The President (The Hon. Max Frederick Willis) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

The President offered the Prayers.


Motion by the Hon. Dorothy Isaksen, on behalf of the Hon. Patricia Staunton, agreed to:

That the reporting date for the reference to the Standing Committee on State Development relating to the closure of veterinary laboratories at Armidale and Wagga Wagga and the Rydalmere Biological and Chemical Research Institute be extended from 31 July 1996 to 16 August 1996.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer tabled the Government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues on youth violence in New South Wales.

Ordered to be printed.


Petition praying that the Oaths and Crown References Bill, which has as its objects the abolition of the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen of Australia and the removal of references to the Crown from Government functionaries, received from the Hon. J. M. Samios.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.04]: I move:

That the following important matter of public interest be discussed forthwith:

Hotel development by K. A. Cox Constructions on Parramatta Road, Strathfield.

On 2 May 1994 a Sydney builder, Mr Ken Cox, lodged a development application with Concord Council for an 18-storey hotel development on Parramatta Road in the Strathfield area. The hotel was designed to take advantage of the forthcoming Sydney 2000 Olympics and any other events to be staged on the Olympic site at Homebush. The development also incorporated a number of features which would make it a pacesetter in environmental impact. Despite the council giving Mr Cox initial hope that his hotel development was appropriate and would be approved, the development application was rejected in August 1994. Mr Cox went to the Land and Environment Court to obtain an order forcing the council to give his proposal prompt consideration after the council had subjected his application to significant delay. The matter was taken back to the Land and Environment Court in November 1994. The court also refused the development application. The hotel was considered to be unsuited to the surrounding residential precinct because of its size and traffic impact. A critical element in the court's judgment was the future of a large tract of land, partly owned by Concord Council, located 150 metres away from the site of Mr Cox's proposed hotel.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is whether this matter of public interest should be discussed forthwith. Is the member making his substantive speech?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I was simply explaining a little of the background. I will now go to why this is urgent and important.

The PRESIDENT: Does the honourable member intend to avail himself of his 15 minutes later on?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Yes.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: If it is of any assistance to the House, the Government does not oppose this matter being debated.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Honourable members will appreciate that time is a critical factor in the viability of Mr Cox's hotel proposal. Currently the only avenues available to him to redress this wrong are either a further appeal to the Supreme Court or a report to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Both of these options will take a considerable amount of time to complete. That delay could rob Mr Cox of the economic opportunities presented by the Olympic Games in the year 2000. The delay would also allow the council time to proceed with its rival development and thus benefit from the corrupt conduct that Mr Cox alleges. The State Government has the power to resolve this matter quickly and at a considerably lower cost than pursuing legal action. Under the provisions of section 101 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act the Minister can call in and override council planning powers on projects of statewide significance. This project not only qualifies strategically in its size and employment potential, but also because it will make a contribution to the success of the Olympic Games. I need only remind the House of Premier Bob
Page 3625
Carr's published comments in September last year when he warned that Sydney could face a hotel shortage for the Olympics in the year 2000. He said that at least 5,000 beds are needed before 1998 and 8,000 hotel rooms are needed by the turn of the century to cope with the demand after the Game. The matter is obviously important and urgent. Justice demands that the Government intervene and give Mr Cox a fair hearing.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.11]: The most important point I seek to make is that Concord Council misled the Land and Environment Court and, as a result, frustrated Mr Cox's hotel development. At its meeting of 23 August 1994 Concord Council gave the proposal very brief consideration after being forced to finalise the application. Accordingly, Mr Cox availed himself of his rights and took the matter to the Land and Environment Court. A critical element in proving his case was that Mr Cox had to demonstrate that his 18-storey hotel was in keeping with the surrounding development. Concord has virtually no high-rise development, even along Parramatta Road. To prove his case, Mr Cox had to refer to other potential development opportunities that might occur in the short term. Close by, 150 metres down the road from where Mr Cox proposed to build his hotel, is a five-hectare site. The land is owned by 93 land-holders; one-third of the land is owned by the council. The council successfully applied to the State Government in 1992 to have the site rezoned in a local environmental plan from residential to a category called a 10(b) enterprise zone. The land involved is located in a triangle bounded by Leicester Avenue, the main northern railway line and Parramatta Road, Strathfield. Mr Cox failed in his bid to gain approval for his hotel development from the Land and Environment Court. In his judgment, Mr Justice Bignold said:

But for my decisive preference of the Council's case in respect to the height and scale of the proposal and the impact of the proposal on the adjoining residential precinct I would . . . have been disposed to exercise planning discretion in favour of the Applicant.

The judge also referred to the relevance of the more geographically proximate enterprise zone in Concord, but concluded that Mr Cox's case was not sufficiently weighty to justify the dominating height and scale of his proposal. Justice Bignold's view may well have been changed if he had been shown the evidence I intend to table in the House today, evidence that was concealed by Concord Council. The Land and Environment Court was misled on this matter in two ways. Firstly, subpoenaed documents were tampered with so that the court did not get a true picture of the size and scale of the development that was permissible in the enterprise zone under the new LEP. Secondly, the council's senior planner, Mr Colin Pursehouse, misled the court as to whether any developer had an interest in pursuing the enterprise zone development.

Mr Pursehouse told the Land and Environment Court in a statement and in testimony that the scale of development in the enterprise zone would be significantly less than Mr Cox's 18-storey hotel. I have a drawing of Mr Cox's proposed hotel that honourable members might like to examine. Mr Pursehouse also stated that he was unaware of any application by council, to council, or intention of council, to approve high-rise hotel development in the enterprise zone. Finally, he even indicated that it was likely that in the future the enterprise zone land would be returned to residential zoning because the proposal it was based on had evaporated and there did not appear to have been any further substantial and serious interest in the proposed development. By leave I table copies of the court transcript of the cross-examination of Mr Pursehouse and his prepared statement to the court so that honourable members can read in context what he told the court.

I should like to demonstrate to the House the impact of document tampering and of the failure of Concord Council to provide all the information that had been the subject of Mr Cox's subpoena. Prior to his appeal, to Mr Cox's knowledge the only written material that described the level of high-rise development permissible in the enterprise zone under the rezoning was a couple of paragraphs contained in a consultant's report entitled "Rhodes/North Strathfield Redevelopment Corridor", which was prepared by Lester Firth Associates Pty Limited for both the council and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. This document was the subject of a subpoena, and the council should have provided the report and relevant appendices to the Land and Environment Court. During the hearing it was discovered that the original document submitted to the court did not contain pages 77 to 87 or the appendices. It was discovered that these pages had been removed after the document was in the custody of the court.

The missing pages provided the court with the only detail about the extent of the development permitted in the enterprise zone. They included a brief but telltale reference on page 85 to a 180-room international-standard hotel with a 250-space car park. The only height restriction mentioned is that the hotel should be in keeping with developments close to Strathfield railway station, that is, a permissible 17 floors. The missing pages were only supplied to the court on the last day of the hearing, and consequently were not available to Mr Cox to use in cross-examination or for further research. Concord Council mayor, Mr Peter Woods, told the press that this omission was an accident. But as honourable members will soon find out, it was a significant and a very convenient accident - and it was not the only accident.

Another document was handed to the court, apparently complete, under subpoena that also had important pages missing. The document is called "Supplementary Report on the Rezoning Proposal
Page 3626
for the Concord Business Centre" prepared by Masterplan Consultants Pty Limited, a copy of which I also have. Only after Mr Cox took the document tabled in court to Masterplan was it discovered that pages were missing from the report. The missing pages included a summary of another traffic consultant's report which was relevant to the enterprise zone called "Concord Business District Report on the Traffic Implications of A Proposed Rezoning" prepared by consultants Colston, Budd, Hunt and Twiney Pty Limited, a copy of which I also have. Masterplan also indicated that its report, which had been subpoenaed to the court, was only an assessment and summary of other reports on the enterprise zone. It could not, and should not, have been tabled and considered as a stand-alone document.

Attached to that report should have been a noise impact statement by Peter R Knowland and Associates, a document titled "Concord Business District" by John Bruce and Partners, a document titled "Concord Business District Services Master Plan" by Thomson Harris and Partners Pty Limited, and a commercial feasibility report by Jones Lang Wootten, none of which the court saw. As a result of reading those reports Mr Cox contacted architects John Bruce and Partners, who supplied him with architectural drawings which, by leave, I table. It will be obvious to honourable members that these drawings indicate a far more intensive level of development than Mr Cox's 18-storey hotel, which was to be located 150 metres away. Honourable members will notice the high-rise development that appears along Parramatta Road and that the drawings depict not one, but two 25-storey office towers.

In fact, not only are there two 25-storey office towers but there are also 19 other high-rise buildings in that development. It is acknowledged that this development did not proceed. Nevertheless, the land involved in the January 1993 LEP, which was signed off by Minister Robert Webster on the basis of the plans, drawings and reports I have tabled in the House, may be developed with high rise at any time. According to Mr Pursehouse's sworn evidence to the Land and Environment Court, no developers were showing any interest in developing the enterprise zone. That is not true either. The council owns more than one-third of the five-hectare site. It must have known, at least in November 1994 when the court case was conducted, if not earlier, that another developer was seeking to develop the site. The developer involved is a company known as Strathfield Triangle Pty Limited of 35 Arnold Avenue, Kellyville. I have a copy of a letter dated 8 October 1994 sent to land-holders within the enterprise zone by Mr Mark Lollback, Director of Laing and Simmons, Strathfield. In the letter Mr Lollback introduced himself and then said:

Our office has been approached by a company wishing to purchase your property as part of a scheme encompassing the above streets.

My responsibility is to meet with you and discuss the details of their offer.

He referred to the earlier proposal which failed, and then said:

I have been instructed to meet with you and offer a proposal that has a definite time frame and a distinct financial advantage to yourself.

I look forward to meeting with you at your earliest convenience.

By leave I table that letter. There is no doubt in my mind that the developer was seeking to consolidate the site to take up the development potential available in the local environmental plan. There is no doubt if the developer were discussing that matter with the other 92 land-holders, it would have also discussed it with Concord Council. The next letter I wish to read onto the record reveals not only that Concord Council was consulted but gives some indication of its standards of honesty. The letter is also from Mark Lollback of Laing and Simmons, Strathfield, and was individually addressed to the landholders in the enterprise zone. He said:

Continuing our monthly letters, we herein report the current position of the above proposed development.

Preliminary plans have been completed and viewed by our office.

I ask honourable members to listen particularly to this:

Agreement has been reached with council to not lodge any plans until after the local government elections in September.

I wonder why the council did not want the plans to be public knowledge before the election. By leave I table that letter. That was obviously hot stuff because the plans no doubt involved significant high-rise development. I refer to another letter from the developer of the project, Strathfield Triangle Proprietary Limited, dated 18 October 1995. Like the other letters, this letter confirms that council knew about the development proposal in September 1994. This was months before Mr Pursehouse said in court that no developer was interested, and it was around the same time that the council was considering Mr Cox's development application. By leave I table that letter.

Only one logical conclusion can be drawn from all of these circumstances. Concord Council stands to make millions of dollars from its interest in the land it holds in the enterprise zone. Mr Cox's hotel would have been a rival to the hotel the council has planned to build on its land. To maximise its return, the council has deliberately fabricated and concealed evidence spiked potential competition. I feel certain that I have demonstrated in this House beyond doubt that officers of the council did not tell the Land and Environment Court the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as they were sworn to do in court.

Most of the documents I have tabled today should have been tabled by council officers when the matter was dealt with in court. The council officers should have been frank, candid and honest
Page 3627
with the court. They should have told the court that this development was a possibility and that the council was investigating the potential of undertaking the development, and would have sought profit from it. In my view it was legitimate for Concord Council to have considered whether this development conflicted with ratepayers' interests in another place. But the council should not have sought to achieve what may perhaps have been a legitimate objective by total deception and by lying to the Land and Environment Court.

There is no doubt that by being evasive, misleading and by telling straight up and down lies council officers have successfully corrupted Mr Cox's chance of gaining a fair hearing in court for his development. I remind members that Mr Carr said that Sydney needed more hotel accommodation, and I understand the Government has approved a great amount of hotel accommodation in the city. But the proposed hotel development is close to the Olympic site. In fact, it would be one of the few hotels within strategic proximity of the Olympic site. The people who will stay in Sydney will not use Parramatta Road or Victoria Road to get to the site of the Olympic Games. It is a good idea to have hotels in that area as it will assist with traffic management.

As I have said, the Government has the power under section 101 to call in this development, and I believe it should do so. The Opposition has attempted to some extent to brief the Government about this matter. The Opposition seeks only to ensure that Mr Cox gets a fair hearing. It may well be when this matter is considered fairly the development application will still fail, but it should nevertheless be given a fair hearing. A great deal more could probably be said to support this proposal. To save the time of the House the Opposition will not attempt to take up all of the time normally allocated to a debate on a matter of public interest. I hope that the Opposition's courtesy is reciprocated by the Government giving an undertaking to ensure that this matter will be handled quickly, openly and fairly.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.24]: I support the remarks of the Hon. J. F. Ryan on this important matter. Mr Cox has visited me on a number of occasions and he has shown great concern about this matter. It is a terrible shame that this development has not been given a fair go. The much-touted green Olympics are to be held on contaminated land. The Olympics bill makes no reference to ecologically sustainable development. The proposed hotel, if given the opportunity, could be a wonderful example to the rest of the world. I use the words "could be" because that has not yet been proved. If New South Wales is to be among the world's pacesetters, as has been claimed by its political leaders, it is no use pretending to be a green developer. The State should draw on the overseas experience and international design that Mr Cox is making available.

On a number of occasions I have contacted various Ministers, including the Minister for the Olympics, about this matter on behalf of Mr Cox, and I do not seem to have been able to get anywhere. It is timely this matter has been raised by the Hon. J. F. Ryan. As I see the facts as a Green member of the House, this is a high-principle design as it relates to ecologically sustainable development. The design simply fits the bill. The development proposes a recycling system that will catch 100 per cent of the stormwater and re-use it on the property for toilet flushing and irrigation of gardens. Stormwater equivalent to six months' of the annual rainfall will be stored underground at any one time. That converts to 1,125,000 litres of stored water. That will eliminate the major problem of untreated stormwater discharging into the waterways system and, therefore, is non-pollutant. It will also eliminate the use of fresh palatable water for gardens and sanitary systems. The design proposes a 60 per cent reduction in energy usage. That will lead to the elimination of the wasting of energy and the use of airconditioning in the rooms. The supply of all hot water to the building and to individual rooms will be by the use of solar heating. The building will be heated by solar-heated water circulating through the mass of the structure. All cooking appliances will be fuelled by natural gas and the building will be naturally ventilated.

These design proposals will result in the prevention of fossil fuel burning - a matter I have argued in favour of in recent times - thereby achieving the environmental goal of reducing greenhouse gases. The proposals will also lead to the implementation of Government environmental policies pertaining to the green Olympics. The development proposes extensive landscaping internally and externally, thus reducing the visual impact of the structure on adjoining residential amenities. The building will be insulated by the use of landscaping, thus reducing energy consumption and the radiation of heat from the building, which is a contributor to global warming. All raw materials and processing used in construction will be assessed, so far as possible, on their environmental impact. For example, only plantation timber will be used. The drainage cell will be made entirely from recycled plastic. In his judgment the judge of the Land and Environment Court expressed surprise that section 65 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act does not provide a definition of ecologically sustainable development. He was forced to give judgment in relation to an environmentally important development without guidance from the Act. So how is the development to be effectively assessed?

The senior town planner of Concord Council who assessed the development admitted that he was not familiar with the national strategy for ecologically sustainable development; the greenhouse report of the chair of the ecologically sustainable development working group; the
Page 3628
integrated transport strategy for greater Sydney; "The Choice of Clean Waterways", a discussion paper on planning wastewater services for the future; or the environmental guidelines for the summer Olympic Games. In all respects the hotel development complies with and adopts the principles espoused in the policies and guidelines I have mentioned, and in many cases exceeds those requirements.

It is, therefore, imperative that this Government, which espouses the practical application of environmental principles, takes this opportunity to show that it means what it says. The Government should take this development out of the hands of council assessors who are not familiar with environmental issues, policies and guidelines. This is a matter of great importance, and the Government has the opportunity to practise what it preaches. Mr Cox should be given a fair go. As the Olympics approach, we will be shown to be hypocrites if we do not at least make an attempt to create buildings that could be the focus of world attention and make Australia, with its hot climate, a world trendsetter in ecologically sustainable development. I support the attempts of the Hon. J. F. Ryan to bring the matter to the attention of the Government.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.30]: Within a few days the Premier introduced legislation in conjunction with the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning to facilitate an environmentally damaging development by a 100 per cent Japanese-owned company at Tomago. The Premier also introduced legislation to override court processes to allow an English-owned coal company to damage Hunter Valley vineyards, but he will not take any action to assist a 100 per cent Australian-owned company to build an environmentally benign - in fact an environmentally leading - hotel on Parramatta Road in Concord. The developer, Mr Cox, sought a meeting with the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning last year but the Minister could not make the time available. I wrote to the Premier on 8 May and received a reply dated 24 June advising me that the Premier had referred the matter back to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning.

We are getting nowhere with the Premier or with the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. I have had several meetings with Mr Cox; I have examined the plans and all the information that has been put on the record by the Hon. J. F. Ryan; and I have seen a plan of the proposed development in the Concord business district. The proposed hotel, which is one of the most environmentally benign developments I have ever seen, resembles the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. I would be happy to see that development go ahead, even in my own neighbourhood. The development not only complies with but exceeds government guidelines pertaining to Olympic environmental objectives. The proposal is for a 204-room hotel-motel with an international style conference centre for 200 people; an international standard restaurant facility seating 350; and total off-street underground parking for 292 cars. The proposal addresses part of the problem of the clean-up of Parramatta Road at the intersection of the M4 motorway, less than three kilometres from the Homebush Olympic site.

The development will have 100 per cent on-site stormwater catchment and recycling, as the Hon. I. Cohen mentioned; it will utilise solar energy, providing total hot water requirements to the complex; the heating and cooling of the building will be through use of solar, non-polluting energy, eliminating the use of airconditioning in all suites; it envisages extensive use of natural ventilation and the estimated reduction in electricity consumption is of the order of 60 per cent; building timber to be used in the construction will come from plantations only; and there will be extensive landscaping, including a roof garden. Some years ago I published an article in the Sydney Living magazine suggesting that roof gardens should be established on as many buildings in Sydney as possible so that people who fly over the city see a green vista underneath and not just the roofs of buildings. The proposed development will be absolutely marvellous. It will be wonderful for those who visit Sydney for the Olympics to be able to stay in such a hotel.

The development, which would be a beacon for environmental concerns, would indicate to international visitors that Australia was taking the lead in regard to environmental issues. The proposal embraces the requirements and obligations of the green Olympics; fits in with the Montreal protocol on environmental issues; is in accord with the agreement reached at the Toronto conference in 1988; takes into account the guidelines for Australia as set out in the United Nations framework of climatic change determined at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992; and takes into consideration Australia's national greenhouse strategy of 1992. The development will provide direct employment for 350 construction workers and there will be 120 permanent staff positions in the management of the hotel. It is unfortunate that the Premier and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning have sat on their hands and have done nothing to facilitate this development.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: The Government does not want to offend Peter Woods.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: The Hon. Patricia Forsythe said that the Government does not want to offend Peter Woods. I believe that Peter Woods should be offended. Honourable members should all be offended by the inaction of the Government in not facilitating an environmentally desirable development when it is bending over backwards to assist the environmentally destructive developments of foreign-owned companies. The Government will not assist an environmentally benign development by an Australian company, which I find absolutely unbelievable. However, I
Page 3629
am finding it more and more believable as the months go by. This matter has been before the Land and Environment Court. As honourable members heard from the Hon. J. F. Ryan about the problems associated with matters that were not placed before council, I will not go into that. I should stress, however, that the proposed land is zoned for this development and the majority of residents affected by the development have voted in favour of it.

Strathfield Triangle Pty Limited, a private developer, has the full cooperation of council to erect 25-storey towers in the enterprise zone some 150 metres from the proposed development. Honourable members are no doubt aware that Sydney will be short of hotel accommodation for the Olympic Games. The proposed development, which is near the Olympic site, complies in all respects with zoning guidelines. With its attending beneficial standard-setting features it would be a credit to Sydney. Time is running out for hotels to be planned, approved and built in anticipation of the Olympics. It is time for the Premier and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning and his advisers to get of their backsides and to ensure that developments such as this become a reality. They should stop pandering to foreign-owned companies and make sure that some Australian companies get a fair go.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.36]: Call to Australia supports the motion moved by the Hon. J. F. Ryan concerning the rejection of an application by Ken Cox's company to build a 17-storey hotel near the Olympic site at Homebush Bay. Call to Australia regards the Olympic Games as an important major project for the State. Obviously, with so many overseas visitors, tremendous pressure will be placed on hotel accommodation. The Government's stated policy is to encourage developers and to expedite hotel expansion in time for the 2000 Olympics. The proposal of developer Ken Cox is in line with government policy. Having made an application to Concord Council, and having fulfilled all the various requirements, Mr Cox had his application rejected by Concord Council, which is its right, if it had adequate and just reasons for so doing. A matter of great concern is that although council rejected Mr Cox's application it is apparently negotiating and moving ahead with an application that favours another hotel developer, in close proximity to the location of Mr Cox's planned 17-storey hotel.

A newly formed company, Strathfield Triangle Pty Limited has submitted development plans to build a 25-storey international hotel together with commercial properties. According to media reports, and material that Call to Australia has received from Mr Cox - a dossier of copies of documents and correspondence with everyone involved in this matter, including the Premier - it appears that Concord Council favours the development by Strathfield Triangle Pty Limited. The suspicion is that council is seeking to negotiate the payment of $10 million from that developer for council land. It appears that what might be described as behind closed doors confidential negotiations are taking place - negotiations which have disadvantaged Mr Cox.

Call to Australia believes that these matters should all be open to scrutiny. This is a serious situation and I urge the Government to give an assurance today that the Minister will call for all documents relating to the development and will review the decision of Concord Council. The Minister might conclude that what council is doing is in the best interests of the local area, the Concord region, and the Olympic Games. Council's actions need to be tested. This is the only way in which they can be tested by the Minister. If the Minister is reluctant to review the matter and we do not get an assurance from the Government today, we may be forced to consider this matter again and refer it to the Standing Committee on State Development, the Independent Commission Against Corruption or some other body to investigate it fully. It would suit all honourable members if the Government were to give us that assurance today.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.41]: The Government has noted the points made by the Hon. J. F. Ryan and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I assure honourable members that I will raise their concerns with the appropriate Minister, the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and ensure that their concerns are well and truly investigated.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.42], in reply: I am overwhelmed by the support that this motion has received from honourable members. It appears that members on the crossbenches, members of the Opposition and some members of the Government have at least analysed the matter that I have raised in this House. That demonstrates the strength of the case that Mr Cox has been raising with me for months. In case it is thought that I misrepresented council, I will quote from the evidence given by Mr Pursehouse to the court - a document which I tabled earlier but from which I did not quote. When talking about the enterprise zone, Mr Pursehouse said:

The 10B zone would allow development at a greater scale, commercial style of development at a greater scale than probably anywhere else in the municipality but it would still be at a scale significantly less than that which is proposed here and I have set the reasons out in detail in my supplementary report . . .

The extensive document that I tabled earlier - which I probably described as a Wally World for business people - is probably a good development. Can anybody suggest that the development that has received approval is better than the development proposed by Mr Cox? Mr Cox interviewed all the residents living in the few houses located in the area
Page 3630
and established that many of them supported his proposed development. They believed that it would not only clean up Parramatta Road but also change the nature of a dangerous intersection close to the entry of the M4. At the moment many motorists are using residential streets as an alternative route in preference to Parramatta Road. The proposed development would restructure that intersection, reduce the need for motorists to avoid it and make the traffic flowing through the neighbourhood much safer. There is a great deal of support for the proposed development. The only reason that it has been frustrated is that council, in my view, has not been truthful to and frank with the Land and Environment Court.

I appreciate the support that I have received from honourable members in relation to this matter. I will take up the Government's offer to examine this matter closely. Today members on the crossbenches and others who feel strongly about this matter have approached me and said that if the Government does not respond to this development proposal seriously they want me to move a motion in this House to refer it to a select committee of the Parliament. The Government must examine this development proposal carefully, seriously and properly, because there is strong feeling about it. It is not that there is anything special about Mr Cox, but the environmental features of his development make him a pacesetter. An Australian builder, who is seeking to do something good for the city, for the Games and for his area, has been frustrated by what appears to be an unfair decision. I thank the House for giving me an opportunity to raise this matter. I look forward to the Government's response in the future.

Discussion concluded.


Debate resumed from 25 June.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [10.46]: In her contribution to debate on this legislation last night, the Hon. Ann Symonds said that this was one of the happiest occasions she had experienced during her time as a member of Parliament because she was able to speak in debate on the gun control legislation introduced by the Government. It is also one of the happiest times for me in this Parliament, because today my eldest grandson, who is eight years old, is seated in the gallery. Like all young men of that age he is interested in guns. He and his friends play games with guns, in exactly the same way as children have played games with guns over the centuries. However, because of what is happening in Australia now, with the abuse of the privilege of being able to own guns, his parents believed it would be a good thing if he heard part of the debate in Parliament today. I am very happy that he is in the Chamber and I am happy that his parents made that decision.

On Sunday 28 April when I turned on the evening news I was sickened by what I saw. Twenty-two people had been shot dead in Port Arthur and the gunman was still on the loose. On Monday morning we woke up to one of the worst massacres in Australia's history. Thirty-five people were dead - killed by bullets from two military-style semiautomatic weapons. There were no reasons why Martin Bryant was in possession of such weapons. But, of course, under Tasmania's current gun laws he was able to obtain an Armalite AR 15 semiautomatic assault rifle and a Chinese SKS assault rifle. With those weapons he was able to murder 35 people within the space of 12 hours. Since becoming a member of this House 15 years ago I have witnessed the aftermath of eight mass homicides in New South Wales alone. After each of these massacres, all of us hung our heads in shame. We proclaimed that we had now lost our innocence and that something must be done. However, I believe we should hang our heads in shame at our failure over the years to reduce significantly the level of gun violence in society.

During those 15 years several attempts have been made to substantially tighten gun control and to create a national gun register, but those attempts have not met with any success. Many national gun summits have been held, with the best of intentions, and strong recommendations have been made after each summit. But the guns have not been controlled and the mass killings continue. The opponents of gun registration must be asked by the community to advance their reasons for not wanting to restrict gun ownership. Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. In order for that privilege to exist in our society, restrictions and conditions, including the registration of all firearms, must apply. Each year more than 600 Australians die from gun-related injuries, and approximately 200 of those deaths occur in New South Wales. Most of those who die in gun-related homicides are not the victims of the mass shootings that we see on the news; they are the hidden victims of gun-related violence, women and children. Firearms are more likely to be used to kill family members than strangers or intruders, with women and children the most likely victims of gun homicide in the home. In the United States, for example, a gun is 43 times more likely to be used in the murder or suicide of a household member than against a non-family member.

We can no longer tolerate the self-interested excuses and pleas from members of the gun lobby. Why should they not have to prove themselves worthy of the privilege of gun ownership? Why should they not have to register their firearms, particularly when they are a very small percentage of the population? A New South Wales health promotion survey conducted in 1994 showed that only 26 per cent of rural households and 7 per cent of urban households contained guns. It has been estimated that only 1.5 million people in Australia own a firearm, with at least 3.5 million to four
Page 3631
million guns being held in private ownership. Although those 1.5 million people may own four million guns, for every household that has a firearm there are three households that do not.

The Australian Democrats are very pleased to support the Firearms Bill, which implements the 11 resolutions of the Australasian Police Ministers' Council held on 10 May 1996. It also implements many of the recommendations of the 1991 report of the parliamentary Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform, a committee of which I was a member. The Australasian Police Ministers' Council came about because of the tragic events in Port Arthur, and the foreword of the 1991 report served as a chilling reminder of the fact that we have all been here before. The report stated:

The Joint Select Committee Upon Gun Law Reform was established at a time when people and governments across Australia were devastated by the tragic events at Strathfield when seven people lost their lives at the hands of a gunman who had access to a military style automatic rifle. The incident was the latest in a series of massacres which had occurred in Victoria and New South Wales in recent years and galvanised Governments across Australia into accelerating their examination of firearm laws and related violence issues which had initially been the subject of a report by the National Committee on violence.

That sounds too familiar. The Australian Democrats are pleased to support the bill for two reasons, that it moves further towards the reduction of access to firearms in New South Wales and I hope that it finally represents action, after a long period of hollow words. There is no doubt that countries that have minimal access to guns have fewer gun-related deaths compared with those countries that have easier access. In the United States, for example, there are between 130 million and 200 million guns in private ownership. With a population 14 times that of Australia, America has a gun death rate 49 times higher than that of Australia.

In 1992 in New South Wales, which has a population of approximately six million, there were 40 gun-related deaths. In the same year in England and Wales, which have a combined population of more than 49 million but have much tougher gun laws, only 35 homicides were committed with guns. The Australian Democrats support the underlying principles of the legislation, namely, that firearm use and possession is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety; that the imposition of strict controls on the possession and use of firearms and the promotion of their responsible use and storage will promote public safety; and that a national approach to firearms is the most effective approach in the long run.

The Australian Democrats also support the objects of the bill, which seek to achieve gun control by regulating both the shooter, through licensing, and the actual firearms - the weapons - through registration. I shall insist on continuing to call them weapons, whatever the gun lobby may say, because a gun is a weapon and it has no purpose other than to kill either an individual or an animal. The first of the bill's objects is to prohibit the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns except in special circumstances.

In the aftermath of the Strathfield massacre in August 1991 an opinion poll conducted by the Sydney Morning Herald found that 90 per cent of Sydney residents supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons, while 67 per cent supported a ban on all guns except those required by people who needed guns specifically for their jobs. Automatic and semiautomatic weapons represent a very real danger to the community unless they are used with extreme care and for specific purposes only. Recommendation 5.2 of the report of the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform urges:

[the] prohibition on sale, possession or use of all self-loading centre fire rifles with a magazine capable of holding more than 5 rounds and all repeating shotguns, whether self loading or pump action, with a magazine capable of holding more than 5 rounds.

For the benefit of Opposition members I point out that another member of the select committee, Mr Peter Cochran, a member in another place, is a proponent of the private ownership of guns, yet he supported recommendation 5.2. The second object of the bill is to establish an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms. Recently a statewide survey commissioned by the New South Wales Department of Health of 16,000 urban and rural residents found that 92.4 per cent of urban residents and 83 per cent of rural residents supported the annual registration of all guns, while 69.3 per cent of those who said they had guns in their homes - they were not trying to hide the fact - also supported registration.

Registration of guns is necessary for many reasons. It allows the police to keep track of individual weapons and is useful in the investigation of crime. In addition, registration would allow police officers responding to a domestic violence matter to have prior knowledge of any weapons that might be in a residence. Presently there is no way of knowing exactly how many firearms are in private possession in Australia. Registration will give a clearer picture of firearm ownership and use. An article written by Sandra Egger and Rebecca Peters and published in the journal Polemic in 1992 gave a graphic example of the necessity for firearm registration. Under the headline "The Terrigal Massacre" the writers state:

The absence of a firearms register in NSW was critical in the recent killings on the Central Coast. A few weeks before, an apprehended violence order against the accused man, Malcolm Baker, was sought by one of the victims, Kerry Gannan. The court granted the order and Baker's firearms licence was revoked. The NSW law has effective domestic violence provisions: firearms licences are automatically revoked on the granting of an apprehended violence order, and the police have the power to search for and seize the now illegal firearms. But these provisions are undermined by the failure to require that firearms be registered. The police have no information whatsoever as to how many and what weapons to search for and seize.

Page 3632

In this case, after the granting of the order, the police went to the accused's home to search for firearms. They found and seized five. They did not know there was a sixth, a pump-action shotgun. This was the weapon allegedly used by Malcolm Baker to kill six people on the night of October 27. A firearms register could have saved those six lives.

The Australian Democrats are also supportive of the objects of the bill that require each person who under the authority of a licence possesses or uses a firearm to prove a genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm, to abide by strict requirements that must be satisfied in relation to the licensing of firearms and the acquisition and sale of firearms, and to ensure that firearms are stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner. While the Democrats support the object of the bill to provide for compensation in respect of certain prohibited firearms and an amnesty period to enable the surrender of such firearms, I believe that adequate compensation must be guaranteed to ensure that the prohibitions themselves are effective.

It has been suggested that inadequate compensation will lead to a significant number of gun owners hiding their weapons instead of handing them in. So I urge the Commonwealth Government to ensure that adequate compensation is forthcoming. I believe that the Prime Minister should make immediate commitments to New South Wales, as soon as this legislation is passed - which I believe will be in the next 24 hours - to guarantee that the compensation money will be available to the Government of this State no later than 1 August. Gun owners will not be prepared to go to police stations and hand in their weapons unless in return they get a receipt for those weapons and a guarantee that the Commonwealth will honour its promise to pay them the value of their weapons. I have taken up this matter with my Federal colleagues, urging them in the strongest terms to lobby the Prime Minister to ensure that that money is forthcoming, and to ensure that his was not just a promise made in the heat of the moment. I do not believe it was. I believe Mr Howard is absolutely genuine, but this State needs an absolute and concrete assurance that that money will be forthcoming.

I do not accept the arguments proffered by the gun lobby that the bill and its requirements are intrusive and that the bill infringes upon an individual's constitutional right to bear arms. After all, if registration is required for motor vehicles and dogs - and I believe quite shortly cats also will have to be registered - why should not registration be required for firearms? In Australia there is no constitutional right to bear arms. Even the so-called American constitutional right has been misinterpreted and exaggerated. We must not forget that the American Constitution was drawn up immediately after the War of Independence, when Americans were fighting for their freedom against the British. They had to bear arms at that time because otherwise they would not have been able to conduct a revolutionary war. That is why that provision is in the American Constitution; it has to do with the concept of the revolutionary war and has nothing to do with life in America today.

I do not accept the argument that the bill will not result in a safer Australia. Medical and criminal research shows that gun availability is a major determinant of gun violence and gun deaths. Figures show that firearm homicide rates correlate directly with gun availability and ownership. Also, I do not accept the arguments that all massacres are committed by mentally ill people. I quote from the media release of Dr Michael Dudley of the Prince of Wales Hospital department of child and adolescent psychiatry. In reference to Martin Bryant, Dr Dudley said:

Most people who are violent do not have schizophrenia, and most people with schizophrenia are not violent. Such violence as was witnessed at Port Arthur cannot be predicted. The best predictor is the availability of a gun. No other method could result in 35 deaths.

I do not accept the argument that if guns were not available people would be killed by other means. The fact is that people assaulted with guns are 12 times more likely to die than are those assaulted with other weapons or implements. Because of this, guns are the most common weapon used in homicides and, regrettably, in suicides. One reason that so many young men achieve suicide is that those young men used a gun. An equal number of young women attempt suicide, but they do not finalise that act because normally they use analgesics or other forms of medication, and they are able to be found and taken to hospital and therefore rescued. However depressed or unhappy a young man may be - and our report on rural suicides showed this well - the fact that a young man was able to get hold of a gun and use it in the depths of depression to end his life shows that the control and registration of guns is essential if we are to control suicide, particularly in rural areas.

A few moments ago, by way of interjection, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said that guns were also used to shoot at targets. He is perfectly right, and I accept that. The Australian Democrats have been discussing ways in which sporting shooters competing in national and international shooting events, such as the Olympics, will under the legislation before the House have a right to own weapons and take part in shooting events. The Australian Democrats certainly have no objection to that. I am pleased that the bill contains the provision that young people under the age of 18 years who learned to shoot in their earlier teens, providing they are always accompanied by an adult and are receiving training in a registered sporting association or club, will be able to continue with that sporting activity. The Australian Democrats are not against sporting shooters of that ilk being able to continue to compete either nationally or internationally, because shooting events are part of the Olympics, and those who shoot at that level would be not only fine shots but would be very responsible and highly trained people, far more so than many others in the community.

Page 3633

Finally, I commend the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister for their unfailing stance on this issue. I particularly commend the attitude and stance of Tim Fischer, once a member of this Parliament and now Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Leader of the National Party. He has stood unfailingly by what was decided by Federal Cabinet, although members of his party, particularly those in Queensland, have shown no loyalty to him and he has been put under enormous pressure. I congratulate also the New South Wales Premier and the Minister for Police on their unfailing stand on this issue and on their swift action. I note, however, from the second reading speech of the Minister for Police that a number of issues remain to be resolved by the Commonwealth and the police Ministers.

I urge resolution of those matters as soon as possible. I hope that when this Parliament resumes in September, after the winter recess, any necessary amendments that result from the meeting of the police Ministers will be introduced as a priority in the early stages of the sittings of the Houses. I am delighted at one of the statements made by the Minister for Police. He was under great pressure in another place when he introduced the legislation and when it was debated last Friday and Saturday. He made one of the most important statements on this matter that I have heard. That statement was made to his opponents. It is known that some National Party members on that occasion crossed the floor. The Minister said:

Instead of you telling me that gun registration will not work, will you please put your minds to working out a system by which it will work.

We must fight against the negative attitude of some National Party members. I am delighted that in this Chamber at least the National Party is united and will not cross the floor when a vote on the bill is taken. Once again I thank all those who have worked so hard to bring the legislation to fruition, particularly all those concerned with gun control not only in New South Wales but in other States of Australia. I am pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [11.10]: I am proud and pleased to support the Firearms Bill. Like so many members of the House I too have fought and argued on the gun issue for what seems like a decade. The bill is a culmination of all that we could have wished for. Not only are we taking part in a massive strengthening of New South Wales gun laws but we are also taking the first concrete step towards uniform national laws. I join with other honourable members in paying tribute to the work of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Premier of New South Wales and many other politicians who have helped to rescue the reputation of politicians. Over the past few months honourable members have seen a unity of purpose in a good cause, which makes me feel honoured to be able to say that I am a politician.

I was in Port Arthur a short time before the massacre. I have thought often of Port Arthur and its terrible history - a place which has an even more terrible reputation after the deaths there of 35 people. During my two-week visit to Tasmania immediately after the Federal election I noticed that most road signs had been shot up by hoons or loons who were allowed to possess any sort of weapon under the incredibly lax Tasmanian laws. The desecration of the beautiful countryside and its wildlife was evidence that Tasmania was a place where disaster with guns was waiting to happen. It is tragic that it took the Port Arthur massacre to finally galvanise us all into action, but if anything could be a suitable memorial to the people who died at Port Arthur it is the legislation that we are debating.

After many years in the Labor Women's Organisation, and with memories of the many speeches I have made in the Parliament and elsewhere on the guns issue, I am delighted that finally action is being taken. It gives me a great sense of relief that the campaign for gun reform has succeeded. I pay tribute also to the Coalition for Gun Control and other community organisations, and particularly to Rebecca Peters and Simon Chapman, for their work in recent times. I add also my tribute to trade unionists such as bank employees, who are literally in the firing line, for their work and also to the Police Association of New South Wales, a group that has received little mention. The police know the harm that guns can cause. Over the years the Police Association of New South Wales has taken an excellent position on the issue of gun reform.

I wish to refer with less praise to the opponents of gun law reform. I start with the Hon. J. S. Tingle because his contribution was the one false and discordant note in the speeches in the House during the past couple of days, just as his contribution has been the most striking discordant note in the Parliament for the past year or two. People sometimes ask me how I feel about a representative of the Shooters Party being a member of the Chamber. I have told them that it makes me feel ashamed. Regardless of the political divisions between members of the House, I believe that the Liberal Party, the National party, the Labor Party and even Call to Australia stand for ideals in which they firmly believe. It is impossible to think of a single ideal or belief for the betterment of society, the State or nation that the Shooters Party could possibly stand for. I certainly have not been proud to be a member of a Chamber housing the only representative of the Shooters Party in Australia.

That opinion was reinforced when I heard what the Hon. J. S. Tingle said last night. He said that the bill has as its purpose the disarmament of a law- abiding civilian population - as if Australians have a right to bear arms, or as if Australia wants an armed civilian population! He referred to Nazism and a political Berchtesgaden - Hitler's mountain retreat - and likened the bill to a triumphant exercise
Page 3634
of left wing ideology. Such parallels are offensive to me and to other members of the House. He said that the legislation will not prevent another massacre and that it will not make this community safer to live in. He should tell that to all the women and children who have been victims of domestic violence in their homes.

The Hon. J. S. Tingle said that the proposed legislation will not make this community safer, and that gun registration will make no difference to the use of firearms in incidents such as domestic violence. He should tell that to the people who were killed on the Central Coast by a man with a gun. Though five guns were confiscated from this man who had an apprehended violence order against him, unbeknown to the police he still had one gun. I guess, I might add in his defence, the Hon. J. S. Tingle is by no means the worst. The possibility of a Senator Ted Drane would fill all of us with horror. I was pleased to hear that comment from members of the National Party.

Ted Drane, of the Sporting Shooters Association, has visited the United States, attended conferences of the National Rifle Association, and taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in blood money from the American gun lobby. He has returned to Australia and used that money to further his cause here. A point rarely made in the debate is that the gun lobby is not merely a lot of misguided shooters who feel that they have a right to own weapons. No-one is trying to take away the rights of farmers, sporting shooters or Olympic shooters to possess guns. Those people do not make up the gun lobby. It should be emphasised that the gun lobby is financed by the gun industry. It is not an accident that the National Rifle Association in America is so rich. It is not an accident that it is willing to hand out hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Ted Dranes of this world. The gun industry is willing to do it because the sale of guns and ammunition means profit. It is a simple equation and it is about time that something was done about it. I am pleased to be here doing that. I will not deal with specific parts of the legislation. I stress that this is not the end of the gun debate as the legislation will have to be tightened up. The issues of storage of guns in the home and their location in an urban environment have not been properly addressed yet, and I will continue to fight to ensure they are.

It is clear from what was said last night that the National Party is divided on the issue of registration. I have already stressed the importance of registering individual guns as distinct from the current cry about registering gun owners. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his fine speech last night said he will support registration of guns. He made the relevant point that those who are trying to infiltrate the National Party are the same type of people who tend to appear and make themselves heard on gun ownership, gun legislation, native land title, access to wilderness areas or Asian immigration. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is perfectly right. The extreme right is the lunatic fringe in this and other debates. The Hon. D. J. Gay put the other side of the National Party argument: he is going to oppose a gun register. Later today when this House comes to deal with the amendments we will see a divided National Party.

I am proud that the Labor Party is united on this issue. Like other parties it has had fairly robust internal debate from the honourable member for Bathurst and others, but it is united on this issue, as will be shown later. I will correct a small exchange that took place last night between the Hon. J. R. Johnson and the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann which was not factual. The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann has never been censured by the Labor caucus for anything, let alone what she had said about guns. While it is true that she was mildly censured by the left caucus a couple of months ago, it had nothing to do with guns. I am pleased to support the Firearms Bill, which is a very important step forward. Like so many other people who have spoken I become emotional about gun victims that I and other members of the House have spoken about before. But this is not the time for long speeches. I conclude by saying I am proud to support this legislation and to be part of a government that has introduced it as quickly as possible.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD [11.23]: I could not speak in debate on this profound bill without acknowledging the great work that the Hon. Ann Symmonds has done over a number of years. When I joined the caucus in 1988 she led the charge to endeavour to get Labor to take a strong and sensible position on gun control after the travesties of 1987 and 1988. She copped a lot of ridicule over the years in and outside caucus for her strong and effective stand in relation to tougher gun controls. This legislation is a tribute in many ways to her and her endeavours over the years, along with those of Rebecca Peters and Simon Chapman of the Coalition for Gun Control.

This Parliament has finally shaken off the shackles of paintball Pickering. When I came into Parliament in 1988 he was strident in his approach to gun control; he wanted none of it. He wanted the proliferation of the far right-wing groups that have grown up under the ascendancy of very slack gun laws in this country. He wanted a country very similar to the United States where Rambos can run off into the bush and shoot up anything that moves; and he gave sucker, support and encouragement to them. He put his shackles over this Parliament and over the whole of New South Wales in his approach to gun control. As a consequence, for seven years the conservative coalition in this State did very little to introduce sensible gun laws. Fortunately, a different attitude has been brought about Federally by John Howard in response to the terrible massacre at Port Arthur.

The evidence of the last few years about the necessity of this legislation is incontestable. For instance, the rural suicide report shows that the rate
Page 3635
of suicide by firearms in rural municipalities and shires has risen fivefold from 2.8 to 14.8 per cent. There is evidence that different international gun policies have varying consequences on the rate of deaths by firearms. In 1992 in New South Wales, with a population of six million, 40 homicides were committed with guns. In 1992 in England and Wales, where there is a population of 49 million, eight times that of New South Wales, and very tough gun laws, 35 homicides were committed with guns. If a rate similar to that in New South Wales had applied in 1992, Britain would have had 240 killings with guns. The evidence has been pointing to the need for greater gun control. In the United States, where gun control is virtually non-existent - you can own your own tank if you like - the death rate from guns, at 15,800, is 40 times more than in New South Wales. That is an amazingly high figure and demonstrates that countries that have effective gun control laws have far fewer deaths committed by firearms or through firearms.

The Hon. J. S. Tingle continues to state the greatest fallacy and most deceptive statement delivered during the debate: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." That trite slogan has been given a run in this House. The Hon. J. S. Tingle, who has been a bit of a media mogul in years gone by, over and over again has used that statement during and prior to the debate. Martin Bryant could not have killed 35 people if he had a single-action shotgun or a single-shot .22 rifle. He killed 35 people because he had precisely the type of weapons that the New South Wales Parliament wants to control and ban. Yes, people kill people, but access to assault rifles and semiautomatic weapons makes such killing more effective in terms of the number of victims.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: He did not say that.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I am not reading his speech.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: He did not say that. When did he ever say that?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: He said it previously. I think the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has been asleep half the time, and I know he is tired and worn out from his battles with his former party. As a consequence at times he becomes tired, like his former leader. During the debate mention has been made of the rise of the loony right. The loony right is a series of organisations. A recent Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Four Corners program covered the Lyndon Larouche group in the United States and its extensions into Australia. The National Party, particularly its leader Tim Fischer, is very concerned about the operation of the Larouche group and the spreading of its insidious influence into rural New South Wales and Queensland.

The National Party has been very concerned about this racist organisation undermining the fabric of our society. Strong steps have to be taken to ensure that organisations of that type do not spread racist philosophy across this country and take advantage of those who believe that their guns are more important to them than their families. One such organisation, the Freedom Scouts, somewhere out in western New South Wales, is quite a crazy group. These groups claim that if they were to train themselves militarily they would be arrested, yet Indonesians have trained on Australian soil. They believe in conspiracy theories. They are paranoid, racist, white supremacists. They take the view that other countries, particularly Asian countries, wish to capture and take over Australia and they believe they could defend the country somehow through their little military exercises with semiautomatic weapons.

Film shot during the American attack on Iraq shows that soldiers that do not have sophisticated weaponry and modern technology have no hope against a sophisticated army. You can have all the tanks and guns you like but if you are hit with missiles - and heat seeking missiles at that - you have very little hope. That sort of view by the Freedom Scouts, that militia-style US-style nuttery that has grown up in regional New South Wales, also has to be strongly rejected. I hope that the Hon. J. S. Tingle rejects the sorts of slogans projected at the demonstrations he has been attending across the country - slogans which will clearly be illegal - such as "Don't give up your guns", which is an incitement to illegal activity in the future. He should distance himself from slogans such as "Gun culture safer than Canberra poofters culture" and "Only wusses hand in guns". These are the sorts of slogans seen at the demonstrations. I am not saying that he supported them but he should reject the fringe element opposed to gun laws.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You are verballing him.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I am not. I hope he rejects such statements being made at the demonstrations. I believe he did support the slogan "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." He should stop supporting it because the events at Port Arthur showed that people do kill people and a person with a very powerful weapon can kill an awful lot more people. I congratulate the Government on taking the steps it has. In my eight years in this Parliament I have not seen greater legislation for the long-term good of the citizenry of New South Wales. Yes, there will be people who will defy the laws, who will, as the Hon. R. S. L. Jones believes, bury their guns. And people will continue to organise politically against gun laws. But every step taken to rein in the rampant, uncontrolled gun laws of this country will be a step towards making Australia safer over the long term. It will not happen tomorrow; it will not happen next year; but over time, as education and support for the legislation spreads within the community, there will be increasing compliance and Australia will become a safer place. I support and fully endorse
Page 3636
the legislation. Once more, Madam Deputy-President, I congratulate you on your absolutely pivotal role in getting this legislation through.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [11.33]: First, I join with all members of Parliament in again extending my deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of all those who died in Australia's latest mass shooting - this century's tragic addition to Port Arthur's horrible history. As most members know, the delegates to the National Party annual general conference held at Taree a couple of weeks ago overwhelmingly carried a resolution that, in principle, supported the proposals of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister for uniform national gun laws. Just before this new phase in the public debate about Australia's firearms laws I had been reading a book which sets out the technical aspects of Canada's firearms laws and is entitled Canadian Firearms Law by Donna Lea Hawley. The preface of that book could well have been the preface to a similar book were one to be published in Australia once the legislatures of our States and Territories enact the resolutions of the Australasian Police Ministers' Council of 10 May 1996. It reads:

In 1977, Parliament -

that is, the Canadian Parliament -

introduced legislation to reform the criminal gun control provisions. This was preceded and followed by a flurry of reports, discussions and articles in the media and academic literature. It was also followed by a wave of cases which allowed the courts to interpret the various sections of the Criminal Code. The law has been somewhat clarified but the debate about the desirability of private gun ownership is far from being resolved. It is unlikely that it will be to everyone's satisfaction.

That book was published in 1988. The preface goes on to say:

Guns are part of our culture. They have been used by Canadians throughout the country's history. Although the frequency and freedom of gun ownership and use is far less than in the United States, to whom we are so often compared, guns are, and have been, a part of Canadian life. Hunting is an important sporting activity to many, a form of subsistence to others, and a business as part of the recreation and tourism industries of many communities. Target shooting is a growing sport and involves the use of many forms of firearms . . . Local, national and international competitions are allowing athletes the opportunity to achieve high levels of skills in shooting.

The book mentions that the first gold medal won by a Canadian at the Los Angeles Olympics was won by a woman pistol shooter. However, the debate in Canada goes on to this day. It is not just in rural areas of Australia that people are anxious about changes in firearms laws. Whilst I was in Saskatchewan briefly last January, nearly a decade after that great debate in Canada, to speak with members of that province's Legislature about its pioneering code of ethics, the Speaker of the House of Assembly hosted a dinner for the New South Wales delegation attended by a number of members of the Saskatchewan Parliament. It did not take long before the discussion focused upon Canada's firearms legislation and, because Saskatchewan is a province with an economic base very dependent upon its rural industries, I felt very much at home amongst those rural parliamentarians.

The issues confronting them, including the drift of population away from the rural communities to the capitals, especially the pull of the cities for young people, were those universal to rural communities. One of the issues was firearms laws. Certainly the members of that Parliament to whom I spoke volunteered their concern about Canada's firearms laws, reflecting the continuing anxiety of their provincial constituencies. A decade after Canada's major firearms debates, provincial legislators in Canada are still wrestling with the need to satisfy everyone in the debate, especially those outside the capitals.

Canadians are, of course, keen to ensure that their culture continues to be distinguishable from that existing across the border in the United States, with one of the less desirable features of US society being its level of violence and the pervasiveness of firearms, including pistols. This is one of the motivations behind the support by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of uniform firearms legislation in this country - one most Australians support - the need to act as Canada did to try to ensure that the culture of violence by firearms does not get a greater hold in our society. When contemplating my contribution to the debate on the bill, a debate that was inevitable once the news broke, ever so slowly, about the awful scenes at Port Arthur, I could not but recall the first speech I made in the Legislative Council. That was after the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform report had been presented to the Parliament, the establishment of that all-parties committee having been the Parliament's response to the horror of the Strathfield massacre. I said then:

The National Party staunchly and successfully defends the need for farmers and various other categories of shooters to have firearms and, depending on need, some high powered weapons at that . . .

I went on to say:

. . . in the modern National Party, where rednecks do not rule, that is not the end of the debate; that is not the end of our responsibility to those who are of special concern to us - the people of rural and regional New South Wales.

I also referred to rural suicides as a reason for putting time and distance between depressed people and access to firearms, a subject which was partly addressed by the tighter gun laws introduced as a result of that Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform, which provided for, among other things, tighter provisions relating to storage of weapons. It is interesting to look back upon that joint select committee report and to note that the first recommendation made by the committee - and it was placed in the primary position quite deliberately by the all-parties committee - related to firearms in domestic violence contexts. As a result of the implementation of that part of the joint select committee's report there is now greater statutory
Page 3637
backup to women who may fear for their lives if there is violence in their households - violence mixed with access to firearms.

But the legislation is also helpful in those households where there are children and there is a worry about whether firearms are stored securely. With respect to the attitudes of women voters to firearms issues, I recall that while serving as a member of that joint select committee I, like other members of my party, studied the report of the National Committee on Violence. During the inquiry I asked the Australian Institute of Criminology whether it knew of any public opinion polling which showed a difference between men and women in this country in attitudes towards firearms issues. Astonishingly, the answer was that there was no such research. It has always been my subjective judgment that many women, including country women, have a different attitude to the whole question of firearm possession and use from that of many men, including men in the same household or family. That is illustrated by the messages of support for the national gun law proposals that were sent to Prime Minister Howard by the delegates at the post-Port Arthur annual conference of the New South Wales Country Women's Association.

Honourable members may recall that after the by-elections on 25 May the New South Wales National Party Leader, the Hon. Ian Armstrong, commented on possible reasons for the swing against the National Party in two of the seats. Mr Armstrong said that one factor deleterious to the National Party's level of support at that time might have been the gun law debate that erupted after the Port Arthur tragedy. Mr Armstrong was attacked for that comment. However, he should not have been attacked because he was referring to National Party research during that campaign which showed that, on the other side of the Blue Mountains, women voters were uneasy about the National Party's reservations about committing itself to supporting what were then undrafted amendments to firearms legislation, and for continuing its long-held opposition to the registration of individual firearms.

It seems that a significant proportion of women voters had the impression that the position on the issue taken by the National Party in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy was not tough enough, that is, we were seen at that stage as not sufficiently supporting the Prime Minister's proposals. The results of that research were, in my view, not surprising. That information also supports the gut instincts of the Federal Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Tim Fischer, who said, after Port Arthur, that there had been a sea change in the attitudes of country women on the firearms issue. I do not know whether there has been a sea change. I believe that on this issue country women have long held views that diverge from the more strident pro-gun attitudes of some Australian men.

National Party annual general conferences have long featured a more equal balance of women and men delegates than was the case with Australia's other major political parties until the past few years. Certainly, at our 1996 annual general conference one could observe this difference in attitude, and it is important that that difference is given voice in this debate and in the laws of New South Wales and Australia. The incidence of domestic violence is probably one factor in this difference in attitude. The research I have referred to, which came to light only recently, seems to support the view of the joint select committee that the domestic violence aspects of the previous debate on New South Wales firearms laws should receive pre-eminent positioning in its list of recommendations, as they did.

Another important segment of the national firearms debate surrounds mental illness and firearms misuse. The joint select committee recommended that the Government develop procedures, having regard to privacy issues, for the voluntary reporting to police by any person, in particular health professionals and community workers, of those people who are likely to be dangerous to themselves and/or others if they have access, or continue to have access, to firearms. The report called for indemnification of "persons acting in good faith in making voluntary reports against any action which may be brought against them" and for a multilingual education program to make all sections of the community aware of the reporting process.

It is important to remember also that the committee recommended that action should be taken to formulate a coordinated strategy, with equitable funding, to provide for early intervention and support to affected persons by mental health crisis teams and community workers in both urban and rural areas. That is a very important recommendation and needs ongoing support from governments of all persuasions. Let us all hope that those words do not take on a more chilling meaning once the coroners and the courts have delivered their verdicts in the Port Arthur case. It is tragic that it has taken an event such as that at Port Arthur for this amendment relating to mental illness to find its way onto the statute book.

One concern I have is that the bill refers only to medical practitioners, whereas the joint select committee specifically, and for good reason, referred to health professionals and community workers. It is hoped that we will return to that part of the bill in the review period immediately ahead - as long as the promise of further consultation on the bill was not simply a stunt by the Premier and his police Minister. The 1996 initiative, the mental health amendment, has widespread support on both sides of the firearms debate. Nevertheless, we should not forget that homicide offenders are not typically mentally ill; nor do they have criminal records for serious violent offences. Life is not that simple.

Page 3638

The then chairman of the New South Wales branch of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Dr Andrews, told the joint select committee, when giving evidence about the mental state of persons involved in shootings, that the average person who shoots another is just that - an average person - and that while people may be under great emotional strain, or even intoxicated, they are rarely mentally ill. The Federal Minister for Health, Dr Wooldridge, is right to consult a committee of experts on this complex aspect of the proposed national laws. The same psychiatrist, Dr Andrews, also gave evidence about what he called the myth "that we can predict even amongst those that we know who are mentally ill, who is going to shoot someone else, and the answer to that also is that in most cases we cannot". Dr Andrews told the committee:

The simple fact is that on the best information available to us (the Royal College of Psychiatrists), and there aren't precise estimates of this for obvious reasons, the best information we can get is that less than ten per cent of the people who commit homicides are psychologically distinguishable from the general population before the event. That means that even with the wisdom of hindsight in probably more than 90 per cent of cases we couldn't have predicted it on psychological grounds.

There are many studies of murderers in the international literature and all of them find that very few of them are mentally ill. The average murderer is an ordinary person reacting to extraordinary circumstances in a violent manner with lethal methods and they were frequently intoxicated at the time.

Dr Andrews said:

I have personally treated hundreds of mentally ill people, I can count on the fingers of one hand those who have tried to shoot anyone else. The mentally ill are far more likely to kill themselves than to kill others and the few exceptions attract enormous publicity. The proposition that a register of people who have attracted psychiatric attention as (an) effective means of reducing gun deaths or some variation of such a proposal is a red herring which must not divert attention from the real issue which is the availability of guns to the general population.

We believe that the major determinants of the use of guns in society depends, first, on their availability and, secondly, on the attitudes of that society towards the use of guns. The way that is portrayed in the media and so on we believe would have some effect on society's attitudes towards them.

This is the thing that worries us in the College of Psychiatrists is the statistic of one in four households with a gun in the house. The combination of conflict, particularly domestic conflict, alcohol and a weapon in the house is a deadly cocktail.

All the available evidence suggests to us that it is the availability of guns to the general population that influences the statistics on gun deaths whether they are homicides or suicides or by accident and that any measures that will reduce the availability of weapons in the general population will reduce the instance of gun deaths.

The latter part of that testimony by Dr Andrews is, of course, the nub of the Prime Minister's proposals for national firearms legislation - proposals which most Australians support. It is a similar view to that expressed yesterday in Sydney by the former Mayor of New York City, Mr Ed Koch, in ascribing tighter controls on the licensing of pistols as one reason for the recent, long-awaited and widely welcomed downturn in violent deaths in that city. The medical evidence I referred to shows clearly, however, that this is an extraordinarily complex area of law, that firearms legislation is only part of the picture and, clearly, that a bill such as this is a partial and imperfect way to deal with the need to reduce the level of violence in Australia.

The bill in its present form is causing many people great anxiety. One of the National Party's strongest concerns relates to the registration of individual firearms. The Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform made nine recommendations relating to domestic violence issues, five on mental illness and firearms misuse, 13 on licensing, six on firearms safety and security, three relating to prohibited weapons, three on amnesty and compensation matters, nine on firearm sale and purchase, four on penalties for firearm misuse and one on the compilation of crime statistics. Lastly, the committee recommended that it be reconvened, if necessary, after gun law reform issues were discussed at the special Premiers' conference scheduled for later that year.

