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

The President offered the Prayers.


Petition praying that the office of Governor of New South Wales not be downgraded, and that the role, duties and future of the office be determined by a referendum, received from the Hon. J. M. Samios.


The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [2.34]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

This bill amending the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 deals with two quite separate but important issues. The bill rectifies deficiencies and removes uncertainty on these two matters. They are in need of urgent attention.

The first issue relates to the resolution of disputes about goods left behind at the end of a residential tenancy agreement. The second matter concerns compensation payable to certain caravan park and manufactured home estate residents who have to vacate their sites through no fault of their own.

Clause 1 of the bill relates to a proposed amendment to follow section 79 of the Residential Tenancies Act and takes account of circumstances where there is a dispute about goods unintentionally left behind at the end of a tenancy. The section at present gives a right to a landlord to apply for an order by the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to allow goods left by the tenant to be disposed of. The tribunal can make orders allowing the removal, destruction or disposal of the goods, their sale and manner of sale, orders about notices to be given to the tenant and orders about the proceeds of sale. There is no such right given to a tenant to make an application.

It was originally envisaged that only landlords would need to go to the tribunal about goods left behind by the tenant. In fact section 79 was deliberately included to facilitate the easy removal and disposal of former tenants' unwanted possessions by the landlord. However, after seven years operation of the Act it has become evident that there are circumstances where a tenant may also need to have access to the tribunal about goods left behind. This would not have been contemplated when the Act was drafted.

A landlord can, rather than apply to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal for an order about goods left on the premises, follow a procedure set down in the regulations and I understand that this is the method adopted by most real estate agents and landlords when dealing with items left behind in the rented premises. The regulations, which were amended in August last year, outline a series of steps to be taken by the landlord in dealing with property previously in the possession of the tenant but left behind at the end of the tenancy. This property is described as "uncollected goods" under the regulations. Sometimes though, an order of the tribunal will instead be sought, particularly where there may be some doubt over whether the premises have actually been abandoned. The landlord or agent may not want to take on the responsibility of handling the disposal of someone else's belongings without first getting the authority of the tribunal.

While there are these processes available for landlords and agents to take charge of situations where unwanted property has to be dealt with, there are some circumstances where a tenant may have a legitimate reason to go to the tribunal about their belongings, particularly where they have been left behind unintentionally. The bill provides for a new section 79A to cater for these circumstances.

Now it might be said that tenants do not deliberately leave behind anything of value when they move out of rented premises and it is usually only junk that the landlord is left with. While this may often be the case, there are certainly circumstances where access to the tribunal by tenants would enable difficult disputes about personal property which may be of great intrinsic or sentimental value to a tenant but which have no value to the landlord, to be satisfactorily resolved. It would be a tragedy for documents, certificates, medical records, references and photographs to be thrown on the rubbish tip and lost for ever where a short hearing in the Residential Tenancies Tribunal could have prevented it.

Of course I recognise that on some occasions the parties can work it out themselves without having to involve anyone else but, where the relationship just ended has not been a happy one, it can be a very difficult problem. Also there have been occasions where possession of premises may have been taken from a tenant after a tribunal order where the tenant is away at the time. They may be up the street at the shop or be in hospital or getting advice from the chamber magistrate when possession is taken and so have had no opportunity to gather belongings together. They would certainly not have chosen to leave things like their clothes, medical necessities and examination assignments behind. While landlords have every right to regain possession of their premises as quickly as possible when following the correct procedure, there is no reason for items which can have no possible value to them to be denied to the tenant. It is not right, for instance, that a mother with a young child cannot get access to baby clothes, nappies and bedding still inside the premises. This is the reason for this amendment - simply to facilitate a process whereby disputes of this nature over the delivery of goods back to the owner of them can be resolved quickly and cheaply. The intention is to avoid unnecessary heartache and hardship wherever possible.

The 1995 regulation does not permit the landlord to seek payment for the cost of removal and storage where only some of the goods are claimed and the value of the remaining goods is sufficient to cover the cost of removal and storage. Section 79A will enable disputes which arise when landlords refuse to hand over some of the goods in these situations to also be heard by the tribunal. This gives more weight to the regulations on this issue.

