The President (The Hon. Max Frederick Willis) took the chair at 10.30 a.m.

The President offered the Prayers.


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

That on Thursday 12 May 1994, Government Business take precedence of General Business.

Bill read a third time.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [10.32]: I table the report of the Standing Committee on State Development entitled "Achieving Sustainable Growth: Regional Business Development in New South Wales: Principles for Setting Policy".

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [10.32]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In undertaking the inquiry the committee has been charged with the task of coming to grips with problems of businesses in the regions and recommending ways in which the State Government can assist in resolving them. Unlike the Commonwealth's various inquiries the focus of the committee has been exclusively on non-metropolitan regions; that is, regions outside Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. In its volume 1 report the committee addresses some of the big picture questions and formulates a number of principles for Government action. The report contains 20 recommendations. Volume 2, to be released around the middle of the year, examines the details of the policy and recommends improvements to existing programs.

The committee has reached a number of important conclusions in the volume 1 report which affect Government policy. The first is that the correct way of viewing the regional problem is to focus on the challenge posed to regions and businesses by structural change. The second is that the State Government has an important though limited role in regional development. The committee has identified five key policy principles and has made recommendations in each of these areas. The release of the report follows an intensive 18-month inquiry in which the committee received more than 100 written submissions, visited many non-metropolitan areas and spoke with hundreds of local business people and community leaders. The report also follows the earlier release of a comprehensive discussion paper dealing with the major issues confronting regional business in New South Wales.

The committee has been impressed by the magnitude of the challenges facing the regions. Nevertheless, it is also mindful of the constraints on Government action. Government cannot solve all regional problems with a blueprint because the issues are so complex and the influence on regional economic outcomes so varied. The committee endorses the New South Wales Government's recent initiatives in regional development, including the creation of a separate portfolio. The approach of all members of the committee to this inquiry has been positive, constructive and enthusiastic and it is a pleasure to chair a committee that has such a positive focus. I know that all committee members share my enthusiasm for the task of addressing this complex issue.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.


Petition praying that the House petition the Governments of Japan and Norway to vote in favour of the proposed Southern Ocean Circumpolar Whale Sanctuary and oppose any efforts to recommence commercial whaling, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

Petition 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. R. S. L. Jones.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [10.40]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to constitute the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust as a statutory body, to specify the trust's functions
Page 2355
and to provide for the vesting of certain property in the trust. The Greek Orthodox Church has had a long association with Australia and, in particular, with New South Wales. The first mention of Greeks in Australia was of a number of convicts who reached Sydney in 1818. The first Orthodox service held in Sydney was conducted by a chaplain from a Russian vessel which visited Sydney in 1820. The captain's journal records that the Byzantine liturgy was celebrated in all its glory; with colourful vestments, church vessels, choral singing and incense, by the Priest Monk Dionysii at Kirribilli Point in Sydney.

The Greek population of Sydney grew significantly from this time onwards and in 1868 the first Greek Orthodox priest arrived in Sydney to minister to a congregation. Services were conducted in houses from time to time by the various clergy and in 1898 the first Greek Orthodox Church was consecrated, being the Church of the Holy Trinity in Bourke Street, Surry Hills, Sydney. The early Greek-Australians here were drawn together by their common faith and traditions as well as by the difficulties and challenges which they faced in their new country. After 1945 a large number of Greeks came to Australia as part of the postwar migration program and, as the Greek Orthodox population of Sydney increased, a number of additional churches were established in Sydney, Melbourne, Darwin and Perth.

Currently, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia has 120 parishes comprising 105 churches and 120 communities in the pastoral care of over 100 clergy, some of whom have graduated from the Greek Orthodox Theological Seminary established in Sydney. Of the parishes in question, 37 are located in New South Wales, ministering to between 160,000 and 200,000 people in this State. The archdiocese itself has expanded to include the establishment of pre-schools, primary schools and high schools. It is also actively involved, through the St Basil homes, in care for the aged and, through the Greek welfare centre, welfare for the poor and needy. The cultural and spiritual influence of the Orthodox Church on Greek-Australian community life today is a truly existential enrichment that transcends the narrow limits of conventional religion and embraces the fullness of life. Baptisms and weddings, dances and songs, food delicacies and social functions are all aspects of folkloric culture in which the whole family participates in a spirit of joyful celebration.

The rich and colourful festivities of our ethnic communities are increasingly becoming events which the wider community observes, participates in and enjoys. At present the Greek Archdiocese of Australia is under the authority of His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos, who was appointed Archbishop of Australia in 1975. His Eminence is also the permanent Orthodox co-chairman to the "theological dialogue" between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church regarding the eventual reunion of the Christian Church. As one of this State's oldest congregations, the Greek Orthodox Church has played a vital and vibrant role in shaping the multicultural identity of this State. With this background in mind, I now turn to the provisions of the bill.

The bill will provide for the creation of a statutory trust, to be known as the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust, and will invest it with certain powers in relation to dealings with property and the investment of funds. It will empower the holding of property by the trust, the blending of trust funds and the variation of trusts. By this bill, the trust may be appointed the executor or administrator of an estate. The bill has been prepared in accordance with the Government's policy of assisting churches to better administer their temporal affairs. It will avoid the cost of transferring church property to new trustees every time a trustee dies or retires, and will enable the church to better invest its funds. The provisions of this bill are consistent with the approach taken in other property trust legislation. As honourable members will recall, similar Orthodox Church property trust bills received bipartisan support when they passed through both Houses of Parliament. This bill will assist the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia to further its religious and charitable dealings. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Franca Arena.


Debate resumed from 4 May.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW [10.47]: The Opposition does not propose to vote against the bill, for it does have some virtues, though I shall deal with one point of criticism. The area of criticism may well be that which was the subject of the amendments that were moved by the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, but the Opposition does not propose to move amendments in this House. The aim of the bill is to ensure that more criminal charges are dealt with summarily in magistrate's courts and that fewer are committed for trial. In part, it is a cost saving exercise but also it aims to reduce delays in trials. The bill will not change the maximum penalties that the Local Court may impose. If enacted, the bill will replace the current procedure under which a magistrate determines whether a charge should be dealt with in the Local Court or the District Court.

In summary the changes are, first, in relation to more serious offences. The existing system, prescribed by section 476 of the Crimes Act, permits a magistrate to determine whether an indictable offence may be dealt with summarily. The accused may refuse consent for it to be dealt with summarily and may opt for trial on indictment. By way of contrast, the proposed procedure in relation to more serious offences, listed in table 1, will be dealt with summarily unless either the accused or the prosecution authorities elect for the offence to be dealt with on indictment. Second, intermediate offences are dealt
Page 2356
with at present as prescribed by section 495 of the Crimes Act, that is, that a magistrate may direct that an indictable offence be dealt with summarily without the consent of the accused. The proposed procedure in relation to offences listed in table 2 is that they be dealt with summarily unless the prosecution authorities elect for the offence to be dealt with on indictment in the higher courts.

In a number of situations the presumption that a matter will be dealt with summarily does not apply - in particular offences for which the penalty is more than 10 years' imprisonment, with certain exceptions, and some offences for which the penalty is less than 10 years, including culpable driving causing death, culpable navigation causing death, and certain sexual assault offences. The Opposition's principal concern about the regime to be constructed by the bill is that the time of election for trial is to be left to be determined by the Local Court. In other words, the legislation does not itself prescribe time limitations. The bill leaves two important times to be fixed by the Local Court: first, the time for service on an accused of a prosecution brief of evidence in table 1 cases, as referred to in proposed section 33H(2), the legislation specifying only that it must be served prior to the time at which the accused must make election to go to trial; and, second, the time when an accused must decide whether to elect for trial, referred to in proposed section 33F(2).

In early 1993 the Attorney General's Department stated that the proposals would include a provision that an accused person would have to make an election within 14 days of the first appearance in the Local Court. It could be argued that that time was too brief, as it included a period in which the accused would not yet have had access to the brief of evidence. It was also too short a time for the accused to obtain legal advice, particularly if the accused was in custody. It is the view of the Opposition that, in principle, this proposed legislation ought to prescribe time limitations and not merely leave the matter to the discretion of the District Court. That, in essence, is the criticism the Opposition makes of the bill, which in other senses will achieve useful purposes in reducing delays and saving costs in the criminal justice system.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [10.52]: I support the bill, which primarily provides for indictable offences to be dealt with summarily by the Local Court. The objects of the bill are stated clearly in proposed section 33A:

(a) to require indictable offences listed in Table 1 to this Part [Part 9] to be dealt with summarily unless the prosecuting authority or the person charged with the offence concerned elects to have the offence dealt with on indictment; and

(b) to require indictable offences listed in Table 2 to this Part to be dealt with summarily unless the prosecuting authority elects to have the offence concerned dealt with on indictment.

This amendment to the Crimes Act 1900 will show consistency in the summary disposal of indictable offences. The proposed legislation will reduce unnecessary trauma to both prosecution witnesses and accused, and will reduce unnecessary expenses for prosecution witnesses, accused and the Department of Courts Administration. Also the bill will assist in the reduction of court waiting lists. The measure will allow the higher courts to deal with more serious offences. In 1992 the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research Studies found that 78 per cent of all penalties imposed in 1991 in the District Court was for less than two years' imprisonment. This suggests that many offences can be dealt with summarily in the Local Court, thus providing a time and resource saving in the District Court.

The House is aware of court hearing delays. It is also aware of the outstanding achievement of this Government in that area. The Government's record stands by itself. Under this Government, court waiting lists have been dramatically reduced. I have found in my research that in June 1990 there were 38,081 civil matters pending in the District Court. By December 1993 that number had been reduced to 10,324; a reduction of more than 70 per cent. In the Supreme Court, Common Law Division, 7,419 matters were pending in June 1990. By December 1993 there had been a reduction of more than 33 per cent to 4,334 matters. Equity matters awaiting court hearing fell from 1,366 in June 1990 to only 725 in December 1990. There has also been a significant drop in criminal trial matters pending in the District Court, from 4,887 in June 1990 to 2,426 in December 1993. The bill will help to reduce these waiting lists even further.

At present a magistrate is able to exercise his or her discretion in offering a summary jurisdiction to an accused. With the consent of an accused, as provided in section 476, and also without the consent of the accused, as provided in sections 495, 496 and 496A, this discretion may be exercised at the close of the prosecution case and at the close of the defence case. But, in this situation, summary jurisdiction will be offered at the close of an accused's case, only to be withdrawn if, for example, the magistrate is made aware of the accused's criminal history. To have summary jurisdiction offered and then withdrawn causes prosecution witnesses and the accused unnecessary trauma and additional expense. The bill will prevent this occurring. The magistrate's discretion will be removed.

Section 476 of the Crimes Act 1900 has been added to, on an ad hoc basis, since its introduction. There are examples of offences which carry the same penalty but receive different treatment. For example, malicious wounding is included under section 476 but maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm is not. What this bill will do is to impose consistency and provide a systematic approach to the summary disposition of indictable offences. The bill will provide that certain offences, set out in table 1 to the proposed new part, shall be dealt with summarily unless the prosecution or the accused requests to have the matter dealt with on indictment. With the exception of offences concerning child prostitution or child pornography, all offences presently in section
Page 2357
476 are listed in table 1. The offences of culpable driving and culpable navigation, where death is occasioned, and certain sexual offences not already in section 476, have been excluded from table 1.

Table 2 to the proposed new part lists those offences presently amenable to summary jurisdiction without the consent of the accused. Under this bill these offences will be dealt with summarily unless the prosecution elects to have the matter heard on indictment. The bill will ensure that the person is provided with information about his or her choice to make an election, and also information about the consequences of not making an election, as stated in proposed section 33H in schedule 1. This information is to be provided both orally and in writing at the person's first appearance before a Local Court on a table 1 offence.

The proposed legislation will ensure that the person, or the person's legal adviser, has the information necessary to make an informed decision as to whether to have the matter dealt with on indictment or to make an election. The bill will not alter the maximum penalties presently imposed by a Local Court when a matter is dealt with summarily. In conclusion, this amending bill is yet another example of the New South Wales Government's commitment to provide people of this State with equitable, reasonable and just access to justice. We have a proud tradition of justice based on the rule of innocence until guilt is proved. We have, therefore, a responsibility to ensure that both the accused and prosecutor are treated with fairness. The proposed legislation will ensure that our justice system will operate in a more equitable way. I support the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.0]: The Australian Democrats support the Criminal Procedure (Indictable Offences) Amendment Bill. I was delighted to hear the Hon. J. W. Shaw, who led for the Opposition on this legislation, say that an amendment might be introduced in another place, because although the Democrats support the bill in principle, we believe that it requires some fine tuning and it is better that this is done before the bill is proclaimed, instead of amending the legislation at some later date. As has already been pointed out in debate, the aim of this bill is to ensure that more criminal charges are dealt with summarily in magistrates courts and fewer persons are committed for trial.

In April 1992 the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics published a study by Don Weatherburn and Marie Therese Nguyen da Huong on "Aspects of Demand for District Criminal Court Time". The study found that one way to reduce congestion in the District Court would be to reduce the number of cases competing for hearing time in the court. This could be done simply by altering the rules governing the division between summary and indictable matters. A study of the data revealed that for each category of offence more than 50 per cent of penalties lie within the sentencing discretion of the Local Court. One has to study the penalties that can be awarded in order to determine which matters could be properly dealt with by the Local Court. This bill repeals the current procedure whereby a magistrate determines whether a charge should be dealt with in the Local Court or the District Court. Offences listed in table 1 of the document have been referred to in the bill, that is, the background document to the legislation lists the offences of a more serious nature. They are matters that may be dealt with summarily unless either the accused or the prosecution elect for the offence to be dealt with on indictment. These offences include, and I quote from the table:

Table 1 offences include:

1. all offences currently listed in s.476 - except child prostitution and child pornography;

2. other offences with a maximum penalty of up to 10 years - not including culpable driving causing death (s.52A), culpable navigation causing death (s.52B) and certain sexual offences;

3. property offences where the value of the property or the damage exceeds $5,000; and

4. offences under other Acts, eg:

(i) Bail Act s.5B

(ii) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act - s.31(1) involving more than a small quantity but not more than an indictable quantity - s.32(1)(a)-(f) involving more than an indictable quantity but less than a commercial quantity of cannabis plant or leaf.

(iii) Justices Act

(iv) Oaths Act

(v) Prisons Act - all except s.32.

The offences listed in table 2 will be dealt with summarily unless the prosecution elects for the offence to be dealt with on indictment in the higher courts. The table 2 offences are:

1. offences currently listed in ss.495, 496, 496A Crimes Act;

2. larceny offences where the value of the property is less than $5,000; and

3. offences listed in other Acts, eg;

(i) Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act s.30(1) where the amount of plant or drug is not more than a small quantity;

(ii) Firearms Act

(iii) Prohibited Weapons Act

Exceptions to the presumption that a matter will be dealt with summarily will be: first, offences for which the penalty is more than 10 years, excepting offences that may be dealt with summarily under section 476 of the Crimes Act; second, specific offences for which the penalty is less than 10 years, but which nevertheless are viewed very seriously by the community, and quite obviously these would rightly include culpable driving causing death, culpable navigation causing death and certain sexual offences. The bill leaves two important times to be fixed by the Local Court. One is the time for service on the accused of the prosecution brief of evidence in table 1 cases. Clause 33H(2) merely states that it must be served prior to the time at which the accused must
Page 2358
make an election to go to trial. In common with the Hon. J. W. Shaw, I believe that the accused should have a reasonable time to consider the prosecution brief.

The prosecuting authority should serve the brief within 21 days following the first appearance of the accused person in court. This would be in line with practice note No. 1 of 1992 issued by Ian Pike, Chief Magistrate of New South Wales. This refers to the time the police will have to assemble the statements of witnesses after they have arrested and charged the accused and after the first court appearance of the accused. The bill also leaves it up to the Local Court to determine the time in which the accused must decide whether to elect for trial. It would only be fair to give the accused the same amount of time to consider his or her position as the prosecution has to prepare and serve the brief of evidence, that is, 21 days. This will give the accused time in which to seek legal advice because conferences may need to be arranged more than a week in advance.

If this time is adequate even more listings in the District Court may be avoided. It is sensible for the Government to allow a reasonable time for an accused in custody to consider his position, and that such time should be longer than the time allowed for an accused who is on bail, which is 28 days. The reason for this is that an accused in custody in the city would take longer to contact a lawyer and arrange for a conference in gaol than an accused on bail would take. I am advised that the practice of the gaol system sending some accused on remand to country gaols makes it very difficult for them to get legal advice as to the choice of jurisdiction.

The final point I make is that for delays to be decreased under this scheme, the Government needs to appoint more magistrates. Yesterday the House was debating the problems that the Government perceived with jury trials in civil cases. I made it very clear that many of the problems that the Government is facing could be solved by the appointment of more judges. I certainly believe there could be a speeding up of cases heard in the Local Court if the Government was prepared to appoint more magistrates. There is also the continuing problem of the lack of funds for legal aid. Unless more funds are allocated to legal aid, we shall never be able to ensure adequate representation in defended hearings in the Local Court, particularly those matters that have been previously heard in the District Court. I support this legislation and I trust that the Government will see fit to support the amendment that the Opposition has foreshadowed will be moved in another place.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.10]: The Call to Australia group is pleased to support the Criminal Procedure (Indictable Offences) Amendment Bill. The object of the bill is to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 1986:

(a) to revise the procedure under which certain indictable offences are dealt with summarily by a Local Court instead of proceeding on indictment in a higher court (either the District or Supreme Court, depending on the nature of the offence); and

(b) to add to the list of indictable offences that may be so dealt with.

As has been explained by the Government, this bill is an important step in trying to speed up the legal processes in this State. There have been many complaints about lengthy delays in bringing cases to court and to a conclusion. Call to Australia is pleased that the Government has introduced this legislation. A large number of offences that were indictable offences will now be able to be dealt with summarily unless the prosecuting authority or person charged elects otherwise. The offences are listed in the table on page 9 of the bill. A wide range of offences is covered, such as offences against the person where the victim is 14 years of age or over; other offences against the person; larceny and other offences exceeding $5,000; offences taken to be, or punishable as, larceny or stealing; breaking and entering a place of divine worship with intent to commit a felony where the person charged was not armed with an offensive weapon or instrument, or in company with a person so armed.

It is sad that such cases occur. Recently a number of serious breaking and entering offences occurred in Melbourne. Places of divine worship could become a target. There have been attacks on priests, who may be alone in the church vestry. Because money is sometimes kept on church premises, there have been some attempts at robbery. This is to be regretted. Other offences that will now be able to be dealt with summarily include entering with intent to commit a felony, or commit a felony, in a dwelling-house and breaking out; entering a dwelling house in the night or breaking and entering any house or other building with intent to commit a felony; breaking and entering into, or being in, any house or other building and committing a felony, and other property offences.

Another category dealing with other offences under the Crimes Act 1900 or the common law deals mainly with matters of corrupt practices, false instruments, offences relating to computers, public justice offences, escape from lawful custody, and, under part 4, matters relating to the Bail Act and the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987, and other relevant Acts. Part 5 deals with attempts, accessories and abettors and part 1 of table 2 deals with offences against the person under the Crimes Act. A number of important offences are covered by the bill. Part 3 of table 2 relates to drug offences and will include the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. It states:

4. An offence to which section 30(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 applies where the number or amount of the prohibited plant or prohibited drug concerned is not more than the applicable small quantity.

I am concerned in case there is any attempt in speeding up the process to treat this offence as a less important offence. It is important to maintain consistency in the drug misuse laws in this State and not to go down the dangerous pathway that the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly is following. With those remarks Call to Australia is pleased to support the bill.

Page 2359

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [11.13]: I wish to speak briefly on the Criminal Procedure (Indictable Offences) Amendment Bill. This bill will increase the number of indictable offences that can be heard summarily by a magistrate and will change the way the decision is made on whether the matter should be dealt with summarily or on indictment. I would like to comment on a couple of aspects of the bill. One to which I refer is offences under the Firearms Act that can be heard summarily and the consequential amendments being made to the Firearms Act. Offences that can be dealt with either summarily or on indictment under the Firearms Act include matters such as the requirement under section 8 that a firearms dealer be licensed and, under section 44, that a person shall not, in connection with an application under the Firearms Act, make a statement or provide information that the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular.

I believe there is strong community concern that the gun laws of this State should be enforced as rigorously as possible. I have previously raised a number of issues in relation to this matter, including the case of a commissioned police officer who ran a lucrative business as a gun dealer while he was a police officer. I hope he is no longer doing so. I complained to the Ombudsman about his activities. In the course of investigating those activities, such as how he came to be in possession of guns that had been handed in to police during a number of gun amnesties, it was discovered that he had breached the Firearms Act in his business as a dealer. In subsequent court proceedings he stated - and no one ever seemed to correct this - that not only was he ignorant of the Firearms Act but that no police officers had asked to look at his gun registers in the preceding years. It is clear that the Firearms Act and its administration needs a great deal of attention by the Government.

Last year I paid a visit to the Firearms Registry where it was made clear to me that hardworking officers at the registry are conscious of the fact that general duties police have not been trained in the administration of the gun laws, and few of them have much knowledge of the intricacies of the Firearms Act. I have written to the Minister for Police in relation to the administration of the Firearms Act and the various sections under it which need to be implemented and which are covered in the bill. The Minister for Police, Mr Griffiths, wrote to me about a year ago mentioning the development of an information kit and an education package dealing with the inspection of various records required under the Firearms Act, and particularly the records of licensed firearms dealers.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: On a point of order: Standing Order No. 80 refers to relevance. The honourable member appears to be speaking extensively to the Firearms Act. Whilst the Firearms Act is mentioned briefly in the bill, detailed discussion of the Firearms Act is not relevant to the debate.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! The honourable member may proceed. However, I remind the honourable member of the standing order.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: If honourable members look at page 15 of the bill, they will find that offences under many different sections of the Firearms Act 1989 and under the Prohibited Weapons Act are covered. I was pleased that the Minister for Police had taken note of my concerns and talked about developing an operational audit team to develop a strategy in relation to checking patrol records and firearms dealers. I contacted him again about the terrible case of the 15-year-old girl Dali Pleshet, who was fatally shot at Cooks Gap last year. The girl's mother, Mrs Virginia Handmer, raised concerns with me about the administration of the firearms laws by police, and I found that none of those fine promises that the Minister for Police had made in March had actually been carried out. I can only repeat that there are gun laws in this State but they are not being properly enforced. Both the Minister for Police and the Commissioner of Police should be condemned for allowing that to continue.

I have spoken to several lawyers about the bill and they assured me that whenever a charged person has the opportunity to have a matter dealt with summarily, that option tends to be the preferred option because of the reduced penalties. One area of the law dealt with by the bill relates to sections 82, 83 and 84 of the Crimes Act, an area the Attorney General has clearly stated he wants enforced. Under the bill these sections will be able to be dealt with summarily by a magistrate. I want to stress that if any police officer anywhere in New South Wales seeks to charge any person, or any magistrates think they would be able to convict any person, under these sections, they should think again. These sections have not been used for more than 20 years and if any attempt is made to use them now, in line with those statements of the Attorney General on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio on 28 April, I warn him that the overwhelming majority of women in New South Wales will not stand for it - lower penalties or not. This is an issue on which the women of New South Wales are determined and angry. They may be quiet now but I assure the Attorney General and the House that there will be uproar in New South Wales if there is any change to the status quo in this area.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [11.20], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support for this legislation. I look forward to receiving any amendments that may come from the Opposition so that I can give them due consideration. As the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho has indicated, the need for this proposed legislation has been demonstrated in part by the report of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research entitled "Aspects of Demand for District Court Time". That report refers to the fact that, of all penalties imposed in 1991 in the District Court, 78 per cent was for less than two
Page 2360
years' imprisonment. It is of considerable concern to this Government that such a significant amount of District Court hearing time is being taken up with matters that would appear to be suitable for summary jurisdiction.

This bill will facilitate the summary disposition of a wider range of indictable offences by enlarging the jurisdiction of the Local Court to include offences carrying up to 10 years' imprisonment, with a few notable exceptions, and by providing for a presumption that those offences are to be dealt with summarily unless the accused or the prosecution elects to have the matter heard on indictment. The presumption is an integral part of the proposal because it places an obligation on the prosecution and the defence to determine the need for an indictable hearing. Magistrates will no longer be placed in the somewhat artificial position of having to offer summary jurisdiction to an accused in those matters listed in table 1 without one of the most relevant pieces of information, namely, whether or not the accused has a criminal history and the extent of that criminal history.

Under the proposed legislation magistrates are relieved of the responsibility to decide the question of jurisdiction. This is so for offences listed in both tables to proposed part 9A. I will deal now with the comments made by the Hon. J. W. Shaw, particularly his objection to the absence of time frames in the bill itself. I understand that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has similar reservations. Clauses 33F and 33H were settled after consultation with the Chief Magistrate of the Local Court. I am of the view that time frames of this nature are best determined by the relevant jurisdiction, having regard to the fact that the committal procedure is already subject to the non-statutory time standards imposed by the Chief Magistrate pursuant to practice note No. 1992/1. The parties will have a fair opportunity to consider their positions, given the effect of clauses 33F(2) and 33H(2) and (3).

Pursuant to clause 33H(1) the magistrate must provide the person at his or her first appearance before the court with both oral and written information on the consequences of making and of not making an election. These clauses provide the opportunity for a person to obtain legal advice, if it is required, before having to make an election. I am confident that this procedure will ensure that an accused person is aware of the right to a jury trial before declining to make an election. I thank honourable members for their support of the bill. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The following bill was returned from the Legislative Assembly without amendment:

Crimes Legislation (Unsworn Evidence) Amendment Bill

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [11.25]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The High Court of Australia in its decision in Mabo v. Queensland rejected the doctrine that Australia was, at the time of European settlement, land belonging to no-one (terra nullius). Rather, the High Court found that native title rights and interests in relation to land survived European settlement, subject to the sovereignty of the Crown. The court held that the common law of Australia recognises a form of native title that, where it has not been extinguished, reflects the rights of indigenous people, in accordance with their laws and customs, to their traditional lands. Following the court's decision, the Commonwealth Government enacted the Native Title Act 1993. The Commonwealth Act passed through Federal Parliament just before Christmas last year and commenced on 1 January this year. The objects of the Commonwealth Act are said to be:

•to provide for the recognition and protection of native title;

•to establish ways in which future dealings affecting native title may proceed and to set standards for those dealings;

•to establish a mechanism for determining claims to native title;

•to provide for, or permit, the validation of past Acts invalidated because of the existence of native title.

The Commonwealth Act was enacted following the failure of the heads of government at the meeting of the Council of Australian Governments to agree on a common approach to the issues raised by the High Court's decision.

Mr President, this Government has always taken the view that the only effective resolution of those issues would be by way of a co-operative national response. The Commonwealth Act is in many respects a less than optimal resolution of the issues. There are some important areas where the Commonwealth Act is deficient and should be changed. For instance, there is no clarification or further definition of native title in the Commonwealth Act. Courts and tribunals are given no guidance as to the nature and content of native title. The Commonwealth Act does not explicitly state whether or not a physical connection with the land is required to establish native title.

The Act creates an interpretation nightmare for courts and tribunals.

Mr President, there are other areas where the Commonwealth Act is flawed:

•the revival of native title under the so-called "non-extinguishment" principle has the potential to discourage and destroy mining investment;

•the time for making claims under the Commonwealth Act is open-ended: it is surely not unreasonable for there to be a time limit of say 10 or 12 years for making claims;

•the application of the Commonwealth Act in this State has already caused increased cost and delay, for instance, in the sale of Crown sub-divisions where construction was completed but the lots were not sold before the end of last year.

The Commonwealth Act also provides for the establishment of a national Aboriginal land fund. Details of the establishment and operation of the fund are not available. It

Page 2361
should be remembered that this State has had in place since 1983 legislation in the form of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, which provides for a percentage of land tax collected in the State to be paid to the Aboriginal Land Council. Payments amounting to approximately $300 million have already been made. That Act represents a significant contribution to Aboriginal land rights by this State.

Mr President, the Commonwealth Act is now law and in order to ensure that dealings in land in New South Wales proceed with as little disruption and as much certainty as is possible, the State must legislate to take account of the Commonwealth Act. That legislation must be put in place as soon as possible so that future dealings in land in the State can be validly done, and so that existing title holders can be confident that their land titles are valid.

The object of the bill is to participate, to the extent necessary, in the national scheme established by the Commonwealth Government and to validate past State Acts, such as dealings in land, invalidated because of the existence of native title.

To ensure the validity of the bill, the provisions closely follow those of the Commonwealth Act. Because the Commonwealth Act provides that native title is recognised and protected in accordance with that Act, and cannot be extinguished contrary to the Commonwealth Act, the State is restricted in the way in which it can legislate with respect to native title.

Validation of Past Acts

The Commonwealth Act allows the State to validate past Acts that are invalid because of the existence of native title. That validation must be done on the same terms as the Commonwealth has validated past Acts for which it was responsible.