Most of the committee's 54 recommendations were adopted by the previous coalition Government. However, despite the extraordinarily broad terms of reference given to that committee, which included the words "without limiting the generality of" the other terms of reference, the committee was to recommend "any other action necessary to reinforce responsible gun ownership and use on a national basis". There was not a single recommendation to the effect that the all-parties committee supported a national firearms register or anything like it. Not one! That was the position of the New South Wales National Party then, and it is a policy which our party's membership has chosen not to change, although, as I indicated to this House a couple of weeks ago, and as indicated by the party's New South Wales leadership, the parliamentary National Party had agreed to the concept of a register of firearms owners - exactly the proposition that was put by the Prime Minister in his first statement to the House of Representatives after the Port Arthur tragedy.

The National Party's opposition to registration has always been clear. We believe that a register is impracticable, costly and ineffective. Just before the Port Arthur tragedy, the Deputy Premier, Dr Refshauge, again publicly stated the Australian Labor Party's opposition to the introduction of a register. Mr Carr, just before becoming Premier, went on the public record specifically ruling out the introduction of a firearms register, using words that could well have been extracted from the National Party's firearms policy. A major problem with this package of changes - and the way it is being processed - is that it risks alienating many law-abiding people from our whole political system. They see this package being aimed unfairly, but squarely, at them and, like others in my party, I
Page 3639
believe that a less-threatening proposal for a register would lower the resistance to compliance with the overall package.

It is in the interests of all of the citizens of this State that one segment of the population is not left to feel that it belongs to some sort of undemocratic wasteland and for that reason I continue to support my party's stated policy on registration, and will vote accordingly. I have already referred to the period of review of this bill that has been promised by the Government introducing it - the Carr Labor Government. The idea of having a review period after legislation passes through a Parliament is bizarre and it is offensive. To answer the attack a few minutes ago by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby on members of the National Party, I for one am happy to invest time and energy in trying to come up with a workable register. What a pity the New South Wales Government did not give anyone such an opportunity.

One cannot but be cynical that the Labor Government has any real intention of revisiting this bill. Its promise of consultation is as much a sham on this issue as it is on practically every other area of policy, whether it is the role of the Governor, the closure of agricultural institutions, or Dr Refshauge's bolt-from-the-blue announcement in the last few days about the closure of New South Wales hospitals. Mr Carr did use the word "consultation" in his policy statements leading up to the State election in 1995. He did use the word again, especially in regional New South Wales after its rejection of Labor at the March 1996 Federal election. And he did promise consultation on this bill, but only after it goes through the Parliament.

Consultation is not part of the culture of the Carr Labor Government. It never has been and, sadly, as the hospital closures show, the Labor leopard is slow to change its spots. After all, it was without consultation that Mr Carr and Mr Whelan leapt at the window of opportunity they saw immediately after Port Arthur to try to cede to the Commonwealth the power to make firearms laws. Just like in Canada, a decade hence it is likely that the issue of firearms law will still be the subject of contention here in Australia. That is the reality. Another reality is that the coalition of members of this Parliament means that the bill will proceed through the Parliament, almost certainly unamended. Having articulated a number of serious shortcomings with the bill's provisions and protested at the denial of the normal consultative process that we are accustomed to in a democracy, like most members and delegates in my party and all its New South Wales parliamentarians, I support the general humane intent of the Prime Minister's proposals as part of the way that this country can address the need to contain, and preferably reduce, the incidence of violence throughout Australia.

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE [11.53]: I support the Firearms Bill. Much has already been said in this debate, and I do not wish to delay the passage of the bill by repeating the comments of others. But there are two brief comments that I would like to make. Taking up the point made so well recently by Simon Chapman, we need to think long and hard about the notion that there are two types of gun owners: the crazy and dangerous, and the law-abiding peaceful owners who should have full and free access to guns. This idea is at the basis of much of the gun lobby's rhetoric and it is just not true. In Australia and New Zealand over the past decade, there have been 14 mass shootings in which more than five people were shot - 116 people killed, with 87 per cent dying at the hands of someone with no criminal record of violence.

Equally, it is interesting to note the research into less spectacular instances of shootings. For instance, in the Brisbane region in the decade 1980 to 1989 there were 587 reported firearm deaths. Guns were used in the suicides of 76 per cent of victims, 18 per cent were murders and the remainder were unintentional injuries. Of the murders where the perpetrator was identified, 71 per cent of victims were killed by someone known to them; a jilted lover, a family member or a neighbour. The reality is simple. The most probable perpetrator of gun violence is not a criminal or a crazed person running amuck. It is the hitherto normal gun owner who kills either himself or people close to him.

Unlike a number of other members, I tend not to talk about my past experiences or background when I address this House. But, having practised as a social worker for over a decade, I have assessed people and families in situations, the memories of which I, frankly, still sometimes have difficulty coping with. These included cases involving suicides and guns. If I were asked to develop an interview schedule to assess the possibility of some form of pathology prior to approval of the issuing of a gun licence, the first question I would ask is whether the person really thought they needed a gun in the home. If they said yes then they clearly have deep-seated personal and possible psychopathological problems and need professional help. There is one additional point that I wish to make. The Minister said in his second reading speech:

. . . this bill does not treat firearm owners as criminals, as some have claimed. Rather, it requires firearm owners to comply with special conditions for the privilege of owning and using those firearms in a free society.

In much the same way as those of us with motor vehicle driver's licences have to drive on the left-hand side of the road, it is an invasion of my personal freedom that makes sense for the common good. Equally, when I go through the security scanners at the entrance to this building I do not believe that the Presiding Officers are accusing me of wanting to commit a criminal act. But the hardest part of this process is yet to come - to convince firearm owners to comply with the new laws. Equivalent problems are convincing citizens to register their dogs, or to fence off their
Page 3640
swimming pools. In each case citizens know the laws and they know the consequences of not keeping those laws. Most people do the right thing by their community. For firearm owners there is another threat. The Deputy Prime Minister recently made the point that if these laws were not passed and effectively implemented, then some people would push for all guns to be banned. Well, I am one of those people.

I believe that we should ban all guns in all residential homes. I support this bill as a positive compromise for all interested parties. But, if the gun lobby frustrates its implementation, so be it. The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer, has clearly outlined the inevitable reaction of people like me if this occurs. Finally, may I keep an undertaking made by my colleague the Hon. Ann Symonds to remember with respect and sadness those killed at Port Arthur by reading their names onto the Hansard record: Zoe Hall, Helene Salzmann, Janet Quin, Mary Nixon, Elizabeth Howard, Sarah Loughton, Ron Jary, Anthony Nightingale, Glen Pears, Jim Pollard, Nannette Mikac, David Martin, Walter Bennett, Mervyn Howard, Pauline Masters, Kate Scott, Tony Kistan, Andrew Mills, Alannah Mikac, Sally Martin, Kevin Sharp, Mary Howard, Elva Gaylard, Winifred Aplin, Robert Salzmann, Royce Thompson, Madeline Mikac, Jason Winter, Raymond Sharp, Dennis Lever, Peter Nash, Gwenda Neander, Ng Moh Yee William, Chung Soo Leng and Nicole Burgess. For all of those reasons I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN [11.59]: Like all Australians I was deeply shocked by the tragic events that occurred at Port Arthur. There can be no doubt that every honourable member of this House was horrified and appalled by the wanton killing and injury inflicted on so many innocent people. I am in favour of tough gun laws, and I sincerely pray that after their introduction there will never be a repeat of Port Arthur in this country. Radical extremists, whom I abhor, operating under the guise of the so-called gun lobby will get no comfort from me. I have stated publicly that extreme right-wing organisations that call for the spilling of blood to assert their rights are, in my opinion, raving ratbags who should never be allowed to get their hands on a gun, let alone own one.

I have a great deal of respect for the well-meaning and decent people in our society who want to do something about the senseless violence that seems to have become the norm in this day and age. I have heard many fine speeches from honourable members in this House in the past 24 hours. They have addressed this issue squarely, and I commend them for that. I could see that the speech given by the Hon. Ann Symonds, who is at present in the chair, came directly from the heart and was something about which she felt very strongly. I commend you, Madam Deputy-President, for the stance you have taken, for which I have the greatest respect and admiration. However, whilst I agree with the bulk of the legislation, it would be hypocritical of me not to raise the concerns I have.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: How many guns do you have?

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: I have one. I am particularly concerned with firearms registration. Whilst I would agree that theoretically it is a sound idea, the reality is that it has not worked anywhere else, and I am utterly convinced that it will not work here. All of the evidence that has been obtained in New Zealand, Great Britain, Canada and the Australian States has shown that most have either abandoned firearms registration or publicly acknowledged its failure. I am quoting now from research into this subject conducted by the honourable member for Monaro, Peter Cochran:

In evidence to the 1991 New South Wales Parliamentary Committee into Gun Law Reform, a Victorian Report prepared in 1987 by the registrar of firearms after three years of assessing the scheme quoted:

"It seems just to be an elaborate system of arithmetic with no tangible aim. Probably, and with the best of intentions, it may have been thought, that if it were known what firearms each individual in Victoria owned, some form of control may be exercised and those who were guilty of criminal misuse could be readily identified. This is a fallacy, and has proven not to be the case."

The registrar found that a shooter on average holds 2.8 firearms and that only 58.7% of firearms owned had actually been registered. His conclusion was that the registrar of firearms was costly, ineffective, achieves little and does not suppress or control the criminal misuse or irresponsible use of firearms.

The registrar (Chief Inspector Police) finally recommended the abolition of the Victorian Firearms registration scheme and that:

"A far-reaching, effective and proper system of education should be introduced."

This conclusion was echoed in New Zealand. In evidence before the Parliamentary committee, reference was made to a New Zealand police internal study by Inspector A. G. McCallum where he states:

"There is no evidence to suggest there is any relationship between the registration of firearms and their control."

Education will reduce misuse more than will registration.

New Zealand have since abandoned their firearms registry. Another United Kingdom report by Inspector Greenwood, when attached to the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University, makes even more startling claims about firearms registration. The report claims:

"Greenwood, who apparently conducted an exhaustive study of the effects and benefits of long gun registration in Britain, could find no proof that its long gun registration program had been of real assistance to any police force in the apprehension of even one criminal."

It seems that Greenwood found that the only benefit of registration was that it made it easier to return stolen guns to their registered owners. Mr Cochran's research notes continued:

Page 3641

Probably the most damning statement condemning firearms registration comes from a leading authority in this area. David Fine quoted in his 1988 publication "Gun Laws. Proposal for Reform:"

Fine said:

A long gun registration in those Australian jurisdictions in which it has been introduced in recent years, does not appear to be achieving a meaningful reduction in the number of firearms held by private persons who have no real use for or strong attachment to these firearms.

Registration, thus, does not appear to be a strategy particularly well calculated to reduce the availability of firearms to criminals, through a diminution in the number of firearms likely to be lost through burglary.

The final and conclusive statement by Fine was:

If firearms registration was of significant assistance to police anywhere in Australia in their criminal duties, then the author (Fine) would have expected at least some of the many police whom I interviewed nationwide to support it enthusiastically for this reason. None did.

The other area about which I am greatly concerned centres around the uninformed and sometimes prejudiced debate about certain firearms and the proposal to ban semiautomatic weapons. The five-shot self-loading shotgun is a significant item in the armoury of many field and range shooters; I hope that type of firearm will continue to be available to responsible licensed and approved shooters. Similarly, in a number of occupations a semiautomatic rifle is an efficient tool to carry out legitimate shooting activities such as vermin eradication and, where necessary, livestock destruction. Another issue of great significance relates to rifle clubs. It seems to me to be grossly unfair that rifle club members who are neither Olympians nor Australian representatives at an international level, but who legitimately participate in their local club shooting events on weekends, and who are, I might add, the most safety-conscious people that one would wish to meet, may have their sport wiped out at the stroke of a pen.

These people have never done a thing wrong in their lives. In fact, they have done more than anyone to raise the safety aspects of firearms use and control, but the Commonwealth Government intends to repeal the regulations under the Defence Act that cover rifle clubs. Why? I thought the general idea was to remove firearms from the wrong hands, not from the hands of decent, law-abiding sportsmen who want nothing more than to enjoy their favourite recreation. Thousands of Australians are in this position, and they are bitter and angry. Who can blame them? I attended a combined local clubs team shooting event in Broken Hill on the weekend which was well patronised. As honourable members can no doubt imagine, many issues were raised with me at that venue.

These sportsmen have a great love for their chosen sport, and they always go to great pains to compete fiercely in what is an exacting discipline. Many of them have spent considerable sums of money to purchase equipment, which is of a very high standard. I am not talking only about their rifles. A serious competitor needs a large range of equipment, as well as a rifle - specialised sights, rifle mounts, shooting jackets, eye glasses and scopes - the list goes on. Some of this equipment is extremely expensive; in some cases more expensive than the rifle. I want to know whether these law-abiding citizens will be compensated for their sundry equipment.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Maybe not.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: More than likely not. Compensation is covered in part 9 at clause 78 of the bill. I am concerned to know whether a person who decides to surrender his or her firearm, or who is refused a licence to have a firearm that is deemed to be legal under the legislation, will be compensated for the firearm. Will people be compensated for legal firearms they choose to surrender or for which they may be refused licences?

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: They should be.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: They should be compensated, but it is unclear as to whether they will be compensated. Or will they simply have to hand them in and receive nothing? That is not spelled out in the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: That is not justice either.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: It is not justice and it is not fair. I shall take a few minutes to read part of a letter I received from Mr R. G. Cheal, who owns the Coo-ee Military Museum in Gilgandra, in which he said:

Dear Sir,

I am the owner of a small Military Museum established more than twenty years ago, to honour our service men and women from all conflicts Australia has been involved with. I have used the museum collection to educate the public, groups of people, (eg Probus) school excursions and so on about Australia's military history.

Over the years we have been invited to many functions around the Gilgandra, Dubbo and Gulargambone districts (and usually at no cost to the organizers) to mount a display from our museum. We have been happy to do this because the history we are trying to preserve needs to be shared with all Australians and although we have larger national and state museums it is the small museums such as ours that are able to bring this history to people on a personal and local level.

My museum collection consists of infantry weapons, field guns, armoured vehicles, soft-skinned vehicles and associated militaria. A significant number of these weapons are held on a museum prohibited weapons permit. The automatic weapons in this category are already rendered innocuous to comply with the current NSW law. Under the proposed State and Federal legislation - State Section 11 page 13 (Firearms Bill 1996) and Federal (page 6 of Australian Police Ministers' Council Resolutions) "NO PROHIBITED FIREARMS TO BE INCLUDED IN A COLLECTION".

This will mean the removal of a large and key part of the museum collection which has great historical value and is a monetary investment of many thousands of dollars resulting from 40 years of collecting.

The museum is that man's life.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: We will look after him.

Page 3642

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: I am sure the Hon. B. H. Vaughan would. He stated further in his letter:

I deeply resent that this can be destroyed by the stroke of a pen by an uninformed bureaucracy that refuses to even to consult with firearms owners. There has been no consultation with genuine firearms owners and users.

I will not read the rest of that letter but one can see the man's concerns, and they are extremely valid. Finally, I would like to read a statement from a friend of mine who lives at Broken Hill. Peter Hocking, MB, BS, is not only a friend of mine but also my family doctor. Dr Hocking has a colourful history. He is a self-made man; he spent many years in the work force and several years in the army; finally, he pulled his finger out and studied at university to become a doctor. I admire the man; he has done it the hard way. His statement reads:

Responsible firearm owners acknowledge the need for safe storage and use of firearms.

However we do not acknowledge any correlation between the number of firearms in the community and the number of firearm related murders. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show a decline in the number of firearm related homicides between 1979 and 1994 (excluding suicide by firearms, which also showed a noticeable decline). In 1979, firearm related murders, as a percentage of all murders was 37% - in 1994 it was only 23%. This too has shown a decline over this period of time (as has firearm related suicides as a percentage of total suicides). Firearm ownership has increased during this period of time, as has the number of non-firearm related homicides.

Murder is not an issue of firearm ownership, it is an issue of people killing people. It is an issue of public safety. Murder is an action. It involves a motive, thought processes, physical activity and a means all directed towards a specific bloody objective. Only sometimes are firearms that means used.

Actions are much more likely to be influenced by observation of similar actions. That is, visual and auditory stimulus of real and depicted killing is more likely to be an influence towards murder than is the possession of an object.

"Rambo" styled videos, or live or depicted portrayals of killing on television are examples of this stimulus. They are the killing culture. During the past 15 years there has been an increase in the number of mass murders where semi-automatic military rifles, similar to those depicted in the killing culture, have been used. These types of mass murders are a relatively new phenomena. They are now occurring at a greater frequency. These mass murders claim the greatest loss of life per incident.

The sports of recreational hunting and competitive shooting do not involve aggression or hostility towards fellow participants or the general public. They exercise the utmost regard for safety to avoid the loss of human life. They are sociable people with a similar sporting interest. Their culture is definitely not part of killing culture. The killing culture is imported from America. It exploits the immature and vulnerable for financial gain and has no regard for human life or public safety.

To the psychologically unstable, immature or those not in touch with reality, the killing culture can be extremely influential. Semi-automatic firearms, even if banned, will still always be available, and if the killing culture is allowed to go on then, unfortunately, the killings will continue.

The impending laws concerning firearm ownership and use involve two approaches. The first is control of what type of firearms can be owned, the second is control of who can shoot. Instead of putting the emphasis on the types of firearms available, it would be more logical to put more emphasis on who can shoot what types of firearms.

This should be based on psychological stability, maturity and shooting experience as they are the factors closely related to public safety. This would legally prevent the unsafe from using firearms but would not inhibit safe and experienced sports people from participating in their recreational activities.

If the proposed changes to firearm laws were made more selective and fair then more people would be likely to comply with them. People would register their firearms (and themselves) if they knew that the firearms would not be indiscriminately confiscated or destroyed, and were given a promise of no further changes. This would be in the interests of public safety. This is the Prime Ministers responsibility. He should adequately and genuinely consult the shooting organisations when making the changes as one of their chief concerns is public safety and the sensible use of firearms.

Ban the killing culture and the weapons depicted as part of it but do not ban the responsible and sporting cultures of shooting and hunting or the firearms used by them. There is an obvious difference between the two cultures.

This is why shooters are angry…

It is possible (very possible) that under the proposed changes to the law, that the majority of Repeating (not semi-automatic) firearms could be made illegal for most people to use but not be regarded as illegal firearms.

Although people would have a genuine reason for using these firearms (eg safe recreational purposes) the authorities may deem that person has no need for them. This means that people who own legal firearms will be considered illegal shooters and will not be able to use them. Therefore it is likely that those who currently do not have them registered in the States where presently registration is not reinforced, will simply not register these firearms and will hide them along with their illegal firearms. People who had illegal firearms which they would have handed in because they felt they could go on shooting with their legal firearms, will probably hide those along with their legal firearms.

People who have non-registered semi-automatic firearms in states where registration is an issue will not hand them in as they will not be permitted to use their legal arms and will be forced to sell them in what will be a grossly depressed market.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: On the black market.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: The black market, of course. His statement continued:

They would feel the only way they can have a high powered rifle would be illegally whereas if the "need" situation did not exist they would probably be "shooters with legal firearms".

Having no known history of Mental illness does not mean it didn't exist. Both the licensed and unlicensed perpetrators probably had never been screened.

The act of mass murder of the random type certainly suggests to me that Mental Instability or illness was present.

Do psychologically stable or normal people commit these crimes.

About 2/3 of the victims were killed by military style semiautomatic firearms.

Pretty significant.

In a recent study of mass fatal shootings which was published in the Melbourne Age Friday 3rd May 1996 -

Page 3643

And the Hon. P. T. Primrose made reference to that.

- it was revealed that most of the Gunmen had no history of mental illness and two thirds were licensed gun owners.

The study showed that a military-style semi-automatic rifle was the primary weapon used by six of the perpetrators (40 per cent) claiming the lives of 74 (64 per cent) of the 116 victims who were the subject of the study.

But if we removed all those who used MSSAI, those with mental illness and those who were unlicensed, we'd reduce this number by 77.58% leaving only 26 victims rather than 116.

Under this law it is possible to ban the majority of recreational and sporting shooters from using legal firearms with bolt action centre fires which are in licence category B by simply saying they don't have any need for them (over and above a reason for having them). This needs a lot of clarification. The genuine reason is explained but what about genuine need.

That is the statement from Dr Peter Hocking. I have expressed my grave reservations about some aspects of the bill, including the firearms register, and I propose to vote along those lines. Another of my concerns relates to the use of the low power semiautomatic weapons. I have given that issue a great deal of thought and my views will be reflected in the way I vote on the proposed amendments.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [12.20]: My late father, Cecil Herbert, was a sporting shooter, winning awards for clay target shooting over many years at State, national and international levels. It is in his memory that I wish to put a few remarks on record during this debate. I am not going to revisit the many issues already addressed by my colleagues, given the considerable demand on our time in this the last sitting week for the Parliament. Rather, I wish to address some particular concerns that I fear otherwise might not get the attention they deserve. For seven years I have served on the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues, as honourable members will be aware. During that time the committee has conducted a number of inquiries into various facets of violence: youth and drugs, juvenile justice, youth violence, sexual violence and rural suicide.

One theme that kept recurring through all those inquiries was the appalling destructiveness of violence: the harm that it does, not just in a physical sense, but - what is often more serious - in a psychological sense, creating dread so great that the survivors of violence henceforth live a life of fear; restricted in their lifestyle; forever wary of people and social situations that others would not think at all dangerous. In the case of a death from violence families are left forever grieving the loss of a loved one; children are left without a father or mother; parents are left without their child; a spouse is suddenly widowed by the thrust of a knife or a shot from a gun. Violence is horrific and insupportable. Along with the rest of the community - including, I am sure, sporting shooters - I strongly support measures that will reduce violence in the community. My concern at this time is that, in the aftermath of Port Arthur, when all of Australia came together in shock, grief and horror to mourn the deaths of so many innocent people, when the whole country wanted to do something meaningful to address the issue of violence, the only people who have been asked to make sacrifices are the shooting community.

Guns are just one aspect of violence. Restricting the availability of guns is an attack on a symptom of violence. What we most need to do, however, is to attack the causes of violence. One cause of violence above all others needs attention if we genuinely wish to prevent violence in future. Those who commit horrific crimes of violence, be they mass murderers or vicious murderers of the variety who killed Anita Cobby, tend to be damaged, alienated human beings. I know that you, Madam Deputy-President, are aware that studies conducted by researchers in the United States of America of criminals on death row found that those criminals, those vicious murderers, were themselves the victims of horrifically vicious childhoods. That information has turned up in physical child abuse and sexual child abuse statistics; and frequently there is truly appalling emotional child abuse, as well. One group of researchers - Dorothy Otnow-Lewis and her colleagues - who undertook a study of criminals on death row, found that in the majority of cases the parents of those people had actually tried to kill them when they were children. In the light of that information, I was not surprised to learn recently that there are now suspicions that the Anita Cobby murderers were themselves the victims of protracted child sexual abuse.

In its juvenile justice inquiry, the social issues committee found that, overwhelmingly, juvenile criminals have had damaging and alienating childhoods; they have not been brought up to be a part of a community; they have not been brought up to be self-confident human beings who can function effectively in a social environment. Ultimately, in respect of a small minority of those people, down the track all of society pays the cost, particularly those who are closest to their violence: the victims of such violence and the families of the victims of such violence. Violent recidivist criminals are mostly made, they are not born, and we can do something to prevent that from happening. If we, as a community, want to prevent violence in future, we must ensure that children are properly parented. We know how it is done and we have programs to make the appropriate knowledge and support available to new parents. What is needed is the commitment to find the resources to do it. Meanwhile, thousands of children in this State are growing up in physical fear or emotional deprivation. The violent criminals of tomorrow are being created among the children of today.

The second cause of violence that I wish to address is less fundamental than the first, but I raise it for a particular reason. It is the issue of violence in the media. I have particularly referred to this issue because the Sun Herald newspaper surveyed all members of Parliament on 30 April, to find out
Page 3644
where they would stand on the question of gun control. In response, I surveyed all members of the New South Wales parliamentary press gallery to find out where they stood on the question of violence in the media, and whether they thought more restraint should be practised by the media in relation to violence. Thousands of studies into media violence overwhelmingly point to connections between childhood exposure to media, especially television violence, and later violence and desensitisation to violence. A chapter of my recent book entitled Political Incorrectness outlines many of the studies in this area, which show the appalling effects of irresponsible television coverage of violence on our children.

These effects are long term, and persist when the children grow up. Indeed, just this month a case was reported in the press of another copycat killing by a child who murdered, cooked and, I believe, ate the flesh of a younger child as a result of having seen a particularly horrific movie demonstrating such activity. What got my ire about the Sun Herald survey was the attitude to social violence by media which seem to be eager to demand reform and sacrifice from others, but extremely unwilling to look at the one area where they themselves could have the most impact, namely, media violence. Sadly, there is a very real tendency in many contentious social and political areas for us to demand sacrifices from others but never from ourselves. This has been demonstrated in everything from the NIMBY - not in my backyard - syndrome to violence. The hypocrisy of the media in focusing relentlessly on guns, and by and large dismissing community concerns about violence in the media, has been obvious in the post-Port Arthur debate.

In recent weeks there has been a great deal of television footage of angry shooters. While I have no time for extremism of any form, in my view those shooters would probably have been a lot less hostile had they not seen themselves as the only community group expected to make sacrifices in response to Port Arthur. Violence is an issue of great social impact; it is relevant to every one of us. The social changes required to tackle it are burdens for all of us to bear together, not just for a single group. This State Government had a major window of opportunity to call for, and to introduce, parental support measures in the wake of Port Arthur. It did not bother. The media also had a major window of opportunity to do some serious self-examination of how they portray violence and how they might clean up their act. Instead, the media focused relentlessly on guns, as if guns were the only factor involved. For the sake of our children and our future, I am disappointed. My father, I am sure, would have been very disappointed.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN [12.31]: I wish to make only one point in this debate, about registration. I have listened to many objections and much talk in the community about registration. It is my view - and it seems that of the community - that the objections are not only unreasonable but, in many cases, border on being irrational. We have a society in which we register many things, for example our cars. As the Hon. Ann Symonds has said, if one owns many cars - as for example John Laws does - one has many registrations. We get a licence to drive; we even register our pets; we cannot even open a bank account without proving who we are - our word is not good enough. Some people talk about exhaustive studies on the merits of registration and claim that it will not work. However, exhaustive studies do not necessarily adduce rigorous research. The issue of registration is being used as a lifeline, and it is absolute nonsense. I want to put on record my total support for this legislation and for the leadership of Prime Minister John Howard, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Hon. Ann Symonds. I have to say that it is about time.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [12.32]: Before I commence my address I want to say that after my first speech this is the most important speech I have given in this House, but unlike my first speech it will take somewhat more than five minutes. In March this year I announced my intention to table a private member's bill to tighten our gun laws in line with the recommendations of the National Committee on Violence. That bill, which was in the process of being drafted when the Port Arthur massacre occurred, has now been withdrawn because it has been overtaken by the Australian police Ministers' agreement on gun control and the Government's introduction of this bill. I am pleased that this bill includes some of the major elements of my proposed private member's bill: the registration of all guns, the requirement of proof of the reason for owning any gun; a ban on private sales of guns; and an end to lifetime licensing.

These measures are part of a scheme of national uniform gun laws that will go a long way towards addressing the problem of firearms violence in Australia. Contrary to the portrayal of violence in the media, gun violence in this country is overwhelmingly a problem of suicide and of domestic violence. In fact, domestic violence is probably the single major area of gun violence in our community. Furthermore, the largest single category of homicide is domestic homicide. But far more numerous than gun homicides or even gun suicides are incidents in which guns are used to intimidate family members in the home. My sole motivation in standing for Parliament in last year's election was the desire to protect and promote the interests of children.

We all know that the world can be a dangerous place for our children, but the fact is that the most dangerous place for children is usually their own home. Children who are involved in domestic violence, or are witness to it, exemplify this danger. Domestic violence is about the abuse of power within the family. The availability of a gun gives the abuser the ultimate power of life or death over his victims - and instantaneously. I would like to
Page 3645
read to the House the words of Michael, a little boy who was terrorised at gunpoint by his father, who was the owner of a .22 rifle and two shotguns. Michael said in evidence in court:

I was crying because I was so scared. He told me to take my hands away from my face. I took my hands down to just below my chin . . . He was holding it [the gun] with one hand. He said something to me but I can't remember what it was. I think he abused me a bit more, then he pulled the trigger. There was a click. I looked up and saw a grin on his face.

Shortly after this horrifyingly cruel incident, Michael's father trained the gun on his 12-year-old daughter, Michael's sister Laurell. But this time he was not joking. He shot Laurell dead at point-blank range. This murder was one of the cases examined in the Family Court's report on domestic homicides, released in March this year. In fact it was released only days after the killing of Jean Lennon Mahjdalawi by her husband outside the Family Court at Parramatta. That report makes very sobering reading. It notes the finding by the Australian Institute of Criminology that guns are more commonly used in domestic homicides than in other types of killings, and particularly in parent-child homicides.

The Family Court's study found that guns were by far the most common weapon used in domestic homicide. In fact Jean Lennon Mahjdalawi was one of three women in New South Wales who were shot dead by their partners in the space of seven weeks. According to the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Police, in the nine months from May 1995 to February 1996 police attended 33,807 domestic disputes across New South Wales and as a result confiscated 1,147 firearms. The presence of this volatile combination of firearms and domestic violence in so many homes indicates a very high level of danger in our community - a danger that is rarely, if ever, mentioned by the gun lobby. The Australasian Police Ministers' Council resolutions and this bill acknowledge the nature of gun violence in Australia: that it is primarily domestic, involving ordinary people with ordinary guns, not professional criminals.

The bill gives us at last a comprehensive system of firearms registration. Many honourable members have said that they believe registration is unnecessary. I would like to outline briefly some of the reasons why I believe it will work. Registration will allow police to know, when they are called out to a domestic dispute, whether they are likely to encounter firearms. In addition, when a domestic violence offender is ordered by the Local Court to give up his guns, registration will allow that order to be enforced, by providing a list of the guns that the perpetrator owns. When a house is broken into and a firearm is stolen, registration will alert police to the urgency of responding. If a suspect is apprehended in possession of a firearm, registration may connect the suspect with the break-in. The main benefit of registration will be to set up a chain of responsibility and accountability, thereby ensuring the effective operation of the licensing system. Currently, someone can legally purchase a firearm and there is no record of that purchase available to any government agency. Hence, when that person's licence expires, there is no incentive for the person to renew it. Now, a dealer who sells a gun will record that transaction and forward the record to the police. Thus, in the future when the licence expires, the police will be notified that the person is now in illegal possession of that firearm. This is a powerful incentive for people either to renew the licence or to dispose of the gun. Registration will ensure that the owner does not sell or give the gun away to someone who is unlicensed, because the owner will have to account for the gun's absence at the time of renewal.

While registration will not prevent every incident of firearm misuse or embrace every weapon in the community, it will be a significant improvement on the status quo and should be continually monitored and refined to maintain its effectiveness. Apart from registration, the bill provides for a ban on private sales. It puts an end to backyard gun peddlers and classified advertisements for lethal weapons. Most important, it recognises that all guns are dangerous items with the potential to kill, wound, disfigure, intimidate and traumatise people both in close proximity and at a distance. There is no such thing as a harmless gun that does not require regulation. I have a saying: Keeping a firearm in your home is like having a pet red-back spider. It may be well looked after but one day it will bite you or someone in your family.

The most significant principle in the bill is the requirement of proof of reason for anyone wanting to own a gun. Under the existing Firearms Act any adult who does not have a serious criminal record - the vast majority of adults - basically qualifies to own a gun. Under the new law, no-one will be allowed to own a gun unless a case for ownership can be established. In other words, gun ownership is unequivocally established as a privilege rather than a right. It is not that gun ownership has ever been a legal or constitutional right in New South Wales but judging from some of the rhetoric heard recently there are gun owners organisations that have difficulty coming to terms with that fact.

I welcome particularly the first statement in the overview of the bill, that firearm possession and use is a privilege conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his leadership and courage; the leader of the Federal National Party on putting public safety ahead of political considerations; and the New South Wales Government on being the first in Australia to incorporate in legislation the Australasian Police Ministers' Council resolutions. I also congratulate the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peter Collins, and his deputy, Mr Ian Armstrong, on supporting the bill's passage through the lower House despite some reservations on the part of the latter.

Page 3646

The National Party in particular has taken risks in this reform of gun laws, and I commend the Opposition parties for their commitment to bipartisan support for the gun laws that 90 per cent of Australians want. This bill is an excellent starting point towards a safer New South Wales. However, it is only a start. I had intended in Committee to move several amendments to the legislation, but, given the circumstances and upon consideration, I have decided to address my concerns in this speech and thereby avoid taking up the time of honourable members in Committee. I shall now outline my concerns and urge the Government to give consideration to them, particularly in cases in which there will be an impact on any future regulations arising from the legislation.

I have seven concerns. My first relates to storage, in that before a firearm licence is granted the commissioner should have to be satisfied that storage facilities have been installed that meet the requirements of part 4 of the bill, safe keeping of firearms. The current wording of clause 11(3) requires the commissioner only to be satisfied that the legal storage requirements "are capable of being met by the applicant". My concern is that the clause may be interpreted in a manner that falls short of confirmation that the storage requirements have been met. That would represent very little progress on the existing gun law, which merely requires applicants to state that they are aware of the storage requirements and promise to comply with them; it does not require them to provide any evidence.

The APMC and the Government in drafting part 4 have gone to some lengths to specify the storage requirements considered necessary for keeping a gun in a house. The requirements are crucial in preventing guns from being used impulsively in suicide, homicide or domestic violence; for protecting children from gun accidents; and for preventing guns from being stolen and later used in the commission of crime. If we take those requirements seriously, we must make them a prerequisite for gun ownership. Every other prerequisite for gun ownership - genuine reason, special need, identity and safety awareness - has to be proved. Compliance with the storage requirements is no less important than those other prerequisites, so no licence should be granted unless the applicant proves that he or she has complied with the requirements.

I remind honourable members that inspection of storage before a licence is granted is the normal process at present in relation to pistols. If the wording of clause 11(3) is not changed, it could be interpreted as weakening the existing law on pistols. I acknowledge that the bill in its present form provides that once a licence is granted it is subject to the condition that the police can arrange an inspection of storage, as per clause 19(2)(c). However, from the public health and safety point of view, this is a downstream measure rather than a preventative one. The police are unlikely ever to inspect storage unless violence is believed to have occurred previously. That is primarily because of the limited resources available to the police. Rather than allow gun owners to take their chances on never being inspected, it would be much safer to force them at the beginning of the licence process to face up to their legal responsibility to comply.

I repeat: the emphasis throughout the APMC resolutions is on reducing the gun stockpile by allowing gun ownership only by those who prove that they qualify. Requiring proof of adequate storage is not only an essential part of the scheme but yet another hurdle for those who would contemplate owning a firearm. My second concern follows on from the first. If storage facilities are shown to be inadequate following the granting of a licence and result in the confiscation of a firearm, the firearm should be destroyed. At present firearms seized because of unsafe storage may be destroyed, as provided under clause 80, but that is not mandatory. The storage requirement is crucial to preventing accidental or unintentional misuse of firearms. There must be a strong deterrent for those who fail to meet the storage condition of their licence.

My third concern relates to the storage requirements for gun dealers and the records of transactions that they must keep. Clause 47(4) requires dealers to keep their records "in a place of safe keeping", which presumably means a safe. Dealers' safes should be required to be fireproof. Dealers will keep records of gun sales in their safes for up to three months before forwarding them to the police. A fire in a gun shop could adversely affect the firearm registration system unless the records are kept in a fireproof safe. My fourth concern involves an aspect of the licensing process that does need to be proved under the bill, namely genuine reason to own a gun. The first reason listed in the table in clause 12 is "sport/target shooting", which will be proved by the applicant being a member of a shooting club prescribed by the regulations.

That method of proving genuine reason is contained in the existing law applying to pistols; if one is a member of a pistol club, one has genuine reason to own a pistol. Under the existing law for pistols the club must notify the commissioner if any membership lapses or if a member fails to attend the club. That provision should be made under the new law for owners of any type of gun who have nominated sport or target shooting as their genuine reason to own a gun. Shooting clubs should be required to notify the police of any member who stops attending or ceases to be a member.

My fifth concern relates to the permit to own a gun, which under clause 31(3)(c) will also require proof of reason. It is unclear whether when considering an applicant's proof of reason the commissioner will take into account the number and nature of firearms already owned by an applicant,
Page 3647
and whether the applicant already owns enough guns for the purpose nominated as a genuine reason to own a gun. To prevent the stockpiling of weapons, the law must make it harder to prove genuine reason for each additional gun. If someone already owns four guns for target shooting, that person should not be able to get a fifth gun simply because it is proved that he or she is a genuine target shooter. The commissioner should be required to ask whether the applicant's genuine reason is such as to necessitate owning yet another gun.

My sixth concern relates to dealings involving ammunition. When ammunition changes hands, the person receiving it should be required to hold a licence, regardless of whether the transfer of the ammunition is a sale or a gift. However, clause 65 of the bill does not explicitly refer to the possibility of an exchange of ammunition without financial consideration: for example, a licensed shooter may have an unlicensed gun owner friend who simply asks for some ammunition. In that case, money not being involved, under the current wording of the clause no offence will be committed. Buying and selling should be taken to mean taking and giving, which would prevent unlicensed gun owners from obtaining ammunition by gift or barter, because the giver will commit an offence by giving ammunition to an unlicensed gun owner.

My final concern has to do with the subject of compensation, and it is the one matter on which the Hon. John Tingle and I agree. I believe the Commonwealth-funded compensation scheme should cover all guns surrendered during the amnesty, not just prohibited category C and D guns. Clause 78 currently provides for compensation only for prohibited firearms surrendered during the amnesty, that is guns listed in schedule 1. Most gun violence - whether domestic violence, homicides or suicides - involves ordinary rifles and shotguns that come under category A or B, that is firearms which will not be prohibited weapons.

Very large numbers of people who legally own those ordinary rifles and shotguns will be unable to prove genuine reason to continue owning their guns, because they acquired them at a time when proof of reason was not required. Hence they are not eligible under the present wording of the clause for compensation. Those people must be encouraged to hand in their guns during the amnesty. They should not be disadvantaged by being denied the compensation being offered to those who surrender category C and D weapons. The argument has been put forward that they will be able to sell their guns to dealers, but it must be acknowledged that the price they will receive will be depressed by the glut of guns that hopefully will be sold by others in the same circumstances. The compensation scheme should provide an incentive to surrender those guns and for people to take advantage of the 12-month period during which fair and just compensation will be paid.

Recognising that funding for the compensation scheme must come from the Commonwealth, I have raised this matter with the police Minister. I am pleased he has given me a verbal assurance that he will in turn raise it with the Commonwealth Government, through the Australasian Police Ministers' Council. I believe the $500 million to be raised by the increase in the Medicare levy will prove sufficient to compensate for all guns surrendered, including those in categories A and B. However, if the funds do not cover the total bill, I suggest that the Commonwealth ask the corporate sector to make up the shortfall. The corporate sector stands to benefit significantly from restrictions on the availability of guns, through reductions in insurance premiums, security expenses, sick leave and workers compensation costs. Yet the corporate sector has so far escaped liability from the cost because it does not pay the Medicare levy.

The bill also leaves some important aspects of the law to be dealt with in the regulations. No doubt this has resulted from the Government's wish to act quickly on the APMC agreement, and I commend the Government for its determination and initiative. However, the drafting of the regulations will be a process that requires careful monitoring to make sure the principles of strict and uniform gun laws are not undermined by pragmatic political interests. Certain vocal sections of the gun lobby have declared their intention to subvert the operation of the new gun laws by any means possible, including log-jamming the Local Court with spurious appeals against the commissioner's decisions and by inciting gun owners to disobey the law. The message I want to send to them is that I will do everything within my power to resist their irresponsibility and to maintain the democratic process and the rule of law.

The Government has declared a public consultation period until 31 July. I hope all rational groups and individuals will take advantage of that consultation period and make constructive submissions. While I welcome this process, its effect must be to strengthen the practical effect of the new law. We must not allow a self-interest minority to overwhelm the will of the vast majority of Australians to live in safer homes and in a safer community. Our children not only demand this, but expect it of us. On 5 May 1995, just after I was sworn in as a member, my son, who was five, drew a picture of me - incidentally with one eye and with what looked like musical notes coming out of my mouth. I asked him what I was doing in the picture, and he replied, "This is daddy talking and making laws." When I asked him what law he would like me to make he said, "I want you to make a law that stops people killing each other." I am proud to be part of this historic legislation and to go some way towards fulfilling his wish. I support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.55]: The Call to Australia party supports the Firearms Bill, which will become the Firearms Act 1996. The Act
Page 3648
will commence on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation, and different days may be appointed for the commencement of section 89 for the purpose of repealing different provisions of the Firearms Act 1989 or the Firearms Regulations 1900, on different days. Call to Australia supports the principles and objects of the bill, which are stated in clause 3 as follows:

(1) The underlying principles of this Act are:

(a) to confirm firearm possession and use as being a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety, and

(b) to improve public safety:

(i) by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and

(ii) by promoting the safe and responsible storage and use of firearms, and

(c) to facilitate a national approach to the control of firearms.

(2) The objects of this Act are as follows:

(a) to prohibit the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns except in special circumstances,

(b) to establish an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms;

(c) to require each person who possess or uses a firearm under the authority of a licence to prove a genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm,

(d) to provide strict requirements that must be satisfied in relation to licensing of firearms and the acquisition and sales of firearms,

(e) to ensure that firearms are stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner,

(f) to provide for compensation in respect of, and an amnesty period to enable the surrender of, certain prohibited firearms.

As honourable members know, this legislation and similar legislation being introduced or to be introduced in other States results from a plan launched by the Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard, to have uniform national firearms laws in Australia. At the time of that call, following the Port Arthur massacre, different States had different laws and there was a need for a uniform approach, particularly as some States, such as Tasmania, the Northern Territory and to a degree Queensland, appeared to have far more lax gun laws.

When the Prime Minister made his announcement I believe New South Wales had some of the strongest gun laws in the Commonwealth. As we know, those laws resulted from the deliberations of a joint select committee that inquired into gun laws in this State following the tragic deaths that occurred at Strathfield when Wade Frankum killed one person with a knife and shot six others. That incident drove the Houses of this State to do something fairly dramatic to introduce strong gun laws, and I was pleased to be part of that process. Much of the criticism in the media was about automatic and semiautomatic weapons being available, and it was suggested that New South Wales did not need uniform legislation because it had already moved to ban those types of weapons and had a number of other positive firearms control measures as part of the laws of this State.

There is no doubt that the Prime Minister was correct when he said that Australia must have uniform legislation. There is no point having strong legislation in New South Wales if people can go to Tasmania or other States, buy weapons banned in this State and bring them back here. So Call to Australia supports that uniform legislation approach. I went on record as stating that Call to Australia supports uniform gun laws in Australia. I sent a detailed submission to the Prime Minister and the Federal Attorney-General, as well as to Premier Carr and police Minister Whelan, with copies to members of the Federal Parliament, including the Leader of the National Party, the Hon. Tim Fischer. My submission recommended the toughening of existing laws in New South Wales and increasing penalties, particularly for persons who possess firearms without a licence.

A number of those submissions have been embodied in the bill. I was advocating for template legislation and an improvement to New South Wales legislation. Call to Australia is pleased that this draft bill was submitted to the Commonwealth Attorney General for his examination. The Minister for Police received the following letter from Daryl Williams, the Federal Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, on 18 June:

I refer to our previous correspondence and discussions regarding the NSW Firearms Bill 1996. Thank you for providing me with a copy of the Bill. I understand you intend to introduce the legislation into NSW Parliament this week.

As you are aware, Officers of the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Board and my Department have been consulted on the Bill during the drafting stage. Those officers have advised me that the Bill covers and implements the proposals contained in the resolutions agreed by Ministers at the special meeting of the Australasian Police Ministers' Council on 10 May 1996.

I would like to record my appreciation for the speed with which you have completed this legislation, and my thanks for your cooperation or in this matter.

This legislation is in harmony with the Federal Government's request for uniform legislation. I trust that other States will work through the New South Wales bill and adopt similar legislation so that although Australia has sovereign States it will have developed and implemented uniform gun laws. That will be a positive move. Honourable members are all concerned about what has been described as the culture of violence in the United States. Australia should not go down that path. As I drove to the Parliament this morning I listened to John Laws interviewing a person from New York who was surprised at the high content of American programs on Australian television. In many ways that is a true reflection of the true situation. Australia is flooded with American television programs and news reports. A natural disaster in India, for example, a flood or an earthquake which causes the deaths of hundreds or thousands of
Page 3649
people may receive scant attention on Australian television. But an event of less magnitude in America will receive headline coverage.

Australians are being excessively influenced by the United States. Cultural violence in the United States is portrayed on television programs, films produced in the United States and news coverage. I hope that this legislation will circumvent that culture. Years ago Australians were warned about the use of heroin and other drugs in the United States, and some rather naive people in Australia thought that would never happen here. But we have gone down that path. Most of the social and moral problems of the United States have been duplicated in Australia and we are close to duplicating cultural violence by the use of firearms.

The United States has a population of 254 million. Last year 38,000 Americans were killed by firearms. In 1994 the population of Australia was 18 million. During that same year 620 people were killed by firearms - 200 in New South Wales. That is about the yearly average. Medical experts estimate that up to 80 per cent of those gun deaths were suicides, many of them young males. To put it in context, 504 Australians died in the Vietnam war! The red lights are flashing; something has to be done and I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction.

No one is sure how many guns are in Australia, but we have 1.8 million licensed shooters. How many unlicensed shooters are there, how many more unlicensed shooters will there be in the future, and of those how many will not register their firearms? I pose those questions because already there seems to be a lack of cooperation by the more extreme elements of the so-called gun lobby with the existing legislation. Those extreme elements are threatening not to cooperate with the legislation. The Government must ensure that the community observes this law. It is no good passing laws in this State if they are going to be ignored by a large percentage of the population.

This legislation was drafted quickly following the Port Arthur massacre. There should have been far more consultation with all organisations involved with firearms - sporting or target shooters, primary producers, farming associations and so on - so that a unified approach to gun control could be taken. Australia needs uniform gun legislation but it also needs a united nation. Regrettably in recent days the media has drawn attention to a division in our nation over this issue. It should have been handled more carefully to try to bring about agreement, a united approach. In the main licensed firearms users are law-abiding, conservative citizens who feel strongly about observing the law. They are most upset at the high incidence of robberies, car stealing, the use of illegal drugs and so on.

Generally speaking, farmers and members of firearms clubs are conservative law-abiding citizens. Had more time and care been taken to consult, such groups could have been brought on side and there would be a united approach to the legislation. I still believe that it is not a lost cause, although I acknowledge that there is a tough road to hoe before there can be agreement. When the bill passes through the Parliament I trust that the Government will seek the views of those who are intimately involved with firearms in New South Wales and across the nation to finetune the legislation. I refer particularly to primary producers and farmers and members of shooters clubs, sporting clubs, and Olympic shooting teams. When we resume after the winter recess those improvements, amendments or modifications can be considered and implemented if necessary.

No-one can deny that the driving force behind the legislation was the Port Arthur massacre. Many questions will be asked and many leads investigated during the murder trial in Tasmania. Martin Bryant used an automatic military assault weapon to murder 35 innocent people and to wound, some seriously, 18 others. Such a weapon is very effective in wartime; it is not a weapon that should be in the hands of civilians, and it is certainly not a weapon that is available to someone in a deranged state of mind. No normal human being could kill men, women and children in such a cold-blooded manner. In one instance the offender hunted down a small child who was trying to run away. I do not in any way excuse Martin Bryant - he will have to pay the full penalty for committing these horrific crimes - but there are serious underlying doubts about whether the massacre at Port Arthur could have been avoided.

The nation was shocked by the tragedy. Many church services were held throughout the nation. The event is burnt deeply into our national psyche. It has had the same thought-provoking effect as the commemoration activities on Anzac Day - from north to the south, east to west, in cities and in country towns. The brutality that was perpetrated on that quiet Sunday afternoon rocked our nation to its foundations. The Port Arthur massacre will be remembered as the place at which the most murders by shooting were committed by one person in modern history. We should not be proud that our nation is now listed in the history books as the nation which gave rise to such an event.

Individual people are not to blame. It is a pity that publicity and reaction to the terrible event has provided the unintended impression that those who have guns are in some way to blame for what happened at Port Arthur. Firearm owners at many of the large rallies said that they felt they were being blamed for the incident and were being treated as if they were associates of Martin Bryant. It seems that in recent times mass shootings by a lone gunman firing a high-powered automatic weapon at innocent people completely unknown to the gunman are not rare. In 1984 in California, James Huberty entered a MacDonald's restaurant
Page 3650
and firing indiscriminately, killed 21 people and wounded 19 others before he was shot dead by police. That seems to be the first recorded case.

Such incidences are not foreign to Australia. There were the Hoddle Street and Queen Street shootings in Melbourne in 1987. Then in 1991 Wade Frankum stabbed one girl and shot six others in Strathfield, Sydney, before killing himself. This year honourable members were shocked by the report that in the quiet Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March, a known paedophile, Thomas Hamilton, killed 16 young children and their teacher in a school gymnasium. There is no doubt that the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania has shaken Australia to the core. How did it happen and what can we do to avoid a recurrence? Many people believe that this bill will stop a recurrence of such tragedies . I do not believe we should put our full confidence in this legislation alone. A more comprehensive approach should be taken to the issue. The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith referred in her contribution to violent television videos that encourage violence and desensitise society.

There is no doubt Martin Byrant is a very unusual person. His background would suggest that he was a bomb waiting to explode. Like so many others in modern society, as a result of the breakdown of his parents' marriage he was left alone for a great deal of his life. He did, however, have an association with his father. We also heard first-hand from people who knew Martin Bryant. Jenetta Hoani, a former girlfriend of Martin Bryant, revealed that he was very fond of violent videos, his favourite being Child's Play 2 - rated M - which features a cute doll named "Chucky". Another "Chucky" video was a factor in the horrific murder of Jamie Bulger by two boys in England in 1993.

I have not seen this video; I am going on information provided to me about it. Jenetta said that the main character of the video is a doll named"Chucky", who has to kill a boy to become real. "Chucky" apparently kills many people. Miss Hoani said that Martin used to talk about "Chucky" all the time. She also said that he had some hard-core porn videos depicting bestiality that he had bought in Scandinavia. She said she left him after his mother revealed that he was schizophrenic and after she was disturbed by the "unnatural attention" he paid to young men. In another media interview the mother of one of Bryant's girlfriends was distressed at something Bryant had allegedly done to her daughter - something so bad that the mother did not want to describe or discuss. No-one knows what took place between Martin Bryant and that young woman. Bryant's most recent girlfriend was aware of his preoccupation with guns and was not surprised, as others were, to hear that he was involved in the massacre.

It has been reported also that in 1994 the Tasmanian Supreme Court ordered a trustee company to administer Martin Bryant's affairs. Health and community services doctors had examined Bryant and found that he suffered from a personality disorder and schizophrenia. I read with interest the debate on this bill in the other place. As we know the Legislative Assembly sat to debate this bill on Friday and Saturday of last week. The Minister for Health denied in his speech that there was any evidence Martin Bryant was suffering from schizophrenia. There is documented evidence of that fact from many sources. I am not sure why the Minister for Health made such a denial. He seems to be out of touch with the reality. Obviously he has not studied this case and the evidence very closely.

There is no doubt that Martin Bryant liked violent computer games and arcade video games and violent videos. The police reported that they confiscated 2,000 violent videos from his suburban residence. In the a room in the house occupied by Miss Harvey, who had died earlier, family videos were found but in Martin Bryant's room were the violent videos, which the police confiscated. They included Nightmare on Elm Street. He had video games which could be played on television. One arcade game named Virtuacop involved the player pointing a plastic gun at the screen and pressing a button to fire. The player is awarded points for accuracy, for killing people on the screen.

The few survivors of the assault on the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur said that the gunman acted slowly and deliberately, carefully aiming and firing in a systemic way - almost as if he was playing the video game. Perhaps he had some sort of mental breakdown in which he thought he was playing the video game - but it was reality, not fantasy. There are confirmed reports that he had tried to buy guns. He went to a gun shop in New Town near his home twice in the week before the massacre but could not buy guns because he had no licence. The gun used in the massacre did not belong to Martin Bryant. Some speakers gave the impression that he was able to buy an automatic rifle. He went to the Seascape Cottage of the Martins and murdered the Martins and then stole the guns, which belonged to the Martins' son, which he used to kill the other 33 people. After his rampage he returned to the cottage. Some people mistakenly believed that he ended up at the cottage but he actually started his rampage from the cottage, which he later burned down. When he tried to escape from the burning building the police SWAT group captured him and he was treated for serious burns in hospital.

People have tried to find a simple reason for the Port Arthur massacre which could be counteracted through legislation. A single piece of legislation such as this bill will not prevent such events in the future as many factors were involved. Psychiatrist Professor Brent Waters said that access to high-powered guns was a factor in the massacre but he said so was the glorification of violence in the media. We cannot ignore that influence. Melbourne clinical psychologist Ronald Conway said, "An increasing number of recent violent
Page 3651
assailants or killers have had some psychiatric illness that I think has been poorly investigated or underestimated." He cited the Melbourne Queen Street killer, Vitkovic, and the Strathfield killer, Wade Frankum. With Martin Bryant we see a similar pattern.

At this stage no evidence has been revealed to indicate that he took drugs but a loner involved with violent videos would quite possibly have experimented with drugs. I will be prophetic and say that the court proceedings will reveal he has at least experimented with drugs - marijuana and so on. I do not have all the details but apparently Martin Bryant's farm neighbours had complained to police that he had threatened to shoot them if they came on to his property. He obviously had a gun but he did not have a licence. It seems a great oversight that the police did not investigate the complaints and check out Bryant to ensure that he did not have access to a gun. They could then have gone further to check whether he had a mental illness or violent tendencies which could have led to a shooting. This poses the question of whether the Port Arthur massacre could have been prevented if all those involved had done their duty.

I do not know Tasmanian police policy but there has been a tendency in recent years for police to move away from preventive action and to react only to crime. Police are nervous about interfering with people's privacy, taking action on hearsay and so on. This is creating a vacuum in our society. When police receive such reports they should be encouraged to follow them through. I am pleased that domestic violence legislation in New South Wales, following the report of the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform, of which I was a member, allows police to confiscate guns, thereby preventing a deranged husband who completely loses self-control from turning a gun against his wife, children and/or himself - as has occurred many times in our State and nation.

After the massacre there was a call for people to be calm and not to make guns a political issue. In my humble opinion that did not happen. Individuals and organisations supporting gun control took the opportunity to make guns an issue, and by so doing have distorted the debate, perhaps unintentionally. Some sections of the media have aided and abetted that attitude. For example, when the Australian Broadcasting Corporation heard that the group that Ian McNiven is associated with was to hold a rally at Gympie it sent a camera crew to film the meeting. If I were the producer at the ABC, I would have known the sort of footage I would get at the meeting - fiery and almost irrational statements. Many times I have seen calm rallies - the protests by nurses about hospital transfers is a current example - become agitated with people shouting slogans as soon as camera crews arrive. They want to have impact on the television that night. Indirectly, Ian McNiven and others cooperated with the ABC by making what I believe were quite irrational statements.

Many of the people at the rally would have been inflamed to a degree by the ABC. Many conservative and country people have had disagreements with the ABC over the years. I have disagreed with the ABC over its promotion of the homosexual mardi gras and so on. Many sections of the community are antagonistic towards the ABC. Putting ABC camera crews in a conservative meeting will almost generate an extremism which perhaps is not normal or even genuine. If the ABC had not been present, the meeting may have been calmer. I cannot prove that what I claim happened would not have happened if the ABC had not been there. However, the ABC should bear some blame for inflaming the meeting. The extreme statements made at that meeting provoked a stronger reaction to firearm owners. People believed all firearm owners were extremists. As I have said, Ian McNiven was provoked to make more extreme statements than he would have made in a normal discussion or at a public protest meeting about firearms.

The extreme statements of Ian McNiven helped to accentuate the division in our nation and made honest, responsible gun owners - farmers, members of shooting clubs, et cetera - believe that they were being treated like criminals. Some of the more extreme views expressed by gun control groups have conveyed that impression. Those groups seem to have a chip on their shoulder about any person holding a firearm licence. A distinction needs to be made between extremists such as Ian McNiven and average, responsible Australians. I have had contact with firearms for many years. During my 22 years in the army reserve I took part in shooting competitions on rifle ranges and met with members of gun clubs and farmers. Many of my supporters are farmers; I received telephone calls from some of them this morning. Those people are the most conservative, law-abiding citizens in Australia; they are not criminals or lawbreakers. There are extremists on both the pro-gun side and the anti-gun side of the debate. Some on the anti-gun side will not rest until all firearms in Australia are banned. That is one of the concerns of those who want to use firearms: primary producers and members of recognised shooting clubs or associations. They ask whether the bill is the first item on the agenda to totally prohibit weapons in Australia.

During this debate some extreme statements have been made by members who want legislation to prohibit firearms from being stored in a person's home, whether it is a farmhouse or a house in the suburbs. I have some sympathy for attempts to reduce or eliminate firearms from suburban areas. However, the proposition seems to be that the legislation will be accepted, but the next step will be to prohibit all domestic firearms. Such a proposition only creates greater antagonism and
Page 3652
division in our nation. Honourable members need to be aware of that proposition and do all they can to unite our nation and ensure that we all work in harmony.

I was a member of the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform that was established in 1991. Although the committee had only limited time in which to conduct its investigations, it considered 257 submissions and examined 25 witnesses who were mainly senior members and presidents of recognised shooters associations and clubs. The committee discussed a wide range of issues relating to gun law reform. Members of the committee inspected the forensic ballistics unit in the physical evidence section of the New South Wales Police Service, the New South Wales Gun Club at Terrey Hills, and the premises of the New South Wales Firearms Safety Awareness Council Limited.

I shall not refer to all the recommendations in the report, which has been tabled and discussed in this Chamber. The majority of the recommendations were incorporated in legislation and gave New South Wales the strongest gun laws in Australia. The bill improves on those provisions, and the improved provisions will be the basis for uniform national legislation. I have received correspondence from some of the groups who are concerned about the whole debate. I want to put some of those letters on the record to counteract the perception in the minds of some people, in some sections of the media, and perhaps in the minds of some members of this House that those involved with firearms and with shooters associations and clubs are extremists. The correspondence I have received supports sound workable legislation. In a letter dated 17 July the President of the New South Wales Shooting Association Limited, Alex Comino, said:

The NSW Shooting Association wishes to assist the government in the effective implementation of the new uniform gun laws and revised firearms legislation.

The NSW Shooting Association is:

•the official and only member for the sport to the NSW Olympic Council,

•the official and only member for the sport to the Australian Commonwealth Games Association (NSW), and

•the sole state member of the national sports federation.

The letter made a number of points and concluded in this way:

We would therefore appreciate the opportunity to provide sensible input into proposed firearms laws and assist the process, but we also wish the ensure that they do not unnecessarily restrict the legitimate activities of the sport - a matter of considerable importance for our sport as we draw closer to the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

My colleagues and I would be very pleased to be able to discuss this matter with the appropriate people at your earliest convenience.

I have met with deputations from that organisation. I acknowledge the organisation's sincerity in seeking sound, workable legislation. The same can be said about the Sporting Shooters Association of New South Wales Incorporated. The association expressed some of its concerns in a letter dated 5 June, which stated:

The Sporting Shooters Association wants Tough National Gun Laws too, but we want tough gun laws that will work; and work without unreasonably affecting law abiding firearm owners.

Enclosed with that letter was a proposal headed "Towards Uniform National Gun Laws". That impressive document deals with many issues. In summary the document states that to be workable the national control gun strategy must provide for the establishment of a national firearms board to drive the process of reform and to ensure that the current momentum is not lost or squandered; the creation of a national register of licensed firearm owners accessible by all police jurisdictions; the immediate declaration of an amnesty to facilitate the removal of illegal and unwanted firearms in the community; the general prohibition of all automatic firearms, all military-style semiautomatic centre-fire firearms and all other large magazine-capacity semiautomatic firearms, as well as strict minimum national license conditions for all other firearms; the requirement that all license applicants are to have an appropriate genuine reason for owning a firearm; the creation of standardised classes or categories of firearms licenses; and compulsory training for all licence applicants.