The Residential Tenancies Consultative Committee has agreed to this amendment. The committee comprises representatives of tenants, real estate agents and private property owners and there is no objection by any of the committee members to the amendment. This is significant as it is not always easy to get agreement between landlords and tenants on issues of this nature.

Page 4825

It is important to stress that there is no change being made to the landlord's rights on the handling of this issue. What is being proposed is merely to provide through the new section 79A for a dispute resolution process in those instances where a tenant should be able to access the Residential Tenancies Tribunal about the return of personal property.

The amendment will also allow persons with an interest in the uncollected goods to apply to the tribunal. Sometimes the property left by the tenant does not actually belong to them and may have been hired from an electrical appliance rental company or perhaps borrowed from a family member or neighbour. These people also need to be given access to the tribunal in instances where their property is included amongst uncollected items purported to have belonged to the tenant.

An amendment moved in another place by the Opposition, and adopted, put a time limit of 28 days from the termination of an agreement for parties to make an application about goods left behind. A further amendment is to be moved to change this time limit to 28 days from possession of the premises being obtained.

The reason for this further amendment is that the termination of a tenancy often occurs well before the tenant actually vacates. For instance the Residential Tenancies Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy on the day it hears the case, but may suspend the operation of the order for several days or weeks. The way the 28 day time limit is presently framed does not take account of this and in fact the 28 days could be used up even before the tenant has left. The further amendment ensures that there will be adequate time for any of the parties involved to make an application to the tribunal from the time the goods are actually left behind. While the need to have a time limit for these types of applications is supported, it is inappropriate to link it to the termination of the agreement. If it is left the way it is, parties will often be in the position of having to ask the tribunal for permission to extend the time for making an application. It is preferable that they do not have to face this uncertainty. The further amendment overcomes this problem.

I would now like to move on to the other part of this amendment bill dealing with compensation payable to certain residents of caravan parks and manufactured home estates.

In a very delayed response to a need to do something about residents of parks and estates being given notices of termination without any reason, the previous Government rushed through an amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act in December 1994. Schedule 3 was added in an attempt to do something for those permanent residents of sites in parks and estates where they were living in their own movable dwellings on rented sites. While we support the notion that these people should not be able to have their agreements terminated without good reason and that compensation should be payable, there are serious deficiencies in schedule 3 which cannot be left unattended. The purpose of the amendments in this bill is to fully achieve what the previous Government failed to do when it introduced schedule 3. The present schedule 3 is about as watertight as a sieve with the bottom out of it. We have taken some care with it and got it right and those residents in parks and estates who have to move and relocate their dwellings will be able to rest easy that they will not only be eligible for adequate compensation but will have a means of pursuing the park owner for promised compensation not paid.

The deficiencies or uncertainties in the current schedule 3 are as follows.

It is not clear that residents are entitled to compensation when their tenancy is terminated by the Residential Tenancies Tribunal as opposed to the situation where a resident vacates after getting a notice of termination and the matter does not go to the tribunal. It is not clear that compensation can be paid before or after the resident leaves the park or estate. It is not even clear that it is the landlord (or park owner) who is the person required to pay the compensation. Under the current provisions residents who receive a notice of termination are not entitled to the same compensation for reconnection of their dwelling to services as are those residents who relocate by agreement to another site in the park or a nearby one owned by the landlord. It is not even clear that the Residential Tenancies Tribunal has the necessary power to make orders about compensation arising under schedule 3. Lastly, there was no mechanism set in place to deal with disputes between residents and park owners over the payment of compensation by negotiation. Each of these glaring weaknesses in schedule 3 has been addressed in this bill and it will now fully protect residents who have not breached their agreement in any way yet are faced with the enormous cost of relocating their dwelling to another location.

Clause 2 of the bill makes it clear that any compensation payable is to be paid by the landlord.

Clause 4 makes it clear that the same criteria exist for calculation of compensation payable to a resident whether a notice of termination or notice to relocate to another site has been given to the resident. Compensation is clearly payable whether a resident moves after getting a notice or waits until the tribunal makes an order.

Compensation includes reconnection costs to services in those circumstances where the resident is to continue living in the dwelling on another site.

Clause 4 also gives the Residential Tenancies Tribunal specific power to fix compensation payable to a resident under the schedule so this previous doubt has been removed.