The bill validates past Acts attributable to the State in accordance with the Commonwealth Act.

Acts which were not the making of legislation and which took place before 31 December 1993 are validated. Legislation made before 1 July 1993 is validated.

Land owners in New South Wales can be confident that title to their land is secure.

The effect of the validation on native title is specified in the bill. This follows the Commonwealth Act.

Category "A" past Acts will extinguish native title. These Acts are freehold grants, leases which are for commercial, agricultural, pastoral and residential purposes, and public works.

Category "B" past Acts will extinguish native title to the extent of any inconsistency with the rights and interests comprising the native title. These Acts are leases other than category "A" leases and mining leases.

Category "C" and "D" past Acts do not extinguish native title. Rather, the "non-extinguishment" principle applies. Category "C" past Acts are mining leases, and category "D" past Acts are all Acts other than Acts in categories "A" to "C".

The "non-extinguishment" principle allows native title to survive for the term of the particular Act, but so as not to affect the rights under that past Act. When the past Act ceases to have effect, the native title rights and interests can be fully exercised.

Under the Commonwealth Act the State is liable to pay compensation to the native title holders whose interests are affected by the validation of past Acts.

The compensation will be assessed under the Commonwealth Act and, in the event of a dispute, will be determined by the National Native Title Tribunal and the Federal Court.

The Commonwealth Act provides for the Commonwealth to agree to provide financial assistance to the State in respect of that liability. Negotiations with the Commonwealth as to the amount of assistance are continuing. However, the Commonwealth has sought to shift its responsibilities for compensation onto the States. Canberra has an obligation to meet 100% of compensation awarded under its legislation: it is the Commonwealth which has imposed the obligation and it is the Commonwealth which should meet that obligation. New South Wales will continue to argue that the Commonwealth should accept its responsibilities in this regard.

Confirmation of Certain Rights

The Commonwealth Act allows the State to confirm any existing ownership of natural resources and certain water and fishing access rights and to confirm public access to, and enjoyment of, certain areas such as beaches.

The bill provides for the confirmation of such ownership and the exercise of such rights in the terms allowed by the Commonwealth Act. By force of the Commonwealth Act, such confirmation will not affect native title rights and interests.

Land and Environment Court and Wardens' Courts

The Commonwealth Act allows the State to establish its own bodies to determine applications for native title, and claims for compensation for future Acts, and to make decisions as to whether certain future Acts (such as the grant of mining titles) should go ahead over native title land, where the Commonwealth Minister has recognised those bodies.

The Commonwealth Act sets out criteria which must be satisfied before the Commonwealth Minister can recognise a State body.

The bill provides for the Land and Environment Court and the mining wardens' courts to be recognised State bodies.

The Land and Environment Court will, when recognised, have jurisdiction to determine:

•applications for determination of native title;

•applications for claims for compensation arising from compulsory acquisition of native title; and

•whether compulsory acquisitions of native title for the purpose of conferring interests in the land acquired on third parties should proceed.

The mining wardens' courts will, when recognised, have jurisdiction to determine:

•compensation applications arising under or in relation to a State mining Act;

•applications for determination of native title where that is necessary for the purpose of determining compensation under a State mining Act; and

•whether mining titles should be granted over native title land.

Mr President, the bill provides for the courts to carry out their functions under the proposed Act in a fair, just, economical, informal and prompt way, and provides for those courts to take into account relevant cultural and customary concerns of Aboriginal people.

The courts will not be bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence.

There will be a registrar to receive and process applications.

The provisions of the bill dealing with the procedure in the Land and Environment Court and the wardens' courts follow the procedures set down in the Commonwealth Act for the National Native Title Tribunal and the Federal Court.

Provision is made in the Commonwealth Act for the Commonwealth and the State to agree on financial assistance to the State for the costs of establishing and administering recognised bodies. Negotiations and discussions with the Commonwealth on financial assistance and recognition of the Land and Environment Court and wardens' courts are continuing. New South Wales maintains its position that the

Page 2362
Commonwealth should meet an appropriate proportion of all the proper costs associated with the function of the State courts in this area.

Applications about Native Title

The bill provides for the types of applications that can be made to the Land and Environment Court and the wardens' courts about native title. These types of applications reflect those provided for in the Commonwealth Act.

Mr President, because of the Commonwealth provisions, applicants will be able to choose whether to lodge a claim in the Commonwealth body or the State body, except in relation to the grant of mining titles and acquisitions that confer rights on third parties, where the State body will have exclusive jurisdiction. Where native title is found to exist, it will either be held in trust for the common law holders by a body corporate prescribed under the Commonwealth Act or the bill, or it will be held by the common law holders. Where it is held by the common law holders, those holders will be required to nominate a body corporate, and that body will exercise certain functions (for example, receiving notices) under the Commonwealth Act and the bill on behalf of the common law holders.

Interim Provisions

The operation of the Commonwealth Act, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (C'th) and the High Court's decision in Mabo requires that State law treats native title holders in a racially non-discriminatory way. The full nature and content of native title is not, however, known. Because the Commonwealth Act is complex and in some respects difficult to understand, its full impact may not be known for some time.

To account for these uncertainties and to ensure that the introduction of State law which minimises uncertainty is not delayed, the bill provides for interim measures which may be taken. These interim provisions will last for 2 years and provide for native title owners to be treated as if they were ordinary owners of land for the purpose of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act and the State mining Acts.

Regulations will also be able to be made with respect to State law generally and will have a life of 1 year. Those regulations would be made where State law must be amended to ensure that it is consistent with the Commonwealth Act or the Racial Discrimination Act. The Queensland native title legislation contains a similar provision.

At the end of the 2 year interim provision period the effect of native title on State law will hopefully be better known and further amendments to State legislation, if necessary, can then be made.

Miscellaneous Amendments

Aboriginal Land Rights Act

Mr President, the Aboriginal Land Rights Act is amended so that the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council will be able to exercise the functions given to it as a representative Aboriginal body under the Commonwealth Act. Those functions include giving assistance to applicants in native title determination applications.

The Aboriginal Land Rights Act is also amended so that land which is subject to a native title claim, or a determination that native title in the land exists, will not be claimable under the Act.

One of the main objects of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act is to compensate Aboriginal people for dispossession from their traditional lands. If that traditional connection has been maintained in a way which would sustain a claim for native title, then it is that claim which should have precedence.

Where a claim under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act is granted, it will be granted subject to any native title which may exist in the land. It may be that at the time of the grant no claim is made but at a later time native title in the land is shown to exist. If that is the case, the native title holders, as traditional holders of the land, should have precedence over the relevant Aboriginal land council.

This procedure will allow grants under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act to be made without extensive inquiries having to be made about whether the grant would affect native title and thus offend the Commonwealth Act.

However, to protect purchasers of land granted to a land council that is subject to native title interests that have not yet been identified, the Aboriginal Land Rights Act is further amended to provide that such land cannot be sold unless there is an approved determination in respect of native title on foot.

The Premier held initial consultations with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council on the thrust of the State's response to the Commonwealth Act and an early copy of the draft bill was provided to the council.

Advance copies of the bill were also provided to the Australian Mining Industry Council, State Chamber of Mines and Extractive Industries, National Farmers Federation and the New South Wales Farmers Association.

Compulsory Acquisition Acts

Amendments are made to various Acts with respect to the compulsory acquisition of land. These amendments make it clear that native title interests can be compulsorily acquired in the same way as other interests, and at the same time ensure that Aboriginal people whose interests are acquired have explicit rights of compensation under State law.

The amendments also ensure that interests can be compulsorily acquired where the purpose for doing so is to enable a statutory authority to carry out its functions. This will mean that, where native title interests are involved, the carrying out of those functions will be permissible future acts under the Commonwealth Act.

Mining Act and Petroleum (Onshore) Act

The Mining Act and the Petroleum (Onshore) Act are amended so that the wardens' courts have jurisdiction in native title matters where mining issues are involved.

Amendments are also made to ensure that where native title holders and other owners of interests in land cannot be identified, mining grants can nevertheless proceed without the need to first have an arrangement as to access to the land on which mining exploration is to occur or to have a determination as to compensation for the effect of mining in place. However, proper and thorough inquiries to identify and locate those with interests in the land will need to have been made.

Conclusion

Mr President, the bill represents the State's first legislative response to the complex and difficult issues raised by the Mabo decision and to the Commonwealth Act. The bill will allow, to the extent possible in the context of the Commonwealth Act, land management and development in New South Wales to proceed, while safeguarding the interests of traditional native title owners. The bill will also give certainty of title to all existing title holders in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN [11.25]: The Opposition supports the Native Title (New South Wales) Bill and the amendment regarding the Crown Lands Act, which was passed in what some might call another place but which I will call the Legislative Assembly. I am pleased that a Liberal State Government has accepted the value and necessity of the Commonwealth's Native Title Act. However, I am disappointed, if not surprised, that the Government introduced this bill somewhat grudgingly.
Page 2363
The Commonwealth Act was arrived at after considerable consultation. In my view it has already been compromised somewhat for the benefit of the States and non-Aboriginal interest groups.

I would like to address some of the specific criticisms made by the Minister in another place regarding the Commonwealth Act. First, the Minister's criticism of the National Land Acquisition Fund, on the basis that the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act provides for a percentage of land tax to be paid to the Aboriginal Land Council, demonstrates a complete failure to grasp what the whole native title decision was about. The National Land Acquisition Fund - this is for the benefit of Government members who were under a misapprehension when I mentioned this during another debate - is a means of addressing the plight of the majority of Aboriginal people who will be unable to establish a continuous traditional relationship with their land because their ancestors were forcibly removed from it. It thus extends the native title judgment recognising their prior occupation of this country and subsequent dispossession in a very concrete way.

Second, I would like to distance myself from the Minister's miserly comments to the effect that the Commonwealth should come up with 100 per cent of the compensation awarded because it is the Commonwealth's legislation. The Commonwealth Act provides for Commonwealth assistance to the States to meet compensation payments anyway. However, I would have thought that the process of reconciliation would require all of us to accept our responsibility for the dispossession of Aboriginal Australia and to contribute to redressing the appalling results of that dispossession. It is also particularly ironic that the conservative side of politics, which is so keen on making State rights a big issue in Australia, is not too keen to acknowledge the part played by the colony, and later the State of New South Wales, in Aboriginal dispossession.

Finally, I would like to address the Minister's criticism of the non-extinguishment principle in which he called for a time limit of 10 to 12 years on making a native title claim. It has taken our complicated and sophisticated legal system more than two centuries to recognise that Aboriginal people existed and lived in this country before white settlement. How dare we place a time limit of any sort, let alone a time limit of 10 years, on their claims to native title! It is a ludicrous suggestion. If the absence of a time limit means a few mining companies will feel "insecure", that is a very small price to pay for allowing the possibility of justice to Aboriginal people.

I also find offensive the constant references from the Government about the need for people - meaning non-Aboriginal people, of course - to feel secure in their ownership of land. There has never been any question of people being evicted from their homes or farms, although racist elements have done their best to encourage such views. To talk about the insecurity supposedly felt by ordinary property-owners is insensitive in the extreme when we consider the insecurity into which every Aboriginal person is born and lives. Of course, those criticisms by the Minister look positively enlightened next to the draft legislation we were presented with last year which, among other things, demanded that land won under the native title decision only be put to traditional uses and that unbroken, physical possession of the land be proved - a document worthy of this Government's Western Australian colleagues.

That document was attacked strongly by the former Attorney General, John Dowd, as limiting the rights of Aboriginal people. There are a number of ironies in this bill. Yesterday the Federal coalition said, yet again, that it would abolish the National Land Acquisition Fund. It is ironic that one of the arguments against New South Wales giving money to dispossessed Aborigines is because of the excellent Aboriginal Land Rights Act in which 7½ per cent of land tax is to be given to Aborigines for 15 years. The coalition Government in this State vigorously opposed that humane threshold legislation. When the Government first came to office in 1988 it tried to bring in a bill to abolish land councils. The Government has now seen the error of its ways - at least I hope it has.

By failing to take pride in this legislation and seeking to blame it on the restrictions established by the Commonwealth Act, the Government has failed to recognise the real significance of the native title judgment for Aboriginal Australians. That pride was summed up by members of the dispossessed Blacktown Aboriginal community when they were interviewed about the Mabo bill last year by the Sydney Morning Herald. Ms Vilma Ryan of Blacktown said, "You don't have to say it, you feel it. We cannot yet describe how we really feel, but it's pride, it's acknowledgment, it's identity".

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [11.32]: I support the important Native Title (New South Wales) Bill. As a member of the Aboriginal reconciliation council I particularly welcome the introduction of this bill because one of the factors holding back the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's participation in the reconciliation process has been a perceived lack of recognition of their prior ownership of the land. The legal fiction of terra nullius has been deeply resented. The Aboriginal reconciliation council has acknowledged that a just and appropriate resolution of the issues surrounding the question of land is essential to improving relations between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the wider communities.

The council has also acknowledged that a greater understanding of the importance of land in Aboriginal society is essential to reconciliation. The judgment handed down by the High Court on 3 June 1992 in the Mabo case is, no doubt, one of the most important judicial decisions in Australia's history. It rejected the doctrine that Australia was terra nullius - that is, that Australia was an empty, unowned land belonging to no one at the time of European settlement. This historic judgment recognises that the Murray Islanders
Page 2364
of the Torres Strait were entitled, as against the whole world, to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the lands of the Murray Islands. The decision has implications for Australia as a whole, not only for the Torres Strait Islanders.

The High Court found that native title rights and interests in relation to land survived European settlement, subject to the sovereignty of the Crown. After more than 200 years the truth had arrived. The rights of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were recognised and no longer could their customary laws and traditions be disregarded. One significance of the decision is to force the non-indigenous Australian to be more conscious and to question his own sociopolitical legitimacy. The decision opens the door for the reunification of Australia's indigenous people with their cultural lifeblood - their land.

There is a misconception that the Mabo decision means that Aboriginal people will be given land for nothing while other Australians have to buy it. Of course, this is untrue; it is wrong. The Mabo decision does not mean that Aboriginal people are given any land, only that they may keep land they already have and where their ancestors and families have lived uninterrupted for tens of thousands of years. All Australians have the right to inherit property from their families. The Mabo decision has been welcomed by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities throughout Australia and by many who hope for positive future race relations in this country. I am one of those. However, many others have expressed fear and concern about the impact of the decision for mining, pastoralism and certain other land use enterprises.

This concern is understandable. Since the High Court judgment is so long and complex, generally people are uninformed and misinformed. Indeed, there are many issues on which the High Court and the Commonwealth Act are silent or non-explicit. For example, it is not clear what proof would be required or what precise rights flow from native title. According to the High Court decision the nature of native title is to be determined by reference to the customs and laws of the indigenous landholders. The introduction by the Federal Government of the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 is the response to the High Court decision to provide a national scheme for the recognition and protection of native title. The Commonwealth Act commenced operation on 1 January, except for part 10, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, which is to commence on 1 July.

From the Federal Budget delivered this week I gather that allocation of funding will be $1.5 billion over 10 years. This amount is quite arbitrary because it is too early in the operation of the Act to judge the exact amount. The other main objects of the Commonwealth Act, as stated in section 3, are to establish ways in which future dealings affecting native title may proceed and to set standards for those dealings, to establish a mechanism for determining claims to native title, and to validate past acts invalidated by native title. This bill is a New South Wales State legislative response to the Commonwealth Act. It is closely modelled on the Commonwealth Act. I should have liked all Australian States to adopt a common approach. I was disappointed that at the heads of Government meeting of the Council of Australian Governments last year, they failed to agree to do so.

Nevertheless, because of section 109 of the Federal Constitution, all States are required to take account of the Commonwealth Act. The provisions of the States must consistently follow those of the Commonwealth Act to ensure the validity of the State Act. I am pleased that New South Wales is participating co-operatively in this national scheme established by the Commonwealth. The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann pointed out that there were reservations and doubts about the Commonwealth legislation because of the many ambiguities and uncertainties. Some of the issues are so complex and difficult that the concept of native title and the response to it will need to be further explored and developed by courts, tribunals, governments and legislatures across Australia. Native title is an issue that will continue to be a focus for all Australians for a long time. This is an opportunity, in my view, to set right not only a distortion in the history of Australia but also the relationship in a way that was not possible before.

As a member of the Aboriginal reconciliation council I am committed to the process of reconciliation and hope that one day reconciliation will come, especially when the issues of native title are resolved. The council has identified eight key issues as crucial to reconciliation. The first and most important one is "a greater understanding of the importance of land and sea in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander society". The Native Title (New South Wales) Bill is divided into 11 parts and one schedule. I was pleased to note part 10, the interim provisions, the object of which is to make and permit the making of various interim provisions pending a full review of New South Wales law, to ensure that New South Wales law is consistent with standards set by the Commonwealth Native Title Act, with the requirements of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and that native title claims can be dealt with by State-based mechanisms complementary to and consistent with the mechanisms established by the Commonwealth Native Title Act.

I am sure that after enactment of this bill a review will be necessary. As the Minister has pointed out already in his second reading speech, the definition of native title is not explicit but is left open for interpretation. The concept of native title is broad. We are told only that native title is based on traditional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander law and custom and can be lost by indigenous peoples through loss of traditional connection with the land. The only thing certain is that the existing landholders will not lose their land. I guess the full meaning of native title in terms of exact rights of ownership, use and access will take some time to unravel and will
Page 2365
differ depending on the customs and traditions of particular groups. Court actions will be inevitable to clarify the native title rights and their extent.

Though I am a lawyer - and a litigation lawyer at that - I do not like people to take legal action. Litigation is a lengthy and costly exercise. Further, legal action tends to create tensions between groups with competing interests in land and could have an adverse effect on the reconciliation process. I would prefer a negotiation and mediation process. I am aware that people have lobbied for native title claims to be dealt with by Federal courts, with all the legal formalities, procedures and strict rules of evidence. I am glad that the Federal Parliament has elected to direct the arbitral bodies in determining native title application to exercise their functions in a "fair, just, economical, informal and prompt way", having regard to "relevant cultural and customary concerns of Aboriginal peoples and without being bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence", as stated in clause 20 in part 4 of the New South Wales bill. However, the onus of proof would appear to be still on the indigenous people to establish their title.

In New South Wales the native title determination application will not be dealt with by the Federal Court or the National Native Title Tribunal. Instead the Land and Environment Court and the wardens' courts will be the recognised State bodies and arbitral bodies to assume that function, as stated in clause 25 in part 5. Before concluding I should briefly touch on the commonly dreaded topic of compensation. Many people think that the Mabo decision will mean huge compensation payouts to Aboriginal people for the historical dispossession of all Aboriginal people from their land. That is incorrect. A majority of the High Court held that subject to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 there is no legal requirement to pay compensatory damages for the extinguishment of native title. In other words, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders have no legal right to compensation for native title that was extinguished between 1788 and 1975, when the Racial Discrimination Act was enacted. However, the Australian Constitution requires the Commonwealth to pay just terms for the acquisition of property from States or persons in a State. Property includes various rights and interests, and may include native title rights.

If native title is a property right, Commonwealth laws extinguishing those rights in the States may require the provision of just terms, if the extinguishment amounts to an acquisition of native title. Although this constitutional requirement does not apply to the States, under the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 the State is liable to pay compensation to the native titleholders whose interests are affected by the validation of past Act. The Commonwealth has agreed to provide the funds to the States to meet that liability. I hope the Commonwealth will provide sufficient funding to meet its obligation. The Minister expressed that concern in his second reading speech. As I said before, it is far too early to assess the full and exact amount of the funding that will be required. In conclusion I should say that the High Court decision on native title and the legislation and policies adopted by all governments in response to it are crucial to the process of reconciliation. There were enormous political, social and cultural ramifications after that decision. I hope that this native title bill will work. I support the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.45]: The Australian Democrats support the Native Title (New South Wales) Bill. The Democrats do not have major concerns about the bill, for we are well aware that it must operate within the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 and within the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993. My Federal colleague Senator Cheryl Kernot, the leader of my party, contributed much to the Commonwealth Native Title Act to ensure that the Mabo decision was translated into just and workable legislation. The bill is essentially an important machinery bill. All the major policy decisions have been made at a Commonwealth level. But the Commonwealth Native Title Act requires the enactment of complementary State and Territory legislation in a number of areas to turn policy into reality.

The bill will validate past acts, ensure consistent standards for future dealings affecting native title, and establish State-based mechanisms for deciding claims to native title. It will validate any past State acts invalidated because of the existence of native title. Reference is made to the categories established by the Commonwealth Act - categories A, B, C and D - which are to be found in division 2 of the bill. The bill also confirms rights such as public access to and enjoyment of beaches, fishing access rights, the existing ownership of natural resources and the State's right to use, control and regulate the flow of water. All this is subject to section 212 of the Commonwealth Act. The Land and Environment Court and wardens' courts will be established as the State bodies to determine applications for native title and claims for compensation for future acts and to decide whether certain future acts will override native title land.

Great concern has been expressed about the use of mining wardens' courts to determine compensation applications for mining on native title land, the right to negotiate applications on native title land, and the determination of native title when necessary to calculate compensation prior to mining on an area of land. This is understandable because of past antagonism between mining wardens' courts and Aboriginal concerns, and because of the qualifications of wardens. However, though those concerns were brought to our attention and we believed it would have been far better for the Land and Environment Court to decide all claims, with possibly a representative from the mining wardens' courts in attendance on the Land and Environment Court, we are now happy with the present situation, because the use of mining wardens' courts will be subject to the approval of the Federal Government. I am certain that will be closely supervised.

Page 2366

Three classes of application may be made to the Native Title Registrar: the first is native title determination application; the second is revised native title determination application; and the third is compensation application. The courts are expected to operate in a fair, just and economical way, taking the cultural and customary concerns of the Aboriginal people into account. They will not be bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence. Procedures will follow from the Commonwealth Act for the national native title tribunal. I do not believe it is necessary for me to go through that in detail as it is dealt with in part 8 of the bill.

Interim measures that will last for two years provide for native titleholders to be treated as ordinary landholders for the purposes of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act and the State mining Acts. The bill will also amend various Acts, the most substantial of which are the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, the Crown Lands Act 1989, the Forestry Act 1916 and the Local Government Act 1993. I note that the bill was amended in the other place after negotiations with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. I am happy that the amendment was accepted by the Government. It will remove the provision relating to acquisition of land for the purposes of future disposal or future dealing. With those brief remarks I reiterate that the Australian Democrats support the legislation. We are delighted that the New South Wales Government has devised legislation that will complement and support the landmark Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993, which I hope will go a long way towards helping the white community and the black community of Australia to reach an accord and allow past injustices and bitterness to be put behind us.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.52]: The Call to Australia group is pleased to support the Native Title (New South Wales) Bill. The objects of the bill are:

(a) in accordance with the Commonwealth Native Title Act, to validate any past acts invalidated because of the existence of native title and to confirm certain rights; and

(b) to ensure that New South Wales law is consistent with standards set by the Commonwealth Native Title Act for future dealings affecting native title; and

(c) to establish State-based mechanisms for deciding claims to native title in accordance with the Commonwealth Native Title Act.

This legislation will bring New South Wales into line with Commonwealth legislation and similar legislation to be passed by other States. This resulted from the High Court decision in Mabo and Ors v. The State of Queensland (No. 2), reported in (1992) Commonwealth Law Reports, volume 175, at page 1. In that decision the court rejected the doctrine that Australia was terra nullius - that is, land belonging to no one - at the time of European settlement and held that the common law of Australia recognises the native title rights of the indigenous inhabitants of Australia. The Commonwealth Government has enacted the Native Title Act 1993. This provides a national scheme for the recognition and protection of native title, the regulation of future dealings with, and claims to, native title and the validation of past State acts invalidated because of the existence of native title.

It is the intention of the Parliament that New South Wales should participate in the national scheme established by the Commonwealth Government and that the State should validate past State acts invalidated because of the existence of native title. That sums up the main purpose of the bill and covers a number of important areas. The validation measure is to remove some concerns that have been expressed in the community about whether the Mabo decision relates to farmers with leases, particularly to claims made on farmers in the western district, as well as claims made by Aborigines on parts of metropolitan Sydney, the North Coast, the South Coast and the Central West.

These claims have resulted in a sense of insecurity for landholders on whether they have a firm title to the land, be it rural or residential. The Government by this legislation has brought up to date all existing claims, and titles to the land are validated. This will remove the potential danger of increasing tension between the Aboriginal community and the white European community in Australia. In some ways this could have compromised or set back for many years the close working relationships and cordiality that have developed between Aboriginal communities and white communities. Some people would like to use this measure to create tensions, division and backlash against Aboriginal people. Though there has been evidence of that, it appears to be no longer the case. However, there is evidence that the attitude is prevalent in Western Australia and may exist in the Northern Territory.

It is pleasing that cooler minds have helped to bring about a more co-operative attitude. It is not easy for governments and oppositions to reach an agreement on these important issues. Therefore, it is important that they be dealt with in a non-partisan way. Every effort should be made to avoid using the Aboriginal issue as a political football. When one side of politics tries to score points off the other side suffering by Aboriginal people results. I am pleased this bill has been introduced by the Government. It has received unanimous support from all sides of the Parliament, and that is important. Procedures to cover problems that may occur in the application of native title compensation are set out in part 7 of the bill, as follows:

32. (1) This section sets out the applications that may be made to the native title registrar under this Division and the persons who may make each of those applications.

(2) A native title determination application may be made by:

(a) a person or persons claiming to hold native title either alone or with others; or

(b) a person who holds an interest in relation to the whole of the area in relation to which the determination is sought; or

(c) the Commonwealth Minister; or

(d) the State Minister.

Page 2367

The legislation then spells out how the revised native title determination application may be made by the various categories, such as the registered native title body corporate, and so on. It also sets out how the applications must comply with the formal requirements of clause 36. Clause 39 refers to the action to be taken about accepted applications, the final stage of the process. Expressions of concern may arise in the community as applications are made, but they must be understood and dealt with in such a way so as not to cause or inflame controversy or backlash against Aboriginal people. Even as this legislation is being considered, the discovery in the southern part of Australia of a massive Aboriginal cemetery, which according to academic experts investigating the site contains the remains of 10,000 bodies, is causing a shock both here and overseas.

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



The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing. Given the decision by the Water Board to close the apprentice training facilities, will the Minister advise how the taxpayers of New South Wales can have any faith in ongoing water quality, in the sewerage services in the State, and in the Government's commitment to the training of young people generally and to the expansion of our manufacturing base in this State?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The honourable member obviously reads the Sydney Morning Herald. I thought I had done pretty well this morning in that my name appeared only once in all four newspapers in relation to HomeFund.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Were the police following you?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I hope not. Though the Leader of the Opposition in the other place is often inconsistent, he is consistent and in some cases justified in his criticism of the inefficiency of the Water Board and the need for its internal management structure to do better. We have all heard Bob Carr's various rantings and railings on that issue. Even the Leader of the Opposition in this House might also have said that the Water Board should become more efficient and cut mismanagement and waste.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Absolutely.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: As part of my reforms of the Water Board, which have been going on in earnest for the past 12 months under the administration of Paul Broad, the chairmanship of John McMurtrie and my stewardship, we have been able to negotiate with the union a considerable number of voluntary redundancies. In addition, staff numbers are being reduced by natural attrition. Work has been contracted out to the private sector at great saving to the Water Board and without loss of efficiency. In fact, there has been a considerable increase in efficiency and great savings to the Water Board. Those savings are now being used to put in place more environmental capital works, such as the upgrading of Warragamba Dam. As part of that arrangement negotiated with the union, I am advised by the board that apprentices have been placed in some areas of Australian Water Technology's works.

As an illustration of Labor's dishonesty, over the years Mr Keating, both as Prime Minister and formerly as Treasurer, has ranted and railed against the States and particularly against the States' trading enterprises for being inefficient. He has said there should be more contracting out, more privatisation of services, et cetera - none of which we disagree with. And the same mob opposite, when it suits them, say the same things when they go into the boardrooms of Sydney, but that does not stop them having the odd cheap shot in this Chamber.

The private contracting going on within government, not just within the Water Board but in public works right across the board, is being done by tradespeople, skilled people and labourers from the private sector. That sector also has to provide its tradespersons by putting on apprentices. As the Government has moved more to private sector contracting, all that has happened is that there has been a net transfer of apprenticeship training from the public sector to the private sector. Private contractors do work for the Water Board that the Public Works Department formerly did. Those contractors have been apprentices themselves and no doubt will be putting on more apprentices as a result of the Government work they get. Once again the Opposition in this House has tried to take a cheap shot at the Government over something the Australian Labor Party purports to support.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism and Minister Assisting the Premier. Will the Minister explain to the House how the $3 million State Government enhancement for tourism will be spent?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: The honourable member recognises the great importance to this State of having the Government support tourism in this State to capture the emerging South-east Asian tourist markets, the fastest growing market in the world. Thus far, New South Wales has done a good job in improving tourism, but opportunities in South-east Asia are opening so fast that we need to do our level best to ensure that this State gets its fair share of that market. The record increase in one year of almost 50 per cent in the New South Wales tourism budget is a remarkable affirmation of faith in this State's tourism industry. Having received that
Page 2368
financial shot in the arm, the industry has been able to deliver great economic and employment returns to this State. Since the Government started the Seven Wonders campaign in October last year tourism in this State has increased by about 24 per cent, as documented by sales at New South Wales travel centres alone.