The association explained in detail how the national strategy would operate. I will not take up the time of the House by reading the document. By leave, I table that national gun control strategy. I am seeking to make the point that these groups are not irrational; they are not like Ian McNiven. They want to cooperate. It is not right to label them as criminals, as some sections of the media have. We must all work cooperatively to achieve a united approach. At the moment the nation is divided. Perhaps the nation is gradually moving towards agreement, but there has certainly been strong disagreement, which has been evident in protest marches and rallies by those on both sides of the debate. Some speakers in the debate have ridiculed what could be called the defence factor. It may be hard for those living in suburban areas - even some Labor Party people, particularly those from the left-wing of the Labor Party - to understand that many Australians, particularly in the country, have a real fear of invasion. I do not personally have that fear.

During the Second World War, the authorities were prepared to hand over the northern part of Australia above the Brisbane Line to Japan if that became necessary. Those living in northern Queensland have a deep-seated fear of invasion and want Australia to be protected. Perhaps it is emotional and illogical but those who have that fear ought not to be laughed at. They believe that Australia can be protected through the availability of firearms and through recognised clubs, particularly the Australian rifle clubs, which work in cooperation with the Federal Government. Those
Page 3653
clubs were established in the early 1920s after the First World War under the Commonwealth Defence Act regulations with a view to providing a reservoir of trained riflemen who could be inducted into the Australian Army if war broke out.

I and other members of the House who have spoken in favour of the Australian rifle clubs support the retention of the Defence Act regulations that make it possible for clubs to operate. Apparently the Federal Government is considering repealing those regulations. That is causing fear and concern among members of the Australian rifle clubs. I believe that the clubs should be allowed to continue to operate. Some ask why people need to know how to fire a gun when they will never be required to defend Australia because we are living in the space age, the nuclear age. No-one knows what the future holds. No-one knows what possible problems might arise in Australia's relationships with Indonesia, China or any other nation in the Pacific.

When the coup occurred in Fiji, the media reported that the former Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, was anxious to send the Australian Army to Fiji to help restore the Fijian Government. But Mr Hawke found out that the Fijian Army was bigger than the Australian Army; it had 6,000 trained soldiers and the Australian Army apparently had about 3,000. He then decided it was not the right time to invade Fiji because Fiji was stronger than Australia. As I have said, this morning I received phone calls from rational farmers who are concerned about the future security and defence of Australia. We should not laugh at those people; we should understand their fears and try to work through those fears with them.

As I said before, I have worked closely with the defence forces. I spent 22 years in the Army Reserve. When I resigned I was a company commander with the 4th Royal New South Wales Regiment. I had a great deal to do with every weapon that it was possible to fire. I fired heavy Vickers machine guns, Bren guns, M60s, antitank weapons, Owen submachine guns, and rifles including .303 Lee-Enfield and self-loading rifles. For that reason I have a great respect for guns. I would never have a gun in my home because I know how dangerous they can be. Some honourable members may have never handled a gun and do not fully understand the situation. I do understand the situation, and I understand that those who hold licences - members of rifle clubs and farmers - want to maintain their right to hold a licence and to have a firearm. I respect those rights, but I also know how dangerous firearms, especially military assault weapons, can be. That is why I strongly support the bill.

Careful consideration must be given to those with mental health problems who want to obtain gun licences. That issue has already been discussed in the debate. Obviously no person with a mental problem should be able to obtain a licence. The argument is that it is not always possible to determine whether a person has a mental problem. But even if some people with mental problems can be identified and prevented from holding licences, that will be a step forward even if others with mental problems pass the test and obtain licences. But we should be upfront about it and at least try to make the licensing system work. A degree of voluntary reporting is accepted by the Government, and the Federal Government is inquiring into this matter, which should be treated seriously. In most cases of mass murder the perpetrator had clear signs of mental illness. Martin Bryant obviously had those signs, and I understand that Wade Frankum showed such signs as well. The licences of people showing those signs should be cancelled.

The Australian rifle clubs, the sporting clubs, the Sporting Shooters Association of New South Wales and perhaps the New South Wales Farmers Association should be given as much responsibility as possible so that those organisations will have some input as to who can obtain a licence. If any organisation suspects that someone is a Rambo or is dangerous, that organisation should be able to advise the police to not issue a licence or to cancel a licence. I advocate some type of self-regulation so that those who run the shooters' associations, et cetera, are able to take some responsibility for making sure that people who obtain a licence are sound, safe, law-abiding citizens with no mental illness and no involvement in domestic or other violence. Those associations should be able to veto a licence application or to have a licence cancelled. Those associations have a vested interest in ensuring that there are no more tragedies like those at Port Arthur or Strathfield. That is why I would place a great deal of the responsibility on their shoulders.

I hope there will be a genuine review of the legislation. The police Ministers will consult on 4 July. The legislation will be fully discussed and submissions will be received from the public, particularly the firearms associations, the shooters associations, rifle clubs and so on. Their input will help to form a united approach to this problem. To unite the nation we should listen to all concerned groups. The bill should be reviewed and amended, if necessary, in September because the legislation must be workable. There is undoubtedly great concern over the issue of firearm registration. I strongly support registration of firearm owners and I and other honourable members question whether a system involving the registration of every firearm will work. I question whether people will register their weapons to start with. Who will administer the necessary bureaucratic controls? How many police officers will be required? How is the register to be maintained and kept up to date so that it is accurate? Will police be misled by the register? The register may lead police to believe that a person does not have a gun when in fact that person does have a gun. The register may be inaccurate and may cause a police officer to put himself into a life-threatening situation. The views of all people must
Page 3654
be considered, not only those of city people. The views of country people must be considered, as well as the views of those who have genuine fears that the next step is the confiscation of all guns in Australia. Those fears should be put to rest. The bill is a sensible, rational approach to a serious social problem. The culture of violence is not wanted in Australia. That development must be turned around. The legislation is one way of doing that and, therefore, Call to Australia supports the bill.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [1.49]: I congratulate the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and the Premier of this State on what I hope will be uniform national legislation. I believe a scare campaign has been on foot for a number of years. In 1994 we were visiting country areas of the State and in Tamworth city hall a speaker from the Shooters Party claimed that the coalition Government would take away all guns from every person in the State. At a meeting the next night in Tamworth the only matter our supporters were concerned about was that the Government intended to take away their guns. In every country town we visited the first thing people said to us was, "The Government is going to take away our guns." This rumour was spread by the Shooters Party. Media releases were issued advising people not to vote for the Niles because we were in favour of taking away guns. As I said that scare campaign has been going on since 1994.

Earlier this week an exposé was screened on television of the American Lyndon Larouche. The Citizens Electoral Councils of Australia has members in New South Wales and Victoria. Call to Australia is aware of the sneaky way in which members of that organisation operate. The latest conspiracy theory they are pushing throughout the community is that 100 Indonesian tanks and Indonesian troops are in Townsville. It is simply a scaremongering campaign, but unfortunately many people believe what they are told. That is the problem in New South Wales. People believe what they are told and they are burying their guns, and have been burying their guns for a number of years. Following the Port Arthur massacre I was visiting a hospital when one of the sisters told me she had relatives living in Port Arthur at the time. She said her sister who lives in Eastwood had told her children that whenever they heard a shotgun or a bang to fall down on the footpath. What worse thought could one put into the mind of a child?

That is one of the effects of the scaremongering campaign that has continued throughout New South Wales since 1994. Sadly, many country people are being taken in by it. They should have more sense and investigate the rumours more fully. Police officers will be pleased with the bill. I do not believe many members of this Chamber have had to look down the barrel of a gun. I have two sons in the Police Service who have had to do that in domestic violence situations and when dealing with drunks, particularly in country towns. Last year two police officers from Crescent Head were killed with a firearm and their deaths have affected a number of families. As a mother, I am concerned about the misuse of firearms. I am pleased that the bill has been introduced, as it will give the community confidence. However, not enough information about the legislation was given to country people and gun clubs. That is why there has been a Rambo-type reaction from so many people. I support the bill.

[The President left the chair at 1.53 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.15], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. In the Legislative Assembly the Minister for Police declared that in 20 years in Parliament, this legislation was undoubtedly the most important with which he had been involved. The legislation is important for all members of Parliament. It goes to the heart of our culture and belief systems. The legislation expresses our opposition to violence and gun-based subcultures, it ensures that the protection of individual liberty and safety is elevated above the potential to destroy them, and it gives primacy to humanity and a more peaceful society. The bill does not do this by punitive measures, but by imposing strict but sensible conditions on firearms ownership. Registration and licensing will be requirements of, not barriers to, responsible firearms ownership.

The registration and licensing systems will be streamlined to facilitate responsible and law-abiding firearms ownership. For example, the Minister for Police is seeking Commonwealth support for a one-year amnesty on registration fees to ensure that shooters face as little inconvenience as possible in conforming with the new laws. The barriers to ownership are based on reasonableness. Those seeking to apply for a licence will require simply a genuine reason, and in some cases a special need, to own a firearm. They will require only a willingness to develop appropriate shooting skills and knowledge, to behave responsibly, and to handle and store firearms safely. The benefits of these simple requirements will flow to the whole community. They will reduce the risk to the innocent, they will lessen the threat to the vulnerable, and they will reduce the harm able to be perpetrated by the violent and the indifferent. Above all they will save lives.

I have been pleased by the support shown by almost all honourable members of this House for the bill. Some have argued that the system will not work. I prefer the argument of those who say that it must be made to work. The legislation will not end all gun-related deaths, but if we are defeatist we fail the democratic process and we fail the people who elected us to govern for a better society. An obvious analogy is the road toll. The introduction of compulsory seat belts and random breath testing,
Page 3655
and modern developments in vehicle safety failed to eliminate road fatalities, but the road toll today is the lowest it has been since the Second World War. That is a remarkable achievement. This legislation provides an opportunity to replicate that success. National uniform gun laws signify a cultural change which sees Australia turn away from the United States' path of gun violence and deaths. I strongly support that change and I am proud to be associated with this bill, which is the start of that process.

Some have attempted to portray the development of this legislation and its passage as a stunt. Nothing could be further from the truth. Progress has been rapid, which was the desire of the Commonwealth and the States. Port Arthur has been history's most recent and important catalyst for change, but the Australasian Police Ministers' Council resolutions and the legislation to implement them are the culmination of a long debate. These resolutions had their origin in the recommendations of the national inquiry into violence, which began in 1988 and lasted two years. Its recommendations for a national system of firearm regulation, released in 1990, formed the basis of recommendations put to the APMC as long ago as 1991. They were defeated there largely due to the lack of support shown by the former New South Wales coalition Government. The debate on firearms control has been a long one. The issues in question have not changed, only the outcomes. The advantages have moved towards those individuals who wish to protect their safety.

In the two months since the massacre at Port Arthur the Government has held numerous meetings with Commonwealth and State governments, politicians, gun owners, dealers, shooters' organisations and gun control groups. It is now more than seven weeks since the APMC passed its resolutions, which have been widely distributed and debated. It is more likely the complaint of too little consultation reflects the failure of those complaining to put the concerns of their constituents before the concerns of the Government. To date, the Government has received many constructive comments from members on both sides of this debate. The administration of compensation, collectors, the national training schemes and storage requirements will be crucial in ensuring that the intentions of the bill are reflected in its implementation. For that reason the Government will strive to adopt the most practical and effective systems to ensure that the safety of the community is enhanced.

Many speakers have questioned the central feature of the APMC resolutions - the national registration scheme for all firearms. In particular, some members of the National Party have expressed their disagreement with this aspect of the package. Too many people are willing to portray the introduction of registration as exceptional. The fact is that the lack of registration in New South Wales is exceptional. Only New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania were without firearms registration before the tragedy at Port Arthur. All other States had the protection of such schemes. Opponents of registration argue that it is expensive and that it does not reduce crime. That is not true. Western Australia has had gun registration since the late 1940s and in 1973 those laws were supplemented with controls over ownership. Today Western Australia has the lowest gun death rate in Australia. This Government will not weaken these important reforms proposed by the APMC by removing or compromising registration. The Government supports shooters who are willing to do the right thing. It wants our society to be as safe as it can make it. Registration should not be a barrier to gun ownership. The Government is working to streamline its administration, to ensure it is simple, easy and accessible for all firearms owners.

To remove concerns about costs we will approach the Commonwealth to provide a 12-month amnesty for registration and licensing fees for all gun owners. Later today there will be divisions on various points. We will deal with those matters in the Committee stage. It is important to avoid amendments which damage the integrity of the APMC resolutions. We have to adhere to the fundamental features and to the detail of the resolutions. That is why any amendment which undermines the APMC resolutions must be opposed by the Government. The Prime Minister made his object abundantly clear when he put forward the resolutions endorsed by the APMC. He made registration a central and unalterable condition of this package. The opportunism of those seeking to subvert that aspect of the package is to be condemned. Concerns have been raised about the ability of the Government to guarantee compliance with the storage provisions - a key element of the safety package in the bill. I assure all honourable members that the Government will strive to develop effective systems of administration which will protect the integrity of the storage provisions.

Honourable members have raised the issue concerning the need to destroy all firearms that are surrendered. We have heard allegations that firearms surrendered in Victoria were sold to firearms dealers. The Acting Commissioner of Police has assured the Minister for Police that that will not happen in New South Wales. On 10 May the Prime Minister gave the Minister for Police an assurance that guns surrendered under the Commonwealth's amnesty and buy-back proposals would be destroyed. Arrangements are being made to ensure that all firearms which are surrendered will be melted down, with the exception of those which have special historical significance.

The Acting Commissioner of Police has advised the Minister for Police that strong security and audit procedures will be put in place to ensure the destruction of all surrendered firearms. The same standards will continue to apply when the amnesty period has concluded. A key issue in removing unneeded guns from our society will be the payment of appropriate compensation. The
Page 3656
Government has been called upon to clarify the terms of the compensation that will be offered to firearms owners who surrender their prohibited firearms and parts. It is still waiting on the Commonwealth to provide advice on these issues. When these details are available a public education campaign will be launched to properly inform firearms owners on this important issue. The issue is one of several which will be pursued with the Commonwealth at next week's APMC meeting.

Another outstanding issue that has to be dealt with by the Commonwealth is the national system for firearms collectors. The Commonwealth has established a working party to revisit this issue and a report will be presented to the APMC next week. The associated issue of family heirlooms and inherited firearms will also be revisited at the APMC in July. The Opposition criticised the Commonwealth Government for failing to draft template legislation to ensure uniformity across Australia. This Government has always stated that uniformity is crucial. Any State which fails to implement the APMC resolutions will be the weak link in the chain. This bill, which is the first to be introduced in Australia, has been fully endorsed by the Commonwealth Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the Hon. Daryl Williams QC, as a true reflection of the APMC resolutions of 10 May. To enhance the uniformity of State legislation, the bill has been circulated to the other States and Territories. Already, I understand, there are indications that other States are using its provisions as a basis for their own legislation. The Government will ask the Commonwealth to endorse this and encourage other States to adopt the provisions of its bill. It is crucial that there is no weak link in the laws which are to be passed across Australia. If the Commonwealth is unable to provide that guarantee, a referendum on firearm ownership should be held and the responsibility for firearms assumed by the Commonwealth.

Many speakers have argued that the new laws will only be as effective as their enforcement. The Acting Commissioner of Police has assured the Minister for Police that the New South Wales Police Service will properly enforce them. The Minister for Police has advised me that he will ensure that the Police Service has adequate resources to do so. Those who refuse to comply with the new law will be treated with the severity that their unwillingness to respect community wishes deserves. It is easy to chant the gun lobby mantra "Guns don't kill, people do", but the succession of high profile firearm-related tragedies in this country disproves that mindless phrase. The facts speak for themselves. Any human misusing a firearm becomes an extraordinarily destructive and lethal adversary. The massacres which preceded Port Arthur are indelibly etched on people's minds. The Milperra bikie massacre, Hoddle Street and Strathfield all raise images of terror and loss of life. But it is all too easy to forget the way guns affect ordinary people every day. A gun used to threaten or intimidate is enough to devastate and destroy lives.

Ordinary citizens can be threatened in their homes, in the local bank or at a petrol station. On most occasions those people are not shot or physically injured. Instead, they are forced to live through a few moments of unforgettable terror as they or their loved ones are threatened with a weapon. Guns do not have to be fired to inflict damage. For many in our community, particularly women and children, guns signify fear and domination. The statistics are too consistent. In domestic situations guns are used to instil fear and, all too frequently, to maim or kill. Tragically, many of these women and children are too intimidated to speak out. Their shame and fear trap and disable them. These new laws are for all these people: for the silent victims who are intimidated or otherwise threatened by the possession of firearms. I have indicated that the Government will be resisting various amendments that have been foreshadowed which, in our view, undermine the basic structural elements of the agreement that has been reached between the States and the Commonwealth. That will be done for obvious reasons.

I wish to say something about a number of concerns that the Hon. A. G. Corbett raised with Government representatives. The Hon. A. G. Corbett is concerned about compliance with the storage requirement and the inspection of storage facilities which, of course, go hand in hand. The Government sees compliance with the storage provisions as crucial to the success of the legislation. That is why there are strong penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment for failure to comply with this licence condition. The Minister for Police has assured me that extra staff will be recruited to facilitate the proper administration of the Act, most particularly during the introductory phase in those areas where gun ownership is high. The honourable member voiced concerns about the destruction of surrendered firearms, a matter with which I have already dealt in reply. The honourable member also expressed concerns about storage requirements for gun dealers' records. As I understand it, he has asked for storage in a fireproof safe. The Government is currently examining a system of electronic records transfer, similar to that envisaged under the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act.

It has been suggested that sport or target shooting clubs be required to notify the commissioner of membership changes. Presumably, that is to catch those shooters whose club membership provides a genuine reason for their licence, but who later allow that membership to lapse and so no longer qualify to possess or use a firearm. That issue will be considered in the formulation of the regulations. The honourable member argued that it is unclear whether the commissioner will take into account guns that are already owned when deciding whether to issue a permit to acquire. This issue will be considered in the formulation of the regulations and the
Page 3657
administration of the Act. The honourable member sought to have it made a requirement that licences be produced for transfers of ammunition without financial consideration. This will be considered in the making of the regulations. Finally, the honourable member expressed some views about compensation. I have already dealt with that to some extent in reply, but that is also a matter for the Commonwealth. The Government believes that that matter will be addressed at the Australasian Police Ministers' Council meeting on 4 July. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Part 1

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [2.33]: I do not propose to move amendments 1, 3, 18, 34, 36, 40, 49, 50, 53, 57, 73, 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 96, 104, 105, 106, 110 and 111 circulated in my name. By leave, I move amendments 2, 99 and 112 in globo:

Page 3, clause 3, line 8. After "firearms", insert "(including firearms which, by reason of the operation of this Act, can no longer be lawfully possessed by the holder of a licence or permit)".

Page 54, clause 78. Insert after line 6:

(c) any firearm that, although lawfully possessed by a person immediately before the commencement of this section, cannot be lawfully possessed by that person because of the operation of this Act,

Page 65, Schedule 3, clause 3. Insert after line 15:

(c) any firearm that, although lawfully possessed by a person immediately before the commencement of this clause, cannot be lawfully possessed by that person because of the operation of this Act,

These amendments relate to the firearms for which compensation will be paid, a matter that the Attorney-General referred to in his reply. The bill provides that compensation shall be paid for prohibited firearms which are surrendered to police. The Minister for Police in another place indicated in his second reading speech that one matter still to be resolved by the Australasian Police Ministers' Council was the question of whether compensation should be paid only for the surrender of prohibited arms, or whether compensation should also be paid for the surrender of firearms which in themselves were legal, but which could no longer be possessed by a licence holder because of the strictures of the Act.

The problem is that with the severe restrictions on firearms numbers, and the obvious increased difficulty in meeting the requirements for an individual firearm licence, it would be difficult to sell a firearm, once owned legally, which could no longer be owned legally. The amendments seek to provide that a person who can no longer obtain a licence for an otherwise legal firearm and who therefore has to surrender it, should be able to be compensated for it on surrender. If this is not provided for, it is likely that a significant number of people might decide to keep firearms, which they formerly owned legally, even though they cannot obtain a licence for them. This would mitigate seriously against the stated intention of the bill to reduce the overall number of firearms in the community.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.37]: The Government cannot accept the amendments. The Government believes that compensation fundamentally is a matter for the Commonwealth under the arrangements that have been reached, and it is a matter for ongoing discussion and deliberation. I am informed that a working party, which has been set up to determine compensation issues, is expected to report to the APMC meeting on 3 July. The working party has been considering the circumstances in which compensation will be paid, the valuation process and the amounts that will be paid. In other words, this is a matter which is under active consideration and is being dealt with in the way that I have indicated. The Government believes the amendments are inappropriate.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [2.38]: The Opposition does not support the amendments.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [2.39]: I support compensation for category A and category B weapons, in order to provide a real incentive for the surrender of those legally possessed weapons most commonly found in homes, and those weapons most commonly used to threaten women and children. In other circumstances, if a division were called, I would vote for the amendments. However, it has been pointed out that the availability of compensation will depend on the Commonwealth Government. I have received an assurance from the Minister for Police that he will raise the matter at the Australasian Police Ministers' Council and I am prepared to accept that assurance. I would prefer it if the Committee did not divide on the amendment so that the Government is not put in a position where it has to vote against it. If this amendment were defeated today it would undermine the authority of the Minister for Police at the Australasian Police Ministers' Council on 4 July. He would be placed in the invidious position of having to argue in favour of a proposition already rejected by his own Government. Although I support the objectives of the amendment I shall not vote for it if a division is called. This is also the view of the Coalition for Gun Control.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [2.41]: I support amendment 2. I also agree with the intent of amendment 99. I believe that there should be a right of appeal to the District Court from the Local Court because in some instances the Local Court may make a mistake.

Amendments negatived.

Page 3658

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [2.42]: I do not intend to move my amendment 4. I move amendment 5 circulated in my name:

Page 4, clause 4, line 23. Omit "that is the person's principal business".

This amendment deals with the definition of a firearms dealer. Clause 43 and other clauses in part 5 of the bill deal with the rights and obligations of firearms dealers. The Firearms Act 1989 did not require a dealer, as a pre-requisite to being licensed, to carry on the business as his principal business. This clause will cause many small firearms dealers who are well qualified to carry on their trade to close their business. This law provides that they cannot work in their occupation on a part-time basis. There appears to be no justification or requirement for insisting that qualified persons should not carry out their vocation unless it is their principal business. This provision will also cause sports stores, or other stores in country towns that offer firearms for sale as an adjunct to their business, to relinquish their licence. A corollary of this will be that firearms that should be repaired - and which would be repaired if there were suitable persons to do so - will not be repaired. I believe that this is an attempt to restrict the number of dealers in the industry and to force others out. As I understand it, that matter was not raised at the Australasian Police Ministers' Council.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.43]: I am informed that this provision of the bill simply reflects the current law. For that reason, the Government does not agree to the amendment. I have been advised that in States that do not have this requirement - that is, that a firearms dealer's principal business is dealing - the provision is open to exploitation by those who wish to collect firearms, to avoid the requirements of a collector's licence. Fundamentally, the Government's view is that this simply reflects the status quo. The Government opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [2.44]: I move amendment 6:

Page 5, clause 4, line 20. Omit all words on that line.

This amendment relates to the definition of "possession". Clause 4 attempts to extend the definition "possession of a firearm" and the rights and obligations of and restrictions attaching to a person who, as a matter of commonsense, does not have a firearm in his or her possession. One person may possess an article. Two people, separate and apart, cannot physically possess the same article. Clause 19(2)(b) provides that if a person has another person's firearm and without the consent of the first person he gives it to a third person, the first person, that is, the owner, is guilty of a breach of his licence conditions. I believe that is quite an absurd result.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.45]: The effect of the amendment is to amend the definition of "possession" by removing the provision that possession includes knowingly placing the firearm in the custody of another person. That is a reasonable concept of possession. A person can possess some implement or item even if he or she knowingly places that item in the custody of another person. The Government's view is that the proposed amendment would significantly weaken the current law; it would enable a firearms owner to evade licensing requirements simply by knowingly placing the firearm into the temporary custody of another person. The Government does not support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [2.46]: By leave, I move my amendments 7, 8, 15, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 45, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 and 78 in globo:

Page 5, clause 4, line 25. Omit "Firearms". Insert instead "firearm owners".

Page 5, clause 4, line 26. Omit all words on that line.

Page 9, clause 8, line 2. Omit "registered".

Page 9, clause 8, line 13. Omit "registered".

Page 10, clause 8, line 3. Omit "registered".

Page 10, clause 8, line 6. Omit "registered".

Page 10, clause 8, line 28. Omit "registered".

Page 11, clause 8, line 2. Omit "registered".

Page 19, clause 18, line 8. Omit "registered".

Page 29, heading to Part 3, line 1. Omit "Registration of firearms". Insert instead "Register of firearm owners".

Page 29, heading to Division 1, line 3. Omit all words on that line.

Page 29, heading to clause 33, line 4. Omit "Firearms". Insert instead "firearm owners".

Page 29, clause 33, line 6. Omit "Firearms". Insert instead "firearm owners".

Page 29, clause 33, lines 8 to 13. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(a) such particulars relating to licensed firearm owners as are prescribed by the regulations, and

Page 38, clause 47, lines 28 and 29. Omit all words on those lines.

All these amendments relate to the question of registration. They seek to return to the Federal Government's original proposal a national register of firearms owners, not a register of firearms. A register of firearms owners is readily available by linking current databases of State police forces. It could be brought into force regardless of whether firearms owners would comply. Possession of a firearms licence automatically ensures that a firearms owner is on the database. A register of firearms owners is much more likely to be effective than a firearms register, which requires majority compliance to be successful. Speakers in the second reading debate have canvassed exhaustively the pros and cons of the firearms register system. I do not intend to go over that ground again. It is far more
Page 3659
sensible to introduce something that is likely to work rather than something that produces a false sense of security; that can be no real guide as to where the guns are located; that will arouse hostility, resentment and non-compliance amongst otherwise law-abiding firearms owners; and that will give the Government and the community even less idea of who has the firearms and where they are.

As has been shown by experience in many places, firearms registration can be a self-defeating device which is likely to create an underworld of firearms which can do nothing but harm to the community that it is supposed to protect. Reference was made in debate to the possibility of police knowing where the firearms are. The awful shootings at Crescent Head are a good example of a case where registration would not have provided the police with that information. I know that the Government believes that firearms registration will be a safety measure, and I know that it will insist upon it because it does not really understand that it might not work, but I urge honourable members to think about it carefully. I believe that firearms registration, as distinct from owner registration, is wrong and dangerous. That is why these amendments seek to introduce a firearms owners register, not a register of firearms.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.48]: These amendments obviously address one of the major issues of principle in the legislative package, and they have been thoroughly debated in the second reading debate. The Government opposes the amendments. The Australasian Police Ministers' Council second resolution was that New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania should immediately establish an integrated licensing and registration system to enable effective nationwide registration of all firearms across Australia. That important resolution was a key element of the package which was agreed upon. The Government regards the measures as integral to the bill as a whole, and opposes the amendments.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [2.49]: The Opposition also opposes the amendments. As the Attorney General has indicated, one of the issues that was agreed to at the Australasian Police Ministers' Council - and which was strongly endorsed by the Prime Minister, the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales - was the establishment of a firearms register. The Opposition therefore sustains its position that a register of firearms should be instituted. Since we are seeking to achieve uniform legislation to deal with firearms and since all governments in Australia have agreed to a firearms register and the vast majority are now proceeding to implement that decision, New South Wales should maintain its support for a firearms register and support this bill.

There is the argument that the registration of weapons will not necessarily lead to the elimination of weapons illegally held in the community and will not necessarily eliminate violence resulting from the use of unlicensed weapons. In many areas, however, licensing is sought as a measure for achieving cultural and behavioural change and as a mechanism for dealing with those who wish to behave outside the law. New South Wales has a mechanism that provides for the registration of motor vehicles as well as the licensing of drivers. That does not stop people from driving outside the law, it does not stop them from breaking the law, but it does provide a means for dealing with someone who has broken the law. That is exactly what is expected to be the outcome of this legislation.

Honourable members have been told that New South Wales has since 1927 provided for the registration of pistols yet that has not eliminated pistols from the marketplace. I recognise that. The registration of pistols, however, has certainly secured a significant reduction in the number of those guns that are in the marketplace and through the decades it has led to a change in community attitude towards the strapping on of a pistol. I recognise that the bill will not lead to the immediate elimination of illegally held long arms, but it is expected that there will be an attitudinal change, a cultural change, towards the use of long arms and the involvement of long arms in matters of violence, particularly within the home.

Whilst honourable members have been presented with the statistic that a registration system in Victoria has achieved only 52 per cent registration, it should be noted that many in the community would regard the achievement of 52 per cent registration after the short number of years that mechanism has been in existence as somewhat of a success. Of course, one would always have wanted to achieve a higher level of registration, but 52 per cent is a step in the right direction. By taking what I describe as a courageous step in the pursuit of changes in the firearms law on a uniform basis throughout the nation, the Prime Minister has sought to address the culture of violence and the use of weapons as one element of that culture of violence in our community. If that can be achieved in the long term, and even if some change is achieved in the short term, that will be a step in the right direction. For that reason the coalition opposes the amendments.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [2.53]: In my contribution to the second reading debate I indicated my intention to support amendments along the lines of those under discussion. I support the amendments moved by the Hon. J. S. Tingle, who has rightly pointed out that all these amendments relate to whether provision should be made for a register of firearms or a register of firearms owners. I addressed that issue during my contribution to the second reading debate. I shall now make a few remarks about the subjects I spoke about then, and address another issue also.

Page 3660

During the second reading debate I said that I believed compliance with the legislation to be important. Anyone who has been in contact with groups of firearms owners, not only organised shooting bodies but also people who have a legitimate use for firearms, would know that the community has grave concern about the registration aspect of the legislation. We as members of the Legislative Council should apply our minds to ensure that there will be a maximum degree of compliance with the legislation passed. The amendments proposed will strike at that fundamental objective and are worthy of consideration. I certainly support them.

A raft of arguments about the effectiveness of a firearms register have come forward. It has been brought out in the debate that evidence before a parliamentary select committee showed that other jurisdictions that had instituted a register of firearms would not recommend such a register. A register of firearms was found by other jurisdictions to be an administrative burden, and very rarely if ever was any useful information provided on the apprehension or prosecution of criminals. For that reason one would ask why New South Wales is going down that path, which if not well trodden has at least been embarked upon and has not shown satisfactory results. Little can be argued in favour of the registration of firearms, other than the symbolism of the community coming together and declaring in a corporate way a revulsion at the events that took place at Port Arthur and a desire to limit access to firearms.

The nexus between that general community reaction and what is proposed in the bill, however, is not well made. There is an issue that I did not address during my contribution to the second reading debate but is worth drawing to the attention of honourable members in that it provides an insight into the reason that the registration of firearms was one of the key recommendations of the Australasian Police Ministers' Council. Honourable members would know that police associations are very keen on the concept of a register of weapons. I imagine that police Ministers would have agreed to discuss the issue. I do not have the benefit of the police Ministers' debates - I do not know how many honourable members have the benefit of their debates - but I know that the persuasive argument of the police would have been discussed at police Ministers conferences.

The Police Association has expressed its number one wish as being the disarmament of the civilian population. I can understand why that would be - as many honourable members have said, police officers are in the firing line in difficult situations; they are required to attend potentially violent incidents and, acting judiciously and with due regard to their own safety, do what they can to preserve the safety of the people involved. The Committee is not discussing the disarmament of the civilian population - that objective is recognised by the police as being impractical. The police have, however, argued that a register of individual firearms would give them vital information for use when they are called out in circumstances that might involve violence and in which firearms could be present.

It is difficult to recognise the practicality of a register of firearms. I doubt whether in the particular circumstances that brought the country to the introduction of changes to firearms legislation - the incidents at Strathfield, Terrigal and Port Arthur - the police would have had time to look up a register. In such circumstances the police generally have to deal with a lack of information: they need to establish the identity of the persons involved and then determine other details. I do not recognise the practicality of a firearms register. In any case, if there were even the slightest suspicion that a firearm of any sort was involved in an incident - no matter how old the firearm, and whether it were a single-shot or a repeat-action firearm or a side-by-side shotgun - the police would have to approach the incident with great caution.

I have heard some police say that if they are confronted by someone with a self-loading gun, a semiautomatic weapon, they simply do not stand a chance. I suggest to the police that their procedures ought to be reviewed if they think that because of some report that comes off a computer they will be able to take a different approach to someone they believe has a five-shot repeating-magazine firearm than they would take to someone who they believe has a self-loading semiautomatic shotgun. That type of thinking beggars my imagination.

The arguments that have been put forward for the registration of individual firearms are unconvincing. I do not know about this concept of registration being counterproductive. I do not think I have advanced arguments to establish, as the Hon. J. S. Tingle stated he had, that this provision would be counterproductive. However, it would not achieve the objective of national consensus on containment and, if possible, elimination of this type of mass violence in our society. This provision will tie up valuable police resources, without useful output, and will strike at the level of compliance, which we would all hope will be 100 per cent. The only way to achieve complete compliance would be to consult with the shooting bodies, the registered clubs and so on, and talk to the people in the bush who have firearms, show them the model that we propose and ask them what they would be prepared to comply with willingly and wholeheartedly. I am sure we would find that those people would object to the register of firearms, though they are perfectly happy to comply with an owner licensing process.

In an earlier debate I said that we had sadly swept aside responsible shooters who had undergone tests and taken part in all sorts of awareness and safety campaigns to make their sport safer and give it a better image. However, we have swept them aside in the debate and not recognised the role that they could play in a more orderly society, one
Page 3661
which is virtually free of violence. We ought to remind ourselves of that. Let us think of their views on the matter. My opinion is that their view is that we should have a register of firearm owners but set aside the requirement for owners to register each and every firearm in their possession, submitting those firearms to some sort of inspection and recording of serial numbers as provided for in the legislation.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [3.01]: In view of what was said by the Hon. D. F. Moppett, I should like to put on record that I too live in a country area. I have no firearms, but I have neighbours who do have firearms. Over the past few weeks they have told me that they would be perfectly happy to have their firearms registered. They have asked me how I thought that would be done, and what procedures they will have to follow. They have even suggested to me procedures by which that could be done in a responsible manner. So I think the Hon. D. F. Moppett draws a long bow when he suggests that all responsible firearm owners will not want to register their weapons. The responsible firearm owners that I know have absolutely no objection to a register of firearms.

I do not see how the debate will be advanced if we are to have only a register of firearm owners. We shall never know under such a system how many firearms there are in the community. I am not as naive to think that a register of firearms would tell us exactly how many firearms there are in the community, but it would give us a much better idea of the number, because I believe law-abiding people in country areas will register their weapons. There will still be the extreme right-wing element who will not register their guns. Those people have shown their true colours in many rallies and are now well identified. They do not represent the majority of gun owners. We must bear that in mind.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.03]: The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby made a valuable contribution. It is hard for many of us to understand the passion that the issue seems to arouse. It does not seem to raise any genuine issue of civil liberty to say to a person who owns a lethal weapon that that weapon ought to be registered in some way, just as the Leader of the Opposition said that a motor vehicle must be registered. The Committee must bear in mind that the Prime Minister and State Premiers insisted on and signed an agreement to give effect to the registration of all weapons. The gun amnesty in New South Wales provides evidence of the need for and usefulness of a registration process, because in the 12 months of the New South Wales gun amnesty 10,000 guns were recovered. That gives an indication of the number of lethal weapons abroad in our society, but apart from that the Government has no accurate information about their number and type. The Government hopes that the Opposition will unite with the Government, assuming the law is passed by the Parliament, to encourage people to register their weapons and hand in illegal firearms, as well as supporting the Government in its effort to have the Commonwealth implement a proper compensation package.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.05]: As I said I would in my second reading speech, I support these amendments. I note that the parliamentary Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform, whilst making more than 50 recommendations on firearms laws, did not make a solitary recommendation calling for the introduction of a gun register. Whilst supporting the generally humane intent of the Prime Minister's reform proposals in the bill, I believe that the proposed amendments will lead to a greater level of compliance with the overall package of legislation now before the House. The Attorney General said that he finds it difficult to understand why this issue arouses such passion. The fact is that it does arouse passion, certainly right across the constituency that I represent. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby said that people who have said they cannot support this particular provision are necessarily part of the extreme right-wing of the political spectrum. That is not so. Many mainstream and decent citizens of New South Wales do not support the introduction of a register of individual firearms. As I said earlier, I am happy to support a workable register, but I support the amendments because I believe they will produce a better outcome than will the measures proposed in the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.07]: The Committee is discussing amendments moved to the Firearms Bill. Call to Australia and, I believe, the Labor Party and the coalition leadership, but obviously not all coalition members, want to support uniform legislation along the lines of the model adopted by John Howard, the Federal Attorney-General and the Australasian Police Ministers' Council. That model included a licensing and registration scheme for all firearms. I understand that to be an integral part of the uniform legislation.

Call to Australia believes that the bill should be passed as drafted and that it should not be amended, even if the amendment as it applies to New South Wales is supported by reasonable argument. If the amendment were to be passed, immediately the legislation would not be uniform with legislation to be passed by other States. This State would therefore be out of step with other States. To accept the amendment would be to torpedo the uniform firearms law approach, when for the first time we are close to achieving uniform gun laws in Australia. Call to Australia could introduce, say, 100 amendments to improve the legislation. But we should accept the model before us. This is a quite unique procedure. Normally, in Committee honourable members can move amendments and vote on those amendments because we are normally dealing with State legislation. However, debate on the bill is on a completely different level. We hope that the legislation will become part of uniform national legislation.

Page 3662

Even if the Hon. J. S. Tingle put forward good arguments as to why individual firearms should not be registered - and some National Party members supported his arguments - I do not believe that honourable members have the option of accepting those arguments. I believe we should allow the bill to go forward as it is. I believe that the police Ministers meeting on 3 and 4 July will agree on model legislation. That meeting, after hearing submissions, might propose some changes. Later in the year, maybe at a special sitting of the Parliament or on resumption in September, the House will be considering further amendments. But those amendments would be amendments proposed nationally, so that if they are passed all States will finish up with uniform national legislation.

When I was a member of the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform there was extensive debate on the issue of registration. Firearms registration has been debated in this Parliament in the past. In 1920 there was registration of all firearms but that legislation was repealed in 1927. Legislation was reintroduced in 1985 but not implemented. Again, registration of firearms legislation was introduced on 1 March 1988 and repealed on 1 December 1988. It has been on and off the agenda for some time. I note that page 123 of the 1991 report of the Joint Select Committee Upon Gun Law Reform reads:

Registration of Australia . . . is currently in place in 5 jurisdictions, (WA, SA, N.T., Vic, ACT) with NSW, Queensland and Tasmania the only states not currently requiring registration of all firearms. However, it is noted that at the March 1988 Australian Police Ministers' Council meeting, NSW was the only State still opposing registration of all firearms.

Though there are problems with the firearms registration system I do not believe that New South Wales should go out on a limb. It appears from that report that New South Wales is the only State out on a limb. If these amendments were successful an argument could be raised by other States that they should reverse the policy and Australia would move further away from uniform legislation. I believe the legislation should be accepted as it is to maintain uniformity. There is evidence that firearms registration has many problems. Victoria has had registration but one of the submissions received by the committee suggested that only 58.7 of firearms held by the Victorian community were registered, which left more than 300,000 unregistered long arms being held by the community.

I would rather we go forward and assess the success of registration. If it does fail completely, other options such as registration of firearm owners or detailing firearms on licences may have to be introduced. Though the amendments may have some good points I believe they should not be supported. The Minister said that he did not understand the passionate opposition by firearm owners to registration. I do a lot of travelling in country areas and I hear that many firearm owners believe that after they acquire a licence and register, their firearms will be confiscated. That may be irrational but it is a genuine fear in the community. That is the passion. They see this as a process that is moving along, rightly or wrongly, and that is why there is strong feeling about registration.

Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.13]: I hear what is raised both in support and in opposition to these amendments. I cannot accept the notion that merely because a number of police Ministers and the Prime Minister agree on something necessarily makes it inalterably and for all time right. In a democracy people have the right to question decisions on these sorts of issues, and that is precisely what we are doing. Registration of firearms will not assist police as to the whereabouts of firearms. Police officers are told to proceed with caution when approaching a premise where domestic violence is occurring. Though no firearms are known to be registered at that address, it is not known whether firearms may have been taken there by a third party, so police officers always assume that firearms are there. The assumption that firearm registration will necessarily let everyone know where guns are all the time falls down due to the fact that the firearms registry has never worked properly in New South Wales and is never likely to.

Without labouring the point, I remind honourable members that I have my pistols licensed, and on one occasion when my pistols were due for renewal, only two of the three renewals arrived. I rang the registry and said, "You have forgotten to send me a renewal for one of my target pistols." The girl tapped on the computer and said, "You do not have such a pistol." I said, "Now you give me a problem because I do have the expiring licence for it and the pistol is in front of me." Three weeks later it was discovered that that pistol was registered to two other people, neither of whom had ever owned it. It was not important; it was only a .44 magnum with a 10 inch barrel, the original Dirty Harry gun made like a cannon, but they did not have any record of it. That has happened repeatedly and is a weakness which raises the question whether a register will work or not.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby made the point that the establishment of a gun register will give a closer approximation of the numbers of firearms in the community. If the number of firearms in the community is not known, how will we ever know what proportion of them have ever been registered? We will not know whether a tenth or half of them have been registered, so what difference will it make? It seems to me that a mythical mystique has been built around this question of registering guns on the assumption that it will somehow fix the gun problem. It will not. I am unable to understand the attitude of members of the Liberal Party who in 1988 reversed the moves by the Unsworth Government. I find myself unable to understand their attitude given the previous commitment of the Prime Minister when in opposition not to bring in gun registration. Those of us who wish to see a maximum amount of compliance with gun laws in
Page 3663
this country say that if a firearms register is introduced it will have a low level of compliance. It may give a false sense of security. A register of gun owners will contain information on who has a gun, though not information on how many guns are owned by an individual.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [3.16]: During the second reading debate I explained why I believed registration will work, and I refer honourable members to my speech. Essentially, a registration scheme is necessary to ensure the effective operation of a licensing system. People who object to registration constantly refer to the Victorian register. That register has had some defects and I do not think anyone disputes that. However, I remind honourable members that police in Western Australia estimate that more than 80 per cent of guns are registered, and that a major factor in the 20 per cent shortfall is a lack of registration in other States which allows guns to be imported into Western Australia without any record being kept. The problem with a gun owner register is that one owner may have any number of weapons. That is why a gun registration system is necessary.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Tellers,
Miss Gardiner Mr Kersten
Mr Moppett Mr Tingle

Mrs Arena Mr Manson
Mr Bull Mrs Nile
Dr Burgmann Rev. Nile
Ms Burnswoods Mr Obeid
Mrs Chadwick Dr Pezzutti
Mr Cohen Mr Primrose
Mr Corbett Mr Ryan
Mr Dyer Ms Saffin
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Mr Gallacher Mrs Sham-Ho
Dr Goldsmith Mr Shaw
Mr Hannaford Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Johnson Ms Staunton
Mr Jones Mrs Symonds
Mr Kaldis Mr Vaughan
Miss Kirkby Tellers,
Mr Lynn Mrs Isaksen
Mr Macdonald Mr Jobling

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.26]: I do not propose to move amendment 9. I move amendment 10 circulated in my name:

Page 6, clause 4, line 12. Omit "firearm parts are". Insert instead "a firearm is".

This clause as it presently stands purports to make the carrying of a firearm part the same as the carrying of a firearm. The definition section of firearm and firearm part is clear: a firearm part is not a firearm and it should not be seen as being the same. The effect of this clause would be that if two or more persons were each carrying a magazine for a particular rifle, that is, one was carrying a spare magazine, each of them would be taken to be carrying the particular firearm, and I believe that to be an absurd proposition.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.27]: The amendment would mean that broken-down firearms carried by more than one person could not be dealt with as a firearm and would therefore be outside the possession offences. The Government says that the bill's provisions simply reflect the current law. The amendment would weaken the current law and it is therefore opposed.

Amendment negatived.

Part agreed to.

Part 2

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.28]: I move Shooters Party amendment 11:

Page 8, clause 7, lines 16 to 19. Omit all words on those lines.

This amendment relates to the uses allowed for a firearm. I believe this part of the clause should be deleted, together with consequential measures contained in clauses of similar import, such as "but only for the purpose established by the licensee as being the genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm", at lines 3 to 5 of clause 8, page 9. If a person satisfies the onus of one of the tests for having a firearm, that should be sufficient. He or she should then be able to use that firearm for any lawful purpose.

If a person has a firearm for hunting or vermin control then, as the section now stands, he cannot take that firearm to the rifle range for practice. Clause 12(1) suggests that there can be only one genuine reason for possession of a firearm, not multiple reasons. Although, clause 12(4)(a) refers to an applicant having a genuine reason if he or she intends to possess or use the firearm for any one or more of the reasons set out in the table. Is it proposed that the genuine reason referred to in clause 18(2)(e) will cover more than one of the categories in the table to clause 12? It may be that clause 7(2)(a) should be amended by inserting the words "or purposes" after the word "purpose" on line 17. If this was so then the definition of sport or target shooting in the table section of clause 12 should be amended. In other words it appears to me that there is a contradiction in the provisions of this part.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.30]: The amendment would omit the requirement that a
Page 3664
firearm be used only for the genuine reason provided on the licence application. The amendment would be in contravention of the APMC resolution and the Government cannot accept it.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.30]: I would simply point out that the Minister for Police said in his second reading speech that more than one genuine reason would be allowed in backing up an application for a licence. It therefore seems to be that if you provide for only a singular reason you mitigate against that. If more than one reason is to be accepted in relation to qualification for a licence, surely the wording should be plural.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.31]: By leave, I move Shooters Party amendments 13 and 17 in globo:

Page 8, clause 8. Insert after 31: "•muzzle loading firearms (other than pistols)".

Page 9, clause 8, line 8. Omit all words on that line.

The reference to muzzle-loading firearms other than pistols should be removed and those firearms should be included under category A. Loading a firearm from the muzzle is a time-consuming process. You have to load the powder through the muzzle, ram it in place, place a wad on top of the powder then place a ball - in this case the projectile - on top of the wad, and all this has to be rammed into a compact load. The procedure is not very fast. It cannot rate in speed with loading a modern rifle from the breech. We have only to remember movies about Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett to realise how slow it is to load a muzzle-loading rifle. This leads me to believe that muzzle-loading rifles are in the wrong category.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.32]: I support the amendment of the Hon. J. S. Tingle. It makes sense to move muzzle-loading firearms into category A. Having used a muzzle loader myself and seen how long it takes to load the thing -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: You are not that old.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: It was an antique weapon. I was not an antique at the time. I was not an expert at loading muzzle loaders. A person clearly could not commit any kind of massacre with a muzzle loader; everyone would be on top of him before he had even half loaded the thing. The amendment should be supported. It is ridiculous having muzzle loaders in category B.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.33]: I can understand the argument put for the amendment which, in effect, seeks to move muzzle loaders other than pistols from category B to category A. As members know, applicants for licences in category B will have to prove a special need to own that type of firearm over and above the genuine reason to own any firearm, that is, the general requirement for all licence applicants. This matter was specifically debated and agreed upon in APMC resolution 4. It was determined that muzzle-loading firearms would be in licence category B. The amendment is in direct contradiction of that aspect of the resolution. Committed as we are to the APMC resolution, we must oppose the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.34]: Call to Australia agrees with the Government's reply on the amendment. The Hon. J. S. Tingle put up a good argument that there is an inconsistency but, rather than amending the legislation, it would be better for the Attorney General to convey this matter to the Minister for Police so that he may raise it at the police Ministers conference on 4 July. If such weapons should be in category A - there may be other reasons that we are not aware of why they have been included in category B - Ministers may review the matter and easily agree again to maintain a uniform position if there is to be a change. I would rather the Attorney General simply indicate that he will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister for Police for reference to the Minister's conference if it is a matter of serious concern.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.35]: I will undertake to refer the Hansard record of this debate to the police Minister. These matters are not set in concrete for ever; they can be reviewed. The remarks of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile are pertinent.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.36]: By leave, I move Shooters Party amendments 29, 33, 38 and 94 in globo:

Page 13, clause 11, line 8. After "application.", insert "If a licence application is refused, the Commissioner must provide the applicant with reasons for the refusal.".

Page 14, clause 11, line 20. After "interest.", insert "If the Commissioner decides to refuse to issue a licence on such grounds, the Commissioner must provide the applicant with a full explanation of the Commissioner's decision.".

Page 15, clause 12, line 3. After "firearm.", insert "If the Commissioner rejects any reason as claimed by an applicant, the Commissioner must provide the applicant with a full explanation of the Commissioner's decision.".

Page 50, clause 73, line 6. After "firearm.", insert "The Commissioner must provide any person who is the subject of a firearms prohibition order with the reasons for making the order.".

I shall not proceed with amendments 12, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 26, and 28 in view of what has happened with previous amendments. In a number of places in the bill the Commissioner of Police is given various powers to refuse, suspend or cancel a licence or to seize firearms or take other measures on suspicion or because of his belief that this should be done. These amendments seek to correct what appears to be an omission from the bill, that is, that the bill does not appear to require the commissioner to provide reasons for such actions. Obviously, if a
Page 3665
citizen has had such arbitrary action taken against him or her and wishes to appeal it is important for him or her to know the stated reasons behind that action. If no reasons are furnished, an appeal may be impossible. This seems a basic need in the interests of justice, and that is the reason for the amendment.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.38]: At the second reading stage I indicated that the coalition would not support amendments but that the Government should address its mind to certain amendments when it amends the bill. The coalition believes these amendments should be given further consideration. When the commissioner is exercising the powers under the provisions concerned he should give reasons for decisions he takes. Natural justice requires the providing of information as to the basis upon which decisions are made. Therefore, I ask the Government, when it reviews the legislation, to favourably review its position on these amendments.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.39]: The amendments would change the existing law and would need to be further examined to determine the impact on resources and the workability of the licensing system. Having said that, I am happy to refer the issue to the Minister for Police. I am sure the matter will be considered in due course. As has been said, clause 75 provides for rights of appeal to the Local Court. No doubt if an appeal is lodged, a reason will need to be furnished for refusing the licence application on public interest grounds or the like. That matter can be argued before the Local Court. The question of whether there should be an independent statutory obligation to give reasons for these decisions, apart from the appellate provisions, can be reconsidered. However, as at present advised, the Government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.40]: I echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. J. S. Tingle. I believe that these amendments should be supported, if not now then at a later date, because the Commissioner of Police should give reasons for refusing an application.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.40]: By leave, I move Shooters Party amendments 30 and 62 in globo:

Page 13, clause 11. Insert after line 10:

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply in any case where the applicant:

(a) is a licensee who is currently competing in a national or international shooting competition, and

(b) provides proof to the Commissioner that the firearm the applicant is using has become inoperative and that the applicant needs an immediate replacement firearm in order to be able to complete the event.

Page 27, clause 31. Insert after line 2:

(4) Subsection (3)(b) does not apply in any case where a person:

(a) is the holder of a licence or permit authorising possession of a firearm, and

(b) is currently competing in a national or international shooting competition, and

(c) provides proof to the Commissioner that the firearm the person is using has become inoperative and that the person needs an immediate replacement firearm in order to be able to complete the event.

There may simply be an oversight in the bill. The 28-day cooling off period in itself is not basically objectionable, although it is worth noting that it seems a little unnecessary when an applicant who is already licensed applies for a new licence. These amendments address concerns about what could happen to a special class of people, that is, those competing in recognised national or international shooting events, such as Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games or other major world matches, when a firearm suddenly becomes unserviceable. That is not an unknown happening. As the Government has given undertakings that it will do what it can within the framework of the bill to ensure that competitors at Olympic Games and Commonwealth Games, and other competitors, are not disadvantaged, I believe that a competitor should be able to replace a firearm immediately, with permission, on furnishing proof to the Commissioner of Police that the firearm has become unserviceable and that the competitor cannot wait 28 days for it to be replaced.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.41]: Again, in the context which I outlined in my contribution to the second reading debate, there are amendments which I believe the Government should consider when it reviews the bill. These amendments fall into that category. The Opposition urges the Government to consider these issues with some sympathy.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.42]: The first amendment would waive the 28-day waiting period for the issue of a new licence for competitors in shooting competitions who need a replacement firearm. The Government is of the view that the amendment is unnecessary as shooters would already be licensed to use any registered firearm of the same category for shooting purposes. It would not be necessary to apply for a new licence simply to obtain a replacement firearm. The second amendment would amend the clause relating to permits to acquire by waiving the 28-day period for a permit to buy a new firearm when a competitor in an international shooting competition needs to replace a firearm immediately. Again, the Government is of the view that the amendment is unnecessary. The bill does not place arbitrary limits on the number of firearms that can be owned, and the possibility of breakdown of a competition firearm would be a good reason for owning more
Page 3666
than one firearm for competition purposes. It would be impracticable to purchase a new firearm in the middle of a competition; it would be easier to borrow a firearm from another person in the shooters club, for example, than to buy a replacement in these circumstances.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.43]: With respect to the Attorney General, he does not understand what happens in these competitions. First, a shooter does not borrow a firearm for a major national or international match. A firearm must be tuned to the shooter; it must be adjusted to the person's hand size, shoulder length, arm length and so on. A competitor would need another licence because under the bill it is proposed that each firearm will be individually licensed. If a licence is good only for the firearm that has broken down, the competitor will need another licence to replace the firearm. It is not as easy as borrowing a gun; it does not work like that. In the context of a major national or international shooting event, it is possible for a shooter to replace the firearm within a couple of hours because dealers usually have access to guns. The amendments will apply to only a few people; they will not change the intention of the Act, which does not provide for a person to possess two firearms on one licence. The amendments are totally reasonable.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.45]: I move Shooters Party amendment 31:

Page 13, clause 11, line 35. After "mind" insert "(proof of which has been supplied to the Commissioner by a suitably qualified person)".

There is no objection to the Commissioner of Police having the powers laid down in the bill to keep firearm licences out of the hands of obviously unsuitable people. Indeed, my party and I have suggested to the Government a number of other ways that this could be achieved. The bill provides for the commissioner to make a totally discretionary decision that someone is suicidal, intemperate, of unsound mind or any other matter raised in the bill as a reason for refusing or withholding a licence. As in practice such a decision about an applicant will be made by an individual police officer acting as a delegate of the commissioner, the expertise and capacity of that officer to make such a judgment must be questioned. To save false jeopardy and use of this power vindictively, the amendment seeks to require the police officer or commissioner to obtain proof from a qualified person of the undesirable state of the applicant to support the decision that the commissioner is about to make. That person could be a doctor, a clergyman, a marriage counsellor or any other person with qualifications to judge the applicant dispassionately.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.46]: Under the proposal, licences may be refused by the Commissioner of Police for unsoundness of mind. The honourable member's amendment would require proof to be supplied to the commissioner by a suitably qualified person. The Government is of the view that the amendment detracts from the current legal position, which does not place a restriction on the source of evidence of unsound mind and enables the decision maker to draw that conclusion from whatever material might reasonably be available. The answer to the amendment is the right of appeal to the Local Court under clause 75. If there is a serious issue about suitable qualifications and soundness or unsoundness of mind, that can be thrashed out before the magistrate in accordance with the appeal proceedings under clause 75. So natural justice is satisfied. The power, therefore, could not be used in a vexatious or arbitrary way; or, at least if it were so used, that could be corrected by appeal to the Local Court.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.47]: By leave, I move Shooters Party amendments 32 and 59 in globo:

Page 14, clause 11, lines 9 and 10. Omit "within 10 years before the application for the licence was made". Insert instead "since 1 May 1992".

Page 25, clause 29, lines 15 and 16. Omit "within 10 years before the application for the permit was made". Insert instead "since 1 May 1992".

The retrospective effect of apprehended violence orders granted ten years before an application creates a double jeopardy for people who might have had an apprehended violence order taken out against them before 1 May 1992, when the current Firearms Act came into force and when, for the first time, an apprehended violence order became a reason for seizure or confiscation of firearms. Persons subject to such orders before that date had an additional penalty applied to them after that date. It seems unreasonable that any law should apply a retrospective penalty. The importance of apprehended violence orders is not questioned; used as intended, they are a crucial protection. However, given recent evidence that they are being used as a vindictive weapon by disaffected spouses of both genders, as well as a shield for genuinely threatened spouses, justice should demand reconsideration of their retrospective effect beyond 1 May 1992, when firearms were first removed from people who are subject to apprehended violence orders.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.48]: The Government opposes these amendments, which have the effect of watering down what we regard as important protections and limitations on the issue of a licence to a person who is or has been the subject of an apprehended violence order at any time within 10 years before the licence application was made. The Government is of the view that these provisions should be adhered to as a community protection measure. The amendments would enable some people against whom apprehended violence orders - AVOs - were issued prior to 1992 to
Page 3667
become eligible to own and use firearms. Furthermore, the amendments would be inconsistent with provisions that apply the same 10-year ban for conviction of many criminal offences. Honourable members have talked about horrific examples of firearms being used to threaten women and children. Obviously strong safeguards are needed to protect people in vulnerable positions. In particular, people who have had AVOs issued against them should be subjected to the reasonable restrictions which are contained in the bill in relation to the grant of a licence for possession of a firearm.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.50]: I move my amendment 35:

Page 14, clause 12. Insert after line 30:

(2) A person may have more than one genuine reason for possessing or using a firearm.

This amendment acknowledges the police Minister's statement in his second reading speech in the other place that a person will be permitted to submit more than one reason for possessing or using a firearm. This is an extremely sensible provision. Obviously, if every applicant had to have only one reason for owning a firearm, any firearm that person owned could be used for only one purpose; for every extra purpose that person would need to seek a licence for an extra gun. This would mitigate against the purpose of the bill: to reduce the number of firearms in the community. The amendment seeks to add the provision contained in the Minister's statement which has not been included in the bill.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.51]: My comments may satisfy the Hon. J. S. Tingle. The Government's fundamental reason for opposing his amendment is that, as a matter of interpretation and law, it is unnecessary. The Interpretation Act already provides that the singular includes the plural, and therefore there is no need to spell out that a person may have more than one genuine reason for possessing or using a firearm. As a matter of parliamentary drafting and practice the Parliamentary Counsel does not ordinarily spell out these matters, which are dealt with in the Interpretation Act. The honourable member would know that Hansard can be referred to if there is any debate or concern about ambiguity. The honourable member may be placated by what I have said.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.52]: I will not move amendment 37 circulated in my name. I move amendment 39:

Page 15, clause 12, lines 15 to 17. Omit ", and which conducts competitions or activities requiring the use of the firearm for which the licence is sought".

This clause provides, among other things, that in order for members of clubs to qualify for a licence they must belong to a club that conducts competitions or activities requiring the use of the firearm for which the licence is sought. The amendment seeks to delete those words from the table. The regulations will prescribe the clubs which are applicable to this category. This clause copies parts of the provisions of the table in regulation 22A of the Firearms Regulation 1990, paragraph 3, but does not define the clubs as did that regulation. Under the circumstances those words ought to be omitted.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.53]: The amendment would remove the requirement from the sport/target shooting genuine reason for having a licence that a shooting club conduct competitions. As I understand it the amendment breaches the Australasian Police Ministers' Council resolution 3. For that reason it could not be accepted.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.54]: I move my amendment 41:

Page 15, clause 12, line 26. Omit "land.". Insert instead:

land, or

(c) be a current member of a hunting club approved by the Commissioner.

The amendment relates to hunting clubs. The bill makes no provision for the large numbers of legitimate, established and eminently respectable hunting clubs in Australia: clubs such as Australian Bowhunters Association, the Australian Deer Association, Safari Club International, New South Wales Deerstalkers, New South Wales Field and Game Association, New South Wales Fire Brigade Employees Rifle Shooters and Outdoors Club, Nepean Hunters Club, and Sydney Colonial Muzzle-Loading Club, and perhaps even more importantly the very large and active hunting clubs which have been established by the ethnic community. These include the Italian Diana Club and the Greek Hunters and Fishermen's Association.