The same clause provides a specific process for applications to the tribunal about compensation after a resident vacates a site which is something missing from the current schedule. This will allow a resident who has negotiated or been promised compensation in advance but does not receive it or only receives part of it to take the matter to the tribunal for resolution. The fact that such a provision is not in the schedule at present leaves a resident very exposed if they move out prior to being paid compensation. We have plugged up this hole.

These amendments tidy up what was a hastily prepared response by the previous Government to the serious issue of security of tenure for those thousands of permanent residents of caravan parks and manufactured home estates living in their own dwellings, as principal places of residence, on rented sites. These occupants of this alternative form of housing now have genuine and fitting consumer protection.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [2.37]: I am pleased on behalf of the Opposition to indicate that the Opposition does not oppose the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, which seeks to amend two sections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987. Proposed section 79A will enable former tenants of a residential premise or any other person with a vested interest in goods that have been left on the premises to apply to the Residential Tenancies
Page 4826
Tribunal for the recovery of the goods. Schedule 3 to the bill clarifies the payment of compensation by the landlord as a result of the termination of residential site agreements. The Opposition believes that these amendments are reasonable and fair. It supports the right of a tenant to go to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. The Act, as it currently stands, gives landlords the sole right to bring an action before the Residential Tenancies Tribunal and to dispose of goods which have been left on premises.

Proposed section 79A will extend this right to tenants. It will give tenants the right to bring an action before the Residential Tenancies Tribunal for the recovery of goods left on a property after they have vacated the premises. However, the shadow minister in the lower House, Mr John Turner, said that problems would arise when a landlord had already disposed of goods before a tenant lodged an application. There is no time limit within which a tenant can request the recovery of goods left on premises. The Opposition, in order to rectify this situation, moved an amendment in the lower House to insert proposed section 79B into schedule 1 to the bill. The Government sensibly accepted the Opposition's amendment. The amendment moved by the Opposition in the lower House to insert proposed section 79B, which refers to the general provisions concerning proceedings for the disposal and recovery of goods left by a tenant, provides that an application under section 79 or section 79A may not be made more than 28 days after the date on which the relevant residential tenancy agreement is terminated. This time limit will prevent tenants requesting the recovery of goods which have already been disposed of by the landlord.

This new section will define the landlord's obligation more clearly. I congratulate the honourable member for Myall Lakes in the other place for moving, and the Government for accepting, this amendment. The Opposition has received complaints about the delay in hearings at the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. With that in mind the Opposition moved an amendment to proposed section 78 allowing the rights of tenants to be decided by experienced and qualified arbitrators appointed by the tribunal from real estate agents. However, the amendment was unsuccessful because the Government did not accept it. The purpose of that amendment was to alleviate any further pressure on the tribunal and to facilitate the expeditious and efficient resolution of cases. Considering that the tribunal's resources are already quite limited this amendment seemed to be very sensible.

I will not move that amendment in this House, because perhaps in the future the Government will see fit to lessen the pressure on the Residential Tenancies Tribunal resulting from its limited resources. Other sensible amendments to schedule 3 clarify the compensation to which a tenant is entitled, payable by a landlord. The landlord is specifically mentioned because previously that part of the Act was not very clear. The other proposed new section gives the tribunal power to fix compensation, to reduce disputes as to values and to allow compensation to be paid after the tenant vacates the premises. All those amendments are fair and good, and therefore the Opposition will not oppose this amendment bill.

The Hon. I. COHEN [2.42]: I speak briefly in support of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. The bill deals with two important issues which are long overdue for overhaul. The current Act provides that only landlords can apply to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to gain possession of items left behind by a tenant so that any such items can be removed, sold or otherwise disposed of. If a tenant unintentionally leaves some belongings behind and the landlord intends to dispose of those items, the tenant currently has no recourse to protect such items. The amendment which introduces a new section 79A allows for action by a tenant or another person who has an interest in the goods to recover them. Examples might include personal possessions such as certificates or memorabilia on the one hand, and unpaid goods on the other. In making an order the tribunal can order a tenant or other person to pay the reasonable costs of their removal if such cost has been borne by the landlord.

