couple of weeks ago an exhibition in Newcastle brought together State and Commonwealth government departments and small business operators in order to exchange ideas about products and needs and to facilitate better networking. Next week the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development, the Hon. Ray Chappell, will open a small business opportunities exposition at Darling Harbour and announce the setting up of First Base advice centres, which will help owners and managers of small businesses with information and advice. It is obvious that budding entrepreneurs and investors want a first base and do not want to deal with a second base and a third base and so on. That is where red tape and advice and help get tangled up. I am pleased that the Government is happy to take a fresh look at this problem.

The Governor also confirmed the Government's intention to introduce legislation defining the rights of parties to retail tenancies, so that retail tenants and landlords in the small business sector will enjoy greater certainty and confidence. This is welcome news for many small businesses, not the least of which are those operating in country and regional centres. He also mentioned that new regional development boards are now in place and are operating with a new vigour inspired by the fact that they are reporting to a Minister particularly designated the Minister for Regional Development as well as being Minister for Small Business.

His Excellency referred to plans to promote to the exploration industry in Australia and overseas the investment opportunities in this State. The return in mineral royalties alone to the community is expected to be more than $150 million in 1993-94. The coal industry is suffering from low export prices. Nevertheless, two new coalmines have opened in the past couple of years and several new ones are being developed. The coal seams contain large quantities of methane gas. Towards the end of this decade New South Wales will require additional such gas supplies. There are, therefore, opportunities to sell methane gas. It is noteworthy that since mid-1988 33 new non-coalmining operations have started up in New South Wales, employing more than 800 people. Of these, 13 are metal mines, which employ the bulk of the people, nine produce construction material, eight mine industrial minerals and two are gemstone operators.

In the Central West of the State, especially around Orange, there are 10 new mines - six metallic operations employing hundreds of people and four construction material mines. Other areas to feature in the spread of new mines are Inverell, Lismore, Newcastle, Wollongong, Cobar and Girilambone, up the road from Nyngan. This Government has given additional attention to compiling and developing a framework of geological, geophysical and mineral resource maps. These maps have a positive influence on exploration in the State because they contribute to providing greater access to land for exploration and mining. The provision of high quality maps has boosted exploration activity in a number of areas, especially in Broken Hill and Cobar. A positive environment for exploration has thus been created.

Meanwhile in the Lachlan gold belt, production of base metals and gold is worth about $400 million per annum. This region produces 80 per cent of the gold in New South Wales and 40 per cent of the State's metal production. The mineral industry is investing about $35 million per annum in mineral exploration in country areas of New South Wales - an investment with obvious implications for regional economies. It is pleasing to note the gradual increase in mineral exploration expenditure in New South Wales in the past eight years or so. In 1986-87 $47.6 million was expended. The next year it increased to $61.5 million, but dropped back to $50 million to $55 million a year for a couple of years. By 1991-92 it had increased again to $63.3 million. The minerals industry has great significance for our State's economy and for regional economies, and it is of great moment that there is increased activity in this sector. The Hon. Ian Causley and his National Party colleagues are alert to the need to eliminate any unnecessary impediments to further mining activity in this State.

Last year the Seven Wonders tourism campaign was launched. I was pleased that His Excellency was able to point to a 24 per cent increase in sales through the New South Wales Tourism travel centres. Regional tourism groups have been awarded grants by the Minister, the Hon. Virginia Chadwick, and it is vital that the flexibility that the Seven Wonders campaign has built into it is used by regional tourism organisations and operators to maximise their market exposure. It is good to see that some of them are doing that. The reform of government trading enterprises mentioned by His Excellency has, under this Government, been dramatic to say the least. The GTE reform has prevented higher taxes or cuts in priority community services while enhancing the commercial discipline and performance of those agencies.

On this score, the big item in this parliamentary session will be the introduction of legislation to corporatise the Sydney Water Board, an initiative carefully considered by Government members and enthusiastically supported by them. As the Governor said, this will mean that the board will at long last be able to concentrate on its core business and maximise the efficiency of its operation. Importantly, it will make the Board more accountable to government and the community. One member was heard to mutter under his breath yesterday during the Governor's
Page 43
speech, "That will be a change". It is a change that is long overdue and in the direct interests of the State and the people from Gosford to Sydney and the Blue Mountains.

On a related topic, the intention of the Minister responsible for water resources, the Hon. George Souris, to legislate to separate irrigation boards from government control is another welcome water resource reform. At last irrigators and their boards will be responsible for the management and operation of their own irrigation systems; at last they will be unshackled from government. To country people, this is landmark legislation, and National Party members particularly welcome this reform. In referring to law and justice initiatives, His Excellency mentioned that soon the white paper on juvenile justice will be released, an event that is anxiously awaited by many interested people, not the least of whom are those who live in places like Wilcannia.

During the parliamentary recess my National Party colleague the Hon. D. F. Moppett made a number of practical and well-received suggestions on ways to address juvenile crime problems in such communities. No doubt the Government will release and act upon the white paper as quickly as is absolutely possible. Juvenile justice issues, of course, fit in with the focus we all have during the International Year of the Family. I was interested to read the response of the New South Wales Law Society to the Juvenile Justice Advisory Council's green paper. In its July 1993 journal the Law Society said:

Families play a more important role in the prevention of juvenile crime than is recognised in the . . . Green Paper.

The society suggested that an addition be made to the paper's key objective on crime prevention and structures in New South Wales so that it reads:

To encourage acceptance of the view that juvenile crime is a matter for the whole community. Crime prevention initiatives ought to be a partnership of the public, private and community sector, with particular emphasis on the participation of young people and the support of families.

The Law Society also agreed with the Standing Committee on Social Issues juvenile justice report, in which it was argued that the family should be regarded as the primary crime prevention unit. A concerted effort should be made, through legislation, policies, programs and training, involving each of the main agencies in the juvenile justice system and other bodies, to respond to families and to enhance the capacity of families to deal with offending by their children. Most members of this Chamber are aware that juvenile justice issues have received much attention in Western Australia, including attention from a select committee of that Parliament.

In a survey of evidence given to the Western Australian select committee on youth affairs, Quentin Beresford of Edith Cowan University examined the co-relationship between juvenile criminal behaviour and a breakdown of effective parenting and socialisation. This and other research establishes that the greater need for resources should be shifted from the incarceration end of the sad story to early intervention and crime prevention. Again, that is where supporting families and parents come in. I return to my earlier theme: that the efforts to strengthen family units and improve parenting competency need to be fostered, and the sooner the better. This is the best year to do that.

His Excellency noted that a year ago the Government launched the Charter of Principles, marking its commitment to our culturally diverse society. The establishment last May of the separate portfolio of Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs reinforced this commitment. The Government in its strategies is pursuing the implementation of the charter across government. There has been a mindless and unrelenting campaign against the very existence of such a portfolio over the airwaves, but let us reflect upon the make-up of the population of New South Wales.

The capital city comprises 220 different ethnic communities. Sydney has overtaken Melbourne as the migrant capital of Australia: 35.7 per cent of its residents aged 15 years or older were born overseas; 1.3 million people in New South Wales speak a language other than English at home - that is not because of the Government's refreshing re-emphasis on teaching foreign languages in our schools. A separate Minister means having a specific voice in the Cabinet that is committed to representing the interests of the vast part of our population. Living in such a culturally diverse city is one of the very best aspects of living in New South Wales. Good on the Government for establishing a separate portfolio.

His Excellency referred to the rise in gross earnings of New South Wales and Australian farm producers and the great significance of that to the State and national economy. The Governor said that improved marketing, more efficiency and better agribusiness decision-making will remain key factors in the improved long-term profitability of the food and fibre industries. To underscore the great progress being made by farmers, the Government has launched its "Farming for the Future" campaign, which will cost $17 million over three years. The campaign focuses on the need to assist farm families to improve their business management practices, be more self-reliant, better able to manage risk and to have the capacity and skill to implement agricultural and land management practices that will be sustainable in the future.

It is right and proper that perhaps the most expansive topic to be covered in the Governor's Speech relates to environmental issues followed by urban renewal and infrastructure plans, which, of course, have environmental implications. The Speech covers plans to produce a sound forestry policy and the identification and reservation of high conservation value old growth forest by the Natural Resources Audit Council. The National Party was particularly happy to note in the Governor's Speech the words, ". . . the Government is currently investigating options for enhancing resource security for the
Page 44
[timber] industry". The question of resource security is crucial, and we look forward to further announcements on this score in the near future.

In keeping with the need to ensure the long-term viability of the timber industry, there is the announcement of an additional $1 million so the State can double the eucalypt plantation acreage in State forests, plus a further $2 million this financial year on silvicultural programs so that value is added to our pine plantations. These initiatives add seasonal jobs to scores of rural centres and will improve the quality of pine saw logs in response to good softwood markets. There has been extensive analysis of ways and means of improving the management and regulation of water in this State, and we look forward to the forthcoming announcements alluded to by His Excellency.

The aim is to ensure that agreed water quality standards are set and that clear accountabilities exist to ensure these standards are actually met. This will be a reform of great moment. It follows the management of other water issues of public concern, such as the algal management program that is already under way. Programs such as the Waterwise program to raise community awareness on water usage are also under way and are achieving good results. Other environmental initiatives by the Government include further reductions in on-road vehicle emissions and pollution from major industrial outlets, reducing lead levels in the community, and responses to the Parliament's Joint Select Committee upon Waste Management.

In addition, there is to be a further consolidation and streamlining of various core pieces of environmental legislation. The Minister for Planning, who also has responsibility for urban affairs, the Hon. R. J. Webster, and the Minister for Transport have issued strategy papers focusing on options for urban planning and transport for sustainable urban development. As well, there is a tidying up of the local government legislation so that planning aspects are reallocated to the more appropriate planning department, which is a sensible initiative.

A number of great initiatives have evolved with respect to railways and improving safety on buses and in school zones. Those initiatives are most welcome, and many members of the National Party have campaigned for them over many years. I particularly want to illustrate one simple example of customer focus of the transport department. A couple of years ago a family in Orange moved to a new subdivision. The head of the household wrote to Minister Baird and asked whether they could have a school bus through the subdivision. Mr Baird wrote back and said, "You cannot until you have a main thoroughfare through the subdivision", because the roads were too narrow. When the main thoroughfare was built, the householder wrote again to the Minister and said, "We have got the thoroughfare".

Just before the school year started this year a gentleman from the Parramatta regional office of the department telephoned to say that a school bus would be starting the day school commenced. The householder thanked him. The man from the department said, "Is there anything else we can do for you?" The lady of the house said, "As a matter of fact, we have a high school student as well. She has to walk one kilometre to catch the school bus". The gentleman said, "I will ring you later this afternoon. I will see what I can do about that". He rang about an hour later and said, "The high school bus will be there tomorrow morning". That is a classic example of customer focus.

Like many other people, I used to try to avoid using the Pacific Highway if at all possible because of its reputation as a goat track and because of the appalling memories of the Kempsey and Grafton bus crashes. It should be noted that the highway is undoubtedly safer these days, with work going on relentlessly to further improve it. However, the abandonment of the black spot program by the Keating Government is a backward step. It affects the rate of positive change that can be introduced to major routes like the Pacific Highway. The National Party will not let the Labor Party off the hook on this issue.