Recreational hunting is a major community and tourist activity which provides substantial community benefits. Hunting plays a positive role in controlling feral pests. Hunters are true conservationists. They have to be. Hunters represent a substantial direct economic resource to rural economies in New South Wales, estimated at around $24 million per annum. In his work "Economic Values of Recreational Deer Hunting in Australia" in 1990 Cause estimated the value of recreational deer hunting at $73 million a year. Deer hunters make up about 2.5 per cent of the hunting community. For members of clubs related to ethnic communities hunting is a deeply ingrained and traditional way of life dating back many thousands of years. In the culture of these groups in a multicultural Australia, which prides itself on its tolerance of differing ways of life and attitudes, it seems quite wrong that the bill makes no provision whatever for hunting clubs as such, only
Page 3668
shooting clubs which, in the shooting fraternity, are a different thing. This amendment seeks to redress a serious omission from the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.56]: Call to Australia sympathises with this amendment but our policy is not to change the uniform firearms legislation. Again the Attorney General could take this matter up with the police Ministers to see how provision can be made for recognised hunting clubs. Hunting clubs could be listed in regulations or accommodated by some other procedure. I have received a submission from a group that has not yet been mentioned: the Aboriginal community. I did not realise that many members of the Aboriginal community engage in hunting and regard that as one of their traditional rights. I understand that under the native title legislation they have a right to hunt. I ask the Attorney General to raise that issue at the future conference of police Ministers. It may be covered by the regulations, or the Aboriginal people may need to form an ad hoc Aboriginal hunting club to identify genuine Aboriginal hunters as distinct from some who are abusing that provision.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [3.57]: I support the remarks of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I do not propose to support a division on this amendment but it is eminently sensible to accommodate groups that are well organised and responsible and to meet their legitimate needs. The Hon. J. S. Tingle has identified one group that might commend itself to the Attorney General. I hope he will convey this issue to the police Ministers' meeting in July. I hope they seriously examine the claims of these groups.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.58]: I undertake to draw this matter to the attention of the relevant Minister prior to the meeting of police Ministers. The Government takes the view that as presently advised the amendment would be inconsistent with APMC 3. Of course, an important theme is the need for consistency, but that does not preclude the reconsideration that various members have asked for on this point.

Amendment negatived.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.




The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Is it the fact that supplementary funding for the Legal Aid Commission in relation to its funding of the Kalajzich case had been approved by the former Government prior to the last election? Is it a fact that such funding has not yet been provided to the commission? If it has not, how does the Attorney justify depriving the Legal Aid Commission of these much-needed funds?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I do not know whether it is technically accurate to say that supplementary funding for the Kalajzich inquiry had been approved by the previous Government. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could better inform me in that regard. My understanding is that an indication was given, or an understanding was reached, that such funding would be provided. It is true that such supplementary funding has not been provided through the budgetary processes undertaken recently. It is also true that the Kalajzich inquiry - a massively and, some would say, excessively expensive undertaking - has been a drain on the funding of the Legal Aid Commission. That is a matter the Government is addressing through the ordinary processes. Obviously it is my task to ensure that legal aid is adequately funded. So far, I believe it has been.


The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: I ask the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services whether he will inform the House of the measures he has taken to ensure the long-term health, safety and welfare of people with disabilities in New South Wales who reside in privately operated boarding houses?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am happy to inform the House that, in accordance with the Government's policy for people with disabilities in New South Wales, the Government has moved decisively to improve conditions for those living in boarding houses. I note that the previous Government did not support the Department of Community Services in the administration of the Youth and Community Services Act 1973, which regulates the operation of private boarding houses. Many privately operated services have been functioning in a manner that does not adequately support people with disabilities, and many were operating in substandard ways. One of the measures I took to remedy this appalling situation was to transfer the administration of the Youth and Community Services Act to the newly created Ageing and Disability Department, which the Government established to enhance the quality of service provision for people with disabilities in New South Wales. By locating the licensing unit in the new department the Government has ensured that regular and effective monitoring of all licensed premises is undertaken, which contrasts starkly with the neglect of the licensing program of the previous Government.

In addition to undertaking these important administrative arrangements to enhance the monitoring of licensed services, the Government established the high-level executive strategic
Page 3669
planning committee on the implementation of reform of private licensed accommodation for people with disabilities, to review and advise on the operation of the boarding house industry. The purpose of the committee is to provide recommendations and advice on the future operation of privately operated accommodation services. The committee is comprised of representatives of all relevant agencies and organisations with an interest in the operation of private, licensed accommodation for people with disabilities, including representatives of responsible boarding house operators. The committee is currently working on a number of detailed issues surrounding the operation of boarding houses. I anticipate being told of its first recommendations in the latter half of this year.

Although previous attempts have been made to examine this industry, such as the ministerial task force of the previous Government, this is the first time that all relevant issues will be addressed in an open and comprehensive manner. The committee will identify crucial issues that require immediate resolution and will recommend plans to address those issues as a matter of urgency. Further, the information and strategies from the committee will provide the basis for a social justice paper in the form of a Cabinet minute that will be forwarded to me to present to the social justice committee of the Cabinet. The need for change in this area is acknowledged by all service agencies involved with the residents of boarding houses in New South Wales. The recommendations of the executive strategic planning committee will reassess the findings of the ministerial task force on private for-profit hospitals in accordance with government policy. The committee will continue to advise the Government in respect of policy issues for accommodation for people with disabilities in privately operated boarding houses.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: In light of the answer given by the Attorney General to my previous question, will the Treasurer inform the House whether it is a fact that previous governments, both Liberal and Labor, had approved supplementary funding to the Legal Aid Commission for costs incurred in major cases? Why has Treasury deprived the Legal Aid Commission of much-needed funds arising out of its funding of the Kalajzich case? Will the same delay be experienced in relation to the Milat case if it, too, is treated as an exceptional case requiring supplementary funding? How does the Treasurer justify Treasury depriving the Legal Aid Commission of these necessary funds?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not sure whether previous governments, both Liberal and Labor, had some policy whereby if there was a major case the legal aid budget would be supplemented by whatever was the cost involved. It seems to me to be a very odd budgetary policy. If that were so it would mean there was no budget, which is probably why this Government inherited an underlying deficit of close to $1 billion. It is probably the reason why, under the Greiner and Fahey governments, the budget deficit in New South Wales reached $1,300 million one year. There was no such thing as a budget: a budget was something that could be expanded like a piece of elastic every time some new expenditure arose. That is an absurdity! Every year the Parliament passes an Appropriation Bill. I want the community of New South Wales to know that this time the bill is taken very seriously by the Government of the day. That is the budget that sets forth all the areas of Government expenditure. Obviously circumstances arise on occasions for which an appropriation made by the Parliament is inadequate. As the Attorney General rightly pointed out, when that happens the normal processes of Government look after it and arrive at a satisfactory solution all round.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Further to a question asked by the Hon. D. F. Moppett yesterday about the draft regulations under the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 in relation to child-care centres, will the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services inform the House of any information he has received in relation to this issue?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: In response to the question asked by the Hon. Franca Arena I am able to advise the House that the primary aim of the current review of the regulations relating to children's services is to ensure that appropriate mechanisms are maintained to provide for the continued care and protection of children consistent with existing standards while the review of the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 is completed. The draft regulation, which is now out for community consultation, contains the following features: a reduction in the number of regulations from four to one; the incorporation of agreed national standards for long day care and family day care services, including home-based care; ensuring consistency across all service types and defining terms such as "adequate and satisfactory"; the use of more reader friendly language with clear references to particular topics; clearly defining the various responsibilities of the licensee and the authorised supervisor; and the incorporation of other relevant national standards such as the Building Code of Australia.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett asked whether the code of conduct had been omitted from the regulations. I am pleased to advise the House that the code of conduct referred to by the Hon. D. F. Moppett is incorporated in the regulations, in part 7 at page 32. Within the code of conduct various issues are covered. Sections on smoking, supervision of children and discipline, which were
Page 3670
not included in the draft, now have been addressed and will be included in the final regulations. The whole purpose of consultation is to ensure that the regulations incorporate the views of the child care sector and service providers generally. It is good to see that this process is working so well and that these omissions have been addressed.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I have a good question for you.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I should inform the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, that I am well-known for my consultative style. I am sure he would not disagree with that. Let me assure the House that I am committed to ensuring that appropriate contemporary and relevant regulations are in place for the day-to-day operation of children's services.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Has the Minister formed a view on the optimum size of the juvenile justice centres? Has work been done on the north coast and in the northern tablelands to determine the appropriate site for such a centre having in mind the needs of the courts, community networks, parents and children? If not, why not?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I take it that the question asked by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti substantially relates to the proposed juvenile detention centre to be located in the northern region of the State and not to any other juvenile detention centre. Unlike the previous Government, this Government is actually doing something about upgrading stock.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: All you are doing is talking about it.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: My friend and colleague the Treasurer has allocated funds in the current budget to not only -

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: He may have allocated them, but will he give them to you?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Yes, I will. If I have allocated them I will give them. I will give everything I have promised.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I have known the Hon. M. R. Egan sufficiently long to have every confidence that he will give me the funds both to refurbish the existing juvenile detention centres and to create the new juvenile detention centres that are to be located at Dubbo and in the northern region of the State. The centre at Dubbo is intended to be for 30 places, in contradistinction to the previous Government's intention to create a facility containing only six beds. I took the view that it was a waste of money. A six-place facility was not a viable size having regard to the administration and the central services required.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Six beds would not even house his family.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: How many for the north coast?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: My recollection is that for the north coast we are considering 60, double the bed capacity of the Dubbo centre.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: The entire custodial service in New Zealand has 60 places.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Question time is for questions and answers, not for continuous interrogatories.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I do not want to give the Hon. J. F. Ryan the impression that I am trying to expand the size of the juvenile detention system. I have said quite openly that I would like to put a bulldozer through Minda Juvenile Justice Centre in Sydney. However, I cannot do that until such time as I have facilities. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti also asked me about the site. A final decision has not been taken. The Government already owns the site at Dubbo. However, the Government does have to select a site in the northern part of the State. I am sure various suggestions will be made to me by local government bodies and others in that regard.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: So you have not done anything?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The planning is in progress. As I have said, my colleague the Treasurer has allocated the funding. Once the planning aspect has been completed, which I expect will not take very much longer, we can select an appropriate site and get cracking on construction.


The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Could the Minister advise the House about the whole question of asbestos? There is much concern over the unsafe disposal of it. How does the Government intend to deal with this issue?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Earlier this month the Government approved the Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation and consequential amendments. As a result we have halved the prescribed level of exposure to airborne asbestos fibres to bring it in line with national and international standards. In addition, WorkCover has introduced a system of registration, licences and permits for asbestos removal work consistent with International Labour Organisation conventions. It should be noted that the issue of asbestos removal was the source of years of conflict with the previous Government, which failed to act on a matter that was highly dangerous.

Page 3671

The regulation this Government has introduced was achieved with extensive consultation and has tripartite support. Under the regulation, anyone wishing to carry out friable asbestos removal work must obtain a friable asbestos removal licence from WorkCover. A $200 non-refundable application fee will apply, together with a $1,800 licence fee. The licence has a two-year life span. A friable asbestos removal work site permit must be obtained for every friable asbestos removal job contracted at more than $5,000. Anyone wishing to carry out bonded asbestos work must apply to WorkCover to be registered as a bonded asbestos removal contractor unless that person is already licensed by WorkCover for demolition work or holds a friable asbestos removal work licence.

WorkCover has set up a 24-hour asbestos hotline for the public. These steps have been made to stop the fly-by-night companies permitted under the previous Government's regime which placed workers and the public at risk. I do not think the House needs reminding that exposure to airborne asbestos can cause significant increases in a variety of fatal diseases. Improper removal of asbestos creates unnecessary and undesirable occupational health hazards. The reforms we have introduced will limit the likelihood of these events. I congratulate all those who were involved in bringing these reforms to fruition. The approval of this regulation is an important development; it is generally accepted by the industry, though it will not be accepted by some of the rogue companies which engage in very unsafe practices; it will protect workers in this industry and related industries from life-threatening diseases.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Local Government, a question without notice. Is it a fact that Sydney City Council has suddenly voted to change the historic city coat of arms without any consultation with or referendum of ratepayers? Is the Sydney City Council replacing a heroic Aboriginal warrior holding a spear with a Northern Territory snake symbol which is offensive to New South Wales Aborigines? Will the Government direct the Sydney City Council to postpone any change, investigate this important issue, and ensure there is adequate consultation with Aboriginal leaders in Sydney so that their views are fully considered in order to avoid offending our Aboriginal community in New South Wales, especially as we approach the Olympic Games 2000 when millions of overseas tourists will be arriving in Sydney?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: There must of course be a real doubt about the capacity of the State Government, assuming it wanted to do so, to direct an organisation such as the Sydney City Council about the matter of its coat of arms. After all, the Sydney City Council is duly elected and responsible under the statute for decisions of that character. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the matters of concerned raised by the honourable member and will refer them to the Minister for Local Government for his due consideration.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I refer the Attorney General to the following comment of the Chief Justice about court filing fees, which appeared in the Supreme Court's 1995 Annual Review:

There is a substantial anomaly, in that the largest single user of the court system is the executive Government itself, especially in its capacity as a prosecutor of crime, but it pays no filing fees.

Does the Attorney General agree with the Chief Justice that that is an anomaly? Does the Government have any proposal to charge Executive Government filing fees?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: To the extent that the term "anomaly" might have any appropriateness in the situation described in the honourable member's question, it has long been the case that the Crown and its instrumentalities have not paid court filing fees. On one view it would simply mean that the Government would be paying moneys to itself, and that is a logical argument against filing fees being paid by the Government or its manifestations. On the other hand, as I said to the House the other day, any Attorney General should take seriously the observations of the Chief Justice, and I will give proper consideration to what Justice Gleeson said in his annual report.


The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question is to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. In the Government's rush to sell the State Office Block, what guarantee has the Government sought that the widely acknowledged heritage values of the streetscape, including the fountain surrounding the building, will not be adversely affected if the site is developed?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I very seldom venture outside my portfolio area; it is a very dangerous thing to do.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Are you going to?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, because as citizens of Sydney we are all entitled to our aesthetic values. I have to say that I think the State Office Block is a dump of a building. The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner agrees with me that it always has been a dump of a building. On two occasions I have had the misfortune to have my office located in the building and, frankly, the sooner -

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Wran built it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No. Oh, you are a silly man! What a silly man you are! Neville Wran is a man of exquisite architectural taste; it was built by Tom Lewis. I know when one expresses an
Page 3672
opinion about these things, any number of architects get their noses out of joint. They will come down on me like a ton of bricks, as I hope the State Office Block comes down, but not on me. I generally find that there are as many architects' opinions as there are lawyers' opinions, or, indeed, economists' opinions. One will never get two economists, two lawyers or two architects to agree. I frankly do not think the building has any architectural significance. The Hon. J. F. Ryan is agreeing with me and the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner has agreed with me.

I think that the arrangement that the Government has entered into for the lease of the site - which will, from memory, result in a net present value to the New South Wales Government of some $84.5 million, although I stand to be corrected on that precise figure - is fantastic, considering that in 100 years time the honourable member's great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren will still own the site. As I have pointed out on previous occasions, this is a far- sighted Government. I know I will not be around in 100 years, but I hope someone will say, "Michael Egan left us that site."


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. It is a fact that the Trustee Corporations Association made a submission to the Attorney General on 3 July 1995 in favour of the prudent person rule for trustee investments? Is it a fact that that association has still not received a reply? Is the Attorney General aware that the prudent person rule was adopted in the United States of America in 1942, in New Zealand in 1988, in South Australia in July 1995, in Victoria in January 1996, and in the Northern Territory in February 1996 and that its adoption is imminent in Western Australia? It is a fact that if we do not adopt the prudent person rule immediately we will lose investment to other States? Why has the Attorney General failed to act?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Government has not failed to act. That matter is under active consideration.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Did you send it to a committee?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: It is being actively considered at the moment within the department. In the next couple of years when people compare this Government's record on law reform generally with that of the previous Government, I think we will be shown to have an activist record. I could rattle off many proposals which were in a state of atrophy within the Attorney General's Department under the previous Government - not always, by the way, the fault of the former Attorney General, because very often central government agencies blocked proposal after proposal. There was a lot of inertia there. The Government has moved many of these proposals along. If honourable members consider how many proposals the Government has put before this Parliament, they will agree we have a record of activism on legal reform generally. I believe the proposal has some merit and that is why the Government is critically considering it. The Government does not adopt a knee-jerk reaction simply because someone bowls up an idea. Literally hundreds of ideas are put to my department every week, and they need to be critically evaluated. In regard to this issue the Government needs to strike a balance between risk and return in trustee investments, as in other forms of investment, and it will judiciously and appropriately consider the idea.


The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture. Is it a fact that lady finger bananas are under threat from the steady spread of a disease which has baffled scientists, according to the New South Wales Department of Agriculture? Is it a fact that the soil-based Panama disease which dries out and kills the banana tree has been in Australia for 15 or 20 years and has a strong hold on many growing areas? Is the Minister for Agriculture aware of the problem? In view of the closure of agricultural laboratories, what is the Government doing to eradicate the disease?

The PRESIDENT: Order! Honourable members make a farce of question time when their disorder makes it difficult to hear the Minister's answer. Members will listen to the answer in silence. I call the Hon. Patricia Staunton to order.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is well known that I am a world authority on rabbit calicivirus disease and ovine Johne's disease. However, I will have to update my knowledge about diseases affecting bananas. I am sure that the Minister for Agriculture is replete with information about this matter and I shall refer the question to him.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. What progress is being made in the appointment of a permanent chief executive officer and principal registrar for the Supreme Court in view of the fact that the position has been vacant since March last year? Is the matter under active consideration or passive rumination? What impact is the prolonged vacancy having on the court? When will a permanent appointment be announced?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: This is essentially a matter in the hands of the Chief Justice. Shortly after the Government came to office, an unfortunate situation arose in which the position had been
Page 3673
advertised and a selection committee established, and the successful candidate, who was very highly regarded, I think initially accepted the position but then indicated he or she would not take up the position, and there has been a hiatus. I am informed that the officer acting in the position is performing a satisfactory job, so that there is no practical difficulty. I am sure that the Chief Justice and the court are taking appropriate steps to have the position filled.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Attorney reconsider his decision not to fund the North Sydney court support program? Is he aware that the service is likely to close because of his decision? If the service closes, where will its clients, many of whom are victims of domestic violence, turn for help?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: These decisions are made properly by the Legal Aid Commission and not by me. That is an appropriate arms-length process, and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to intervene in those sorts of decisions.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I ask the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services a question without notice. I refer to the question asked by my colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe on 6 June about a pilot scheme at Strathallen. Is there a proposal to relocate some residents from Peat Island to Strathallen? If so, will the Minister outline details of the proposal?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am not aware of any proposal to relocate residents from Peat Island to Strathallen. My understanding is that the expressions "pilot project" or "pilot scheme", when applied to Strathallan, refer to a proposal to devolve the clients currently living in an institutional setting at Strathallen near Goulburn to a community living situation.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: That is not quite true about Strathallen either.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It has always been my understanding that that expression, when applied to Strathallen, relates to devolving or moving those clients from an institutional setting to a situation where they live in group homes within the community. I am bemused by the suggestion that there might be a proposal to relocate people from Peat Island to Strathallen.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It was given in evidence before the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Not by me. I happened to be the Minister and I have no such proposal under consideration.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council in his own capacity and as the representative of the Premier. Why was the report of the Council on the Cost of Government over two months late, given that it was due on 12 April but not tabled until 20 June? Why have reports on the Council on the Cost of Government's other inquiries not been released in the public domain?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware that the report by the Council on the Cost of Government was two months late. If the honourable member tells me that, I accept his word.


The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, a question without notice. Why does the industry development component of the $120 million forest industry structural adjustment package discriminate against the plantation industry by limiting the use of funds to the native forest sector and forcing proponents of new job-creating projects based on plantations to use wood extracted from native forests in order to attract Government assistance? Why is the plantation sector not represented in its own right on the Forestry Advisory Council, despite repeated representations from the Australian forest growers and the conservation movement to correct this anomaly?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I will refer the Hon. I. Cohen's question to the relevant Minister and obtain a response.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. What action does the Government intend to take about the alleged contempt of court by the Health Care Complaints Commission by its disclosure to an ABC journalist of the identity of four patients who acquired HIV in November 1988, given the report tabled by the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I understand that the committee has referred that issue to me for examination, and I will consider it in due course.

Page 3674

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. Will the Minister inform the House why neither the Repatriation Commission nor the Federal Minister for Veterans' Affairs were consulted about bed closures at Concord Repatriation General Hospital, especially when these bed closures put at risk a 10-year agreement between the State Government and the Repatriation Commission which guarantees bed numbers? Can the Minister give a categorical assurance to this House that the Government will meet the agreement it has with the Repatriation Commission?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I shall be delighted to refer the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn's question to my colleague the Minister for Health for a response.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations a question without notice. Is it a fact that the Darlinghurst court complex is considered to be substandard criminal trial court accommodation? Is it also a fact that the Darlinghurst court complex is the worst trial court accommodation in Sydney? Is it a further fact that in mid-1994 the court produced a report identifying the options to achieve its long-term needs? What steps is the Attorney General taking to ensure that suitable criminal court facilities are provided to replace the Darlinghurst complex?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: There are some deficiencies in the Darlinghurst courts, but they are in a satisfactory state for the conduct of trials. It is true that the old Banco court is being used for one major criminal trial currently under way, but by and large Supreme Court criminal trials are held at Darlinghurst. I do not have any significant level of complaints about those facilities. I am certainly prepared to consult with the Chief Justice and the Chief Judge of the Common Law Division to see whether or to what extent changes need to be made. In my regular meetings with the heads of jurisdictions I have not received information that anything dramatic is wrong in that regard, but I shall consider the matter.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Further to the answer given by the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services to the question asked by the Hon. Janelle Saffin about assistance for residents in boarding houses, did the Minister promise prior to the 1995 State election that residents of boarding houses would be given access to the Community Services Commission? Has the Minister fulfilled that promise? If not, why not?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is true that what might be described as a policy plank was included in the document "Labor's Policy for People with a Disability in New South Wales" prior to the most recent State election, and that that policy advocates access to the Community Services Commission for residents of boarding houses and hostels. That matter is still under consideration by the Government and by me. I note that the previous Government announced on 5 September 1994 in a document entitled "Caring for People with Mental Illness" a commitment to boarding house residents having access to the Community Services Commission, known as CAMA. It is clear that the previous Government did not act upon that commitment before it left office. Legal advice was sought from the Solicitor General regarding the jurisdiction of legislation to enable the access of boarding house residents to the commission. The advice from the Solicitor General was that boarding house residents were entitled to access CAMA. The Government intends that residents will have the right to lodge complaints and have them investigated by the commission. That will provide further protection for residents of boarding houses.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I direct my question to the Minister for State and Regional Development. Is the Minister aware that the Australian Wool Exchange has decided to close the wool exchange in Newcastle and the wool-selling centres in Newcastle and Goulburn from 1 January next year? Is he also aware that the closures will mean that Sydney will be the sole northern market centre for the sale of wool? Can he bring pressure to bear on the Australian Wool Exchange to ensure that the wool-selling centres in Newcastle and Goulburn are kept open, because their closure will result in a loss of jobs in both Newcastle and Goulburn and will diminish those regional centres?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I would have to admit that I am not aware of that matter, but I thank the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby for drawing it to my attention. I shall certainly have the Department of State and Regional Development inquire into the matter. Any information that the honourable member has on the subject would assist those inquiries.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I remind the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations of his previous commitment about gender equity in the legal system. Can he inform the House what progress has been made in that regard? How many women judicial members have been appointed by the Government? What is the total number of women judicial officers in New South Wales?

Page 3675

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am not able to provide the precise statistics sought by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, but I am able to indicate that there has been real progress in reviewing gender inequities in the legal profession. I am happy to say that I will very soon receive the report of the working party set up to examine gender inequities in the legal profession. I am acutely aware that there are far too few women on the bench, particularly in senior judicial positions. That is why I was pleased, with the general approval of the House and the community, to appoint Justice Margaret Beazley from the Federal Court to the Court of Appeal. The Government has appointed a significant number of women as magistrates and has appointed women public defenders, after no woman having been appointed as a public defender for about a decade.

The Crown Advocate, a critical position in the criminal justice system, will be Ms Megan Latham, who was the head of the criminal law review division within the Attorney General's Department and who has been a Crown Prosecutor for several years. Ms Latham is presently on leave but on return will take up that important position. The Government has made a conscious attempt to redress the inequity by appointing women of real capacity and outstanding professional ability to senior positions. There is not the slightest element of tokenism in any of the appointments to which I have adverted; they were outstanding appointments on any analysis.

I have been happy also to appoint Judge Robyn Tupman to the District Court, and the process will certainly go on. I am in touch with the Women Lawyers Association, and it is my belief that within the profession generally there is a sense that the issue has to be regarded consciously by those responsible for judicial appointments. My department is coordinating a response from relevant government agencies on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Law Reform Commission Report No. 69, "Equality Before the Law; Justice for Women". As to the matter to which I adverted earlier, my department is represented on a committee overseeing the implementation of the recommendations of a report commissioned by the Women's Legal Resources Centre entitled, "Quarter Way to Equal; a Report on Barriers to Access to Legal Services for Migrant Women". All of those processes are in place and I hope that they will reap appropriate rewards as soon as possible.


The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I refer to the answers given last week by the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services about the employment of casual staff at Peat Island to fill the current staffing gaps. Will the employment of casual staff impact on the budget at Peat Island? Can the Minister give a guarantee that other services will not be cut to meet any additional staffing costs?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Opposition appears to have an obsession with Peat Island. Opposition members have tried to whip up hysteria to the extent that it has been suggested that there is a staffing crisis at Peat Island, and all sorts of things that are not happening are alleged to be happening. Yesterday I was asked whether some residents would be prevented by some contingency from going on holiday - as though the Minister would be aware of that!

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Would you care?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I care very much. In fact, I cared sufficiently - unlike the previous Government, which did nothing - about the freeze on patient amenities funds to unfreeze those funds so that the condition of clients could be improved.

[Interruption]

My colleague the Treasurer informs me that he supported that initiative in Cabinet.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: You need a friend.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I have a friend in the Treasurer. So far as Peat Island is concerned, I am confident that the engaging of casual staff to overcome any temporary difficulties in staffing will not impact adversely on the budget. I am sure that I can operate that facility, via the Department of Community Services, in an efficient manner and to such an extent that casual staff are hired. The staffing position will be looked after without any undue effect on the budget.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask a question of the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture. Why is there no qualified primatologist on the Non-Indigenous Animals Advisory Committee primate subgroup? Will the Minister ensure that a qualified primatologist is appointed without delay? Is it a fact that one of the advisers on the primate subgroup is still trading in primates in categories 1 and 2 of the Non-Indigenous Animals Act? Has this adviser advised that his friends in the industry will create a black market if they are unable to continue dealing in primates? Will the Minister review the position of this adviser on the committee?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I must confess I am not aware of the circumstances regarding qualified climatologists within the Department of Agriculture. However, I am sure that both the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the House will be absolutely delighted to hear that from -

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Primatologist, not climatologist.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am uncertain also as to the position regarding qualified primatologists. However, I am sure the House will be absolutely
Page 3676
fascinated and delighted to hear that for a period of approximately three weeks from next Monday I will be the Acting Minister for Agriculture.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: They would not give me the job.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Treasurer is complaining they will not give him the job. I have news for the Treasurer; I will not let him act for me either. If the Hon. R. S. L. Jones is lucky, I might be able to inform myself regarding that matter and convey to him some information quite soon.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I ask the Attorney General a question without notice. Has the Public Employment Office conducted an evaluation of the position of Director-General of the Attorney General's Department? If so, was the grading the result of evaluation or allocation?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The answer to the first question is yes, there was an examination of the position of Director-General of the Attorney General's Department, and that position was upgraded. My understanding is that the rationale for that upgrading, which is a pretty clear one, is that he had been the head of a small department, the Attorney General's Department, which was amalgamated with Courts Administration when the present Government came to office. Hence the position was upgraded. As to the precise labels that the honourable member uses in her questions, I could not delineate between them. I could not make any comment about that or which label is applicable to the process used.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Attorney undertake to ascertain whether the grading allotted was in fact by evaluation or allocation? Can the Attorney give an assurance to the House that he was involved in the process of the regrading?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: As to the first question, I will seek to ascertain which label is appropriate. As to the second question, I was involved in the process.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Premier. There was a letter in Education News of last month by Mr Ivan Pagett in which he notified his resignation from the Australian Labor Party. As part of his letter he said, "This will make the Government even worse because one of their great faults today is believing their own spin. This self-delusion will lead to a huge fall in the general election, and it can't come soon enough." Could the Treasurer indicate whether he agrees or disagrees with the sentiments expressed by Mr Ivan Pagett.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If I understood correctly what the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti was saying, it should not come as any surprise to him that I disagree with Mr Pagett.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I ask the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services a question. What policies and protocols does his department have in place to protect residents in group homes from abuse by other residents? Is the Minister aware that a resident of a group home in Russell Vale has been subjected to at least 13 recorded incidents since February this year? Is it a fact that the best her family has been promised by the Department of Community Services area manager is that the department will "look into it"? Will the Minister now look into it?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Various protocols do exist within the Department of Community Services directed to preventing abuse of residents in the department's care, whether in group homes or for that matter in large institutions. To the best of my knowledge, the particular matter referred to by the honourable member in her question relating to events at Russell Vale has not been drawn to my attention at this stage. However, I will make inquiries about the matter. The honourable member might send me written material so that the matter can be thoroughly investigated.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Given the figures available from the Ombudsman, the police royal commission, internal affairs and Justice Action relating to the involvement of more than 300 police officers in fraudulent or unlawful police evidence resulting in wrongful convictions, how can the Attorney continue to maintain that there is no need for an independent body to investigate all these claims?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Quite simply, because a limited number of applications that have been referred - approximately 40 - are being considered. We believe we have the resources to deal with the matters quickly. Indeed, the tangible manifestation that we have dealt with a number is already apparent from judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeal. So they are being dealt with. But I have indicated I do not have a closed mind on the matter. If the number of serious applications escalates - as seems to be contemplated in the
Page 3677
question - then the question of structure whereby verdicts can be reassessed will be dealt with. I do not have a dogmatic view that we should not have a separate commission of some kind, or that we should not perhaps engage a retired judge to review and re-evaluate verdicts over which some question mark has arisen as to the appropriateness of those verdicts, particularly flowing from the police royal commission. But, as at present advised, the review of those matters is being dealt with satisfactorily by the Crown Solicitor's office, briefing private counsel where appropriate.


The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: I ask the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture - and soon to be Acting Minister for Agriculture - a question without notice. Can the Minister give an assurance that any further taxation discussions with the Federal Government will contain long-term tax provisions for primary producers to allow primary producers to better withstand the vagaries of seasons and commodity prices and ultimately alleviate the responsibility of State and Federal governments to continually intervene with stop-gap measures?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I shall be delighted to refer this matter to my colleague the Minister for Agriculture, and I will furnish the honourable member with a considered response as soon as possible.


The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations is it a fact that the Auditor-General in his report suggested that the current system for management of cases within New South Wales courts is antiquated? Did the Auditor-General also say that the introduction of a new case management system would result in a vastly improved and efficient system statewide? Has the decision to introduce the new case management system been suspended indefinitely? What steps is the Attorney taking to reintroduce the case management system for which approval was given in January 1995?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: It is not clear to me to which court the question is directed. Obviously different systems of case allocation and the like apply in the various elements of the New South Wales court system. Differential case management has been in operation in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court since January 1994. An appraisal of that system, which I read recently, on economic bases emanating from the Law Foundation indicated that that system was working well. Despite some criticism in the profession when it was first introduced on the initiative of the chief justice, there is broad support for differential case management. I hope that the system, albeit revised and reformed, will continue.

A more active system of managing civil cases in the District Court is in place. The Chief Judge of the District Court has been active in moving the lists, both civil and criminal, and I believe the statistics show a considerable improvement in the lists for that court. Similarly, a satisfactory system of case management is in place in the Local Court. I have not noted the description of antiquated flowing from the Auditor-General as is suggested by the question, but I will examine the matter to see whether that is the case. The information I have would not give any credence to that description, assuming it has been used.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. In light of Sydney's commitment to the year 2000 Paralympics has the Minister asked for an audit of all Sydney's major public buildings to assess their accessibility for people in wheelchairs and for the frail aged? If not, will the Minister request that such an audit be undertaken so that rectification work can be commenced if necessary?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I will be delighted to refer the question for consideration in particular to the Ageing and Disability Department. The honourable member would be aware that under section 9 of the Disability Services Act plans are required to be prepared by government agencies to facilitate access for people with a disability to public buildings and facilities. The New South Wales Government disability strategic plan requires that all public authorities plan for improved access for people with disabilities to all their premises and facilities. The Ageing and Disability Department is coordinating a project to develop accessible building guidelines to assist public authorities to improve access to its premises and facilities. Those guidelines will include information and check lists to assist agencies to improve access in new and existing government-owned or government-leased buildings.

The Ageing and Disability Department also is upgrading guidelines to assist public authorities to ensure that there are evacuation plans provided for the safe egress of people with disabilities from their premises. This does not really deal with the problem of access to premises that are not owned by the Government. In that regard local government has a big role to play. North Sydney Council has been most active in this regard. Some six months after I became Minister I visited North Sydney to launch an initiative of North Sydney Council which related to the production of guides and maps to assist people with disabilities to locate premises that were readily accessible. That may seem to be a small step. However, it is important that people with disabilities have information as to what shops, offices and other premises are accessible to them. The problem of accessibility is a very real one. It can be addressed over time, and I take the view that
Page 3678
the Government, working with local government, can make an impression on an admittedly quite serious problem.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture. Is the Minister aware that on three occasions the Premier has announced the formation of an office of rural communities to be established at Orange? Will the Minister advise the House when that office will commence and what benefits will accrue to country people as a result?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I will refer that matter to my colleague the Minister for Agriculture for a response to be provided to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.


The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 15 May the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked a question without notice regarding the Totalizator Agency Board. The answer is as follows:

In 1991 the Totalizator Agency Board of NSW embarked upon a program of gradually replacing all uneconomic Agency operations with a service in local licensed premises ie PubTAB and ClubTAB outlets.

Since that time the Board has closed 28 uneconomic agencies and opened 37 PubTAB and ClubTAB outlets. In each case every endeavour was made to ensure that the level of TAB service improved with the closure of the Agency, including active attempts to provide a street front, separate TAB facility within the licensed premises. In almost all cases TAB sales have increased substantially following the conversion to a PubTAB or ClubTAB facility.

Whilst there has been a recent increase in the closure of agencies in favour of PubTAB and ClubTAB outlets, it should be borne in mind that these closures have occurred as part of an ongoing program commenced in 1991.

The Minister for Gaming and Racing has assured me that in every case the Board closely examines an Agency's performance and gives careful consideration to all of the service options available and relevant financial aspects prior to approving an Agency closure. Further, the Board takes into consideration a number of factors in selecting an alternative site and all such applications are considered in line with the Board's published procedures and guidelines in respect of the establishment of ClubTAB and PubTAB outlets.

These procedures involve the identification of suitable or preferred locations by one of the TAB's Regional Managers based upon certain criteria. The TAB Locations Committee, which comprises representatives of the TAB's Senior Management, then independently reviews the selection assessment process and the information available for each proposal. Any proposal for a new sight then requires the approval of the Chief Executive of the TAB and ultimately the Minister for Gaming and Racing.

In assessing an application for a Pub/ClubTAB the TAB requires that the nominee must hold a current NSW Liquor Licence as issued by the Liquor Administration Board. Consequently, the character of the Pub/ClubTAB nominee falls in line with the requirements already in place with the issuing of liquor licences.

In this regard, there is communication between the TAB and the Liquor Administration Board through the Minister's Department of Gaming and Racing in respect of any matter which may require further investigation or action.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 5 June the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question without notice regarding passionfruit industry liaison staff. The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following response:

(1) NSW Agriculture is currently recruiting a horticulturist whose duties will include liaising with the passionfruit industry and supporting the further development of that industry.

(2) (a) A pathologist, whose duties will include supporting the passionfruit industry, will be transferring from BCRI Rydalmere to Alstonville in the near future.

(b) NSW Agriculture is currently supporting the industry through passionfruit breeding projects conducted at the Tropical Fruit Research Station, Alstonville. Discussions with the NSW/Australian Passionfruit Growers' Association are continuing on other projects which will continue the Government's support of the industry in NSW.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 5 June the Hon. M. R. Kersten asked a question about Nyngan-Brewarrina stock losses resulting from heavy rainfall and flooding in that area. The Minister has provided the following response:

The Government is aware of the stock losses to landholders in the lower Bogan area resulting from the heavy rainfall in early May. Rainfall from 100 to 400 millimetres was received causing flooding of the Bogan River, particularly in the Gongolgon area. Some stock losses have been reported but some landholders are still unable to muster stock and the total numbers are unlikely to be known for some time.

The NSW Government through the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority has a disaster relief scheme in place whereby affected primary producers can apply for low interest rate loans of up to $80,000 for carry on funds. In addition, the Bourke and Brewarrina Rural Lands Protection Boards in which most of the affected areas lie have been declared for drought exceptional circumstances which provides for interest rate subsidies and other assistance measures to eligible primary producers. Primary producers must meet eligibility criteria requirements for both schemes before any approval is granted.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I refer to the question without notice on 23 May from the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith concerning smoking
Page 3679
restrictions in places where food and beverages are served. My colleague the Minister for Health has supplied the following response:

The NSW Health Department advises a number of research studies have found high levels of community support for restrictions on smoking in a range of public places, including restaurants and other places where food is prepared and served.

The 1993 National Household Survey found that 73% of respondents felt that smoking should be banned in restaurants.

A 1992 NSW study on community attitudes found that 97% of respondents felt that restaurants should have non-smoking areas, and 67% felt that smoking should be banned altogether.

The 1995 NSW Health Promotion Survey found that 48% of respondents felt that smoking should not be allowed anywhere in restaurants and cafes, and 47% felt that smoking should be allowed only in restricted areas.

The Health Department's Passive Smoking Task Force will consider the results of this research data in its examination of options for addressing this important public health issue.

NSW already has legislation in place to prohibit smoking where food is prepared. The NSW QUIT campaign will continue to promote awareness of the health risks of passive smoking. The Health Department is encouraging restaurateurs and publicans to implement smoke free policies and will remind them of the high level of public support for smoke free areas and smoke bans in restaurants, clubs and bars.

Questions without notice concluded.


The President reported a communication from His Excellency the Governor acknowledging receipt of the resolution adopted by the Legislative Council on 20 June, regarding the revocation of the dedication of parts of certain State forests.


Royal assent to the following bills reported:

Children (Community Service Orders) Amendment (Maximum Hours) Bill
Forests and Flora Reserves Revocation Bill
AJC Principal Club Bill
Gas Supply Bill
Superannuation Administration Bill
Superannuation (Axiom Funds Management Corporation) Bill

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Part 2

Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.08]: I do not move amendment 43 as circulated. However, I move amendment 44 circulated in my name:

Page 17, clause 12, line 4. After "must", insert "demonstrate that the applicant was (during the period of 12 months preceding the commencement of this section) a bona fide firearms collector, or must".

This amendment refers to provisions being made for collectors of firearms - mostly people who collect firearms of an old and valuable type. According to the bill, firearms collectors will only be accredited as being firearms collectors and allowed to retain a firearms collection if they are a current member of a collectors society or club prescribed by the regulations the members of which collect firearms of a kind for which the licence is sought. However, not all collectors are members of clubs or associations. This amendment seeks to allow for individual collectors, who can demonstrate that they have been bona fide collectors for at least 12 months before the application of this proposed Act by providing that proof to the commissioner, to be allowed to keep a collection.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.09]: The effect of this amendment will be that applicants can demonstrate to police that they are bona fide collectors as an alternative to being collecting club members. This is inconsistent with the APMC resolution and the Government cannot accept the amendment. The collector provisions are under further consideration by the police Ministers and a working party has prepared a report which is to be considered at the APMC meeting on 3 July. The matter seems capable of being reviewed but, as at present, the resolution which we are seeking to reflect in the bill precludes the amendment being accepted.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [5.10]: The Opposition does not support the amendment but notes the comment of the Minister in relation to the collector provisions being reviewed and looks forward to an answer in that regard.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.11]: In view of a previous answer by the Attorney General I do not intend to move amendment 46. It is irrelevant. By leave, I move, in globo, amendments 47 and 48 circulated in my name:

Page 19, clause 18, lines 12 to 16. Omit all words on those lines.

Page 19, clause 18. Insert after line 20:

(3) The details of the licensee's current residential address (and business address in the case of a firearms dealers licence), and of the premises where the firearm is authorised to be kept, are to be encoded on a magnetic strip, or other similar feature, in order to prevent such details (in the interests of the security of the firearm) from being seen by a casual observer.

In the interests of the security of the firearm the current shooter's licence deliberately excludes details of the licence holder's address. This was a conscious decision based on the sensible understanding that an unauthorised person who got access to a licence would know where firearms were kept and this could place their security at risk. This bill is 180 degrees out of phase with that sensible idea. It seeks to include all specific details
Page 3680
of the firearms and also details of the address at which the firearms are kept. The amendment seeks to exclude paragraphs (f) and (g) of clause 18(2). Such information as is called for in those clauses should be contained on a magnetic strip on a licence in a manner that only authorised persons can view it, as is suggested in amendment 48.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.14]: I regard these as very sensible amendments that will lead to greater safety, not less safety. I fully support the amendments.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.14]: The amendments seek the encoding of the current address where firearms are kept on magnetic tape. The Government believes that the amendments are not necessary. We say that the matter can be addressed administratively. In particular, the bill provides that the commissioner can approve the form of the licence and he can, therefore, approve the use of magnetic tape. As was stated in the second reading speech, the administrative means to examine this issue are being considered.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.14]: Without wishing to argue with the Attorney General I point out that clause 18(2) provides that a licence must specify the licensee's current residential address, and must specify the premises where the firearm is authorised to be kept. If the Attorney General assures me that the commissioner has the discretion not to observe that adjuration in the bill, I will be quite content. Otherwise, as I see it, the commissioner has no discretion at all.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.14]: The indication I give does not go as far as the honourable member wants. All I say is that the bill provides that the commissioner can approve the form of the licence and, therefore, he can approve the use of magnetic tape.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.15]: Because of what has been said earlier, I do not move amendment 51 as circulated. I move amendment 52 standing in my name:

Page 20, clause 20, lines 23 and 24. Omit all words on those lines.

This amendment relates to collectors of firearms being prohibited from keeping ammunition for those firearms. While I can understand the intention of the bill in this regard, I do not think there is any logical reason that collectors should not be allowed to have ammunition for the firearms they are licensed to keep. Owners of modern firearms, which have much greater firepower and, therefore, potentially are more dangerous, are allowed to possess ammunition for their guns. It may not be widely understood, but very few collectors would ever want to fire a collectable firearm because of the very real fear of damaging the firearm. Furthermore, a great many very old firearms which are collected come in carefully made and beautifully lined presentation cases which contain a small pocket, a box or loops in which ammunition can be placed. The loss of that ammunition either by firing it, and therefore no longer having it, or by having to take it out of the case because of the provisions of this bill, would considerably reduce the value of the firearm. This amendment, if adopted, would correct a serious anomaly in the bill.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.16]: As the honourable member said, in effect, the amendment would remove the ban on collectors possessing ammunition. The Government does not accept the amendment, but an APMC working party is considering this issue and recommendations will be put to the July APMC meeting about this matter.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.17]: I move amendment 54 circulated in my name:

Page 20, clause 20. Insert after line 26:

(2) This section does not apply in respect of a licence issued to or on behalf of a registered ex-service club or museum (or other similar organisation recognised by the Commissioner) that maintains static displays of military and war-time memorabilia, provided that any such display is arranged so that members of the public or unauthorised persons cannot gain access to the items on display.

The amendment speaks for itself. I am concerned that the provisions of the bill seem to overlook the large number of ex-service and Returned Services League clubs and other institutions that maintain a museum display relevant to their purpose in the community. They can contain things such as machine guns and hand grenades - all deactivated - and military rifles. The amendment seeks to exempt those institutions from the provisions of the bill provided they have a licence and provided that any display is arranged so that members of the public or other unauthorised persons cannot gain access to the items. There has to be a provision for clubs or organisations of this sort.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.18]: The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that collectors' requirements do not apply to registered ex-service clubs or museums displaying military or wartime memorabilia. I am informed that issue is being considered by the APMC working party and a report will be presented to the APMC meeting on 3 July, when this matter is expected to be further considered.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.19]: By leave, I move, in globo, amendments 58 and 66 circulated in my name:

Page 3681

Page 24, clause 28. Insert after line 10:

(c) to authorise the possession and use of self-loading rimfire or centre-fire rifles for sporting target shooting purposes in accordance with section 33,

Page 28. Insert after line 13:

33 Permits to possess and use self-loading rifles for sport/target shooting

(1) A person who is a current member of a recognised NSW rifle club may apply to the Commissioner for a permit to possess and use, while on a rifle range approved by the Commissioner, a self-loading rimfire or centre-fire rifle for the purposes of sporting target shooting.

(2) The Commissioner must not issue any such permit unless the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant has completed such firearms safety training courses as may be prescribed by the regulations.

(3) A permit under this section authorises the person to whom it is issued to possess and use a self-loading rimfire or centre-fire firearm but only:

(a) at a rifle range approved by the Commissioner, and

(b) for the purposes of sporting target shooting.

(4) A separate permit under this section is required in respect of each self-loading rifle.

(5) A permit under this section is subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations to ensure the safe and secure storage of the firearm the subject of the permit when it is not actually being used.

(6) In this section:

recognised NSW rifle club means:

(a) the New South Wales Rifle Association Incorporated, or

(b) any club affiliated with that association and which conducts competitions or activities requiring the use of self-loading rimfire or centre-fire firearms.

The amendments deal with access to self-loading rifles or firearms or, as they are called frequently in the bill, semiautomatics. The correct term is self-loaders. Several specific classes of people can demonstrate a genuine need for access to self-loading firearms but their needs are not addressed in the bill. The amendments do not at this point seek to deal with the very real needs of persons engaged in feral animal control, which have been addressed by other speakers, or other aspects of primary production, which have been mentioned by speakers in this debate; but it does point out that members of rifle clubs, particularly military rifle clubs, have had access to this type of firearm for most of this century without untoward incident. Military rifle clubs are constituted under the Australian Rifle Club Regulations as part of the Defence Act 1903. They are very tightly controlled; they have an unblemished safety record; and because of their function within the defence system are important to Australia. That has been demonstrated in each war that Australia has been involved in. The amendments seek to preserve the right under State law - providing that the Commonwealth Government goes ahead with its stated intention of repealing the Australian Rifle Club Regulations - of members of those clubs to retain, where they are being used in competition which those clubs conduct, the self-loading rifles which members are now allowed to use under a Commonwealth licence.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [5.21]: I support the amendments. The Hon. J. S. Tingle has made a clear distinction between the use of the self-loading rifles which I referred to as being necessary for the control of certain classes of vermin and this amendment, which is entirely centred on target shooting within the club movement. I support the amendments. There is a need there. People who have been following the debate may have seen television background footage showing self-loading rifles being used on ranges. It has been a perfectly legitimate and responsible use of the firearms. I see no reason why that use should be interrupted because of the events that have sparked off the review of the New South Wales legislation. I commend the Hon. J. S. Tingle for the drafting of the amendments, particularly new clause 33. If people are at all doubtful about amendment 58, which allows additional scope for the commissioner to allow authorisation of such activities, they should refer to proposed new clause 33. I could add nothing to it as drafted. It has been excellently drawn up and covers the situation very well by tying the activities down to New South Wales rifle clubs. It is a very detailed and satisfactory amendment.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.23]: Amendment 58 would allow the Commissioner of Police to issue permits for category C and D rim-fire and centre-fire rifles to be used for sports target shooting. These are prohibited firearms, with exceptions made only for primary producers and contract shooters. Amendment 66, proposing new clause 33, would provide for an additional permit to allow competitive shooters access to category C and D firearms for sport target shooting. In other words, it would permit the possession and use of self-loading rifles for sport target shooting. That is diametrically in conflict with the APMC resolution. The amendments cannot be reconciled with the resolutions passed. For consistency and to follow the APMC resolution the Government cannot support the amendments. If I may make that a little more tangible, APMC resolution 1 specifically states that prohibited firearms are not to be available for sports shooting. I understand that the Commonwealth has said that it will repeal the Australian Rifle Club Regulations. The view that New South Wales has expressed about that, while not as I understand it opposed to the repeal, is that it ought to be done in a deliberate and perhaps slow way so as to respect the rights of members of clubs, many of whom are members of the defence forces and police services. However, the Government must adhere to the resolution. The amendments are opposed.

Page 3682

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [5.25]: The coalition considered amendments 58 and 66 proposed by the Hon. J. S. Tingle, and although it understands the motivation for amendment 66, in view of the resolution of the APMC the coalition does not consider it appropriate to support the amendments at this stage.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.26]: By leave, I move Shooters Party amendments 64 and 65 in globo:

Page 27, clause 32. Insert after line 24 "• a minor's primary production permit,".

Page 27, clause 32, line 26. After "permit", insert "or minor's primary production permit".

I do not propose to proceed with Shooters Party amendment 63. I am pleased that the State Government has proposed in the Firearms Bill 1996 to allow the continuation of minor's permits. These were not actually encompassed in the original resolutions from the 10 May police Ministers council meeting. The age limit of 18 was to apply to people allowed to handle firearms. Although I welcome the provision of minor's firearms training permits and minor's target pistol permits, I believe that neither of those provisions addresses the need for young people on farms to have access to firearms for purposes identical to those of the main primary producer. I have known of many farms, particularly in the recent rural recession, on which the main breadwinner has had to leave the farm to work in a mine, factory or shop to get enough money to keep the farm going. His son - perhaps his eldest son aged 14 - has had to take on the job of being the man on the farm and running the farm. I was taught to shoot when I was aged 10 on the farm on which I grew up. I believe that some provision should be made in the interests of the rural community, the primary production community, to extend the minor's permit from the two now allowed to a third one which has been called a primary production minor's permit to recognise the real need, the functional need, of young people on farms, under supervision, to handle and use a firearm for the destruction of stock and the control of feral animals and vermin. I urge the Government to reconsider this issue.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.28]: As the honourable member has said, the effect of the amendments would be to allow a minor's permit to be issued for primary production purposes but, as I understand the amendments, they would still limit the use to training under the supervision of a licensed shooter. The Government does not believe the amendment as necessary because under clause 32 as proposed a young person can apply for and obtain a minor's firearms permit in two classes: a minor's firearms training permit or a minor's target pistol permit. The relevant one in this case is a minor's firearms training permit. I would have thought that was sufficient to meet the point concerning the Hon. J. S. Tingle. Under the terms of the proposed amendments minors would be able to get a permit for primary production purposes but would still be limited to use of firearms for training purposes under the supervision of a licensed shooter. Under the bill minors can simply get a permit for the purposes of training and the Government takes the view that that should be sufficient.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.29]: The issue raised by the Hon. J. S. Tingle is worthy of consideration at the appropriate time, and that is at the Australasian Police Ministers' Council in Canberra on 4 July. These amendments, together with the issues raised in amendments 58 and 66, are worthy of review. The honourable member made a number of good suggestions in this debate. Unfortunately, the coalition is not in a position to support the amendments. However, the coalition supports the issues being further considered by the Australasian Police Ministers' Council with a view to including the provisions in the national legislation. Farmers are not included in the provisions relating to training permits or target pistol permits. That issue is also worthy of consideration, but the coalition will not support the amendments on this occasion.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.30]: Having regard to the discussion, the Government agrees to have the matters considered in the way that has been foreshadowed.

Amendments negatived.

Part agreed to.

Part 4

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.31]: I will not move amendment 76 circulated in my name.

Part agreed to.

Part 6

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.32]: I will not move amendments 79 and 92 circulated in my name.

Part agreed to.

Part 8

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.33]: I move Shooters Party amendment 97:

Page 53, clause 77, lines 15 and 16. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(2) A right of appeal lies to the District Court against the Local Court's decision on an appeal. Any appeal to the District Court is to be by way of re-hearing.

(3) A right of appeal lies to the Supreme Court by way of stated case against the Local Court's decision on an appeal in respect of an error of law.

Page 3683

(4) If an appeal to the District Court or the Supreme Court is in relation to:

(a) a condition imposed on a licence or permit, or

(b) a firearms prohibition order,

the condition or order continues in force until the appeal is determined by the Court, unless the Court otherwise orders.

(5) If an appeal to the District Court or the Supreme Court is in relation to any other matter, the appellant's licence or permit, unless the Court otherwise orders, continues in force until the appeal is determined.

The amendment seeks to remove the final and binding decision of a Local Court magistrate on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Police to revoke, suspend, cancel or refuse a licence. The Local Court is perhaps not the highest court in which an appeal should be heard. An applicant should be able to take his case to the District Court, if necessary, or even to the Supreme Court. In other words, the amendment is an attempt to prevent an applicant in an appeal matter being bound by the Local Court decision.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.35]: The Government opposes the amendment. The Government argues that the right to appeal to the Local Court, that is, a court constituted by a magistrate under clause 75, is sufficient protection against any error that may be made by the Commissioner of Police in dealing with these matters. Honourable members will see that clause 75, as drafted provides for a wide range of decisions from which an appeal lies as of right from the Commissioner to the magistrate. Such appeals will be dealt with by the Local Court in accordance with the law. Of course, in accordance with ordinary legal process, if the Local Court were to make an error as to its jurisdiction, that could be corrected in superior courts by appropriate application.

The Government is of the view that the regime for appeals that the amendment seeks to construct is too elaborate and legalistic in that it would leave in place appeals to the Local Court under clause 75 but then add a further tier of appeal, as I understand it, as of right to the District Court, so the whole matter could be re-agitated before the District Court. It would be an appeal by way of rehearing. In addition to an appeal as of right to the District Court, there would be a system of appeals to the Supreme Court by way of stated case when an error of law is alleged. There would be two tiers of appeal: first, a full rehearing in the District Court and, secondly, an appeal by way of stated case to the Supreme Court in relation to errors of law. The Government believes that that is an unnecessarily elaborate system and that the magistrate is the correct person to determine these fairly basic issues of refusal to issue a licence or permit, conditions imposed by the commissioner on the licence or permit and the like. One would expect a magistrate to deal with such ordinary, day-to-day matters. Therefore the Government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.37]: I support the amendment. I believe that there should be a further right of appeal.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [5.38]: The Opposition supports the comments of the Attorney General in relation to the wide range of appellable decisions provided for in clause 75. The Opposition opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Part agreed to.

Schedule 3

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.39]: I will not move any of the remaining amendments circulated in my name, with the exception of amendments 113 and 114, which by leave I move in globo:

Page 66, Schedule 3, clause 4, lines 10 to 14. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(b) continues, unless it is sooner surrendered, cancelled or revoked, in force for the unexpired portion of its term.

Page 66, Schedule 3, clause 5, lines 22 to 24. Omit "or until the end of the period of 12 months starting at the commencement of this clause (whichever is sooner)".

These clauses concern me because as I read them, and I may be corrected by the Attorney General, there is some question of further value after the proposed Act is applied to existing permits and licences that are now held by licensed authorised shooters under the existing firearms laws. As I understand it, when the provisions of the proposed Act are applied, existing licences, which may have four or five years to run, will be cancelled or revoked 12 months after the Act comes into force. That seems to be an unjustified proposition from almost every point of view. If all existing licences are cancelled 12 months after the Act comes into force, that could be regarded as a breach of contract by someone who has already paid for a five-year licence.

The commissioner always has the power to revoke a licence. However, if I may take a hypothetical case of the Act coming into effect on 1 August 1996 and all existing licences expired on 1 August 1997, the resulting chaos in the firearms registry as people sought to renew or not renew their licences would make the system unmanageable. A number of people would suddenly become unlicensed. That is what worries me most of all. Is it necessary to cancel these licences at that time or, as the amendments suggest, would it not be preferable to allow existing licences to continue to their scheduled expiry date and then be renewed. That is what the amendments seek to achieve.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.41]: The Government opposes the amendments. Amendment
Page 3684
113 would extend the amnesty provision to people who are unable to become licensed under the new scheme. The Government points out that clause 4 of schedule 3 ensures that existing licences remain current for 12 months - the honourable member has correctly understood the purport of the bill - which would mean that if one has a licence extending beyond the 12 months it would be reviewable after the 12 months. Certainly existing licences are protected by clause 4 of schedule 3, which states in part:

Subject to the regulations, an existing licence that authorised the possession or use of a firearm other than a prohibited firearm:

. . .

(b) continues to authorise the possession or use of the firearm in respect of which it was issued for the period of 12 months from the commencement of this clause (unless it is sooner surrendered or revoked in accordance with this Act).

The licence holders have their licences preserved for that 12-month period and they could sell any firearms during that period, if that were necessary to bring them into compliance with the law. If they own firearms that are to be prohibited they will be compensated in the same manner as everyone else. The proposal in amendment 114 would continue all existing licences for their full term. That is probably the main amendment to which the honourable member spoke. The difficulty is that my information suggests that the amendment would be in breach of the Australasian Police Ministers' Council resolutions in seeking to continue all existing licences for their full or entire terms. For example, the amendment would allow lifetime licences in some cases, and that is in breach of APMC resolutions. That would create a difficulty. If a licence is to be preserved in perpetuity, the amendment is in clear conflict with the State and Commonwealth agreement. With mutual recognition of State licences and the tightening of all requirements, the Government puts forward the view that it is important that all licences move into the new system. Therefore, the Government considers that the 12-month preservation is reasonable and appropriate and that the amendments should not be supported.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.44]: The purpose of the amendments was not to keep licences in perpetuity; it was to recognise that at the present time some classes of licence are issued for five-year periods. It seemed reasonable that those licences should be allowed to expire rather than have a mass expiration of licences on some set date in the future, which is probably unfair to people who have just renewed a licence. Moreover, it will create a traffic jam in the registry. Bearing in mind my previous comments about the efficiency of the registry, that will probably cause the system to break down under its own weight.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [5.45]: The Opposition agrees with the reasons given by the Attorney and does not support the amendments.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [5.45]: These are sensible proposals by the Hon. J. S. Tingle. I strongly commend the amendments for consideration in the round of discussions to be held in July. I spoke earlier about this system and how the previous system should be held up as a good example. People who recently took out five-year licences did so in good faith. The Government should give them some consideration when framing later amendments.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN [5.46]: I support the remarks of my colleague the Hon. D. F. Moppett. I agree that these amendments are sensible. They have a great deal of logic and should be considered by honourable members. I urge the Attorney General to take on board the words of the Hon. D. F. Moppett and to recommend that the amendments be considered at the police Ministers conference, together with a number of other issues.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.47]: I will refer the remarks that have been made by members of this House to the Minister for Police. I am able to indicate that licensing fees in the relicensing process are being actively considered.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

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


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.50]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

Honourable members would be aware that I spoke in the take-note debate on the budget estimates and related papers. The Government subsequently
Page 3685
introduced the State Revenue Legislation (Howard and Costello) Bill, so it is appropriate that I comment on that bill. At the 1996 Premiers' Conference the Commonwealth Government imposed a massive funding cut on New South Wales over the next three years. The changes will cost New South Wales around $900 million between now and 1999. This is a bitter blow, particularly after the Government's work in two budgets to cut waste, reduce tax and direct spending to the high priority areas of health, education, community services and police. Commonwealth funding to the States has tightened considerably in the past decade. When compared to gross domestic product growth, grants to the States have declined by 21 per cent since 1982-83, compared to an increase in own-purpose payments by the Commonwealth of 12 per cent. Through the cuts and tax increases imposed on the States and Territories at the Premiers' conference the States are being asked to help the Commonwealth implement its own budget strategy.