The second set of amendments relates to the removal of deficiencies in the current provisions about the payment of compensation to residents of caravan parks and what could be classed as temporary or mobile homes when persons are required to vacate such sites. The current provisions are unclear and the Government is to be commended for its action on this matter. The issues which are now clarified include: power for the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to award compensation; compensation to be paid by the landlord - such compensation to be paid before or after leaving and whether before or after the tribunal makes an order; compensation to include the cost of reconnecting services; and permission for a resident to make an application to the tribunal if there is a dispute in relation to the compensation payable. I commend the Government's action and the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [2.44]: The Australian Democrats are pleased to support the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. Proposed sections 79A and 79B will tidy up the Act to ensure that in the event of goods or possessions being apparently left behind by a tenant, those goods or possessions will not simply be taken to the nearest tip and dumped. As the Minister pointed out in his second reading speech, it is not always the case that only rubbish is left behind after people vacate premises. Any member of this House who has had children leave home and take part of their possessions and leave other parts behind knows very well that this happens and that people's behaviour does not alter when they move into rented accommodation.

With more and more people living, as they do, in shared houses due to rising rental costs, often it is only a simple misunderstanding that leads to goods
Page 4827
being left behind on premises. The goods can include boxes of papers containing all manner of important documents, such as group taxation certificates, details of medical treatment, or even treasured family possessions such as photographs and letters. What may appear to be rubbish to a person clearing out a dwelling may end up down the track causing a great deal of trouble for the owner if that material has simply been thrown away. Therefore, the amendment allows persons with an interest in any uncollected goods, such as appliance rental companies and family members, to be given access to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. That amendment is to be applauded. The measure will make it much easier for people to recover their property from amongst uncollected items purported to have belonged to a tenant. This measure is supported by the Residential Tenancies Consultative Committee.

The Australian Democrats also welcome changes to schedule 3. During the peak summer season it may be very tempting for a caravan park operator in a popular holiday area to turf out some of the regulars in order to increase profits. If a resident has complied with all the rules and regulations of the caravan park, has become settled and has caused no problem to the landlord or to other residents, it is only fair that the resident is compensated for any possible uprooting caused by the whim of an unscrupulous landlord. The cost of relocating some of the larger relocatable homes can run into thousands of dollars: an impossible sum of money for a person on a low income to find. Honourable members will accept that very few wealthy people choose to live in caravan parks and manufactured home estates. The amendments to schedule 3 will offer greater protection for some people who are the least privileged in our society. Having been a member of this House possibly longer now than many other members, I find there is a certain cynical amusement that at last this change to schedule 3 has been introduced.

At the time the bill was originally introduced some members of this Chamber fought for the protection of people living in residential relocatable homes, in caravan parks and on rural home sites, who begged for this sort of protection. We were told by the government of the day it would be totally unnecessary and such things as people being turfed out by the landlord could not happen. Further down the track we know perfectly well that they can happen and have happened. That is why the changes to the schedule have proved to be necessary. I wish that reasonable objections raised by members of this House had been dealt with when the bill was originally debated and not eight or nine years down the track. People suffer not only the loss of a great deal of money but also emotional and psychological disturbance. It is simply not fair for the government of the day to completely ignore the possible consequences that have been pointed out by responsible members of Parliament. However, the matter has now been fixed up and I suppose one can only say better late than never. With those remarks, I am happy to support the bill. Hopefully things will now run more smoothly for those who live in relocatable homes or in caravan parks.

[Debate interrupted.]


The PRESIDENT: I draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of Mr Steve Bredhauer, a member of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland and shadow minister for education in that Parliament.


[Debate resumed.]

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [2.51], in reply: I thank the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, the Hon. I. Cohen and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby for their support for the bill. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho referred to an amendment moved by the Opposition in another place. I believe she is aware that the Government intends to move an amendment in this House to give full effect to the intention of the amendment that was moved in the other place. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [2.53]: As foreshadowed during the second reading debate, I move the amendment to schedule 1 as circulated:

Page 3, Schedule 1, lines 26-30. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

79B Time within which application under section 79 or 79A to be made

An application under section 79 or 79A may not be made more than 28 days after the date on which the landlord gains possession of the residential premises concerned, whether as a result of the tenant delivering up vacant possession of the premises to the landlord, the tenant abandoning the premises, the landlord recovering possession of the premises under an order for possession or otherwise.