In addition, my contacts with industry operators in Sydney and throughout regional New South Wales seem to show that a combination of factors, including partly the move out of recession but certainly the increased emphasis on professionalism and industry focus in our State, have helped all our tourist centres to record an upturn in business. An important tourism event for New South Wales is the celebration of Chinese New Year, when national and international airlines put on extra flights for visitors. Operators have reported to me that that event, which a few years ago provided a business that lasted about a fortnight if they were lucky, now gives a six-week boost to industry in New South Wales.

In recognition of those factors, it is the determination of the Premier and Government to ensure that opportunities that the Year 2000 Olympic Games will bring are maximised. We should not only focus on those who may visit Sydney for the Olympic Games, we should also use the credibility and knowledge of Sydney that develops as a result of those games to maximise our tourism opportunities up to the year 2000 and beyond. I was absolutely delighted that, on top of the record increase in the last State budget allocation, the Premier has applied another $3 million to tourism in New South Wales. That the Government is putting about $27 million into tourism in this State quite is remarkable.

I thank the Premier for the faith he has shown in tourism in New South Wales and our capacity to do even better with this extra support. Tourism is now an $8 million industry in this State. Although my colleagues may be a little aghast at this matter, it is true to say that, in export dollars to this State and nation, tourism now matches agriculture. Certainly, that is something which many of us need to grapple with mentally, given the history of Australia. What are we going to do with our $3 million extra shot in the arm? A number of strategies already have been quickly put in place. An approach has been made to the Government by our Federal colleagues in the Australian Tourism Commission recognising the strength and success of the Seven Wonders campaign.

The Australian Tourism Commission has offered the Government a joint venture advertising in New Zealand and will match us dollar for dollar. This means that we can now have a sustained and professional campaign in New Zealand to attract more New Zealanders to visit New South Wales. That is in train. We will have television, magazines, outdoor advertising and posters. I will keep the House advised of the progress of that campaign. Additionally, and this will be of great interest to the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, in our South-east Asian markets we will now be able to provide more information in the various languages. This will allow us to build on our successes, not just in Japan where we are very successful, not only in Hong Kong which is a traditional market grasp, but also in fast emerging markets in areas such as Taiwan, Korea and other areas of South-east Asia. Almost $750,000 will be going into that.

In addition, we are working very closely with my colleague the Minister for the Arts to ensure that the world knows that Sydney is the cultural capital, cosmopolitan, and rich in diversity. Sydney is not just a city that is extraordinarily beautiful, clean, safe, with great international icons such as the Opera House, harbour and bridge. We will be working to develop maps of Sydney promoting the cultural diversity, richness and sophistication of our city. This is something that perhaps has not been addressed as much as it should have been in the past. I welcome the opportunity to work with my colleague the Minister for the Arts to develop this long-overdue initiative to explain and introduce the world to the cultural richness as well as the natural beauties of our great city.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I wish to ask the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, representing the Minister for Transport, a question without notice. Is it a fact that over a period of years there have been many complaints about the conduct of Sydney taxi drivers, their lack of basic knowledge of the English language and their poor knowledge of the road system and prominent locations in Sydney? What are the results of the recent audited survey of Sydney taxi drivers carried out by Department of Transport inspectors?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: For a number of reasons, my colleague the Minister for Transport and Minister for Roads has been particularly keen to heighten the image of taxi drivers in our State and to ensure that they have a thoroughly professional approach. This is for a number of reasons. First, it is his responsibility as Minister for Transport, but I know from my colleague's involvement over the past few years in the Olympic bid and his interest in tourism - which clearly was developed even further during his period as a most excellent Minister for Tourism - the face that we present to the travelling public and especially to visitors to our country and city is extraordinarily important. For that reason, the Minister has been working on a number of initiatives in collaboration with the Taxi Council of New South Wales to increase the professionalism and the customer focus of the Taxi Council Industry.

The Taxi Council Industry is an industry that was supportive of these initiatives and of our Olympic bid. I can give an absolute assurance that my colleague has a great determination to ensure that the professionalism and customer focus of the taxi drivers in Sydney is enhanced and maintained at a very high standard. As for the report that the honourable member referred to, I will seek a detailed response from my colleague at the earliest opportunity.

Page 2369

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I ask the Attorney General and Minister for Justice a question without notice. Is the Minister aware of concerns expressed by relatives and friends of prisoners at Junee gaol that it is difficult to visit prisoners other than on infrequent occasions due to the relative remoteness of this facility's location from major population centres of the State? Having regard to the recognised benefits for prisoners' rehabilitation of maintaining links to the community via such visits, will the Minister consider what measures can be developed to alleviate this problem?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I am pleased to be able to advise the House that this morning I approved of improved measures for visitors at Junee gaol. For some time there has been an arrangement -

[Interruption]

When I get notice of dorothy dixers from the honourable member I try to help him out but when they are dumped on me like this I have to go and look at my notes and find out what happened. Private bus return services are available from Sydney to Junee, but at $65 per adult. The department subsidises inmates' visitors bus services from Sydney to Junee and return, at a cost at the moment of roundly $50,000 a year. The passenger numbers using that service remain at about 20 each week. The Richmond Bus and Coach Service has been providing that service, but it proposes to increase the price of the return journey. Even though I said the return cost is $65 in normal services, only $25 of that has been paid for the return journey.

The proposals of the Richmond Bus and Coach Service would have increased the price of the return journey to $35. I had received representations from people concerning the inconvenience of these journeys, which entailed approximately a 10-hour journey down and back on the one day. The department's chief welfare officer, Mr Hodge, interviewed the inmates in Junee - many of whom he knew - and the inmates expressed dissatisfaction with the one-day bus service: it placed unacceptable physical demands on the inmates' families, especially on the children. These inmates expressed a view to Mr Hodge that they would rather do without their visits than continue to subject their families to the demand of this 10-hour trip.

After this report the department pursued negotiations with the civil rehabilitation committee, known as CRC, and with the Australasian Correctional Management Service, which runs the gaol, with a view to introducing a new weekly bus service. This will be provided by the CRC justice support program and the new service will start on Saturday, 21 May. This will be a service to Junee on the Saturday, returning on the Sunday evening. The new service will be on trial for 90 days. It will facilitate two separate visits to the gaol for these visitors over the weekend. A long visit will occur on the Saturday afternoon with a shorter visit on the Sunday morning prior to the return trip to Sydney.

The Hon. Franca Arena: How much will that cost?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I will come to that. It gets better! I have a real concern for the prisoners, as the Hon. Franca Arena knows. The new bus service will place considerably less physical demands on inmates' families. As I indicated, the current cost of the service is $25 for the return journey. The cost for the CRC service will be $20 per adult return - for 18 years and over - and $10 for each child up to 17 years of age, with no charge for infants. Inmates' families who receive social security benefits will continue to be eligible for individual family assistance from the department every three months. The chief welfare officer has conducted a survey of accommodation in Junee which, if used in conjunction with a CRC bus service, will provide a reasonably cheap option for inmates' visitors. Not only are we dealing with transport of visitors to this institution; we are dealing also with the availability of accommodation overnight.

The transport service which is to be provided for visitors to inmates at Junee will be a minibus. Intending passengers, as part of the arrangement to book travel on the bus, will be required to book overnight accommodation as well. It will be a bus-accommodation package. Two accommodation options have been arranged. One is the Willow Caravan Park at Junee, where a 50 per cent discount has been arranged. This will provide visitors with accommodation at a cost of $10 a night for each adult, $3 a night for each school-age child, and no cost for children below school age. That charge will cover the provision of pillows, linen and blankets, as well as cooking facilities. A second accommodation option has been arranged at the Junee Motor Inn, with accommodation available at a cost of $40 per night for each adult, or a reduced rate on a room-sharing basis for up to four adults. Breakfast of toast and tea will be available at a cost of $1.

The visitors' contact time with inmates will be longer with the two-day service, fares will be cheaper and accommodation will be available and essential. However, I have indicated and the department has agreed that if people are able to arrange other accommodation - and there is evidence or information that they have arranged other accommodation - they will also be able to take advantage of the bus service. There have been instances of unsatisfactory conduct by some visitors who have used the bus services to Junee. That has caused disruption within the Junee township. People have passed dud cheques for accommodation and tried to scrounge accommodation in the township. This has caused problems.

The Government, in arranging the service, is trying to encourage visitors to make use of the reasonable accommodation rates. I do not think anyone would be inconvenienced by the $10 per night fee at the caravan park, which includes linen and meal-making facilities. It is not unreasonable for the Government to adopt this approach in encouraging the use of this service. I hope that the matters to which I have referred in this reply have helped the honourable member with regard to his constituents' concerns.

Page 2370

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware of a report in yesterday's Daily Telegraph Mirror to the effect that Judge Staunton of the Police Tribunal has been unable to review the penalties imposed upon Assistant Commissioner Moroney and Chief Superintendent Myatt? Does the Minister agree that it was a decision of this House that those penalties be reviewed by the Police Tribunal? If the Minister agrees that this was so, why have the penalties not been reviewed as the House requested?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: As I am not familiar with the report in the Daily Telegraph Mirror, I will refer the question to the Minister for Police for a response.


The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I direct my question to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing, representing the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Is the Minister aware of reports of the record level of Australian fresh citrus fruit exports which will total over 100,000 tonnes this year, bringing in nearly $100 million in foreign earnings? Is this an increase of $31 million over last year's record exports? Is it the case that this level of export sales is being threatened by approximately 20 per cent of citrus growers in the Riverina area not using the appropriate baits to eliminate Queensland fruit fly? Is the Minister aware that this situation has led New Zealand to quarantine Riverina citrus fruit until 1995? What steps will the Government take to ensure that this valuable export crop is protected from a minority of irresponsible growers in the Riverina area?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I have heard persistent rumours emanating from the Labor Party that in the event that it should ever form the Government - however unlikely - the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, a well-known grazier from the Southern Highlands, would become Minister responsible for agriculture. This question from him has confirmed those persistent rumours. The question raises an important issue and I am sure my colleague in another place, the Hon. Ian Causley, will provide the honourable member with a full and complete answer.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism and Minister Assisting the Premier. In many places concerns have been expressed to me about the level of the number of school counsellors in schools in New South Wales. Will the Minister inform the House about the present ratio of school counsellors to pupils in New South Wales schools?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: It is true that there is a great desire in the school community and in the broad community to ensure that there is an appropriate level of school counsellors because of the valuable role they perform, particularly at a time when pressures on the community generally and on families and students are high. For that reason I have had the department investigate the ratio of students to counsellors following the appointment of 20 extra counsellors a little earlier this year. The average ratio of students to counsellors has now fallen from one counsellor for every 1,627 students in 1987 under the Labor Government to one for every 1,530 at the beginning of this school year. I am proud to report that that is the lowest student-counsellor ratio in the history of public education in this State. I was interested to discover where that placed New South Wales nationally. It is somewhat ominous that every other State in Australia has stopped keeping records of that ratio.


The Hon. ELAINE NILE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. It was reported in today's Daily Telegraph Mirror that there have been renewed pressures on the Government by radical women's organisations such as the Women's Electoral Lobby for the introduction of compulsory sex education for all schoolchildren aged five years to 10 years in New South Wales primary schools. This ignores the requests of parents. What is the Government's response to these authoritarian-type demands that ignore the rights of both parents and children? Does the Minister agree that, if such an authoritarian and compulsory policy is adopted, it would force parents to take their children out of State schools and place them in Catholic and Protestant schools and home schooling?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I do not know whether every member of the Women's Electoral Lobby is a radical feminist. I am a member of the Women's Electoral Lobby and I certainly would not put myself in that category. I was interested in and a little bemused by the article I saw in the media this morning. The Hon. Elaine Nile would know from the many questions and answers that we have had in this Chamber, quite apart from any other forum, that personal development, including aspects of sex education, are in the development syllabuses of our schools. I have said in this House on a number of occasions that it is critically important to ensure that sex education is age appropriate. What one would say to a child in a primary school would be different from the discussions one would have with children in high school. Common sense, apart from any theory, would bear that out.

The Hon. Elaine Nile referred to the sensitive aspects of sex education. It is fundamental in our schools, regardless of the age of a child or the explicit nature of material, that sex education should be discussed with the broad school community. The
Page 2371
views of parents should be taken into account. If the majority of a school community wishes to proceed down that path, parents still have a right to say whether they wish their children to be included in that teaching. Though I understand what Dr Phelps is trying to achieve, I was bemused because opportunities for sex education are already responsibly provided in both our secondary and primary schools. The rights of parents are still paramount.


The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Given the answer of the Attorney General and Minister for Justice yesterday in which he advised that only four of the 14 deaths in custody this year were due to natural causes, will he now admit that my claim that there have been 10 deaths from non-natural causes in the past 4½ months is true? When will the Minister institute an inquiry into this dramatic rise in death rates in New South Wales prisons?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: No, I will not. Yesterday I said that four deaths were from natural causes, three were from suicide, three were from murders and I put four into another category. Included in the other category were: one person found dead in bed of a suspected overdose; one person found lying on a cell floor and the cause of death is unknown at this stage; one person found lying on a cell floor and it is suspected that death was caused by a drug overdose; and one person who was found dead in bed and the cause of death is unknown. The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann has not listened to the answers I have given over the past few weeks in relation to deaths in custody. If she had she would know that I said that all those deaths were reported to the Coroner, who is pursuing investigations.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann is seeking an answer, so I will give her an answer. I have said to Opposition members on previous occasions that, until the Coroner is able to complete investigations in relation to some matters, we will not be certain as to the cause of some deaths. The original round of questions asked by the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann referred to a suicide at Mulawa. I told the honourable member that the person to whom she referred had died of natural causes. The briefing I have indicates that that person died of a suspected heart attack.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Suspected drug toxicity.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I can only give to the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann the advice that I have been given by medical officers. If the honourable member has evidence of some other cause of death I would be grateful if she provided it to the Coroner, who will be investigating the death. Until the Coroner completes his analysis and gives us a report we will not be able to determine the cause of death. No doubt the honourable member is better equipped to do that than the Coroner. As the honourable member is better equipped than the Coroner to determine the cause of death she might like to take up another profession.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: I wish to ask a supplementary question. If the coronial inquiry proves what I have claimed, will the Minister then institute an inquiry into this drastic rise of death rates in New South Wales prisons?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann says that there has been a drastic rise in prison death rates. Last year there were 23, this year there have been 13 and the year before there were 13.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: In 4½ months.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The honourable member would be aware that I do not have control over when people might die of natural causes. Therefore, we have to pursue investigations. I have sought to ensure that management measures are in place to minimise the incidence of deaths in custody. If the honourable member pursued a real interest in this area rather than a peripheral interest she would have looked at the recent report by the churches which, to my recollection, congratulated the department on introducing measures in Long Bay gaol. If the honourable member showed a real interest in this area she would refer also to the recent Waller report in relation to deaths in custody - a report which I commissioned which also commended the Government for various measures that have been introduced at Long Bay gaol.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! The purpose of question time is for honourable members to ask questions of Ministers relating to the administration of government and important public affairs. It is not an opportunity for honourable members to indulge in interrogatories during the Minister's answer. That will stop.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Mr President, I thank you for your comments. Government members are used to the empty vessels rattling on the Opposition benches. Opposition members are not able to make any knowledgeable comments about these matters.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, Minister for Justice and Vice President of the Executive Council. When can the people who use Bankstown court house expect some improvement in the less than satisfactory facilities?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith, no doubt because of urgings by legal representatives and constituents in her area, has asked me to allocate funds to improve the state and condition of Bankstown court house. Bankstown court house is a facility that needs to be refurbished. Having regard to the approach taken by the
Page 2372
Opposition on the issue of refurbishment of government facilities, with the demand for the tabling of tens of thousands of documents in the other place, I am pleased to be able to provide funds for the refurbishment of a government facility. I do so openly and with pleasure. This refurbishment will improve the general office and public waiting area of Bankstown court house. The people of Bankstown and the staff at this facility will welcome the refurbishment of that court house.

I have little doubt that Opposition members will now stand up and condemn me. Please, I would like Opposition members to stand up and condemn me for allocating funds to the refurbishment of a public facility. The Leader of the Opposition shakes his head. I gather from that that I will not be condemned for spending public funds on the refurbishment of a public building that will provide facilities for the public. This refurbishment will improve the general office and public waiting area of Bankstown court house. Mechanical services will be upgraded and the lighting and security systems will be improved. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that this year the Government is spending $10.925 million in capital works on the facilities under my administration in the courts administration area.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What about Lismore court house?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I was pleased to be able to help Lismore court house. Recently I received some questions from the Opposition about expenditure of money on Manly court house. I was pleased to be able to improve facilities and provide for the refurbishment of Manly court house. I was attacked for allocating money to Hornsby court house. I was accused of spending money on the refurbishment of court houses in Liberal held seats. I was pleased to indicate in my response that I spent money on Parramatta court house, Penrith court house, Liverpool court house, and now Bankstown court house. I have not the slightest doubt that the people of the west will continue to show support for this Government because it shows support for the people in the west.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: I don't know where you get the idea there is support from the west.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Government will get support in Parramatta. Wait and see what happens with the electorate of Parramatta. I am intent on making certain that if I am to deliver twenty-first century legal services in this State I will not do it in eighteenth century buildings, nor will I adopt the Labor Party's eighteenth century approach to the administration of law in this State.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I have a supplementary question, Mr President. I wonder -

The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member is not permitted to ask a supplementary question.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask a question of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister for Tourism. Now that the environmental education unit has been established, when is the proposed ministerial advisory council to be established, and why has there been such a delay? When do we find out the results of the quality assurance survey? Has the pre-service and in-service inquiry been commenced, or completed? What resource base has been provided for the efficient and effective functioning of the environmental education unit?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: There are some elements of those questions that I need to take on notice - the level of funding, staffing and so forth. I ask the honourable member to allow me the opportunity to check those matters. I can answer parts of the honourable member's question. A head of the unit has been established and I am pleased to report to the House that the head of the unit is a person who I suspect is well known to the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, that is, Mr David Tribe. After the processes of advertisement, interview and merit selection, Mr Tribe has been appointed to that position. I now have before me the suggestions of the proposed composition of the ministerial advisory council. I am in the process of considering the terms of reference, so that matter is in hand. I anticipate that as soon as I have finished considering those terms of reference they will be made public and nominations will be sought from the community and from interested representative groups.

As to the quality assurance survey, I am not aware of how close that is to completion, but I recall reading the terms of reference and the proposed program. That matter is in hand. I am not sure what has happened about the pre-service and in-service inquiry because that is dependent upon Mr Tribe who will be responsible in part for setting that up, working with the personnel section and developing it, but I will ask him. I am unclear about the detail of what resource base has been developed. From my discussions with the director-general I am aware that Mr Tribe is now established in his position and I have received a report on his work program and extensive activities to date. I am pleased with that report. It is my recollection from that report that Mr Tribe is in the process of developing a proposal for the director-general on what staff structure he will need in that unit. I am unsure whether that has been forwarded to the director-general, but as soon as Mr Tribe has done so, it will be considered.


The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question is directed to the Attorney General in his capacity as Leader of the Government in the House and representing the Minister for Police. I draw his attention to an article in the Sun-Herald on 1 May headed, "Lawyers Selling Secret RTA Data". My question relates to the quotation from the New South Wales Ombudsman, David Landa, to the effect that he
Page 2373
is particularly critical of continued leaks from the New South Wales police computer. Given the continued delay in the finalisation of data and privacy protection laws, what is the Government doing in the meantime to deal with the problem of leaks from the New South Wales police computer?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I will convey the question to the Minister for Police and obtain an answer.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of a report in the pensioners' newspaper Pensioners' Voice expressing concern about proposals that they believe the Government has to downgrade or close hospitals? Is it the intention of the Government to close the following hospitals: Western Suburbs Nursing Home at Newcastle, Marrickville hospital, Parramatta Hospital, Royal South Sydney Hospital, Lidcombe Hospital, Binnaway Hospital, Yeoval, and Hawkesbury Hospital? Is it also a fact that the Government is planning to downgrade Balmain Hospital, Prince Henry Hospital, Shellharbour hospital, Bloomfield psychiatric hospital at Orange, and Concord Hospital? Is it not a fact that the State Government received a large sum of money from the Federal Government -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: On a point of order: under the standing orders, questions without notice should not be long and detailed and should not seek detailed knowledge. I therefore request that you rule that this question be placed on notice.

The PRESIDENT: Order! At this stage I shall not rule that the question should be put on notice. However, the honourable member is close to having such a ruling made.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Is it not a fact that the State Government received a large sum of money from the Federal Government so that Concord Hospital could be upgraded for the benefit of the community at large, not just for veterans? Will the Government allay the concerns expressed in that newspaper article by either refuting what the article says or confirming it?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: As was said by my colleague the Hon. D. J. Gay when taking a point of order, the question included a long list of hospitals. I shall seek the opportunity for my colleague the Minister for Health to make a detailed response but, as I suspect the honourable member realised when reading the list, the article makes some absolutely outrageous assertions. I regret to say that I am not a regular reader of Pensioners' Voice.

The Hon. Franca Arena: You will be soon.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: At least I have a job, but the Hon. Franca Arena is still searching for her place in the sun. My colleague the Minister for Health will be pleased to have those outrageous statements brought to his attention so that he can make an appropriate response. The scaremongering and lies contained in those types of article are tacky indeed. Given their intended audience, they unnecessarily worry the community. As the article is aimed, by definition, at pensioners in the community, I find it most offensive to have that sort of erroneous scaremongering in a magazine or newspaper that purports to be reputable and to serve the interests of pensioners in the State. That is despicable. It is about as despicable as the attack made yesterday on the Mimosa Public School. I challenge the Hon. Jan Burnswoods to do as I have done and contact the principal of Mimosa Public School so that the honourable member understands the distress at that school today among the students, the principal, the teachers and the parent community - distress she has caused. I challenge her to ring Marion Ireland, the principal, and ask her how she feels. I challenge her to try to explain her actions to the principal.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I ask the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing a question without notice. Is he aware that last night a bus load of angry residents from the Coffs Harbour northern beaches area, along with other interested parties, left Coffs Harbour in order to arrive at Parliament House in Sydney today to demonstrate against the proposed ocean outfall at Look at Me Now Headland, Emerald Beach, and to show the Fahey Government that they will not be bullied? Is it a fact that Coffs Harbour City Council is currently awaiting the Minister's decision in relation to the proposal for the disposal of highly treated wastewater at Look at Me Now Headland? When will the Minister make his decision?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I did notice a rabble congregating in the precincts of this Parliament some time ago.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: That was the National Party.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: No, they were an untidy rabble congregating in the vicinity of this place. They purported to represent a very small section of the Coffs Harbour community who do have concerns about Look at Me Now Headland. The commission of inquiry process, as honourable members will know, was set up under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act by the late Paul Landa, a former member of this House and, I might say, a very distinguished Minister for Planning. Commissions of inquiry are the best way I know of to enable the viewpoints of all sections of the community to be heard in a non-litigious situation. Anyone off the street can put a submission to the commission; people are not cross-examined by barristers and there are not lawyers everywhere.

The commission of inquiry brought down a report which dealt with four proposals - and I believe I have explained this matter to the House before, but
Page 2374
I shall recapitulate for the information of honourable members - for the disposal of the sewage effluent at Coffs Harbour. One proposal was to use a series of wetlands; a second was to discharge the effluent into the creek and it would then flow into the sea; a third was to pipe the effluent down to the existing outfall at Coffs Harbour; and a fourth was to pipe the effluent through an outfall at Look at Me Now Headland. The commissioner recommended the latter option, for very sound environmental and economic reasons. I have told the people of Coffs Harbour in various radio interviews that sooner or later everyone will have to accept the umpire's decision.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You are the umpire.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones says that I am the umpire. I am the Minister for Planning, who has a statutory obligation, and I will accept the advice that is given to me by my department on this matter. The commissioner's report is with the Department of Planning, which is examining it closely and preparing recommendations for me. I do not know what those recommendations will be. One thing I can say is that unless someone can give me sound legal reasons why I should not do so, of course I will accept the recommendations submitted to me by the Department of Planning.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You can say goodbye to the seat.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: It is not a question of saying goodbye to the seat. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones knows that the existing Coffs Harbour City Council and the member for Coffs Harbour were elected when this issue was on the boil. In other words, it was the policy of the existing council to have the outfall.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: They were conned.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister can answer the question perfectly well without the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and other members assisting him. My tolerance in relation to interjections is running very short.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: It is important for people to realise that eventually a decision will be made on this issue. Someone said to me when I was interviewed on radio in the region that people will throw themselves in front of bulldozers to stop it. I suggested to the interviewer that those people should find a more worthy cause if they are going to give up their lives. It is not worth giving up one's life for a sewage outfall. I will accept my department's recommendations. I would hope that, if the department recommends the approval of the outfall, that will be the end of the matter.


The Hon. A. B. MANSON: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, representing the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment. Is the Minister aware of the severe decline in the number of roof tiling apprentices in New South Wales? What steps is the Government taking to avoid the impending skills shortage in this vital industrial sector?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Of course I will refer the question to the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment. However, I wish to observe employers are needed who are prepared to indenture apprentices, tiling or otherwise. It will not have escaped the attention of the honourable member that a number of things have been happening in the nation. First, we are only just clawing our way out of the recession we had to have. Many companies - building and construction businesses included - have gone out of business in recent times; many have experienced difficulties and have had their backs to the wall.

I hope that an attempt will be made to retain the present number of apprenticeships to avoid skill shortages in the future and to offer young people a fair go. The Government would support that approach. The sad reality is that many employers who have their backs to the wall financially have to make hard decisions. It is a sad and sorry fact of life that the recession has caused many employers to reduce the number of apprenticeships they offer or to discontinue apprenticeships. The second matter to be borne in mind is that the nature of training in Australia has changed. One need only read the Federal Government-commissioned Finn report or Mayer report or the recent white paper to realise that the Federal Government is pushing a different national training agenda. Though it includes traditional apprenticeships, the agenda covers different and varied forms of training. That explains, in part, the decrease in the number of traditional trade apprenticeships. With those few observations, I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment.

[The President left the chair at 1.2 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.30]: Earlier, when I was speaking in debate on the Native Title (New South Wales) Bill, I said that the Call to Australia group fully supports the bill. I referred to the amazing discovery of 10,000 Aboriginal skeletons at Lake Victoria. The site, which is situated roughly between Victoria and South Australia, did not appear to have housed a large number of Aboriginal people. The area does not have the forests and grasslands that are to be found in coastal areas; it is fairly barren. However, over a period of many years there could have been changes in land conditions. It is believed that this massive Aboriginal burial ground could go back 4,000 years. Honourable members would be aware that the burial ground was situated under a lake. It was not until that lake was drained that the
Page 2375
site was discovered. As more research was conducted a pattern was established that covered the whole area, and it was estimated that there were at least 10,000 skeletons.

That raises questions about whether the number of Aboriginal people was higher than it was estimated to be when Captain Cook discovered the east coast and after settlement under Governor Phillip. In recent years there has been some controversy about that and an attempt has been made to reduce first estimates of the number of Aboriginal people. I presume that the suggestion was made that there was only a handful of Aborigines in Australia to undermine debate on the Mabo decision. As I said earlier, 10,000 skeletons were found at a site which does not appear to have been very attractive. There may have been large Aboriginal populations in other areas, but there is no evidence of those populations. Similar sites, which might have been located in New South Wales might now be covered by farmland, other development or even towns.

It must be acknowledged that Aborigines were the first inhabitants of Australia. The Native Title (New South Wales) Bill will put that into law. This legislation will bring New South Wales into line with Canada and other countries. For example, the United States of America had problems with the Eskimos in Alaska and with Indian tribes on the mainland. Those tribes fought for recognition for many years. Countries are now trying to reverse a worldwide trend that commenced in the colonial period. It is part of history that Europeans who arrived in various parts of the New World pushed the original inhabitants off the land. Disease was rampant in Australia because Aborigines had been isolated from other cultures. They had no immunity to minor European diseases such as measles. To them, measles was a fatal disease. In the early years of white settlement there might have been a large number of deaths through disease.