There are three elements to the package forced on us by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has imposed sales tax on motor vehicles included in remuneration packages for public servants. The cost of this to New South Wales is estimated at around $20 million a year. The cost will be passed on to the employees who use those vehicles. The Commonwealth has foreshadowed cuts in specific purpose payments to the States of 3 per cent, costing New South Wales up to $100 million annually. New South Wales, like the other States, will be in no position to fill the void left by whatever final funding decisions the Commonwealth makes in these programs. Lastly, the Commonwealth has required the States to make special revenue assistance payments to help balance the Federal budget. The payments for the first two years equal the amount that financial assistance grants should have increased under the agreed funding formula.

This funding formula was the subject of an intergovernmental financial agreement and was part of the agreement on national competition policy reform. The payments extracted by the Commonwealth clearly breach these agreements. The cost of the special assistance payments to New South Wales is around $540 million over the next three years. This will be addressed through a combination of tax measures, each with a sunset provision so that the additional tax burdens can be lifted when the Commonwealth impost ceases. The Government ruled out cutting State-funded services. We will not back down on our commitments to improve health, education, police and community, and other essential services. Also, the vast majority of State outlays are on high priority and non-discretionary services, unlike the Commonwealth where there is a far greater level of discretionary expenditure.

The cost of the $540 million Commonwealth impost will be met by changes to land tax, payroll tax and stamp duty on motor vehicle registration. The Stamp Duties Act will be amended to increase the rate of stamp duty for motor vehicle certificates of registration from 2.5 per cent of the value of the vehicle to 3.0 per cent, effective from 1 July 1996. This means that on the purchase of a $10,000 motor vehicle, an additional $50 in stamp duty is payable. Over the period of the increased rate, the rate in New South Wales will still be in line with Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Provisions will be included to reduce the rate back to 2.5 per cent on 1 January 1999, or earlier, provided the following conditions have been met: the Commonwealth has ended the requirement for special revenue assistance payments by States and Territories; the funding formula agreed at the Premiers' conference for financial assistance grants is operative; and the arrangements agreed at the April 1995 Council of Australian Governments meeting covering national competition payments are operative.

If the conditions are not met, the bill enables the increased rate of stamp duty to be maintained until they are met. This initiative is estimated to provide around $63 million in 1996-97, $66 million in 1997-98 and $35 million in 1998-99, totalling $164 million. The Land Tax Act will be amended to increase the land tax rate from 1.5 per cent to 1.65 per cent to take effect from 1 July 1996. The current provision for property valued up to $160,000 not to be liable for land tax will remain in place. This means that a person with an investment property with an unimproved land value of $200,000 will pay an extra $60. The change will not affect residential and farm properties as they are exempt from land tax. This measure will raise around $46 million in 1996-97, $56 million in 1997-98 and $10 million in 1998-99, totalling $112 million. Again, this will be a temporary measure which is to last only over the time of the Commonwealth impost. The Act will be amended to contain provisions so that, subject to the conditions I have already outlined being met, the land tax rate will be reduced back to 1.5 per cent.

The Pay-roll Tax Act will be amended in order to include employer superannuation contributions within the definition of wages for the purposes of the Act. At the same time the rate will be decreased from 7 per cent to 6.85 per cent. The changes are to take effect from 1 July 1996 with the net effect providing additional revenue of around $100 million in a full year. This initiative also addresses the anomaly, and the resulting distortions, caused by not including employer contributions to superannuation in the definition of wages for payroll tax purposes. South Australia already includes employer contributions to superannuation in its payroll tax base. In line with the Government's plan to sunset the tax increases when the Commonwealth imposts cease, the bill includes provisions to fully offset the inclusion of employer contributions to superannuation in the tax base by decreasing the rate to 6.7 per cent. The total additional revenue is estimated at $264 million.

Page 3686

The amendments I will introduce in Committee will enable the Government to reduce payroll tax to 6.7 per cent in the event that the conditions outlined in the bill are met before 31 December 1998 or to extend the imposition of the surcharge beyond 31 December 1998 if the conditions have not been met by that date. In total these tax changes are estimated to provide revenue of around $202 million in 1996-97, $228 million in 1997-98 and $110 million in 1998-99, $540 million in all, matching the cost of the special revenue assistance to the Commonwealth. It is regrettable that the Government is forced into taking such measures due to the irresponsible actions of the Commonwealth. However, in formulating its response to the Commonwealth impost, the Government had to maintain its responsible fiscal position, ensuring that fiscal targets are met and any increase in debt was avoided. In choosing these tax options, the Government has tried as far as possible to avoid hitting low income earners, to spread the burden of the Commonwealth cuts as fairly as possible and to minimise adverse economic impacts. I commend the bills to the House.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [5.59]: I support the bills. As has been the practice in this House for several years, we have a take-note debate on the budget estimates and related papers. Consequently, we have not adopted the practice of debating the substantive bills. I therefore do not expect there will be secondary debate on the substantive pieces of legislation. I will comment on a number of issues in Committee. However, I will deal first with one aspect of the administration of the Parliament as it relates to the appropriation bills. The estimates committee process enables honourable members to place questions on notice and those questions must be answered by Ministers within a specified period. Clearly, answers to those questions must be provided before the House finalises debate on the appropriation bills. I acknowledge that as a result of a decision taken by the Legislative Assembly, the period for compliance of the tabling of those answers became unduly extended. A number of Ministers are now compelled to table their answers by 25 June. Other Ministers do not have to table their answers until tomorrow. Honourable members should not be required to debate this legislation until those answers are provided. A number of answers, which were required by 25 June, should be made available to honourable members before the Committee stage.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I understand it is only one Minister.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Only one Minister is yet to provide answers. I understand that efforts are being made to secure those answers by eight o'clock this evening. As a matter of practice, governments of every political persuasion should ensure that answers to questions asked at estimates committees are provided to honourable members before dealing with the Committee stage of the appropriation bills. I do not believe we should deal with issues such as this in our take-note debate. However, issues may well arise concerning answers received to questions asked at estimates committees. Those issues should be appropriately addressed in the Committee stage. I will be moving a motion to adjourn debate on these bills to a later hour of the sitting. We might then have the answers that we require. The Government can indicate whether it accedes to this process being followed. I will not, however, seek the adjournment of the House until all the answers are available, as some of them are not required until tomorrow.

Honourable members view seriously the provision of answers to questions. The Government and the Opposition are at one in relation to the way in which Ministers should deal with these matters. No doubt the Treasurer and Leader of the House has had the same experiences as I had when I was Leader of the House. Sometimes the bureaucracy is not as efficient as it should be in adhering to time limits. I send a clear message to the bureaucracy that those answers must be forthcoming. Some departmental officers, when assisting the Minister in answering questions, have adopted a cavalier approach. In a number of cases it would be more appropriate for these questions to be put on the general business paper. However, it is obvious that a number of questions that have been asked clearly relate to matters contained within the budget.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: They are not in relation to programs. The purpose of estimates committees is to look at the estimates under the appropriation bills.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Questions should relate to expenditure and income for particular programs, and answers should clearly relate to such programs.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: No, they are not.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Treasurer can argue those matters later. We are embarking upon a new era in the management of this House that requires a different attitude by both bureaucracy and Ministers in the provision of information in connection with the budget. During the parliamentary recess we will look closely at the answers that are provided. If the cavalier attitude to which I have referred is evident - and I believe it is - I foreshadow that I will move a motion to bring to account the Ministers in this Chamber, who are responsible for the programs of their colleagues, for their failure to answer appropriately questions asked by members of this House. During the parliamentary recess ministerial staff should look at the answers that have been provided. If they have been dealt with in the cavalier manner to which I have referred, over the break supplementary answers -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I think you will find a lot of the questions were asked in a cavalier manner. They were outside the terms of reference of the estimates.

Page 3687

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Then those honourable members will be brought to account when I adopt the approach that I have outlined.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: If that view is taken, upper House Ministers will no longer as a courtesy represent lower House Ministers. We will fix that one up quick smart.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: If we reach that stage the administration of government in this House will be further extended. During the recess members of the Opposition will look at those answers. If we find that the Government has been cavalier in answering questions, and if supplementary answers are not provided by the time the House resumes, I will move that the House take appropriate action to ensure that Ministers answer the questions that were asked at estimates committees. We have to take seriously the role of this House in relation to estimates committees, particularly as we move into this new era. I will adjourn debate on these bills to a later hour of the sitting to enable the Minister who has not yet answered questions to do so within the required time frame. I will not move a motion to adjourn the House until the Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads, the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women and the Minister for the Environment have provided answers to the questions asked of them, which are not required until tomorrow. Adjourning debate at this stage will serve to emphasise that we should not debate the appropriation bills until those answers are available before this House goes into the Committee stage. I allow that extension only because, on this occasion, the delay arises from administrative matters not within the control of this House. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to hold the Government accountable in that regard.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. P. Hannaford.


The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [6.11]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

By leave, my second reading speech will be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr President,

I wish to inform the House of the contents of the Water Amendment (Charges) Bill 1996 and the reasons for its introduction.

The Bill will enable the Department of Land and Water Conservation to extend its power to levy annual charges to water users on unregulated rivers. The purpose of these charges is cost recovery - partial recovery of the costs incurred in managing the allocation and use of water in unregulated rivers.

The charges will be paid by water users who hold a license or authority issued under part 2 of the Water Act for a work such as a dam or weir on an unregulated river or watercourse, or where water is to be taken from an unregulated river or watercourse.

Holders of water licences on regulated rivers already pay charges to the department. These are rivers where the department assures their water supply by a storage dam and by operating other works in the rivers such as weirs and diversion works, which ensure that water reaches the point where it is needed, when it is needed. These water users who benefit from the works owned by the department pay some part of the cost of operating and maintaining the works, plus a small part of the associated resources management costs.

The proposed legislation will extend the department's powers to levy charges to what are known as unregulated rivers, where the department does not own or operate physical works for controlling the flow of water for the benefit of water users. These charges will cover a different type of cost incurred by the department, one which has not been charged at all to this class of water users in the past.

The terms 'regulated rivers' and 'unregulated rivers' are merely descriptive and do not appear in the Water Act.

The power to levy the existing charges was introduced into the Water Act in the 1960s.

The former Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission concentrated its activities at that time on the development and use of the water in regulated rivers. Later, it and its successors, the Water Resources Commission and the Department of Water Resources, introduced volumetric allocation schemes, transfer schemes and embargoes on those rivers, which require highly sophisticated measuring and modelling to determine how the flows should be regulated.

In the meantime, the issue of licences and authorities to water users on unregulated rivers was not accompanied by the same degree of concern about flow regimes, nor were the costs incurred by the department as considerable.

In recent years this scenario has changed dramatically, as expanding rural industries and population has placed greater stress on our rivers.

Yet the previous Government, advised of the changes by the Department of Water Resources, refused to act.

These changes have occurred progressively, and have resulted in the Government and the taxpayer bearing considerably increased costs.

Firstly, the number of water users on unregulated rivers and the scale of their water use has been progressively increasing over time. The unregulated rivers, most of which are either easterly flowing or flow into the department's regulated rivers, have become more highly committed to river pumping for town, irrigation, stock and other purposes.

There has also been an increase in the number of water users who rely on regular pumping or diverting of water, not only for drought-proofing their properties. As a result, the impact of one water user on another is demanding more intensive oversight.

Secondly, the cumulative effect of increasing water use in both regulated and unregulated rivers is being felt even in the major rivers. The Murray-Darling Basin illustrates the issue best, where all governments involved have agreed to limit further water diversions to current levels.

Thirdly, the Government is introducing a strategy for ensuring an adequate environmental flow regime for rivers in this State. The rivers in question will include those categorised as 'unregulated', where no departmental dam is used for water supply.

Page 3688

Again, the environmental flow regime and the rules required to implement it require assessments, monitoring, modelling, and oversight, which have a cost.

Fourthly, and very importantly, water users are asking for a greater element of security for their access to water from rivers. In the light of decisions about environmental flows and the in-stream requirements of rivers, along with embargoes or water use 'caps', the water users are asking for certainty about their future access to water.

This is being taken seriously by the Government, but if the result is a scheme which includes specific rules about when and how water may be taken from unregulated rivers, the department will incur costs in applying the methodology. Those rules will benefit water users on both regulated and unregulated rivers, and so will the associated expenditure.

The management of which I am speaking involves a number of activities which come at a cost. In the course of managing the sharing of water and its use, the department does the following:

•it gauges the flow in all rivers through a State-wide network of gauging stations

•it plans annual and seasonal flow regimes to satisfy environmental and water user requirements

•it develops and runs complex hydrological models to predict flows from year to year and from season to season

•it investigates the impact of making changes to obtain the optimum benefit to water users and the environment

•it develops rules for individual water users to satisfy broader objectives and includes these rules as conditions of licences or authorities

•it monitors the actual use of water from time to time and takes action to prevent breaches of licence conditions

•it reports on the status of rivers as required by State authorities, such as the State of Environment reporting, and to fulfil interstate obligations such as those of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission

•in times of water shortage it brings into operation systems for rostering and cutbacks in water use

•at all times it investigates complaints and enquiries, protecting the rights of water users, and finally

•it carries out water quality testing to determine flow requirements in rivers, among other purposes.

In the past, the department has carried the whole of the cost of all these activities, with no contribution from the beneficiaries, the water users. Initiatives I have mentioned will see a demand for increased activity by the department in these fields, with significant costs to the department.

The public purse should not be required to foot all of the bill as in the past. The direct beneficiaries should make a reasonable contribution.

Another reason for extending the charging base to unregulated rivers is that of equity between water users in the two categories.

For many years water users on regulated rivers have been required to pay a water management charge. However until now there has been no payment required by those on unregulated rivers. This is inequitable. It is not fair to have the regulated river users pay the whole of the charge for this activity, because, as explained earlier, it covers all rivers and all water users are involved and benefit to a greater or lesser degree. This is why the Government announced in September last year that a water management charge is warranted for water users on both regulated and unregulated rivers.

The Water Act as it currently stands makes it clear that charges on regulated rivers may be raised, but is silent on charges for unregulated rivers. To put the matter beyond doubt and to ensure total clarity in these charges, they are now specified in the bill before the House.

On the subject of ground water charges, the department already has in place a charging system for bore water license holders, in addition to the charging system for holders of authorisations on regulated rivers and watercourses. Similar services are offered to bore water users.

The amendments to the Water Act contained in the bill tap into the existing provisions of section 22C of the Water Act relating to charges for authorisation holders on regulated rivers and watercourses.

It is proposed that an additional category be added to section 22C in respect of the costs of the administration of the sharing and use of water in unregulated rivers. It is intended that the amendments will cover the department's activities which I referred to previously.

It is intended that authorisation holders will initially pay a flat fee, as for licensed bore water users. To put the matter beyond doubt, a specific amendment has been included to cover flat fees. In the longer term it is intended that authorisation holders will pay on a sliding scale in proportion to the volume of water taken, as for the authorisation holders on regulated rivers.

Despite their conspicuous lack of action while in office, I am sure that members of the Opposition agree with the concept of beneficiaries paying for improved services provided by Government. Direct beneficiaries will not be asked to pay the whole of the cost, but they should pay their fair share. I might also add that the bill does not apply to those who have stock and domestic water rights by virtue of their occupation of riparian lands.

Moreover, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, which is now considering the Department's charging base as a whole, has endorsed the Government's interim charge on unregulated rivers.

The charges on unregulated rivers announced last September range from $80 per year for farmers irrigating 12 hectares or less, up to $250 per year for farmers irrigating more than 162 hectares. The charge for town suppliers and industry is $265 a year for water from unregulated streams.

In summary, the bill allows the recovery of the costs associated with the management of the sharing and use of water on unregulated streams. The costs are incurred in the course of management which allows these particular water users to proceed with their activities. I believe it is very reasonable that they pay some part of the cost, along with other water users who can already be charged for this activity.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [6.11]: The Opposition is angered by the introduction of this bill at the closing stages of the parliamentary session. The legislation, which was introduced in another place, has now been presented to the Legislative Council for consideration. In my view the whole process has been truncated - a matter to which I will refer at some length before dealing with the provisions of the bill, which I also oppose at this stage. This legislation is what might be called dead-of-night legislation. Those honourable members who have not taken the opportunity to see the wonderful production "Much Ado About Nothing" being staged by the Bell Shakespeare Company at the Opera House should repair at the earliest
Page 3689
opportunity to see that performance. They will be reminded of this bill by that wonderful character Constable Dogberry and his group of night watchmen. Even such remarkable characters would have apprehended the passage of this bill through its stages late in the parliamentary session - to use an analogy, introduced at the midnight hour.

I believe that the bill reflects a great deal of incompetence on the part of the Minister in another place. I hope that honourable members are listening to the serious allegation that I am making. The reason that I say the Minister was incompetent in the carriage of this legislation is that a scale of charges to be imposed on water users in unregulated streams was prepared some time ago, and the bills were prepared. It was only after stubborn resistance that the Minister finally caved in - I am sure on the advice of competent officers within the Department of Land and Water Conservation - after the New South Wales Irrigators Council pointed out to him that there was no legal base for the imposition of such charges. The whole exercise was illegal; it had no basis. One might say, "Well, so what? That is a technical point." I want to make it clear to the House that the imposition of water charges on people who are drawing water from unregulated rivers and streams in New South Wales is not something that should be lightly undertaken. This legislation has all the hallmarks of a grasping, grinding, money-grabbing administration seeking to introduce wherever possible new charges and taxes on people who do not have the political will or the capacity to resist such imposts.

The reason that I believe the charges are unjustifiable and why they were never included in the Act in the past is that many of these unregulated streams and rivers provide an unreliable source of water for those wishing to extract supplies from them. Although there is minimal supervision of such extractions, I do not believe that a proper case has been made out for the introduction of these charges at this time. It appears that the Minister had an ulterior motive in respect of the bill, because it emerged in debate in another place that a directive was issued within the department to the effect that the bills were to be prepared and issued by 5 March but not issued before 3 March. That is a remarkably small time frame. Honourable members are entitled to ask what significant event may have occurred on or about 3 March 1996. What immediately springs to mind is a possible correlation with the Federal election. I suppose it would not be too much of a leap of imagination to suggest - not only to the users directly affected but also to those involved in primary production and water usage generally - that the impact of this assault on the principle that has been part of the Water Act since its inception in 1912 required a great deal more consultation and should have had the confidence of all those who might be concerned before it was introduced in this clandestine way.

I am also critical of the Government because one of its election planks was that it would not impose new taxes or charges. We are supposed to accept this sleight of hand as a cost-recovery exercise. In my view it is nothing but a blatant attempt to impose a charge on water users. I imagine that the Minister believes there is a small niche market. The charges are not astronomic; they are not so great that they would stop industry in its tracks. Nevertheless, they constitute a breaking of the faith of the rural community of New South Wales. It is yet another broken promise about taxes and charges. Even though it may be argued that the charges are modest - they range from as little as $85, but one does not get much for that, up to hundreds of dollars - once the legality of the charges is established, heaven knows where the ceiling will end. There is another dimension to this bill, which is equally to be condemned. The Government made a promise that matters of this nature would not be determined until the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal had completed its inquiry and reported on the desirability and scale of charges and the relative equities involved in the introduction of such charges. Honourable members will be interested to hear that although consultations are going on at the present time the report on this issue is expected very shortly. I wonder why the Government wants to press ahead at this late stage in the session to introduce these charges and to establish their legality at a time when a report - which perhaps would have given some legitimacy to the Government's argument - is still as yet unreceived. It is most inappropriate that we should be considering the bill at this time. In many ways members of the House should be combining to reject the bill.

The cost of publicly owned resources such as water is a complex and vexed issue. We do not want to stand in the way of regulation which leads to equity in the availability and distribution of these resources. Over the years there have been many fights and much litigation amongst neighbours who live adjacent to streams. Perhaps it is thought that the neighbour upstream has dammed the stream and not provided an appropriate by-wash, or, in situations where pumps are installed, he has extracted an excessive amount of water before a complete run-through in the stream has been achieved, with the result that the downstream neighbour's earth dams have not been replenished. Considerations of equity in this matter are most important. We should ensure that the Government is not simply introducing these measures as a revenue-raising issue without regard to its fundamental responsibilities to act simply as a monitor in these matters.

The substantial increase in production charges on regulated streams implies large investment in headwater structures to impound water and establish pondages and dams throughout the State, and also investment in structures that regulate streams and diversions to enable distribution of water for intensive agriculture. No such scheme is envisaged on unregulated streams. The golden era of development of major dams in New South Wales
Page 3690
has passed, and any proposal to dam a stream would be stringently reviewed from an environmental point of view. From a simply economic point of view, very few proposals would stack up in cost-benefit terms. The bulk of unregulated streams will remain unregulated streams. It is inappropriate at this stage that they should be brought under the general purview of charges and taxes imposed upon those who use the water - whether for domestic purposes, for stock, or for drawing off for limited application in irrigation or town water supplies. Given the time and the lateness of the session I will confine my remarks to those I have already made. I warn honourable members, however, that this matter has not been the subject of widespread consultation and that it does not have the support of the New South Wales Irrigators Council. The charges will apply to a great number of water users and will be a blow that will come completely out of the blue. If these charges were on a more substantial scale, I would be calling on the House to divide to try to defeat the bill. I rest my case with those comments.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [6.25]: I offer my support to the Government on this most important and necessary bill, which will make possible a 30 per cent cost recovery on bulk rural water in New South Wales and will set this State well on the way to achieving the 2001 full-cost recovery target set by the Coalition of Australian Governments reform agenda. While the bill does not levy any water charges, it makes explicit the power of the Department of Land and Water Conservation power to do so in regard to presently uncharged users of water from unregulated rivers, those not serviced by State dams. While the users of unregulated river water may not benefit directly from such water management infrastructure, they do benefit indirectly from the information gathered on water flows, licensing and allocation which determines how much water is available. Therefore, in order for all costs incurred by the department to be recouped and shared equitably among the entire community, charges must finally be levied on the users of unregulated river water.

As long as such charges are fairly determined by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal - IPART - I see absolutely no reason why they should not be levied. These sentiments are shared not only by the IPART itself but also by the Council of Social Service of New South Wales and the Total Environment Centre, which are both happy to let the IPART set the fair price for water and view charging for water as being extremely beneficial to the environment. After all, Australia, being the driest continent, does not have a never-ending supply of fresh water. To the contrary, Australia is in fact one of the most arid countries in the world, with more than 70 per cent of its total land area now classified as semi-arid. The little water that there is in our rivers is also needed to maintain important ecological processes which are vital not only to human survival but to other animal and plant survival. It is therefore well and truly time that we, as citizens, recognised and accepted this fact, by paying water charges that reflect the state of our natural environment.

While some members have argued - and no doubt will continue to argue - that the levying of charges on users of unregulated river water will impose a further unreasonable burden on the rural sector, I believe that such groups have enjoyed free stock and domestic use of water for far too long. If rural industry cannot bear the full cost of its activities, it is obviously not economically, socially or environmentally viable and cannot be allowed to continue to rely on what is, in effect, cross-subsidisation from the urban sector. Others may hope to criticise the bill for pre-empting the findings of the IPART on the assessment of all issues relating to rural water pricing. As I have already stated, the IPART is in full support of the need to bill unregulated river water users. In fact, I have it on good authority that it may well have released a determination this very day which endorses the interim Statewide water management charge as set by the Government in its 1995 rural water reform pricing package. This charge will therefore be the amount that shall be levied on all rural water users for the next 12 months, while the IPART determines what long-term increases in rural water pricing shall be. The bill has the full support of economic, social and environmental organisations alike. I urge all honourable members to show the same intestinal fortitude and insight to also support it.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods.


Debate resumed from 5 June.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [6.30]: I start my contribution to this debate with a quote from Cicero, who said in 63 BC:

The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt.

There is a new team in Canberra, and it has been interesting watching the antics of the Canberra comedy team of Howard and Costello. Peter Costello, the new chum, became an instant captive of Treasury. Every time a new Treasurer takes up his - or, it is to be hoped, sometime, her - new position he is immediately pounced upon by Treasury officials who may have waited 20 years or more to implement their plans. They dust off their hefty old file labelled "100 Ways to Con a Gullible New Treasurer", and occasionally the new Treasurer falls for it. The New South Wales Treasurer fell for it last year, and he and his Treasury officials were taught a short, sharp, salutary lesson by the House of Review.


Page 3691
The trouble with Treasury officials is that they are not elected and do not have to be accountable to the voters. It is far more difficult to implement their plans when one risks losing government at the next election. That is not to say that many of the proposals put by Treasury would not be beneficial to the better management of the State. My view is that the proposal to impose a sales tax on all vehicles sold in Australia, including those acquired by councils, State governments and government instrumentalities, is an excellent idea. The fact is that the tax exemptions are distorting the market. A new vehicle has become an accepted part of the remuneration package for a local council employee. Cars are sold after two years or after they have been driven for 40,000 kilometres; some cars are sold after 10 months. They are often sold at a profit and therefore cost councils nothing. The profit is artificial, and those selling the cars compete with people who have bought cars on which tax is imposed.

Surely that is a marvellous windfall for a taxidriver or any person who wishes to acquire an almost new car at auction for less than would otherwise have to be paid. The problem is that it does not matter what size of car is bought or how much is paid, as the cost to councils and other government bodies is effectively nothing. In fact, it would be a good investment by councils to buy every member of their staff a new Mercedes every year, because Mercedes hold their value so well. As Peter Costello said, councils have become second-hand car dealers. There is also the question of the higher petrol consumption of larger cars and the concomitant increase in air pollution. With the removal of the tax loophole, there will be an incentive for councils to buy much smaller cars that produce less air pollution and take up much less room on the roads.

There is, of course, the possibility that more employees will be persuaded to take up public transport. I have often wondered why government employees drive around in brand new cars while the battlers in the private sector have to make do with 10-year-old bombs. If the loophole were removed entirely, the cars that were sold would not be replaced in many cases, and many cars would be held for greater periods. That would not cause a blow-out in the budget, because the cars would not be bought and sold every year. If we believe in a level playing field for the private and public sectors, that loophole must eventually be closed. Not only that, Federal government instrumentalities should also pay rates and other taxes for the same reason.

Churches and other exempt bodies such as hospitals should also pay rates at the same level as other users of council facilities. The Catholic Church in Manly, which is also a developer, imposes a significant burden on ratepayers by not paying its fair share. I ask the Minister for Local Government to close that loophole as well. The tax that both State and Federal governments need is, of course, a goods and services tax. The current sales tax system is full of irrational anomalies. Not only that, there are large sections of the community that escape their fair burden of tax. There should be a tax on currently untaxed services.

Australia has an ever-increasing tourist boom, yet many tourists leave little of their money in this country. Pre-paid package Japanese tourists pay for their holidays in Japan, fly by a Japanese airline, are picked up by Japanese tour operators, stay at Japanese-owned resorts, eat in Japanese-owned restaurants and shop in Japanese-owned souvenir shops. Almost the only money they leave behind is for wages of the people who change their beds, clean their rooms and wait on their tables. If there were a 15 per cent services tax on the cost of hotel rooms and on the cost of meals and other services, we would most likely double our revenue from Japanese tourists, for example. Right now the average impoverished backpacker leaves more money in the country than the average pre-paid package tourist.

A goods and services tax would spread the tax burden more fairly throughout the community and close many loopholes found by those avoiding tax. It would tax at the consumption level rather than at the production level. The removal of payroll tax as a trade-off for the imposition of a goods and services tax would create hundreds of thousands of jobs, particularly those orientated towards exports. It would make Australia that much more competitive with its Asian neighbours and would help dampen consumption, thereby reducing import demand. It would also be an incentive to save. If the Treasurer were to introduce legislation for a State goods and services tax, I for one would support him and pay no attention whatsoever to the whingers in the community and the lobby groups opposed to such a tax.

That brings me to my next point, that of pressure from lobby groups. Since obtaining my freedom from the wearying shackles of the party machine - for which I must thank David Harcourt-Norton, Troy Anderson, and Craig Chung, who worked so assiduously to give me that freedom - I have felt entirely free from the pressure of lobby groups. Perhaps I would not have felt so free to support such currently unpopular causes as the absolutely necessary goods and services tax had I remained within the party system. It is certainly exhilarating being able to speak my mind, unfettered by the pressure of having to be a populist, a role that I never fitted comfortably in any case.

Being in a situation in which I have absolutely nothing to lose and having no-one in a position of influence over me to disapprove of what I say or do, I am able to speak what I believe to be the truth without fear or favour. Every politician should be able to do this. Jeff Kennett does that and gets away with it. He has cut a swath through the hospital system, the education system, local government and Albert Park. He has sold off everything he can get his hands on, including
Page 3692
electricity and water. He is a swashbuckling hero of the economic rationalist Right. It is obvious that the people of Victoria like his boldness and dash, as they re-elected him with a handsome majority. His boldness only faltered when it came to the legalisation of marijuana. We need leaders in Australia who have the tremendous courage of Jeff Kennett, who can tell the lobby groups that they will have absolutely no influence on government decisions.

We need leaders who will do the right thing by the people and by the environment no matter what people like the extremist Piers Akerman, the pugnacious Derryn Hinch or the supremely arrogant John Laws might say. We simply cannot allow lobby groups or unelected media commentators to dictate the way in which the State should be run. Piers Akerman has been running a one-man hate campaign against me ever since I called him the resident arsehole of the Daily Telegraph. Derryn Hinch ranted and raged about me, and was then surprised when I refused to go on his program. The last time I was on the John Laws show was to refute his hysterical comments when, incredibly, he blamed greenies for the Lockerbie air disaster. We cannot and should not allow these overpaid, unelected, megalomaniacs to influence our decisions in any way, as they have been doing over the gun laws, for example.

Likewise, other lobbyists should have no influence by their weight of numbers but purely by their weight of argument. On several occasions in the past I have received literally hundreds of letters from individual lobby groups. One of the best organised of those groups was the lawyers lobby, which inundated members on the issue of conveyancing. I am sorry to say that their lobby had no impact whatsoever on my decision to support the legislation or otherwise. I had met one or two representatives from the Brethren, and the force of their argument persuaded me to support them, even though I did not have much in common with them apart from believing in the basic principles and practices of Christianity. That is how it should be.

It is with some regret that I see the present Government in thrall to powerful lobby groups, even to the extent that it disadvantages the people of the State. The most obvious example of that is the union lobby. As honourable members know, I have never belonged to a union and have actively resisted joining one. However, I took the view that it was very important to maintain the power of the unions, particularly at a time when their power is declining, in order to protect the disadvantaged in the community against the powerful forces unleashed by reducing trade barriers and levelling the proverbial international playing field. With managerial salaries increasing very fast and wages remaining relatively static, I thought it also important to assist the maintenance of egalitarianism in Australia.

Another large lobby group which has far too much influence on the Government is the recreational fishing lobby. The Minister for Fisheries has told us many times that there are 1.8 million recreational anglers in New South Wales, as though that is sufficient reason not to upset them. The fact is that recreational anglers are not paying their way. They are taking large and unquantified numbers of juvenile and adult fish from the ocean, and jeopardising the long-term sustainability of stocks while paying absolutely nothing for research into the assessment of those stocks. The Minister should have the intestinal fortitude to tell anglers that they should pay a fee sufficient to cover the cost of the necessary research. More than $30 million of taxpayers' money is being spent each year to manage fisheries, and much, if not all, of this should be covered by fishing licences. It is absurd that all taxpayers should have to subsidise such a cruel sport as fishing.

Finally the highly dangerous tobacco lobby has been cornered and almost neutralised. It is having less effect now than ever, even though the Treasurer himself is an addicted smoker, as is the Minister for Health, who is making a valiant attempt to rid himself of this pernicious habit. It is unquestionably the most addictive and deadly drug available - more deadly than heroin, and infinitely more harmful than cocaine, even though some wish to gaol for life dealers in those two substances. We will know when the tobacco lobby has been finally vanquished - when large tobacco dealers are gaoled for life. Tobacco killed both of my parents and many of their friends. I have been actively campaigning against it since 1965, being the very first to add health warnings to cigarette posters. It has been my longest campaign so far, and it is far from won.

There is, however, a powerful lobby group for products even more deadly than tobacco, which take more lives than tobacco and threaten the future of life on this planet. I do not mean the armaments industry, which has that capacity. Nor do I mean the gun lobby, which pales to insignificance by comparison. I am referring to the lobby for meat, eggs and dairy products. These products cause more premature deaths in Australia than tobacco, car accidents and guns put together. It is curious that while there is a 100 per cent tax on tobacco there is no such tax on these deadly products. I have already suggested to the Treasurer that he consider imposing a 100 per cent tax on meat, dairy products and eggs. This would deter unwary people from consuming them, and would go some way towards paying the medical costs of those who are unable to quit eating them - a classic case of user pays.

In the estimates committee hearings I asked the Minister for Health, for whom I have the greatest respect, whether he was aware of the scientific data published in journals showing the clear statistical link between the consumption of eggs and breast cancer. It appeared that he had not been advised by the Department of Health about this link. I have already put on the record several times in this House some of the voluminous data from scientific journals on the link between the
Page 3693
consumption of meat, dairy products and eggs and the premature deaths of those who have consumed these products.

I have already talked about the much higher risk of cancer and heart disease, and I do not intend to put more on the record. It is all there in scientific journals from all over the world. My question is: why has the Department of Health not vigorously promoted the dangers of these products? The department has a preventative medicine budget of $47.7 million, which is about 1 per cent of the entire health budget. Much of this budget is spent on a somewhat ineffective attempt to cut the consumption of tobacco in the community, but I am not aware of anything being spent on telling people of the dangers of meat, dairy products and eggs in particular.

I might say that when I read the research on eggs - which data was put together by a researcher - I gave up eating them immediately, having been a heavy consumer until then. I used to eat eggs almost every day. I have not eaten a single egg since then. Why are others not told of the dangers? Why also do we have such a tiny preventative medicine budget when it is blindingly obvious that a dollar spent on prevention is worth many times a dollar spent in attempting a cure? If meat, dairy products and eggs were introduced today as entirely new foods they would be banned as being too dangerous, just as tobacco would be for the same reason if it were a new drug. It is unfortunate that the consumption of these products is such an integral part of our culture and our economic system that it will take many years to eliminate them from our diet. The dangers are known, but few people are informing the public, especially those with the power to inform people. Can one imagine John Laws telling his listeners that they have a high risk of breast cancer if they eat eggs? John Laws would just ridicule the scientists who discovered the facts.

Perhaps one of the most insidious arms of the dangerous food lobby and the world's leading pusher is the evil empire of McDonald's. McDonald's is a dangerous cancer on the face of the earth, with its diabolical fingers creeping into every country, spreading the consumption of junk food, with its concomitant death and disease, into third world countries at the expense of traditional healthy diets. In selling death to these unsuspecting people, it is ripping the profits out of countries that can least afford it and repatriating them to the United States. McDonald's is truly evil. This has been revealed in the longest ever civil trial in Britain, when McDonald's tried to silence London Greenpeace from telling the truth about this vile company, with a libel suite. The trial is known as the McLibel trial.

McDonald's Corporation is suing Helen Steel, aged 30, and Dave Morris, aged 42, of London Greenpeace for publishing a six-page fact sheet entitled "What's Wrong with McDonald's - Everything They Don't Want You to Know". We do not hear of this trial in the Australian media. Why? Perhaps because McDonald's made the decision to quarantine the story to England. They sponsor the television news - and you can't say bad things about a key sponsor or a major advertiser, can you? This is a form of corruption. McDonald's also corrupts our police officers by offering them half-price hamburgers.

McDonald's has infiltrated our schools with sponsorships, corrupting our children's eating habits. They lie to children in the United States, telling them that hamburgers come from hamburger patches - as if they grow on trees! No mention is made of the torture and death of millions of animals, destruction of rain forests, exploitation of young people, or the cancers and heart disease that Big Macs cause. Anyone involved in the meat, dairy products and egg trade - from those who have the animals on the farm, those who keep chickens in those ghastly concentration farms, to those who are involved in the slaughter of the animals and those who sell the products - are guilty of promoting ill health and premature death.

I have some information which is labelled "McLibel press backgrounder". It gives some idea about what McDonald's have been doing to particularly our young people of the world over the past few years. The trial began on 28 June 1994 and became the longest libel trial in British history in March 1995, and then the longest civil case in British history in December 1995. About 180 witnesses from the United Kingdom and abroad are giving evidence on the effect of the products of the company on human health, the environment and millions of farmed animals, on the third world and on McDonald's own staff. This is a David and Goliath battle in that the McDonald's Corporation is the largest food retail outlet in the world, with annual sales of over $26 billion, and approximately 20,000 outlets in 90 countries. McDonald's spend over $1.5 billion worldwide on advertising and promotions every year. But behind the slick advertising and glossy image is the reality - the profiteering from exploitation of people, animals and the environment and the creation of a junk culture.

Interestingly, Helen Steel and David Morris have an income of less than £7,000 a year, or about $A15,000. That compares to McDonald's $26 billion income. So it is truly a David and Goliath fight. David, in the form of Helen Street and David Morris, is actually winning against this monster. The areas covered in the trial and published in the fax sheet, over which they are being sued, have become issues in dispute at the trial. They are: the connection between multinational companies like McDonald's, cash crops and starvation in the third world; the responsibility of corporations such as McDonald's for damage to the environment, including destruction of rain forest; the wasteful and harmful effects of the mountains of packaging used by McDonald's and other companies -

Page 3694

The PRESIDENT: Order! Is the honourable member quoting?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I was referring to three dot-point issues in the trial.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the honourable member when he is quoting to indicate so and attribute it to the document.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: In some instances I have been paraphrasing the material. It is difficult to distinguish between paraphrasing and quoting. If I quote exactly, I will give Hansard the exact quote. Further dot points were: McDonald's promotion and sale of food with a low fibre, high fat, saturated fat, sodium and sugar content, and the links between a diet of this type and the major degenerative diseases in western society including heart disease and cancer; McDonald's exploitation of children by its use of advertisements and gimmicks to sell unhealthy products; the barbaric way that animals are reared and slaughtered to provide products for McDonald's; the disgraceful conditions that workers in the catering industry are forced to work under, and the low wages paid by McDonald's; and, finally, McDonald's hostility towards trade unions. I have mountains of information that I will not have time to put on the record tonight. Suffice it to say that McDonald's own experts have tripped up the company they were supposed to be representing. The defendants asked Dr Sydney Arnott, McDonald's expert on cancer, his opinion of the following statement:

A diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals is linked with cancer of the breast and bowel and heart disease.

He replied, "If it is being directed to the public then I would say it is a very reasonable thing to say." He was then informed that the statement about the risk of bowel cancer and heart disease was an actual extract from the London Greenpeace Fact sheet which McDonald's stated was most defamatory. Its own expert on cancer was agreeing with what McDonald's marketing people regarded as being defamatory. The document, "A Year of Great McQuotes from the Witness Box" by the McLibel Support Campaign, in part reads:

This section had been characterised by McDonald's's lawyer at pre-trial hearings as the central and most "defamatory" allegation, which if proven could be the "kiss of death" for a fast-moving company like McDonald's.

The senior vice-president of marketing in the United States, David Green, also gave evidence. He stated, "McDonald's food is nutritious and healthy." When asked what the company meant by nutritious he said, "provides nutrients and can be part of a healthy balanced diet". He said that this could also be applied to a packet of sweets. When he was asked if Coca-Cola was nutritious, he replied that it is "providing water, and I think that is part of a balanced diet". Professor Wheelock, McDonald's consultant on nutrition was asked to define junk food. He said it was, "whatever a person doesn't like" and in his case it was semolina. McDonald's counsel said that McDonald's was not objecting to its food being described as junk food. Peter Cox, a defence marketing expert, quoted from Behind the Arches, a book authorised by McDonald's in 1987. The book states that the president of McDonald's in Japan, Don Fujita, said:

The reason Japanese people are so short and have yellow skins is because they have eaten nothing but fish and rice for two thousand years. If we eat McDonald's hamburgers and potatoes for a thousand years we will become taller, our skin become white and our hair blonde.

This is how McDonald's is marketing its product in Japan. McDonald's admit that it exploits young people. Paul Preston, McDonald's United Kingdom president, gave evidence about the character Ronald McDonald. The original Ronald McDonald has now apologised to the children of the world for converting them to an unhealthy junk diet. He realises that eating burgers is extremely unhealthy and likely to cause premature death. He said that Ronald McDonald is intended not to sell food to children but to promote the McDonald's experience. An extract from the company's official and confidential operations manual was read out at the trial. In part it reads:

Ronald loves McDonald's and McDonald's food. And so do children, because they love Ronald. Remember, children exert a phenomenal influence when it comes to restaurant selection. This means you should do everything you can to appeal to children's love for Ronald and McDonald's.

The first Ronald McDonald actor was Geoffrey Guiliano. He has said:

I brainwashed youngsters into doing wrong. I want to say sorry to children everywhere for selling out to concerns who make millions by murdering animals.

Documents were mistakenly disclosed to the defendants which showed that McDonald's had been importing beef from Brazil. McDonald's have denied importing beef from recently cleared rain forests but it is an absolute lie yet again. McDonald's admitted through the accidental disclosure of these documents that it had imported beef into Britain from Brazil and had used beef from cleared rain forests in Brazil for their stores in Brazil, of which there are now 200. I shall elaborate on the question of use of beef from animals from recently cleared Amazonian and Costa Rican rain forests. A document called "This Week in Court 13-17 May 1996" from the McLibel support campaign in part reads:

Sue Brandford, a Brazil specialist and expert regarding the social and economic forces impacting upon the Amazon region, testified for the Defendants. She criticised the cattle ranching industry for causing environmental damage, and for causing the violent displacement of small farmers and indigenous peoples. In particular she had visited regions which McDonald's have admitted as the past or current sources of beef supplies for their 200 Brazilian stores. For example, she described areas of Mato Grosso (Sinop, Nova Xavantina, and Pontes e Lacerda) which had supplied McDonald's in the past (1979-1982) as areas she had seen being deforested for cattle ranches in the early 198Os.

Page 3695

Further, she had visited areas in Goias where McDonald's have admitted only very recently (in a statement from Roberto Morganti, the Director of McDonald's local hamburger manufacturers, Brasio Ltd), that they still obtain their beef - especially along the River Araguaia and its tributaries. She had travelled extensively in this region (including towns named by Mr Morganti such as Jucara, Aruana, Tritania, S. Miguel do Araguaia, Porangatu, Novo Mundo and Crixas etc) and testified that in the early 1970s it was an area of Amazonian tropical rainforest. Ms Brandford had witnessed it being cleared and burned for cattle ranching from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s (with indigenous people being forced out). She said forest clearances continue, but at a slower pace.

McDonald's has lied, lied and lied. It has said that it does not get its beef from recently cleared rainforests; it does. I have seen recently in Northern Queensland cleared rainforests or recleared rainforests for beef, and no doubt some of that beef would go to McDonald's which uses enormous quantities of beef. A huge proportion of the world's cattle is killed for McDonald's. Another question that should be addressed is the question of food poisoning. In 1991 McDonald's was responsible for an outbreak of food poisoning in the United Kingdom from which several people had serious kidney failure. There is more detail about food poisoning in a document that I received by fax from the United Kingdom a few days ago by John Atherton, McDonald's head of training. That document reads:

John Atherton (responsible for food and employee safety in McDonald's UK) admitted that McDonald's receives between 1500-2750 customer complaints of food poisoning a year.

McDonald's receives an estimated 800 reports of foreign bodies in hamburgers, mostly bits of plastic. There is an extraordinary statement in this documentation about the amount of faeces and the amount of bacteria it will allow in its beef. Of the additives it uses, nine are potentially detrimental to health and most of them have been banned in one or more countries. The use of these additives was defended by a McDonald's executive, and a witness, Professor Ronald Walker, who said that the basis for permitting the use of the additives was testing done on animals, but he admitted that animals have a metabolism different from humans, and the small number used in the testing would not reflect the diversity of human situations. He said that four of the additives in question provoked hyperactivity in children and one of them, potassium bromate, was known to be carcinogenic and had been used until 1990 in the manufacture of all bread buns for McDonald's. McDonald's had been using known carcinogens - apart from the fact that meat is carcinogenic - in their hamburger buns for years. If it was aware of that, it did not stop using those additives until 1990. A United Kingdom McFact card states:

Every consignment of beef arriving at the [McKeys] meat plant is subject to a total of 36 quality control checks, carried out by a team of qualified technologists. If a consignment should fail on any one check, it will be rejected by McDonald's.

All the raw beef consignments are microbiologically tested, and categorised as 'satisfactory', 'passable' and 'unsatisfactory'. David Walker (Chairman of McKeys . . . ) stated that 'unsatisfactory' relates to beef which has a total colony of more than 10 million bacteria per gram. He then admitted that such consignments are, in fact, not rejected and are used for McDonald's burgers.

Much is now known about the exploitation of workers by McDonald's, that it will not allow trade unions into any of its stores, which it has successfully done for a number of years. It used to have its own flying squad in the United States to make sure that in any store where workers attempted to unionise, the unions were persuaded to back off. McDonald's has been attacking unions all over the world and there is case after case in different countries where it has prevented stores from becoming unionised.

All people involved in animal production industries, whether it be the keeping of chickens in those ghastly concentration camps, or the slaughter of animals in order to sell animal products, are guilty of promoting premature death. All farmers who grow beef, and all egg farmers who produce eggs, are involved in the production of products that cause premature death. They are guilty of gross cruelty to sensitive, intelligent animals. They are also guilty of aiding and abetting severe damage to the world's environment. Most of the world's land surface and all the seas of the world used by humans are used for the production of meat and allied products. If all humans reverted to a healthy, meat-free diet the world seas would recover and be repopulated with the species of fish and other marine life in the pre-existing numbers before overexploitation by modern man. It would take very many decades for this recovery to occur, but it would occur.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Is the honourable member quoting?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: No, these are my own words. If all humans eschewed meat and dairy products, vast areas of the world's surface would be surplus to food production and revert to something like their natural state. Many animals, birds and other species now threatened with extinction would have a renewed lease of life. Vast areas of forest would have the chance to regrow, thus absorbing carbon dioxide, which causes problems of global warming. The Amazon forests would no longer burn. The rich diversity of the remaining rainforests would be saved. Our cruelty, our selfishness, our ignorance and our greed are causing not only gross mistreatment of our fellow non-human inhabitants but the actual extinction of thousands of species and threatening life itself on the planet.

Survival of life on earth, including human life, has to be the number one issue. Nothing can be as important as this. No person can truly term himself or herself a conservationist or environmentalist or even Green if he or she continues to eat meat or be involved in the meat trade. A meat eating
Page 3696
environmentalist is as much an oxymoron as an animal-loving duck shooter. Perhaps that is why so many members of the Australian Greens refrain from eating meat, whereas the majority of members of other parties, including those who claim environmental credentials, such as the Australian Democrats, have not yet discovered the absurd contradiction. Those who wish to make a genuine contribution to the environment must first give up eating meat. This is undoubtedly the number one environmental issue on the globe today.

If we continue with our current diet of eating meat, dairy products and eggs, not only will many of us die many years prematurely, we will also ensure that many species on this planet will become extinct and the earth may well become uninhabitable within the next 100 or 200 years. I wish honourable members would realise the importance of making the commitment to give up the dangerous products of meat, dairy products and eggs.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [7.06]: I will speak on the 1996-97 State budget, but first of all I pay tribute to the young men who died in the Black Hawk tragedy. I acknowledge that this Chamber observed a minute's silence after you, Mr President, returned from a memorial service for the victims. A very moving and beautiful article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 18 June. There are often tragedies but a month or so later they are forgotten; and the families associated with those people killed are also forgotten. The article said:

To the tap and roll of a muted drum, 18 lit candles were borne in slow time to the altar, and to a dirge of trumpets, each candle was extinguished. As a flame was snuffed, the name of a dead warrior was intoned.

Just seven weeks ago, at St Christopher's Catholic Cathedral in Canberra, the nation's leaders said farewell to 35 innocent men, women and children who were slaughtered by a gunman at Port Arthur.

Yesterday, all those leaders were back in the same cathedral, this time to honour 18 soldiers killed last week during a Special Air Service training exercise near Townsville . . .

Suddenly, it's as if Australia has become infected with tragedy and a darkness of the soul.

Yet the State memorial service at St Christopher's yesterday was not, in the end, about darkness.

After all the candles had been extinguished, they were lit again from the Easter candle burning by the altar. It was, said the Army's principal chaplain, Father John R. Butler - one of 16 celebrants from diverse faiths - a symbol that life is eternal.

Father Butler said even accepting that the activities of the SAS and Army Aviation were more dangerous than most professions, "we are stunned and shocked when we learn of the loss of life".

Despite the solemnity of the service, there was little of the raw grief that was displayed at a service last week in Townsville, where mates of the dead soldiers wept openly.

I had a hard time watching that report; I wept. The broadcast showed a young son of one of the men killed, a three-year-old boy, laying flowers in memory of his dad, yet he did not have a clue what he was doing. I can understand why the mates cried openly; they were not ashamed to do so. The Sydney Morning Herald report continued:

Yesterday was a formalised, ritual honouring of those sanctioned to defend the nation.

Virtually every leading Federal political figure, the country's military chiefs, the diplomatic corps and members of the public filled the cathedral . . .

The Governor-General, Sir William Deane, read a message from the Queen. "It was with shock and sadness that I heard of the tragic accident at Townsville which caused such dreadful loss of life and injuries," she said.

"My heart goes out to the bereaved families, the friends and comrades of those who died, and to the injured. I pray for them with you all in their grief and distress." . . .
And then there was the haunting sound of a single trumpet: the traditional, final tribute to all soldiers, The Last Post. Outside, there were tears among relatives and friends of those killed.

But as the crowd of politicians, clergy and the military, glorious in their full-dress and medals, swarmed out into the day, there was a sense also that a propriety had been observed - that the nation's official family had done its duty to those who had done their duty.

I ask that members remember in prayer the families of those who have been laid to rest. One of the most moving things I have seen was the image on television of the Prime Minister of Australia at the end of the service putting his arm around one of the grieving women who had been in the front row of the church service.

I return to the budget. Obviously the fact that the budget was presented in May 1996 instead of September 1996 means that it relates more accurately to the financial period from 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1996. However, the big disadvantage comes in regard to the Federal budget as we do not know what cuts, if any, will apply in August to Commonwealth grants to the States or the new funding arrangements. As we now know, at least $900 million of Federal funding to New South Wales will be cut over the next three years as the States and Territories cooperate in reducing the Commonwealth deficit of $8 billion from the previous Keating ALP Federal Government. If there are further cuts to New South Wales after the Federal budget is presented in August, we may need a mini-budget in September to help balance the State budget.

I am certain the families of New South Wales would not have been very happy if Mr Carr and the Hon. M. R. Egan had set a levy of $135 per household for the next three years, a total of $405. The Treasurer, the Hon. M. R. Egan, announced that the ALP would raise the $900 million over the next three years by increasing taxes. First, payroll tax would be increased. This really rubs salt into the wounds of struggling businessmen as payroll tax is a tax on employment, again discouraging business from setting up in New South Wales. Second, land tax will be increased, again discouraging investment in New South Wales. Third, stamp duty on car
Page 3697
purchases will be increased, adding hundreds of dollars to a car purchase - another tax that hurts the working man who is dependent on a car to get to and from work.

I would rather the Government had followed the Queensland Government's proposal by charging an extra $1 per packet of cigarettes, which could be allocated to the New South Wales health budget to help pay for the extra hospital costs resulting from the damage caused by both direct and passive cigarette smoke. I am glad that the Parliament is now a non-smoking work environment as many of us suffer from the effects of passive smoking previously caused by other members or staff. However, it is vital that smoking be totally prohibited in members' offices as well. In fact, I support a non-smoking zone around the entire Parliament House so that staff do not smoke on the balconies of Parliament House, in its grounds or outside its entrances.

Staff and members must overcome nicotine addiction. Perhaps for a three-month period the Government should provide free nicotine patches to members and staff to help them beat their addictions. I could name a few, but I will not. Members must be consistent. They can hardly pass stronger laws against illegal drug addiction while they themselves are addicted to the drug nicotine. The New South Wales budget for health is now more than $5 billion, a total of $5,616 million, comprising current payments of $5,139 million and a capital budget of $477 million. More action must be taken in preventive health programs to reduce the number of persons in hospital as a result of the damage caused by drugs such as nicotine and alcohol to their livers, kidneys and lungs as well as damage caused by other drugs such as marijuana, heroin and cocaine. That is why Call to Australia introduced our Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Bill which was passed with unanimous support in November 1991. That is why we have now introduced our Alcoholic Beverages Advertising Prohibition Bill and our tobacco bill to prohibit and regulate smoking in public places - to prohibit smoking in cafes, restaurants, clubs, pubs, shopping centres, et cetera. That is why we oppose any softening of laws against illegal drugs such as marijuana, heroin and cocaine.

We must not allow these illegal drugs to have the same antisocial, antihealth impact as the legal drugs of alcohol and nicotine. We must maintain our opposition to the illegal drugs, especially marijuana, the gateway drug, whilst doing all we can to reduce the impact of the legal drugs nicotine and alcohol. Maybe at some future date nicotine will become an illegal drug like marijuana. Marijuana is far more dangerous to a person's health than nicotine. Even the Commonwealth Department of Health in its handbook for medical practitioners and health care workers gives this warning, "Major health concerns revolve around the knowledge that the cannabis of today is markedly 10 to 15 times stronger than the cannabis or marijuana used in the late 1960s and early 1970s." The same official handbook gives this alarming warning, "Since marijuana smoke is inhaled deeply, held for much longer and contains more tar than tobacco, the adverse effects are greater. As a result, smoking 2 or 3 cannabis-marijuana cigarettes may carry the same risk of lung damage as smoking a whole packet of tobacco cigarettes!"

Marijuana is the gateway drug because it produces adverse reactions, according to this handbook, such as "panic and paranoia, confusion and delusional thinking, acute psychosis, detachment from reality, hallucinations or illusions, et cetera, et cetera". So young users are very vulnerable to the clever pusher, who encourages them to get a new high from using heroin. Perhaps as many as one in seven marijuana users goes on to heroin. We congratulate Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett on standing up to the powerful marijuana lobby, which comprises the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian Democrats, the Greens and many woolly-minded academics, the left-wing socialists of the ALP, and the trendies of the Liberal Party such as Dr Wooldridge. We commend Premier Kennett for having the courage to resist this pot lobby and "not take a leap into the dark", as he said.

Further support must be given by the Government to the quit smoking campaign but it must include quitting marijuana smoking and publicise marijuana's health risks. Stringent laws have recently been introduced governing the sale of cigarettes to children. They must be enforced as the next step could be smoking marijuana. This is a serious issue as some reports indicate that an estimated 70,000 Australian children take up this health-endangering habit every year, including an alarming number of young girls who think it is part of growing up to compete with the boys.

Another way to help balance the budget would be for New South Wales to follow the example of the American State of Florida, which has filed a $1 billion law suit against the nation's cigarette manufacturers, claiming they must pay the health care costs of citizens who are ill as a result of cigarette smoking. It is a national class-action law suit and seeks damages on behalf of millions of smokers. The law suit also aims to halt the marketing of cigarettes to teenagers. United States law allows courts to impose judgments against tobacco companies based on their market share and not their percentage of fault. Similar court cases have been launched by the States of Minnesota and Mississippi.

The other serious health issue facing our State is the proposal to introduce a bill to legalise euthanasia. Originally the bill was to be introduced by Paul O'Grady, who has since resigned, then by the Liberal Jeremy Kinross of Gordon, who has now dropped the proposal as a result of pressure from the Liberal Party. It now seems that Dr Macdonald is considering the bill and may introduce it, despite opposition from both the Premier, Mr Carr, and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Collins.

Page 3698

Some honourable members may be attracted to a euthanasia bill as a means of reducing the health budget, reducing hospital waiting times and making hospital beds available, as is now the widespread practice in Holland, with or without the consent of the patient. Some of those pushing for a euthanasia bill, such as the president of the AIDS Council of New South Wales - ACON - claim that that model euthanasia bill is safe and compassionate. However, no euthanasia bill has been devised that would be free of the possibility of abuse, especially of the most vulnerable: the sick and disabled.

The Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Brian Burdekin, has expressed the view that from his experience the vulnerable - the sick - were already "the most systematically abused and the most likely to be coerced". Dr Brian Pollard, a leading medical expert, said, "For no other medical or social problem is it seriously suggested that killing the victim might be part of the solution." Miss Joan Hume, a quadriplegic teacher, in a recent article headed "The Right to Live: Disability and Euthanasia", said:

There has never been any pressure from the disability community in Australia or any other part of the world to initiate any proposal calling for euthanasia for people with severe physical disabilities.

She said further:

The Nazi euthanasia programme was aimed specifically at children and adults with physical, intellectual and psychiatric disabilities. The extermination programme was conceived and willingly carried out by the German medical and nursing profession without coercion and without the sanction of the law.

Many honourable members may have read the interesting books about the Nuremburg Trials in this regard. Miss Hume said further:

German doctors chose who were to be killed and carried out the killings themselves, with relish.

She concluded:

This euthanasia originated not with the Nazi thugs but with academic philosophers and the cream of the academic medical profession in the universities, very much like the people in Australia today, who are leading the pro-euthanasia debate.

Today, the German Government recognises the danger of pro-euthanasia promoters such as the Australian academic and Green candidate Professor Peter Singer, and has placed restrictions on his meetings in Germany. When Professor Singer launched the German edition of his book How Are We To Live?: Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest he was greeted by German protesters, including handicapped people, some in wheelchairs, who jeered and whistled outside the Bonn Press Club. Professor Singer has extreme views; he argues that severely handicapped children should not have an automatic right to life. In his article "Killing Babies Isn't Always Wrong" Professor Singer said:

The decline of the moral power of religion makes belief in the absolute value of human life over animal life intolerable.

Is there a difference between the views of Professor Singer and the Nazi killing machine? Call to Australia urges honourable members to strongly oppose any attempts to legalise euthanasia in New South Wales and to help to restore positive moral values in society. We also plead with Dr Macdonald to drop any plans to introduce a euthanasia bill and to support the opposition of the Australian Medical Association to legalise euthanasia. The AMA said, "It is unethical for doctors to kill."

The budget for the New South Wales Police Service, under the heading "Police Crime Prevention and Public Safety", shows that total capital payments will be nearly $2 billion - $1,988 million - which is a $600 million increase on the 1995-96 budget. The capital allocation is $187.1 million. The Call to Australia party is pleased that the Government is keeping its promise to provide an additional 650 police, with an additional 100 police officers to commence in 1996-97. We are also pleased that the Government has agreed to upgrade existing police weapons over the next five years - although five years is too long - and has allocated funding of $11.2 million.

Call to Australia is glad that the Government has agreed to destroy the old Smith and Wesson revolvers: not to sell them, but to destroy them. This raises the issue of firearms, in view of media reports that automatic and semiautomatic firearms handed in during an amnesty in Victoria were, in fact, not destroyed but resold to gun dealers. The weapons possibly included the automatic military firearm used by Martin Bryant to murder 35 people in Port Arthur. Strict supervision and control will ensure that these 12,000 revolvers are destroyed, not resold or stolen, and that all rifles handed in during the New South Wales amnesty are destroyed, not resold or stolen.

Call to Australia commends the Government for increasing the availability of bulletproof vests. All police officers must have ready access to a bulletproof vest, especially when approaching a domestic violence incident or an incident involving firearms. Two bulletproof vests should be part of the equipment in all police vehicles. Action must be taken to prevent a recurrence of the tragedy near Kempsey when two police officers were shot and killed or the recent incident when four police officers were wounded in Darwin. We also support the retention of the police prosecutors branch in the District Court, which is the most efficient and economical arrangement, instead of having those matters handled by the Director of Public Prosecutions, with civilian solicitors.

Call to Australia rejects one of the current fallacies about law and order and the reduction of violent crime. Academics argue that the police should be free to concentrate their resources on major crime, ignore minor offences, legalise what was previously criminal activity, such as prostitution, running brothels, living off the earnings
Page 3699
of prostitution, and legalise marijuana, pornography and gambling. Yet recent success in New York shows that this theory does not work but rather that, if minor crime is ignored, major crime increases. The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research shows that there has been an alarming increase in serious crime. For example, the figures for 1995-96 have increased dramatically from those for 1994-95.