His Excellency alluded to the significant gains this Government has made in "delivering a high quality customer focused health service to the people of New South Wales". He mentioned in his Speech the State's commitment to hospital construction, much of which is proceeding in regional New South Wales, but also referred to the revolution in New South Wales Health, which gives high priority to community health services and services aimed at promoting good health and preventing the development of illness.

Importantly, there is special mention of the New South Wales Government's leadership when it comes to mental health care and commitment to improving the range of housing options for people with mental illness, as well as for other people who have long-term support needs. At this point, I want to pay special tribute to the forward-looking Minister for Health, the Hon. Ron Phillips, and mention his most recent break-through announcement, that of the New South Wales Women's Health Statement. Mr Phillips launched that statement on 16 February - A New Focus - and said that the New South Wales Liberal Party-National Party Government had established women's health as a top priority for the Government and the health system and had embarked upon a new chapter of women's health in this State.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: All governments have neglected this area.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It is true, as the Hon. J. R. Johnson has said, that all governments, up until this Government, have neglected women's health. There is a need for this special focus, because women live longer than men by about six years and women have substantially different health experiences from men. As well, women are the principal carers in families. Clearly, women experience health issues and problems that men do not.

Page 45

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: All governments throughout Australia should hang their heads in shame on this issue.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Although a full range of facilities that NSW Health offers is available to both men and women, women need services and programs tailored to their special needs. At his policy launch, Mr Phillips referred to a lack of understanding as a cause of breast cancer. A few days later the all-party, self-styled parliamentary committee for breast cancer research, made up of women members of the Parliament from all political parties and women spouses and partners of male members of the Parliament, conducted a forum at Parliament House to collect information on the extent of funding, or rather the lack of it, for breast cancer research in this country.

The forum attracted great media interest and was followed almost immediately by the announcement from the Premier of a new women's health initiative, namely, a $1.5 million grant towards the establishment of a breast cancer research institute. Perhaps never have so few women achieved so much, politically, for other women so quickly - 24 hours was not bad work for $1.5 million. We are inspired to do even more for this particular cause and to recruit as many women as possible to join us as lobbyists for the majority of our constituents, the women of New South Wales.

On the broader issue of women's health, until now seven tertiary level women's health centres and women's hospitals provided services from super specialties through to health promotion and prevention campaigns. Now there is an eighth, with the opening of the Carolyn Chisholm Centre at Liverpool Hospital. The Carolyn Chisholm Centre will be the focal point for a new network of women's services throughout the west and southwest of Sydney. It will be the biggest birthing centre in Australia, apart from Pleuron piggery I suppose I should say, and it will provide a comprehensive new range of care for the region.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: One does not compare children with pigs.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I do not apologise. The Government is spending $40 million to relocate and rebuild that extraordinary institution, the Royal Hospital for Women at Paddington, to be part of the Prince of Wales superhospital at Randwick. Construction will start by August and the project will be finished in 1996. In addition, the Government is expanding the gynaecological cancer service at Westmead Cancer Centre. This year's State Budget contains $400,000 for the Well Women's Service at Nepean Hospital and the Wentworth Area Health Service; $300,000 for tertiary reproductive endocrinology and Well Women's Service at Westmead Hospital; $800,000 new recurrent funds for the expansion of neonatal intensive care at Nepean Hospital; and $400,000 new recurrent funding for sexual assault services and an initiative to improve access to clinical and support services for women in rural areas. They are only the highlights from the women's health budget.

His Excellency mentioned also the Government's commitment to the health of indigenous people. Here again, health issues are of great concern to the Government. While the Governor was opening the primary health post at Walhollow near Quirindi, the Minister for Health announced the Aboriginal health goals referred to in the Governor's Speech. These health posts provide primary health services for Aborigines as well as health promotion, disease prevention, community awareness and self-help programs. The goal is to reduce disease among Aborigines, including priority areas such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, mental health and respiratory disease and to improve lifestyles in eight other areas, such as diet, reproductive and sexual health, substance abuse and immunisation.

It is probably inevitable that many members of the House will refer to the International Year of the Family, as I have done, in their respective contributions to the Address-in-Reply debate, and that is as it should be. The National Party has always been recognised as being for the family, and in 1994 that is as true as ever. The National Party appreciates that this International Year of the Family will concentrate many minds upon ways and means of strengthening family units and increasing their chances of survival, notwithstanding the extra pressures they have to endure. I am proud to be part of a coalition Government that is dedicated to paying more than lip-service to putting policies in place for families, a Government that will ensure that many of those policies are well and truly in place before it starts its third term in office when the fifty-first Parliament commences approximately one year from now.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Leader of the Opposition) [5.55]: I move:

That the question be amended by the omission of paragraph 2 of the Address, with a view to inserting instead:

We beg to inform Your Excellency, that this House:

(a) Believes that the Government's legislative and administrative program:

(i) is inadequate to seize the opportunities for jobs and growth offered by Australia's impressive economic recovery;

(ii) fails to develop policies for the great regions of New South Wales, metropolitan and non-metropolitan;

(iii) fails to curb waste and mismanagement in public administration; and

(iv) fails to reverse the continuing decline of quality in education, health services, essential community services and the environment.

(b) Calls for the implementation of the alternative program announced by the Member for Maroubra and the Leader of the Opposition in the other place;

(c) Deplores the Government's campaign to undermine Your Excellency in carrying out the important duties and functions of your high Office.

I want to deal with the last matter first. On the very day the Governor was in this Chamber presenting to the House the Government's program, the
Page 46
Government was undermining the Governor as fast as it could. The Fahey Government has clearly embarked on a deliberate campaign to undermine the position of His Excellency. The explanation is very simple. John Fahey wanted an early election after the announcement that Sydney had won its bid for the year 2000 Olympics, but he knew that the Governor would uphold the law and uphold the Constitution of New South Wales. This is the pay back. It all started on 3 February when an article by Mr Michael Cameron, the chief political correspondent for the Daily Telegraph Mirror in the New South Wales parliamentary press gallery, appeared in the Daily Telegraph Mirror. Mr Cameron reported -

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: On a point of order. Mr President, I ask that you rule on the amendment in relation to Standing Order 79, which provides that no member shall use Her Majesty's or the Governor's name irreverently in the debate or for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations. There is absolutely no doubt that the amendment sought to be moved by the Leader of the Opposition clearly flouts that particular standing order; that the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to make an address in reply to the Governor's Speech, which is a standard approach taken by this House in the deliberations of this House following the prorogation of the Parliament; and that the Leader of the Opposition, in seeking to amend the standard form of Address in Reply, is seeking to politicise that Address in Reply and that standard motion in the most debasing of ways.

Without doubt, through this amendment the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to draw the Governor into the deliberations of the House and is therefore abusing the terms of Standing Order 79. There can be no greater way of debasing the standing of the Governor, which Standing Order 79 seeks to preserve, than that which the Leader of the Opposition seeks to pursue by this amendment. I call upon you, Mr President, to rule the amendment out of order.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: On the point of order. I doubt whether I have ever heard a more ridiculous point of order from the Leader of the Government during his tenure of that office. Standing Order 79 states that no member shall use Her Majesty's or the Governor's name irreverently in debate, nor for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations. If any member can suggest that the amendment I have moved to the address that has been moved by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is an example of using the Governor's name irreverently, that member's logic has let him down.

The purpose of the amendment is to uphold and to support the position of the Governor. There can be no question at all, from today's Daily Telegraph Mirror, nor from that of 3 February, that the Government is running an unprecedented and disgraceful campaign to undermine the performance by the Governor of his very important duties. I have never had experience of such a campaign before; there has been no case that anyone could point to in which a Government has seeded stories in a newspaper in an attempt to undermine -

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will address the point of order.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The Opposition's amendment seeks to uphold the position of the Governor and the dignity of his office. It is absurd to suggest that the amendment is in any way irreverent towards the Governor. That defies logic.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: On the point of order. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition is not suggesting that he has not read Standing Order 79, which deals with the use of the names of the Queen and the Governor. The second part of Standing Order 79 states:

. . . nor for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations.

Even if nowhere else in the proposed amendment, at least here the Leader of the Opposition has used words that undermine His Excellency. That clearly ties the Governor into the amendment. It clearly reflects on the Governor and it clearly undermines his authority. The amendment uses the term in a most unparliamentary way to undermine the authority of the Governor. It is an attempt to influence the debate before the House.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point of order. If the comments made by the Hon. J. H. Jobling have any validity at all, the motion is out of order. The motion states:

We, Her Majesty's loyal and dutiful subjects, the Members of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our thanks for Your Excellency's Speech, and to affirm our sincere allegiance to Her Most Gracious Majesty.

That is supporting, upholding, our Head of State, just as my amendment -

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: But you are undermining -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: No, the honourable member can argue that in debate.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is I who have to be convinced in this debate, not the Hon. J. H. Jobling nor any other member. Honourable members will address themselves to the Chair on the point of order.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I have completed my submission on the point of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Standing Order 79 quite clearly refers to the irreverent use of the name of Her Majesty or the Governor in debate and does not in any way, in my opinion, circumscribe the capacity of the House to consider any form of motion. The form of the motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition, being an amendment to the motion before the House, in my opinion in no way transgresses and, indeed, is not covered by Standing Order 79. No point of order is involved.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank you for your ruling, Mr President. The campaign to undermine His Excellency started on 3 February. In the Daily
Page 47
Telegraph Mirror of 3 February Government sources were quoted as telling the newspaper that a move to replace the Governor at the end of his term had been discussed informally by Cabinet members. The article went on to state:

The four year posting of Rear Admiral Peter Sinclair expires on 8 August. One senior official said that it was extremely unlikely that the term would be renewed. While the Governor had performed his ceremonial duties without fault, there was a feeling in Government that it was time for a change. In contrast to his late predecessor, Sir David Martin, Rear Admiral Sinclair had adopted a low profile in the job.

What an insulting remark from the Government.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is also nonsense.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If it is nonsense, why did the Premier not issue a denial? And why did he not issue a denial today, when that story is being seeded by Government sources -

[Interruption]

If the story was false - if it was a figment of the imagination of Mr Michael Cameron - either on 3 February or today, 2 March, the Premier would have very swiftly issued a denial.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is traditional for the Premier never to comment on such matters.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Premier will not issue a denial because there is a campaign to undermine the Governor, because the Governor will uphold the law and the Constitution of this State.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is up to the Queen -

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is too much interjection.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I shall conclude my comments on the matter by saying that we are witnessing one of the most outrageous examples of political corruption that I have known. The Governor's Speech certainly started off well. All of us would join with him in expressing sympathy to those who suffered loss during the recent devastating bushfires. All of us would join the Governor in expressing admiration for the efforts of the firefighters and the other emergency service personnel, as well as the thousands of volunteers who assisted in so many ways. Having got off to a good start, however, the Speech prepared for the Governor by the Government went downhill. It consisted of little more than a mish-mash of mainly minor administrative matters, most of which had already been announced. The administrative program announced yesterday was, in its totality, trivial and the legislative program was virtually non-existent. It is little wonder that in this session the House will be sitting for only 21 days, and it is little wonder that only nine days of that 21 have been set aside for legislation.