Leaving aside the reports that appear to be genuine, Aborigines were not only killed and hunted like animals but on occasion were poisoned. Poison was put into their flour and the other things they ate. No one had a record of the Aboriginal population, which could have dramatically decreased in the early years of settlement. It is not apparent how many Aboriginal people lived in Australia and moved across the nation because of tribal, hunting and ceremonial customs. The Call to Australia party is pleased to support the bill. I am pleased that we have reached agreement on the bill and trust that we can continue our non-partisan approach to this sort of legislation. All parties should work together in harmony and agreement.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier) [2.38], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions and commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier), on behalf of the Hon. J. P. Hannaford [2.39]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

This Government has an ongoing commitment to the improvement and simplification of the New South Wales tax system.

The proposals outlined in this Bill will achieve this objective and a number of the proposals are the direct result of consultation and ongoing liaison with peak industry and professional bodies.

The bill deals with a number of amendments relating to stamp duties, business franchise licences, health insurance levies, pay-roll tax, land tax and reciprocal powers.

In respect of stamp duties, the Bill introduces certain exemptions, closes an avoidance loophole, updates the Financial Institutions Duty provisions, amends the marketable securities provisions in respect of the nexus for liability for off market share transactions and allows the introduction of the Clearing House Electronic Subregister System (CHESS) and makes other minor changes.

In respect of the other taxes, the Bill limits the eligibility of State Government bodies for certain pay-roll tax exemptions, clarifies certain land tax concessions and administrative provisions, strengthens delegation provisions in the Revenue Laws (Reciprocal Powers) Act, strengthens the powers of the Business Franchise Licences Appeals Tribunals, relaxes the requirements of the Diesel Fuel Exemption Scheme and provides relief from pay-roll tax and land tax for bushfire victims.

Stamp Duty

A loophole was recently discovered whereby share transfer duty, which would normally be payable in NSW, could be avoided by a creative practice that involved stamping a range of documents in other States with minimal duty.

The loss of revenue to New South Wales in one instance was $270,000 as the consideration for the transfer of the shares was $45 million and it appears that this transaction was only one of a number of this nature which have occurred.

The Bill provides for the strengthening of existing anti-avoidance legislation by ensuring that ad valorem duty is paid in New South Wales unless paid in another jurisdiction.

The Bill also ensures that, to avoid double duty, concessions from hiring arrangement duty are to apply where the transaction is liable to duty in more than one jurisdiction.

The Financial Institutions Duty provisions have been amended by the Bill to exempt certain transfers of customer accounts where the transfer is outside the control of the account holder.

The Bill also clarifies the FID position in regard to term deposit rollovers. Under the existing legislation, different treatment of rollovers by financial institutions could mean a different tax result for investors. To clarify the position, the Bill provides a specific exemption from FID for term deposit rollovers.

A Clearing House Electronic Subregister System for shares known as CHESS will be a state of the art subregister system for the buying and selling of listed marketable securities. The traditional on-market share transfer document is dispensed with under this system.

Page 2376

Consequently, the Stamp Duties Act is to be amended to take into account this technological change and impose duty on this type of transfer.

All jurisdictions will amend their legislation to accommodate the introduction of CHESS and consultation has taken place in an attempt to harmonise provisions relating to CHESS.

Furthermore, all jurisdictions have agreed that the nexus for charging stamp duty on transfers of shares for all Australian companies on non broker CHESS transactions and other off-market transactions should be changed from the place of registration of the shares to the place of incorporation of the company.

The Bill makes provision to accommodate the change of nexus.

The Bill also provides for a number of exemptions and concessions from stamp duty in the areas of FID, refinancing of certain home loans, trading in the underlying securities of warrants, property transfers from trustees in bankruptcy to former bankrupts, certain agreements under the Income Tax Assessment Act regarding the assignment of tax losses, capital losses and foreign tax credits, and transfers of shares from a trustee to a beneficial owner.

Future Direction of Stamp Duty

Over the last two decades, there have been significant changes in how the world does business and these changes have placed enormous pressures on the existing stamp duties legislation.

Stamp duty practitioners are finding it increasingly difficult to interpret the archaic language and construction of the legislation and the legislation itself has been severely tested in the courts in recent years.

Furthermore, a number of creative practices have evolved to avoid paying duty and these have acted to reduce the level of equity in respect of the duty.

These factors have resulted in an overwhelming case for a total re-write of the Act.

Consequently, it is proposed to progressively redraft the Stamp Duties Act over the next 18 months to more adequately reflect the modern style and structure of legislation.

I might point out that this timely trend towards updated stamp duties legislation is also occurring in other States with Queensland currently drafting new legislation.

Furthermore, I am pleased to advise that Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory have joined New South Wales in the redrafting process in order to develop legislation which is consistent across these jurisdictions as far as possible.

Relief for Bushfire Victims

Immediately following the January bushfires, pay-roll tax and land tax relief measures were announced to assist victims of the fires, and employers of volunteer bushfire fighters. The Bill implements both measures.

Employers who continue to pay employees while they work as volunteer fire fighters, and do not offset those wages against their employees' leave entitlements, will not be liable for payroll tax.

The land tax relief measures will allow residents who lost their homes in the bushfires, or as a result of a fire, earthquake, storm, accident or malicious damage, up to 2 years to rebuild without being subject to land tax.

An owner's residence is exempt from land tax, but those whose homes were damaged or destroyed would normally be required to rebuild by the end of 1994 to continue to be eligible for the exemption in the 1995 land tax year.

For those who decide to rebuild, the Bill extends that period to two years, with provision for further extensions of time if building delays occur.

These amendments will incur a minor cost to revenue, but are a recognition of the pain and suffering wrought by the bushfires and a recognition of those employers who put the interests of their workers and the people of New South Wales before their own business needs.

Land Tax

In addition to relief for bushfire victims, the Bill contains a number of minor amendments to the Land Tax Management Act which are of a concessional or minor administrative nature.

The concessions include:

•an exemption for lessees who have sold and leased back the land;

•two valuation concessions that were inadvertently omitted when annual valuations were introduced in 1993. These amendments will be retrospective to the 1993 tax year;

•an exemption for child care centres providing day care only. This amendment retrospectively corrects a drafting error in a consequential amendment made when the former Child Welfare Act 1939 was replaced by the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987.

Fringe benefits have been subject to NSW pay-roll tax since 1990, and are valued on the same basis as for Commonwealth fringe benefits tax purposes.

The Commonwealth has passed amendments to almost double the value of fringe benefits for fringe benefits tax purposes with the objective of bringing the effective tax rate on benefits up to the rate payable for cash equivalents. These amendments took effect on 1 April 1994.

The NSW Government has decided now to follow suit in increasing the value of benefits as the real values to employees do not change.

The Bill therefore amends the Pay-roll Tax Act to prevent a doubling of the pay-roll tax liability on fringe benefits for some employers.

NSW Government Departments and agencies are liable for pay-roll tax in the same way as private sector employers, but are also eligible for exemptions as religious and public benevolent institutions and charitable bodies.

Two exemptions to Government instrumentalities have been granted under these provisions.

As a number of Government instrumentalities could, to varying degrees, lay claim to being public benevolent bodies, it is proposed to introduce certainty and consistency by removing the opportunity for exemption.

This will significantly reduce Government administrative costs as well.

Public hospitals and area health services, which are jointly funded by the Commonwealth and the State, will retain their exemptions.

Exemption for Off-road Diesel

The Diesel Fuel Exemption Scheme provides an exemption from licence fees on diesel purchased for off-road purposes.

A consumer of off-road diesel is able to claim the exemption by presenting a permit issued by the Office of State Revenue to an unauthorised supplier at the time of purchase.

Following concerns raised by the marina and boating industries, it is proposed to amend the Act to permit sales of exempt diesel to owners and operators of marine vessels without the need to present a permit, subject to certain conditions.

In the case of the boating industry, the opportunities for evasion are minimal because most fuel suppliers selling to boat operators are not readily accessible to road vehicles.

In addition, the penalties for selling exempt diesel to road users include cancellation of the seller's licence, which should be sufficient to minimise evasion.

Page 2377

This measure will have no impact on revenue, but will remove unnecessary red tape and therefore reduce administrative costs for the marina and boating industries.

Health Insurance Levies

People who take out private health insurance are entitled to free ambulance services in NSW. The cost of these services is partially recovered by imposing a levy on Health Insurance Funds of 56 cents per week per member.

The levy is payable monthly, based on the number of members at the beginning of the month occurring three months prior to the month in which the levy is payable.

For example, the monthly levy for May 1994 is payable by 15 May, and is based on the number of members in the Fund on 1 February 1994.

A termination fee equivalent to the fees collected from members in the last three months of operation is payable where a fund ceases business or is taken over by another fund.

This ensures that there is no avoidance of levies when a fund ceases business.

The Health Funds have sought abolition of the termination fee, because it requires them to set aside reserves to cover the contingency of ceasing business.

The National Health Act requires registered Funds to hold minimum reserves and the termination fee increases the reserves required by the equivalent of 3 months of levies.

Following consultations with the Funds, the Bill seeks to change the formula for the calculation of the levy, and to remove the termination fee.

The change to the formula involves using the number of members at the beginning of the month in which the levy is payable, instead of three months prior.

As a result, when a Fund ceases business and its members join a new Fund, the new Fund would be immediately liable for the levy in respect of those new members.

This change will take effect on 1 July 1994.

The change will have no effect on revenue from the levy.

Reciprocal Powers

The New South Wales Revenue Laws (Reciprocal Powers) Act is part of an Australia-wide legislative scheme which allows tax audits to be conducted in other jurisdictions by any participating jurisdiction.

The NSW Act allows other jurisdictions to conduct investigations in NSW using powers specified in the NSW Act.

The NSW Act also allows exchanges of information for the purpose of tax investigations.

The Bill seeks to simplify administrative provisions by incorporating uniform delegation provisions.

The Bill also seeks to remove a requirement that other jurisdictions confer similar powers and functions on NSW, which is imprecise and is a potential source of legal challenge to investigations by taxpayers investigated under the legislation.

As all jurisdictions have similar legislation the reciprocal requirement is now irrelevant.

Disclosure of Information

Prior to amendments made in 1987, secrecy provisions in each of the revenue Acts expressly prevented the disclosure of confidential information in respect of the affairs of any person to a Court, except when it was necessary to do so for the purposes of administering the relevant Act.

The secrecy provisions were rewritten in 1987, in conjunction with the introduction of the Reciprocal Powers legislation, and the restriction on disclosure to a Court, except for the purposes of administering a revenue law, was inadvertently omitted.

The amendments to the disclosure provisions reinsert this restriction, which is an important protection for the privacy of taxpayers.

Mr President, the reforms contained in this Bill will contribute to the Government's ongoing obligation to simplify the tax system and provide greater certainty for the taxpaying public of New South Wales.

I commend this Bill to the House.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [2.40]: I support the State Revenue Legislation (Amendment) Bill. Having looked through the bill, I am concerned. I am well aware that the bill was drafted by the Government long before it knew the implications of the Federal Budget. It appears to me that things have been announced in the Federal Budget that may have an impact on the proposed legislation. I refer particularly to the portions of the bill that deal with fringe benefits tax. If I have read the Federal Budget correctly, a number of benefits will now become subject to fringe benefits tax. One that impacts on every member of this Parliament is the provision of after-hours taxis. According to Mr Keating and Mr Willis, after-hours taxi journeys are to be subject to fringe benefits tax. If employees enjoy this fringe benefit, their employers - in this case the Legislature of New South Wales - will pay tax.

Further down the track the legislation may require further amendment. It is obvious that when the Government drew up the legislation it was not aware of the Federal Government's intention and the implications of the measure. I also draw the attention of honourable members to portions of the explanatory note on the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971:

•to provide that State instrumentalities are excluded from the operation of certain exemptions from the requirement to pay pay-roll tax

•to ensure that the "aggregate fringe benefits amount" as defined in section 136 of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 of the Commonwealth is used to calculate the value of fringe benefits

Of course this will refer to the comments I was making about fringe benefits tax to be levied on out-of-hours taxis. The explanatory note continues:

•to enable the Chief Commissioner of Pay-roll Tax to accept or reject a designated group employer nominated by a group of employers for the purposes of the Act

Honourable members will be aware from the media that the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Cheryl Kernot, has been attempting to get concessions from the Federal Government and from all State Premiers to release the States from the crippling burden of payroll tax. If a formula could be devised to return a greater percentage of income tax to the States, the States would not need to collect payroll tax, which is a tax on employment. So long as employers are saddled with this most onerous and dangerous tax there will be no possibility of reducing unemployment or creating all the jobs needed. On Sunday, 8 May, Senator Kernot was extremely sceptical of the Federal Government's white paper and about the number of new jobs that would be available. She said that one of the best ways to promote new job growth would be to take the direct tax off jobs. She
Page 2378
called for a payroll tax summit to propose methods of phasing out payroll tax and to put in place instead appropriate compensatory measures for the States. Senator Kernot remarked:

The tax on jobs has been consigned to the too hard basket for too long . . .

A "Payroll Tax Summit" involving national business leaders, unions and state, federal and local governments should be called to put concrete ideas about payroll tax abolition on the table.

Instead of "Jobs not GST" the theme could be "Jobs, not a tax on jobs".

Senator Kernot went on to point out that a similar process recently undertaken in Europe resulted in a payroll tax abolition proposal in the European Community unemployment white paper. Senator Kernot continued by saying:

Surely it is not too hard here, in a nation of 17 million people? Dr Hewson - to his credit - got agreement from most State Premiers to work together on the abolition of payroll tax. That goodwill should once again be harnessed.

One concrete suggestion already on the table with endorsement from various business and union groups is the Democrats' own Budget proposal to phase out payroll tax in two stages.

The Democrats have suggested the introduction of a payroll tax rebate equal to 30% of the wage of each additional person employed over two years.

The effect of this would be that for each additional employee taken on, payroll tax for three existing workers would be effectively abolished. This would precede the complete abolition of pay-roll tax.

The Democrats' two-stage approach was taken to directly encourage a change of behaviour from employers to maximise employment growth, rather than profit taking, price reductions or even wage increases made possible by the immediate abolition of payroll tax.

I place on the record these concerns and the Federal policy and proposal of the Australian Democrats, which I endorse and will promote in this State. The Democrats do not suggest that there should be an immediate abolition of payroll tax, which we realise would be an impossibility - no State Government would survive. A two-stage system would make it possible to introduce a payroll tax rebate that would create employment and, in turn, create Federal taxation revenue that would be passed on to the States to assist in lowering the rate of unemployment. The sooner as many people as possible can return to the paid work force, the sooner the economy will recover. By that time they will not only be paying tax but will have disposable income, with which they will be able to buy goods and services. People will then believe that Australia is moving out of recession and back into more prosperous times.

I ask the State Government to assist my Federal leader to support a national summit to abolish payroll tax, and that the State Treasurer carefully examine the implications of the Federal Budget so far as fringe benefits tax is concerned. From a rapid reading of the Federal Budget it appears to me that the new provisions introduced by the Federal Treasurer, Mr Willis, relating to fringe benefits will cost this State and the Parliament a great deal of money. One must ask where the money will come from. I support the proposed legislation.

The Hon. K. J. ENDERBURY [2.50]: The Opposition has pleasure in supporting the bill.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier) [2.50], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions and for their support for the legislation. From my brief discussion with the Clerk I am aware that the Parliament already has a hefty bill for fringe benefits tax on such things as late night taxi vouchers. I am sure that you, Mr President, and Mr Speaker will take on board the comments of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. I shall pass on to the Premier and the Treasurer the policy matters that are particularly pertinent to the stance taken by the Democrats federally.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier), on behalf of the Hon. J. P. Hannaford [2.52]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave of the House to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

This bill is being introduced at the request of the South Australian Government as a complementary measure to legislation in South Australia for the purpose of facilitating the restructuring of the State Bank of South Australia. Honourable members will recall that the State Bank got into financial difficulties in 1991, necessitating the provision of a rescue package by the South Australia Government as its owner. In February 1993 the Prime Minister announced that the Commonwealth was prepared to provide special assistance to South Australia to help the State in reducing its current debt burden. In recognition of the Commonwealth's decision the South Australian Premier agreed to recommend the sale of the State Bank as quickly as possible, consistent with achieving a fair market price.

This is something very much to the forefront of this Government's mind in dealing with our own State Bank and its proposed sale. I trust that all honourable members of this House will note carefully the history of the State Bank of South Australia and the genesis of this bill and bear that in mind in the months ahead. The South Australian Government has decided to corporatise the State Bank by transferring some of the assets of the bank to a new corporation called the Bank of South Australia Limited, which I will refer to as BSAL, which is a corporation formed under the corporations law. The assets transferred to BSAL will be the good quality assets of the State Bank which will make the bank an attractive proposition for its proposed ultimate sale to a third party.

Page 2379

A bill to facilitate the corporatisation of the State Bank was introduced into the South Australian Parliament on 23 February 1994. This bill provides for the transfer of assets and liabilities from the State Bank and its subsidiaries to BSAL. It refers power over the banking industry of BSAL to the Commonwealth so that the bank can come under the prudential supervision of the Reserve Bank as from 1 July 1994. It deals with a number of other matters incidental to the restructuring proposals.

Pursuant to a request made by the then Deputy Premier and Treasurer of South Australia, this bill provides for relief from any New South Wales taxes associated with the transfer of the assets to the newly incorporated bank. Consequently, the measure before the House provides for relief to be given to BSAL from stamp duty, financial institutions duty and debits tax. This concession is to apply for a period of six months from a date which is to be proclaimed. This bill also includes provisions that allow for the vesting of property in BSAL without the need to transfer documents and compels the Registrar General to accept transfers of realty showing BSAL as the vendor when the realty is still registered in the name of the State Bank. Without legislation of this kind the transfer of assets would be very time consuming and expensive. It is impossible to transfer liabilities without the assistance of legislation for that purpose. I wish to table detailed explanations of the bill for the assistance of honourable members. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. K. J. ENDERBURY [2.52]: The Opposition supports the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [2.52]: I made it clear to the Attorney General, the Leader of the Government in this House, that I intended to speak on the legislation and to place on the record my concern about the superannuation benefits that may not be carried over for employees of the State Bank of South Australia. Some honourable members may be aware that on Thursday, 5 May, one week ago, a debate occurred in the Senate on the Banking (State Bank of South Australia and Other Matters) Bill 1994. The bill before the House today mirrors that Commonwealth legislation. The Federal legislation was to facilitate the corporatisation process of the State Bank of South Australia. The bank, following what was regarded by the Democrats as a most disastrous binge in the 1980s, has been split into two entities: the Bank of South Australia, its customer bank arm - the so-called good bank - and, with its $3 billion debt, the bad bank as it is now cynically known, which has been taken over by the Commonwealth Government.

Under the restructuring for which the bill will be an essential component the State Bank of South Australia will cease to exist and the Bank of South Australia will take over the assets of the former bank. The new bank will be established as a corporate entity. Under the conditions of the pre-election Keating-Arnold deal the bank will then be sold. After that it is likely that the Bank of South Australia will be sold to another bank or an insurance company and subsumed into its operations. That will likely mean that South Australia will lose the corporate headquarters of its only bank. Senior bank management is concerned that the employment numbers in the bank could be reduced from 3,500 to 1,500 as a result of such a takeover. The South Australian Government will lose up to $100 million in operating profits; the bank itself will lose its primary asset, which is its government guarantee for small investors; and the bank will be less able to influence the cost of finance in the housing and rural finance markets. It must be accepted that all of these costs will have to be borne by the people of South Australia in the long run.

My State colleagues in South Australia have suggested to me that perhaps as little as $600 million will be the fire sale price. It is galling that it is the good bank - the still profitable consumer and housing credit arm of the bank - that is to be sold. The necessity for it to be sold is the conditions attached to the $600 million Federal assistance package between Prime Minister Keating and former Premier Arnold. However, this assistance package is still being sought by the Brown Government. The Government has said that this is an excessively generous deal. It should be placed on record, especially when the New South Wales Government is thinking about the proposal to sell the State Bank of New South Wales, that $600 million is the equivalent of only six years of operating profits from the bank. The strings attached to that deal, in the opinion of the Democrats, will cost the South Australian people a great deal more than that.

The deal between the Federal Government and South Australia entailed four conditions: the bank was to be sold as quickly as possible; the bank was to be brought into the Commonwealth tax net, free of tax losses from 1 July; the bank was to become subject to the prudential provision of the Reserve Bank from 1 July; and the South Australian Government was to implement a debt management strategy. The Federal bill dealt with that debt management strategy. The Democrats have sought federally two assurances in regard to South Australia. The first is that the South Australian Government has been made well aware that the $600 million compensation deal will include the $45 million loss of future deductions in the definition of tax losses. The second assurance is that there is sufficient legislative protection at State and Federal levels to ensure that pressure on the new owners to reduce these unfunded liabilities by restricting the scheme to the detriment of existing employees cannot occur. I should like to turn to the bill and the explanatory notes of the State Bank of South Australia (Transfer of Undertaking) Bill. On page 3 an entry relating to clause 14 states:

Clause 14 provides for the transfer of staff from the employment of State Bank of South Australia or a State Bank of South Australia subsidiary to the employment of Bank of South Australia Limited by order of the Treasurer made with the concurrence of the South Australian Treasurer.

The clause declares that such a transfer does not affect remuneration, leave rights or continuity of service and does not constitute a retrenchment or redundancy. It further declares that such a transfer is not to give rise to any right to damages or compensation.

The Australian Democrats are concerned about that clause because one cannot be 100 per cent certain that the superannuation rights of the employees of the State Bank of South Australia are protected. We believe that the change to tax deductibility of
Page 2380
superannuation contributions will make it more probable that the new owners will seek to change superannuation arrangements: indeed, the superannuation arrangements of the new bank were a topic of lengthy negotiation at State level. My colleague, the Hon. Michael Elliott, the Leader of the Australian Democrats in the South Australian Legislative Council, supported only the corporatisation bill, and did even that reluctantly, when the superannuation matters were finally sorted out.

At both the Federal and South Australian level, and now in New South Wales, the Democrats seek two assurances from the Federal Government. The first is that the South Australian Government was well aware that the $600 million compensation deal would include this $45 million loss of future deductions in the definition of tax loss. The second assurance is that there is sufficient legislative protection at State and Federal levels to ensure that pressure on the new owners to reduce these unfunded liabilities by restricting the scheme to the detriment of the existing employees cannot occur.

Of course, the Opposition federally has said that the only reason that State banks need to be sold off at all is because of the mismanagement of State Labor governments across Australia. It is relevant to suggest that this may not be the only reason. It can also be argued that bank bailouts have been necessary because of the lax credit supervision regime created by the financial deregulation reforms of the Federal Government during the 1980s. As the royal commission report pointed out, the banking environment created by the Federal Government in the 1980s was so lax and, to use the words of Senator Kernot, so gung-ho, that outrageous banking practices were encouraged. In fact, they were eulogised during the 1980s and they were allowed to continue.

The Australian banking sector has sailed very close to the wind and, in South Australia, to the point of collapse. In spite of all that the Federal Government continues in the aftermath to allow banks to charge interest rate margins that are more than twice the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average simply to help them limp back into the black. It is not only the mismanagement of Labor governments that is to be blamed but the regime that was created under which those State governments felt confident to operate. In the view of the Democrats the Federal Government is as culpable as, and possibly more culpable than, the South Australian Government for the collapse of the State Bank of South Australia. We do not believe that it should now be possible to redefine the deal to make the people of South Australia pay more for the policy excesses of its failure. I ask the Minister in reply to give an assurance that the superannuation benefits of the employees of the State Bank of South Australia will be preserved once the State Bank of South Australia is corporatised.

If it is now believed that the State Bank of South Australia is to be sold for perhaps as little as $600 million - a very small sum of money - how can we in New South Wales possibly contemplate selling the State Bank of New South Wales for a figure which, according to some finance sources, may be as little as $400 million? Our State Bank is worth twice the value of the State Bank of South Australia in real estate value alone. New South Wales is a much bigger State with many more major provincial centres and a greater population than South Australia and therefore we should not have a fire sale in New South Wales as low as $400 million when South Australia considers that $600 million is a fire sale.

I hope that I may receive an answer to my question and I hope that the Government will consider this offer carefully before proceeding, particularly as apparently there is only one financial institution left that is prepared to make an offer to the State Bank of New South Wales. We are now coming out of the recession and the economy is improving. The sale of the State Bank of New South Wales should be delayed until we can achieve a better price, which is what is needed for the benefit of New South Wales taxpayers.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier) [3.7], in reply: I thank the Opposition and members on the crossbenches for their support of the legislation. I note the comments of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby in relation to the proposed sale of the State Bank of New South Wales and point out that the Government has made no decision as yet about the disposal of the State Bank for $400 million or any other figure. In response to the question raised by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby in relation to superannuation, I am advised that all bank staff are covered by South Australian superannuation schemes, which are under South Australian legislation. This includes any staff currently in New South Wales. No provisions were considered necessary in legislation outside South Australia. However, the Government has been assured by South Australia that no transferred staff will suffer any disadvantage in respect of superannuation if they transfer to the newly incorporated bank. I hope that those assurances will satisfy the concerns of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier), on behalf of the Hon. R. J. Webster [3.10]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Fisheries Management Bill is a replacement bill for the existing Fisheries and Oyster Farms Act enacted in 1935. The bill is an exciting one, which
Page 2381
incorporates the most modern fisheries management tools available anywhere in the world. These will bring a new era to the State's fisheries management. The days when fishers were simply hunters and gatherers have long gone, along with the days when we thought we could treat the marine environment with disdain and not worry about protecting young fish and critical fish habitat.

Our continental shelf is narrow and bathed by currents that originate in the tropics. The result is that our coastal waters are nutrient poor and unproductive both in terms of plankton and fish. Nevertheless, we still have a good fishery and one well worth protecting, but it is no longer acceptable to catch as many fish as we want. We know better than that now. We must harvest carefully and control the amount of fish we take out of the water. The bill offers a range of fisheries management tools. For commercial fishing the bill offers a move from the existing one-year licensing system to a system of 10-year transferable fishing rights. This will encourage fishermen to adopt a husbandry approach to fishing, an approach that will ensure there are fish available next year, the year after and into the future.

Management plans will be drawn up in full consultation with the whole community, and in some fisheries total allowable catches for some fish will be set by an independent committee. The bill will enable the industry to plan for the future and encourage it to invest in more efficient and more environmentally friendly fishing technology, and to adopt a businesslike approach to fishing. The management process will be required by the objects of the bill to adopt the principles of ecologically sustainable development, and management plans must recognise the precautionary principle for natural resource management.

The bill offers no real change to the way in which we manage our recreational fisheries. The existing provisions relating to fish bag and size limits will remain, as will area and time closures. The bill provides a new system of aquaculture permits in that instead of operational conditions being placed on an oyster lease title they will be placed on the permit. This means that if an aquaculture permit is cancelled for breach of conditions the farmer loses his permit, not his oyster lease, which is property. This will make leases more secure as collateral.

The bill also provides for bonds to be established over leases. This could help prevent the situation where a farming operation goes out of business and the community is left with a massive clean-up operation, such as has occurred in Port Stephens, where one-tenth of the State's oyster leases are abandoned and derelict. Aquaculture industry and farm development plans are also an important feature of the bill. These plans, backed up by consistent planning processes, will assist the industry to remain professional. These provisions will help restore the oyster industry to its former status.

For habitat, the bill will provide more extensive protection for marine plants, extending the existing provisions from only mangroves to sea grasses and other marine plants. Also, the bill will allow more comprehensive management of habitat through habitat management plans, enhanced aquatic reserve provisions, and better control over noxious fish and fish passage. The importance of habitat protection cannot be overstated, and the bill recognises that importance. It will bring the community and the Government together to address these issues.

The compliance provisions within the bill are rolled over mainly from the existing legislation. However, the provision which gives fishery officers all the powers of a member of the police force for the purposes of the Act have been removed. As a consequence, powers of arrest, powers of interjurisdictional pursuit, powers to break open fish holds and powers to direct vehicles and boats to a place to be searched have been added. The bill also will provide higher penalties for offences, with maximum penalties of $20,000 for an individual, $50,000 for an offence against a management plan, and $100,000 for a corporation. I have outlined the major features of the bill. It is a major step forward for the industry, the community and the Government. The measure will assist us to ensure that our fisheries resources are sustainable for future generations. I commend the bill.

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.17]: With the exception of 10 amendments which the alternative government proposes to move, the alternative government supports the substantial part of the proposed legislation. An article in the Canberra Times today, entitled "Fishing Bill to be Rushed Through NSW Parliament", stated:

The NSW Government is determined to force the NSW Fisheries Management Bill through Parliament before the present sitting ends tonight. Anglers, whose rights to the NSW waterways are threatened by the bill, have delayed its passage while more than 70 amendments have been added [to the legislation].

But the bill has been rushed through Parliament in a way that seems to be designed to circumvent the even greater public opposition that would have arisen if there had been more time for widespread debate.

The article further stated:

The bill is likely to be passed today, even though few of the State's two million anglers know of its existence.