The number of assault cases increased by 13 per cent; robberies without a weapon increased by 7.3 per cent; robberies with a weapon such as a knife - not a gun - increased by 27.3 per cent; break and enter into homes increased by 4.8 per cent, break and enter into offices, shops et cetera increased by 8.6 per cent and stealing from retail shops increased by 14.4 per cent. What was the successful strategy applied in New York? What caused the murder rate to be halved, robberies to decrease by 18 per cent and burglaries to decrease by 16 per cent? The New York Police Commissioner, William Bratton, who has since resigned over conflict with the former mayor, who is now in Australia, introduced a simple strategy which is being copied by many other cities.

During a two-year period the police commissioner used 5,000 extra police officers to break up street gangs and fight organised crime through tougher racketeering laws, resulting in a 25 per cent increase in arrests. Car thefts dropped as "chop shops" for stolen car parts were closed, and police were ordered to go after criminals committing minor crimes as well as major ones. Commissioner Bratton used a computer to map daily crime and then put plain clothes officers in the hot spots. He ordered uniform police to issue summonses for minor offences such as drinking beer on the footpath or urinating in public, and he ordered the routine searching of low-level offenders which uncovered handguns, knives, et cetera. The commissioner, despite outcries from civil libertarians, said:

We are showing that police can change behaviour. New York was probably the most permissive and tolerant city in America for social deviancy. Now we are one of the least tolerant.

Two years ago New York was ranked the eighty-eighth most crime-ridden city of the 183 cities in the United States. Now it is down to 136th out of 183. It was initially feared that Bratton and his enforcer, John Maple, might be wasting police resources by focusing on minor or petty offences. But they proved successful. Nabbing numerous minor offenders allowed the police to conduct more substantial checks on their background, including outstanding warrants and parole violations. This unearthed hundreds of more serious offences, proving Bratton's theory that hardened criminals are often also petty offenders. Commissioner Bratton said:

Most criminals commit multiple crimes. We are processing crime data faster than ever before, so we can identify patterns early and stop them after three crimes instead of 30 - if you do that city-wide you will knock the crime rate down.

The sharp fall in minor violations, which are the most visible forms of crime, also created a safer atmosphere on the streets, which further helped to deter potential criminals. He also increased police on the beat, rather than cruising in cars. He gave unprecedented power to each of New York's 76 precinct commanders. If they succeeded in quelling crime they survived; but the moment crime rose in their precinct they were put on the mat to explain. This success shows the fallacy of the hopeless strategy first introduced by Frank Walker, when he was Attorney General, of decriminalising a wide range of criminal offences which he wrongly called "victimless crimes". I fully support the Hon. M. J. Gallacher who, in his maiden speech, gave a very coherent description of the breakdown of law and order in New South Wales. He identified its causes, especially the undermining of the authority of police officers to carry out their duties.

Frank Walker changed the emphasis from preventing crime, from taking the initiative, to waiting for a complaint: waiting for a crime to occur and then trying to catch the criminal. Another way to reduce robberies and other offences by heroin drug addicts is to introduce compulsory residential drug rehabilitation centres in New South Wales. We do not want to kill addicts by keeping them hooked for life; we want to get them clean and living a normal life in the community. I urge the Government to give its full, genuine support to the newly announced New South Wales Commissioner of Police, Peter Ryan, and the new Police Integrity Commission, so that the commissioner can get on with his job and help to restore the morale and pride of the New South Wales Police Service: to get rid of corrupt officers and corrupt practices, and to give full support to every police officer to carry out his or her solemn oath. At the police graduation ceremony each graduate holds the Bible or New Testament in his or her hand and recites an oath. The officiating officer states "For those members here present who are taking the oath, substituting your own several names for mine repeat this oath of office." The graduate then states:

I . . . do swear that I will well and truly serve our sovereign lady the Queen as a police officer without favour or affection malice or ill will until I am legally discharged, that I will see and cause Her Majesty's peace to be kept and preserved, and that I will prevent to the best of my power all offences against that peace, and that while I continue to be a police officer I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all my duties faithfully according to law. So help me God.

Honourable members of this Chamber and the other Chamber should remember that governments and politicians must set the example for honesty and truthfulness in the fight against crime, vice and corruption. I have mentioned in this Chamber previously a retired superintendent who addressed meetings. He said that he would be given the green light or the red light to indicate when he should or should not carry out a raid. That is political push, if ever there was political push. This man is still alive. I read from the word of God, inspired by
Page 3700
God's holy spirit: Romans 13:3 states "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil deeds. Do you want to be unafraid of those in authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same authority." Verse 4 states, "For he" - perhaps the policeman, the magistrate, the member of Parliament - "is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on those who practise evil."

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dorothy Isaksen.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [7.35]: I strongly support the Water Amendment (Charges) Bill. Honourable members have heard the terms "regulated" and "unregulated" rivers used by the Hon. D. F. Moppett. At present irrigators on regulated rivers pay annual charges which help defray the costs of the Department of Land and Water Conservation in carrying out its activities. Water users on unregulated rivers do not make any contribution to those activities, although the sharing of the water is equally important to them. A number of activities carried out by the department on unregulated rivers are of direct or indirect benefit to the water users. This bill is about the implementation of the strong case for the extension of the department's ability to levy annual charges for the holders of licences on unregulated rivers.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett referred at length to what has been said in the other House. I also draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that today the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal handed down its determination on bulk water prices for 1996-97. I have a copy of it with me. The tribunal carried out a review of the water pricing structure of the Department of Land and Water Conservation, held hearings in a number of major rural centres, and received submissions. The tribunal has endorsed the Government's new water prices including the charge on unregulated rivers. It set the prices for regulated rivers and ground water for 1996-97 at the levels that the Government introduced last year, and the prices for unregulated rivers at the level proposed by the Department of Land and Water Conservation in its submission to the tribunal. These charges will range from $80 to $265 a year.

The tribunal has indicated that when its detailed review is completed later this year New South Wales will move further along the road to cost recovery. The department, despite this change, still significantly under-recovers its costs. The previous Government committed us to full cost recovery when it signed the Council of Australian Governments agreement in 1992. That agreement was endorsed by the Carr Government, and in relation to this bill and rural water pricing the Carr Government has actually implemented that agreement. The quip made by the Hon. D. F. Moppett about a new tax is absolutely incorrect. This is a cost recovery measure that has been in the pipeline under that agreement and is fully explained in the tribunal's report. In the other House when Opposition members criticised the introduction of this legislation, the honourable member for Ballina said that if the tribunal supported this charge, then he too would support it. To make that point clear, in Hansard Mr D. L. Page stated:

If the tribunal endorses it, so be it. That will not be known until the tribunal brings down its findings.

The tribunal has now brought down its findings. It endorsed the position taken by the Government in this bill. The Opposition in the other House made it clear that the tribunal's report would guide its attitude. I therefore have no hesitation in expressing the Government's support for this bill, and calling on the Opposition to support it as well.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [7.40], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. As the Hon. Jan Burnswoods said, it is an important development that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal has endorsed the charge on users of water from unregulated rivers in its determination of rural prices. The tribunal set prices for unregulated rivers at the level suggested by the Government. In these circumstances the Government is entitled to expect the support of the Opposition, because in the Legislative Assembly it was indicated that the decision of the tribunal would have considerable influence on the Opposition in determining its support or lack thereof for this bill.

Evidence was provided to the Legislative Assembly that the former Government intended to do what is sought to be achieved by the bill. The Hon. D. F. Moppett criticised the procedures adopted, saying that the bill had been introduced in the dead of the night. Taking due account of the hyperbole that one expects in debate in the political process, the Government would suggest that criticism is not really warranted. In September 1995 the Government announced that a charge for resource management on unregulated rivers would be part of the Government's water reform program. The bill has no surprises, and provides a legal infrastructure for these water charges. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Page 3701

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [7.46]: I move, on behalf of the Hon M. R. Egan:

That this bill be now read a second time.

By leave, my second reading speech will be incorporated in Hansard.

The proposed bill contains a package of amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The amendments clarify some aspects of the Act, remove various difficulties that have been identified with its operation, and streamline its operation thereby increasing its efficiency.

I would like now to briefly outline and explain the amendments.

The first group of amendments are to clarify aspects of the operation of the Act.

The amendments in schedule 1 add certainty and clarity to the role of the Minister and, where appropriate, the director-general in the plan making process.

The decision of the Court of Appeal in the legal challenge to the Greater Metropolitan regional environmental plan has thrown doubt on the extent to which a draft instrument may be altered without re-exhibition.

Limiting changes to those that are minor and non-material does not fulfil the original intention of the Act, and almost makes a nonsense of the exhibition process. The amendments clarify the power of the Minister or the director-general to undertake changes of substance to exhibited draft regional environmental plans, whether in response to submissions or otherwise.

The amendment also clarifies that the existing power of the Minister to alter draft local environmental plans in relation to matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning may comprise alterations that are matters of substance. The amendments will allow greater flexibility in policy development following exhibition.

However, after consultation with the Opposition and concerns raised by them it was agreed that this schedule be amended to include the words "from the Minister's consideration of the matters in the draft plan", after the words, "or otherwise" in clauses (3) and (4). The purpose of this amendment is to more explicitly define and limit the circumstances in which changes may be made.

The amendment will allow for flexibility in policy development following the exhibition of a draft plan because the discretion and duty to consider re-exhibition remains.

Again, the decision to not proceed with schedule 3 in the Legislative Assembly was the result of concerns expressed by business and the Opposition.

While the Government believes that the principles underpinning the proposed amendment are sound, we wanted to ensure that there was effective consultation on the amendment and that the concerns of business and the Opposition were addressed.

The amendments in schedule 4 clarify the position where an inconsistency arises between planning instruments. A State environmental planning policy or a regional environmental plan which contains a provision that expressly binds other future planning instruments will prevail, unless the contrary intention expressly appears in a later instrument.

The Court of Appeal has held that the current words of section 36 do not permit a planning instrument to bind future instruments. This amendment ensures that State and regional planning controls currently in place will continue to operate effectively.

The amendments in schedule 5 clarify the process for the modification of approvals for government projects. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning grants an approval for Government proposals where these fall within certain criteria set out in division 4, part 5 of the Act.

Experience has demonstrated the need to provide a process for a proponent to seek the modification of such an approval. This amendment will enable an approval for a government project to be modified by a process that is clear, streamlined, and yet considers the environmental impacts of the modification of the approval.

The amendments also extend the public consultation requirements for a proposed modification to an approved activity to be exhibited and public comments taken into consideration in the approval of that modification.

The second group of amendments are designed to streamline the operation of the planning system, and result in more efficient practices.

The first of these concerns proceedings in the Land and Environment Court. The Minister must currently give written consent before proceedings are commenced for offences against the Act in the summary jurisdiction of the Land and Environment Court.

The amendment in schedule 6 is to remove this consent role, as it is no longer considered appropriate. In practice, local councils are the bodies which bring prosecutions and this ministerial role has been removed from the relevant sections of the Local Government Act 1993.

Further, the amendment is in keeping with the general trend of giving local government more autonomy, and at the same time making councils more accountable.

The amendment proposed in schedule 7 addresses the issue of the viability of a project being affected when valuable time is lost by separately and sequentially exhibiting and considering a draft plan and a development application, especially one involving an environmental impact statement.

Currently the rezoning of land, and lodging a development application concerning the rezoned land must be undertaken sequentially.

The amendment in schedule 7 proposes to introduce a new division 4B into part 3 of the Act which will enable these two processes to be undertaken concurrently. Clear power will be provided for a consent authority to jointly advertise and exhibit the draft plan and the development applications.

In the case of the exhibition of a draft plan and an advertised development or designated development, the exhibition period will be whichever is the longer. Public participation will be facilitated as they will be able to gain a fuller picture of the proposal.

This amendment results in time and cost savings to all parties. The amendment further streamlines the process by giving the Minister the power to direct a single commission of inquiry into both the rezoning, and the development proposal, where appropriate.

The amendment does not provide the applicant with a right of appeal where a council decides not to proceed with the rezoning. In such a case the application remains prohibited, cannot be approved, and so there is no right of appeal.

Nor does the amendment seek to bring into effect the non-operative division 4A of part 3 of the Act relating to applications for the preparation of local environmental

Page 3702
plans for residential development. This is prohibited so long as division 4A of part 3 remains non-operative.

The amendment in schedule 8 enables consent authorities to introduce into planning instruments non-discretionary development standards, also known as "deemed to comply" development standards.

The standards can be set out in local environmental plans, State environmental planning policies and regional environmental plans. The purpose of enabling the introduction of these standards is to provide more certainty in the development control system.

A development consent would continue to be required, but where a proposed development complies with this type of development standard, then the consent authority will have no discretion to give further consideration to the development standard, nor to refuse an application on grounds related to the standard, nor to impose a more stringent standard.

This approach offers the opportunity for proposed developments that comply with non-discretionary development standards contained in environmental planning instruments to be assessed quickly and efficiently. The use of non-discretionary development standards removes a level of uncertainty involved in the development application process.

The amendment in schedule 10 is put forward to improve the effectiveness of the environmental planning and assessment regulation. It is important to the planning process to be able to refer to a non-statutory document, such as a technical manual, guideline or policy document in the environmental planning and assessment regulation.

Such guidelines or policy documents may be updated from time to time to reflect current best practice, but the Act currently requires that the regulation itself must be amended in order to adopt the updated document. The amendment in schedule 10 to the bill will allow such a reference in the regulation to refer to the most recent version of the document.

An example of such a non-statutory document reference is the bushfires manual. The amendment increases both efficiency and effectiveness by eliminating the need to update the regulation frequently as documents change.

The amendment in schedule 2 aims to improve and provide more flexibility in the process of preparing an environmental study or a draft regional environmental plan.

At present an environmental study must be prepared before a draft regional plan is prepared, and consultation on the study and draft plan must take place sequentially. Both requirements are seen as unnecessarily inflexible and inefficient.

It is proposed to replace the current provision with those which enable the study and draft plan to be prepared either separately or together, and which require the director-general to notify the relevant bodies of the intention to prepare the study or draft plan either separately or together.

This enables the process to remain flexible while in the formulation stage. Those notified will be able to provide their view and have input into the plan preparation process.

There is still a full and open public participation when the environmental study and draft plan are placed on public exhibition. During that time any person may make submissions and have them considered by the director-general.

The group of amendments in schedule 9 enhances flexibility by enabling a commission of inquiry to examine specified issues relating to a proposed development or activity, or part of a development or activity.

This is in addition to the existing ability to direct a commission of inquiry into all environmental aspects of a proposal. The amendment enables the process of conducting an inquiry to be streamlined, and therefore more effective and efficient.

This provides an opportunity for a more focused use of the commission of inquiry mechanism so as to inquire into specific aspects of a proposal of high community or environmental concern.

The third and final group of amendments are a number of housekeeping measures for the purpose of statute law revision. These are set out in schedule 11, and are:

•the recognition of multiple owners for the purposes of submitting a development application.

•the updating of references.

•removal of unnecessary wording in section 91A(2) concerning the referral of Crown development applications to the Minister.

•the use of consistent terms for the commencement of the operation of a development consent.

•removing cross referencing to other parts of the Act from the definition of existing uses.

Schedule 12 contains the savings and transitional provision relating to the amendments to the Act with the exception of lines 25-31 which were deleted as they relate to schedule 3 which has already been deleted.

Honourable members should be aware that all the amendments are explained in detail in the explanatory notes relating to the bill.

This bill is about improving the efficiency and operation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. These are goals which I am sure everyone with an interest in or experience of the Act will support.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [7.47]: The Opposition supports the bill. To understand this support is to understand the history of the principal Act since 1979. It has not been excessively amended, and generally the amendments have had bipartisan support. The bill amends the Act in a number of ways. Although it goes to many of the fundamental principles of the Act, it is mainly driven by the goals of making planning more efficient without lessening principles of accountability. It is not my intention to outline each of the 11 schedules to the bill, but to refer to some of the principles enshrined in the bill. There is no doubt that, although the Act has served New South Wales well, it was landmark legislation in 1979. Today it is judged to be clumsy and in need of reform.

Genuine issues need to be resolved, issues in relation to the process, such as various approvals necessary for a development to be approved, issues in relation to the planning hierarchy, issues in relation to the public's right to be consulted, and issues in relation to the criteria for assessments of development applications under section 90, to name some. Although the bill clarifies and improves some aspects of the current Act, it must be judged as a minor, though probably necessary, bill. The Opposition supports the bill because it supports the principle of an efficient planning system. The Opposition is interested in issues raised in the
Page 3703
recently released green paper on integrated land use and planning. Whether it will form the basis of major change in the planning process in New South Wales may, in part, depend on the extent of the Government's consultation and willingness to seek bipartisan solutions. The radical change that was the Local Government Act in 1993 was, in part, the result of extensive consultation and involvement of all parties in the legislative process.

But that is for the future. Today's bill falls well short of any major reforms but is significant in some elements. The genesis for some of the reforms lies in the 1991 discussion paper "Modernising the Planning System in New South Wales" as well as more recent court decisions. Schedule 1 relates to the plan-making powers, in particular the capacity of the Minister or the director to make changes to a draft regional environmental plan or local environmental plan after exhibition. These changes may arise out of, for example, the Minister's consideration of submissions or recommendations of a commission of inquiry.

Significantly, the amendments will allow for greater flexibility and greater efficiency by not requiring the re-exhibition of a plan where a change is made. It is my view that where change is not minor and where re-exhibition will not jeopardise the viability of a project, the Minister should cause the plan to be re-exhibited. This schedule gives the Minister flexibility, but it is not to be abused. Since the bill was introduced into the other House last December the Government has accepted the Opposition's concerns about the broad nature of the amendment as originally proposed.

Schedule 2 clarifies that certain parties, including local councils and the relevant public authorities, are required to be notified - rather than consulted, as in the Act - in the preparation of a regional environmental plan. The period for comment is reduced from 40 days to 28 days in line with the streamlining of the process. The Opposition supports this. Schedule 3 is the most important element of the bill as it sets out a hierarchy for plans in New South Wales: that a State plan will prevail over a regional or local plan, and a regional plan will prevail over a local plan.

Inherent in the planning system is the need to balance numerous competing interests. This schedule, however, places the broad State-wide objectives first. The principle underpinning this is also the awareness that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is not of itself a strategic planning document, and that if the State is to translate planning vision into reality it will in part do this through the use of State environmental planning policies. The preponderance of spot rezonings by local councils has also clearly devalued local environmental plans. I said earlier I would not dissect the bill by schedules, but I now appear to be succumbing.

In an attempt to summarise the balance, I highlight schedule 6, which follows the streamlining theme by allowing the joint exhibition of a development application and a draft plan to rezone land. This is long overdue and is combined with the provision that there is no right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court where a development application is refused if the council does not support the rezoning. Schedule 7 is described as a step towards approval by certification. The Opposition will want more detail before that happens. Section 90 of the Act, which this schedule amends, sets out the heads of consideration to be regarded by consent authorities. This amendment sets out the impact where a planning instrument contains non-discretionary development standards. The approach should assist to provide greater certainty for applicants seeking development consent. This is supported by the Opposition.

Finally, schedule 8 is supported by the Opposition as a sensible amendment designed to both streamline and give flexibility to the commission of inquiry process by permitting an inquiry into an aspect of a proposed development rather than the whole development. These are key amendments in the bill. The bill promotes good planning in New South Wales and good environmental standards. The Opposition supports the bill and is enthusiastic about certainty and efficiency in the process. New South Wales will attract good investment, bringing jobs and a sound economic base, only when the planning system that underpins approvals is fair, efficient and transparent, and when the needs and interest of the State and local community are given due weight. I commend the bill.

The Hon. I. COHEN [7.53]: In this bill, a revisit of a bill introduced at the end of 1995, the Government continues its attack on the State's planning system. Schedule 1 amends the manner in which submissions are to be considered prior to the making of local and regional planning instruments. The amendments clarify the power of the Minister to undertake changes of substance to exhibited plans under section 51(1)(a) and section 70(1)(a). The alterations to planning instruments can now be made not only arising from submissions but also otherwise from the Minister's consideration of the matters in the draft plan.

This is an improvement on the previous bill, which left the question of "or otherwise" far too open. I thank the Minister and the Opposition in the other place for their revision and improvement to these crucial sections, which previously had been a major concern. Schedule 2 weakens the consultation process in relation to the preparation of regional environmental plans and studies. This is in response to a decision on 17 May 1995 by the Court of Appeal in Leichhardt Municipal Council v The Minister for Planning. I note the Opposition is supporting the schedule. While this is a disappointment, it is of no surprise.

Page 3704

I do not agree with the consultation period being reduced from 40 days to 28 days, even though further consultation may occur. Schedule 3 clarifies a provision that the courts have cast some doubt upon. It has always been understood that there is no priority of planning instruments and that the later planning instrument would generally prevail. This is a sensible amendment and is supported. Schedule 4 relates to the modification of activities that have been approved by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning under Part 5 of the Act.

I do not propose to go through the implications in detail. However, decisions on activities approved by the Minister should rarely be modified. The new process is open to abuse by future governments seeking to overturn a previous Minister's decision. Schedule 5 removes the requirement for the Minister's written consent before an action can be taken by a council to the courts for a breach of the Act. I support this amendment as a means of giving greater local control and responsibility. Schedule 6 provides for the joint exhibition of a draft local environment plan and a development application.

This concerns me and I do not support measures that restrict a local council's ability to consider a draft local environmental plan with the added pressure of a development application. The most serious aspect is that if a council either refuses an application or is deemed to have refused a development application because of the time taken to consider it, a developer can take the council to the Land and Environment Court, and the draft local environmental plan is the matter that the court must have regard to. The provisions of section 90(1)(a)(ii) must be amended as a consequence of this amendment.

I implore the Minister to consider this issue in any future revision of the Act so as to protect communities and local councils from the onslaught of the development industry. This has already proved to be a problem at Wedderburn, near Campbelltown, because the courts have approved a development in a bushfire-prone area because of a draft local environmental plan. I oppose this amendment. Schedule 7 is also heavily biased against local communities. Its provisions provide that development standards that are non-discretionary cannot be used to refuse a development where the development application complies with the standard; and a council cannot impose a consent condition that is more onerous than the standard.

This appears reasonable on the surface in that a standard will have been met. In practice it will mean that a minimalist approach will be taken by developers. A classic example is a matter raised in the House earlier today about the difficulty currently being experienced by Mr Ken Cox in relation to his ecologically sustainable building at Concord which has been refused consent because the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act has not adopted the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

I am disappointed with this amendment and ask the Government to introduce the principles of ecologically sustainable development into the Act, both for the preparation of planning instruments as well as for the granting of consents or approvals under part 4 or part 5 of the Act. Schedule 8 provides for a further abuse of the system by limiting the scope of a commission of inquiry to only one or a few perceived key areas. Commissions of inquiry are no longer trusted by the community. They are usually a farce to deliver an approval, performing a charade as an independent umpire. How many times has a commission of inquiry recommended refusal?

This process reinforces the view that a development will be approved subject to simply resolving one issue. The Government must examine safeguards that ensure that in limiting the scope of a commission of inquiry, communities are not further disadvantaged. I have previously raised in this House the need for an environmental ombudsman and auditor. Those offices could review the merits of a commission of inquiry or a Minister's decision to limit the scope of an inquiry. I oppose the schedule in the absence of suitable safeguards.

Schedule 9 also has serious implications. Again the Government has limited public input to crucial documents affecting the planning system. When the Government introduced its bill to amend the Act in relation to contaminated lands it accepted a consultative process. This provision will adopt documents that can be amended from time to time without the necessity for consultation. An example is the "Planning for Bush Fire Prone Areas" document adopted by the regulations and prepared by the Department of Bush Fire Services. It has been accepted that standards or codes are adopted by regulation on the basis of the document date or version. This is a serious departure, and I am surprised at the Opposition. Prior to acceptance and such a provision being put in place, a simple mechanism of consultation including exhibition must be adopted. I oppose the amendment. Schedule 10 is of a housekeeping nature, whereas Schedule 11 covers the transitional arrangements that apply in relation to the bill. I do not oppose these, beyond my comment on the other schedules. I conclude by observing the words of a former Opposition shadow minister for planning who, when a bill was introduced in 1994, stated:

The bill is unashamedly a developer's bill. It seeks to place a bias in the Act which would unreasonably advantage the applicant over the consent authority and, importantly, any third party objectors.

That statement was made on 13 May 1994 by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning when he was in Opposition. I agree with those sentiments and I disagree with this bill. The real concern is that one of the few saving graces of the original bill has been dropped. I refer to section 94 contributions. The bill clearly involves more than just housekeeping measures, and I note the Opposition's support for the bill. I do not propose
Page 3705
to move any amendments in Committee, but I am disappointed. With the State environmental planning policy 45 bill and Bengalla mine, the removal of water licence appeals to the courts for the Newcrest Cadia mine, the failure to require registers of contaminated lands, and now this bill, New South Wales is now ready for exploitation at the expense of the local communities, the courts and the environment. The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning is now running the State. What next?
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [8.01]: I support the bill. I had intended to spend a little longer on my contribution than I now will, as honourable members will be pleased to hear, but both the Hon. Patricia Forsythe and the Hon. I. Cohen have explained in detail the different schedules that make up the bill. The difference of course was that the Hon. Patricia Forsythe supported the changes, whereas the Hon. I. Cohen is not happy with several of them. This is a fundamental bill in many ways. A number of honourable members have referred to it as a housekeeping bill but it makes some important policy changes dealing with the administration of planning and land use. The bill has been on the table for several months and many suggestions have been made about it. In particular it has been amended in the other House following a high level of cooperation between the Government and the Opposition in working through amendments. I thank the Opposition for that. I regret that the Hon. I. Cohen remains unhappy with some aspects of the bill but I note that he does not propose to move amendments. I therefore do not see much point in taking any more of the time of the House.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.02]: "The Government does itself no credit by introducing a bill that strikes at one of the basic principles of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: public participation in the planning process. The bill is unashamedly a developers' bill." Those words were spoken by the Hon. Craig Knowles on 13 May 1994 when the coalition Government tried to introduce these very same changes. I oppose the changes today for exactly the same reasons that the Hon. Craig Knowles opposed them in 1994: they limit opportunities for public participation, reduce the role of local governments by subordinating local environment plans, and legalise a substantial bias towards developers. I am appalled, but not surprised, by this act of pure hypocrisy, because in recent months this Government has consistently introduced blatantly pro-developer bills and Parliament has consistently passed those bills into law.

An example of such bills is last year's notorious RZM amendment bill, which specifically sanctioned the RZM sandmining operations despite severe environmental impacts and the illegal status of RZM's fauna licences. As a result of the enactment of that law I sought permission and delivered a dead koala to the Premier's office. The koala was killed as a result of that bill having passed through this House. Another example is last week's environmental planning and water legislation, which pre-empted the commission of inquiry report into the Cadia gold-copper mine and paved the way for the mining company by extinguishing third party rights and leaving farmers across the State uncertain of their future. And who could forget the Bengalla permissible mining legislation, which pre-empted a Court of Appeal decision, overturned the Land and Environment Court decision, breached the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, rejected the rights of local government, and made mining the priority land use for New South Wales?

Time after time honourable members have seen this Government run to the aid of a developer or a mining company. The Government is not merely bending the rules, it is legislating a deliberate bias into our State's planning system - a bias toward the developer and away from the community. Years of hard work have been invested in constructing and improving the New South Wales planning system; in raising environmental awareness and increasing public participation in decision making. All of this effort and progress is now being destroyed before our very eyes. And for what purpose? For the favour of foreign investors who tear up our remaining natural resources and ship their profits overseas. Ironically, this Government simply cannot shake its colonial mind- set. In light of the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning's recent record, I am not surprised by his latest treachery. He is definitely on a roll and the Opposition will do nothing to discourage him, so why stop now? The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill is fundamentally flawed and I have specific objections to the overwhelming majority of its schedules. Contrary to its title, the bill does not seek to amend aspects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act; it seeks to completely reverse them.

Altering regional and local draft plans without re-exhibiting them is a cause for great concern. This amendment allows the Minister to make changes, including changes of substance to regional environmental plans and local environmental plans, without having to exhibit such changes for community comment. May I remind honourable members that the very purpose of these planning instruments is to encourage and facilitate public participation, particularly at a local level. This amendment also represents an attempt to centralise the planning process, and thereby directly contradicts the purpose of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act on two counts. First, the amendment blatantly ignores the key object of the Act to "provide increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in environmental planning and assessment". One of the major aims of the 1979 Act was to dismantle the centralised system of planning that, according to the Hon. David Landa, had been "nurtured, encouraged and extended" by coalition governments.

Page 3706

It is a sad day indeed to witness this Labor Party bill and its numerous attempts to centralise and stratify the New South Wales planning system. In short, the capacity to alter a planning instrument without re-exhibition could be a dangerous tool in the hands of this Minister and his director-general. Environmental studies and regional environment plans can be prepared simultaneously, rather than sequentially. According to the 1994 version of the Hon. Craig Knowles, an environmental study is "in purist form . . . the more objective planning document". It is proposed by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that, by predicating planning decisions to a prior environmental study and assessment, decisions affecting the environment can be taken openly, consciously and in full knowledge of probable consequences of implementing the decisions. How the Minister now proposes to make fully informed decisions when the environmental study and the planning decisions are emerging simultaneously, I have no idea.

I simply cannot see the merits of developing a planning instrument without a fully completed and comprehensive environmental study on which to base that instrument. I can, however, see how such a system would encourage poor decisions and enable unsound, hasty deals between the Government and any potential developer - once again, a dangerous tool in the hands of the current Minister and the future Minister - and the imposition of a hierarchy of planning instruments with local environmental plans at the bottom and State environmental planning policies at the top. To the coalition's credit, this particularly contrary amendment was not proposed in the 1994 bill. In his second reading speech the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning claimed that this amendment was needed to "clarify the position where an inconsistency arises between planning instruments". This rationale for the hierarchy was then supported by the Hon. R. A. Phillips, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who stated that it was already "presumed to be law but has never been expressly stated". Section 36 of the Act, which relates to inconsistency between instruments, provides:

(a) There is no general presumption that:

(i) a State environmental planning policy prevails over a regional environmental plan or a local environmental plan or a local environmental plan; or

(ii) a regional environmental plan prevails over a local environmental plan;

The Minister's idea of providing clarification in matters of inconsistency is no more than an attempt to take planning decisions out of the hands of the local community and into his hands - and those of his director-general, of course. It is yet another move towards centralising the planning process, and once again contravenes the objects of the Act. By subordinating the status of a local environmental plan this amendment will severely limit the power of local governments to determine the fate of their community. This strict hierarchy gives ultimate power to the State Government to make decisions about detailed local land use. The absurdity of such a situation is doubled when one considers that an express object of the Act was to:

promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning between the different levels of government in the State

Is subordinating local governments and the local community to the very bottom rung of the hierarchy the Government's idea of sharing responsibility? Unfortunately, I suspect that it is. In relation to the joint exhibition of a development application, and the amendment of a local environmental plan and a regional environmental plan that would enable that development, this amendment was strongly opposed by the current Minister, who, to his credit, succeeded in having that clause withdrawn from the 1994 bill. It was this amendment that had attracted the most objection from a wide variety of sources, including the Local Government Association and peak environment groups. By collapsing these two processes into one, the Government is removing an opportunity for third party objectors and concerned community members to comment. In the words of the Hon. Craig Knowles, "it removes some of their rights to participate in the planning process". Indeed it does.

A further concern was raised by the Hon. Craig Knowles. He felt that the broad-scale LEP process and the developer-based development application process would introduce "a bias towards the development end of the planning process". The Hon. Craig Knowles was right again. In fact the whole process would effectively be skewed towards development-focused outcomes. Despite the Minister's attempts to explain his change of heart, I strongly object to this unreasonable and unnecessary disruption of the balance constructed within our planning system. In relation to non-discretionary development standards - the "deemed to comply" argument - the effect of this amendment would be that a development application lodged in accordance with the "deemed to comply" standards could not be further considered by the consent authority, which is generally the local council.

I am deeply concerned that this amendment could result in a complete exclusion of local governments and local communities from any meaningful involvement in the planning process. The process required to develop "deemed to comply" non-discretionary standards would provide the perfect opportunity for the department to build in prescriptions that would preclude local councils from any involvement in the determination of any particular development consent. The combination of these non-discretionary standards and the subordination of the LEP process through schedule 3 to the bill would leave communities open to the will of the Government without any recourse whatsoever. Here we see yet another attempt to centralise the planning system, all in the name of expediency, When this proposal was debated in 1994 the Hon. Craig Knowles raised specific
Page 3707
concerns about granting such powers to the coalition's "development-oriented Department of Planning and State Government". When this bill is passed I believe that the people of New South Wales will suffer an even worse fate under the current Minister and his department.

Finally, I wish to deal with the amendment to allow commissions of inquiry to have specified scope. Given the Government's proven disregard for commissions of inquiry, this amendment comes as no surprise. The Government has been visibly agitated by the development delays that are created by inquiries and has clearly lost patience with such thorough public investigations of proposed developments. It makes sense that if the Government will not even wait until a commission completes a report, for example the Cadia inquiry, it may as well trivialise the process altogether. While I am the first to admit that the inquiry system could benefit from some changes, I fear the consequences of the changes proposed in this bill. Commissions of inquiry need to carry more weight, not less. They need to have extended powers to subpoena documents and to cross-examine witnesses. They need to afford greater witness protection to combat the SLAPP suit system of intimidation. In short, we should be able to rely on commissions of inquiry to find equitable and adequate outcomes to disputes. If reforms were implemented, public participation in planning process, and the efficiency of that process, would be significantly enhanced.

Instead of such sensible and progressive reforms the Government gives us this - a limitation of the scope of inquiries. By granting the Minister the ability to specify the scope of an inquiry we are granting him the ability to exclude vital evidence from a public investigation. In limiting the scope of an investigation, attention can be diverted from the principal issues with a flick of his pen. While this may sound like a conspiracy theory, I believe the Government's record substantiates my concerns. When he spoke out against some of these changes in 1994, the Hon. Craig Knowles was acting on the advice of key stakeholders, including the Sydney City Council, the Local Government Association and the peak environment groups. He spoke out intelligently and forcefully to protect the interests of the local communities and to promote best-practice planning in this State. It was commendable indeed. Unfortunately, Craig Knowles will no longer be remembered as a defender of the people and the environment. The admirable performances of his early career will be overshadowed by the disgrace of his performance as Minister. I shall conclude my discussion of this bill with a final quote from the young Craig Knowles:

Put simply, this bill is further evidence of the Government's desire to centralise the planning processes in New South Wales and to diminish public participation, and to establish a planning framework which has an inherent bias toward property developers.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill is just the latest in a long line of appalling and irresponsible planning legislation put forward by this Government. I condemn it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [8.14], in reply: I thank honourable members for their intelligent contributions to the debate.

Question - That this bill be now read a second time - put.

The House divided.

Mrs Arena Mrs Nile
Mr Bull Rev. Nile
Dr Burgmann Mr Obeid
Ms Burnswoods Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Chadwick Mr Primrose
Mr Dyer Mr Ryan
Mr Egan Ms Saffin
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Mr Gallacher Mrs Sham-Ho
Miss Gardiner Mr Shaw
Dr Goldsmith Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Johnson Mrs Symonds
Mr Kaldis Mr Vaughan
Mr Kersten Tellers,
Mr Lynn Mrs Isaksen
Mr Moppett Mr Jobling

Mr Corbett Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Mr Cohen
Mr Tingle Mr Jones

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [8.24]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

By leave, my second reading speech will be incorporated in Hansard.

This bill will remove any doubt that the Director-General of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning and any other chief executive officer of a government department is a public authority within the definition of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

It was understood from the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in 1980, that the director-general was a public authority.

Only a Government Minister, public authority or the Director-General of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning can be a consent authority under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

Page 3708

Similarly, only a Government Minister or a public authority can be a concurrence authority under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The director-general has been made a concurrence authority in a number of important instruments, including State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1, which deals with development standards, and State environmental planning policy No. 14, which deals with coastal wetlands.

As a result of two recent Land and Environment Court decisions, namely Murray v Hornsby Council and Rygate and West v Shoalhaven Council, the status of the director-general and any other chief executive officer as a public authority has been called into question.

The bill will amend the definition of public authority to make it clear that it includes the chief executive officer of a government department, including the Director-General of Urban Affairs and Planning. This amendment also includes a chief executive officer of a statutory State owned corporation or its subsidiary in the definition.

The bill enables a public authority to delegate its functions as a public authority under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The bill will also validate anything done or omitted to be done before the commencement of the bill.

This will ensure that the recent court decisions do not impact on the validity of decisions taken at a time when the status of the director-general and other chief executive officers as public authorities and, therefore, as concurrence authorities and consent authorities was not in question.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [8.24]: The Opposition supports the bill, which will remove doubt that the Director-General of Urban Affairs and Planning or any other chief executive officer of a government department is a public authority within the definition of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The Opposition has no doubt that that has always been the intention of the Act, but two recent court decisions have challenged that view. The bill will enable a public authority to delegate its functions. It will validate decisions taken by the director-general and other chief executive officers as public authorities in terms of their powers as concurrence authorities and consent authorities. The key change, therefore, will be to the definition of a public authority under the Act, which at present includes a person exercising functions on behalf of that authority, department or body. The definition will be changed to include a chief executive officer within the meaning of the Public Sector Management Act 1988, including the director. The new definition is much clearer and more precise. I support the bill.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [8.25]: I thank the Hon. Patricia Forsythe for her support for the bill, which will remove any doubt that the Director-General of Urban Affairs and Planning or any other chief executive officer of a government department is a public authority for giving consents within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act. Most people would take that as self-evident, and indeed it has been considered self-evident since 1980, but the pursuit of technicalities in two recent court cases has thrown doubt on the definition. The bill is necessary and has been supported by everyone who has been involved with it.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.26]: The bill is simple. A few days ago it took the Minister about three paragraphs to speak to the bill in the lower House. It is another bill designed to override court decisions -

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: No, to clarify.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Yes, to clarify the definition, but the effect will be to override two recent court decisions. It is typical of the Government's attitude that if anything goes wrong in the courts it will immediately pass a bill through the Parliament to make sure that things are put right. The Government acts very quickly when it comes to clarifying or overruling court decisions but not when it comes to saving environmentally sensitive areas.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.27]: The Call to Australia party is pleased to support the bill, which deals with technicalities. The need for the bill is an illustration of the way in which clever individuals or lawyers can keep finding objections to legislation. The Government will just have to keep making legislation to overrule court decisions.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [8.27], in reply: This is landmark legislation. I thank honourable members for their learned contributions to the second reading debate.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [8.29]: I speak on behalf of the Opposition on the Appropriation (Parliament) Bill. The Opposition supports this legislation subject to an amendment that I foreshadow will be moved by the Opposition. It is:

Page 3709

Page 4. Insert after line 3:

8 Additional appropriation

In addition to the sums appropriated by sections 4 and 5, this Act appropriates such sum as may be necessary to establish a President's Contingency Fund to be used solely to fund any committees appointed by the Legislative Council to deal with matters referred to any committee additional to the normal work of the standing committees appointed by the House.

The amendment speaks for itself in that it will provide for a contingency fund for the President. There is precedence for this in Canberra, where the President of the Senate recently was provided with an amount of $300,000 to cover a contingency. This provision will save the President going cap in hand to Treasury to seek urgent supplementation on important issues suddenly confronting him.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [8.32]: I will speak briefly on the appropriation bills. In particular I will address the State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Howard and Costello) Bill, which was introduced by the Government in the other place to deal with, it said, matters arising following the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. In my view the Treasurer has a hide to increase State taxes and charges by $200 million next year and $900 million over the next three years, when next year he expects to reap a $600 million windfall from increased taxes and charges. Last year the State Government collected a total of $10,138 million in taxes, charges, fines and fees. Next year it expects to collect $10,744 million - an extra $606 million.

In my view, some of the fluctuations in revenue might well have been enough to make up for the difficulties that this State will face from the Commonwealth cuts. Nick Greiner faced exactly this problem. Revenues from public authorities and from other normal taxes were falling, and the coalition Government simply had to increase taxes and charges. I am of the opinion that time might well have given him an opportunity to exercise flexibility in how he dealt with that shortfall in revenue. I say on behalf of some of the battlers in this State that the Government has handled this matter in the wrong way.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [8.34]: I am keen to speak to these bills. At a very late hour members have received answers to outstanding questions asked during the estimates committees dealing with the health and Aboriginal affairs portfolios. With the Appropriation (Parliament) Bill I received answers to questions asked by Legislative Council members that had been outstanding. No less than 13 questions were answered in the following way, "This Question is outside the Budget Estimates and should be placed on the ordinary Questions and Answers Paper."

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: That is outrageous.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It is outrageous. One question I asked of the Minister at the estimates committee hearing - and I gave him notice of it - was:

(1) What is the manning level of the Avalon Ambulance Station?

(a) Has this changed in the last 12 months?

(b) What is the expected level of staff for the next 12 months?

(2) What is the response time to the area north of the Bilgola Bends?

(3) What is the response time to the area south of the Bilgola Bends?

Those are matters that are reported in the budget each and every year and are matters properly subject to inquiry during budget estimates. Yet we have the answer:

This Question is outside the Budget Estimates and should be placed on the ordinary Questions and Answers Paper.

The arrogance of Ministers from the other place is nothing short of outrageous. I asked another question that is terribly important to the people of New South Wales:

In the United States people are paid to donate blood. Is there any proposal to pay people in New South Wales for donating blood?

The same answer is given. I asked further:

(a) Has the contracted food trial in the Liverpool area to take into account communities and individuals' needs being continued?

(b) If so, will the Minister identify where the trial is being funded?

Again the same answer is given. There is always a matter in the estimates that I find fascinating. The Treasurer this morning glibly answered a question about overruns and underestimation of budgets. I invite the attention of the Treasurer to a question that I asked during the estimates proceedings. That question, numbered 49, relates entirely to the 1995-96 budget allocation being exceeded by some $72.8 million. I simply asked whether the Department of Health had to pay that money back. The answer from the Minister was:

Treasury is not providing $72.8 million in supplementation. The question of repayment therefore does not arise.

I refer now to part (19) of a series of answers to question 49. The difference in total expenditure between the hospitals budget allocation for 1995-96 and the revised budget for 1995-96 - that is, the difference between $3,730 million and $4,096 million - was about $360 million. The first amount is the early allocation, and the other is a later, revised allocation. The difference of about $360 million is 10 per cent of the total budget. The Minister explained that this was just a topping up by Treasury when the department ran short of money. Apparently the Treasurer can find $360 million to
Page 3710
offset waste and mismanagement by Dr Refshauge. I will be interested to see what happens when the Treasurer has to top up this year's budget with a new budget that he will bring down next week. Such an arrangement is outrageous.

During the estimates committee hearing I asked the Minister for Health about the $72.8 million budget overrun. His response was that those figures were inaccurate. I asked, "Are they rubbery?" He said, "No, they're just inaccurate." I was referring to a budget paper produced by the Treasurer for us to read, yet the Minister told us that the figures that we had in front of us were inaccurate. Having said that they were inaccurate, he then gave the looney tunes answer that he was not prepared to answer the questions because "they were not meant to be in that section."

The answers that we have been getting from the Minister and the Treasurer are nothing short of outrageous. Of course, we expect revised allocations twice this year - not just one revision, as occurred last year. Three times this year we will see budget estimates from the Treasurer, and he will get them wrong on all three occasions. It is about time that he woke up, or gave the job to someone who can do it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [8.40], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

Report of Estimates Committee No. 1 adopted.

Report of Estimates Committee No. 2 adopted.

Report of Estimates Committee No. 3 adopted.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Committee will deal first with the Appropriation (Parliament) Bill.

Suggested new clause 8

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [8.45]: I move the following suggested amendment:

Page 4. Insert after line 3:

8 Additional appropriation

In addition to the sums appropriated by sections 4 and 5, this Act appropriates such sum as may be necessary to establish a President's Contingency Fund to be used solely to fund any committees appointed by the Legislative Council to deal with matters referred to any committee additional to the normal work of the standing committees appointed by the House.

This amendment is moved as a consequence of a report of one of the estimates committees. It is aimed at establishing in the Legislative Council a scheme similar to that which exists in the Australian Senate. The Australian Senate has developed a system of sophisticated committees. The Commonwealth Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act, under the heading, "Advance to the President of the Senate", provides:

To enable the President of the Senate to make money available for expenditure:

(a) that the President of the Senate is satisfied is urgently required and:

(i) was unforeseen until after the last day on which it was practicable to include appropriation for that expenditure in the Bill for this Act before the introduction of that Bill into the House of Representatives; or

(ii) was onerously omitted from, or understated in, the Bill for this Act: and

(b) particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to the Parliament;

being expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1997 in relation to the Senate.

In addition to that allocation there is a set of guidelines under what is referred to as AMF guidelines - advance to Ministers for finance - which applies to the President of the Senate. I am advised that any moneys advanced under this allocation must all be either spent or definitely committed. That is, all other funds of the Parliament must be either spent or definitely committed before there is any access to this advance. In the Federal Senate the advance is $300,000. It was $300,000 for the 1995-1996 year and $300,000 for the 1996-1997 year. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that as this House develops a system of committees the President will be able to draw on funds to ensure that the committees are able to operate without being required to go cap in hand to the Treasurer of the day and ask for supplementary funding. I recall a time when this Chamber had a President different from the one it now has, when funds were required for committees. Getting those funds from the Government of the day was like drawing hen's teeth.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Not with me.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Things are done differently nowadays with regard to committee funding. However, I recall how difficult it was to get the Government to formally approve the positions of chairman of a number of committees of this Chamber and to approve of the payment of those who held those positions. So much for the high regard that the Government has for this Chamber! The amendment is aimed at ensuring that the President of this Chamber does not have to be a mendicant to the Government of the day. That has
Page 3711
happened. On one occasion there was a reference to a committee of which I was chairman - and I am almost going back millennia.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You must have been in government.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I was in government. Departmental officers were allocated by the Minister of the day to help the committees do their work because of the difficulties of having funds appropriated for the operation of the committees. All honourable members know that there are many committee references. Committees obviously have to arrange their priorities, but they are not necessarily able to get staff, even on secondment, to deal with the work. The contingency fund is an accepted practice in the Senate of Australia. Honourable members often talk about this Chamber attempting to model itself on the Senate, and the amendment is aimed at achieving that. What will be the consequences to the bill if the amendment is successful? I have precedents. I will not burden the House with all of them; I will summarise them. The government of the day is able to ignore this request. It is a request of this House that the Government appropriates as much as may be necessary. The Government might regard that as zero because that is as much as the Government considers necessary. The Government will be able to ignore this amendment, as has occurred on many occasions, when these bills go back to the lower House.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Why is that so?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I understand it has something to do with the question of -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Constitutionality?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: No. It has something to do with the belief of the lower House that the upper House does not have the power to amend money bills. Mr R. R. Downing made it clear that he accepted that this House has the power to amend. When he was Attorney General and Leader of the Government, and subsequently when he was the Leader of the Opposition, he clearly indicated that this House has the power to amend but the lower House has the power to ignore, and so be it. As I understand it, when these amendments are passed in the upper House and ignored in a particular year's budget, they tend to be picked up by the Government in subsequent years and that results in a change of behaviour. I urge the House to indicate to the Government in this bill that a President's contingency fund is needed. The Government should allocate resources to such a fund to enable any committees appointed by the Council to deal with the work allocated to them so that this House does not continue to be a mendicant.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: If we were in Government we would have done it.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Had the idea come to us I suspect that we would have.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You ought to read what the President said in the estimates committee.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I did.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The President said that when he put this proposition to the previous Government's Treasurer it was rejected.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Yes, but I do not recall the President ever drawing it to my attention or the attention of my predecessor. If it had been drawn to our attention it might have been dealt with differently. But we are now graced, as we learned earlier today, with the benefit of having a munificent Treasurer who is also the Leader of the Government in this House. He has a great sense and identity with the role of this House, which he wants to preserve. Although I can understand that he may be constrained for Government reasons to oppose this amendment, I urge members of the House to support it. In subsequent years the Government may amend its budget papers to reflect the direction which I hope the House will take tonight.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [8.54]: Bearing in mind what the Leader of the Opposition said, I am sure it will come as no surprise to him that the Government does not support the amendment.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: I must have used a speech that was drafted by you in Opposition.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, I never moved this amendment because, frankly, to move an amendment to an appropriation bill that appropriates an indeterminate sum of money is an absurdity. In an appropriation bill one cannot appropriate such a sum as may be necessary. If that were so every year the budget would consist of a bill that provided that the Parliament appropriated such sum as may be necessary. It is an absolute absurdity! Who will determine how much may be necessary? Is it the great protector of public money, the President of the New South Wales Legislative Council? I am not saying that sarcastically, but I can see that some of his colleagues are amused.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Give us a dollar, establish the fund.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, I am not going to establish the fund for $1. This year I have shown what a generous Treasurer I am by approving additional recurrent funding of $300,000 for parliamentary committees each and every year. And guess what? At the end of the year it has not come anywhere near to being spent. Bearing in mind the way I was treated at the beginning of last
Page 3712
year after I introduced my first budget when they played all sorts of tricks - they told members that committees could not be funded because I had taken money off them, or members could not get a cup of coffee in their rooms because I had taken money off them - I have no hesitation in asking honourable members to get the Speaker and President to tell them at the end of this financial year how much they underspent the allocation for parliamentary committees. I will not be abused by those two Presiding Officers again. If they are given money for particular purposes and they have not spent it, they were fraudulent to start with.

The effect of this amendment would be to appropriate additional funds to establish a President's contingency fund. The amendment provides that this fund would be used to fund committees appointed by the Council to deal with matters in addition to the normal work of the Council's standing committees. No limit is imposed on the amount of money which could be appropriated for this purpose. Section 5 of the Constitution Act 1902 provides that all appropriation bills must originate in the Legislative Assembly. Section 5A deals with disagreements between the Council and the Assembly in relation to appropriation bills. Rather than providing that the Council can amend an appropriation bill, section 5A provides that the Council may return an appropriation bill to the Assembly with a message suggesting that an amendment be made to that bill by the Assembly.

The wording of section 5A is to be contrasted with that of section 5B, which contains the Constitution Act's general deadlock provision which expressly makes reference to the Council amending bills. Regardless of the foregoing, section 5A clearly provides that if the bill is returned to the Assembly with a message from the Council suggesting an amendment to which the Assembly does not agree, the Assembly may direct that the bill be presented to the Governor for assent. There is no time limit which must be observed by the Assembly before presenting the bill to the Governor. This amendment appears to operate as an open cheque to the Council to fund inquiries by its committees and it is opposed by the Government. Even if the amendment is supported by a majority in the Council, following receipt of the requisite message from the Council the Assembly can direct that the bill be submitted for assent.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [8.59]: I thank the Treasurer for that analysis, with which I totally agree. If this House wishes to express an opinion on or move an amendment to an appropriation bill, it can do so. If the Assembly does not agree with the amendment, it does not matter, because Assembly then immediately refers the bill to the Governor for assent anyway. The amendment is clearly a constitutional mechanism which allows the Legislative Council as a house of review to express a request to the government of the day that at a future time it should review its appropriations in a way that meets the objectives of the Council. That is the exact purpose of my amendment. I welcome the analysis provided by the Treasurer because it will provide significant comfort to the members of this House as it proceeds to support the amendment.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.00]: A lot of work needs to be done and I can feel a select committee coming on - perhaps one or two - in the next 12 months. A joint select committee could even be established. There was a problem in setting up the select committee on fisheries management: there was not enough money to fund it. The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on State Development, which will not be able to deal with it for months and months. The whole inquiry has been delayed by a supposed lack of funds, which I question. This is an admirable amendment and I will support it.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [9.01]: The Australian Democrats will also support the amendment. I take the Chamber back to the time when there was much discussion over many months on the restructuring of the Parliament and the funding of the Parliament on the initiation of Mr John Hatton when he was member for South Coast. He believed it was proper that both Houses have their own contingency funds. It was part of the charter of reform, I understand, but it was not fully implemented by the previous Government. The Treasurer said that there is no point in passing the amendment as the money he gave to the committees as Treasurer was not fully expended. It was not possible for the committees to expend the money because the Parliament was prorogued by the Premier from 27 January and the committees were not able to meet.

The only committees that could meet were those established by legislation, such as the committee oversighting the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Public Accounts Committee. However, the Standing Committee on State Development, the Standing Committee on Social Issues, which is the committee I chair, the Select Committee on Hospital Waiting Lists and, as my colleague the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has reminded me, the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics were not able to meet.

Obviously, if the committees could not meet because the Parliament was prorogued, their funding could not be spent. That does not prove that the committees did not need the money. The work of the committees was curtailed by the actions of the Government. It is proper that the President of the Legislative Council have a contingency fund. In some years a contingency fund may be used and in other years it may not be used. That is why it is called a contingency fund: it is to meet contingencies. There is no suggestion that every year the amount in the fund will be called upon. But as with the Senate, it is proper -

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: And prudent.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: - and prudent that the President of the Legislative Council have that contingency fund at his disposal. It is
Page 3713
common practice federally and I see no reason why it should not be common practice in this State. By proroguing the Parliament the Government saved a great deal of money. One of the reasons put forward by the Treasurer at the time the Parliament was prorogued was that it cost the people of New South Wales many dollars a day for the Parliament to sit and he believed, or the Premier believed, that it was not necessary for the Parliament to sit. I fully support the amendment and I hope other members will do the same.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.04]: I was a member of the estimates committee when this matter was discussed and passed by the committee. I support the amendment. I asked whether an amount of money should be specified, and the Treasurer has made that one of his major criticisms. The amendment says to the Treasurer that it is up to him to set the amount. The amendment states the principle, and the amount provided will be whatever the Treasurer considers reasonable. The amount could be adjusted in future years. If it is $50,000 and that amount is not used, it could stay at $50,000. If there is a need for more money, a larger amount could be provided.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Bull Mr Lynn
Mrs Chadwick Mrs Nile
Mr Cohen Rev. Nile
Mr Corbett Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Dr Goldsmith Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Hannaford
Mr Jones Tellers,
Mr Kersten Mr Jobling
Miss Kirkby Mr Moppett

Mrs Arena Mr Primrose
Dr Burgmann Ms Saffin
Ms Burnswoods Mr Shaw
Mr Dyer Ms Staunton
Mr Egan Mrs Symonds
Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan
Mr Kaldis Tellers,
Mr Macdonald Mrs Isaksen
Mr Obeid Mr Manson

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Suggested amendment agreed to.

Suggested new clause agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Committee will now deal with the State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Howard and Costello) Bill.

Clause 1

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [9.15]: I move Opposition amendment 1:

Page 2, clause 1, lines 3-4. Omit "Amendment (Howard and Costello)". Insert instead "Further Amendment".

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.15]: The Government fiercely opposes the amendment.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.15]: I support the amendment to delete "Howard and Costello" and insert instead "Further Amendment". I had decided to move a similar amendment. It is disgraceful to include "Howard and Costello" in the title of the bill. It was obviously a publicity stunt. The amendment is sensible and I fully support it.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [9.15]: On behalf of the Australian Democrats I support the amendment. I realise the anger felt by the Government about what the new Federal Government has done. However, legislation cannot be named after Federal Ministers merely because the Government does not like what they have done. Personalities must not be involved. It is fair, as a joke or even in debate, to make a satirical statement that it is the Howard and Costello bill. However, it is totally inappropriate to include "Howard and Costello" in the title of the bill. The title is in appallingly bad taste and must be changed. For that reason I support the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.16]: Call to Australia supports the amendment. I suggested that perhaps "Howard and Costello" should be replaced with "Keating and Beazley". However, to his credit the Leader of the Opposition said that he thought that would be going too far, and he did not support the idea. The amendment to delete "Howard and Costello" is a compromise.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 2, new Clause 6 and Schedule 2

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.17]: By leave, I move:

Page 2, clause 2, lines 8 and 9. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(2) Schedule 2 and Part 1 of Schedule 3 commence or are taken to have commenced on 1 July 1996. A reference to a payment or setting apart of money in the definition of superannuation benefit in section 3(1) of the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971 is a reference to a payment or setting apart in respect of services rendered after 30 June 1996.

Page 3714
The amendment will ensure that the change in tax rate and tax base commences on 1 July 1996. It includes a transitional measure designed to ensure that payroll tax does not apply to employer contributions to superannuation schemes in respect of services rendered by employees before 1 July 1996. When employees make contributions to superannuation schemes covering a period before 1 July 1996 and a period after 1 July 1996, payroll tax will only be levied on that proportion of the contribution paid in respect of the service by employees after 1 July 1996.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [9.20]: The Opposition supports the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [9.20]: By leave, I move amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in globo:

Page 2, clause 2, lines 10-34. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(3) Part 2 of Schedule 3 commences on the earliest of the following days:

(a) 1 July 1999,

(b) a day to be appointed by proclamation for the purposes of this paragraph,

(c) the first day of the first quarter after the tabling in a House of Parliament of a report under section 6 stating that the sum of $902 million has been received by the State as a result of the amendments made by this Act.

Page 3. Insert after line 6:

6 Reports on operation of amendments

(1) The Treasurer is to prepare a report as soon as possible after the end of each quarter (commencing with the quarter in which this Act commences):

(a) stating as accurately as possible how much revenue has been received by the State during the quarter as a result of the amendments made by each of the Schedules to this Act, and

(b) describing the financial results since the commencement of this Act of the amendments made by each of the Schedules to this Act, and

(c) outlining alternatives that may be appropriate to deal with:

(i) the issues that led to or were considered in connection with the enactment of this Act, and

(ii) any issues that arise from the enactment and operation of this Act, and

(d) stating whether or not the sum of $902 million has been received by the State as a result of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) The Treasurer is to table, or cause to be tabled, a copy of the report in each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of the House after the end of the quarter. If the information needed to complete the report is not available within that period, copies of the report are to be tabled as soon as possible after the information becomes available.

(3) The requirement for reports to be prepared and tabled under this section ceases:

(a) when a report has been tabled under this section stating that the sum of $902 million has been received by the State as a result of the amendments made by this Act, or

(b) when the following have occurred:

(i) the relevant year referred to in section 3AG(5) of the Land Tax Act 1956 has ended, and

(ii) the interim period referred to in Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971 has ended, and

(iii) Part 2 of Schedule 3 has commenced.

(4) In this section and section 2:

quarter means a period of 3 months ending with the last day of March, June, September or December.

Page 6, Schedule 1[2], proposed section 3AG, lines 6-33. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(5) In this section:

amending Act means the Act that inserted this section into this Act.

relevant year means the earliest of the following years:

(a) 1999,

(b) a calendar year to be appointed by proclamation for the purposes of this paragraph (being 1997 or 1998),

(c) the calendar year during which a report is tabled in a House of Parliament under section 6 of the amending Act stating that the sum of $902 million has been received by the State as a result of the amendments made by the amending Act.

Pages 10-12, Schedule 2[6]-[9], line 1 on page 10 to line 15 on page 12. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

[6] Schedule 2, Part 4

Insert after Part 3:

Part 4 Rates

13 Definitions

(1) In this Schedule:

R means (subject to clause 15):

(a) for a financial year occurring during the interim period - 6.85, and

(b) for a financial year occurring after the interim period - 6.7.

(2) In this Part:

amending Act means the Act that inserted this Part into this Schedule.

financial year means the financial year commencing on 1 July 1996 or on 1 July in any subsequent financial year.

interim period means the interim period referred to in clause 14.

quarter means a period of 3 months ending with the last day of March, June, September or December.

Page 3715

14 Interim period

For the purposes of this Schedule, the interim period is the period commencing on 1 July 1996 and ending on the earliest of the following:

(a) 30 June 1999,

(b) 30 June of a financial year to be appointed by proclamation for the purposes of this paragraph (being the financial year ending 30 June 1997 or 30 June 1998),

(c) 30 June of the financial year during which a report is tabled in a House of Parliament under section 6 of the amending Act stating that the sum of $902 million has been received by the State as a result of the amendments made by the amending Act.

15 Arrangements where reduction is to occur from 1 January

(1) This clause applies if:

(a) a proclamation under clause 14(b) provides that this clause is to apply from 1 January of the last financial year of the interim period, or

(b) a report referred to in clause 14(c) is tabled during the first two quarters of the last financial year of the interim period.