This Government simply has no vision, it has no program and it has no ideas. It is led by a Premier who describes vision in profane terms. I am sure Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile would be interested to read the description of the word "vision" in Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald. That was not a very good example for the Premier to set, particularly for the young people of New South Wales. The Premier, when he is put to the test, caves in to a few Neanderthals in the National Party. In the 18 pages of the Governor's Speech there was not a single word about wilderness. Just before Christmas 11 so-called new wilderness areas - nine of which had already been declared wilderness areas - were described by the Premier as a gift to our grandchildren. Thank heavens the Premier is not Santa Claus because that gift to our grandchildren was snatched away even before Christmas had come around.

On wilderness, as on most things, John Fahey has no idea where he is going. He has no idea what he stands for. This Government is a do nothing Government. It has done nothing and is doing nothing to overcome the record waiting lists in our ailing public hospital system. It is the Government's intention to flog off the hospital system to private entrepreneurs. It has done nothing to reduce class sizes or the number of composite classes in our public schools. In fact, New South Wales spends less per capita on education than any State in Australia. According to the Australian Education Council, New South Wales spends $4,136 per capita on education compared to an Australia-wide average of $4,421. In other words, we spend almost $300 per capita less than any other State. That is the commitment of this Government to the education of our young people.

[Interruption]

As the Hon. Jan Burnswoods has pointed out, that is largely because this Government has reduced the number of teachers by 2,500. This Government has done nothing to reduce class sizes or the number of composite classes and it has done nothing about jobs. There is an alternative.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: How do you explain the fact that more jobs have been created in New South Wales than in any other part of Australia?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: What a silly interjection! A document produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, not last week, last month or last year, but yesterday, shows that in December, the last quarter for which figures are available, the number of employed persons in New South Wales had grown by 1.4 per cent over the figures for the preceding year. The national average was 1.9 per cent. The employment growth in Queensland over that 12-month period was 3.8 per cent and in Western Australia, 4.5 per cent. The Attorney General and Minister for Justice, who is in the Chamber, is telling us that New South Wales has done better.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: There are more jobs and more people on the ground.

Page 48

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Of course, because New South Wales has twice the population of Queensland. But the rate of employment growth in Queensland is three times the rate of employment growth in New South Wales. Queensland's rate of economic growth, as measured by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the last year for which figures are available - that is, 1992-93 - was 6.6 per cent. It was 1 per cent in New South Wales. Of course, in both cases those figures were unadjusted for inflation. If the figures had been adjusted for inflation Queensland's growth rate would have been just under 5 per cent and the growth rate in New South Wales would have been negative. So in 1992-93, the last year for which figures are available, there was a contraction in the volume of work and economic activity in New South Wales. One would have hoped that that situation would have improved.

The document produced yesterday entitled "Economic Indicators in New South Wales" dated February 1994 and released at 11.30 a.m. on 1 March 1994 shows that actual private new capital expenditure in New South Wales, in other words, private investment, declined by almost 9 per cent - 8.8 per cent - over the past 12 months. In Australia overall investments increased by almost 7 per cent - 6.7 per cent. In fact, the increase in investment in the rest of Australia would be much greater than that because we have to take New South Wales out of the picture.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: We are dragging Australia down.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is right; we are dragging down the national average. If we took out New South Wales because it has a negative growth in investment, the growth in investment in the rest of Australia would be well over 10 per cent. The interjection earlier by the Attorney General and Minister for Justice was very silly. I am pleased that there is an alternative to this Government's do nothing approach to jobs. It is the positive Labor program which was announced by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bob Carr. It is a program not just for jobs; it covers the whole range of government activity. The program was developed against this Government's failure to seize opportunities for jobs and growth; its failure to develop policies for the great regions of New South Wales; its failure to curb waste and mismanagement, which has resulted in record high State taxes and charges; and the continuing decline, as I mentioned in my amendment, of quality in education, health services, essential community services and the environment.

I will deal, first, with State development or, in other words, new investment, new business and new jobs. Honourable members would be aware that the Leader of the Opposition in the other place has already announced that our approach will be, first, to establish a new ministry of finance and State development to ensure co-ordination of the State's financial, economic and industrial policies. Honourable members might be aware that he has announced that, when we come to office after the next election, I will hold that portfolio. Put simply, our approach will be to go to work for work. That will contrast with the approach of this Government, which is simply to do nothing except find excuses and muddle along from one bungle to another.

Obviously, these days no company can survive simply by sitting back and hoping that business will come to it. A company has to tailor its product to meet the demands of the international and economic markets in terms of price, design and quality. The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith would understand that perfectly well. Likewise, we as a State cannot just sit back and hope that things will happen; we have to make sure that they happen. We in New South Wales have to recognise that we have a product to sell. That product is New South Wales, as an investment and as a business location. The new job, therefore, of the proposed department of finance and State development under a Carr Labor government will be to go into the international and Australian market-place and bid for business and jobs. Wherever we can identify a significant and sensible new investment opportunity it will be my job, as minister for finance and State development, to convene a top level bid team. Just as New South Wales bid for the Olympic Games, we will bid for other investment opportunities for New South Wales.

The bid teams could include prominent business and trade union representatives as well as local and State public sector officials and other eminent citizens, particularly people in local government areas who may be associated with complementary businesses to those of the specific investment we are seeking. The bid teams will bid for that investment with a comprehensive package including, whenever appropriate, strictly time-limited planning and environmental approval processes, pre-negotiated enterprise agreements, negotiated contracts with government trading enterprises for both services and charges, development of complementary commercial arrangements with other New South Wales firms, particularly those firms in the local vicinity, appropriate public infrastructure commitments, tailoring TAFE training courses for the particular industry or firm, and the removal of any unnecessary regulatory obstacles.

In other words, we will be taking a major initiative to attract business to New South Wales rather than have it go to Queensland or Western Australia, where most businesses are going now, or to other countries in the Pacific rim. We will also be taking major initiatives to unshackle all businesses, big and small, from unnecessary red tape. By legislation we will be establishing a system of merit exemption from government regulations. If a business can show that any government regulation is an unnecessary, silly hindrance, it will qualify for an exemption granted by the minister for finance and State development. Such an exemption will be able to be overturned only by the Parliament following a recommendation by the parliamentary Regulation Review Committee. The take it or leave it approach of the Fahey Government will be replaced by a new spirit.

Page 49

In the same way that New South Wales bid for the Olympic Games, in the same way that Australian business is now aggressively competing for export orders, a Carr Labor government will be aggressively competing for new investment, new business and new jobs right here in New South Wales. On a case-by-case basis we will be identifying investment opportunities, assessing their benefits and constructing a deal that will win the investment for New South Wales. The message we will be sending to bureaucrats, firms, investors and job-seekers is that the election of a Carr Labor government means business.

Another important factor in attracting business to New South Wales is the need to bear down on taxes and charges. Firms will simply not invest in locations where high costs make it impossible for them to produce a competitively priced product. Taxes and charges have steadily increased for business in New South Wales, making this State increasingly uncompetitive, especially against Queensland. That poses a threat to our economic future, to the jobs of New South Wales citizens and the jobs of their children, and to the businesses on which job growth depends so much. We cannot bear down on the cost of government if we do not first eliminate the waste and mismanagement that has characterised the Greiner and Fahey governments.

In the past few years thousands of jobs for ordinary New South Wales citizens have been axed, only to see expensive consultants and contractors take over those jobs. I am sorry that the Minister for Planning is not present in the Chamber, because the Sydney Water Board is a perfect example. Thousands of jobs for ordinary citizens have been axed from the Water Board while the annual consultancy bill has blown out to $165 million. As the Government Pricing Tribunal pointed out, the average real operating costs of the board per property, for services, have increased by more than 20 per cent in the past few years. In other words, the Greiner and Fahey governments have delivered fewer jobs, more consultants and greater costs.

Let us face it: we cannot bear down on taxes and charges if we tolerate bungles such as the $500 million HomeFund fiasco or spend $160 million over two years, as has been done, on fitting out and refurbishing government offices. Nor can we do it if we allow the excesses of the senior executive service to continue. This privileged battalion of 1,800 fat cats who earn between $90,000 and $220,000 a year will be overturned by an incoming Labor government. Nor can we bear down on the cost of government or taxes and charges if we allow the Olympic budget to get completely out of hand. For that reason the Opposition is calling on the Government to prepare and publish an all-up budget for the Games. That budget needs to outline all of the expected cash flows over the next seven years. It needs to be a sensible, but certainly not penny-pinching, budget.

Above all we need to implement all of the necessary financial controls and safeguards to ensure that the Olympic budget is adhered to. It should be made absolutely clear that enthusiastic support for the Olympics does not mean that the Opposition will tolerate government bungling or deception in the name of the Olympics. That is what we saw with the budget that was presented to the people of New South Wales. They were told it would be a break-even Olympic Games. We now find that it will not be, on the Government's budgeting, because it was not ever a $2,000 million budget; it was always a $3,000 million budget. The people of New South Wales and the Parliament were simply lied to.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: That is nonsense.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I do not believe it is nonsense to suggest that New South Wales can provide a dazzlingly successful Olympiad without waste, incompetence and deception. Our reputation as a State depends on it; our financial strength depends on it and continued public support of the Games depends on it. It is essential also that the Games remain a community endeavour so that the people of New South Wales can feel pride in the fact that everyone is pitching in to keep faith with the world. It would be a tragedy if the opportunity for community service were overtaken by the creation of a gravy train.

Any Olympic Games depends on literally tens of thousands of volunteers and a genuine community spirit. But it would be a disaster if ordinary people were to feel that they were the volunteers providing the community spirit while the high-fliers were collecting fat financial rewards. For the life of me I cannot see any justification for the $50,000 annual part-time fee being paid to the 15 members of the Games organising committee. It is not as though any of them need the income supplement nor, from what I can gather, were any one of them aware that these fees would be paid. I am quite sure that all of them would be delighted with the honour of serving upon such an important committee and would need no other recompense.

I have dealt in some detail with the Opposition's approach to State development. There are many other areas that I had hoped to cover. They include a statewide anti-violence strategy, our proposals for health, education, TAFE, transport and the Olympics, upon which I have touched briefly. Other issues are our complete opposition to the fire sale of the State Bank, our proposals for cutting government waste, for the environment, industrial relations, community services including child protection, disability services, juvenile justice, youth homelessness, bushfires, agriculture, fisheries, minerals and energy, particularly in relation to coal and electricity, consumer affairs, aged persons, Aboriginal affairs, public works, tourism, small business, regional development, women, breast cancer prevention - the list of our alternative proposals released by the Leader of the Opposition goes on and on.

The Hon. Franca Arena: Ethnic affairs.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, ethnic affairs. I had hoped to deal with some of them in detail but I am confident that I can leave them to my colleagues,
Page 50
who will inform the House and the people of New South Wales of Labor's positive alternatives to the do-nothing approach of the Fahey Government.

[The President left the chair at 6.30 p.m. The House resumed at 8.30 p.m.]

The Hon. R. D. DYER [8.30]: I welcome this opportunity to participate in the Address-in-Reply debate and I associate myself, in particular, with the remarks made earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. M. R. Egan.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Do you support the amendment?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: As the Hon. R. T. M. Bull is anxious about the matter, I indicate that I support the amendment moved by my colleague. In speaking to the Address in Reply I want to refer to four issues within the shadow portfolio for which I am responsible, that is, community services. The first matter to which I wish to refer is an important one, that is, the recent report issued in December 1993 of the task force on what are known as private for profit hostels. The House may recall that during the budget debate last year I had quite a lot to say regarding hostels and boarding-houses which are maintained mainly for developmentally disabled people.