I am obliged to say that the Australian Labor Party is most concerned about the interests of those two million anglers, and that is why I am speaking to the bill. The Government's stated purpose of the bill is to replace the Fisheries and Oyster Farms Act 1935 with a more modern Act that will introduce the concept of freeholding the State's fisheries resources as a management tool. The bill has been conceived in haste and presented without full and adequate consultation with all interested sectors of the fishing industry. I am comforted to know that some of the sheep people in this House have an interest in fish. The idea of freeholding all property rights is that a
Page 2382
commercial fisher may bid for a quota of that particular fishery or species of fish. It is claimed that this system will encourage commercial fishers to impose their own resource protection measures for the long-term good of the resource. What that is all about is self-regulation, which has always been a snare and a delusion.

The commercial fisher may bid for only up to 5 per cent of the total fishery or species of fish, and the Government claims this will ensure that no one person gains a major control of any fishery. However, this does not take into account the possibility of something like 20 major companies in this area obtaining control of the State's fishing resources. The Minister in the other place has based this concept on the New Zealand experience, where a quota system was introduced after more than three years of intense negotiation. Even today anomalies and inconsistencies are still being exposed in the New Zealand system, and the New Zealand Government has been forced to pay out over $NZ48 million in compensation to date.

Lack of consultation is the main concern of all sectors of the fishing industry, especially the recreational and fish tackling sectors. As late as Monday, New South Wales Fisheries was attempting to negotiate compromises with a view to having the Recreational Fishing Advisory Council advise the Independents in this place and in the other place to introduce suggested amendments which the Government will support. It is my melancholy duty to inform this House that I have 10 amendments to move in Committee.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN [3.24]: It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Fisheries Management Bill. Let me assure the Opposition, especially the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that there is nothing fishy about this bill; anything but. In its drafting, the bill recognises the unique nature of the State's fishery resource. Unfortunately that resource is not as rich or plentiful as resources elsewhere in Australia or the world, as our ocean currents are generally nutrient poor. It was interesting to hear the Minister explain this. The Minister for Planning and I are used to dealing with poorer lands, and it seems that waters are no different. However, despite what I have just said, this State has a fish resource with a vast diversity of species and fisheries that is prone to overexploitation. This bill provides a framework for the effective management of the State's fish resources, for the benefit of recreational fishers, commercial fishers and the aquacultural industry. The bill also provides adequate protection for the fish habitats, and that is vital to the long-term viability of fish stocks. The objectives of the bill are:

(a) to conserve fish stocks and protect key fish habitats;

(b) to promote viable commercial fishing and aquaculture industries;

(c) to provide quality recreational fishing opportunities;

(d) to appropriately share fisheries resources between users of those resources.

The bill aims to promote ecologically sustainable development. These objects underpin the thrust of this modern legislation - legislation that will be responsible for the carriage of fisheries management into the next century and well beyond. I wish to give the House some background of the preparation of the bill. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition tried to accuse the Government of rushing something through. The first mention of this reform was in 1990 - four years ago, for those who cannot count.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Should there be no consultation?

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: For four years we have had consultation. For four years I have been involved in this at my level, and I am only a very small fish in the pond. That shows how consultation has filtered through very effectively. That consultation has been very broad for a long time.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: No one denies that.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: I do appreciate that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones acknowledges that. In 1990 Cabinet gave approval for the draft of a new fisheries bill for discussion with industry. Work commenced on the new bill and a draft was prepared to replace the old outdated Fisheries and Oyster Farms Act 1935 - a 60-year-old Act. The 1935 Act was written at a time when natural resource management was viewed in a very different light and few people foresaw the changes that would occur, or how we would exploit our fisheries. Since that time a number of new concepts have been included, such as long-term fishing rights for commercial fishermen. In June 1993 the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries formed a working group to look at long-term fishing rights for the commercial fishing industry. The working group reported to the Minister in December 1993 and a discussion paper was released early in January 1994 to the fishing industry and to the whole community.

Submissions were received and a number of amendments were made to the proposal before being incorporated into a draft fisheries management bill. This draft was circulated to the industry, the recreational sector and the aquacultural industry. Amendments were prepared in full consultation. Consultation has been the key word in this extensive debate. I am satisfied that everyone with an interest has been given the opportunity for input into the bill's development. This bill is about teamwork among a number of interest groups - the industry, government, the environmental sector, recreational fishermen, and commercial fishermen.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: I think it is women as well. Are they all men - fishermen?

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: When a fisherperson is in clothes it is usually impossible to tell whether it is a fisherman or a fisherwoman. Let us just say that they are -

The Hon. Judith Walker: Are you angling for the right word?

Page 2383

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: Yes, I am having trouble hooking it.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Getting the gaff into it.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: Yes, it is a bit of a gaff, but we will net it. This bill provides a range of modern fisheries management tools to assist in conservation of the resource. One of the major tools is the use of long-term transferable fishing rates, which will assist the industry in becoming more professional in its approach to resource management and will assist in creating a viable industry for the future, at the same time assuring a sustainable resource. Some fisheries will be managed by controlling the total allowable catch and others by the use of method and area controls. This bill is basically about providing a complete framework. Of course, the regulations will provide the means by which it works. When the House comes to consider the amendments, honourable members should bear in mind that it is the overall framework that we are concerned about, not the tiny little fingerling issues that can be dealt with later.

The bill continues to recognise the common law right of all people to catch fish. No new provisions are included for controlling recreational fisheries management, so the existing bag and size limits will continue as a major management tool for the recreational sector. One of the furphies that has been spread around is that the bill will affect recreational fishers. As sustainability improves and numbers are built up, recreational fishers will benefit from the provisions of the bill. They will have a guaranteed supply, whereas at present all recreational fishermen are worried about the long-term future of their industry. In practice, all those who have taken part in consultations are pleased with the Government. I will return later to the article of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, which to my knowledge is actually a letter to the editor and not an article. The Hon. Franca Arena is listening intently and wants me to get on with the story, because she tells me she is hooked on this bill. I am pleased that she is hooked to the red seats and not to the Senate, because it would have been terrible to see her swimming away to those uncharted waters.

The Hon. Franca Arena: You would have missed me, wouldn't you?

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: We would all have missed you.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! I ask the honourable member to return to the bill.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: As I said earlier, consultation has been the key word in the preparation of this bill. I have attended two briefings arranged by New South Wales Fisheries for coastal members, and a further three backbench committee meetings on the subject, which have helped me understand the issues from that level of the fisheries world. In the last four years I have travelled extensively along the coast, and contacts keep me informed of their views. I have also looked at the oyster industry, including the industry at Port Stephens, where I followed the extensive work by my predecessor the late Hon. Sir Adrian Solomons.

The Hon. Franca Arena: A great man.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: A very great man. I have also regularly visited the Sydney Fish Market at Pyrmont, and have taken with me a number of non-fishing as well as fishing members of the National Party central council. They were interested and impressed. Like the Minister, the Hon. Ian Causley, we support a strong, viable and ecologically sound fishing industry that is self-sustainable. The Minister must be congratulated for his dogged achievements for the betterment of the fishing industry in spite of vested interests that have tried to mislead the genuine fishermen by trying to sink them with various forms of torpedoing systems. He has sailed through those troubled waters in spite of it all and in spite of the diversions of many storms.

The fishing industry appreciates the Minister and his department and supports them in their hard work. It has not been easy. The Director of Fisheries, Paul Crew, the manager, Steve Dunn, and Paul O'Connor, to name a few, have mounted a road show of meetings throughout the State at fishing ports to explain what the bill means to fishermen. These meetings culminated in a meeting in Sydney on 29 April when about 60 fishermen gave them an ovation for their efforts in consulting with industry. That says it all. Groups in the fishing industry have been brought together. It is a diverse group of many individuals. It is hard to get peak bodies anywhere to speak for them, in spite of articles elsewhere claiming to represent thousands, if not millions. Therefore, there has been a great achievement by the members of the Minister's staff, the Minister, New South Wales Fisheries, and the people they have helped. Other members of the department have dealt extensively with recreational fishermen and environmental groups. I would like to explain an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald. When I was a boy, one could believe what appeared in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: No longer!

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: I would have to agree with Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: You have also noticed what I referred to as an article in the Canberra Times.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: I will come back to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on that.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I would be obliged if the Hon. L. D. W. Coleman would address the Chair and not indulge in dialogue with other members.

Page 2384

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: The article in today's Sydney Morning Herald is, to say the least, mischievous and a little misleading, but it is a great article and would be entertaining if the effects were not so serious. If members watch the article as I speak they will understand what I am saying. This bill has two main thrusts. One is to provide sufficient power to allow the Minister to manage the resource effectively, and the other is to provide the industry with increased security to promote viable commercial fishing and aquaculture industries as far as we can see into the future. I would like to think the Minister has the ability to see for ever, but he is a modest man and would not claim to be able to do that.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: He is a good Minister.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: I am pleased to hear the Hon. R. S. L. Jones giving praise where praise is due. The Minister deserves it, after working for four years on the bill. The bill strongly supports the commercial fishing and recreational sectors, the major oyster producers and major conservation groups. The only industry group which opposes the bill is the United Oyster Growers Council, whose members account for about 15 per cent of the State's production, although they represent a higher percentage of oyster growers than that figure. I know that group quite well and have worked with them. I have been on to their leases, I know some of their families, and this knowledge has been gained from working with them over an extensive time.

I can speak firsthand of the members of the UOGC and I would not like to cast aspersions on their characters because they are fine people and they mean well, even if they are a bit misguided in this case. Unfortunately, the oyster farmer in the article in the Sydney Morning Herald typifies their views. They have requested that either the aquaculture section be removed from the bill or at least a number of amendments be made. One of the amendments they have sought is to create separate parts of the bill for oyster farming and for the remainder of the aquaculture industry. This is clearly a nonsense as oyster farming is aquaculture by definition and is treated as such throughout Australia and the rest of the world. New South Wales must stay in step with the rest of Australia, and certainly the world. Another amendment that the UOGC wants is that aquaculture permits should not be applied to oyster farmers. Again the UOGC has missed the point. The honourable member for Port Stephens might be responsible for that, because the UOGC is based in Port Stephens. Unfortunately, the honourable member for Port Stephens has misled someone in this area.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: That is being uncharitable.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: Accidents do happen. The purpose of the aquaculture permit is to allow the Minister to place operating restrictions on a permit rather than on a farmer's lease. If a farmer does not comply with these operating rules his permit and not his lease will be cancelled. That means that farmers will maintain their property rights and still be able to sell their leases. Why would anyone want to oppose a proposal which is in the interests of farmers? Someone has misled the farmers. The UOGC has requested a third amendment - that industry development plans should not be applied to the oyster industry. Development plans are designed to plan for the future management of the industry. They may be applied on a statewide basis or at a single estuary. One look at Port Stephens would convince anyone that planning is essential in the oyster industry.

Why is the honourable member for Port Stephens not demanding the implementation of development plans? It would be inconsistent with the management of commercial fisheries, where management plans are required, not to have plans for the oyster industry. The UOGC has requested as a fourth amendment that bonds should not be applied to the oyster industry and personal guarantees should be acceptable. Port Stephens has one-third of the oyster leases in this State and one-third of these are derelict. Members of the community have to clean up these leases, so I believe they are convinced that bonds are essential, especially in the oyster industry. It is irresponsible for anyone to suggest otherwise, which is what the UOGC has done. Why should the community pay to clean up as a result of lease mismanagement? At the moment the Army is doing a great job cleaning up the leases at a reduced cost. If the Army had not done the good work that it has already done, the community would be faced with a bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Only the surface has been scratched; a lot more has to be done.

The amendments requested by the UOGC are totally unacceptable and are contrary to the best interests of the commercial oyster industry and the community. The UOGC is so out of touch with the views of people in the industry that it has not been able to get anyone on either side of politics to support it. The UOGC has claimed that consultation on this legislation has been brief. However, the major concepts in the bill have been discussed openly and publicly by members of the oyster industry since 1991. I can vouch for that fact because I have been involved in those discussions. Two and a half years ago a seminar was held in Parliament House, which I attended. It was most interesting and informative and discussions were open and frank. The UOGC has stated that consultation has not taken place, which shows what desperate lengths it is willing to go to. There is no doubt that New South Wales Fisheries has done a great job in attempting to hold discussions with everyone involved. There has been no lack of consultation on the part of the Minister. I believe that the honourable member for Port Stephens had a hand in this.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What about the jackboot?

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: The honourable member for Port Stephens wears jackboots instead of waders. The problem is that he does not
Page 2385
know what gear to wear. I wish to refer to an article that was mentioned earlier by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, entitled "Angler's Angle", written by John Turnbull. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had been a close follower of the Canberra Times he would be aware that the article to which he referred earlier was taken from a letter to the editor of the Canberra Times.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: That is not a letter; that is an article, you mug. Can't you read?

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had been listening to what I said earlier, he would have heard me saying that this article was taken from a letter to the editor of the Canberra Times.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: Is that an article or not?

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had been listening he would be aware that I have already stated in Hansard that it is an article. I also named the author of that article. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should go back into his little -

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: You ought to go back to Molong, where you came from.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: There is great fishing at Molong. I recommend it to those who need to do a bit of trout fishing. I know that the Minister for Tourism would acknowledge that Molong is a great tourist spot. Jeff Angel, from the Total Environment Centre, has acknowledged that this bill is at the forefront of conservation. This legislation is typical of legislation that has been introduced by the Fahey-Armstrong Government. I am glad that the Government has received acknowledgment for the things it has done in this area. Sue Salmon of the Australian Conservation Foundation wrote a letter to the Premier and sent copies of that letter to the Minister. She said in her letter that she supports the actions of the Government.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Read her statement.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: I will not read her statement because I know that other honourable members wish to contribute to debate on this legislation. This bill, which is well considered, offers a balanced approach to managing this State's fish resources using the most modern techniques available. I support the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.48]: I am delighted to support the Fisheries Management Bill as amended in the other place with the consent of the Minister and the Premier. As a result of co-operation over the last few years and because of recent consultation we have a very good piece of legislation. To this point we have not been able to control our fish stocks, which are declining in some areas, in particular stock such as the orange roughy, which is not covered by this legislation. As I understand it, there is only one stock of orange roughy, and that is found off Newcastle and is currently preserved. It is a control group to determine what happens to other stocks, as compared with this stock. Hopefully that control group will remain controlled and unfished, and not transferred to Federal control.

Stock after stock have been decimated. New South Wales coastal areas do not contain a rich stock of fish, so they have to be carefully controlled. Control through inputs has not worked so now we are controlling through outputs. There has been some controversy on the question of the so-called privatising of fish stocks and dividing up the fish among existing fisherpeople. Presumably there are fisherwomen as well as fishermen. I have to be non-sexist and politically correct in my language. I believe most would be men because it is hard, rough work, not that women would not be able to do it.

I am pleased that the legislation has received the support of the Total Environment Centre, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Recreational Fishing Advisory Council. However, it has not received universal approval from recreational fisherpeople, as evidenced by the portfolio of articles and letters of complaint from a number of recreational fisherpeople concerned about property rights sent to me by Bob Martin, the honourable member for Port Stephens. The concerned groups include the Oyster Farmers Association, which represents 70 per cent of the oyster producers in this State; Ocean Watch, an extremely valuable organisation representing the concerns of the commercial fishing industry about the future integrity of fish habitats; and the Commercial Fishing Advisory Council, which represents the commercial catching sector of the New South Wales fishing industry.

The Hon. L. D. W. Coleman: A very knowledgeable group.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: A very knowledgeable group. It is a landmark occasion when these groups include conservation groups that would be attacked by some members of the National Party. It is good to see a National Party Minister who is sensitive to the needs of the entire community. Acceptance of the amendments in the lower House has benefited the entire community. I hope the tragic depletion of stock that has occurred in the past few years will not continue in future. With a bit of luck through the measures of this legislation, fish stocks will be conserved and rebuilt. I hope the Minister will use his powers under the legislation to protect habitats. Those powers have been strengthened in the other place by way of an amendment.

Previously the habitat protection section in the bill did not allow the Minister to ensure that the habitat was adequately protected. If there is a dispute on the habitat plan in future and the Minister in charge of the organisation that will damage the habitat - for example the Public Works Department - does not wish to adhere to the management plan, the Premier will resolve the issue. The Democrats tried to have this provision included in the legislation previously when they held the balance of power in
Page 2386
this House in the first three years of the Greiner administration, but the Premier at that time did not want to have matters referred to him. It may have been Gary Sturgess who blocked it. But this Premier, John Fahey, has allowed that bid to be resolved by him, and that also includes the section on dredging. That is an interesting development.

I am impressed that the Premier would want to take that burden on himself when the previous Premier did not want to be involved in resolving such disputes. If the Premier has such a dispute before him I believe he would come out on the side of the fisheries to preserve the habitat. I hope so anyway. That obviously would be the way to go, otherwise there would be no point in having a habitat plan in the first place.

The Hon. L. D. W. Coleman: No habitat, no fish.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: No habitat, no fish; no wetlands, no fish. Honourable members would be aware that over the past six years I have attempted to conserve the wetlands along the coastline of this State. Wetland 376 at south Shellharbour has already been damaged by landfill. The Democrats are trying to protect that State environmental planning policy 14 wetland, but the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing has not yet seen fit to ensure its protection. Of course it is the Walker Corporation again going ahead with its environmental impact statement that will totally wipe out wetland 376 if it is allowed. I do not think New South Wales Fisheries will allow that to happen; it has the power to protect that wetland. I hope it will be protected.

The aquatic environments of New South Wales are a diverse mix of marine, estuarine and freshwater environments. The marine waters are dominated by the warm temperate zone which grades into the tropics in the Solitary Islands area. Hence we have the marine reserve. Today I had a meeting with a number of people from Coffs Harbour who wish to prevent the ocean outfall going ahead at Look At Me Now Headland. New South Wales Fisheries has written a letter indicating that it does not want the ocean outfall to go ahead because of the valuable biodiversity in that area. The biodiversity of the water is high because of the variety of zones from the tropics in the Solitary Islands down to the cool temperate zone around Jervis Bay.

The waters off the coast are generally nutrient poor. This, coupled with the relatively narrow continental shelf, means that the fish stocks of the State are fairly small - depauperate. Seventy per cent of commercially and recreationally important seafood species spend some part of their life-cycle in estuaries and are termed estuarine dependent. That is one of the reasons that it is important to protect estuaries. Acid sulphate soils were discussed recently at a meeting in the north. I hope that we can obtain a resolution to limit the damage from disturbed acid sulphate soils. I have raised this question on a number of occasions in this House. Honourable members do not realise how important it is to prevent acid sulphate soils from damaging the estuaries and fish stocks.

The majority of estuarine dependent species spawn at sea, at headlands or on the beaches. Their eggs and larvae are brought into the estuaries to settle into seagrass beds and other forms of shelter to grow. As the fish and shellfish grow they redistribute themselves to a variety of habitats such as mangroves, salt-marshes, swamp forests, reed beds and even freshwater wetlands, as many species can tolerate marked variations in salinity. I have tried to protect mangrove areas as well - for example at Ballina where an old mangrove area was destroyed. We tried every which way to stop that destruction. Regrettably we failed. The mangroves have now been bulldozed and there is a road right through the area. A road could have been constructed further north that would not have damaged any mangroves.

We tried to prevent the destruction of the SEPP 14 wetland at Iron Gates. Again we failed. For the same reason we tried to stop the construction of Dunbogan Canal estate, south of Port Macquarie - a valuable fish and koala habitat. Now there is a realisation that if the area is disturbed the acid sulphate soil runoff could cause devastation. New South Wales should not go the way of Florida or of Queensland, where so many areas have been destroyed. We still have a chance to retain what is left. One of the first battles I had in 1971-72 was to preserve a wetland at Avalon near Careel Bay, which was being bulldozed to provide playing areas. Some of the area went, but I produced information from the United States of America and managed to prevent further destruction. Fortunately that area remains intact. There are about 133 estuaries on the New South Wales coast, ranging in size and form. They include the large barrier estuaries such as the Clarence and Richmond, and coastal lakes such as Illawarra and Tuggerah. Honourable members would be aware that yesterday I asked a question about the Illawarra and the problem of damage to that particular area caused by the Public Works Department.

We have drowned river valleys such as the lower Hawkesbury and small coastal lagoons such as Lake Birroul. Inland rivers are characterised by huge variations in flow rates and fauna that is commonly opportunistic in its breeding patterns, which are linked to floods and water temperature. The golden perch has been found to migrate up to 2,300 kilometres through the Murray-Darling system, which is extraordinary. Even though we have attempted to preserve our coastal wetlands, regrettably since I first started this battle to save the wetlands in 1970 we have lost about 60 per cent of coastal wetlands, and that is an absolute disgrace, especially when it was known 20 years ago that these wetlands were valuable fish habitat and breeding grounds. I keep on telling the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing that we cannot afford to lose the wetlands, but he does not seem to pay attention to the information given to him.

Page 2387

The Hon. R. J. Webster: We are putting in new ones all the time.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Why allow the old ones to be destroyed in the first place? Time and again I have brought before the House matters about the destruction of wetlands that are being whittled away and allowed to be drained without hindrance. The Clarence River has lost 84 per cent of its seagrasses in 44 years; the Tweed River has lost 72 per cent of seagrasses and also 71 per cent of its salt-marshes; and the Macleay River has lost 35 per cent of its salt-marshes. Modification of estuaries is extensive. In New South Wales only four have very low disturbance ratings for the water body and the catchment. A further 25 have low ratings. The vast majority are disturbed to the extent that some are under threat.

Nationally, out of 16 estuaries that have fisheries value and which are under threat, eight are in New South Wales. That is disgraceful. Those estuaries include the Tweed, Richmond, Macleay and Hawkesbury rivers, Lake Macquarie, Lake Illawarra, Tuggerah lakes and Botany Bay. Approximately 21 per cent of high fisheries value estuaries are under real threat. On a national basis New South Wales has the highest proportion of estuaries - 25 per cent - with a high fisheries value. It has no estuaries with excellent water quality, compared with all estuaries in the Northern Territory. Acid soils are a serious issue on the coast, an issue on which the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the Hon. Ian Causley, has moved in recent weeks. A meeting was held in the north a few weeks ago. The Minister set up a management advisory committee to seek and implement solutions.

I should give the House some facts about acid water. Only two out of 12 drains entering the Belmore River had dissolved aluminium values below the 0.5 milligrams per litre level recommended by the Environment Protection Authority to protect aquatic life; the Tuckean Broadwater on the Richmond River last year produced water of a pH level of less than 4, enough to kill most fish, for over three months. In March this year the pH in the main river channel downstream of the Broadwater was 2.6, the same as vinegar. The environmentally and economically damaging fungal disease red spot is now linked to acid runoff. The disease affects $1 million worth of mullet alone each year. Prawn growth plummets at pH values less than 6. Prawn habitats in estuaries have been heavily affected by the drainage of wetlands and blockage of waterways by floodgates.

Reclamation and dredging will result in the loss of about 56 kilometres of seagrasses in the Tuggerah lakes system. A major mining proposal for Budgewoi Lake aims to provide funds for more of the same. Dredging, mining and reclamation are major threats also to Lake Illawarra. I raised that matter yesterday in the House but have not yet received a reply from the Minister. About six years ago I also brought before the House the issue of ballast water organisms in woodchip boats that threatened the emerging mussel aquaculture industry in Twofold Bay. The toxic dinoflagellate Alexandrium tamarense, which shut down the New Zealand mussel industry in 1993, was found on two separate occasions in 1989. One ballast tank contained an estimated 300 million toxic cysts.

The inland fish populations of New South Wales are in a parlous state because of the proliferation of dams and weirs and the overallocation of water. The trout cod is now formally classified as endangered. The Macquarie perch is absent from most of the Murray River, and downstream populations are limited to two small sites. At Bourke weir the opportunities for fish to move freely up the river and over the weir have declined from 80 per cent of the time to 15 per cent of the time. At the Euston fishway, where fish passage has been monitored for 50 years, there has been a 75 per cent decline in golden perch and a 97 per cent decline in silver perch passage over that period. The decline has occurred despite a major drop - more than 75 per cent - in the number of commercial fisherpeople in the inland.

The commercial fishing industry has a landed catch value of about $120 million a year. This has flow-on effects to local communities of at least an equivalent amount. The economic activity generated by the sale of seafood into restaurants, tourist venues, clubs and pubs has not been quantified. New South Wales has just under 2,200 commercial fisherpeople, each of whom supports another full-time job equivalent at least. The industry is operating under a 1935 Act which relies on a day-by-day bandaid approach to management. The Act does little to encourage sustainable fisheries, and the habitat provisions do not rein in the biggest developers in the State - State Government agencies. The industry does not wish to experience again collapses in stocks such as bluefin tuna and gemfish, which reached their parlous state due to lack of management. Indeed, management was only brought in when it was too late. The industry does not want the laissez-faire approach to fisheries management that dominated the 1970s and early 1980s. The industry is still paying the price for the marked expansion of fishing effort that occurred during that period.

The Fisheries Management Bill is landmark legislation, not only from a fisheries management perspective but on most resource management standards. It is a thoroughly modern piece of resource management legislation that incorporates public consultation as a central and guaranteed right; a committee that sets total allowable catches and is independent of commercial and recreational fishing interests and the Government - the Minister is not allowed to influence the decisions of the committee - the TAC committee, which is bound by considerations of ecological sustainability and the precautionary principle. The security of aquatic reserves has been vastly strengthened by ensuring that any changes to a reserve must be approved by both Houses of Parliament.

The bill allows for the declaration of habitat protection plans, and the fishing industry and environmental movement have markedly strengthened
Page 2388
these by removing the exemption for public authorities that were not bound by the provisions of such plans. The dredging and reclamation provisions of the bill have been dramatically strengthened by the fishing industry and the environment movement to close the loopholes that allowed public authorities to act against the wishes of New South Wales Fisheries in discharging its responsibilities to protect fish habitats. The bill will protect important marine vegetation from destruction and specifically mentions seagrasses as a class of plants with strict protection. It will allow third party standing to ensure that breaches of the Act can be enforced by the public and or the industry. The Premier approved of that, and I am grateful to him for doing so and for being so understanding. The former Premier, Nick Greiner, would not have allowed that to happen. The bill sets performance standards to evaluate the performance of New South Wales Fisheries and the operation of management plans. The current form of the bill is a remarkable result of agreement between the industry, the environment movement, the Government and, of course, the Independents.

I should mention the United Oyster Growers Council of New South Wales. I have met representatives from the New South Wales Shellfish Association and the Oyster Farmers Association of New South Wales. There appears to be some conflict between the two organisations. United Oyster Growers Council members produce about 15 per cent of the State's oysters. With a similar number of members, the Oyster Farmers Association produces about 70 per cent of the State's oysters. The UOGC wants to have a separate division, but having examined the matter at some length I believe that it would be superfluous. Though the organisations are not mentioned specifically and separately, of course they are included within the provisions of the Act. The oyster industry has been going through terrible times in the past few years. There has been a significant fall in production.

I have the figures from the Oyster Farmers Association of New South Wales, which show that in 1976-77 oyster farmers produced 147,000 bags of oysters; in 1981-82 it was 124,000; in 1985-86 the industry produced 103,000 bags; and in 1991-92 production had declined to 95,000 bags. The decline has been significant. There has also been falling investment and employment and little productivity growth, except for limited changes in production techniques, for example, single seed oysters. The industry has structural inefficiencies that must be addressed: 41 per cent of all leaseholders produce absolutely no oysters; 24 per cent of leaseholders are economically non-viable; 10 per cent of leaseholders have marginal viability; and 25 per cent are generally viable and produce 86 per cent of the oyster crop. It is remarkable to note how production is concentrated in the hands of relatively few highly professional leaseholders. For example, 4 per cent of leaseholders produce 39 per cent of the product, that is, more than 500 bags per leaseholder; 21 per cent produce 47 per cent of production, or between 100 and 500 bags; and the rest produce only 14 per cent of the total production.

One thousand leaseholders in New South Wales farm approximately 500 hectares. Twenty-eight per cent of all leased area is in Port Stephens, of which about 70 per cent is abandoned. That means that 1,000 hectares in Port Stephens are unproductive. I understand that recently someone bought a DUKW, an amphibian vehicle, and offered to remove or crush some of the sticks at some expense. However, the army stepped in and said it would do it for much less. The downturn in the oyster industry is a result of competition from other foods, particularly for entree dishes, and increased competition from other oyster supplying areas. In the 1970s and 1980s high interest rates posed a problem, and the introduction of the Pacific oyster in Port Stephens has had a significant impact. In the 1980s and 1990s health problems led to a loss in consumer confidence, together with the devastating heat and winter mortality losses in 1992-93.

A further factor is the increased competition for river usage from other fisherpeople and recreational water users. There has been a loss of investment confidence among oyster farmers and investment institutions, especially the banks. Of course, there has been a lack of clear policy direction from the Government. Significant internal industry conflict has occurred. However, I shall not detail that at this point. As a result of the Fisheries Management Bill, the industry will be much better off. The old Act has been enhanced to provide greater confidence for investment in a commercial industry through increased lease security and will provide oyster farmers with a greater say in the future planning of their industry. There is now a commercial industry approach, increased security of leases via aquaculture permits, appeal mechanisms, banning of navigation, improved lease renewal procedures and fair compensation.