(2) Where this clause applies:

(a) R is, for the purposes of this Schedule, taken to be 6.775 for the last financial year of the interim period, and

(b) the pay-roll tax rate at which pay-roll tax is to be calculated and paid for the first two quarters of that last financial year is taken to be 6.85%, and

(c) the pay-roll tax rate at which pay-roll tax is to be calculated and paid for the last two quarters of that last financial year is taken to be 6.7%.

Page 12, Schedule 2[10], lines 18-19. Omit "Amendment (Howard and Costello)". Insert instead "Further Amendment".

Essentially these amendments relate to the need for the Government to report. The tax amendments relate to three Acts, the Stamp Duties Act, the Pay-roll Tax Act and the Land Tax Act. These are growth taxes. The Government, on any quick upturn of the economy, could recoup the funding that it is seeking to make up as a result of a lack of assistance from the Commonwealth Government. The Opposition believes that the Government should report to the Parliament on the progress that it is making in regard to these growth taxes. Whilst the Act provides for a two-year limit to be imposed on those three taxes it is possible for the Government to recoup that amount of money before then. The Government must be accountable and report to the Parliament so we know exactly what the position is.

The amendments will ensure that once that amount of funding is recouped the taxes will cancel out. The maximum period within which these taxes will apply will be fixed in the legislation. This enlightened approach to accountability and reporting to the Parliament will ensure that the taxpayer, who is already burdened, gets a fair go. The Opposition will not debate the Government's decision to impose the taxes. Other remedies were available to the Government, including efficiency and cash flow provisions. However, the Government sought to move by imposing land tax, payroll tax and stamp duties. Once that money is recouped the taxes should cut out.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.24]: These interesting amendments will have interesting consequences if they are agreed to. It appears on the surface that the amendments, which are fairly straightforward, will lead to open accounting. But I do not believe the Hon. J. M. Samios realises that they will cause more problems.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.25]: The Government strongly opposes these amendments. The effect of Opposition amendment 2 would be to set, for a maximum of three years, a higher stamp duty, which would end on 1 July 1999. The Government's legislation provides a cut-off date six months earlier than that. The Government's legislation is designed to raise only $540 million in revenue, whereas the amendment moved by the Opposition would enable the raising of up to $902 million in revenue. Honourable members should be aware of that fact before they vote on these amendments.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: They are good amendments.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the Opposition think they are good amendments. However, I do not and I am sure that the taxpayers of New South Wales do not. The other difficulties we have relate to the reporting requirements. The reporting requirements in the Opposition's amendments cannot be complied with by Treasury from within its own resources; only the stamp duty revenue can be sensibly calculated. The land tax liability will be assessed on 31 December figures. The quarterly report will be based merely on the payments made. No effective changes to the tax rates can be made before the following 31 December. The additional payroll tax that is collected will be reported only if the 17,000 taxpayers calculate the additional revenue raised. Treasury does not collect such superfluous data to minimise red tape and compliance costs. The Government opposes the amendments.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Page 3716

Mr Bull Mrs Nile
Mrs Chadwick Rev. Nile
Mr Cohen Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Dr Goldsmith Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Hannaford Mr Willis
Mr Jones
Mr Kersten Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Mr Jobling
Mr Lynn Mr Moppett

Mrs Arena Mr Primrose
Dr Burgmann Ms Saffin
Ms Burnswoods Mr Shaw
Mr Corbett Ms Staunton
Mr Dyer Mrs Symonds
Mr Egan Mr Vaughan
Mr Johnson
Mr Kaldis Tellers,
Mr Macdonald Mrs Isaksen
Mr Obeid Mr Manson

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses and schedule as amended agreed to.

Appropriation Bill reported from Committee without amendment, Appropriation (Parliament) Bill reported with a suggested amendment, State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Howard and Costello) Bill reported with amendments, and cognate bills reported without amendment, and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 2 May.

The Hon. I. COHEN [9.41]: I support the bill, which will implement a crucial aspect of the Government's greening of Sydney policy - the establishment of regional parks. When the Government came to office it abolished the Urban Parks Agency which had carriage of the Centennial Park and Bicentennial Park Trusts and had been given the task by the former Government of establishing other regional parks. The previous Government's policy of having a separate agency was a worthy one that should have been pursued. However, this Government has a clearly enunciated policy which this bill will implement. I believe that the Government has a general mandate to implement that policy. I am not persuaded that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is the most appropriate agency to establish such parks. However, I will not oppose such a move. When the Government introduced the bill, the conservation movement raised a number of concerns.

I thank the National Parks Association of New South Wales, the Total Environment Centre and the Colong Foundation for Wilderness for their comments on and contribution to the legislation. The Government and the Opposition have been most constructive in resolving concerns that have been expressed. I note in particular the contribution of Mr Patrick Holland of the office of the Minister for the Environment. The Government has acknowledged many of the concerns expressed by me and by the conservation movement. When the bill was first released a number of key issues emerged. The bill will establish regional parks - a new category of park - which will meet the Government's commitments under its greening of Sydney policy. The care, control and management of these urban parks will be vested in local trusts.

The Government made a commitment to establish new parks at Horsley Park and Rouse Hill - a significant commitment for the people living in western Sydney. Other areas should also be considered - areas such as Penrith Lakes, Lake Gillawarrna, Chipping Norton Lakes near Liverpool and Bankstown, and Smiths Creek near Campbelltown. The bill will amend certain provisions relating to State recreation area trusts. I do not generally support trusts. The conservation movement can point to many examples where trusts have abused their responsibilities in managing such areas. I accept that in many cases this view is not shared by the Opposition. I note that under the Crown Lands Act the administration of most State recreation areas will be transferred to the Department of Land and Water Conservation. In the main, this will relate to inland dam State recreation areas but it will apply also to Killalea near Bass Point in the Illawarra.

The inclusion of some parks under the Crown Lands Act and some under the National Parks and Wildlife Act was first proposed by the Hon. Tim Moore and the Hon. Garry West when they were Ministers under the Greiner Government. In 1992 a legislative committee reported on the transfer of State recreation areas to the Crown Lands Act, in particular Killalea, Bents Basin and Arakoon. Only Bents Basin and Arakoon trusts will be retained under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. In addition, much of the 2,000 hectare Wyangala Dam State recreation area is worthy of protection under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. I hope that the Government will consider this proposal. While I do not like the loss of State recreation areas from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, I accept that it has the apparent support of both the Opposition and the Government. I welcome the retention of Bents Basin and Arakoon. When the bill was first introduced I referred to a number of problems, for example, the method of revocation, the definition of
Page 3717
regional parks, the current definition of State recreation areas, the operation of trusts, the making of plans of management and improved public consultation.

The bill will improve the current system. Plans of management can now be prepared by the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife. Trusts, which will be made more accountable, will come under the direction of the director-general. The revocation of State recreation areas and regional parks could be affected by the laying of notices before both Houses for 15 days and the notification of this revocation being published in the Government Gazette. The revocation of national parks, nature reserves and other areas is possible only through an Act of Parliament and after proper consideration and debate. Areas that are reserved or dedicated under the National Parks and Wildlife Act will be reserved in perpetuity. The Government has accepted the argument that a schedule of revocation is not appropriate where such a schedule may not be amended or changed. I thank it for its consideration of the merits of this issue.

The Government's definition for regional parks, which are essentially urban in nature, was also referred to. Concern was expressed about the fact that the definition did not preclude a government from making an area suitable as a nature reserve, a national park, or a regional park. The revised definition is a marked improvement. I thank the Minister and the shadow minister in the other place for their constructive contributions. I am pleased with the direction that that amendment has taken. Another matter that has been referred to is the process for the making of plans of management under the Act. It is assumed that trusts operate in relation to all State recreation areas, but this is not and has not been the case for many years. The Government has taken this issue on board and will amend the bill in Committee to ensure that the National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council plays a proper role.

I ask the Government to consult widely with the community on its environmental legislation. Although my office has been consulting with the Minister's office and the Opposition for some time on possible amendments, I received the final amendments only today. I appreciate the Government's difficulties as I have sought further consultation. The Cape Byron area is worthy of regional park status rather State recreation area status. I do not believe that this option was adequately canvassed with the trust. I accept that the trust is well regarded in the community and by the conservation movement. I support the endeavours of the trust and the Minister's consultative committee on conservation reserves in the Byron area. I hope that after consideration of that committee report we will see progress in this area.

In conclusion, I support the bill and the Government's amendments to be moved in Committee. I appreciate the fact that the Government consulted with the Opposition, even if agreement could not be reached on all matters. I am disappointed that the Government did not amend the definition of a State recreation area. However I seek an assurance from the Minister that the State recreation area issue will be reviewed in the light of its current inadequate definition and the declaration by successive governments of recent State recreation areas. I thank the Minister and his staff for their forbearance. I commend the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.48]: I am opposed to the creation of a new reserve category of regional parks, as was my deceased esteemed colleague Milo Dunphy. I believe that such an action could serve to reduce the number and extent of new national parks and frustrate future attempts to convert to national parks existing State recreation areas and nature reserves of conservation significance and high conservation value. While the purpose of the bill is to accommodate urban parks, with the primary purpose of providing regional open space and recreational opportunities, there is no strict definition within the bill of what constitutes a regional park. Therefore, in practice, any area of land, whether of conservation value or not, could in fact be gazetted as a regional park - that is existing as well as any future national parks, nature reserves and State recreation areas.

If such parks are reserved as and converted into regional parks, they will most certainly be less likely to become national parks in the future. This is a matter of some concern to conservationists, as many existing State recreation areas are prime candidates for being converted into national parks immediately - for example, the Nattai group, Yerranderle, Bargo, Garawarra, Parr and Bungonia State recreation areas. This is, of course, not the only concern. Areas of conservation significance and high conservation value which become regional parks will also not be adequately managed, nor will their conservation value be adequately safeguarded. As the bill now stands, regional parks are merely defined as areas capable of providing regional open space and recreational opportunities. While the director-general is to instigate the drafting of a plan of management for each regional park, there is no provision which requires regard to be given to their preservation and conservation values. There is also no provision for public exhibition and therefore scrutiny of such plans by members of the public or independent expert bodies, such as the National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council, and any regional park can be revoked at any time by the Minister for the Environment merely by publishing a notice in the Government Gazette.

However, I understand that the Government will move amendments in Committee to the following effect: only areas that have been substantially modified since European occupation, capable of providing open space and recreational
Page 3718
opportunities and unsuitable for reservation in another category, shall be reserved as regional parks; regard shall be given to the preservation and conservation values of each regional park, and the restoration and regeneration of such lands during the preparation of management plans by the director-general; notice shall be given that on the preparation of such plans any interested party can make representations to the director-general regarding them, and the National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council shall be able to consider and advise on them; and regional parks will only be revoked and land within them appropriated or resumed by an Act of Parliament. These amendments will fully address my concerns. I am, therefore, wholeheartedly in support of the bill as it will be amended. I also commend the Government for having the insight to make very thoughtful and productive legislation out of what could have been rather destructive measures for the New South Wales environment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.52]: Call to Australia is pleased to support the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Bill. The object of the bill is to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 to create a new category of land reserved under the Act, referred to as regional parks, the primary purpose of which will be the provision of open space and recreational opportunities. Obviously, the bill does not refer to national parks. I do not believe there is any reason for concern and, in the long run, if regional parks are added to national parks that can only be a positive move and one which will benefit the community. There is an urgent need for the preservation of open space and recreational opportunities in the suburban areas - particularly of Sydney, but the same would apply in Wollongong and Newcastle.

One of the things that has concerned me when I have visited new housing developments is that often there will be what appears to be a park with land, trees and grass, and with houses built around it and the residents of the area have the impression that it is a park. Sometimes, when all the other areas are built out, suddenly the area will be subdivided and houses built on that surviving piece of open land; and eventually the area becomes as crowded as some of the inner city suburbs of years past. I urge the Government to examine the situation to ensure that when new housing developments are planned open space recreational opportunities are provided and that open space is protected. This bill will achieve that objective.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [9.54], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Bill will establish the legislative framework for the management of a world-class system of regional parks under the control of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. This major new initiative of the Government will provide recreational opportunities for major urban and regional populations, and protect the State's valuable urban bushland. I foreshadow that the Government will move a number of amendments in Committee. These amendments have resulted from discussions between the office of the Minister for the Environment and the staff of four Independent members of this House - the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, the Hon. I. Cohen, the Hon. A. G. Corbett and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. I understand that there is general support for the proposed amendments. On behalf of my colleague the Minister for the Environment I thank those members of the crossbenches for their constructive involvement with the Government in respect of these matters, and for helping to formulate the amendments which have strengthened the conservation emphasis of the Government's regional parks initiative. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [9.57]: By leave, I move amendments 1, 2, 4 and 5 in globo:

Page 3, Schedule 1[1]. After line 5, insert:

local council means the council of a local government area.

Page 3, Schedule 1[1], line 11. After "47GA", insert "in respect of the Arakoon, Bents Basin or Cape Byron state recreation area".

Page 7, Schedule 1[21], heading to proposed section 47GA, line 14. After "trusts", insert "for certain state recreation areas".

Page 7, Schedule 1[21], proposed section 47GA(1), lines 15 to 18. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(1) The Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, establish and name an SRA trust and appoint it as trustee of any one or more of the following state recreation areas (or as trustee of any one or more parts of one or more of the following state recreation areas):

(a) Arakoon state recreation area,

(b) Bents Basin state recreation area,

(c) Cape Byron state recreation area.

Amendment 1 deals with the change in the bill already discussed at the second reading stage, which enables local government to stand in the place of a trust and manage a regional park, rather than the National Parks and Wildlife Service doing that. The option will be used only when councils have demonstrated strong commitment to the management of the park concerned. Most of the remaining Government amendments, which will be moved in globo, are consequential on amendment 1, for they deal with the need to cover local government. Amendments 2, 4 and 5 deal with the possibility of having trusts manage State recreation areas.

This change incorporates the views of conservation groups that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is the most appropriate manager for such lands. However, the Minister has indicated
Page 3719
her support for the retention of trusts in relation to the three State recreation areas which are currently reserved under the Crown Land Act and will be reserved under the Act by virtue of the bill - Arakoon, Bents Basin and Cape Byron. On my visit to Cape Byron last year, accompanied by the Minister, the members of the Cape Byron trust made very persuasive representations to the Minister and the committee as to why the trust should continue to play a role there.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.01]: The Opposition generally supports the amendments, or at least does not oppose them, but does have some difficulties with the manner in which consultation has taken place with regard to the amendments. The amendments change the bill fairly extensively. The Opposition was given some notice of the amendments about a fortnight ago, but has not seen the text of the amendments until today. In the main, the Opposition agrees with the amendments. However, some of our local members - for example, the honourable member for Camden with regard to Bents Basin - would have liked time to consult with some of the parties affected by these important amendments, for example local government authorities, to ensure their support for these changes. The Opposition has not had the opportunity for consultation. We support the changes, with the caveat that we are not able to speak authoritatively because of that inability to consult.

As the Government has said, this group of amendments provides for two policy changes. Firstly, it provides that the trusts will no longer manage State recreation areas, with the exception of Arakoon recreation area, Bents Basin and Cape Byron. The Opposition has some concerns about that decision, in that in many instances trusts are regarded as an important source of community input into the management of recreation areas. The Opposition does not for a moment suggest that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is not an appropriate authority, particularly in the city, to manage these parks, but believes that in many instances these trusts are valued. To some extent those concerns are met by the retention of trusts in the three recreation areas which have been named. The Opposition is happy to support the amendments, with the caveat that it has not necessarily had the chance to consult as extensively as it would have liked.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.03]: The amendments ensure that the trusts for Bents Basin, Arakoon and Cape Byron are retained while other State recreation areas do not have trusts. Although I generally do not support trusts, I accept that these trusts have acted responsibly and should be retained in the circumstances. I support the amendments to the bill.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [10.04]: I move Government amendment 3:

Page 3, Schedule 1[4], lines 24 to 26. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(b2) the areas to be reserved as regional parks are areas that have been substantially modified since European occupation and that:

(i) are capable of providing open space and recreational opportunities for major regional population centres, and

(ii) are unsuitable for reservation or dedication as another category of land under this Act,

This amendment deals with the definition of a regional park; it adds more details and specifically allows for regional parks to be established in metropolitan areas in the greater Sydney area or other major regional centres. These regional parks are intended to provide a range of open space and recreational opportunities - for example, the first two regional parks already announced by the Premier at Horsley Park and Rouse Hill - and the sorts of services that have been underprovided in these areas up until now. The second important part of the definition deals with ensuring a plan of management for a regional park to address the preservation of conservation values and the restoration and regeneration of bushland.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.05]: The Opposition supports the amendment. It would be fair to say that when the bill was introduced this was intended as the working definition of regional parks. I do not think there was an intention to call any areas regional parks unless they had been substantially modified since European occupation. I am sure that every effort would have been made to define an area as a recreation area, a national park or a wilderness area if that had been particularly applicable. The sorts of parks named in the second reading speech - such as the western Sydney recreation park, Rouse Hill, William Howe park and so on - are areas known to have been substantially modified. I am sure that those areas will be valuably managed as regional parks, which is virtually what they are.

The only reservation one might have with this amendment is that it virtually rules out economic reasons as a purpose for reserving land for regional park rather than declaring it a State recreation area or a national park. By and large there is no practical difference in the sorts of areas of land which will be considered for this purpose. I understand that in the discussion on these amendments one amendment that was circulating would have defined State recreation areas very tightly and would have made them near wilderness areas. That would have been of concern to the Opposition. I am pleased that that amendment - which I imagine would have been in similar terms to this amendment - did not emerge, because the Opposition would not have been in a position to support it. The Opposition is quite happy to support what would otherwise have been a working definition for regional parks in any event.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.06]: The amendment provides a revised definition of regional parks. This is an improved definition in that it incorporates the concept of an area disturbed
Page 3720
through European occupation, with open space and recreational opportunities related to regional population centres not suitable for reservation as national parks, nature reserves or State recreational areas. I support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [10.07]: By leave, I move Government amendments 6, 24 and 25:

Page 11. After line 13, insert:

[23] Section 47L

Omit the section. Insert instead:

47L Revocation or compulsory acquisition of state recreation area

(1) Despite anything in this or any other Act:

(a) the reservation of land as, or as part of, a state recreation area is not to be revoked, or

(b) land within a state recreation area is not to be appropriated or resumed,

except by an Act of Parliament.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) prevents:

(a) the compulsory acquisition under this Act of land within a state recreation area if the reservation of the land as, or as part of, the state recreation area is not affected by the compulsory acquisition, or

(b) the withdrawal of land from, or the termination of, any lease, licence or occupancy in accordance with its terms and conditions.

Page 19, Schedule 1[25], proposed section 47ZB, line 30. Omit "in accordance with this section", insert instead "by an Act of Parliament".

Pages 20 and 21, Schedule 1[25], proposed section 47ZB, lines 1 to 40 on page 20, and lines 1 to 5 on page 21. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) prevents:

(a) the compulsory acquisition under this Act of land within a regional park if the reservation of the land as, or as part of, the regional park is not affected by the compulsory acquisition, or

(b) the withdrawal of land from, or the termination of, any lease, licence or occupancy in accordance with its terms and conditions.

These three amendments deal with the revocation of State recreation areas and regional parks. In the original bill this could have been done by gazettal. However, this set of amendments strengthens the legislation by providing that revocation of a regional park or State recreation area must be done by Act of Parliament. It is an important level of protection, and the Government is happy to strengthen the legislation in this way.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.08]: The Opposition supports the amendments, which give regional parks and State recreation areas a greater level of security - than that enjoyed by St Vincent's hospital perhaps - in that they can only be abolished by an Act of Parliament. If some honourable members think that my comments are outside the leave of the amendment, they might refer to the fact that the second reading speech indicates that three of the seven proposed regional parks are in fact former hospital grounds, such as Rozelle, Gladesville and Concord hospital grounds. The amendments bring the revocation of these parks into line with national parks and wilderness areas. It rarely happens that they are otherwise revoked by gazettal. The Opposition supports the amendments in that they largely implement what is the case in practice, that these revocations would not normally occur without sufficient extensive consultation, and if done by regulation they could be subject to disallowance in the House in any event.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.10]: These amendments provide for revocation by Act of Parliament rather than by gazettal and the laying before both Houses of a notice. The measure allows for debate in the Parliament and greater accountability, which are of utmost importance. I support the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [10.10]: By leave, I move Government amendments 7 to 23 and 26 to 42 in globo:

Page 13, Schedule 1[25], proposed section 47O(3)(c), line 26. Omit "trust.", insert instead:

trust, or

(iii) if a local council has, with the concurrence of the council, been nominated by the Minister in the notice - in the council.

Page 14, Schedule 1[25], proposed section 47O. After line 4, insert:

(7) A local council may not be nominated by the Minister under subsection (3)(c)(iii) in respect of a regional park if the regional park is wholly or partly within the area of another local council, except with the consent of the other council.

(8) A local council nominated under subsection (3)(c)(iii) by the Minister:

(a) has, subject to this Act, the care, control and management of the regional park concerned, and

(b) has the powers and functions conferred or imposed on it by or under this Act, and

(c) is, in the exercise of such powers and functions, subject to the control and direction of the Minister.

Page 15, Schedule 1[25], proposed section 47R(3), line 14. After "land,", insert "or any local council nominated by the Minister under section 47O,".

Page 17, Schedule 1[25], proposed section 47U. After line 6, insert:

(3) If a local council has the care, control and management of a regional park, the council may, with the written consent of the Minister (and subject to any conditions imposed in giving that consent) grant any such leases or licences.

Page 17, Schedule 1[25]. heading to proposed section 47V, line 7. Omit "by regional park trusts".

Page 17, Schedule 1[25], proposed section 47V. After line 22, insert:

Page 3721

(3) If a local council has the care, control and management of a regional park, the council must:

(a) provide reports to the Minister at such times, concerning such matters, and specifying such information, as may be required by the Minister, and

(b) keep such records as may be required by the Minister, and

(c) at the Minister's request, give the Minister such information as the Minister requires in relation to the care, control and management of the park by the council, and

(d) at the Minister's request, send to the Minister such records kept by the council in relation to the care, control and management of the park as the Minister requires.

Page 17, Schedule 1[25], heading to proposed section 47W, line 23. Omit "of regional park trust", insert instead "and audit".

Page 17, Schedule 1[25], proposed section 47W. After line 26, insert:

(2) If a local council has the care, control and management of a regional park, the Minister may appoint a person to inquire into, or carry out an audit of, any of the affairs of the council in relation to the park.

Page 17, Schedule 1[25], proposed section 47W(2)(a), line 30. After "trust", insert "or the local council in respect of the regional park".

Page 17, Schedule 1[25], proposed section 47W(2)(b), line 33. After "trust", insert "or the local council".

Page 17, Schedule 1[25], proposed section 47W(2)(b), line 35. After "trust", insert "or the local council in respect of the regional park".

Page 18, Schedule 1[25], proposed section 47W(3), line 2. After "trust", insert "or local council".

Page 18, Schedule 1[25], proposed section 47W(3), line 4. After "trust", insert "or council".

Page 18, Schedule 1[25], heading to proposed section 47X, line 15. After "members", insert "or local council".

Page 18, Schedule 1[25], proposed section 47X. After line 27, insert:

(3) The Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, appoint an administrator:

(a) to have the care, control and management of a regional park instead of a local council as nominated by the Minister under section 47O(3)(c)(iii), and

(b) to exercise any of the functions of the local council in respect of the regional park.

Page 19, Schedule 1[25], heading to proposed section 47Y, line 5. After "trusts", insert "and revocation of nomination of local councils".

Page 19, Schedule 1[25], proposed section 47Y. After line 11, insert:

(3) The Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, revoke the nomination of a local council under section 47O(3)(c)(iii) and transfer the care, control and management of the regional park concerned to the Director-General. Any such notice takes effect on the date of publication or such later date as is specified in the notice.

(4) On the date that a notice under subsection (3) takes effect, the care, control and management of the regional park concerned is vested in the Director-General and the following provisions have effect:

(a) any act, matter or thing done or omitted to be done before that date by, to or in respect of the local council in relation to the park is (to the extent that that act, matter or thing has any force or effect) taken to have been done or omitted by, to or in respect of the Director-General, and

(b) a reference in any instrument of any kind to the local council (in so far as it relates to the care, control and management of the park) is to be read as a reference to the Director-General.

Page 21, Schedule 1[26], line 10. After "park", insert "(other than a park that is under the care, control and management of a local council)".

Page 21, Schedule 1[26]. After line 11, insert:

(1B) If a local council is nominated by the Minister to have the care, control and management of a regional park, the council is to cause a plan of management to be prepared for the regional park as soon as practicable after the reservation of the land concerned.

Page 21. After line 16, insert:

[29] Section 72(4)(e1)

Insert after section 72(4)(e):

(e1) the preservation of any conservation values in respect of each regional park, and the restoration and regeneration (where appropriate) of the land concerned,

Page 21. After line 19, insert:

[30] Section 74(2)

Insert "(or, if a regional park is under the care, control and management of a local council, the council)" after "The Director-General".

Page 21, Schedule 1[31], lines 24 and 25. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

Omit section 75A(1)-(4). Insert instead:

(1) If a plan of management has been prepared for a state recreation area or regional park (including a regional park that is under the care, control and management of a local council), the Director-General, or the local council concerned, must give notice as prescribed by the regulations that the plan of management has been prepared and must, in that notice:

(a) specify the address of the place at which copies of the plan of management may be inspected, and

(b) specify the address to which representations in connection with the plan of management may be sent.

(2) Any person interested (including the relevant SRA trust or regional park trust, if any) may, within one month or such longer period as may be specified in the notice, make representations in connection with the plan to the Director-General, or to the local council if the plan relates to a regional park under the council's care, control and management.

(3) After the end of the period referred to in subsection (2), the Director-General, or the local council, must refer the plan of management, and any representations sent in accordance with that subsection, to the National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council for its consideration and advice.

Page 3722

(3A) The Director-General, or the local council, must then submit the plan of management to the Minister together with any comments or suggestions of the Advisory Council.

(3B) The Minister is to consider the comments and suggestions of the Advisory Council before adopting the plan of management.

(4) The Minister may adopt the plan of management without alteration or with such alterations as the Minister thinks fit, or may refer it back to the Director-General, local council or Advisory Council for further consideration.

Page 22, Schedule 1[32], lines 1 to 4. Omit all words on those lines.

Page 22, Schedule 1[35], line 16. Omit "trust.", insert instead:

, trust, or

(c) by the local council (if any) that has the care, control and management of the regional park.

Page 23, Schedule 1[40], line 14. Omit "whereever", insert instead "wherever".

Page 23. After line 16, insert:

[42] Section 138(4)

Insert after section 138(3):

(4) A reference in subsection (1)(b)(i) or (e) to a regional park does not include a reference to a regional park that is, or is proposed to be, under the care, control and management of a local council.

Page 26. After line 4, insert:

[59] Section 177 Compensation

Omit "or any trustees holding office under this Act" from section 177(1).

Insert instead "or any SRA trust or regional park trust, or any local council having the care, control and management of a regional park".

Page 29, Schedule 1[61], proposed clause 3(1) of proposed Schedule 9A, line 20. After "trust,", insert "the care, control and management of the relevant state recreation area or regional park vests in the Director-General,".

Page 34, Schedule 1[61], proposed clause 7 of proposed Schedule 10, line 8. After "regional park trust", insert ", or of a local council in relation to the care, control and management of a regional park".

Page 35, Schedule 2.1[1], line 5. After "park", insert "(other than a park under the care, control and management of a council)".

Page 36, Schedule 2.4[1], line 3. After "park", insert "(other than a park under the care, control and management of a council)".

Page 36, Schedule 2.4[2], line 6. After "park", insert "(other than a park under the care, control and management of a council)".

Page 36, Schedule 2.5, lines 10 and 11. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

Omit the definition of National Parks and Wildlife reserve.

Insert instead:

National Parks and Wildlife reserve means any land reserved or dedicated under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 other than a regional park under the care, control and management of a council.

Page 36. After line 11, insert:

[2] Dictionary

Insert at the end of the definition of public land:

, or

(e) a regional park under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

In essence, all of the above amendments are consequential upon Government amendment 1, with local government being introduced as an alternative manager in the legislation. The amendments in one way or another, all deal with that change.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.11]: As the Hon. Jan Burnswoods has said, these amendments are largely consequential on the policy decisions that the Committee has already made. Lovers of trivia may notice that amendment 33 corrects a typographical error in the bill. The amendments set up the machinery to enable local government participation in the management of regional parks. There are excellent examples of local government participation in the funding of the management of the proposed regional parks. The Parramatta City Council, for example, has largely participated in and to some degree funded the management of the Parramatta park. It is my understanding that the Council of the Shire of Hornsby is anxious to participate in the management of the Berowra Valley regional park. These amendments provide that if local government authorities contribute financially to the management of the parks they will not be subject to certain levies; they will be able to keep the proceeds of certain commercial leases, licences and gate keepings.

The amendments provide for a certain level of oversight by the State Government. The one reservation I would make about some of the oversight mechanisms is that they represent fairly big sticks. I draw the attention of honourable members to amendment 14, which provides that if a local council has the care, control and management of a regional park the Minister may appoint a person to inquire into or carry out an audit of any of the affairs of the council in relation to the park. One would have hoped that local government would be consulted on the amendment. The amendment allows a fair level of scrutiny of a local government authority by the Minister responsible for the parks. One would hope that if such scrutiny is ever undertaken the Minister would appoint a person who is at least agreeable to the local government authority involved and that there would be consultation about the areas concerned and negotiation about the criteria to be used in such evaluation.

It was my understanding that the bill sought to make local government a partner in the management of regional parks and State recreational areas - not a lackey. The amendments also deal with issues that may arise when certain regional parks cover a number of local government areas. The proposed western Sydney regional park, for example, encompasses almost every local government area in
Page 3723
the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils - WSROC - other than Campbelltown and Camden. It will therefore be necessary to work through turf fights. By and large the amendments are machinery measures. The Opposition supports the amendments, with the reservation that it is hoped that despite the draconian appearance of some of the amendments they will be implemented in a cooperative spirit.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.14]: It should be noted that the passage of these amendments is being undertaken in a cooperative spirit, which bodes well, I hope, for future environmental policy making. These amendments provide for the appointment of local government as a trust of regional parks. The amendments are consequential to the policy decision already made and I support them.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.


Motion by the Hon. J. W. Shaw agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Wednesday, 11 September 1996, at 11.00 a.m., unless the President, or if the President is unable to act on account of illness or other cause the Chairman of Committees, prior to that date by communication addressed to each member of the House fixes an alternative day and/or hour of meeting.

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

Motion by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby agreed to:

That the reporting date for the Interim Report of the Select Committee on Hospital Waiting Lists be extended from 28 June 1996 to 12 September 1996.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.20]: Other members have talked about social justice and community services. I would like to give a perspective on the financial direction for New South Wales. The Government is not showing leadership in many matters. For evidence of that one only has to look at recent events, particularly the Bengalla mine legislation dealing with SEPP 45 and the RZM and Tomago sands issues, with the resultant greenhouse gas emissions from those types of activities.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is too much conversation in the House. I warn again if the chatter in the President's Gallery does not stop I will clear the gallery.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I believe we have seen an evolution of economists. Today we have ecological economists who do not accept that the environment is properly treated as a set of externalities; they believe that we need to begin to see just how deeply dependent we are on the natural world for our material, psychological and spiritual wellbeing. True to their emphasis on the intimate connection between humans and the natural world, ecological economists take a very long-term view. They think about what the world will be like in 200 years time and have a strong ethical commitment to equity between generations - to generational justice, not simply social justice within the current generation.

The marketplace is imbued with short-term thinking, and its refusal to consider the long-term implications of economic activity is threatening the future health of our planet. This does not mean that environmentalists are opposed to the market, but they argue that the market should operate in a regulatory environment that makes sure that future generations are looked after. In general it will be found that environmentalists believe that the market is a good servant but a bad master. Obviously, the perspective of ecological economists represents a dramatically different view of the world and the economy than the conventional perspective we read about in the newspapers, that is talked about by our politicians and that business people take for granted. Environmentalism and ecological economics are based on a fundamentally different philosophical perspective. It is a philosophy that puts the biosphere at the centre and rejects the human-centred view of the world that so imbues our every thought and action.

But beneath the political debates, differences in philosophy often lead to total incomprehension when environmentalists and business people are engaged in a dispute over preserving old-growth forests, mining in Kakadu, or measures to prevent climate change. But the differences need not be so great as to mean that one side has to win at the expense of the other. Many of the proposals advocated by environmentalists are strongly in the interests of business and the economy in general. An impression has been created in the media, in the business world and among policy makers that looking after the environment must be at the cost of income growth. In particular, the question is often posed in terms of jobs or the environment. Green economics is seen by many as a threat to business as usual. It is a threat to business as usual, but it is not a threat to business as such. There need to be some dramatic changes in the way businesses carry out their operations. Some industries inevitably will decline. The fossil fuel industries are a case in point. On the other hand, many industries, existing and new, will boom as a result of more stringent
Page 3724
measures to protect the natural environment. Indeed, the environment industries are some of the fastest growing sectors of the world economy. It is worth quoting from the 1994 House of Representatives inquiry into green jobs:

Worldwide, the market for environmental goods and services is already larger than the aerospace market. While the world market for the pollution control and waste management sectors of the industry are expected to grow by at least five per cent per year, a much higher growth rate is forecast for South-east Asia which will provide substantial opportunities for Australian industry.

The inquiry found that, based on OECD estimates, employment in the Australian pollution control industry could grow by at least 20,000 by the year 2000. If Australia could capture just 2 per cent of the world market by 2000, some $8 billion of business could generate 150,000 jobs. Thus regulation stimulates innovation, providing countries that get in early with a first mover advantage. Other countries have inevitably followed the leaders in introducing stricter emission controls as air and water quality decline; they must buy the technology from the early leaders. We hear the loudest noises from businesses being asked to clean up their acts, with dire warnings about the inability to pay for new equipment or to change inputs or processes. But there is now a mountain of evidence that indicates that cleaner production very often leads to improved efficiency, minimisation of waste, energy savings and higher profits. According to an analysis by the Commonwealth environment department:

. . . while it may be true that firms initially must pay more for technologies which meet stringent environmental standards, investment in environmentally preferred technologies can yield cost savings, often in the very short term. Many cleaner production techniques can be very cost effective, with pay-back periods often less than one year.

There is a good deal of evidence that a carbon tax, introduced in the right way, would be economically beneficial, even if we do not count the environmental benefits of reduced emissions. In the past few years a number of modelling studies have recycled the revenue from carbon and energy taxes through reductions in payroll and investment taxes. Those studies indicate that a tax package that increases taxes on environmentally damaging activities and reduces taxes on labour and investment not only improves environmental outcomes but stimulates growth and employment. This is known as the double dividend. The importance of these studies using revenue recycling is that they decouple the processes of economic growth and environmental degradation. With the right choice of policy instruments, saving the environment does not need to be at the expense of economic growth.

The idea of a package of taxes and charges that would both improve the environment and promote economic and employment growth has been extended into the concept of ecological tax reform. The present tax system discourages activities that have positive externalities - employment and investment - and encourages activities that have negative externalities - pollution and resource use. There is scope to restructure the tax system in ways that promote greater employment and discourage environmentally damaging activities. This could be done through changing price signals so that employment of labour and investment are more attractive and polluting activities are penalised. This basic idea is being extensively discussed and analysed in Europe and shows the way of the future in the environment debate. Regarding sustainability and social equity, it is often argued that protecting the environment has undesirable effects on income distribution, so that looking after the environment occurs at the expense of the poor. This has at times led to tension between the environment movement and social welfare organisations.

Conservative commentators have used these arguments to claim that environmental protection is a middle-class luxury. When we look at the issue more closely, this turns out to be quite untrue. As an illustration, take the environmental problem of the health impacts of lead pollution. Two years ago the Federal Government introduced a proposal to increase the excise on leaded petrol. It was argued by opponents of the tax change, notably social welfare organisations and the lead industry, that this proposal would be regressive because a higher proportion of low-income people drive cars that are old and run on leaded petrol. In fact, the difference appears to be much less marked than might be expected. According to a study of the distribution of vehicle ownership by vehicle age and household income:

If households with annual incomes greater than $80,000 (about 7 per cent of Australian households in 1993) are excluded, then the spread of vehicle ages is roughly similar for all income groups.

It was estimated at the time that the proposed 5¢ per litre price advantage for unleaded petrol would have seen the market share of unleaded petrol jump from 45 per cent to 90 per cent within a year. The tax change would thus have caused a very large decline in lead emissions. The peculiar thing about these debates is that all of the emphasis has been on the immediate distributional impacts of measures to preserve the environment while the distributional aspects of failing to prevent the degradation of the environment have been almost wholly ignored. This is another indication, if we needed one, of how short term our policy thinking is. In almost every case the poor suffer far more than the rich from the degradation of the natural environment. Protecting the environment is not a middle-class luxury. The same argument could be advanced for the biggest environmental issue of them all - climate change. The poor will suffer most from climate change.

In relation to redefining welfare, higher incomes are not in themselves a bad thing unless other more valuable things are forgone in order to get them. The trade-off may not be worth it. Many environmentalists would argue that society
Page 3725
has to give up too much in order to have continued growth - at least the present resource intensive growth. In particular the natural environment is being destroyed in society's obsessive pursuit of economic growth. Part of the problem is that the measure for national welfare - the GNP - is biased. It fails to account for defensive expenditures, such as additional locks on doors or the soundproofing of homes near Sydney airport which all add to our measure of welfare; the health effects of pollution; and the run-down of natural capital stocks including the destruction of old growth forests. Growth is important to eliminate poverty, although after decades of sustained growth there is still widespread poverty.

In the midst of all of this affluence people are no happier than they were 40 years ago. There is chronic unemployment and our young people cannot get jobs. People feel financially insecure. Communities have fractured. People do not feel safe on the streets or even in their homes. Families are under stress and most aspects of the natural environment have become greatly degraded. Green economics does not accept that these issues can be separated from the pursuit of economic growth. It does not accept the conventional separation of the economy from the natural environment or from the social environment in which the economic activity takes place. Many environmentalists believe that, in the pursuit of material wealth through a system that rewards activities responsible for exploitation of the environment and dislocation of communities, not only is the environmental life support system being degraded but communities are being degraded also. So people are demanding that businesses will have to change. Green economics promises if not quite a golden future then certainly one much more hopeful than the bleak exploitation that the current system promises to deliver. I would like to acknowledge that in these comments I have drawn from a speech by Dr Clive Hamilton.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.32]: I support the budget and commend the Government, particularly Mr Carr, the Premier, and the Hon. M. R. Egan, the Treasurer, for presenting a balanced, responsible budget and for resisting pressure within the Labor Party to spend more and go into debt. South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria, under what I regard as the left-wing elements of the Labor Party, spent up big without estimating where the income would come from and finished up with a massive economic disaster. Without being privy to discussions behind closed doors I am certain there have been many heated discussions and that considerable pressure has been placed on the Premier and Treasurer. I am pleased that the Government has presented a budget with a small surplus rather than running up a deficit of billions of dollars as occurred in those other States under Labor leadership

The Government is also to be congratulated on its responsible approach to assessing what is a real surplus. Often asset sales distort the true financial picture. Both sides of politics have been keen to sell assets to subsidise the budget and to give the impression that they have been managing well. I am pleased that the Government has adopted the approach of distinguishing an actual surplus from an underlying surplus. For example in 1995-96 the actual surplus was $1.524 million and the underlying surplus was $282 million. The 1996-97 budget will provide an actual surplus of $145 million and an underlying surplus of only $5 million by excluding impact of equity restructure payments from non-budget sector agencies and the sale of government assets such as the GIO, the State Bank or more recently the State Office Block for what I regard as a disappointingly low $69 million.

When presented to the Parliament the budget contained no new taxes or tax increases. That has helped to maintain our AAA credit rating. Apparently the only two States with a AAA rating in Australia are Queensland and New South Wales. As a result of the Federal Government's effort to reduce the $8 billion deficit inherited from the previous Keating-Beazley Labor Government I understand from the Treasurer that the State Government had to reluctantly accept a $900 million cut in financial assistance from the Federal Government over the next three years. That forced the State Government to introduce legislation to make it possible to increase payroll tax, stamp duty in regard to car sales and land tax.

The Opposition suspected that the Government always intended to do that. Perhaps when the history books are written we will find out whether that was the case. However, I accept that the Government was forced to introduce those new taxes as a result of the Federal Government's reduction is State funding. Current outlays will increase by 3.6 per cent in 1996-97 in key areas of health, education, social and community services, police, crime prevention and public safety and the environment. The total budget outlay for 1996-97 will be $19.2 billion with receipts totalling $21.4 billion, leaving a surplus of $2.2 million.

Capital outlays for 1996-97 will be $3,035 million and receipts $937 million - a deficit of $2,098 million. That will result in an actual surplus of $145 million or an underlying surplus of $5 million. That underlying surplus of $5 million is almost pocket money on a State Government budget of $20 billion. The Government should take care not to move into deficit because the three additional increased taxes will only compensate for $900 million. Honourable members would have been concerned at the report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 22 June headed "$5.8 billion black hole not just academic". The chairman of the newly established Council on the Cost of Government, Professor Bob Walker, Professor of Accounting, University of New South Wales, was critical of the former Government. I assume that the coalition parties would regard Mr Walker as being supportive of the Labor Party but he has said that after
Page 3726
checking the accounts and records he has not been able to discover where the $5.8 billion has gone. The report on Mr Walker's inquiry said:

It took time to show. But by this week, when Walker delivered his efficiency council's damning report, portraying a bureaucracy where the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, where no-one seems to know just where taxpayer dollars are spent, and where the information systems are so disconnected that $5.8 billion in spending growth since Greiner became Premier in 1988 is mostly untraceable. Walker was acknowledging that he was "astounded", if not shocked, by the state of the State's financial accounting.

That report is a great shock to lay people. It does not mean that $5.8 billion has been stolen or misappropriated but that Government departments do not have sufficiently accurate accounting procedures to explain where the money has gone. I hope the funds have not been falsely used. When audits are conducted there are often gaps, but never as large as $5.8 billion. I urge the Government to conduct a thorough accounting investigation to identify and account for the $5.8 billion in order to satisfy the widespread concern in the State. If the Federal Government in its August budget brings in any further cuts that may force the State Government to look at ways and means to increase its revenue. This could be done by a mini-budget in September with increases in State taxes or, better still - I am sure this is what is intended by the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and by the Treasurer, Mr Costello - as the Federal Government cuts back on expenditure so will State Governments so that everybody shares the pain.

It is not good enough to cut Federal expenditure in the States if the States do not cut expenditure but increase taxation. There are many areas where funding cuts could be implemented, without affecting funding for hospitals, for instance. For argument's sake, I would cut all grants to the Family Planning Association, to lesbian organisations, and to other groups that receive funding by way of token grants. Those grants could easily be cancelled tomorrow without causing any hardship to the people of this State. I support the proposition that all non-government organisations should operate, as far as possible, by voluntary support and donations from their supporters and not be subsidised by the State. I believe there would then be more genuine grassroots organisation. This should apply to the environmental organisation, the Australian Conservation Foundation and others. I understand the funding of environmental groups, mostly Federal funding, runs into millions of dollars. During the period of the Labor Government millions of dollars were given to Labor unions and no-one could argue that Labor unions are short of money; they can easily finance their own activities. There are legitimate means of cutting expenditure rather increasing taxation.

I refer to the budget for police, crime prevention and public safety, as described in the budget. The total current payments in this area will be $1,988 million in 1996-97, up $60 million on the 1995-96 budget, with a capital allocation of $187.1 million. I am pleased the Government has kept its promise to provide an extra 650 police with 100 additional police officers in 1996-97. I am also pleased with its commitment to upgrade existing police weapons over the next five years at a total cost of $11.2 million to increase police officers' safety. Police increasingly come under attack from dangerous automatic or semiautomatic weapons, as occurred at Kempsey. Those weapons need not be held by a licensed owner but can be in the hands of criminals. Police officers are at risk. We regret the tragedy at Kempsey when the two police officers were killed as they carried out their duties fearlessly while they sought to apprehend an offender.

In the last week there was an attack in Darwin when four police officers were seriously wounded whilst carrying out their duties. Call to Australia supports the provision of bulletproof vests to police officers. We urge the Government to develop a system whereby bulletproof vests are carried in patrol cars. I understand some bulletproof vests have been provided at police stations. When officers are required to respond to an emergency call they must make a decision whether to take the bulletproof vests. If they so decide, they must contact the senior police officer on duty to get permission to take them from the station. They should be readily available in the police vehicles in the same way as other equipment is available in the vehicles.

I know there are problems of security and the very shortage of bulletproof vests is an argument for keeping them at the police station. However, the funding provisions of this budget should allow for bulletproof vests to be carried in police vehicles. Call to Australia also supports the retention of the police prosecutors' branch. There has been some discussion about handing it over to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Were that to be done, I believe the result would be a more expensive system and increased delays in dealing with matters. There has not been any substantial evidence of widespread corruption in the existing police prosecution department.

Call to Australia is also concerned that many people argue for decriminalising or legalising marijuana by wrongly claiming it is a soft drug. However, the experts say it is a hard drug, and I support that contention. The argument is put that if marijuana is legalised or decriminalised police will be able to concentrate on hard drugs and on more serious crime. I note from a report that in New York there has been a dramatic decrease in robberies and assaults, said to be the result of the police concentrating on minor crime. It is a fallacy to say that the legalisation or decriminalisation of marijuana will free up police who can then concentrate on bank robberies or murders. Obviously such crimes must always be a priority but it is appears from the experience in New York and other places that by concentrating on minor crime major criminal activity is also reduced.

Page 3727

I attended Professor Penington's seminar at Parliament House and I was shocked to hear his recommendations. I am very pleased the Victorian Government had the good sense to reject those recommendations. Victorian Premier Kennett said he would not take a leap into the dark. He said he would not support the recommendation that people could grow their own pot plants, and I am not talking about flowers. The recommendation was that a person could have five marijuana plants. Another recommendation was that a warning would be given for the first offence of using heroin. How on earth could the police keep track of the warnings? Even blind Freddie could see the fallacy in that approach. The message to the community would be that we are soft on drugs - on marijuana, on heroin - yet we claim to be trying to develop a drug-free society and to care about our youth.

In the debate about drugs often the term prohibition is used. People say that prohibition always fails, and that our drug prohibition policy has failed. I take a more positive approach, that the laws are designed to protect this State's youth. Drug laws are not there for fun or to persecute drug users. They are there to protect our young people so they do not get involved in drugs. Only a minority is involved but because we care about that minority we must maintain our present policy. We need to do far more in the area of education. Decriminalisation is a very clever but phoney term. Naive people may think that decriminalisation means getting rid of the criminals. It means the exact opposite: getting rid of the police.

The bill the Parliament recently passed to legalise brothels in New South Wales means that police can no longer be involved. Criminals may still be involved but local councils now have the responsibility of working out what to do with brothels. There is pressure on suburban councils such as Bankstown. Country councils are now deeply embarrassed having found that this hot potato has been dropped in their laps. They cannot call on the police to help because the powers of the police have been repealed. Call to Australia strongly opposed the legislation responsible for this. Decriminalisation gives criminals a free hand to organise their criminal activities - in drugs, pornography and other areas.

Though I am concerned about the increasing pressure for decriminalisation, I am pleased that the Victorian Premier rejected Professor Penington's proposals. From the material I have received from Victoria it appears that a number of members of the inquiry had made up their minds before the inquiry started. They were very keen to decriminalise at least marijuana. In other words, it was a phoney inquiry. The recommendations reflected the views of a number of prominent people on the inquiry, including Professor Penington. The Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party decided as a party to vote in favour of decriminalisation of marijuana and would not allow a conscience vote on the issue. At least the coalition parties allow their members to vote according to their conscience. Labor has a heavy-handed approach, with the majority leaning on the minority. I have been told that even with a majority of only 31 to 29 in the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party the members in the minority are gagged because of ALP policy, which I believe is very unfair.

The Hon. Janelle Saffin: It is democracy.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: It is not democracy; it is dictatorship. Moral issues such as pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, marijuana and heroin traditionally have been the subject of a conscience vote by the major parties, whereas on economic issues party discipline is maintained. I am very pleased that the Prime Minister, Mr Howard - in the midst of all his difficulties with gun laws, violent videos and so on - made a very strong statement on marijuana. I believe his leadership was a major factor in the Victorian Government rejecting the Penington recommendations. The Sydney Morning Herald of 30 May quoted Mr Howard as saying:

I would be extremely reluctant to see any weakening in the existing laws. All the medical evidence, as distinct from other evidence, indicates that the idea that marijuana can be safely consumed without any damage being done is absolute nonsense.

I agree with him. The report continued:

Marking himself as a socially conservative leader, Mr Howard said, "The easing of marijuana laws would send a negative signal to parents who are struggling to promote a particular view about the conduct of their children".

Mr Howard said further:

The view that I expressed is mine, I believe it's the correct view, I believe it's a view that the great majority of Australians have and I think it's important on occasions like this that political leaders have the guts to express their views and contribute to the debate.

The article concluded:

"I know there are arguments about consistency; there are arguments addressed to the hypocrisy of laws which permit the legal consumption of alcohol and tobacco, yet impose penalties on the consumption of marijuana." But it was also a fact that relaxing marijuana laws would send a signal to the community that there was less disapproval of the consumption of a substance which did considerable damage.

Federal Hansard shows that the Federal Leader of the Labor Party, Mr Beazley, agrees with the Prime Minister's view. They have taken a joint stand on gun laws and they have taken an ethical stand together in support of maintaining our anti-drug laws to protect our youth, which is the reason for the laws. A great deal could be said about the harm of drugs. The Penington committee recommended that there be an intensive support residential facility established to care for young people experiencing acute toxic states, and that the facility should be managed by an agency with experience in drug and alcohol issues, in association with an acute hospital. That is one recommendation which I support.

Page 3728

Other members may not agree but I believe that the intensive support residential facilities for heroin addicts should be compulsory. Instead of heroin addicts being sent to prison they should be given the option of going into such a facility to be cured and dried out. Any members who are still pro marijuana should remember that there is clear evidence from medical authorities that, whereas 20 years ago cannabis may have had a THC content of up to 3 per cent, a variety of cannabis called skunk which is now on the streets has a THC content of 30 per cent. The Swedish Government, which was progressive in experimenting with legalisation of various activities, found that legalisation of drugs was wrong and it has now reversed the policy, making it more restrictive: all non-medical consumption of narcotics is unacceptable.

The Swedish Minister of Social Affairs reported that drug use by 16-year-olds was reduced from 14 per cent to 3 per cent in the last 20 years as a result of a restrictive drug policy. So people who throw up their hands, give in and say that we cannot do anything should take note of that example. The Premier of Western Australia, Mr Court, has taken a strong stand on marijuana. An article in the Australian newspaper of 3 June 1996 stated that the report of the Western Australian task force on drug abuse found that 33.5 per cent of the victims of fatal road accidents in Western Australia last year had taken so-called mood-altering drugs. The article stated:

This was up dramatically on the corresponding 5.8 per cent figure recorded in 1985 - though blood screening techniques have improved since that time.

Mr Court said the findings showed that illegal drug abuse was vying with alcohol as a cause of road deaths. This highlighted the risk of decriminalising marijuana in particular, he said.

Cannabis was detected in almost half those who died on the State's roads after taking illegal drugs.

The article continued:

The study identified 197 road deaths between 1992 and 1995 involved mood-altering drugs, including marijuana, heroin and amphetamines.

Cannabis was detected in the bodies of 95 victims, 27 per cent of whom were found to have taken no other substance.

The article continued further:

The chairman of the Drug Abuse Taskforce in Western Australia, Mr Mike Daube, said the apparent prevalence of illegal drug use among 15 to 24-year-olds - the highest risk group on the road - was reflected in the accident fatality figures.

Until a road-side test for marijuana and other drugs was devised, it would be "absurd" to do anything that condoned the use of illegal substances . . .

We are pleased that both sides of politics, Labor and the coalition, not only in Victoria but in Western Australia and New South Wales, have taken a strong stand. I do not believe that the war against drugs has failed, although people continue to say that it has. In my humble opinion, there has never been a war against drugs. There has been a phoney war against drugs, because of the conflicting messages being sent to our youth. Parents say, "Don't use drugs. Say no." In its harm minimisation policies over the past 10 years or so, the Government has said, "Use drugs carefully." Parents say, "Drugs will kill you. Say no." Governments say, "We will supply your needles, just like pizza. Ring this number and a van will meet you anywhere, on any street corner, and give you a packet of free needles, no questions asked."

Parents complain about needles lying on beaches, in school grounds and on suburban streets in Sydney, such as Canterbury Road. They want the problem stopped; there is a danger of children being pricked if they walk on the needles. The Government says, "We are increasing our efforts to combat drugs. We have increased the total quantity of needles distributed from 3.5 million in 1995-96 to 4.6 million in 1996-97." When I spoke to the Minister for Health, Dr Refshauge, about that he thought that he should be congratulated because he had increased the quantity of needles being distributed by 1 million. It is a disgrace. It is not a needle exchange program; it is a needle distribution program. The Government is flooding Sydney with needles. If the Treasurer wants to save money the Government should stop distributing 4.5 million free needles. If free needles are available, they should be given to people with diabetes and other health problems.

The police are concerned about their role. On the one hand the Government is distributing needles; on the other hand the police are supposed to be conducting a war against drugs. The policies are confusing, contradictory and hypocritical. I have outlined the problems with our youth. A moment ago I said that there is no real war against drugs. I could continue for hours on that subject. However, I simply mention Jason Donovan, who was regarded as a hero when he appeared on Australian television programs. He recently returned to Australia, having boasted on British radio that he had taken drugs. An article in the Daily Telegraph on 3 June stated:

Celebrating his 28th birthday over the weekend, Jason declared on British radio that not only does he take drugs, but he really enjoys them.

The article stated further:

Besides falling over in nightclubs and telling us that he enjoys taking drugs, Jason freely admits to smoking marijuana every night before he goes to bed.

Instead of setting a positive example for our youth, Jason Donovan is a bad role model. Where is the war against drugs when prominent people make such comments? In England, Leah Betts took an ecstasy tablet on her 18th birthday and died, in the same way as Anna Wood. Her father, a former policeman, criticised Jason Donovan for his comments. Mr Betts said:

He is a role model to a lot of young people . . . and if he is advocating their use, then he is promoting the use of hard drugs and I find that very, very sad.

Page 3729

Rock bands are bad role models. There are reports daily about lyrics in rock band songs. In terms of new fashion products, an article in the Daily Telegraph on 4 June stated:

The fashion industry, under siege for its use of skeletal models, is now embroiled in controversy over photographs using death and drug imagery to sell clothes.

In the latest edition of youth magazine Juice, models photographed as corpses feature in a six-page fashion spread.

The photographs follow recent publication in a leading British magazine of red-eyed models slumped over toilets as if they had just injected drugs.

Gimmicky photographs depicting drug taking and people overdosing on drugs are the advertising medium being used to sell clothing and fashion products to teenagers. Where is the war against drugs? Almost all magazines and newspapers produced by student councils, including the Wollongong University Council SRP paper, contain prominent articles promoting marijuana and heroin use and encouraging young people to steal by showing them how to steal products from supermarkets and so on. When the police criticised those articles, university students said that it was an issue of free speech; they organised protest meetings to support the student papers.

There has been no war against drugs. The amount of material promoting drugs and encouraging drug use in society is so great that we should not be surprised if young people take up the habit. We should not give up; we should continue our war but we should make it a real war against drugs. I am unhappy with Dr Alex Wodak, who is a so-called drug expert. He abuses his important position as director of the Drug and Alcohol Directorate. Whenever people make statements, whether in Victoria or Western Australia, he writes letters to newspapers criticising them. He promotes the concept of changing the drug laws. He should not be involved in what I regard as a lobby role; that role should be left to people such as the Hon. Ann Symonds and her drug reform group and to groups such as NORML. People who head official bodies should not be involved in the drug debate. I am concerned about matters raised at the Wood royal commission and the attacks on Commissioner Wood by homosexual groups in Sydney. An article in the Australian on 4 June stated:

A new homosexual pressure group, Commission Watch, will call for the lowering of the age of consent for males in a formal submission to the NSW police royal commission, and will monitor the progress of its paedophile investigations for alleged bias . . . as a response to fears amongst some homosexuals that the royal commission was becoming a "homophobic witch-hunt".

The royal commissioner has made it clear that he is not involved in a homophobic witch-hunt. The word homophobic is a nonsense. I have never met anyone who fears homosexuals. The literal meaning of homophobe is fear of man, but it is used to mean fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. I do not know anyone who fears homosexuality. People may disagree with homosexuality and oppose the activity on moral grounds, as I do. I certainly do not have one ounce of fear in my body, and I do not know anyone who does. It is a clever label to put on people, but I object to it being placed on the royal commissioner. It was not a top priority for him to investigate paedophilia but his terms of reference from the Parliament included investigating whether the police were involved in any cover-ups of paedophile activity in this State. The commission has revealed that there was a cover-up. The commissioner has not gone looking for homosexual groups.

The Hon. Franca Arena: It is 11.10 p.m.; the honourable member has spoken about homosexuals so many times.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I am speaking about the royal commission and the attacks on the royal commissioner by the homosexual groups. Those groups are harassing the commissioner and trying to prevent him from investigating this activity. The Hon. Franca Arena has not criticised them or defended the royal commissioner. I have not heard anyone defend the royal commissioner. I am, and I will. I am also concerned that there have been reports of paedophile activity in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I note that the Minister, Mr Downer, has set up an inquiry headed by Mr Chris Hunt. An advertisement in newspapers in the last few days stated:

Mr Chris Hunt has been appointed to inquire into matters relating to allegations of paedophile activities by officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade . . .

I urge honourable members who have any information to send it to that inquiry. On 7 May 1996 the Sydney Morning Herald contained an article which stated:

The director-general of School Education, Dr Ken Boston, admitted to the Police Royal Commission yesterday that it was possible that paedophile teachers could move from school to school without hindrance.

That is an alarming situation and should concern honourable members. I raised these matters when I was first elected to this Parliament. I was looking through Hansard and saw that I raised these issues on 8 November 1983. What did the Labor Government do about them in 1983? We have a royal commission in 1995-96.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You did not support the royal commission but the Labor Party did.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: No, I did support the inquiry. My position was that to save $100 million the reference should be given to the Independent Commission Against Corruption to let it conduct the inquiry, as the royal commissioner is now doing. That was my first preference. I was not against the inquiry but against the method of the inquiry. I questioned the most effective means to have an ongoing inquiry.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The ICAC did not get anything.

Page 3730

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Most of the evidence that the royal commissioner has came from the ICAC. It gave him the videos and the tape recordings of the police officers who were revealed during the inquiry. Why was it not more effective? It may have had too long a time zone; it was getting information that at one point was to be made public. I do not know why it was delayed. I am not intimately involved in the running of the ICAC. On 8 November 1983 in this House I asked the question:

What action has the New South Wales Government taken to protect the children of New South Wales by charging the members of the Australian Paedophile Support Group operating in New South Wales, following the excellent action of the Victorian Police Delta Task Force on Saturday, 5th November? Is the Minister aware that the formation of this dangerous paedophilia group arose out of the Sixth National Conference of Lesbians and Homosexual Men in Sydney in 1980 and that the recent Ninth National Conference of Lesbians and Homosexual men held between 2nd and 4th September, 1983, had two workshops on paedophilia entitled "Paedophilia - a political discussion" and "Paedophilia - a discussion about experiences, etc.", during which one delegate who was arrested last Saturday claimed to have had sexual relationships with up to 2 000 children?

That was my question and I had a lot of factual information as a basis for it, which indicated the close association between the homosexual movements in this city and the paedophile groups. The royal commissioner was not wrong when he uncovered those links. Those links exist and I have the documents to prove it. Paedophile leaders and study groups were intimately involved in the activities of the lesbian and homosexual groups in Sydney on the dates I have mentioned. But what did I get for urging the Government to act? I will not go into detail, but a former leader of this House, the Hon. D. P. Landa, treated my questions with ridicule. I will not go through his answers because it is embarrassing. He has now passed on to whatever eternal reward he received.