Also, the House might recall that in about April of last year there was considerable press publicity regarding the substandard conditions in some hostels and boarding-houses. Following that publicity, in July last year I took the opportunity, with my colleague the honourable member for Lake Macquarie, Mr Jeff Hunter, the local member, to visit an institution known as Carynia Oaks near Cooranbong on the Central Coast. At that time I detailed my concern regarding that institution. I add that that institution was by no means the only one with substandard conditions. It is interesting to note that since the controversy of last year Carynia Oaks has changed its name to the Watagan Centre.

I shall return to the report of the task force. To the Government's credit the task force was appointed in the wake of the swirling controversy surrounding hostels and boarding-houses catering for developmentally disabled and other people. The report indicates that throughout the State 178 licensed residential centres for people with disabilities are operating on a private for profit basis. They are licensed to accommodate 3,752 residents and most of the hostels and boarding-houses to which I am referring are described in the jargon as large congregate facilities.

The task force had a resident profile survey carried out. The survey indicated that 44 per cent of boarding-house residents have psychiatric disabilities, 28 per cent have intellectual disabilities, 19 per cent have disabilities relating to substance abuse - usually alcohol - and 2 per cent are said to have no disability. The licensing system commenced under the tenure of the former Labor Government by virtue of amendments passed in 1979 to the Youth and Community Services Act 1973. Those amendments established a licensing regime for boarding-houses and other residential centres for what were described as handicapped persons.

Apart from the overall statistics I have given regarding the composition of the clientele of these hostels and boarding-houses, the resident profile survey to which I have just referred indicated also that 70 per cent of boarding-house residents are male, 65 per cent are older than 50 years of age, 42 per cent are older than 60 years of age and only 3 per cent are younger than 30 years of age. The survey found that 60 per cent have lived in their current boarding-house for more than five years and only 6 per cent have lived there for less than six months. It showed also that 39 per cent of residents came from a psychiatric institution, 6 per cent from a disability unit of the Department of Community Services, 24 per cent from a family home, including self-referral, and that 60 per cent were taking psychotropic medication but only 40 per cent have any psychiatric treatment on a continuing basis.

The House will appreciate that the occupants of the boarding-houses and hostels to which I am referring are vulnerable and disadvantaged people, and human rights demand that they should be treated appropriately and properly. The Youth and Community Services Act requires the proprietor of a boarding-house to obtain a licence and the licence specifies the manager of a particular institution. It may be the proprietor or some other person approved by the Department of Community Services. Licences issued are subject to a standard set of conditions and the department has authority to attach or impose conditions of a specific character relating to a particular boarding-house.

At the moment there are only nine disability licensing adviser positions, that is, in effect licensing inspectors, throughout the State. Those licensing advisers are responsible for no less than 1,022 licensed services accommodating 25,055 people, most of which are funded services for older people or young people with disabilities. The problem is that the role of the licensing adviser has mainly been limited to the investigation of complaints and with licence applications, leaving very little time for what could be and is described in the report as proactive monitoring.

The problems with the current system, identified by the task force, are, in summary, that the current licensing provisions do not contain a clear or up-to-date statement of standards that should be offered by boarding-houses; that there is a lack of independent monitoring of them; and that a high proportion of residents were referred to boarding-houses by psychiatric hospitals and, to a lesser degree, other health and community service agencies. However, only a small proportion of the residents have case workers provided by either the Department of Health or the Department of Community Services to monitor their circumstances and to co-ordinate their services.

Page 51

The central problem identified by the task force is that, generally speaking, the Department of Community Services could be said to have been in an invidious position in terms of policing the licensing provisions because of the comparative lack of alternative accommodation for residents of a boarding-house if that institution were to have its licence refused or revoked. The department would hesitate to close down a particular institution if the outcome of that action, justified though it may be, were to have the consequence that people might find themselves out on the street or without at least adequate shelter.

In any event, the task force arrived at a sensible set of recommendations which are far-reaching in their effect. Each existing boarding-house is to be required to develop a transition plan setting out a staged process for compliance with the new licensing requirements. Those plans should be developed within one year and in consultation with the licensing authority, and there is to be a recommended statutory deadline of a further three years for final compliance. That is, something is required to occur and flow through to fruition within a four-year period. During that transition period boarding-houses should receive annual licences only, with renewal being contingent on staged compliance with the transition plan. At the moment licences are not issued annually; they are merely issued and continue in force until they are revoked, which has been a very rare event indeed.

To deal with the problem of conflict of interest, to which I have just referred - that is, that the Department of Community Services might hesitate to close a particular institution no matter how substandard its facilities or services might be - the task force has recommended that boarding-houses and the functions of the Department of Community Services as the licensing authority should be subject to the Community Services (Complaints, Appeals and Monitoring) Act 1993. That legislation was enacted by this Parliament last year and set up various complaints mechanisms. Mr Roger West, who has hitherto been the President of the Guardianship Board, has been recently appointed Commissioner of Community Services. I am sure he will do an excellent job in that role.

It is important that the Government give legislative effect to what is recommended by the task force, namely that these boarding-houses and the functions of the department in regulating them should be subject to what is commonly called the CAMA legislation. The licensing legislation is also recommended to have limitations imposed on the size of newly licensed residences; in particular, that no newly licensed residence should be permitted to have more than 10 residents. When I visited Carynia Oaks at Cooranbong in July last year I noted that there were no fewer than 167 residents. From memory it was licensed for 176 residents or thereabouts. That is a large institution.

I would argue, and I believe my views are reflected in the task force report, that a ghetto atmosphere is produced when too many disadvantaged people suffering from disabilities of one sort or another are placed together, with no day activity programs existing and, in that case, only nine staff - some of whom were part-time - present to look after the interests of the residents. The task force is on the right track when it says that newly established institutions should be much smaller than they are at the moment. The task force also recommends - and this is a most important matter - that any new boarding-house should only be eligible to be licensed if it is both within an urban area, and that is intended to include a country town, and in a location where the normal range of local services and amenities is readily accessible.

Carynia Oaks is some distance from the two nearest towns of Morisset and Cooranbong. That had an isolating effect on the residents in terms of access to services that might be available in the adjacent towns - five to eight kilometres away. Location within an urban area, which includes a country town, facilitates interaction with the local community, and can only be to the benefit of those residents who, to that extent, cannot be said to be shut away. The task force also recommends a three-year maximum licensing period and the imposition of conditions providing a mechanism for raising standards in services. Licences should be time limited, and a newly opened boarding-house should be initially limited to a six-month probationary licence. There should be no permit system for boarding-houses that do not meet the full requirements of the Act. It is interesting to note that the task force further recommends that the proprietor of a boarding-house should be subject to prosecution in the case of all contraventions and failures to comply with conditions on licences.

The task force recommends also that the licensing legislation should include a capacity for the licensing authority to publicise boarding-houses with substandard conditions. In other words, the task force is endeavouring to bring the matter out into the open, to have a tight licensing regime, to have an inspectorate capable of enforcing that licensing, and, above all, the task force recommends that new licensing legislation should be enacted. The task force has recommended to the Government that a system of individual tenancy type contracts between boarding-house proprietors and residents should be created by amending the Residential Tenancies Act to give boarders and lodgers similar rights to tenants.

It is recommended that the Residential Tenancies Act, when amended, should provide for a standard form residency agreement and the capacity to add to the agreement extra provisions specified or approved by the licensing authority. Such agreement should be deemed to exist without needing to be signed and without a resident necessarily having the capacity to enter into it. That clearly is important, having regard to the class of people I am referring to, including developmentally disabled people whose mental capacity might not extend to comprehending the nature of any contractual relationships in a tenancy or boarding agreement that might be entered into. In
Page 52
other words, the task force recommends a statutory standard form agreement deemed to be entered into between each proprietor and each resident of a hostel or boarding-house. I believe that those matters are important. The issue of human rights has been a running sore, not only for this Government but for other governments for many years. Because the honourable Jim Longley has been rather quiet about this matter since this excellent report was released, I encourage him to act on it. The task force received wide representation, not only from governmental officers but also from significant interest groups. The report deserves to receive early and earnest attention. It deserves to be implemented so that the often appalling conditions found in some boarding-houses can be corrected sooner rather than later.

The second matter to which I should like to refer in my Address-in-Reply remarks relates to another report, issued also in December 1993, made by an interdepartmental committee that dealt with accommodation support in public housing for people with psychiatric disabilities. Ordinarily this matter might be considered to fall within the area of responsibility of my colleague the shadow minister for health, Dr Andrew Refshauge, but significant numbers of people with psychiatric disabilities who are accommodated in public housing have dual diagnoses - that is, it is not uncommon for them to have psychiatric disabilities as well as developmental disabilities. For some years I have been worried about this matter. When I held the position of shadow minister for housing before the most recent State election, I could not attend a meeting of public tenants anywhere in the State that did not address the subject of psychiatrically affected or developmentally disabled people in public housing causing a significant disturbance to other tenants in certain Department of Housing complexes. Tenants usually raised the complaint that there was insufficient support from crisis mental health teams.

Mental illness is not uncommon. It was authoritatively reported in 1982 that at any one time approximately 150,000 people in the State would be receiving treatment for a mental disorder. Less than 2 per cent of those people would be receiving hospital treatment, and the remaining 98 per cent would be receiving treatment in the community. In 1988 it was estimated that among the 42,400 people more severely psychiatrically handicapped living in the community, approximately 6,800 lived in public housing tenancies, compared with about 10,000 in private rental accommodation and 23,000 in privately owned homes. The problems identified by the interdepartmental committee - a committee comprising representatives of three departments; the Department of Housing, the Department of Health, and the Department of Community Services - included the relatively recent introduction of numbers of tenants with complex problems.

This development was partly a result of the impact of Department of Housing policy changes made in the early 1980s, which changes opened waiting lists for public housing to non-age pensioner single tenants. It was also partly due to the Department of Health placing a greater emphasis on community based mental health treatment services. The result of this development was concentrations of tenants with social problems, including people with psychiatric disabilities, in Department of Housing medium-density dwellings, especially the location of tenants with problems in estates or buildings dominated by single bedroom or bedsitter units. The people allocated to those units had problems, but they also created problems, particularly for older residents of the complexes. For example, I think of complexes at Waterloo and in the Redfern and South Sydney areas, where many elderly public tenants experienced major difficulties in adjusting to the rapid change that developed in the character of their neighbourhood when large numbers of former psychiatric patients, or people with psychiatric problems or developmental disabilities, were suddenly allocated in substantial numbers to the one location.

The other principal problem identified by the interdepartmental committee was poor access for tenants to support organisations, such as mental health teams. I regret to say that disruption or violence sometimes occurred as a result of the lack of available back-up services. I am pleased that the matter has been tackled by the task force. Useful recommendations have been made and - as I said when speaking on the previous topic - if these recommendations are adopted and applied by the Government the position will be ameliorated significantly. It has been recommended that protocols between the Department of Health and the Department of Housing and other relevant departments should be developed for a range of events, including dealing with difficult tenants.