Oyster farmers will also have an increased say in the management of the industry, with management and development plans and increased flexibility in the management of the industry through raising funds, auction, ballot arrangements, subletting and hours for farming. There will also be greater industry responsibility with lease bonds, lease survey arrangements and the fencing of leases. I hope that the oyster industry in this State will remain viable. The Australian Democrats hope that the impact of the Pacific oyster can be at least contained. It was a mistake to permit the growing of the Pacific oyster, and every effort should be made to eradicate them. However, it is now too late and they are being farmed extensively.

I have read in the media and received telephone calls about the problem this legislation is causing recreational fisherpeople. There are an estimated 1.75 million recreational fishers in New South Wales and only 2,050 professionals. The professionals are fishing on behalf of consumers, and that is about 95 per cent. The 5 per cent of recreational fishers fish only for themselves. Though there are only 2,050 professional fisherpeople, they have a major impact on providing fish for consumers. It is not true
Page 2389
to say that the bill is biased towards the minority because the minority are the professionals who supply fish in a professional way. The problem is that recreational fisherpeople are virtually uncontrolled, mainly because of the size of their vote. As well as commercial catches, recreational catches should be subjected to far more controls. The commercial industry is being pulled into line, reducing its impact, whereas recreational fishers will continue to catch undersized fish. I have received from the Fish Marketing Authority the details of undersized fish catches by recreational fisherpeople. The document states:

Indications are that the amateur fishery is concentrated on the juvenile component of the population of most fish species.

In the case of the major species captured (apart from southern herring), large numbers of fish were below the NSW legal minimum lengths.

I shall give some examples of the percentages of undersized fish and where they were caught: snapper - 97 per cent, Lake Macquarie; 93 per cent, Sydney Harbour; 95 per cent, Botany Bay; 90 per cent, Port Macquarie; and 34 per cent in Jervis Bay; bream - 97 per cent, Lake Macquarie; 64 per cent, Tuggerah lakes; 30 per cent, Sydney Harbour; 16 per cent, Jervis Bay; 26 per cent, Richmond River; 20 per cent, Clarence River; and 12 per cent, Botany Bay; luderick - 48 per cent, Lake Macquarie; 21 per cent, Tuggerah lakes; 10 per cent, Jervis Bay; 4 per cent, Richmond River; 15 per cent, Clarence River; and 17 per cent, Botany Bay; tarwhine - 85 per cent, Lake Macquarie; 93 per cent, Port Hacking; and 39 per cent, Botany Bay; flathead - 46 per cent, Tuggerah lakes; 60 per cent, Port Hacking; 47 per cent, sand flathead, Jervis Bay; 42 per cent, tiger flathead, Jervis Bay; 16 per cent, Richmond River; 35 per cent, Clarence River; and 16 per cent, dusky flathead, Botany Bay; mullet - 71 per cent, Port Hacking; whiting, sand - 89 per cent, in Port Hacking; 20 per cent, Jervis Bay; 48 per cent, Richmond River; 56 per cent, Clarence River; and 34 per cent, Botany Bay; whiting, trumpeter - 47 per cent, Botany Bay; mulloway - 47 per cent, Richmond River; and 78 per cent, Clarence River. I have scientific references for these facts.

Clearly the recreational fishing industry is having a major negative impact on our fishing stock. More controls should be placed on recreational fishers, similar to controls already in place on professionals because the majority of fish taken by recreational fisherpeople are undersized. One does not know the exact proportion of the fish being taken but we suspect they are taking far more of the stocks than they should. The fish are undersized, below the size of breeding stock. Professionals are tightly controlled, yet the recreational fishers are virtually out of control. The Government does not yet have the intestinal fortitude to address the problem, mainly because of the number of recreational fishers.

[Debate interrupted.]

The PRESIDENT: Order! It being 4.15 p.m., pursuant to sessional orders business is interrupted to permit the Minister to move the adjournment of the House should he so desire. Does the Minister so move?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: No, Mr President.

[Debate resumed.]

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Suffice it to say that this is excellent legislation. I shook the hand of the Minister when he left the Chamber following the debate, and he said, "I am a bit worried that you are supporting me". The Minister has initiated several sound reforms and he has an excellent team backing him up. We must ensure that our fishing stocks remain viable for our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren and for the next 100 or so years. We have a responsibility not to diminish the stocks for future generations. The decisions we make today should have a bearing on what happens in 100 years' time, and must maintain the level of fishing stock. That is why we must protect the habitat, including wetlands, estuaries and mangrove swamps, and prevent acid sulphate soils damaging the habitat.

We must at least maintain our existing wetlands and our mangrove swamps and, in some cases, regenerate the old ones. It is not difficult to actively regenerate our mangroves, to repair some of the damage. Active reparation should be carried out on water and land habitats. I have been saying that for many years - and that is the reason we should be considering plantations. Conservation in industry is here for the long term. We want to conserve our resources not just for the next five years but for the next 100 years. We have a responsibility to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to ensure that what we leave them is resource viable and that we do not leave them an environment which is depleted and depauperated. We must ensure that they have at least the same opportunities that we have to use our resources. I hope the bill goes some way towards enabling that to happen.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.21]: The Call to Australia group is pleased to support the Fisheries Management Bill. The objects of the bill are to conserve, develop and share the fishery resources of the State for the benefit of present and future generations. In particular, the bill has the following objects: to conserve fish stocks and protect key fish habitats; to promote viable commercial fishing and aquaculture industries; to provide quality recreational fishing opportunities, and to appropriately share fisheries resources between the users of those resources. This extensive legislation deals with the fishing industry and fishing in our State by commercial and amateur fishermen.

The measure covers a wide range of areas. I congratulate the Minister on the bill, which is the result of much hard work in bringing together so many different aspects of fisheries management and updating the Fisheries and Oyster Farms Act 1935.
Page 2390
The bill covers fishing closures, prohibited fish size, bag limits, protected fish, fishing gear, total allowable catches, and also provides general clauses relating to fisheries management. Part 3 of the bill deals with commercial share management fisheries and details how that concept will operate with the issue of shares, management shareholding rights and so on.

Part 4 covers licensing and other commercial fisheries management, fishing licences and commercial fishing boats. Part 5 covers co-operation with Commonwealth and other States in fisheries management. Fisheries are a national concern. All States and the Commonwealth are involved in fisheries management. Part 7 deals with protection of aquatic habitats. Part 8 covers administration, and part 9 provides for enforcement. Division 1 of part 9 contains definitions and interpretation provisions. Schedules to the Act deal with share management fisheries, a total allowable catch committee, a share management fisheries appeal panel, the Commercial Fishing Advisory Council, CFAC regional advisory committees and the Recreational Fishing Advisory Council.

Call to Australia has received a number of submissions on the bill. The New South Wales Commercial Fishing Advisory Council was enthusiastic in its support of the bill. Vince McDonall, executive director of that council, said in a letter to me dated 9 May that the commercial fishing industry of New South Wales strongly supports the bill and seeks my assistance in voting for it and considering amendments that may affect its operation. An attachment to that letter states that the bill has received support from the Commercial Fishing Advisory Council, Ocean Watch, the Oyster Farmers Association, the Recreational Fishing Advisory Council, the Total Environment Centre and the Australian Conservation Foundation. The bill has widespread support. Call to Australia has received submissions from, and had contact with, other groups concerned about the proposed legislation. Some of those concerns may no longer be a priority, given the large number of amendments passed in the other place. I have received an article from today's Canberra Times under the headline "Fishing Bill to be Rushed Through NSW Parliament". That article, in "The Angler's Angle" column, written by John Turnbull, claims:

. . . the Bill has been rushed through Parliament in a way that seems to be designed to circumvent the even greater public opposition that would have arisen if there had been more time for widespread debate.

The Bill is likely to be passed today even though few of the State's two million anglers know of its existence.

Its details were not issued until two weeks ago, and little information about what it contains has been available to the public. It is the most divisive piece of fisheries legislation in the history of the nation, because it gives shares in the State's fisheries to commercial fishermen, changing what were `open access fisheries' into `commercial share management fisheries'.

It gives commercial fishermen the power to make people remove anything from a fishery that interferes with commercial fishing.

As the Bill stands, it will mean a commercial fisherman will be able to order any person to remove anything such as a boat, fishing line, surfboard or diving buoy, from anywhere that a commercial fishermen wants to net.

I ask the Minister in reply to set the record straight.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: A few fishermen might think that estimations of depletion of fish stocks are erroneous, but that could be a narrow point of view.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: An emotional and exaggerated response could be made without a full understanding of the operation of the legislation. Amateur fishermen have expressed concern to me that in recent years, and particularly over the past two or three years, there has been much more fishing by commercial trawlers off popular fishing beaches where amateurs fish. At places such as Seven Mile Beach on the South Coast it is not uncommon to see a fishing boat trawling up and down not far from the beach line. Such trawling nets all available fish. Amateur fishermen who visit on holiday weekends often wonder why fish cannot be caught off those beaches.

I hope the Government will examine that issue and ensure that commercial trawlers are restricted to trawling at a distance - perhaps a kilometre - from the beach. Trawling on the beach line is an abuse of the traditional use of our beaches. Call to Australia has received submissions from the United Oyster Growers Council of New South Wales. That council says it has 150 members and all have concerns about the bill. The council claims it was not involved sufficiently in consultation, and that even though the Minister and his department have been working on the bill for two years the bill was circulated to the oyster industry only on 11 April and tabled in Parliament on 21 April.

The United Oyster Growers Council claims that the only consultation it received from the Minister was in February 1994 when it was shown a preliminary draft, but it was not allowed to take away a copy to examine its content. The council believes the Minister has been having discussions with another group of oyster growers known as the Oyster Farmers Association. Two bodies representing oyster farmers seem to have different points of view. The United Oyster Growers Council claims that it seeks to involve all growers in making decisions in a democratic process which is not followed by the Oyster Farmers Association. The council agrees that new legislation is needed but perceives problems with the bill. The council's primary concern is that part 6 of the bill lumps oyster growing in with fish under the term "aquaculture management", as if oyster farming is a new industry, whereas the former Act places fisheries and oyster farms in separate categories.

The council would like to see oyster farming placed in its own category or have a guarantee that the Government will create a separate bill dealing with oyster farming alone. Aquaculture is a separate new industry. Oyster farming has been around for well
Page 2391
over 60 years. It should be treated differently. Under this bill, oyster farmers will be required to apply to local councils for development applications whenever they make changes. That seems quite strange. I would like the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing to clarify whether it is correct that under this legislation oyster farmers will be required to apply to local councils with development applications whenever they want to make changes. Since they are often changing the way they conduct their cultivation of oysters this requirement would impair their business. If they are having problems with a particular cultivation process they need the ability to make immediate necessary adjustments on their leases.

Local councils are not adequately prepared to give such advice through the development application approval process. It seems strange to me that if oyster farmers want to make changes they would have to make applications to local councils each time. That may be a misunderstanding of their reading of this bill. If that fear could be put to rest the oyster farming group would be a lot happier with the legislation. I have also had a briefing from the Minister's office, by Paul O'Connor, Director of Fisheries Management, New South Wales Fisheries, which points out that United Oyster Growers Council members represent only 15 per cent of the State's oyster production - perhaps they have been overreacting to the legislation. I would welcome clarification by the Minister of that issue. With those remarks, I am pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL [4.35]: It gives me great pleasure to support this bill, which I believe is landmark legislation. I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and Minister for Mines on his efforts on behalf of the industry, particularly in bringing this bill to fruition. I also endorse some of the comments of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. It is a pleasure to see the Hon. R. S. L. Jones supporting the Government from time to time. Quite clearly, he has seen the light on this issue, which really is concerned with protecting a resource that would be otherwise absolutely obliterated. As with other resources, fishing needs to be managed. In the Eden area a few years ago, the blue fin tuna was completely fished out. Now the Greenseas tuna factory at Eden has to import fish from the northern areas of Australia all the way to Eden simply to process fish.

This was not entirely the fault of the local fishermen. It was in part because a number of overseas countries were trawling and overfishing the resource in that area. It is important that we manage the resource properly. I would like to bring a couple of issues to the attention of the House. The lobster industry is a very good example of overfishing. The House is aware that during the past two years the Government introduced a rock lobster plan to try to stop the obliteration of that species. The number of lobsters caught in this State by professional fishermen has dropped steadily for many years, leaving scientists and managers with fears that the stock may collapse. The Government has moved quickly to prevent any further decrease in the resource. The numbers of fishermen who can now take lobsters has been reduced to 150 and they will soon be limited to catching only their share of a total allowable commercial catch based on their catch history.

This is what managing the resource is all about. This bill will enable this philosophy of fisheries management to be extended across all of our many and varied fisheries within a framework of consultation with industry and the whole community. On this particular issue, the Government has gone to extraordinary lengths to consult all people within the industry, especially commercial fishermen. The latter are supportive of this legislation, as other honourable members have said. The protection of fish populations is essential if we are to successfully manage the total resource. This means we have to maintain our fish habitat as well as control the exploitive fisheries. The bill continues the existing provisions of the 1935 Act and provides enhancements to better define protection, bringing them together in a new part.

Though the existing Act provides protection for mangroves, the new bill will extend that protection to seagrasses and other marine plants. The existing Act provides protection for spawning beds for trout: the new bill provides protection for other critical spawning habitat for native fish. The bill will provide for habitat management plans, which will prove critical in maintaining consistent standards of fish habitat management throughout the State. The bill also continues existing provisions relating to aquatic reserves but extends them so that in the future they can be revoked only with the agreement of both Houses of Parliament. The existing Act is very weak on provisions for noxious and diseased fish, which means that even such fish as piranha cannot be declared noxious. This bill will correct that anomaly and will allow for different classes of noxious fish.

Of vital importance to native freshwater fish reproduction is the provision of fish ways in dams and weirs. These enable fish to travel across dams and weirs as part of their spawning migration. The existing Act gives the Minister the power to require that fish ways be built when a new dam or weir is constructed. This provision is carried forward into the new bill. Aquaculture is a vital part of the State's fishing industry. Oysters are the biggest contributor, with over 8,000 million dozen oysters worth $26 million being produced each year in the State. This industry alone is worth 22 per cent of the State's total fisheries production. A number of problems have occurred in recent years within this industry and the solution to these problems lies within the industry. One such problem is the festering sore of the management of the Pacific oyster, a noxious oyster which may be grown only in very restricted areas.

Also, the banks have lost faith in the oyster industry because of the collapse of a number of business operations. This bill can provide real protection for genuine farmers, large or small. One new provision which the bill will provide is for bonds on oyster leases. This will avoid the type of problems faced at Port Stephens where one grower went into
Page 2392
liquidation, leaving massive areas of derelict leases untended and an eyesore in the port. On the South Coast at Lake Wapengo and in other areas similar situations have occurred. Under the new provisions, bonds will be agreed with the industry to make sure that if a lease is abandoned funds are available to clean it up. Another provision is for aquaculture permits to be introduced. This will provide greater security for oyster farmers who currently have their oyster leases cancelled if they breach a condition of their farming operation. Under this bill, they would only have their permits cancelled, leaving them with leases they can still sell.

The bill also provides for aquaculture industry development plans and farm development plans to ensure that the industry develops in a professional way with a consistent approach to planning adopted across the State. This bill has received widespread support from the recreational fisher, the commercial fisher, the aquaculture industry and the environmental groups. It is rare that all these groups should come together in this way. I congratulate the Minister once again for his efforts in achieving such unity. This bill is for the whole of New South Wales. It is for all interest groups and everyone with an interest in our aquatic resources. It will provide the springboard which will launch the State into better fisheries management and better fish habitat management. I support the bill.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing) [4.40], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate, and particularly for their support of this fine legislation. I join other honourable members in complimenting my friend and colleague the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries for the work he has done on this bill over a long period of time. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asked if development applications are required for all leases. If leases are being renewed development applications are not required. However, a new lease requires a development application, like any other new land use development. With those remarks I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Part 1

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.42]: I move:

No. 1 Page 2, clause 3(2)(b), line 14. After "commercial fishing", insert ", recreational fishing".

Between 1.8 million and 2 million people in New South Wales are recognised as being part-time regular recreational fishers, and we want them acknowledged in this legislation.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [4.43]: This amendment, which tries to include simple recreational fishing with a promotion of viable commercial fishing and aquacultural industries, is superfluous. Those industries relate to commercial viability. We are not talking about commercial viability recreational fishing. It does not fit. In any case, it is covered under (c).

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing) [4.43]: The Government rejects the amendment.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mrs Arena Mr Macdonald
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Mr Vaughan
Mr Enderbury Mrs Walker
Mrs Isaksen
Mr Johnson Tellers,
Mr Kaldis Ms Burnswoods
Mrs Kite Mr Manson

Mrs Chadwick Revd F. J. Nile
Mrs Forsythe Dr Pezzutti
Miss Gardiner Mr Pickering
Dr Goldsmith Mr Ryan
Mr Hannaford Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Jones Mr Webster
Miss Kirkby
Mr Moppett Tellers,
Mr Mutch Mr Coleman
Mrs Nile Mrs Sham-Ho

Dr Burgmann Mr Bull
Mr Obeid Mrs Evans
Mr O'Grady Mr Jobling
Mrs Symonds Mr Samios

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Part agreed to.

Part 2

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.54], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 2 Page 12, clause 27(1)(c), lines 20 and 21. Omit "who is a fishery scientist not employed by the Government", insert instead "who is a fishery scientist and who is the director or person in charge of research in NSW Fisheries".

No. 3 Page 13, clause 30. After line 23, insert:

(3) A determination of the TAC Committee of a total allowable catch is to set out the reasons or basis for the choice of the amount of the catch.

No. 4 Page 17, clause 40(2)(e), lines 12-15. After "electrical devices" wherever occurring, insert ", chemicals".

The Opposition believes that it is necessary to amend clause 27 to ensure that taxpayer-funded scientists at the Fisheries Research Institute participate in the total
Page 2393
allowable catch estimation process. In relation to amendment No. 3, the Opposition believes that the only way to ensure that the Total Allowable Catch Advisory Committee is accountable and that its recommendations are based on fact is to give recreational fishers the opportunity to challenge, where necessary, the determination of the committee if it does not take into consideration the recreational catch. In relation to amendment No. 4, the Opposition believes it is necessary to make illegal the use of narcotics or soporific drugs in the catching of fish.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [4.56]: The second amendment of the Australian Labor Party would reduce the independence of the Total Allowable Catch Advisory Committee. The Australian Democrats cannot support that amendment. The third amendment is already spelled out in clause 40. The fourth amendment is already included in paragraph (e) of clause 40, which deals with dangerous substances. In any case, it is covered by the Clean Waters Act, so we regard it as superfluous. The Australian Democrats do not support any of the three amendments moved by the Opposition.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing) [4.57]: The Government rejects the amendments.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mrs Arena Mrs Kite
Ms Burnswoods Mr Manson
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Mr Vaughan
Mr Enderbury
Mrs Isaksen Tellers,
Mr Johnson Mr Macdonald
Mr Kaldis Mrs Walker

Mr Bull Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Chadwick Mr Ryan
Mr Coleman Mr Samios
Mrs Forsythe Mrs Sham-Ho
Miss Gardiner Mr Rowland Smith
Dr Goldsmith Mr Webster
Mr Jones
Miss Kirkby Tellers,
Mrs Nile Mr Moppett
Revd F. J. Nile Mr Mutch

Dr Burgmann Mrs Evans
Mr Obeid Mr Hannaford
Mr O'Grady Mr Jobling
Mrs Symonds Mr Pickering

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Part agreed to.

Part 3

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.5], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 5 Page 26, clause 59. After line 17, insert:

(3) A Management Advisory Committee for a fishery that is targeted by recreational fishers as well as commercial fishers is to include a representative of those recreational fishers nominated by RFAC. The Minister is to determine any dispute as to whether any such representative should be included.

No. 6 Page 26, clause 59(4), line 27. Omit "when", insert instead "at least 30 days before".

No. 7 Page 34, clause 77(7), lines 37 and 38. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 8 Page 37, clause 83(1)(a), line 30. After "being a person", insert "who has legal qualifications but".

No. 9 Page 40, clause 87. After line 17, insert:

(6) A person appearing at a hearing to give evidence as required by a summons is entitled to be paid the same fees and allowances as a witness summoned to give evidence before the District Court.

Amendment No. 5 seeks to ensure that the views of user groups are represented. Amendment No. 6 would allow the recreational fishing people to be aware of a management plan prepared by a management advisory committee. Amendment No. 7 seeks to remove direct influence of the Treasury on fishery management. The Opposition questions how a government opposed to excessive regulation could support this proposal. This Government is all about deregulation: let us have some. As to amendment No. 8, at least one of the three persons involved must be qualified in law and have an understanding of natural justice, that person being the chairman of the advisory committee. By amendment No. 9 the Opposition wants to ensure against the loss of income by a third party who might well be a witness, dragged around from goodness knows where to give evidence. There is no suggestion that his loss of income for a day, or two days, would be recompensed.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.6]: The first amendment is not applicable because the management advisory committee relates only to share management of fisheries, that is, commercial fisheries. Provisions covering the recreational fishers are contained in clause 40(2)(a). The sixth amendment is specified in the regulations and is unnecessary in any case. As to the seventh amendment, I do not understand why the Opposition has moved it; I see no reason at all for it. The eighth amendment does not necessarily allow for the person with the best qualifications to be appointed and, in any case, an accountant rather than a person with legal qualifications should be appointed.

The Hon. Judith Walker: They might not be the best qualifications if he knows what natural justice is about.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: No, we are talking about being able to add up figures. It would be more appropriate to have someone with accountancy qualifications, not legal qualifications. The ninth amendment is unnecessary because this happens in any case.

Page 2394

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing) [5.7]: The Government rejects the amendments.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mrs Arena Mr Manson
Ms Burnswoods Mr Shaw
Mr Dyer Mr Vaughan
Mr Egan Mrs Walker
Mr Enderbury
Mrs Isaksen Tellers,
Mr Johnson Mr Kaldis
Mrs Kite Mr Macdonald

Mr Bull Revd F. J. Nile
Mrs Chadwick Dr Pezzutti
Mr Coleman Mr Samios
Mrs Forsythe Mrs Sham-Ho
Miss Gardiner Mr Rowland Smith
Dr Goldsmith Mr Webster
Miss Kirkby
Mr Moppett Tellers,
Mr Mutch Mr Jones
Mrs Nile Mr Ryan

Dr Burgmann Mrs Evans
Mr Obeid Mr Hannaford
Mr O'Grady Mr Jobling
Mrs Symonds Mr Pickering

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Part agreed to.

Part 4

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.15]: I move:

No. 10 Page 47, clause 106(7), lines 19-24. Omit all words on those lines.

The clause must be omitted to be consistent with amendment No. 33 moved by the Government in the lower House.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.15]: I cannot understand why the Opposition is moving this amendment. What happens if a fisherperson becomes sick, indisposed or impecunious? The amendment would remove the capacity of the Minister to be flexible in waiving all or part of the payment. This would not be appreciated by those fisherpersons who might fall sick or come upon hard times. We cannot support the amendment.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing) [5.16]: The Government rejects the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Part agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.


Bill received and read a first time.

Suspension of certain standing orders, by leave, agreed to.


Bill received and read a first time.

Suspension of certain standing orders agreed to.


Bill received and read a first time.

Suspension of certain standing orders agreed to.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.30]: I desire to lay upon the table of the House the First Report of the Printing Committee.

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI, by leave: I ask the House to note that the Hon. K. J. Enderbury has just completed 10 years of good and faithful service on the Printing Committee.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier) [5.31]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill in its original form was introduced by the member for Auburn. In general, that bill would have had the effect of amending the Industrial Relations Act 1991 so as to, first, allow certain contract carriers to claim compensation from principal contractors on the termination of contract of carriage arrangements for the loss suffered, or the loss that may be suffered, by the carriers as a result of the termination of contract
Page 2395
of carriage arrangements; and, second, provide for the arbitration of disputes arising out of such claims for compensation.

At that stage, the Government was opposed to the bill on the basis that the existing provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, the availability of various legal remedies and commercial arbitration mechanisms, and the success of private mediation has demonstrated that there is no need for this specific entitlement to compensation. While sympathising with the plight of contract carriers, some of whom faced some uncertainty over changes occurring in the industry, the Government's view was that the original bill would have entrenched so-called goodwill payments and may have added an estimated $750 million in costs to the transport industry. These costs would have to be borne, ultimately, by the community and may have jeopardised the encouraging signs of investment and economic growth in New South Wales.

The bill was brought on for debate in another place on Thursday, 21 April 1994. Debate was adjourned on the motion of the honourable member for Manly, Dr P. Macdonald. A meeting was organised for 4 May 1994 by the Independents, in conjunction with the member for Auburn, to discuss with the various parties the impact of the bill. At that meeting it was agreed that the parties would hold discussions to resolve any outstanding matters. Since that time a number of meetings have been held between the parties, with significant concessions being made on both sides. The resolution of those matters has given rise to amendments to the original bill which have been incorporated into the bill now before this House.

In support of the spirit of co-operation and good faith which led to the resolution of these differences, the Government now supports the Industrial Relations (Contracts of Carriage) Amendment Bill 1994. In supporting the bill, the Government recognises the difficulties that can arise from the practice, found in some parts of the transport industry, whereby lorry owner-drivers pay goodwill premiums for the right to obtain work from a principal contractor. The Government appreciates the financial predicament of lorry owner-drivers who have made a large investment in such premiums and then find their contracts terminated without compensation.

The key issue for the Government in this debate has been how to assist lorry owner-drivers in this predicament, without creating further injustices for other parties and without adding unreasonably to costs in the transport industry. The Government is aware that there has been a long and fruitful process of industry consultation. As a result, there is now industry support for the revised bill. The industry has also indicated that it will continue in the spirit that led to the formulation of a satisfactory compromise over this matter and will attempt to resolve through negotiation any matters that this bill does not cover. The Government was rightly critical of the earlier version of the bill, but the bill has now been extensively revised. The serious defects of the earlier bill have been removed. The new bill represents a far more responsible effort to address legitimate problems surrounding goodwill premiums in the transport industry.

Very briefly, the bill now provides for a scheme whereby a carrier whose contract with a principal contractor is terminated may lodge a claim for compensation from the principal contractor or other relevant parties. Claims for compensation will be dealt with initially by way of conciliation conducted by a tribunal constituted by a presidential member of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission. If conciliation does not settle the claim, it is to be dealt with by arbitration conducted by a tribunal presided over by a presidential member of the commission and comprising one other member drawn from a panel of persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, are qualified to represent the interests of principal contractors and another member drawn from a panel of persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, is qualified to represent the interests of contract carriers. If a termination is found to be unfair, harsh or unconscionable, the tribunal is to determine whether or not compensation is payable and, if so, the amount.

In discussions between the parties and the Government, concerns were raised about the possibility of the revised bill being unable to assist lorry owner-drivers not covered by the Industrial Relations Act 1991. As it stands, certain categories of carriers - those defined in section 663(2) - are excluded from the operation of the Act. They are principally common carriers or are involved with matters such as livestock, primary production, mail delivery and cartage of certain household consumables. To reflect the good faith demonstrated by the parties in these negotiations, the Government is happy to receive and assess submissions from the parties on any problems that may arise from such exclusions. The Government considers that consultation and consensus are always preferable in dealing with issues which involve a variety of interests and concerns. The Government congratulates the parties on the good will shown in those negotiations.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW [5.37]: The Opposition supports the bill. As the Minister has said fairly and properly, it was sponsored through the Legislative Assembly by Mr Peter Nagle, the honourable member for Auburn, and has been the subject of consultation both with the Government and with relevant industry groups and trade unions. The Opposition is not entirely happy with every aspect of the bill but regards it as a reasonable package that can be reviewed and amended, if necessary, in the light of experience. The bill grapples with a serious problem in the transport industry which seriously affects families in this State. A practice has grown up of the purchase of trucks in work with the payment of a premium, which in many cases is disproportionate, over and above the value of a truck.

That system entails the owner-driver paying for a job and for a truck on the basis that the company or principal contractor continues to provide work and
Page 2396
thus enables the owner-driver to pay off the truck and earn a living while doing so. Legitimate debate may be raised about the propriety of buying trucks in work and paying for goodwill; indeed, it could be argued, in balance, that it is a bad practice. The problem faced by the Opposition, which the Government has faced up to, is that lorry owner-drivers found themselves on a treadmill, enmeshed in a system which might be condemned but which needed reconciliation so that they would be rescued from financial disaster and, in some cases, poverty.