On a number of occasions I documented evidence and each time he would twist my question and say that I had detailed knowledge of these fringe area activities, and so on. I am concerned about the abuse of children in this city; something should be done about it. My questions were not taken seriously and not followed up, and we now have a massive network of paedophile activities in this city. I urge honourable members to consider what Jesus Christ said in Matthew 18:5:

But whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

We have a responsibility to protect the children of this State.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.16]: I welcome the new members of this House who have given their maiden speeches during this debate. The Hon. P. T. Primrose brings with him experience from the Legislative Assembly. He spoke with a sense of purpose and I hope that he will be able to fulfil his appointed aims. The Hon. M. J. Gallacher brings with him years of valuable experience after 16 years working in the police force. His insights into the everyday workings of our police force bring home the need for us to provide the mechanisms for effective law and order and to address the serious problems of high suicide rates amongst our youth, especially the increasingly high rate of suicides amongst rural youth.

Incidentally, the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith reliably informed the House that the Government has cut funding for youth services from $17.9 million to $15.7 million - a cut of $2.2 million. The Hon. M. J. Gallacher brings with him a love of the central coast and what it has to offer. This love is evident to all from the fact that he gave up five hours a day to travel to and from work. The residents of the central coast are fortunate to have a person of this calibre looking after their interests. I was pleasantly surprised that the honourable member had such an intimate knowledge of the workings of the Carr Government. He was correct when he told the House that "The Premier, when asked to take on board a number of significant issues facing politicians in this State, merely offered rhetoric, nothing but rhetoric."

The Premier and his Cabinet have broken no fewer than 250 promises in their first 12 months of government, which must be an Australian record. Unfortunately New South Wales has a Premier who is all show and no go. This budget is, as my colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe pointed out in this debate, every inch a Labor budget. She was right when she described this second Labor budget as bodgie. Again it fiddles the figures and sets unachievable goals. I will concede one thing to the Labor Party: it gets 10 out of 10 for creative accounting. Not only has it broken promises, but it has made some astonishing decisions, most of which came without any consultation with the public. The Premier's dictatorial style of Government has won him no friends.

If this is a budget to win back the Labor heartland, the New South Wales Labor Party is in serious trouble. The reservations held by my colleagues and me, that New South Wales was in dire trouble after the Government's May budget, have been shown to be well founded. It was predicted by the Opposition that the Government would have to either increase taxes or reduce spending before the year is out. One month after the budget was delivered the Government increased taxes and cut the health budget to the bone, to the point where many in the community feel that the Government can no longer provide essential medical services. This has all happened one month after the budget was handed down. The Opposition predicted that the New South Wales Labor Government would blame the Federal Government for all its woes. Though this Government is going down the path of
Page 3731
its Federal Labor Party colleagues, in all its dodgy budget glory, is New South Wales to have a "recession we had to have" or at the end of the day will we find that instead of a surplus we have in fact an $8 billion black hole?

By Opposition reckoning the Labor budget did not deliver a $5 million surplus but an underlying budget deficit for 1996-97 of $252 million. The Government's inconsistency in relation to the Lake Cowal goldmine at West Wyalong and the Benalla coalmine in the Hunter Valley has been an embarrassment for the State. These decisions are creating uncertainty in the mining industry, an industry that provides this State's economy with billion of dollars a year; provides thousands of jobs; and is the fabric and lifeblood of many small town communities. One that springs to mind is the copper mine at Girilambone that has in many ways revitalised the economy of Nyngan in the central west. The mine has an active policy of buying local and employing local people where possible. This has, in a small way, offset the effects of seven bad years of both floods and droughts coupled with the worst wheat, wool and beef prices on record in a town that has always had a rural oriented community.

The mining industry is vital to this State, yet the confusing and contradictory messages sent out to the business community by the Labor Government have been amateurish and have created a very negative image of our State. If this is the way in which the Government attracts investment to the premier State, we are in trouble. The Labor Government has broken the two election promises instrumental in its winning government in 1995. Hospital waiting lists have not been cut. In fact, in the majority of cases they have increased. Attempts by the Premier and the Minister for Health to hide the true extent of the problem is a disgrace. Tollway charges are still in place. The health portfolio is in chaos. Rural areas are without doctors and services that people in the city take for granted. CareFlight and Child Flight, predominantly rural services, are in jeopardy.

Hospitals are dramatically underfunded. A budget blow-out of $78 million was recorded last year. Patients are being turned away from hospitals. For the first time in eight years, spending on health has been cut - not a small cut but a devastating cut of $80 million in real terms. Again, it is the western suburbs of Sydney and rural New South Wales who will suffer. The Health Services Association has grave reservations that country hospitals are over budget to the extent of $30 million, and no extra funding has been forthcoming in this every-inch-a-Labor budget. What happens when it is time to pay the bills? This incompetent Labor Government blames the Federal Government for the blatantly deceitful nature of its own budget and increased taxes. Staffing level cuts in our hospitals equate to 3,316 fewer people employed in our hospitals to tend to the needs of patients staying overnight.

People at Camden will feel the brunt of a Labor Party that only rewards electorates that vote for it. Camden and Campbelltown hospitals will be rationalised. As the shadow treasurer pointed out, that is Laborspeak for closing down the Camden District Hospital, which the Labor Party promised to redevelop. Again, the people of western Sydney will be disadvantaged. The latest cuts involve St Vincent's Hospital and a number of other hospitals. Some 2,000 positions will be lost, including 1,000 nurses, an overall reduction in real dollar terms of $50 million. On a brighter note, the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner reminded me, as did the Hon. M. R. Kersten, that it is good to see that a Government that has broken so many of its promises will keep some promises made by the coalition at the last election. The new hospital at Broken Hill is a step in the right direction.

Ambulance officers are threatening industrial action as a result of lack of action by this Labor Government over staffing levels. The Government has no intention of finding funding for the 300 extra ambulance officers needed to maintain services. This lack of action by the Government will result in the closure of stations and an inability of ambulance officers to continue to provide the exemplary services the community has come to expect as the norm. Education has played an important part in my life. In the previous Government I was parliamentary secretary for education. It saddens me to see the way in which this Government is treating perhaps the most important portfolio, the portfolio that is most responsible for tomorrow's generation. Unfortunately, it has not been immune from Labor blunders.

The education budget highlights teachers' claims that no-one could be meaner than John Aquilina. Last year the Government deliberately underspent the capital works budget by more than $10 million, with 40 schools feeling the brunt from delays and/or downsizing of projects allegedly funded in last year's budget. This year the Government has again slashed funding for the schools capital works program by $22 million, or 18 per cent. The hardest hit will again be the western suburbs and rural areas. The raid on capital works will have dire consequences on the medium- to long-term infrastructure in our State schools. Since March 1995 total staff numbers have plummeted by more than 2,000 - 1,300 in the Government's school portfolio. This depletion of staffing levels comes at a time when both primary and high schools are experiencing growth in enrolment.

One hundred of the 125 so-called new teaching positions are for training release for existing teachers. Even accepting the Government's definition, by halfway through its term the Carr Government will have produced only slightly more than one-third of the promised 1,405 new positions. What will the Government have to cut in the future to meet its obligations, or will this be yet another broken promise? The Government has its priorities
Page 3732
wrong. At a time when the Department of School Education is screaming out for more front-line staff, the Government has taken it upon itself to increase the size of the bureaucracy. The Department of Training and Education Co-ordination - DTEC - will be increased by $30 million, or 25 per cent, over the next two years. This budget has made allocations for a 7.1 per cent rise in teachers salaries which, according to some Government backbenchers, is not enough. It is also believed that the Industrial Relations Commission will make an award higher than the allocated 7.1 per cent increase. This extra cost will further deplete classroom funding.

Law and order has always played a major role in any society. The Carr Labor Government has been backsliding on the commitment of the Government in this area. This year's budget has made the Government's election promise of 650 new police on our streets no longer obtainable. It has slashed increases in recurrent spending by almost half. The police capital works program has not been immune from major cutbacks and delays. Police stations at Coffs Harbour, Green Valley, Marrickville, Narellan, Randwick and Thornton have had their completion dates extended or their budget allocations reduced significantly. Specialist police numbers have fallen at an alarming rate since the Carr Government came to power. Road safety officers, who police drink-driving laws, have been cut from 3,575 to 3,018 - a drop of nearly 600.

The number of street safety officers, including beat police, has been cut from 2,805 under the coalition Government to 2,397 in this year's budget, a cut of over 400. The budget papers show what we have known all along: this Government is not serious about cleaning up the Police Service and increasing the number of police. The budget shows that the Police Integrity Commission will not be fully operational until after the Wood royal commission completes its final report. This was a major component of the interim report handed down by Justice Wood. The Police Integrity Commission was to be fully operational prior to the final report being released, to enable its performance to be monitored and finetuned so that it would work the way it was envisaged. Not only are hospital waiting lists set to increase, but, due to the inability of the Government to act on important issues, court waiting lists are also set to increase because of the refusal by the Government to allocate funds for more judges.

A recent report from the Law Society stated that for the Supreme Court to have any chance of maintaining the status quo - never mind about trying to bring the backlog under control - at least six Supreme Court judges would have to be appointed. The District Court needs roughly the same level of funding to make any sort of inroads into the waiting lists. This is a case of the Government bleeding the system dry. This year the Government will collect nearly $45 million from filing fees, including $6.89 million from the District Court, up 27.5 per cent, and $18.2 million from the Supreme Court, up 9.5 per cent. It seems that the Government is running away from this issue. It has failed to supply funds for an upgrade of the computer system to monitor court delays. It seems that the Government will go down the same path that it has gone down with hospital waiting lists, again using creative accounting to try to suppress the real story.

My National Party colleague the Hon. M. R. Kersten gave a very thought-provoking insight into the breakdown of law and order in our rural towns, especially the problems in the community of Bourke, where local residents are at their wits end with the current lack of action in their town. I urge honourable members of all political persuasions in this House to take up the invitation of the honourable member to see first-hand how a serious law and order problem is affecting our rural communities. Of great concern to the coalition is the sudden blow-out of $370 million in the cost of staging the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. The Government repeatedly assured the taxpayers of New South Wales before this year' budget that everything was on track and that revenues were running well above expectations. This comes despite the promises of the Government that it would provide greater financial accountability for the New South Wales public.

The Government also gave an assurance that it would provide regular audits by the Auditor-General on Olympic projects, that the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games would report monthly and that the Games finances would be open to public scrutiny. Yet the budget papers revealed the first hint that things were not as rosy as we were led to believe. In fact, the $370 million blow-out was made public for the first time in the budget papers. Was this a deliberate attempt to hide the truth? I am sure the Government would have been aware of the blow-out long before the Monday night prior to the release of the budget papers. For months the Government has been telling us that everything was running smoothly, that Olympic revenues were on schedule and in a strong position, and that all but two of the projects were on budget and ahead of schedule.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho spoke at length about the tourism opportunities the Olympics will bring to New South Wales. Yet she made the telling point that this Government is cutting funding in the tourism portfolio. Average staff will be reduced from 16 to 14, total expenses will be cut, and total recurrent payments will be reduced. The Olympic Games will be the greatest opportunity to show the premier State to the rest of the world, and the Opposition believes that New South Wales should be mounting an all-out assault to attract overseas visitors to our State. The Olympics are the best opportunity we have to promote our State, so we should be increasing funds, not decreasing them.

Page 3733

The Leader of the Opposition said, "The greatest budget fiddle of all is the $200 million sale and lease-back of Bayswater and Mount Piper power stations." The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti spoke at some length of the risk to which this Government is exposing every taxpayer to in this State. The Treasurer has given the House the commitment that the Auditor-General will be looking into the Government's cross-border leasing arrangement relating to the sale and lease-back of Bayswater and Mount Piper power stations. In 1994 Treasurer Peter Collins outlawed such deals because of the risk to New South Wales taxpayers.

For the Government to suggest that some overseas companies will give New South Wales $200 million and expect nothing in return defies belief. The arrangement amounts to privatisation by stealth and represents a startling philosophical backflip on Labor's traditional opposition to privatise electricity assets. I reiterate the Leader of the Opposition's comments in relation to the sale of State assets. When the Government was in opposition it vehemently opposed what it called selling off the family silver. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti brought home very forcefully the Government's shortcomings in relation to selling off the family silver. I suggest the Treasurer re-read the honourable member's contribution to this debate.

This Labor Government, in complete contrast to its rhetoric, has embarked upon assets sales to the value of $409 million, up 145 per cent on last year. Is this not an example of selling off the family silver? The assets sales target is a prime example of where the Government is fudging the figures to give a hoax surplus budget. In last year's budget the forward estimates suggested that the Government would realise $170 million from asset sales, but it actually received only $84 million. I am sure the Treasurer, with the benefit of his considerable creative accounting skills, would acknowledge that this is $86 million short of the Government's goal for the last financial year.

This year the Government naively believes that the sale of New South Wales assets will result in $409 million flowing into Treasury coffers, a 145 per cent increase on last year. Given the Government's poor efforts to date, I believe it will not realise anywhere near the forward estimates. In addition, the Carr Government is using the proceeds of these assets sales to give it a false surplus. We could have done the same thing when in government, but we believe this practice is dishonest. The sale of the State Bank would have given us a surplus in our last budget. We used the one-off funds generated by the sale of assets to pay off the State's debts, which have increased to the tune of $400 million despite the Government's rhetoric about debt reduction.

The rural areas have been the hardest hit. My colleague in another place, Don Page, shadow Minister for Land and Water Conservation, has informed me that this portfolio, one which has been handled appallingly by the Government, is to have 116 jobs cut - 49 in the critical areas of catchment management, 31 in spatial land information, and 36 in State Landcare services. This Carr Labor Government prides itself on its green credentials, yet it cannot even get it right in an area which it constantly reminds us it is an expert. These cuts fly in the face of that assertion.

The Government's handling of agriculture, one of the State's major industries, has been highlighted by ill-found, illogical and completely unworkable decisions. I thank the Government for its backdown on the forecasted $34 million over four years as announced in its last budget. However, the damage done to New South Wales Agriculture by Mr Amery, Mr Carr and the Treasurer has had dire consequences for many of our State's primary producers. The redundancy program was a disaster. Front-line services have been reduced by more than 460 officers. The Government is now in the embarrassing situation of having to fill the gaping holes left by a redundancy program that the Minister said got a little out of hand. That was the understatement of the year. Morale in the department has plummeted and, I am reliably informed, is at an all-time low. The Minister is on record as saying:

The intention of the redundancy program had simply been to give us an idea how many people intended to leave the department in the next few years, so I could get a picture of where we were heading.

An article in The Land dated 8 February referring to the Minister stated:

However, he acknowledged there were "apparent morale problems" within the department over staff reductions and laboratory closures.

In the same article Mr Commensoli said his meeting with the Treasurer had been far from satisfactory and that the Treasurer did not appear terribly receptive to farmers' concerns. He continued:

Mr Egan's response was indicative of the [attitude the] Carr Government has taken to rural issues so far, reinforcing farmer perceptions of an anti-bush attitude.

Unfortunately he is right that this Labor Government could not care less about the rural people of this State. The Government's vision statement released by the Premier and the Minister in March this year was a nothing paper; it gave no direction. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 6 April about New South Wales Agriculture staff said:

In relation to the rejection of the redundancies and impending court action, the spokesman for the group said "The demand for redundancies reflected a general rejection of the Government's plan for New South Wales Agriculture". "It was interpreted by staff as an exercise in relabelling the wine bottles," he said, "No-one was impressed".

The redundancy applications from New South Wales Agriculture staff soared after the Government's vision statement was released. By the Minister's own admissions in this year's estimates committee, 434 front-line staff have taken redundancy packages.
Page 3734
The redundancy program was not well thought out and has resulted in the loss of many essential services. The enormous loss of talent and experience has been a blow. The Government's argument that the experience and talent has not been lost but is now in the private sector is a load of garbage. Private companies are profit motivated and much of the work carried out by the department would not be commercially viable. Therefore, loss of expertise has resulted in the loss of potential income and long-term beneficial farming practices. These farming practices have seen Australian farmers retain the edge over overseas competitors.

The loss of free, unbiased advice is also cause for concern. As stated already, private companies are profit orientated and will try to sell their products, and in some cases that will not be the best advice primary producers can receive. The ramifications of this ill-conceived redundancy program are already starting to be felt. Many areas are without district agronomists, right in the middle of the largest planting of winter cereal crops this State has seen for many years. Many regional offices are currently massively understaffed. Queensland, when Labor was in power, also had a massive redundancy program which saw similar numbers of front-line staff leave the its Department of Primary Industries. With the departure of so many experienced staff it is now finding that there is no-one left to train replacement staff. This is a very real problem.

The Minister for Agriculture has embarked on a program to re-employ staff to fill the gaping holes in the extension services provided by New South Wales Agriculture, most of whom will be undergraduates straight from university with no previous work experience. It will be at least 12 months before these new recruits will be in any position to provide the services. The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby have both enlightened the House in some detail about the Government's ludicrous decision to close the regional veterinary laboratories at Wagga Wagga and Armidale and the decision to decentralise the Biological and Chemical Research Institute at Rydalmere.

The Standing Committee on State Development, which is currently looking into the Government's reasons for the closure and dismemberment of these three facilities, has found what everyone has known all along: the Government has not consulted with any of the affected interest groups. It is very reminiscent of the Premier's style of government relating to St Vincent's Hospital, the Governor, and so on - no consultation and do as I say, not as I do attitude to the people of New South Wales. The standing committee, instigated by the Opposition with the support of the crossbenches, is ripping to shreds the feeble excuses of the Government for disbanding and closing three world-class facilities.

Excuses for these abominable decisions are changing daily. The Government cannot even lie consistently. The Government went in blindly and it is the people of rural New South Wales who are now paying for the Government's lack of thought and consultation on this issue. The Government will not save money. Instead taxpayers will be forking out at least $1.3 million to compensate the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service station which is currently located on the Rydalmere site and owned by the Federal Government. The Government has broken a promise to the people affected by contaminated dip sites on the north coast. After all the Government's rhetoric and assurances that it had rectified the situation, most of the affected individuals are still waiting for the Government to honour its election commitment to compensate all of the people affected by the old cattle tick dip sites.

The Government has not been kind to the State's racing industry or to punters in this every-inch-a-Labor budget. The Government's promise in its election racing policy document to remove the rounding-down of Totalizator Agency Board dividends to ensure a higher return to punters has been completely ignored. It is just another example of an aborted pre-election promise by a Government that has struck at the very heart of the racing industry. The racing industry provides much-needed revenue to fund a host of other State activities - in fact, $4 billion worth of revenue and possibly more after the Totalizator Agency Board announcement of a record turnover. Yet it has been left strapped for cash because of the refusal of the Government to grant much-needed wagering tax concessions. Wagering taxation rates in New South Wales are the highest in the country, but it seems from this budget that no tax relief will be forthcoming. It is obvious that there is no gratitude for the industry from this Government.

As I said before, unless taxation relief is forthcoming, the New South Wales racing industry will unfortunately continue to decline. The Racecourse Development Fund allocation of $11.8 million is, according to the Government, the budget sweetener for the racing industry. However, this sweetener has really turned sour for the industry, because in real terms the racecourse funds available this year have been cut by almost half, from $22.8 million to $11.8 million. At the end of the day the racing industry has been dealt a savage blow, marked by no tax relief, no incentives and no real benefits. Many honourable members have made excellent contributions to this debate, including the Hon. D. J. Gay with his exposure of the Council on the Cost of Government and its leader, Professor Bob Walker, and the Hon. D. F. Moppett, who raised the concerns of the rural sector in western New South Wales. When the veneer peels off this budget the people of New South Wales will realise how much they have been misled by Labor, and what the real financial picture is.

Page 3735

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.41], in reply: I thank honourable members for all the nice things they have said about my budget. It is a great budget. I noted that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition described it as every inch a Labor budget, and it certainly is. I am very proud that it is a Labor budget through and through.

Motion agreed to.


Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. M. R. Egan, on behalf of the Hon. J. W. Shaw, agreed to:

That the Standing Committee on Law and Justice inquire into and report on workplace safety matters, with particular reference to:

(a) integrating management systems and risk management approaches aimed at reducing death and injury in the workplace;

(b) social and economic costs to the community of death and injury in the workplace; and

(c) the development of an appropriate legislative framework for regulatory reform and/or codes of practice in relation to occupational health and safety in the workplace.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.44], by leave: I present a petition from Gerald Ingram Raftesath, solicitor, acting on behalf of the President of the Legislative Council and the Usher of the Black Rod, defendants in an action brought by the Hon. M. R. Egan, a member of the Legislative Council, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and praying that the House will:

(a) grant leave to adduce in evidence a certified copy of extracts of the official records particularised in an annexure to the petitions;

(b) allow the reception into evidence of those certified copies as evidence only of the following facts:

(i) in respect of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Legislative Council, of the facts referred to in those minutes; and

(ii) in respect of the parliamentary debates of the Legislative Council, of the words said in the course of debate in the Legislative Council on the occasion applicable to each particular extract from Hansard to which reference is made, and the identity of the person saying the words recorded in Hansard.

Petition received.

Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.46]: I move:

That, in response to the petition of Mr G I. Raftesath, Solicitor, acting on behalf of the President of the Legislative Council and the Usher of the Black Rod, defendants in an action brought by the Honourable M. R. Egan, a Member of the Legislative Council, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, presented to the House this day, this House:

(a) grants leave to adduce in evidence a certified copy of extracts of the official records particularised in an Annexure to the Petitions;

(b) allows the reception into evidence of those certified copies as evidence only of the following facts:

(i) in respect of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Legislative Council, of the facts referred to in those minutes; and

(ii) in respect of the Parliamentary debates of the Legislative Council, of the words said in the course of debate in the Legislative Council on the occasion applicable to each particular extract from Hansard to which reference is made, and the identity of the person saying the words recorded in Hansard.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.48]: I look forward to my day in court.

Motion agreed to.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.49]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [11.49]: I would like to put on record my warm congratulations to a self-help organisation, CanRevive, on a successful first year. On 8 June I was privileged to attend that organisation's first anniversary dinner. CanRevive is an organisation specifically designed to help the Chinese community cope with the struggle against cancer. Australia has an average of 59,500 new cases of cancer each year and 30,000 deaths a year due to cancer. One in three men and one in four women will be directly affected by cancer in their first 75 years of life. In New South Wales an average of 24,900 new cases of cancer are reported each year, and 11,200 deaths are due to cancer. Compared with Australian-born people, migrants from China and Taiwan have
Page 3736
significantly higher rates in both sexes of cancers of the stomach, liver and nasopharynx, and of lung cancer in women.

CanRevive is closely associated with the New South Wales Cancer Council and provides emotional support and information to cancer patients and their families. It is unique in that it is the only centre that conducts counselling in Cantonese, enabling it to reach out to members of the community who would otherwise be isolated and neglected. The Minister for Community Services would be happy to hear that this organisation is a self-help group. The popularity of CanRevive is not simply due to the fact that it is centrally located and therefore accessible in the city, or even because of the bilingual services. Rather it is the centre's understanding of the symbolic fundamentals of Chinese culture which have made it an invaluable resource. On this basis CanRevive have achieved excellent results for the Chinese community. The centre has grown because it is regarded as a readily accessible source of support.

The Chinese community is based on traditional values of self-help, family and community support. These principles are evident in the way members of the Chinese community work together to support each other in times of need. Just as support for family and friends is vital, so too is the centre's support for those who are in need of emotional support because of their association with cancer. It is an important component of the community and an extension of the family unit. As a former social worker I am well aware of the importance of emotional support to sufferers of any illness, including those involved in the desperate struggle against cancer. Medicine has a role to play in any illness. The centre offers to those affected the power of hope, which is a potent medicine. I have seen the will to live beat the body's plans to die on numerous occasions. The human spirit is an amazing thing.

I was fortunate to have the opportunity to open CanRevive a year ago at its inauguration and am thrilled at its success to date, which has in large part been due to the amazing independence and resourcefulness of the predominantly women-run group. The benefits of the healing process serve as motivation for their perseverance in contacting different members of the Chinese community. The growing enthusiasm for their services is illustrated by fundraising initiatives such as those conducted at its anniversary dinner. A full house of 480 people made this occasion a success. Well over $10,000 was raised. This is symbolic of everyone's interest in the need to combat cancer by utilising our existing humanitarian resources to their fullest capacity.

I commend the incredible efforts of this organisation to help the Chinese community. CanRevive, by focusing on a particular ethnic need, has provided insight into new ways of dealing with cancer in the broader community. I might add that the centre does not receive any government funding. It is in everyone's interest to promote family values in providing support to those suffering from cancer. It is only by maintaining an alliance between all ethnic groups affected by cancer that we can ever hope to win this ongoing battle. All those with an interest in preserving the wellbeing of humanity should support CanRevive.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.54]: The New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority is revising community consultation guidelines involving its legal obligations for community consultation on major proposals. Conflict occurs, however, in joint projects with the private sector, in which the RTA also appears to cooperate in activities designed to stifle public comment. As governments compete for private investment, a pernicious and cowardly by-product is the attack on the democratic right of all citizens to object and on the duty of our government to guard such rights.

This strategy of fear is known as SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. It seems to have developed in the United States of America, and it is based on the fact that few individuals have the resources to defend a lawsuit brought by a corporation. I call the strategy pernicious and cowardly because its purpose is not to justify a proposed development or to obtain recompense for investment in a failed proposal. The objective is to gag public debate, so that no matter how unconvincing the proponent's arguments may be the proposal will stand unopposed.

SLAPP is not primarily intended as a weapon against funded and incorporated groups or against young and impecunious protesters. The target is middle Australia - responsible adults with assets, families, regular incomes and the conscience and commitment to speak out against what they perceive to be wrong. As most informed citizens know, concerned groups and individuals have opposed the M2 tollway under its various names since the 1980s, through avenues including the commission of inquiry that rejected the F2 Castlereagh freeway proposal in 1990.

Opposition to the tollway grew last year, when many more people began to realise the scope and horror of the destruction of homes, communities, urban bushland and wildlife. At that time community representatives attending M2 local liaison groups heard that plans were under way to silence "mischief makers". It appears that those plans were derived from SLAPP techniques prevalent in the United States of America. Police began to arrest and charge peaceful protesters. A mother was torn away from the child she held and was taken away in a paddy wagon. Retirees, schoolteachers, professional people and young people were arrested, fingerprinted and charged.

Page 3737

The bail condition was a key component in SLAPP that barred approximately 100 people from returning to the 21-kilometre M2 corridor, an area much greater than the M2 work site. Most arrests occurred more than a year ago. More than half of those arrested are still impeded from retrieving a wandering child or pet from the bush at their back door or from witnessing breaches of Environment Protection Authority licensing. Despite the difficulties, the community continues to report such breaches, and the EPA has recorded more than 50 breaches. Some residents apparently risk gaol every day for using major public roads that are part of the M2 corridor.

Many are unaware that the bail conditions may also extend to minor council roads which the Roads and Traffic Authority has designated subsequently for access to M2 construction sites. Community liaison has deteriorated so far that few who opposed the M2 would accept verbal assurances that they are safe from further SLAPP. Additional charges soon were added to the initial misdemeanour of trespass. Passive protesters were now "SLAPPed" with a criminal charge of intimidating bulldozer drivers and chainsaw operators, with possible two-year gaol sentences and compensation claims for thousands of dollars.

When the first M2 arrestees came before the court last August the cases were dismissed by two separate magistrates, one of whom awarded costs against the New South Wales Police Service. The police have appealed the decision, but neither the appeal nor the remaining cases have been heard. Those arrested on the M2 continue to be "SLAPPed" with the emotional and financial costs of the day they tried to defend their neighbourhood. An Aboriginal man, whose native title claim on bushland in the vicinity of the M2 is now in mediation, sought an injunction to prevent damage to a recognised site in Beecroft. Although his request was denied and work continued unabated, that individual was "SLAPPed" with court costs of $48,000. A resident was threatened with defamation action because of a letter describing the bulldozing of bushland, which was regular nightly viewing on television.

Others have been threatened verbally with SLAPP for stating their M2-related concerns at meetings or on the phone. A community organisation has been threatened with SLAPP, not for what it has done but as a warning against seeking legal redress from the tollway consortium. Why has the New South Wales Police Service appealed the magistrates' decisions? Why are court dates concerning M2 arrestees constantly deferred, with continuation for many people of the onerous bail conditions? Why are traditional Aboriginal owners prevented from visiting sites that are important to them? Why do public authorities appear to assist in the M2 SLAPP? We are witnessing the undermining of democratic free speech. We are also witnessing an activity that is disabling our legislated environmental safeguards. SLAPP is not a party-political issue but an assault on Australia as we know it.

SLAPP is a matter for concern and action by all parliaments in this country. The freedom to object and to recommend alternatives must not be sacrificed to corporate and economic expediency, or every one of us will suffer eventually from the loss of this fundamental right. The following steps are needed. A review of legislation enacted overseas to protect legitimate protesters from SLAPP should lead to the drafting of New South Wales instruments for the same purpose. There is a requirement for the extension of the powers and resources of the Ombudsman to monitor, confirm and record occurrences of SLAPP and implied SLAPP from information supplied without prejudice by the public. [Time expired.]


The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [11.59]: This evening I pay tribute to Andrew West, a fine person, a personal friend and someone who is well known to many members of the Parliament from different parties. Andrew West has worked as a journalist and in many other capacities. He has worked for members in this Parliament and in the Federal and the South Australian parliaments. Andrew has won a one-year scholarship and will be leaving in a month or so for Columbia University, New York, where he will undertake a masters degree in journalism. I look forward to his return, when he will write and talk with even more skill and enthusiasm than he has shown in the past. Perhaps Andrew's most marked qualities are enthusiasm, creativity and great generosity - and, one should not fail to mention, a sense of humour. One of my favourite examples of his recent journalism comes from his freelance work during the Federal election. One particularly fine article appeared in the Northern Herald and covered John Howard's election campaign launch. Andrew began his article by making the comment that the Liberal Party chose the Ryde Civic Centre, possibly the world's only brick-veneer skyscraper.

That description in this fine article by Andrew West has struck a chord with many people in Ryde. The only brick veneer skyscraper in the world is a great description of Ryde Civic Centre. Like so many fine people in New South Wales, Andrew is a graduate of Young Labor. But, more importantly perhaps, Andrew is a graduate of the Sydney University Labor Club which, if I remember rightly, dates from the 1920s. It is a fine institution. On several occasions I have attended the annual H. V. Evatt dinner, with memorable speakers and in memorable company. As President of the Sydney University Labor Club, Andrew organised the 1990 dinner, at which the guest of honour was Wayne Goss, then the new Premier of Queensland.

More than 400 people turned up that night, but unfortunately no profit was made; Andrew was far too kind to charge enough to cover expenses. He was in his element as president of the Sydney
Page 3738
University Labor Club. When he had to introduce Bob Carr, whose job in turn was to introduce Wayne Goss, Andrew got carried away by the flavour of the evening. After he had been introducing Bob Carr for 15 minutes the audience, and a few other people, were becoming distinctly restless. At this point Wayne Goss turned to Bob Carr and demanded to know what this man was running for. Of course, the point about Andrew is that he has thrown himself generously into supporting the careers of many other people but has never shown any desire to run for anything.

I would like to mention in that context a number of articles about Andrew's style. Perhaps one of the best was by that well-known member of Parliament Joe Tripodi, the honourable member for Fairfield, who wrote an article about the Sydney University Labor Club in 1990. That article is a wonderful example of Joe's style - subtle, reasonable, grammatical - and it certainly tells us a lot about Young Labour as a great training ground for various meeting procedures. Joe described the Sydney University Labor Club as "a story of rorts, coercion, broken protocol, meetings at 8.15 in the morning, Stalinist chairing of meetings, and $100 levies on members of the wrong political persuasion." I might interpolate at this stage that, although on different sides, Andrew and Joe were then and still are great friends. The article also includes a fine description of Andrew's performance in the chair at a particularly interesting meeting:

Andrew West then broke into a frenzy of madness, foaming at the mouth, muttering absurdities and waving his arms in the fashion of the maverick that he had moulded his personalty, including his speech and pronunciation upon - Dr. Bert Evatt. Andrew West spoke against the motion from the chair, in typical breach of the rules declaring such absurdities as "This motion will collapse the club. I will not let it happen. The meeting is closed. Chris get the books."

Of course, the secretary got the books and showed his ability to learn another lesson of politics. I could read much more, but I will not. I only want to reiterate that Andrew is one of those people, like so many in the Labor movement, who have served the movement very well. Many people here and elsewhere will miss him. We wish him well in New York. We look forward to his return and to many further contributions from his pen. [Time expired.]


The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: [12.04 a.m.]: Despite the brickbats that the Treasurer has thrown at the Federal Government in the past few days, and despite his ridiculous claims that Prime Minister Howard and Treasurer Costello have stolen money from the New South Wales budget, it is wonderful that the Federal Government has finally granted exceptional circumstances drought relief to the people who need it most. That was talked about but never considered by the previous Labor Government.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It slipped out of the State budget this year.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: Yes, it slipped out. I have worked long and hard to have many areas in the western division declared as having exceptional circumstances. Thank goodness last week the Minister for Primary Industries included many of those areas in his announcement.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: A good bloke.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: The Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Anderson, a good bloke, as the Hon. Dr. B. P. V. Pezzutti says, and a National Party Minister, recently announced relief for the rural lands protection boards of Wilcannia, Cobar, Balranald, Nyngan - division A - and Bathurst - part of division B. The estimated cost of support in 1996-1997 is $136.8 million. The Minister said:

Farmers in these regions will be eligible to apply for interest rates subsidy assistance under the Rural Adjustment Scheme (RAS), the Drought Relief Payment to help meet day to day living expenses and special assessment for Austudy by the exclusion of on-farm assets from the assets test.

The Minister went on to say:

. . . farmers in areas where revocations were made were eligible for Drought Relief Payments for a further six months and for the Austudy special assessment provisions until December 1996, while they could also /continue to apply for RAS drought exceptional circumstances interest rate subsidies during the next six months.

Mr Anderson also said that although the physical drought was ending in many areas, a large number of farmers will experience financial pressures for some time, especially in the grazing industry. He said that because of the length of the drought and the weakness of wool and beef prices it was likely that some farm families would continue to experience severe financial difficulties beyond the cut-out date for drought relief payment in their areas. With the high variability of rainfall in the west and the uncertainty of commodity prices - for example low wool prices and cattle prices are half those of last year - it is imperative that realistic taxation measures be introduced as soon as possible so that when the good seasons and commodity prices return, primary producers can avail themselves of these measures. I am referring to realistic farm management-type bonds where the tax concession money is returned only in years of drought or low commodity prices. That is not holiday or beer money. Government help should not be taken away during this current crisis but the sooner these types of measures are implemented, the sooner primary producers can take advantage of them and the need to involve governments will no longer be required.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It will return their self-esteem.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: That is correct. Once these measures are in place and primary producers are in a position to have them reserved, I assure the House that it will be the most effective
Page 3739
land care measure ever introduced to the west. During dry times stock will be moved off the land more quickly as the economic pressure to hang on to stock until shearing or in the hope that rain will fall soon will no longer exist.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [12.09 a.m.]: Today as I read the Sydney Morning Herald article about some of the great and powerful men of Sydney and their desire to save St Vincent's Hospital it occurred to me that one of the great hospitals of Sydney, the Rachel Forster Hospital, will not have that support because it has principally been a hospital for women. It was built for women, for the advancement of women, and to serve women doctors. Honourable members cannot allow the demise of that hospital without fighting for its retention. To understand why it is necessary to retain the Rachel Forster Hospital is to understand its history. In 1922 the hospital was founded by six women who, in those days, could not complete their training in Australia because it was not considered proper for them to treat patients in a public hospital. They had to complete their training overseas. Having done so, they built the hospital and named it after Lady Forster, the wife of the Governor general.

The hospital has a long history of providing health services for women in New South Wales, but in the 1920s and 1930s it opened a venereal diseases clinic which was run by Dr Dalyell and combined medical care with intensive family counselling. A rheumatism clinic established by Dr Mary Bertram in the 1930s gave sophisticated treatment to children. In the 1940s the Diabetes Association was founded by the Vice-President of the Rachel Forster Hospital, Ms Ruby Board. Miss Board was the driving force behind the establishment of emergency diabetic clinics in five Sydney hospitals. In 1955 Dr Marjorie Dalgarno began a mammography clinic and breast research unit at Rachel Forster Hospital, the first unit of its kind in New South Wales. An arthritis clinic which was established in the 1960s specialised in bone and hip replacement. At Rachel Forster Hospital 75 of the 89 beds are devoted to arthritic and orthopaedic care. Facilities at the hospital include a hydrotherapy pool and care is provided by a team of physiotherapists, a social worker and an exceptionally dedicated team of visiting medical officers.

Rachel Forster has a low infection rate in hip replacements and bone and joint surgery. If Rachel Forster is to be transferred to the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, as has been suggested, that low infection rate will not be maintained. Rachel Forster Hospital buildings are old but the hospital provides orthopaedic services for women. I and many other women would be devastated if the services and beds which are provided at that hospital are lost. Rachel Forster Hospital is the last public hospital that specialises in bone and joint treatment in Sydney since Ryde specialist unit was closed to public patients earlier this year. Rachel Forster Hospital is currently responsible for 1,200 of the 1,800 orthopaedic operations that are performed each year. People waiting for elective surgery will simply go on to waiting lists if Rachel Forster Hospital, a most important institution for elderly people needing joint surgery, closes. I am delighted that my colleague the honourable member for North Shore has taken such a high profile on this matter. I hope that all women members of the Legislative Council realise that this matter goes beyond party politics. Rachel Forster Hospital has a special place in the history of the treatment of women. It cannot be allowed to pass out of this State's history.

If great and famous men of Sydney are willing to fight for St Vincents, the women of Sydney are willing to fight for Rachel Forster. That wonderful hospital has played such an important part in the history of New South Wales that it cannot be allowed to simply die because of the decision of one doctor - a Minister - and of the Government. The decision to move to the inner west will result in the loss of a purpose built intensive care unit. [Time expired.]


The Hon. I. COHEN [12.14 a.m.]: Inappropriate logging and gap clear felling practices are occurring in Way Way State Forest in the north of the State. State Forests claims that the cleared lands are log dump sites. I have had this matter investigated and as I understand it in 1988 there were two log dump sites in compartment 75 and one in compartment 76 of Way Way State Forest. This year's harvesting plan includes 18 log dump sites in compartment 75 and 10 dump sites in compartment 76. Regardless of any instruction from the Minister, State Forests is able to bend the rules governing logging practices in this forest to permit inappropriate gap clear felling for which permission has not been granted by the Minister.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Labor lies.

The Hon. I. COHEN: It is either Labor lies by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation or as I suspect it is more likely that State Forests is not taking notice of the Minister.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The Minister is responsible.

The Hon. I. COHEN: The Minister is certainly responsible. By undertaking these inappropriate practices State Forests is thumbing its nose at instructions. Significant areas will be lost. State Forests should cease logging in compartment 76 pending an inquiry. Clear-felling is occurring and type 48, flooded gum, forest is being logged at present. All this forest type should be preserved under the pre-1750 criteria. Compartment 76 was nominated for reservation by the Unkya Aboriginal Land Council in a submission to the Resource and
Page 3740
Conservation Assessment Council dated 30 April 1996. Areas classified as type 53, brushbox, on State Forests maps are in fact rainforest - and they are targeted for logging. High impact logging is occurring now in the Way Way State Forest.

Unfortunately, the Minister has not responded to many calls to investigate the matter. I am afraid significant parts of the area will be destroyed before any action is taken to save it. In the south of the State a similar problem is occurring with compartments 1085 and 1087 of Conjola State Forest. In harvesting plan SBN 96/03 for compartment 1085 there is record of the sooty owl, a schedule 2 vulnerable species, within or in close proximity to the compartment. I have seen these magnificent animals, which are rare and endangered. The particular habitat they need to survive is being destroyed at present. Obviously there should be proper investigation of this matter.

Another schedule 2 endangered species, the long-nosed potoroo, has been sighted in the area. Whilst the Minister has been asked that species impact statements or environmental impact statement be required in relation to these two compartments, nothing has been done to stop the logging in the area. Also, the impact of the logging of these compartments will have disastrous effects on the headwaters of a coastal lake. The report conducted by Dr John McGarrity of the impact of logging

operations in compartment 1087 and passed on to the Environment Protection Authority was damning. Dr McGarrity indicated five specific areas which he believed breached the harvesting plan guidelines and which would have significant impact on erosion and water pollution in that area.

A document dated 23 April 1996 from District Forester Steve Beaman to the EPA acknowledges the request by EPA but states that because of a State Forests soil scientist recommendation the request of EPA would be disregarded. State Forests in-house assessments have been proven time and again not to be accurate. The request of the EPA has been completely ignored. Information regarding State Forests lack of compliance with the requests of the EPA and any comment available in relation to the study conducted by Dr John McGarrity in regard to the breaches has been requested. Such breaches are occurring throughout the State. Whilst the forests are being assessed it would appear that the bureaucracy in State Forests is totally ignoring the appropriate procedures and it is high time the Minister looked at the situation. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.


Page 3741
The following questions upon notice and answers were circulated in Questions and Answers:

Mr Cohen asked the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

(1) Has the Government a current emergency and contingency plan in place for the transport of nuclear fuel rods from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation facility at Lucas Heights to Botany Bay?
(2) Can the Minister assure the House that the environmental, economical and social impacts of such a decision by the Commonwealth be assessed as a matter of urgency?
(3) If the Government is not in a position to have sufficient emergency or contingency plans or the impacts of the transportation of nuclear fuel rods has not been assessed, will the Government undertake to refuse cooperation for the Commonwealth police and emergency assistance in the transportation?

Answer -

(1) The State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 recognises the need for a co-ordinated response by all agencies having roles or responsibilities for such emergencies. It provides the legislative basis for the preparation of a State Disaster Plan (DISPLAN) to record the agreed management arrangements for co-ordination of emergency preparedness, response and recovery operations.
The DISPLAN aims to:
(a) identify, in relation to each different form of emergency, the combat agency primarily responsible for responding to the emergency;
(b) provide for the co-ordination of the activities of other agencies in support of the combat agency in the event of an emergency;
(c) specify the tasks to be performed by all agencies in the event of an emergency; and
(d) specify the responsibilities of the Minister and the State, District or Local Emergency Operations Controllers.
Under the DISPLAN, the combat agency primarily responsible for responding to an emergency concerning hazardous material on land is the NSW Fire Brigades.
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) is nominated within the DISPLAN as the supporting organisation to provide advice and co-ordinate scientific support to the combat agency during land-based hazardous materials major incidents and emergency response operations.
The EPA is also designated in the DISPLAN as the combat agency to co-ordinate clean-up operations in emergencies involving hazardous materials.
The statutory role of the EPA was established in the approved ENVIROPLAN and the Hazardous Materials Major Incident and Emergency Plan (HAZMATPLAN).
The ENVIROPLAN is the NSW State Environment Services Plan supporting DISPLAN. The HAZMATPLAN details the State level arrangements for the response to, and recovery from, land-based hazardous materials major incidents and emergencies.
The HAZMATPLAN requires that all incidents involving radioactive material be notified to the Radiation Control Section of the EPA and, in cases where the EPA is required, an officer of the Radiation Control Section shall attend.
In summary, it is the EPA's role to protect the people and the environment of New South Wales from any dangers arising from ANSTO activities with off-site consequences and, to this end, the EPA provides a support service to the NSW Fire Brigades as nominated in the DISPLAN and HAZMATPLAN.
(2) The transport of spent fuel is a Commonwealth issue and New South Wales is specifically excluded from regulating any aspect of ANSTO or its operations by the ANSTO Amendment Act 1992.
ANSTO has undertaken a Public Environment Report on the Transport of HIFAR Spent Fuel from Lucas Heights to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Establishment, Dounreay, Scotland, for Reprocessing (October 1995). This report was prepared under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Cth) and describes the potential impacts and risks of a proposed initial shipment of 120 spent fuel elements to the Dounreay reprocessing plant.
Although New South Wales is excluded from regulating ANSTO, in practice, the responsible authorities in New South Wales co-operate with the Commonwealth to ensure that any potential environmental, social and economic impacts are minimised. In particular, the EPA and the NSW Police Service work with ANSTO in the development of any plan to transport radioactive materials.
(3) New South Wales does have sufficient emergency and contingency plans in place.

Mr Jobling asked the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations -

Page 3742

(1) Do New South Wales public sector employees have access to the Industrial Relations Commission to seek an award for redundancy?
(2) How do public sector conditions, particularly for severance pay for employees with more than 13 years service, compare with those in other public services?

Answer -

(1) Yes. The Government Cleaning Service case shows that the Industrial Relations Commission is available to assist the parties through arbitration to establish the merits of a case. In that case the Commission awarded a separation payment of up to 12.5 weeks depending on the age and length of service of employees.
Section 95 of the Public Sector Management Act provides that the Industrial Relations Act is not affected by anything in the Public Sector Management Act. It is suggested, however, that section 95 should not allow awards or orders to be made with provisions that are inconsistent with those of the Public Sector Management Act (for example, displace the merit requirement).
(2) The Government's policy on Managing Displaced Employees gives emphasis to redeployment of displaced employees. Voluntary redundancy is available where redeployment is not practicable.
The New South Wales public sector voluntary redundancy package is comprised of:

•4 weeks notice or payment in lieu; plus
•an additional 1 weeks notice or pay in lieu for employees aged 45 years and over, with 5 or more years of completed service; plus
•severance pay at the rate of 2 weeks per year of continuous service with a maximum of 26 weeks; plus
•the benefit allowable as a contributor to a retirement fund; plus
•pro rata annual leave loading in respect of leave accrued at the date of termination; plus
•training and retraining assistance of up to $5,000.

Brief comparisons of voluntary redundancy packages with other public services follow:

(a) Australian Public Service
4 weeks pay in lieu of notice (maximum of 5 weeks for employees over 45 years with at least 5 years service); plus
2 weeks for every year of service with a minimum of 4 weeks and a maximum of 48 weeks payment; plus
Accumulated long service leave entitlements and provision for payment of superannuation.
(b) Victorian Public Service
Targeted Separation Package:
4 weeks pay in lieu of notice; plus
2 weeks pay per year of service for up to 10 years.
Voluntary Departure Package:
4 weeks in lieu of notice; plus
For those employees less than 55 years of age, an incentive of up to $10,000 (for a full-time employee) plus 2 weeks per year of service up to 15 years; or
For those employees at or over 55 years of age, an incentive of up to $5,000 (for a full-time employee) plus 1 weeks pay per year of service of up to 10 years.
Pro rata entitlements for incomplete years of service.
Amount paid is not to exceed 65th birthday.
(c) Queensland Public Service
2 weeks for every year of service (minimum 4 weeks and maximum of 52 weeks); plus
Additional incentive payment of $6,500 or 8 weeks salary, whichever is the greater, if offer is accepted within 2 weeks.
Accrued recreation and long service leave for employees who have at least 1 years service on the basis of 1.3 weeks for each year of service and a proportionate amount for incomplete years of service.
(d) South Australian Public Service
8 weeks pay; plus
3 weeks for every year of service up to 32 years.
(e) Western Australian Public Service
2 weeks for every year of service up to a maximum of 46 weeks (i.e., 23 years).
(f) Tasmanian Public Service
Two voluntary redundancy options exist depending on whether the employee is a contributor to a Government Superannuation Scheme.
Contributory scheme entitlement:
•4 weeks in lieu of notice; plus
•2 weeks salary for each year of service (maximum 48 weeks).
Non-Contributory Scheme entitlement:
•12 weeks in lieu of notice; plus
•3 weeks salary for each year of service (maximum 72 weeks).
Incentive Allowance:
In addition to the above, an amount of $5,000 for all employees plus a special incentive of $2,000 for employees 55 years and over.

Mr Jones asked the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads -

Page 3743

(1) Does the Sydney Harbour Tunnel have facilities to enable reception of radio and mobile telephones along its entire length?
(2) (a) Do the tunnels between the bridge and Taylor Square have the same facilities?
(b) If not, when will these facilities be established in these tunnels to ensure communication links are not broken for motorists using these tunnels?

Answer -

(1) Yes.
(2) (a) No.
(b) The Roads and Traffic Authority has no proposal to install such facilities in either the Cahill Tunnel or the William Street Underpass at this stage. The provision of mobile phone facilities is the responsibility of the telecommunications providers to install such facilities.

Mr Jones asked the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

In reference to the Minister's answer to my question (No. 170, Questions and Answers Paper No. 23, dated Tuesday 14 November 1995) relating to sand extraction at Coxs Lane, Fullerton Cove, Port Stephens:
(1) Is the development approval referred to by the Minister in answer No. 1 related to the sand extraction works I referred to in my question?
(2) Is the Boral sand extraction operation taking place in wooded hind dunes running parallel with the Nelson Bay Road at Fullerton Cove?
(3) (a) Was development approval No. 143/76 specifically for the extraction of wind blown sand at a 4-acre "sand pit" on land zoned 1 (a) at the ocean front boundary of Por 3?
(b) If so, is this a different operation from the works being undertaken by Boral parallel to Nelson Bay Road?
(c) Has Boral been extracting sand at Fullerton Cove without a development approval?
(4) (a) Is any part of the area on which Boral is undertaking sand extraction affected by an Interim Development Order?
(b) If so, does this Interim Development Order include a 1 (b) non-urban zone parallel to Nelson Bay Road which prohibited sand extraction?
(5) (a) Is part of the area on which Boral is extracting sand a public reserve zoned 7 (a)?
(b) Is sand extraction prohibited from public reserves zoned 7 (a)?
(c) If so, was any sand extraction conducted by Boral after February 1987 an illegal operation?
(6) (a) Has the sand dune on which the Ypres Radar site was situated now been completely removed by sand extraction?
(b) If so, should Boral have sought development approval before carrying out this operation?
(7) (a) Has sand extraction been carried out within this coastal zone without development consent for some years?
(b) If so, what has been the rate of extraction (in tonnes per year) at Fullerton Cove?
(8) Will the Minister ensure that the Department has provided full and accurate information in relation to this matter?

Answer -

(1) Yes.
(2) Yes.
(3) (a) No.
(b) Not applicable.
(c) Not as I am aware.
(4) (a) No.
(b) Not applicable.
(5) (a) No.
(b) Under the Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 1987, the public recreation zone is indicated as zone 6 (a), not zone 7 (a). Within the 6 (a) zone sand extraction is prohibited.
(c) Not as I am aware.
(6) (a) Yes.
(b) No, I understand that this sand extraction was not conducted by Boral.
(7) (a) Not as I am aware.
(b) Not Applicable.
(8) Yes.

Mr Bull asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs -

(1) What is the prevalence of Parkinson's disease in rural New South Wales?
(2) What gender and age group are the sufferers?
(3) What is the ethnicity of sufferers?
(4) What is the marital status of sufferers?
(5) Who bears the responsibility for diagnosing patients, for example, general practitioners, neurologists or geriatricians?
(6) What are the causes of Parkinson's disease?
(7) (a) What is the estimated cost of current treatment?
(b) What is the cost of drugs involved in the treatment?
(8) (a) What is the status of mental health of sufferers?

Page 3744
(b) What is the status of mental health of carers?
(9) How many carers are involved and what age, gender and ethnicity are these carers?
(10) (a) Are there any side effects caused by the drugs used to treat Parkinson's disease?
(b) If so, what are they?
(11) (a) What are the psycho-social effects of Parkinson's disease on sufferers?
(b) What are the psycho-social effects of Parkinson's disease on carers?
(12) Will you supply the source references used to provide the above answers?
(13) (a) Has the 1995 ASTEC report been considered?
(b) If so, what action can we expect as a result of that report?

Answer -

(1) I am advised by the Health Department that no specific data is available on the prevalence of Parkinson's disease in rural New South Wales.
However, studies in a number of countries have shown a higher prevalence in rural than in urban areas. Extrapolation of data from sales of the most commonly used medication for idiopathic Parkinson's disease provides an Australian prevalence estimate of about 105 per 100,000 in 1994.
(2) The Health Department advises that hospital data from the NSW Inpatients Statistics Collection shows that about 56% of New South Wales residents admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease recorded (as the principal or one of up to nine secondary diagnoses) in 1993/94 were male. A similar proportion (55%) had a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease recorded as cause of death during the 5 years 1989-93. Though these data do not give a good idea of prevalence (as people with Parkinson's disease are not admitted to hospital for diagnosis and treatment and it is not often recorded as the principal cause of death), these figures are probably a reasonable estimate of the corresponding proportions in the wider community.
Prevalence increases with age, being rare below age 45 and increasingly common over age 75 years. Idiopathic Parkinson's disease is reported to affect less than 1% of the population at 50-59 years of age and over 4% at 80-89 years.
(3) The ethnic profile (based on country of birth and language spoken at home) of people admitted to hospital or recorded as dying of Parkinson's disease in New South Wales parallels the profile of the wider community.
(4) In the absence of local population data, marital status can be estimated from the hospital inpatient data for admissions of New South Wales residents in whom Parkinson's disease was the principal of nine secondary diagnosis:

Married 53%
Single 9%
Widowed 34%
Divorced or separated 4%

(5) I am informed by the Health Department that no specific data is available. Diagnosis will usually be made by a specialist physician. This is more likely to be a geriatrician for the very elderly and a neurologist in the younger age group. General practitioners may sometimes diagnose in the absence of specialist advice.
(6) Advice from the Health Department is that there are no generally agreed causes of the syndromes of idiopathic Parkinson's disease and Parkinsonism.
An environmental cause (or causes) has been postulated. Higher prevalence has been shown in rural areas and some studies have suggested an association with length of time lived in a rural environment, ground-water use and certain forms of farming (e.g., orchard). A possible risk due to exposure to herbicides/pesticides has been suggested but not proven.
A number of toxicants can produce Parkinsonism. N-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP) produces a syndrome very similar to idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Manganese and carbon monoxide poisoning can produce Parkinsonism.
Side-effects of a number of medications include Parkinsonism to some degree (e.g., antipsychotics and metoclopromide which is used for nausea).
(7) (a) There is no readily available data on total cost of treatment for the full spectrum of Parkinson's syndromes.
(b) Data for prescriptions under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Repatriation Benefits Scheme in 1994 show that $22,642,530 was spent on drugs for treatment of Parkinson's disease in Australia.

About 70% of all community prescriptions are dispensed under one of these schemes. This is likely to be greater for Parkinson's disease as it impacts on an elderly population. The data do not cover hospital medications.

(8) (a) and (11)(a) The Health Department advises that a number of mental health conditions are reported in people with Parkinson's disease. Depression is commonly seen. Acute toxic psychoses are common in the terminal stages of Parkinson's disease and may be related to the effect of chronic medication on neurotransmitters. Dementia is common especially in late onset Parkinson's disease, which is usually distinguished from early onset Parkinson's disease (and is also associated with decreased survival).
(8) (b) and (11)(b) Very little information exists in regard to the status of mental health of carers. The Carers Association of NSW collects information regarding experience of emotional, physical and financial strain of carers of people with Parkinson's disease. I am informed by the Health Department that the
Page 3745
association's data suggest that all carers of people with Parkinson's disease experience some degree of emotional, physical and financial strain, with emotional strain producing the greatest burden.
(9) Data compiled from a very small number of carers contacting the Carers Association of NSW indicate that:

•approximately 60% of carers are between 60 and 80 years of age, with a further 32% between 40 and 60 years of age; and
•approximately 74% are female.

No information on ethnicity of carers is collected currently.
(10) (a) Yes.
(b) The Health Department advises that reactions to medications used in treating Parkinson's disease can include:

•Nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea (less commonly), anorexia or weight gain, constipation, palpitations, dizziness and sleepiness.
•In the elderly there can be the side effect of confusion or, less frequently, hallucinations, delusions, paranoia and mania.
•Bizarre involuntary movements can occur, although this is uncommon.
•A fall in blood pressure on standing can occur, especially in the elderly.
•Angina pectoris may be provoked and cardiac arrhythmias have been reported.

(12) The Health Department has provided the following references:

Rajput, AH. Frequency and causes of Parkinson's Disease. Can. J. Neurol. Sci. 1992; 19: 103-107.
Zhang, Z and Roman GC. Worldwide occurrence of Parkinson's Disease: an updated review. Neuroepidemiology. 1993; 12: 195-208.
Hubble J, Cao T, Hassanein RES, Neuberger JS and Koller WC. Risk factors for Parkinson's Disease. Neurology. 1993; 43: 1693-1697.
Ben-Shlomo Y and Sieradzan K. Idiopathic Parkinson's Disease: epidemiology, diagnosis and management. British Journal of General Practice. 1995; 45: 261-268.
Hoehn MM and Yahr. Parkinson's Disease: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology. 1967; 17: 427-442.
Hantz P, Carodoc-Davies G, Carodoc-Davies T, Weatherall M and Dixon G. Depression in Parkinson's Disease. Am. J. Psychiatry. 1994; 151: 1010-1014.
Brown R and Jahanshahi. Depression in Parkinson's Disease: a psychosocial viewpoint. Behavioural Neurology of Movement Disorders. 1995; 65: 61-83.
Creasey HM and Broe GA. Prescribing for Parkinson's Disease. Med J Aust. 1993; 159: 249-253.
Brooks WS. Medical Causes of Disability in the Elderly. Unpublished Master of Public Health Treatise. University of Sydney. 1994.
Carodoc-Davies TH, Weatherall M, Dixon GS, Carodoc-Davies G and Hantz P. Is the prevalence of Parkinson's Disease in New Zealand really changing? Acta.Neurol.Scanda. 1992; 86: 40-44.
Australian Science and Technology Council. A Foresighting Study: Management of Neurodegenerative Disorders in Older People 2010. AGPS. Canberra. 1995.

(13) (a) and (b)

The ASTEC report referred to is assumed to be the Australian Science and Technology Council report A Foresighting Study: Management of Neurodegenerative Disorders in Older People 2010.
The thrust of the recommendations of the report is to develop mechanisms to improve the strategic focus of research efforts in relation to neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's syndrome. Most were directed at specific organisations, primarily the National Health and Medical Research Council.
The Health Department advises that the foresighting method is a useful approach to thinking about alternative scenarios for long-term planning and it will take the ASTEC report into account in its long-term planning for investment in research and development.
In general, the Department's policy is to allocate research and development funds to health and medical research organisations for infrastructure. Funds for individual research projects are available on a peer-reviewed basis from granting agencies such as the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Mr Jobling asked the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Police -

(1) What is the present strength of police stationed at Flemington Station?
(2) How much under strength is this?
(3) Have police from Flemington Station been diverted from their normal duties to cover the Olympic trials being held at the Homebush Aquatic Centre?
(4) Will the opening of the new prison at Silverwater have a further effect on police strength at Flemington?
(5) Will more police be stationed at Flemington following the opening of the prison?

Page 3746

Answer -

(1) The actual strength of Flemington Patrol as at 20 May 1996 was 85 police plus 13 probationary constables giving a total of 98 police personnel stationed at Flemington as at that date.
(2) The authorised strength as at 20 May 1996 was 92.
(3) Beat police and highway patrol police were rostered to cover the Olympic trials.
(4) Any new large complex of this nature could be expected to impact on police resources.
(5) Police resources are constantly under review.

Dr Pezzutti asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs -

(1) Did the Chief Executive Officer of the Central Coast Area Health Service, Dr Stephen Christley, write a letter urging doctors in the area to book patients with a quick turnaround into Gosford Hospital?
(2) What impact would an increase in quick turnaround patients have on the care and availability of beds for patients requiring long-stay admissions in the Central Coast area?
Answer -

(1) I am advised by the Central Coast Area Health Service that on 28 November 1995, Dr Christley wrote to surgeons on the Central Coast asking them to consider undertaking additional lists. For the period between Christmas and New Year, short time procedures were specifically suggested.
(2) The Central Coast Area Health Service advises that access for longer-stay patients was not affected.

Dr Pezzutti asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs -

1. (a) Has a hospital in the Illawarra region had its operating microscope repossessed?
(b) If so, what is the name of the hospital in question?

Answer -

1. (a) and (b) I am advised that a number of operating microscopes were trialled at Port Kembla and returned following the 3-month trial period. No operating microscopes have been repossessed.