Widespread anecdotal evidence available to the interdepartmental committee - and, for that matter, to staff of the Department of Housing - showed that mental health teams and police do not service adequately Department of Housing blocks. A quotation that encapsulates this in an anecdotal way states, "All things being equal, the teams will assist a person in private rental as this will preserve the tenancy, but they would be less anxious to intervene when a public tenancy is involved". Another issue identified by the report was poor contact with mental health teams after the accommodation was allocated to a tenant with a particular problem. The comment was made that the mental health team may walk away from the problem and may not keep up extended contact.

The interdepartmental committee recommended the development of protocols to indicate the responsibilities of each department. Such protocols would include steps to be taken, such as assessment and allocation, and the procedures to be followed in the case of a possible breakdown of the tenancy. It was also recommended by the interdepartmental committee that a wider range of housing options be provided for tenants with psychiatric disabilities and for other tenants with special needs. The committee made the point that there have been problems in
Page 53
providing choices because of the inflexibility inherent in the department's one offer policy that was introduced during the time that the Hon. Joe Schipp was Minister for Housing, and that was a measure I opposed at the time.

It is interesting to note that a committee appointed by the Government is now referring to that as an inflexible policy. The committee suggested that the express choices of the client, as opposed to the accommodation to which the Department of Housing might send them, can be quite misdirected and misconceived. The committee made the point that people may request, for example, single accommodation but support workers find that this can be very isolating. In fact, support workers usually suggest that the most suitable and successful form of public housing for the type of tenant I am describing - that is, those with psychiatric problems or the developmentally disabled - is a two-bedroom duplex, that is a small household, the management of which is relatively simple.

The tenants can have friends living next door, and though there might be a close relationship with those neighbours, it is a separate household in each case. It seems sensible to me for there to be a moving away from allocating these people to bedsitters or single-person units. The remaining recommendation to which I refer is that allocations by the Department of Housing be monitored so that excessive numbers of tenants with special needs are not put in particular locations, thereby ensuring a balanced social mix in communities. In practice it has been found that an overabundance of allocations have been made to specific locations. The two locations that I have in mind are identified in this interdepartmental committee's report as the Surry Hills-Redfern-Waterloo and Dundas areas. In the latter case, of the 3,000 units of available public housing, one-third are suitable for single accommodation.

Those two geographic locations have experienced an overconcentration of people with particular problems. I believe it makes good sense for greater care to be taken than has hitherto been the case in the allocation of accommodation so that an overconcentration of people with problems does not result in the one locality, causing consequential problems for neighbours when adequate backup has not been received, as has happened in the past. Finally, the interdepartmental committee mentioned that the Department of Community Services should ensure that people with psychiatric disabilities living in independent tenures have access to generic programs such as supported accommodation assistance, home and community care and disability services, where appropriate, and that these programs should be closely linked with service networks. Regrettably, the Home and Community Care program tends to be overtaxed because it is under such pressure from other sources - people with ordinary disabilities and the aged - and is somewhat reluctant to take on new clients. Though people with psychiatric disabilities are not specifically excluded, they are not readily included.

The interdepartmental committee recommends that that approach should change, and I certainly agree with its comments. I strongly support the report of the interdepartmental committee on people with psychiatric disabilities in public housing and I earnestly ask the Government to give urgent attention to these matters. Some years ago, not far from here - in the general Surry Hills area - a number of fatalities occurred when a person with aggravated problems, such as those to which I have been referring, went berserk. That is the type of thing that can occur unless people receive the back-up support to which I refer.

I should refer to two other matters. The first relates to the problem of homeless youth and street gangs in the Vietnamese community. In raising this issue for the information of the House I add that in no way do I wish to stigmatise the Vietnamese community in particular. I want to identify a specific problem that has been raised with me and with the Minister for Community Services by the Vietnamese community. Early last month I received correspondence from Mr Linh Nguyen, the honorary secretary of Nguong Song Group Homes Incorporated. He appears to have a sincere concern. He makes the point that homeless youth form gangs for mutual support, resulting in an increase in the level of street crime. I do not need to refer to detail, because it is acknowledged as fact, but there is a high number - indeed, a gross overrepresentation - of Vietnamese youth in juvenile detention institutions. There may be many reasons for that, but clearly these young people need support.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: They need jobs.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Yes, they need jobs; they need many things. Last year I raised with the Attorney General the problem of the refusal of bail to young people, not necessarily Vietnamese, who appear before children's courts, not because of any legal apprehension that they were likely to reoffend if granted bail, but essentially for welfare reasons. The magistrate was unaware of any place to which he could refer them. In other words, they would not have a roof over their heads unless they were sent to a juvenile detention centre.

Mr Linh Nguyen said that he supported a 17-year-old youth by accompanying him to a children's court on 8 February and giving character evidence on his behalf. That youth was given a custodial sentence for car stealing. It is interesting to note that when the magistrate was passing sentence he stated that there was no appropriate supported accommodation available for that youth. Mr Linh Nguyen made the point to me - and I have sought to make it in the context of the Usher report - that though the Department of Community Services has been restructuring and closing down, and is yet to close down, other State-run institutions, other welfare needs such as supporting Vietnamese youth are not receiving sufficient attention. Mr Nguyen noted that in November 1993 three homeless Vietnamese minors died in a fire at a disused building in which they were
Page 54
living. They should have been in alternative care or in the care of a form of culturally appropriate accommodation service under supervision, which is the responsibility of the Department of Community Services. Obviously that was not the case.

I raise these matters because this organisation runs two homes already and cares for 17 young Vietnamese people. The main home has one 14-year-old, two 15-year-olds, one 17-year-old and youths older than that. The second home, set up more recently, has four 16-year-olds, two 17-year-olds and two youths over 18. Also, three 16-year-old girls are in need of assistance. The organisation has made a plea for financial help to the Minister for Community Services. That plea should be heeded and acted upon because the overrepresentation of Vietnamese youth in juvenile detention centres is a serious problem. If the sort of assistance requested were given, some of the youth could be kept out of juvenile detention centres, which are not appropriate places for young people, or places in which they are likely to improve their life circumstances for their future benefit or the community's future benefit. Recently, discussion regarding the Guardianship Board, to which I admit I contributed, has appeared in the press. I am a firm supporter of the Guardianship Board. It was set up by the previous Labor Government. It has always had -

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: It was not. It was established by this Government.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Guardianship Board was set up under legislation enacted -

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: It was established by this Government. The former Labor Government did not establish it.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: We will not argue about semantics, but the legislation -

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: It is not a semantic argument.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Guardianship Act is dated 1987, and -

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: True, but shamefully -

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Unless I am very much mistaken, the Labor Government was in office in 1987.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: The Labor Government had the legislation, but it did not establish it. It was established by this Government.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The last thing I want to do is create a demarcation dispute with the Minister regarding who actually set up the Guardianship Board, and -

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: This Government put the money in and established it.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is a great pity that the Minister adopts this contentious attitude, because I am trying to say that this body has always had bipartisan support. It retains that. The previous Labor Government enacted the legislation but left office shortly thereafter. The present Government, as the Minister said, gave the legislation legs, if you like.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Money and staff and a building.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Labor Party could hardly do it after it left office. I make the point that the Labor Government established the legislation. The present Government established the board and implemented the legislation. I think that the Minister and I have reached some sort of accommodation regarding that matter, which seems to be exciting her. Frequently I receive correspondence, sometimes telephone calls, from people aggrieved by decisions reached by the Guardianship Board. I am not saying that the Guardianship Board, in any of those cases, has necessarily made a wrong decision. But I do say that it is dealing with difficult human situations, guardianship orders, administration of property and the appointment of financial managers, all of which attract controversy in various family situations.

I have received many telephone complaints about the Guardianship Board since I had something to say in the media. Without going into the facts of any particular matter, I believe that some form of review or appeal would provide a safety valve. I should use the word appeal rather than review because the Guardianship Board can, of its own motion, review its decision at a later time. An Administrative Appeals Tribunal exists statewide in Victoria to review the exercise of administrative discretions. Appeals from Victoria's Guardianship Board lie to that Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

In its 1988 election platform, the Greiner Government had a plank calling for, and promising I could say, the setting up of an administrative appeals tribunal. Obviously I do not come from within the Liberal Party. However, I believe that proposal was supported strongly by the Hon. John Dowd but was torpedoed at a later stage within the Premier's Department by Mr Gary Sturgess, probably on financial grounds. Whether I am right or wrong, it did not happen. It is one possible model that could exist. In Western Australia, more members sit on the appeal than heard the original Guardianship Board matter. That is possibly a less satisfactory system than applies in Victoria. Nevertheless it is a way by which the matter can be handled.

Since I made my comments in the press, I have assured the Acting President of the Guardianship Board, Mr Nick O'Neill, that it continues to have my firm support. However, I feel that some consideration needs to be given to the setting up of an appellate body of satisfactory status so that people who are aggrieved by decisions of the Guardianship Board have the opportunity to have an appeal heard. At the moment they approach the Supreme Court, at some difficulty and even more cost, which is not a course that is readily available to most people of moderate or average means. Mr O'Neill has said in the press that he, in effect, understands that people can feel the need for a formal appeal.

Page 55

I ask the Government to consider what I am saying. The existence of such a body would provide a safety valve. I do not suggest that the Guardianship Board does anything other than an excellent job, but it deals in a very contentious, difficult area. It deals with human emotions, with people who are about to be made the subject of a guardianship order or a financial management order. The passions aroused sometimes become very heated, and that steam could be let off if people had the chance to more readily access an appeal mechanism than is the case at present. I trust that I have settled my passing dispute with the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and that the Minister for Community Services will lend a kind ear to what I have said. It is put on a bipartisan basis -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The Hon. R. D. Dyer will soon be the Minister.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: If I am the Minister soon, I will be able to act of my own volition and correct the matters to which I am referring.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The Labor Party will hold him to it.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Now that it is on the record, I will be held to it, so there is no escape for me in that event.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Do you seek an escape?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I seek no means of escape; I was about to wind up. I believe there is a need. I assure the House that, as Minister, I would actively examine and seek to do something practical and relatively inexpensive to give people who appear before the Guardianship Board some access to a satisfactory, relatively high status, but inexpensive form of appeal so that the steam can be let off - a matter to which I referred a short time ago.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: It is hard to have one that is judicial and inexpensive.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is hard to have one that is judicial and inexpensive; that is the difficulty in the whole matter. I am still thinking the matter through, but it seems to me that the Government's advisers should give some attention to it because at the moment people find it very expensive to mount an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.21]: It gives me enormous pleasure to support the Government's program, which was outlined in the fine Speech given by the Governor when he was present in this Chamber only yesterday. Given the speculations of the press and the fact that the Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber has exploited the rantings of the press, I congratulate the Governor and compliment him on the marvellous way in which he carries out his duties throughout this State. I have had the pleasure of meeting the Governor on several occasions, many of which have been at the presentation of the Duke of Edinburgh awards at Government House and also at several functions, largely gatherings of people in the community services sector. On every occasion I found that the messages he brought to the community were inspiring and highly uplifting.