Mr Nagle pioneered the bill. I have been involved in extensive consultations on the bill with industry, employer bodies and others. I had the rather happy experience, when consulting with industry, to find consensus on a couple of key issues. In many instances the consensus was that compensation ought to be paid to lorry owner-drivers who had bought a truck in work, had paid perhaps an excessive premium and then, due to termination of contract or other changed circumstances, found themselves owning trucks that could not be sold on the same basis, thus creating difficulties. I was pleased that many responsible employers recognised that there was a case for compensation.

Although from time to time I struck arguments that these people were small business people and had taken the risks, let the buyer beware, and so on, many employers did not adopt that purist laissez-faire view but perceived that the industrial and social realities called for compensation. Second, there was broad consensus that the way to determine that compensation was not to have expensive cases in the courts at the cost of a lot of time and money. In other words, the employers were dissatisfied with the litigation under the Trade Practices Act in the Federal Court. They were dissatisfied perhaps to a lesser degree with the litigation that had occurred under section 275 of the Industrial Relations Act before the Industrial Court or its predecessor.

Therefore, there was fairly widespread support for an informal, quick and inexpensive tribunal to arbitrate on these disputes. The essence of the bill, which makes it worthy of support, is that it provides for a quick arbitration mechanism with an emphasis on reconciliation or mediation prior to arbitration. The bill seeks to construct a tribunal to be presided over by a deputy president of the Industrial Relations Commission. The tribunal, at the arbitration stage, will have industry representatives and trade union representatives to assist the process of determining liability and an appropriate sum for compensation.

As the Minister has said, in the course of negotiations in recent days a number of compromises have been made and a number of changes have been effected from the original bill. I will list them briefly. There is a revised definition of contract of carriage. Certain preconditions are now applicable to the claim for compensation by lorry owner-drivers. There are appeals on not only questions of law but on the amount of compensation that will be allowed to the full Industrial Relations Commission. Some changes were suggested by the union. There are changes dealing with another tribunal which has already dealt with a matter and there are provisions about contracting out from the provisions of this statutory scheme. I do not need to summarise the provisions of the bill. The Minister has done that very well. I conclude the Opposition's support for the bill by emphasising the benefits of consultation.

I have mentioned the honourable member for Auburn on a number of occasions. I would also like to mention the co-operative and positive attitude taken by the New South Wales branch of the Transport Workers Union of Australia and its secretary, Mr Stephen Hutchins. The employer groups have also co-operated. It is, in a sense, invidious to mention individuals who have participated. However, I would like to single out Mr Peter O'Connor and Mr Nigel Ward, who, amongst many others, co-operated with the Opposition over a long period and with the Government in more recent times in order to put together this workable package. The Opposition is happy to support the bill before the House.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING [5.43]: I support the legislation for two reasons. First, when I was an engineer I had a great deal to do with lorry owner-drivers and grew to understand and have affection for them. They are the salt of the earth, very hard-working people, who often find themselves in extraordinarily difficult commercial circumstances. That is a longstanding facet of the industry. The honourable member for Auburn drew to my attention representations made to him by members of the working group, and I took the time to meet some of the wives of the lorry owner-drivers in the office of the honourable member for Auburn. One could only be absolutely struck by the terrible circumstances in which they found themselves. Whilst one could take the view that in a hard, commercial, laissez-faire world it is "buyer beware" and they should have known better, I took the view that the circumstances were unjust and unfair. This Parliament ought to be able to help them.

Second, this piece of legislation reflects well upon the Parliament of New South Wales. I say that advisedly. For approximately 12 years in Opposition in this Chamber, in spite of the numerous occasions on which there was good reason to change legislation that at first blush the Government might not have been enamoured with, there was never an occasion when the Government of the day gave the Opposition or any member a fair break. I do not say that looking back in anger; I do so looking forward in expectation. I hope those days never return to this Parliament.

There will be a time when a government controls the lower House and there will be a time when governments again tend to push things a little faster at times than they should. I suspect no government will ever control this Chamber again, and thank goodness for that. I hope the spirit that this bill encompasses remains in this Parliament for a long time to come because there has been a genuine collaboration of members from both sides of the House who
Page 2397
recognised the very real problem that these people faced. There have been difficult negotiations involving a whole gamut of people from Ministers through to senior members of the trade union movement.

At the end of the day a good result has been arrived at because there has been a spirit and a desire to do so. I would like to note the efforts of members in another place: the honourable member for Wakehurst, the honourable member for Dubbo, the honourable member for Wagga Wagga, the honourable member for Maitland, the honourable member for Cronulla, the honourable member for Tamworth, to mention a few. I am sure there were others. The Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services and the honourable member for Camden were especially interested in ensuring that this legislation was brought before the House in an orderly way.

The help and the spirit of co-operation exhibited by the Minister responsible for this legislation does her considerable credit. Last night, when she called me to tell me that a happy resolution had been achieved, I took great pleasure in saying, "Well done". I was especially proud of her at that time. This is a step in the right direction. I hope this Chamber does not lose sight of this sort of mechanism, which, in the long run, is for the benefit of the people of New South Wales. I hope there will never be an occasion in this Parliament when there is a glaring need to amend legislation and the Parliament refuses to amend it simply because the government of the day will not accept that it gets anything wrong. I can assure honourable members that governments do get things wrong, but the Parliament is here to sort them out.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Leader of the Opposition) [5.47]: I pay tribute to the sponsor of the bill, the honourable member for Auburn, Mr Peter Nagle, who has succeeded with a great deal of perseverance in obtaining justice for the lorry owner-drivers. There can be no doubt that without his persistence this bill would not be in the Chamber this evening. He has shown himself to be a worthy successor to the Hon. Peter Cox.

The Hon. JUDITH WALKER [5.48]: I also would like to join in the tributes. The tributes that are flowing make this occasion seem almost like the last day of the world and or of the Parliament. Nevertheless, it is an historic day when agreement has been reached after so many people have spent so much time trying to get this right. It is a victory for the common sense of everyone who worked on the bill. The names are legion. I have put in my two cents' worth over the last couple of years in the negotiations to arrive at an arrangement to protect the lorry owner-drivers. Honourable members probably know that for many years, though the industry would not admit it, the premium that was paid on top of the price of the truck and the contract contained an element of goodwill. Goodwill is such an intangible that it created enormous problems. The egg case would probably be the most celebrated case, which is fitting because the honourable member for Auburn, Mr Nagle, was responsible for the success of that matter.

The man responsible for our success was a member of another place. He is not with us physically today but is with us in spirit. I refer to Andrew Ziolkowski, whose passing from not only the Parliament but indeed the earth is viewed with great sadness. This large man with the gentle nature was really the architect of this legislation. His ability to bring people together ensured its success. At times some of the lorry owner-drivers were ready to give up; some of them were badly hurt, as we know from discussions with all sections of the industry.

This bill is a victory for common sense in the Parliament, and I take on board what the Hon. E. P. Pickering said. In the latter years during which the present Opposition was in government I was fairly new to the Parliament, but I realised that occasionally some amendments of the then Opposition would have enhanced legislation. But, those the amendments were opposed out of sheer bloody-mindedness and the desire to prove that we were in government. In my view, when that occurs everyone loses the plot. No one wins. We should not be here, either as a government or as an Opposition, to play political winners or losers. We can do that among ourselves at any time. For the benefit of the people, we are supposed to govern. They are the people for whom we work - the people of New South Wales. This legislation is testimony to that commonsense approach.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.51]: The Call to Australia group is pleased to support the bill. The passage of this bill will bring great satisfaction and, we hope, eventual justice when cases are heard for compensation. The bill will benefit up to 15,000 families and help to save them from financial hardship, family disintegration and health problems. This bill was passed unanimously in the other place. There had been changes made to a previous bill, providing in this bill a new definition of contract of carriage, though it is still within the spirit and intent of the previous legislation. The bill will place upon the lorry driver the onus to substantiate a claim for compensation in a determination. That test should be able to be met. The bill will allow a conciliation process to take place between the parties so as to resolve the application for compensation.

In my brief remarks I wish to put on record my congratulations to Mr Peter Nagle, the member for Auburn, who I believe should receive great credit for his tenacity and hard work in promoting this bill - perhaps I should say driving the bill - through the other place and now through this House. He had a genuine concern for the lorry owner-drivers and their families and had many meetings over the years with the parties concerned. A private member's bill involves many hours of administrative work. Congratulations to Peter Nagle! Call to Australia also congratulates the Government on its co-operation in
Page 2398
seeing the merit of the legislation and on its good will. The bill is going through with the support of all parties from both sides of the Parliament and members on the crossbenches.

Call to Australia also congratulates the companies involved in this matter, particularly Pioneer Concrete, because it set the pace when it agreed initially to provide very generous compensation of $8.8 million for those lorry owner-drivers who were finishing up with the company, and for those who were continuing an eight-by-eight-year contract. I had a number of discussions with Pioneer Concrete management as well as with management of other companies, including Boral, and with associations representing the companies which were involved with lorry owner-drivers. There was a genuine desire to find a happy solution to this problem, without going overboard and without its having a massive economic effect on those companies. We have now reached a happy solution, perhaps the best that can be achieved in this complex area. The employers also need to be congratulated on their co-operation in this matter. I am sure that the drivers to whom we have spoken over the last couple of years, and their wives, will be pleased that the bill is now going through the House. Call to Australia is pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [5.55]: On behalf of the Australian Democrats I, too, support the Industrial Relations (Contract of Carriage) Amendment Bill. As other speakers have already said, this has been an amazing day. We can be pleased that there will be a happy outcome, a joyful ending. The House will be aware that when the original bill was moved by the honourable member for Auburn it was opposed by the Government, and it was also opposed by me. I was disturbed because I had been overseas and when I returned I discovered that by some oversight some of the families of the lorry owner-drivers had been given the impression, in my absence, that we would support the original bill introduced by Mr Nagle. At that time I had consultation with representatives of the employers, particularly of the ready-mix concrete industry. I thought the bill would die.

About two weeks ago I met the honourable member for Auburn in the strangers' dining room. He came up to me and said, "About the bill". Immediately I said, "Peter, you know I will not vote for that bill". He said, "You don't understand, you don't know what has been happening". He then told me about the lengthy negotiations that had taken place between members of the Opposition, the Government, members of the industry and the lorry drivers themselves. He explained to me that a piece of legislation existed that everyone was happy with, and that his hard work and determination at last had paid off. It was not until I heard the remarks of the Hon. Judith Walker a few moments ago that I realised that the late member for Parramatta had been involved in the negotiations for so long as his illness permitted him to do so. That, too, was a magnificent effort, particularly as he was so unwell at the time.

I echo the views expressed by the Hon. E. P. Pickering. This is the way legislation should be handled. I do not believe we are doing any good when everything is handled in an adversarial manner. With many pieces of legislation, after negotiation and consultation - in this case the unions were involved as well as the employers - it is possible to reach an outcome that is satisfactory to all parties. That is surely what we are here to do. We are here to make laws for the benefit of the people of New South Wales, not merely to fight to see how many brownie points we can get for our party - even if we are in the lead-up to the State election.

I notice from the briefing paper that I have been given that during lengthy discussions a problem was raised that the revised bill might be unable to assist lorry owner-drivers not covered by the Industrial Relations Act 1991. I am informed that the Government will be happy to receive and assess submissions from parties who are in that position so that if they have problems it may be possible at a later date to amend the bill to solve problems that could arise from such exclusion. I believe, not only because of the negotiations but also because undertakings have been given by Government, that any future problems will be addressed as co-operatively as was the drafting of the amended bill; that those problems will be taken into account; that those who might be affected will be so dealt fairly; and, hopefully, their problems will be solved in due course.

I congratulate the honourable member for Auburn. I am glad that he is in the Chamber to hear what honourable members are saying. I know full well - this matter has been referred to by other speakers - that it is not easy to introduce a private member's bill, to drive it through to a successful conclusion, for it to be accepted by the Government and for it to become law. The honourable member for Auburn has every right to feel proud. I am happy to support the bill. I congratulate all those who worked on discussions and negotiations to make this bill possible.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [6.1]: The Call to Australia group supports the Industrial Relations (Contracts of Carriage) Amendment Bill. The original bill, which was introduced by the honourable member for Auburn in April, was opposed by the Government. Following extensive negotiations with industry, union representatives and lorry owner-drivers that bill was amended. The bill, as amended, became the new bill and passed the lower House this morning, with the support of all parties. Honourable members have referred to the fact that this legislation is truly good legislation. It is a time for rejoicing. This legislation will offer lorry owner-drivers and their families some relief. On a number of occasions I sat with a number of the wives of lorry owner-drivers and listened to what they had to say, and watched them cry.

When their husbands were dismissed or threatened with dismissal and were replaced by employee drivers with company vehicles the effect was devastating on these women and their families.
Page 2399
They lost all economic security. Overnight, the $50,000 or $60,000 that was the goodwill component of their contract became valueless. They no longer had an opportunity to sell it. Many lorry owner-drivers regarded that goodwill component as their superannuation. The loss of income meant that some lorry owner-drivers had to sell their homes as they could no longer meet mortgage repayments and other commitments.

This bill is the result of agreement between all sectors of the industry, the companies directly concerned, employer associations, transport unions and lorry owner-drivers. This had a traumatic effect on many families. It resulted in the death of one lorry owner-driver. Some of the wives of lorry owner-drivers who had small children were forced into the work force. They had to look for work and adjust to a whole new situation, which was enormously stressful.

I had never experienced anything like this, even though in the past I had been on the breadline many times. I felt like crying with these women - young and old - when they related how they might lose their homes and their incomes and how their marriages would be affected. It was an insight into another world. One minute their security was accepted as fact and the next minute the loss of security left them disillusioned and distraught. Every piece of legislation that goes through this Parliament impacts on every family in this State. I believe that this legislation will change for the better the lives of those families who have been affected. But, for one family in particular, this legislation is too late. We are glad that this problem has been satisfactorily resolved with good will on all sides. I congratulate the honourable member for Auburn, Peter Nagle, on persisting with this bill.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [6.5]: I support the Industrial Relations (Contracts of Carriage) Amendment Bill. I congratulate all those who were involved in formulating the bill. Despite the fact that we have other differences of opinion I congratulate the honourable member for Auburn on introducing this legislation. At one stage I was a lorry owner-driver. I ran my own trucking business. I was not involved in the unfortunate situation that these lorry owner-drivers were.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Are you a union man?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I am not a union man! I am just a free spirit. Lorry owner-drivers make this country work. Other honourable members have referred to the hurt that has been experienced by these lorry owner-drivers. I congratulate all those who have contributed to formulating this legislation.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [6.6]: Undoubtedly, the Industrial Relations (Contracts of Carriage) Amendment Bill is a moment of triumph for the honourable member for Auburn. I congratulate him. On numerous occasions I have met a number of lorry owner-drivers and their wives. It was quite harrowing for me to hear what they had gone through and were still going through. I hope this legislation works for these people and that they get whatever compensation is due. If the legislation does not work it will have to be revisited and we will have to ensure that it works next time. But it is pleasing that all parties have worked together on this legislation - the lorry owner-drivers, the transport industry, members of Parliament and the union. We hope that the co-operation that has been shown by all groups, all members of Parliament and all parties in dealing with this problem will result in fairness to these lorry owner-drivers who, in some cases, have had a terrible time. Some of them have lost their homes and their livelihoods. I hope these problems will be resolved over the next few months. If they are not, we will have to revisit this legislation.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier) [6.7], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions. Much has been said about the drafting of the bill and the spirit of collaboration between all parties in this Parliament and all parties outside it. I, too, am excited that we have achieved such collaboration. It is unusual in Parliament. I congratulate the honourable member for Auburn, Peter Nagle, and my colleague the Minister, who went through many hours of consultation and collaboration to reach this point. On several occasions members of the Cabinet grappled with this legislation. It is a triumph for collaboration and common sense. Several members made mention of the possibility that this legislation might need to be revisited. I referred to that fact in my second reading speech. I reiterate now that the Government remains committed to it. I will seek to move in Committee an amendment which is entirely mechanical in nature. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier) [6.10]: I move:

Page 4, Schedule 1(1), line 31. Omit "a panel", insert instead "the Tribunal".

This is an amendment that is purely mechanical in nature.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

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

Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly seeking its concurrence with the Council's amendment.

Page 2400

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier) [6.12]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave of the House to have the second reading speech incorporated in the Hansard.

Leave granted.

The introduction of the Board of Vocational Education and Training Bill represents a major milestone in the reform of the vocational education and training system in this State. Over the last four years or so there has been a major focus by all governments in Australia on the reform of vocational training. There has been unprecedented national agreement that investment in this area represents one of the most significant ways to improve our national economic performance. The growing national consensus on the importance of the vocational education and training system has been influenced over recent years by the publication of three major reports.

In 1989 State and Commonwealth Ministers commissioned the Deveson committee to report on the training costs of award restructuring. This report predicted a major expansion of both publicly and privately funded training and advocated that this expansion should be accompanied by structural reforms to promote a competitive training market and the establishment of nationally consistent arrangements for the accreditation and recognition of training. The report recognised that government alone could not fund the expansion of training required to meet Australia's future skill needs.

Secondly, the Finn report on young people's participation in post-compulsory education and training set targets for training and educational participation, and also proposed a set of seven key competencies as being essential for young people. The third significant report was the Employment and Skill Formation Council's report on the Australian vocational certificate training system. Unlike the first two reports, this report's recommendations are yet to be fully endorsed. Governments are awaiting the results of pilot programs before making final decisions on the implementation of a new entry level training system, to extend beyond those areas currently covered by apprenticeships and traineeships.

Since the late 1980s we have seen an increasing realisation of the importance of the vocational training sector. The growing internationalisation of our economy and the pressures placed upon industry during the recent recession have served to highlight the absolute importance of developing a more skilled work force. These forces have also highlighted the importance of developing training arrangements which are available to the work force at large, regardless of their age, gender, location or family circumstances. Much has been achieved already in New South Wales in the training reform process. In 1989 this Government introduced the Industrial and Commercial Training Act, which established a framework for the better management of entry level training in this State.

In 1990 this Government introduced major reforms to legislation governing the New South Wales TAFE Commission. It established an independent Board of Adult and Community Education and it established the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board. Successful achievement of the New South Wales TAFE Commission objective to "provide quality education and training" for vocational education and training customers is an integral component of the overall reform process for vocational education and training in New South Wales.

Particularly relevant in terms of the national agreement is the TAFE Commission's continuing effort to work towards a more efficient total training system by collaborative educational and capital planning initiatives, sharing resources with schools, universities, adult and community education centres, and private training providers and refining relationships with industry clients. The Board of Adult and Community Education has expanded the range of opportunities for the people of New South Wales to take up study, much of it of a vocational nature, for the first time, or to get back into study after an absence.

Arrangements have been developed for ensuring the quality of training through the New South Wales Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board. These standards now form part of the national framework for the recognition of training allowing a nationally recognised system of training standards. A new national qualifications framework has been recently agreed between the States and the Commonwealth which will ensure consistency in the recognition of accredited courses, training programs, training providers and credentials held by individuals. The most significant of the national agreements negotiated over recent years has been the decision of States, Territories and the Commonwealth in July 1992 to establish the Australian National Training Authority, commonly referred to as ANTA. The Commonwealth passed legislation in 1992 for this purpose.

Along with the Commonwealth Government's belated recognition of the poor funding deal it had dealt the States in relation to the vocational education and training sector came a burst of rather naive enthusiasm to take over the whole system from the States. This Government, along with most other State governments at the time, rejected this overture on the grounds that centralised control of the training system from Canberra would not be the best way to develop a flexible and responsive system. What this Government is on about is developing a training system driven by market needs rather than by bureaucrats; a system which allows for national consistency but also recognises that the States have quite different industry structures and quite different training needs.

In July 1992 the now Premier played a leading role in negotiating the ANTA agreement with the Commonwealth and the other States and Territories. It balances the national interests of the Commonwealth Government to see a nationally consistent system, addressing valid national goals for vocational education and training, with the State's primary responsibility to ensure that the specific training needs of its citizens and its enterprises are effectively addressed through its publicly funded training system. The ANTA agreement is not just about national consistency. It also represents a means by which more funding for training can be channelled from the Commonwealth to the States. Over the initial three-year period of operation of the ANTA agreement the Commonwealth has injected an additional $720 million of growth funding into national vocational education and training.

While the New South Wales share of this represents less than 10 per cent of our total State expenditure on vocational education and training, it has allowed for expansion of training in such fields as hospitality, computing, transport, business administration, engineering, health, community services and a wide range of preparatory programs. Most of the growth funding received so far has been allocated to the New South Wales TAFE Commission. However, this year, in acknowledgment of the ANTA objectives, $3 million has been allocated to a pilot private provider program. This is a demonstration of this Government's desire to broaden the training market and to allow for consistency with the ANTA agreement objectives.

Page 2401

A key aspect of the ANTA agreement is that the State should speak with one voice in its negotiation with the Australian National Training Authority. The agreement and the Commonwealth legislation require the establishment of a State training agency. Indeed, clause 10 of that agreement states that the "relationship between State training agencies and ANTA will be formally defined in Commonwealth and State legislation". A central role of this State agency is to identify the State's training priorities for the coming year and to negotiate the State's share of growth funding with ANTA to meet these priorities.

As a result of the ANTA agreement, the New South Wales Government appointed Sir Nicholas Shehadie, A.C., O.B.E., to head up an interim New South Wales vocational education and training agency. The interim agency conducted a public inquiry to determine how best this State might put in place the structures and processes required under the ANTA agreement. The interim agency consulted widely in terms of advertisements calling for submissions, and public meetings were held in metropolitan and country areas. The interim agency recommended the establishment of the New South Wales Board of Vocational Education and Training to carry out the functions of the State training agency. The board will be a policy and planning advisory body on the vocational education and training system in New South Wales.

Further, the interim agency recommended that the board consist of nine members, being an independent chair, five members appointed by the Minister, the director-general of the Department of Industrial Relations, Employment, Training and Further Education, the Managing Director of the TAFE Commission, and the Executive Director of the Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs. Accordingly, on 5 November 1993 my colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment announced the members of the board, nominated on the basis of their expertise to enable them to make a valuable contribution to the work and activities of the board. The board is chaired by Sir Nicholas Shehadie. In keeping with the terms of the Commonwealth legislation, the Minister has nominated the Board of Vocational Education and Training as the State training agency for New South Wales.

The interim agency recommended that the board should have 12 specific objects, and these have been included in the bill. They are: to advise the Minister on State vocational education and training policies in the context of State and national priorities and objectives; to promote and develop, in collaboration with other agencies, a State vocational education and training system delivering high quality and nationally recognised programs; to prepare, in collaboration with industry and vocational education and training providers, State training plans, profiles and reports based on the national strategic plan and agreed planning parameters, for approval by the Minister; to recommend to the Minister the allocation of resources to achieve optimal effectiveness and efficiency in the State's vocational education and training system; to co-ordinate the provision of statewide data on the performance of the vocational education and training system to the Minister as required; to prepare such plans and reports as may be required by the Minister and to meet the Government's requirements; to liaise with the Australian National Training Authority and other State-Territory training agencies; to commission and or conduct inquiries and foster research in vocational education and training; to promote and develop, in consultation with the New South Wales Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board, a co-ordinated and effective State system for the accreditation of courses and registration of providers; to encourage the development of innovative programs, best practice models and the creation of new partnerships between the users of vocational education and training and public and private providers; in collaboration with other agencies, to develop effective communication mechanisms for the dissemination of information about State and national developments in vocational education and training; and to advise and make recommendations on any matter referred to the board by the Minister.

These objects do not limit or restrict the statutory functions of any other bodies providing vocational education and training services under the Education Reform Act, the Technical and Further Education Commission Act and Higher Education Act. The consequential amendments to the industrial and commercial training legislation of 1989 flow from recommendations of the interim agency. That legislation has been amended to dissolve the Industrial and Commercial Training Council. The apprenticeship and traineeship regulatory functions previously exercised by the council have been transferred to the director-general of the department. The most important of these is the issuing of vocational training orders in respect of declared trades and declared callings.

Minor amendments have been made to the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Act 1990. Of these, I consider the most important to be that which, in respect of declared trades and declared callings, enables any person or body to make an application to the board for accreditation of a vocational course. This provides added flexibility for industry groups, including employer and employee associations, to become more closely involved in structured entry level training arrangements. The bill represents a major step towards the implementation of a better resourced, a better co-ordinated and a more responsive vocational education and training system for New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [6.14]: The Opposition is happy to support this bill and I will be brief in speaking to it. The bill will constitute in New South Wales a board of vocational education and training in accordance with the Australian National Training Authority Act 1992, a Federal Act. I welcome this bill as part of the contribution by New South Wales to the increasing emphasis in this country on the importance of vocational training. As to the constitution of the board, appointed by the Government, one positive is that there are four women among the nine members of the board. I know something of some of those women and I am delighted to see some gender balance. However, the Labor Party is concerned that there is no trade union representative and no representative from the teaching area. If one runs through the names of the board members one finds a focus on bureaucrats and large private companies. In a board of nine members there should have been room for the Government to have appointed a union representative and one who knew something of the training and teaching side from the point of view of the practitioner. Other than that, the Opposition supports the bill.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [6.15]: I am pleased to support this bill, for doing so gives me an opportunity to place on record the importance this Government has placed on quality vocational education and training in New South Wales. It has been one of the Government's highest priorities. I acknowledge the achievement of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism and Minister Assisting the Premier in her work with technical and further education. I acknowledge the work of the Premier who, in 1992, was instrumental in the agreement forged between the Commonwealth and the States, known as the Australian National Training Authority Agreement. Arising from that, Commonwealth legislation requires the State to set up a State training board. This
Page 2402
legislation will put in place a board of vocational education and training, to replace an interim board. I acknowledge the work of Sir Nicholas Shehadie and what he has done to steer New South Wales towards quality education and quality training.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: He is acknowledged for his work as head of the technical and further education board also.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Indeed, as the Minister reminds me, he is to be acknowledged for his work as head of the technical and further education board. No doubt the days when training could have been defined as running a couple of courses, or taking a few people to a tropical island to sit in the sun, have long gone. If we are to meet world best practices and to have industry striving to introduce skills and to recognise how to overcome structural changes, we need to have in place good quality training and good quality education. This vocational education and training bill is the Government's response. The Commonwealth has been working in this area, but it is impossible to look at this issue without recognising the significance of the New South Wales Government in giving leadership to all governments in this matter. I support the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [6.17]: I support the Board of Vocational Education and Training Bill. As other honourable members have already pointed out, one of the main requirements of the Australian National Training Authority, and of the agreement reached between the States and the Commonwealth, is the establishment of a State training agency. I am informed that this bill is the result of extensive consultations by the interim New South Wales vocational education and training agency headed by Sir Nicholas Shehadie. The bill will establish the New South Wales Board of Vocational Education and Training to carry out the functions of the State training agency. The board will be a policy and planning advisory body. It will consist of an independent chair appointed by the Minister, three ex-officio members, and five other members appointed by the Minister on the basis of their expertise and ability to make a contribution to the activities of the board. The functions of the board are listed in the bill. These were mentioned by the Minister in her second reading speech. It is not necessary to take up the time of the House by going over them. This essential legislation will serve an important purpose. I am happy to support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.18]: The Call to Australia group is pleased to support the Board of Vocational Education and Training Bill. This bill will constitute the New South Wales Board of Vocational Education and Training as the body to be nominated by the Minister as the State training agency for the purposes of the Australian National Training Authority Act 1992 of the Commonwealth. It is important to do all we can in regard to vocational education and training. We are pleased that the Government has taken this big step forward. As a result of the Australian National Training Authority Agreement the New South Wales Government appointed Sir Nicholas Shehadie to head the interim New South Wales vocational education and training agency. The agency conducted a public inquiry which led to the legislation being introduced.

The interim agency recommended the establishment of the New South Wales Board of Vocational Education and Training to carry out the functions of the State training agency. The board will be the policy and planning advisory body on the vocational education and training system in this State. The board, as recommended by the interim agency, will consist of nine members, being an independent chairman or chairwoman, five members appointed by the Minister, the Director-General of the Department of Industrial Relations, Employment, Training and Further Education, the Managing Director of the TAFE Commission, and the Executive Director of the Ministry of School Education and Youth Affairs. The Minister has announced the members of the board and that the board will be chaired by Sir Nicholas Shehadie, who was the chairman of the interim agency. We are pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier) [6.21], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions and commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Motion by the Hon. R. D. Dyer agreed to:

That the General Business Order of the Day relating to the HomeFund Legislation (Amendment) Bill be called on forthwith.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [6.22]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The cornerstone of the legislation that was passed in the last three days of the sitting of the Parliament in December 1993 is contained in section 14, namely:

It is the duty of the Minister to ensure that HomeFund borrowers who are eligible to participate in the restructuring scheme, but who are not yet participating in that scheme, are given access to impartial financial counselling and legal assistance services.

The Government believes that it is discharging that duty by providing about 10 financial advisers and five legal officers, with both categories of persons, in the view of the Opposition, being of questionable experience, to counsel and advise up to 26,000 HomeFund borrowers. The service is being provided
Page 2403
by the Department of Consumer Affairs which, in the view of the Opposition, by its deliberate inaction over the past two years has established clearly that it is not impartial with regard to HomeFund consumers. A proposal was submitted to Consumer Affairs by the Legal Aid Commission with a view to the commission undertaking the role through its suburban and country network offices. This offer was rejected.

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre undertook to prepare a comprehensive document to be used by every solicitor and financial counsellor when dealing with HomeFund borrowers. The offer was rejected on the basis that its cost, $50,000, was prohibitive. Now, clearly, the Government is seeking once again to deny severely disadvantaged HomeFund families access to professional advice, in an attempt to minimise and downplay its exposure. Quite apart from the injustice that has been suffered by HomeFund families to date, the salient point to consider is that such families are being enticed to enter into a new mortgage scheme without the benefit of proper and independent advice. In the view of the Opposition, this is asking for a mark II version of the HomeFund fiasco to resurface again in the years ahead.

To provide the necessary time and resources to establish a proper service centre, the dates for the closure of complaints with the HomeFund Commissioner and the acceptance of offers of restructuring from the Home Purchase Assistance Authority will be required to be extended for further periods of six months and three months respectively. The object of the bill is to amend the HomeFund Commissioner Act 1993, the HomeFund Restructuring Act 1993 and the Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 to deal with complaints by HomeFund borrowers and assistance to HomeFund borrowers by the Legal Aid Commission, and to adjust the period for relief under the HomeFund restructuring scheme.

The bill extends the final date by which complaints must be made to the HomeFund Commissioner by HomeFund borrowers from 31 March 1994 to 30 September 1994. The bill also extends the earliest date for cutting off offers of assistance under the HomeFund restructuring scheme from 30 June 1994 to 30 September 1994. The Legal Aid Commission will be required to provide financial counselling and legal assistance services to HomeFund borrowers who are eligible to participate in the restructuring scheme but are not yet participating in that scheme, without applying a means test or other conditions. The bill ensures that certain provisions of the Legal Aid Commission Act relating to the imposition of tests and conditions for granting legal aid, and other matters, do not apply to those financial counselling and assistance services.

The bill also makes it clear that other legal aid may still be granted to HomeFund borrowers in relation to HomeFund mortgages. The Legal Aid Commission may terminate the provision of financial counselling and legal assistance services if it considers that sufficient services have been provided to the borrower. Provision is made enabling any amounts paid to the Legal Aid Commission as contributions for the provision of financial counselling and legal assistance services to HomeFund borrowers to be paid into the Legal Aid Fund. Finally, the bill makes a consequential amendment to section 4 of the Legal Aid Commission Act 1979. Clause 1 of the bill specifies the short title of the proposed Act. Clause 2 provides that the proposed Act will commence on the date of assent. Clause 3 is a formal provision giving effect to schedule 1. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [6.27]: One wonders when the HomeFund saga will eventually be resolved. In western Sydney, outside this Parliament and in my own office I have met the HomeFund borrowers support group and a number of the people who have been caught up in the snares of the HomeFund scheme. The Minister for Consumer Affairs no doubt has tried to resolve this issue valiantly, but it is still causing problems. I have met people who have been put into the wrong categories; many of them still have trouble. It is time to resolve the issue. Though the office is attending to a great number of complaints, no doubt many of which are being dealt with adequately, this legislation should be supported.

The bill was introduced by the honourable member for Heffron who has a sincere interest in the well-being of people in the HomeFund scheme and has worked hard to reveal the inadequacies of HomeFund over the past few years. At some stages she was a voice in the wilderness. Many people have made a real attempt to resolve the difficulties of HomeFund. This is yet another attempt to do so. I doubt that one can point too many fingers at individuals, though I understand that the honourable member for Wagga Wagga and Nick Greiner have been attacked for pushing the scheme at the wrong time. I believe that was more accidental than deliberate. I have not had the opportunity to read that report in detail. It is easy to be wise in hindsight in regard to these matters.

If the Labor Party had been in government at the time it may have taken the same action. The former Liberal Minister for Housing was not necessarily at fault; it was possibly part of the ideology of the Government to move people from public housing as quickly as possible. Margaret Thatcher did that, and many people in the United Kingdom are now in trouble because the value of their homes is less than their outstanding loans. The legislation requires the Legal Aid Commission to provide financial counselling and legal assistance services to HomeFund borrowers and to extend the date by which complaints must be made from 31 March to 30 November. It also extends the earliest date for cutting off offers of assistance under the HomeFund restructuring scheme from 30 June to 30 September. Some of the extensions have already been made. I do not understand why the Government is opposing the legislation. It is appropriate that the Legal Aid Commission provide those services. Funds could -
Page 2404
and may - be made available, as funds are often found for other projects. The Australian Democrats support the legislation.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.31]: I wish to speak in relation to the HomeFund Legislation (Amendment) Bill. The Government has taken major steps to rectify the HomeFund situation by setting up the HomeFund Advisory Service. That service commenced on 14 February with 10 financial and five legal advisers. That number has increased to 13 financial advisers and seven legal advisers. Call to Australia is concerned that under the legislation all those initiatives will be scrapped and the matter will have to recommence, with the Legal Aid Commission taking over the operation. The Legal Aid Commission does not support the proposals and does not wish to assume responsibility for the HomeFund Advisory Service. The Legal Aid Commission argues that the established, impartial and specialised HomeFund Advisory Service should not be disbanded, and that is a major factor in our consideration.

The HomeFund Commissioner has the discretion to hear cases and order extensions when necessary; he has been fulfilling that role since 31 March. Since that date 36 borrowers have asked the commissioner to exercise his discretion. Of those, 24 requests have been granted, 10 are still being considered and two have been refused. For those reasons Call to Australia would prefer that the original HomeFund legislation introduced by the Government be given an opportunity to rectify the hardship occasioned to many HomeFund borrowers. The issues should be handled calmly and with little disruption. If passed, this legislation would cause considerable disruption.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing) [6.33]: I move:

That the Question be amended by the omission of the word "now" with a view to the addition at the end of the words "this day twelve months".

The Government opposes the legislation because it believes it to be unnecessary. The bill will not assist HomeFund borrowers in the way the Hon. Deirdre Grusovin, who introduced the legislation in another place, has sought. Section 14 of the HomeFund Restructuring Act requires the Minister for Consumer Affairs to ensure that HomeFund borrowers who are eligible to participate in the restructuring scheme, but have not yet done so, are given access to impartial financial counselling and legal assistance services. The Government is conscious of the need to provide a cost effective service while ensuring the impartiality, quality and consistency of the advice provided.

It was decided that this could best be achieved through the establishment of a centralised service in a Sydney central business district location under the management of the Department of Consumer Affairs. Staff with extensive experience in financial counselling, banking and the law were specially recruited and trained for the task. Key interest groups, such as the HomeFund support coalition, the Financial Counsellors Association, the Legal Aid Commission and the Law Society of New South Wales were consulted during the development phase. The Financial Counsellors Association was involved in the intensive training program.

The HomeFund Advisory Service began operations on 14 February with 10 financial advisers and five legal advisers. Since then the number of legal and financial advisers has increased to facilitate the availability of face-to-face interviews. The service now has 13 financial advisers and seven legal advisers. At the close of business on 6 May, 12 weeks after the service commenced, the service had handled 8,918 contacts with HomeFund borrowers. This number includes 660 personal interviews. Only eight formal complaints have been received. For the past four weeks personal interviews have been available in Parramatta and Penrith, and in Campbelltown since last week. Advisers have conducted interviews in Newcastle and Wollongong, and this week they are in Lismore. Weeklong visits to Gosford, Tamworth, Port Macquarie, Dubbo and Wagga Wagga will follow. Return trips to most of these centres also have been scheduled.

The effect of the bill would be to disband the HomeFund Advisory Service and require the Legal Aid Commission to set up a similar service. The Legal Aid Commission does not support the proposals. It argues that there is no need for the established impartial and specialised HomeFund Advisory Service to be disbanded. The Legal Aid Commission, an independent statutory body whose ability to establish its own guidelines for the provision of legal aid, would be compromised by the proposed amendments to this legislation, particularly as they would remove the commission's capacity to apply a means test or to seek a financial contribution, as is the case with almost all other matters. The commission staff do not have the specialised financial skills and legal knowledge of the staff of the HomeFund Advisory Service. Therefore, further recruitment and training would be required, adding to the costs and delays of resolving HomeFund borrowers' concerns.

This point was made clear to the officers of the Department of Consumer Affairs during a recent meeting when the Legal Aid Commission advised that it could not provide any resources to the HomeFund Advisory Service to assist it with its regional advisory program. Although the Legal Aid Commission is an independent statutory body, it is partly reliant on the Government for funding. There is no basis for claiming that its advice will be any more impartial than that provided by the HomeFund Advisory Service. During negotiations with the Opposition and the Independents on the HomeFund Restructuring Bill, it was made quite clear that the Department of Consumer Affairs would be responsible for establishing the impartial financial counselling and legal assistance service. No objections were expressed during the debate.

The amendment is not supported. A proposal has been made to extend the complaints period. There is no need to extend the complaints period because the HomeFund Commissioner already has a
Page 2405
discretion to accept complaints made since the complaints period closed on 31 March, six weeks ago. Since that date 36 borrowers have asked the commissioner to exercise his discretion. Of those, 24 requests have been granted, 10 are still being considered and two have been refused. The HomeFund Restructuring Act requires the commissioner to have regard to any assistance which has been granted or to which a person is entitled under the restructuring scheme when making a determination. Consequently, the commissioner will not be able to finalise any current borrowers' complaints before 30 September if the period for accepting an offer under the restructuring scheme does not end until then.

The second reading speech links the extension of time to the delays that will be caused by abolishing the HomeFund Advisory Service and establishing a new service. That is why the Government does not support that amendment. A further amendment proposes that borrowers have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of the HomeFund Commissioner to discontinue investigation of a borrower's complaint. Borrowers who have retained all legal rights - those in category C and category D under the restructuring scheme, and others who left HomeFund other than by refinancing by 31 January - still have a right to seek relief in the Supreme Court by taking action privately. This is not changed by the commissioner's decision to discontinue an investigation. Consequently, under this amendment these borrowers would be provided with two opportunities to obtain assistance from the Supreme Court. The remaining borrowers, those who have refinanced or are in categories A and B under the restructuring scheme, have limited rights to seek relief. The amendment reintroduces a right to seek relief in the courts which is inconsistent with the present scheme. Therefore, the Government does not support the amendment.

The next amendment relates to the removal of fees restriction. The HomeFund Restructuring Act amended the HomeFund Commissioner Act 1993 to prohibit any person from charging or recovering any fee for assisting another person to make a complaint or to furnish information to the commissioner with respect to a complaint. The amendment seeks to remove that restriction from any person providing legal aid, which is defined in the bill as including financial counselling and legal assistance services to HomeFund borrowers. This appears contrary to the spirit and intention of the HomeFund Commissioner legislation, that borrowers considering lodging a complaint or other information would not be charged for any legal assistance received. Hence, the Government does not support that amendment.

The next amendment relates to the earliest date for cutting off of offers of assistance being extended. The Home Purchase Assistance Authority has already extended the time in which borrowers must make a decision about the restructure. It is now only necessary for borrowers to return their assessment forms by 30 June. To date, more than 9,000 borrowers have taken this simple step, with all remaining borrowers having a further seven weeks to do so. This represents approximately 45 per cent of those borrowers still in the scheme. Those borrowers who wait until late June to lodge an assessment will then be offered assistance as appropriate during the latter half of this year, and may not finally complete the process until the end of 1994.

In addition, the Home Purchase Assistance Authority is granting extensions of time until 31 December to allow borrowers in a relationship breakdown to obtain the necessary papers so that they can complete an assessment form and participate in the restructuring scheme. The flexibility shown by the HPAA in the interests of borrowers ensures that all HomeFund borrowers will be given ample time to consider the options available to them, and to make the choice which best suits their needs. There is, therefore, no need to extend the 30 June deadline. It has already been extended by the Home Purchase Assistance Authority, in that 30 June is not the date by which borrowers must make the decision whether to participate in the restructure or not; 30 June is only the date by which borrowers have to return a completed assessment form.

Any further extension will simply drag out the time for borrowers who are anxious to participate in the restructure and to resolve the difficulties they are experiencing with their existing mortgages. The Government has already indicated that it would seriously consider any genuine request that the 30 June deadline be further extended if that would be to the overall benefit of the borrowers. Any extension of the restructure deadline will also delay the making of a determination by the HomeFund commissioner in favour of borrowers eligible to participate in the restructure. This arises under section 15(9) of the HomeFund Restructuring Act, wherein the commissioner is required to have regard to any assistance the borrower is granted or entitled to under the restructuring scheme. As with the extension of the cutoff date for complaints, this extension of time is linked to the delays that will be caused by establishing another advisory service. The Government does not support that amendment.

I want to make several brief points. One is that I appreciate the efforts that have been made by all honourable members of this House to resolve this very difficult question of the HomeFund scheme. I appreciate the interest shown by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile, and also by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, both of whom have taken an objective look at the HomeFund scheme and its relationship to the other areas of housing which we all know are so important. I want to add two more things. I have had meetings with most honourable members, particularly Clover Moore in the other place, and I informed Clover Moore and the Hon. Deirdre Grusovin today that I have reached agreement with the Law Society on the question of legal assistance to HomeFund borrowers who are restructuring their contracts.

Page 2406

I have reached agreement on fees; I have reached agreement that the Law Society will consult with the HPAA on simplifying the contracts and also on a method of training and accreditation of those solicitors who express interest in servicing HomeFund clients. I believe that was an important step forward. I also spoke briefly to David Vaile from the HomeFund support coalition this morning. It has late today made a submission to me on the need for appropriate advice to borrowers wishing to take up an offer under the HomeFund restructure. I give an assurance that the Government is mindful of the need to ensure that all borrowers who take up an offer of assistance do so with their eyes open. It is accepted that training will be made available to solicitors assisting borrowers and executing documents associated with the restructure.

The Government is also agreeable to allowing a 14-day cooling off period after new contracts are entered into. Other issues raised by the Homefund support coalition are being considered. They include the position of category D borrowers in respect of capitalisation of arrears and the opportunity to transfer to category C. Some technical issues need to be resolved, but I can give an assurance to honourable members that the position of these borrowers will be considered sympathetically and in accordance with the basic principles of the HomeFund Restructuring Act. I want to ensure that all HomeFund borrowers receive fair treatment and are given the assistance which they deserve and to which I gave a commitment when the HomeFund restructuring bill was passed in this House. I have gone out of my way to emphasise to all those involved in this - and many of them have worked extremely hard and have done a fantastic job - that they must constantly err on the side of generosity when dealing with these people. I believe that I now have the total co-operation of the panel, the Law Society and, indeed, all players in this issue.

I appeal to all honourable members to now assist the Government. I know the Hon. Deirdre Grusovin is in the gallery. If individual cases are brought to her attention and she believes people have been unjustly, unfairly or harshly treated, I appeal to her to pass their names on to me and I give my guarantee that their cases will be reopened and reassessed in a sympathetic way. I believe we all want this matter resolved as quickly as possible. It is for that reason that I moved the amendment before the House, so that we can get on with the job and get it finished.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [6.46], in reply: I thank the Hon. R. S. L. Jones for his support for this measure, and I thank those honourable members who have contributed to the debate. The Minister did not indicate, when he spoke a moment ago, whether there has been any confirmation today from the Law Society of New South Wales as a result of its discussions with the Minister. It is the Opposition's understanding that the Law Society believes that financial counselling is an integral part of the HomeFund settlement package. Despite what the Minister has just said, there was no clear indication from him as to what the position is regarding the Law Society and its belief that financial counselling is an integral part of the package. It is my understanding that the Law Society believes that, without financial counselling, appropriate legal advice and legal advice on a proper basis cannot be given.

The Hon. R. J. Webster: Financial counselling is available now.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Minister says that financial counselling is available now. During my second reading speech I referred to such financial counselling as is available and the view of the Opposition that it is of an inadequate nature. That is a matter that the bill seeks to address.

The Hon. R. J. Webster: I have invited the Hon. Deirdre Grusovin to meet with the people who are providing that financial counselling and she has not taken up the offer.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. R. D. Dyer has the call.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I express some disappointment at the stance adopted by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile in regard to the bill. It is the Opposition's understanding that the honourable member is in possession of certain items of correspondence - in particular, correspondence dated 11 May from Kylie Ribbons of Penrith, dealing with her extensive and serious problems. I will quote one passage from her letter to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile:

Already the debt has increased by $10,000 or more since I first found out there was a problem. Nobody can give me a time when this whole matter will be settled. After all is said and done they may sell the property or he can stay and rent at 25% of his gross income for 5 years. Meanwhile, the loan is locked in at 15.9% and the arrears are more than $19,000, and increasing by $1,500 per month plus interest. This being bad enough, the longer they take to make some sort of decision the arrears and the overall debt are going to be even higher.

A person in that category needs advice and assistance. Notwithstanding that, the Minister seeks to delay the second reading of the bill by 12 months. The Opposition opposes the motion. The need is so great and the problems so pressing that they should be addressed by the bill. I commend the bill.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Coleman Mr Pickering
Miss Gardiner Mr Ryan
Mr Gay Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Jobling Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Moppett Mr Webster
Mr Mutch
Mrs Nile Tellers,
Revd F. J. Nile Dr Goldsmith
Dr Pezzutti Mr Samios

Page 2407

Mrs Arena Mr Manson
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Mr Vaughan
Mr Enderbury Mrs Walker
Mrs Isaksen
Mr Jones Tellers,
Mr Kaldis Ms Burnswoods
Mrs Kite Mr Macdonald
Mr Bull Dr Burgmann
Mrs Chadwick Mr Johnson
Mrs Evans Mr Obeid
Mrs Forsythe Mr O'Grady
Mr Hannaford Mrs Symonds

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.


The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing) [6.59]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.59]: I wish to raise a matter that has caused great distress to Mrs Ferial Helmy-Kostandy, her husband and family. Mrs Ferial Helmy-Kostandy, who came to Australia with her husband and their family, has been a maths teacher at Muirfield High School at North Rocks for the past 15 years. She and her family are members of the Coptic Church. What has occurred to her has also distressed members of the community and students at the school. On 1 March Peter Richmond, principal of the school, sent her a letter saying there was to be a cut in teacher numbers.

Mrs Helmy-Kostandy, who is aged 50, had no prior warning of the contents of the letter. She was merely handed an envelope containing a notice. As soon as she opened the envelope and read the letter she became distressed and immediately left the school. She has not returned. Her husband, Gamil, said that she is shattered and has suffered physical and emotional stress as a result of the transfer. Mr Gamil Helmy-Kostandy said that his wife, the sole wage-earner in the family, is being counselled for depression and stress and is uncertain about her future. He said also that the most troubling aspect of the experience is that his wife has still not received a personal call from the principal. He said:

My wife has been treated like a second-class citizen and has not even been paid the courtesy of being told face-to-face the reasons behind her nominated transfer.

He went on to say:

We are angry about the way the headmaster has handled the matter, especially as he has known since November last year that he would have to transfer a member of staff.

This is unfair. They [the school] have shattered the life of a strong, quiet woman and in the process shattered my whole family.

Apparently Mr Richmond, the principal at the school, has not made any comment on the matter. He is supposed to have discussed the matter with other teachers at the school, Mr John Brodie and the deputy-principal, Mr Lyall Woods. The director of The Hills cluster, Graeme Nicholls, said staff at Muirfield had been told of the nominated transfer process in November 1993, and that a meeting on 28 February had been asked for transfer volunteers. As a volunteer was not forthcoming and Mr Brodie was unable to nominate a teacher, the decision was left solely with Mr Richmond. So Mr Richmond made the decision on his own.

In his letter Mr Richmond said the decision was not an easy one to make and it was made in relation to the whole school's curriculum staffing needs. Mr Nicholls has issued an invitation to Mrs Helmy-Kostandy to discuss the matter, but has supported Mr Richmond's decision. He said that transfers are always difficult but someone has to be nominated. He said also that if Mrs Helmy-Kostandy has concerns, she is welcome to contact him. The matter has now been taken up by the New South Wales Teachers Federation. It has sent a letter to Mrs Helmy-Kostandy, of which I have a copy. The covering letter is from David Wynne, the welfare officer from the New South Wales Teachers Federation. He said:

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of a letter we have sent to Mr Dicker at the Department of School Education regarding your matter.

The letter from the New South Wales Teachers Federation is signed by John Hennessy, the General Secretary. The letter is addressed to Mr Dicker, the Director of Personnel, Department of School Education, Metropolitan West Region, Parramatta Education Resource Centre, and reads:

Dear Mr. Dicker,

I write in regard to Mrs. Ferial Helmy-Kostandy . . . a teacher at Muirfield High School.

Mrs Helmy-Kostandy was given a letter via her Head Teacher indicating that she was to be a nominated transfer. The Head Teacher as far as Mrs Helmy-Kostandy was aware had no knowledge of what was the content of this letter, and he had been asked to pass this letter on to Mrs Helmy-Kostandy.

Clearly the Federation views with extreme concern the way in which this information was coldly passed on to Mrs Helmy-Kostandy. The Principal or nominee should have made a time to sit down with Mrs Helmy-Kostandy and carefully go through the decision made. The result of the way in which this was handled is that Mrs Helmy-Kostandy's health has been seriously affected, which is of particular concern to the Federation and will now be a concern to the Department in relation to a Workers Compensation claim.

I would ask that an apology be provided to Mrs Helmy-Kostandy, I would also request that in future decisions of nominated transfers at this or any other school be done in person in the appropriate manner.

Yours sincerely,

JOHN HENNESSY

GENERAL SECRETARY

Page 2408

There is a slight possibility that this matter has a racist aspect, because apparently what happened to this lady has happened to other teachers and those teachers all appear to have ethnic backgrounds. [Time expired.]


The Hon. J. F. RYAN [7.4]: I wish to allay the concerns of parents from the Macquarie Fields area, where there has been significant controversy during the past few weeks relating to the future of their local high school. When the Government came to office in 1988, it sought to extend access to selective high schools to students in southwestern Sydney. That was done by making the Macquarie Fields High School a selective high school. After consultation with the local community, it was noted that many parents aspired to send their kids to this school as a normal neighbourhood comprehensive school. To accommodate all needs, it was arranged for Macquarie Fields High School to be a selective high school with a mixed intake. This meant that a proportion of the normal annual intake of year 7 students would be drawn from the local neighbourhood, and a proportion of the students would be selected on the basis of their performance on a selection test, as is the case for entry into other selective high schools. It was decided also that these arrangements would be subject to review in six years.

As promised, that review has been taking place. It would be fair to say that it has generated heated debate as to the future of the school. Some want the school to become fully selective, some want the school to revert to a fully comprehensive intake, and others are happy with the maintenance of the status quo. These situations are obviously very difficult. I have had the pleasure of speaking to parents, either personally or on the telephone, who have represented all views. I have also had the opportunity to speak informally with the principal of the high school, Mr Ray Darby. I could not help but note the unbelievably irresponsible comments made in the local media by one local councillor from Campbelltown City Council, who sought to exploit the debate for base political purposes.

In the past week I have taken the trouble to bring these concerns to the attention of the Minister for Education, the Hon. Virginia Chadwick. In doing so, I have strongly put the view that despite the strong arguments put by parents on all sides the Government should stick to its policy of decentralising decision-making at the school level. No attempt should be made to change the school from its current status of a mixed selective high school unless there is an overwhelming mandate for change endorsed by the local community, particularly from parents within that locality. Although there has been strongly voiced support for change, I do not believe those views are widely held. I understand the Minister will make a decision on this matter in a week or two, after she has received recommendations from the review committee. Of course I expect she will have to seriously consider any recommendation from the review committee, but for my part I urge her to maintain the status quo and allow the school to continue as a mixed selective high school. In my view that is the position that enjoys the strongest level of support within that community.


The Hon. R. D. DYER [7.7]: I wish to raise concerns expressed to me by Mr Maurie O'Sullivan, the President of the Public Service Association of New South Wales, resulting from the closure of residential care units and unacceptable workloads borne by care and protection workers in the Department of Community Services. Particular concerns have been expressed to me regarding the position in the Hunter region of the State. Mr O'Sullivan has advised me of frequent claims by departmental officers of insufficient time to make properly considered decisions regarding critical cases; wasted time in telephoning around the State for any placement for a child; insufficient resources in substitute care; and an alarming rise in stress-related workers' compensation claims by departmental staff.

Extreme concern has been expressed in relation to the lack of resources at an area level in the Hunter in respect of substitute care placements. Contrary to public statements by the Government, I am advised that to date little or no money has been made available, as recommended in the Usher report, to meet the need for new placements. Against this background, an important facility in the Hunter with an excellent reputation - Ironbark Road, Muswellbrook - is designated for closure by the end of this year. There are no apparent or immediate plans to provide any replacement facility. The Public Service Association advises me that since successive restructures in the Department of Community Services and the downsizing of its staff by 1,000 officers during the past five years under the Greiner and Fahey governments, increased workloads have stemmed from the acknowledged increase in the child abuse notification rate and because fewer experienced and trained field workers are available to deal with the caseload.

Mr O'Sullivan tells me that there are recent examples in the Hunter Valley of district officers from the department acting in that capacity on probation for as long as two years before receiving any basic training in the general entry level training course. Similar situations have occurred in the Sydney office of the department, and also at Bathurst and Orange, where it was recently reported to the PSA that because of a combination of factors, including a high number of stress-related compensation claims, there was alternately one and then no field officer available to respond to urgent child abuse notifications, let alone maintain the existing caseload. The PSA has a very real concern that because similar situations have arisen at various times around the State, the
Page 2409
department is failing in its basic and fundamental responsibilities under occupational health and safety legislation.

To date the Greiner and Fahey governments have closed 19 residential units and 39 group homes for children at risk as part of the implementation of the Usher report recommendations. Recently the Minister promised $28 million for new services. This funding will clearly result from the sale of the few remaining facilities for children in need of care. The Opposition shares the concerns of various Children's Court magistrates that the Government's premature closing down of residential units has left State wards and other children at risk with nowhere to go for shelter other than crisis youth refuges. I call on the Government not to close any further departmental residential accommodation facilities unless and until proper replacement services are operating. I also call on the Government to implement the various recommendations referred to by the chairman of the Usher inquiry, Father John Usher, in the report as safeguards.

These safeguards include the setting up of an office of children's guardian; boards of review to assess the welfare, status, progress and circumstances of children in care; a comprehensive register of all children who come into care whether in government or non-government services; and specialist teams of psychologists, social workers and special childhood educators to assess children at risk. The matters I have raised this evening are very serious and go to the Government's undoubted responsibility to effectively give protection to children in need of care. I ask the Government and the Minister to consider carefully what I have said.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [7.11]: I wish to bring members of the House up to date with what is happening in engineering. With the successful conclusion of his year as President of the Institution of Engineers, Dr Lloyd has retired and been replaced by Professor Clyde from the University of New South Wales. Many members would be aware of major industry contributions that make our society a livable place, but many would not be aware of Australia's leadership in engineering, particularly in Asia. The marvellous Friendship Bridge was constructed and designed by Australian companies - a consortium of Maunsell Pty Limited and Sinclair Knight and Partners Pty Limited - but many members would not be aware that the Leighton Group is active in Asia, particularly in Thailand and Hong Kong, or that it has a turnover of $1.6 billion a year in its various engineering and construction companies.

The Leighton Group provides high quality engineering expertise and industrial safety standards of operation to the people of Asia. It also provides high quality accommodation and recreation for its staff as well as good conditions and awards of service. Connell Wagner, another major Australian engineering company, is heavily involved in the construction of the new Hong Kong airport. Transfield is also active in engineering and has just finished construction of a major bridge in Laos. Australia is proud of the projects carried out in New South Wales by the Public Works Department, headed by Ron Christie - a real gem in the Olympic movement - and of the large team of high-quality engineers working hard to improve quality of life not just in New South Wales but also in the Asia-Pacific region.

To that end I draw to the attention of honourable members the operations of Red-R, which is an emergency relief organisation. Red-R is a voluntary organisation of the Institution of Engineers in New South Wales. It is hoped that Red-R will be strongly supported by a large number of our major public companies to enable it to operate in much the same way as our medical teams do in times of emergency. There is no point in emergency teams helping people in disaster conditions unless they have power, water and shelter. Red-R deserves our strongest support. Its aims are in keeping with the ethos of the engineering fraternity: helping people enjoy a better quality of life. I hope from time to time to keep the House up to date with the achievements of engineers. I hope to encourage honourable members to appreciate their work and particularly the work of Mr Christie and his department, which has been more than supportive of companies working in Asia, but they are more intent on having New South Wales recognised as the humanitarian State that it is and for its support for its neighbours.

Motion agreed to.