The work of his wife, Mrs Sinclair, has been particularly beneficial to this community. She has moved through the community with remarkable grace and has received great acceptance while carrying out her official duties. One of the things that Mr and Mrs Sinclair have sought to do while they have been residents at Government House is to turn Government House into something that can be appreciated by the entire Sydney community. On every occasion I have been present at Government House the people gathered there have been invited to tour the facilities and experience their heritage firsthand. I wish to congratulate two members of the western Sydney community who were mentioned in the recent Australia Day honours list - two people who are extremely worthy of the awards they received.

The first, Mr Jim Bosnjak of Westbus, has been outstanding as the director of Westbus. He has ploughed new ground in providing transport for the people of western Sydney through the new nipper bus service. He has not neglected the community. Recently I had the pleasure of attending a breakfast at Rosehill racecourse to present a prize to Miss Stacey Gartrell, a magnificent swimmer and resident of western Sydney. Jim Bosnjak presented her with an award and a scholarship to assist her in overseas competition. This is part of a program, which he continues throughout the year, of presenting awards to young people in western Sydney who have shown excellence in sport.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: This is interesting, but what has it to do with the Governor's Speech or the Government's non-existent program?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I will endorse the Government's program very soon, but I think it is important for us to recognise excellence in our community. I have made no secret of the fact that one of the things I seek to do in this place is to represent the residents of western Sydney. I want to congratulate people for jobs well done. The former Mayor of Campbelltown, Mr Gordon Fetterplace, was also mentioned in this year's Australia Day honours list.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: A Liberal Party stooge.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I understand that Mr Fetterplace was once a member of the Australian Labor Party. Occasionally he has been friendly with members of the Liberal Party. Quite apart from that, Mr Fetterplace's involvement in the political life of Campbelltown cannot go unrecognised. He has had an enormous input in the provision of community facilities in Campbelltown. In the time in which he presided over Campbelltown City Council the number of constituents grew from 26,000 to 46,000. He raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for community education and has been involved in rugby league and in the development of youth sport in Campbelltown.
Page 56
The things I have mentioned are in addition to his political involvement within the community. He is worthy of recognition. I congratulate him.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: He got recognition only because of his political connections; let us be quite honest.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: That is absolute rot!

The Hon. M. R. Egan: It is absolutely 100 per cent correct.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Recommendations to the Australian honours list are made by members of the community and are considered by an independent panel. As I understand it, both people to whom I have referred won those awards on their merits.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Who nominated Fetterplace?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: As I understand it, he was nominated by Campbelltown City Council and that nomination received the support of the Labor members of that council.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: They are Whitlam Government awards.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Those awards are considered by an independent panel. It does the Leader of the Opposition no credit to besmirch the value of those awards by suggesting that they were for political gain. They are an appropriate recognition of jobs well done within the community. Those two outstanding people in the community of western Sydney richly deserve the recognition that they got. What was life like before the current Government came to office? Services for people in New South Wales have been improved significantly by the incumbent Fahey Government. I would like quickly to examine the program that has been suggested by Opposition members.

While the Leader of the Opposition is in the Chamber I wish to refer to the progress being made in New South Wales in developing jobs and this State's economy - a matter that the Leader of the Opposition denigrated earlier. The Leader of the Opposition loves to refer to New South Wales as the rust bucket State. He loves to run it down at every opportunity. He loves to knock the achievements of people in this State and to besmirch the efforts of people such as the ones I referred to earlier; he loves to besmirch the efforts of this Government. During the time his party was in office government taxes and charges increased -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: What has happened since then? New South Wales has gone from being the second highest taxing State to the highest taxing State.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: In the time the former Labor Government was in office the consumer price index rose by 182 per cent and taxes and charges rose by 342 per cent.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Why have they gone up since then?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The previous Government more than doubled the level of the consumer price index. I am proud to be part of a government that has committed itself to raising taxes and charges only as far as the CPI. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to consider what has happened to the prices of water and electricity. They have gone down. Most of those charges have gone down significantly - the first time that this has occurred.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: What about the price of eggs and bread?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I could refer also to the price of eggs and bread. In any event, the progress that has been made in this State has been nothing short of magnificent. It is a pity that the Leader of the Opposition has not recognised this fact. This State is leading our country out of Paul Keating's recession. Its rate of unemployment, at 10.3 per cent, is the third lowest in the country. That is an extremely good result, given the catastrophic effect of the policies of the Keating Government on the banking industry in this State.

In January the number of jobs in the State increased by 9,000. That was part of a national growth of 23,000 in jobs in that month. Almost a third of the jobs created in the country in January were generated in New South Wales. In this financial year, which is four months from completion, 46,000 new jobs have been created in the State. The latest statistics on property activity in the State are equally remarkable. There has been a high level of activity in the commercial and residential sector. In November last year 12,000 residential properties were sold, an increase of 2,000 on the previous month, and the average price increased by $7,000 in that month.

Inflation in New South Wales was lower than in any other State. Sydney's current rate of inflation is 1.3 per cent. No other State or capital city in the nation comes close to that. One of the reasons for the low inflation rate is that one of the components important to the rate of inflation - government taxes and charges at the local and State level - has been contained remarkably. Charges in the State within the last financial year have increased by only 1.1 per cent. That should be compared with what has happened in other States, where they have increased by a staggering 5.6 per cent. New South Wales is creating the right environment for a booming economy. It has been leading the way for this country for a long time and it continues to do so. Members opposite love to refer to various examples of government waste and mismanagement, as if they were some peculiar invention of the present Government. It is useful to remind members Opposite of some of the remarkable instances of real waste and mismanagement - not the phoney examples they suggest - that are often forgotten in the public domain and even in this Chamber.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Has the honourable member been to Eastern Creek lately?

Page 57

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I have been to Eastern Creek lately. Believe it or not, it is booming as a venue and is in use almost 365 days a year. It is one of the largest venues in the Southern Hemisphere for holding trade displays. It is even bigger than the Sydney Showground. So many displays and sporting events have been staged in that place this year that I understand it has made an operating profit of approximately $500,000 - not bad for a venue for the people of western Sydney; it is doing well and has the full support of the Labor-controlled council of Blacktown, the local government area in which the raceway is situated.

Let me remind honourable members opposite of a few examples of government waste and mismanagement of the last Labor administration that they have conveniently forgotten. Remember that the dollars to which I shall refer are worth a great deal more in today's terms, but I shall use the values applicable prior to 1988. One need think only of the Sydney Police Centre, which eventually cost the people of New South Wales $78 million, an overrun of $43 million or more than 100 per cent. Originally it was to house almost every police division in the inner city, from Redfern to Kings Cross. The plan to move those divisions into the Sydney Police Centre was abandoned even before the building was opened.
I refer next to the Darling Harbour project, one of the most important projects of the former Labor Government. In 1988 that Government forecast the whole project would cost a total of $622 million. Ultimately, it cost the people of this State well over $1 billion. The record of its development is a sorry tale indeed. The Darling Harbour Exhibition Centre was originally estimated to cost $66 million, but that increased to $100; the Convention Centre, originally costed at $54 million, cost $88 million by the time it was finished; the promenade outside was costed at $19 million originally, but that increased to $29 million. The cost of the Circular Quay redevelopment, which was carried out at the same time, rose from $64.2 million to $104 million. The revamping of Macquarie Street was costed originally at $11 million, but increased to $16.2 million.

Almost every public works project the Labor Government touched prior to leaving office started with an original cost close to 50 per cent less than the ultimate cost. Yet members Opposite have the hide to come into this Chamber and speak about issues such as Eastern Creek or the Olympics, in respect of which their alleged cost overruns are not actual but phoney. The figures to which the Leader of the Opposition in this House referred earlier should not escape mention. He said that he had statistics suggesting that private investment in business in New South Wales in the last financial year had declined by 0.1 per cent, which he said compared unfavourably with other States. What he failed to tell the House was that this infinitesimal decline in investment in the State represented a small decline in what had been a boom of investment in the previous year. He also failed to tell honourable members that included in the buoyant figures for the State was the fact that purchases of equipment - the part of the equation that tells one whether industry is developing or receding - increased by 6.5 per cent.

One of the major reasons for the unfavourable comparisons between New South Wales and the other States is that the boom in private investment got under way in New South Wales much earlier than it did in other States. In many other States the present economic boom has been brought about largely by recent privatisation ventures that are being undertaken, particularly in Victoria and Western Australia. What does the Labor Party intend to put in place, according to the speech that it marketed throughout New South Wales yesterday at the same time as the Governor's Speech was delivered? What does it propose to have in place of the Government's program? What it proposes is a reckless list of budget increases, with no indication as to how they will be funded.

We are told by Bob Carr that he will accelerate the redevelopment of Nepean, Liverpool, Maitland, Coffs Harbour and Albury hospitals, many of which are due for completion by the present Government fairly soon anyway. There will be a new hospital at Hawkesbury, a new rail link between the main northern line and Parramatta, a new rail line between Glenfield and Badgerys Creek, an early decision on the airport rail link and four new tracks between Sydenham and Redfern. According to him we are to have more national parks, 80 new child protection officers, an undefined boost in supported accommodation assistance program funds, more legal aid, 2,500 additional teachers, and thousands more places in TAFE.

Those items represent billions of dollars worth of expenditure, with absolutely no information as to how Labor will pay for them. What the Leader of the Opposition indicated was not so much the savings he would make but a couple of areas that would not be negotiable, one of which was the sale of the State Bank. He intends to spend billions but is not prepared to sell the State Bank. The Opposition is not prepared to move on any area of microeconomic reform. The Leader of the Opposition tells the people of New South Wales that he will do all of this; he has a different line every time he speaks. Honourable members will recall that he was quoted in the press as having said:

I see my role as Premier as being to keep the pace of microeconomic reform cracking in New South Wales, in water, in rail, in electricity and all other areas relevant to the State's economic performance. I see my role in going to those public sector undertakings and saying to power workers and the work force at the Water Board -

Honourable members should remember that Bob Carr was going to go to the work force at the Water Board -

- that we need improved productivity so we can lower charges to private sector operations throughout the New South Wales economy. I can't guarantee jobs for your sons and daughters unless you are giving us savings in the railways, power industry and water supply which can be translated into lower charges that mean extra private sector investment.

That is the Bob Carr of the boardrooms, but the truth is that when it comes to making tough decisions, they are put off and lost in the Never-Never. The Opposition says it will not sell the State Bank until it
Page 58
can get $1.5 million for it, or corporatise the Water Board until many environmental regulations are set up. No microeconomic reform will be undertaken until they establish a regulatory structure. It will not reform the Water Board even though that will mean increased productivity. The Government is not about sacking people but it is about making institutions such as the Water Board more productive. This will mean that if there is to be greater productivity fewer people will be employed in the Water Board but, as the Government has shown already, such people will be treated with great compassion and care.

I shall outline to honourable members the vision of education held by the Labor Party when it was in office compared to the achievements of this Government. The Government, when in Opposition, drew attention to the horrendous state of capital works facilities in New South Wales schools. At that time I was living close to the Beverly Hills intensive language unit. That flagship of teaching English as a second language in the southern Sydney suburbs comprised rusting demountables which allowed the wind and the rain through gaping holes in the walls. Buildings were regularly flooded. Water lay in pools underneath buildings going stagnant for days after the rain had fallen. Under Labor schools were riddled with leaking roofs, ancient demountables, dangerous playgrounds, rotting windows and rusted gutters.

When the Government came to office high school retention rates were at the abysmal level of 41 per cent. That was the proportion of young people who remained in secondary education. The picture is different under this Government. Funding for capital works in our schools has been so boosted that there is rarely a complaint within any school about any major capital works facility. This year $314 million has been allocated for capital works and maintenance of schools, including the building of 14 new schools or replacement schools. Government spending has risen consistently over the past five years. This year the increase was 5 per cent, up $157.8 million to $3.4 billion. The Government has not shirked its responsibilities in educating our young people. To its credit New South Wales has the highest participation rate for young people aged between 15 and 19 years in secondary and tertiary education. Now 75.7 per cent of young people are completing primary and secondary education and the Government has found funding for the necessary resources, even in this time of recession. It now has an education system of which we can all be proud.

One should compare the Government's achievements with what the Labor Party left seven years ago. I do not need to remind honourable members of the state of law and order within our State seven years ago. At that time 45 offences were committed every hour. There was one car theft every 10 minutes - more than 170 every day; 261 break and enters every day - one every five minutes; nine instances of serious sexual assault every day; and 66 cases of either armed robbery, major assault or murder every day. So great was concern about law and order that even Barrie Unsworth, a former Labor Premier, felt he had to do something about it. His response was a gimmick: to confiscate guns. I suggest that is how Bob Carr responded yesterday, all gimmicks, no substance.

Since 1988 this Government has provided 1,600 extra police on the beat, resulting in car theft being reduced by one-third, break and enter being halved and crimes such as armed robbery and sexual assault - which had escalated prior to the coalition coming to office - plateauing. In many instances that may be as a result of people having more confidence in the police and in reporting crimes rather than an increase in offences. It is historic and almost unique in the world for crime rates to be reduced in any community. It is against the trend of almost every western highly developed country in the world. That is because the Government is committed to providing real services which are priorities for the people.

Court waiting times have been reduced significantly. Supreme Court backlogs have been reduced by 50 per cent and over the past two years in the District Court the trial caseload has been reduced by 40 per cent for criminal cases and 50 per cent for civil cases. Also, since 1987 there has been a 40 per cent reduction in the time taken to finalise matters in the criminal jurisdiction and 90 per cent of Local Court matters require only one appearance. In criminal and civil matters the time taken from the first appearance to hearing is now typically 12 weeks to 13 weeks.

The Government has introduced truth in sentencing legislation so that people can be confident about the gaol sentences handed down by the courts. Compare that with the lack of confidence people had under the Labor Government in institutions such as the magistracy, the judiciary and the Police Service. The Government has identified priorities and met those with dollars and commitment. When the Government came to office 75,000 tenants were on the public housing waiting list, and that rate was increasing by 2,000 per month. If Labor had remained in office, with that rate of increase, 200,000 would be on the housing waiting list rather than the 81,000 who are currently shown.

True, there has been a marginal increase in the number on the waiting list for houses but honourable members should consider that the former Government had the benefit of not being in office during a recession. Fewer people are now leaving Department of Housing homes. Almost as many people are waiting to get public housing but fewer people are leaving it. However, through a vigorous building program, with 3,500 houses being built a year, together with programs such as subsidised rent and schemes such as HomeFund which enable people to buy their own homes, the Government has dramatically limited requirement for public housing in this State.

Honourable members should consider how dramatically health services have improved since the Government came to office. Under the former Labor Government the waiting list at St George Hospital for
Page 59
orthopaedic surgery was four years, and two years for urological surgery. At Ryde Hospital the waiting time for general surgery was up to 10 months and four years at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital for ear nose and throat surgery. The waiting time at many of our hospitals for ear, nose and throat surgery, orthopaedic surgery and general surgery was up to 12 months, and 18 months for ophthalmic surgery. Dozens of people had to wait many hours, sometimes even days for emergency treatment.

In fact, criticism has been made regarding the present performance of Westmead Hospital. I ask honourable members to compare those newspaper reports with the case of one man who required urgent surgery for lung cancer but who had to wait more than 32 days for a bed at Westmead and a man who was waiting to have his hand set in plaster at Westmead but who had to wait four days. The former Labor Government did not run Westmead any better; in fact, it was even worse than the regrettable state some facilities might be in at this time. Previously, St George Hospital was in such an appalling state that it was held together by scaffolding and chicken wire. There is a brand new St George Hospital and new hospitals in many other major regions of the State.

The New South Wales health system treated an additional 44,000 patients and provided a total of 16.4 million services during this year. Despite unprecedented demand for services, waiting times for elective surgery are, in the main, down to less than a month. As I observed from the waiting lists which this Government had the guts to publish, very few hospitals almost anywhere in the State have waiting times for any level of elective surgery in excess of four months. The former Labor Government had waiting times of about four years for some serious forms of surgery.

New hospital developments have taken place this year at Nepean Hospital; a new Albury Base Hospital will be completed this year; a new hospital will be built at Lismore; Wagga Wagga Base Hospital will be redeveloped; Batemans Bay and Moruya hospitals will be redeveloped; Tweed Heads Hospital will be redeveloped; Coffs Harbour Hospital interim development will be completed this year; Byron Bay Hospital will be redeveloped. A new community health centre will be built at Narellan, and the Orange Base Hospital interim development will be completed this year. That is a magnificent record by a Government which is committed to real health gains, as opposed to the sad state of health when the Government came into office.

I should not bore members by going through other areas of achievement. Members opposite love to make commitments about the rail system. However, I ask honourable members to match their promises about the rail system with their performance when they were in office. Rail services were so bad under the previous Government that even then the honourable member for Campbelltown, Michael Knight, complained publicly about how bad they were. He said that as a regular train traveller he shared the frustrations of commuters using the rail system. He said the service was not good enough and he attempted to placate his constituents by saying he appreciated their patience in putting up with an inadequate system.

The rail system which the Labor Party operated lost money and was a poor service all round. When the Government came to office the Curran report found that the annual cost to taxpayers for rail services was $1.25 billion. State Rail was losing $3 million a day, with a total debt of $6 billion. In the five years since 1988 the cash operating costs of the State Rail Authority have dropped by nearly $0.5 billion. Cumulatively, $1,726 million has been saved over the last five years. The losses on the Freight Rail services in 1988 totalled $278 million with an estimation that, unless urgent action was taken, this would blow out to a loss of $4 billion by the end of 1990. Since then, losses have been slashed and in 1992-93 Freight Rail returned an operating surplus of $36 million and it has improved since.

On-time running has been dramatically improved by this Government. To illustrate the attitude of the previous Government to on-time running, I remind honourable members of the manual that was distributed to railway stations in 1988, prior to the election, by a desperate government trying to cover up its performance in State Rail. The manual stated to its people who were making public address announcements about late running trains:

It is incorrect to announce a reason for a delay which would be controversial, alarming or bring State Rail into disrepute.

That manual, produced by the former Government, shows its attitude to open accountability to its passengers. Compare that to what occurs with State Rail now. Over 90 per cent of trains run on time. The Government's version of running on time is not a train that arrives within 10 minutes after it has been allowed to skip half a dozen stations to arrive at its destination. The Government's definition of running on time is within three minutes of its timetabled arrival, and the Government is performing at better than 90 per cent. The Labor Government planned to remove the red rattlers from the system only by 1995. They have been gone for more than 12 months under the current Government. I ask honourable members whether they can believe the promises made by Bob Carr about extending the rail service when that was the way the Government of which he was a part ran the rail system while it was in office.

I ask honourable members to consider the rantings of members opposite about the environment, and consider their record when Bob Carr was Minister for the Environment and to compare it with the record of this Government. In 1988 it would have been difficult to ignore the Labor Party's appalling attitude towards urban environment. In its rush to pour money into edifices such as Darling Harbour and the monorail, while neglecting hospitals and schools, it ran the danger of turning Sydney into an ugly, polluted and traffic-congested city.

Page 60

Early in the life of the Land and Environment Court the then Minister for the Environment, Bob Carr, effectively killed an appeal to that court against the city council's refusal of a development application for extensions to the nearby Gazebo Hotel in Kings Cross. He exercised his powers under section 101 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act passed by his Government in 1980, in order to grant the developer that which had been refused by the council, saying that this sort of decision was far too important to leave in the hands of local government. Since then he either availed himself of section 101 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act or introduced a special Act to achieve his purpose. This happened on a number of projects, including Darling Harbour, the monorail and the Sydney Sports Ground.

Time after time the former Labor Government rode roughshod over its own planning instruments to introduce special Acts of Parliament to give special permission for its developments in order to have them run the gauntlet of various election timetables. How different that has been to the way in which this Government has operated. This Government has initiated the development of regional environmental improvement plans for each of the 11 regions across the State, to address the state of regional environment, identify key environmental issues and assist the development of regional work programs to deal with environmental issues.

It has developed or set up reviews of environmental plans for areas such as the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system, the lower South Coast region, the North Coast region and southwestern Sydney, by setting up individual monitoring of offshore disposal of Sydney sewage. The smoky and noisy motor vehicle emission enforcement programs have been improved. The Government has published and implemented most of the recommendations of the lead issues paper, and has toughened up the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act. This Government has worked hard on environmental improvement. One needs only to walk around this city to see that our beaches are cleaner, our streets are cleaner and our rivers are returning to an improved state.

There is still plenty of work to be done, and the Government has indicated, through the Governor's Speech, that it will not shirk from the task that is required in order to clean up the environment of the city, surrounding areas such as the Hunter, the South Coast and North Coast, and throughout the State. In summary, it could be said that the Government has concerned itself with the priorities and the necessities of the people of New South Wales. It has not mucked around with froth and bubble promises. It has not published pipedreams that it had no intention of implementing. It has set itself objectives and it has assiduously worked through achieving them.

In education, the Government gave people much more control in running their schools. The Government introduced flexible hours and enterprise agreements within the industrial relations system to allow people to have a say in their own working conditions, rather than being told what to do by a union or by the Industrial Commission. In the area of the environment, the Government has found long-term solutions to taxing problems that were complex and that have been growing for decades. The Government has succeeded in moving health service facilities to the people and has taken pressure off hospitals by treating more people within the community. In public works, the Government has employed contractors and set high standards rather than maintain a large work force. In community services the Government is pushing more resources into keeping families together and giving them the support they need to get over difficult times rather than trying to pick up the pieces afterwards.

I ask honourable members to compare the solid, proven and objective achievements of the Government with the froth and bubble published yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition in what he called his version of the Governor's Speech. Any matter of substance included in that speech was invariably based on recommendations that the Government is already in the process of implementing or examining. Most of the rest of his speech was nonsense. The Leader of the Opposition has his own idea of State development - he thinks it consists of the same process of picking winners that was trialed in other States and brought most of those States into disastrous repute and ended the life of Labor Governments in other States.

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: More than trialed - Tricontinental.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Indeed, the very things that brought about the end of the Labor Government in Victoria - the Tricontinental scandal - the Leader of the Opposition would bring to New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: That is his idea of the future.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The Labor Party vision of the future, based on performance, is simply not worth the risk. I commend the Government's program. Many of these objectives will bring about real progress in our community. There is one issue on which I intend to concentrate my attention in the next year as a private member, and for which I commend the Government because I believe it will make a significant difference to the lives of many people, particularly women. I refer to the Government's announcement that it will commit itself to a work and family strategy which recognises the need to combine employment with family responsibilities.

The details of the project have not been outlined but it is my sincere hope that the project will involve real commitment within the public sector and encouragement to the private sectors to develop opportunities for part-time work. I am convinced that such a strategy would do a great deal to address the enormous level of unemployment in the community. It would give real opportunity to those who want to fulfil family responsibilities and also want to engage in the work force and make a contribution to the community.

Page 61

The fostering of part-time work would bring about so many benefits that it is worth great encouragement. In this regard I put my money where my mouth is. In my own office I have always encouraged part-time work. The position of the member of staff allocated to me has always been filled on a part-time basis. I have two people working for me, and I have found - as I am sure many other employers do - that, when one job is split into two parts, two workers provide much more work than would have been provided by the employment of one person for the week.

I applaud the indication in the Governor's Speech of the importance the Government places on western Sydney and its economic development. This is evidenced by the appointment of a Greater Western Sydney Economic Development Board and I congratulate those who were appointed to that board. I also compliment the Minister responsible for those appointments for his assertiveness in resisting the criticism that came his way from Labor Party politicians from the western Sydney area, who said that it was necessary for the board to operate with the appointment of politicians from the local government area. It is a compliment to the Government that it has appointed board members from among business people and other members of the community to lead economic develop without political interference.

I look forward to the Government's announced intention to corporatise the Sydney Water Board. Though Mr Carr and some of his team may have doubts about that, the intention is in accord with the objectives that were endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments only days ago and has the support of the Federal Labor Party's policy of microeconomic reform. I commend a reading of the Hilmer report to all members because that report will make them very proud of the Government's achievements in microeconomic reform. When the report needed to present a good example of microeconomic reform, in almost every instance that example was drawn from the practice and innovation of the New South Wales Government. This Government is setting the pace which other governments are following.

I welcome the announcement in the Governor's Speech of environmental programs which aim to deal with issues such as water pollution, motor vehicle emissions, lead and the legislation that is generally referred to as stage two of the Environment Protection Authority legislation. All of these programs would be put at risk if members opposite were ever to be elected to government. They have demonstrated that they do not believe in accountability in government. One has only to refer to the way in which the right-wing of the New South Wales Labor Party defines accountability in terms of what happens in Canberra.

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: They do not believe in democracy. Consider what happened to the Hon. Franca Arena.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Even Labor Party members of this Chamber have been malaffected by the New South Wales right-wing. Extravagant and unfunded promises demonstrate that members opposite have no ability to control waste or contain the State's burgeoning debt. Consequently, there is absolutely no guarantee that a State Labor government would improve anything in the State. I much prefer the solid achievements of the present Government to the pipedream promises of members opposite. I look forward to yet another year of achievement on the part of the Fahey Government in the lead-up to its re-election in 1995.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Franca Arena.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier) [10.7]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD [10.7]: I wish to express my disgust at the appalling coverage of the Australia versus South Africa cricket tour by the Channel 9 network. Honourable members will recall that during the recent one day series Channel 9 started its delayed coverage of this important series as late as 11 p.m., approximately four hours after the commencement of the matches. The Nine Network will cover the test series commencing no earlier than 10.40 p.m., although it will cross live to the grounds and will not continue farcical delayed telecasts. This series, Australia versus South Africa, is historic. It is the first time that these two nations have met in South Africa in almost 24 years. The series is being held during the momentous and historic first free elections of the post-apartheid era. Australian cricket is thus playing a vital role in South African reconciliation and democracy.

There is overwhelming support for the series in Australia and in South Africa. However, Channel 9 refuses to give live coverage to this internationally significant test series from the commencement of play. This is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that the Australian Cricket Board allowed this situation to develop. The ACB should contractually ensure that there is live coverage of tests involving Australia and the most popular of test nations at reasonable time slots. Australian viewers are being shabbily treated by the Nine Network and by the Australian Cricket Board - as, undoubtedly, even the honourable member Patricia Forsythe, who would not know a cricket ball from an Australian Rules football, would surely realise.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: She is one of the Premier's XI. Is the honourable member talking about a football game?

Page 62

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: It is obvious that the honourable member has mixed up the differences between cricket and football. I am talking about cricket.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Honourable members will cease interjecting.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: By way of contrast, ABC radio is covering the series from the commencement of play, as the more wise and astute government members would have noted - even given their lack of sports knowledge. That is a sensible policy that, clearly, should be emulated by the Nine Network. If Channel 9 is not prepared to provide live coverage of popular series, including the tour of the West Indies in 1995, the Australian Cricket Board should review its contractual arrangements with the network. Other networks would be enthusiastic about covering popular and important test series in more appropriate time slots than that currently practised by the Nine Network.

So shabbily have Channel 9 and the Australian Cricket Board treated Australian viewers that it is time the Trade Practices Commission and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal reviewed Nine Network's contracts to monopolise television coverage of cricket in major Australian States. Australians deserve better than the appalling broadcast delivered by Channel 9 and the Australian Cricket Board. Fortunately, by popular demand, change has been forced on a reluctant Nine Network, but it is not enough to give Australians the opportunity to view live coverage at a reasonable time.

If Channel 9 is not prepared to give Australians the opportunity to view live overseas Test cricket that involves Australia and the leading and popular nations, it should hand over the coverage to networks that would be prepared to treat viewers fairly. I suggest that a committee of inquiry look into the contractual arrangements that disadvantage thousands and thousands of Australians because the Nine Network and the ACB shows poor test cricket coverage. If Channel 9 cannot stand the heat of the kitchen, it should get out now. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe asks, what about women's sport? What does Channel 9 do about women's sports? Is netball seen at 7.30 each night?

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: It is rare.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: That is quite correct. Not only are they biased against women, as the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith says, but also against ordinary Australians who want to watch cricket. Recently, I was forced to endure a situation where - [Time expired.]


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [10.12]: I am delighted that the Minister for Education is in the Chamber because my comments on behalf of parents as teachers will be of interest. Over the past few weeks representations have been made to me, particularly by parents as teachers taking part in the Manly and Wagga Wagga pilot programs. Parents are concerned that the future of the program is in jeopardy and that funding has been guaranteed only until the end of January 1994. So, as I speak, these important pilot programs may have lost funding and may no longer be in existence.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: It is March and the programs are still running, but not on the smell of an oily rag.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: The Minister said they are still being funded in March; perhaps the concerns of the parents are unfounded. However, I wish to place on record the concerns brought by the parents because at some future date the Minister may thoroughly allay those concerns. In correspondence received from my constituents they stated:

. . . in the absence of any formal evaluation of the program to date, we seek an urgent assurance . . . that funding will be continued as originally planned until all our children reach 3 years of age.

In the case of this particular group of parents, this would be until the end of 1994. Of course, my belief is that the parents as teachers program should continue until many other children reach three years of age. We should not be looking for funding just for one particular generation of children and one particular group of parents. The parents involved in the Manly pilot program were confident that once a formal evaluation had been completed the indication would be clear to implement the program so that many more first-time parents and their children might benefit.

The parents in Wagga Wagga hold the same view. On my last trip to that area I visited a school where the program is operating. Those involved were extremely appreciative of the program and lauded its advantages. The parents as teachers program has been widely accepted: parents have felt privileged to participate and have expressed increased confidence in parenting skills. The program provided support and promoted communication within family units; it was a preventative rather than curative program because it enabled parents to identify problems and areas of conflict within a child's life.

Parents as teachers provided a wealth of developmental input for children, including regular group activity sessions, which must have a positive influence on early development of children. My attention was also directed to the increasing worldwide interest in the parents as teachers program. Similar programs are being implemented in New Zealand and Great Britain and are expanding into the United States of America. The positive publicity generated overseas and in Australia supports the real benefits of parents as teachers. My constituents concluded:

. . . formal evaluation of the Parents As Teachers program should be completed as it is crucial to not only assess and confirm the program's value but for funds to be committed to see the current program run through to the end of 1994.

Page 63

They believe that the program should be implemented as an ongoing early childhood education service in line with the excellent recommendations of the Carrick report. I trust the Minister will take these views into account and allow the program to continue. It is an important, innovative program and deserves the full support of the Government. [Time expired.]


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [10.17]: I, too, wish to speak about the parents as teachers program. I commend the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby for her interest in this most important initiative. Certainly the members of the Standing Committee on Social Issues are aware of the importance of such programs in preventing crime. They help to alleviate disadvantages to our young people and, indeed, provide better opportunities for young people to grow into strong, healthy, positive and happy citizens who are free from some of the risks that we know can attend upon small children in our society.

Evidence from overseas shows that for every dollar spent on early childhood parental and crime prevention support strategies, the State can save up to $8 in further community costs resulting from negative childhood experiences. The early childhood period from nought to three years old is most important for the development of happy, positive and achieving citizens. For these reasons I commend the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs for her ongoing support of the parents as teachers program, as is evidenced by its obvious continued funding well past what should have been the conclusion date of the trial program.

The Minister has listened to me on many occasions speak about the importance of such a program. I am grateful for her patience. If anything, the program is expanding. Recently, as the Premier's appointed representative on the Australian Violence Prevention Awards Committee, I had the honour of presenting an achievement award to those participating in the Warilla parents as teachers program. Warilla was, of course, not part of the original pilot program for parents as teachers in New South Wales, but when the Warilla community found out about the existence of the pilot program, the parents and the community at Warilla decided that they wanted to have this program. They organised from their resources access to the training that made this program possible, and implemented it. It was a very special privilege and honour for me to be able to recognise their achievements at Parliament House recently.
I am very confident that when the results of the pilot program are assessed finally, New South Wales will be seen to follow in the footsteps of the programs overseas, alluded to by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, where it has been conclusively demonstrated that parents as teachers and other similar programs - but particularly parents as teachers - have a very positive result in assisting our young people to grow up, to be successful in school and, indeed, to be happy, positive human beings whose parents were their first and best educators. Once again, I thank the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism and Minister Assisting the Premier for her support in this most important area.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.21]: I should like to read to the House a letter I received today from Gerogery West in southern New South Wales. This person said:

I know it is my duty to keep you informed of my will on anything that comes before, or may come before Parliament.

It is my will that you raise in parliament question time, the problems faced by the residents of Gerogery West, over the attempt by Hume Council to close, lease out and consequently destroy the last area of natural vegetation in this area.

The village of Gerogery West consists of 40 households, 25 of which have signed a petition and or written to council to protest at their intentions.

These protests appear to fall on deaf ears. The main protest is over an unmade road called McLeod Street.

This lane contains numerous native grasses, eucalypts, the unique Gerogery Wattle and an endangered species of tree known as the "Butter Bush" or "Native Apricot" (The Latin name is Pertosterum).

The lane also contains Goannas, Bearded Dragons and several types of Skinks and Ghekos.

There are also Brushtail Possums and Sugar Glider Possums, also several Bird Species.

The locals use this area as a "Bridal Path", Walking, Jogging and Nature Track and wish to retain it for their own and future use of their children.

Hume Council leased out a portion previously and the lessee denied access to the public on several occasions. The stock he placed in the leased area destroyed all grasses, all the young and smaller trees . . .

[Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.