The background to this matter and to the need to move the amendment is that the Opposition in another place moved an amendment limiting the time in which an application to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal can be made regarding goods left behind at the end of a tenancy. The amendment provided for a 28-day limit, from the date of
Page 4828
termination of the agreement, for the lodging of an application by the tenant, landlord or interested person. On reflection, the intention of the amendment has not been achieved and a further amendment is required. The problem is in linking the 28-day period with the termination of the agreement, and that is what the further amendment, by its terms, does. A tenant sometimes remains in occupation of premises after the Residential Tenancies Tribunal has made an order terminating the agreement. Also, the tribunal may suspend the operation of the order of termination for some weeks, so although the agreement is effectively terminated, the tenant remains in possession.

It is also possible that the 28 days within which the application can be made have already passed by the time the tenant actually vacates. To overcome this scenario a further amendment is proposed, limiting the making of an application to 28 days from the possession of the premises actually being obtained. I stress the words, "possession actually being obtained". The 28-day time limit will begin from the time the premises are vacated, which makes much more sense. This will ensure that there is adequate time for all parties to make application, if that is necessary. If the amendment is not made, applications concerning goods left behind will not be allowed without obtaining special approval from the tribunal for an extension of time. It is preferable that parties do not have to face this uncertainty. The Government has moved this amendment to give true effect to the amendment moved by the Opposition in another place, which, as I said, was accepted by the Government.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [2.55]: The Opposition only became aware of this amendment before going into Committee. I have not had time to study the amendment and the background to it. However, on the surface the amendment is acceptable, for it will retain the 28-day limit but will relate it to the date on which the landlord gains possession. That will give tenants a clearer message and will reduce the caseload of the tribunal. The amendment appears to be fair. Although I did not know anything about it, the Opposition will not oppose it.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [2.56]: The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho said she gained access to the amendment shortly before the commencement of the Committee debate. If that is so, I express my regret and apologise. I authorised the circulation of this amendment yesterday afternoon. I do not know why it did not come to the notice of the Opposition. I regret that it happened, but I thank the Opposition for its support for the amendment.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [2.57]: I concur with my colleague that the Opposition does not oppose the amendment. We thank the Minister for his courtesy. I have had the opportunity to confirm the matter with our shadow minister. I do not know why the Opposition did not receive the amendment earlier, but the Opposition believes it will clear up the anomaly.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

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

Message sent to the Legislative Assembly seeking its concurrence with the Legislative Council's 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) [3.00]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Honourable members, the Bill before the House will amend the Traffic Act to provide for the taking of blood samples from people who were supervising learner drivers at the time they were involved in road accidents, and subjecting them to the same drink-drive penalties as if they were actually driving.

You are aware that the State's road toll has improved greatly in the years following the introduction of random breath testing and the associated provisions in the Act. Nevertheless, this proposal is worthy of attention because alcohol continues to be a major cause of serious road accidents. While the rate of alcohol related fatalities has fallen in recent years, in 1994 some 21% of fatalities amongst drivers and riders were still associated with the excessive consumption of alcohol.

In 1982, the then Labor Government amended the Traffic Act to provide for the introduction of a trial of random breath testing and for the compulsory breath analysis of drivers, motorcycle riders and pedestrians involved in accidents and the blood testing of those admitted to hospital as the result of a road accident.

The Traffic Act currently provides for the breath testing and, if necessary, the breath analysis of certain road users to determine the concentration of alcohol in their blood. These provisions include the supervisors of learner drivers.

Supervisors of learner drivers are not, of course, passengers in the usual sense but have some responsibility for the safe conduct of the vehicle.

The Traffic Act also provides for the mandatory taking of blood samples by medical practitioners from certain persons who attend or are admitted to hospital after being involved in a road accident. These blood samples are analysed to determine the concentration of alcohol and, if required, the presence of other drugs in the blood.

No provision has been made in the Act for blood testing of supervisors of learner drivers following their involvement in road accidents. This is probably because supervisors were seen as no more than a class of passenger and the provisions of the legislation were not meant to embrace passengers.

Page 4829

The anomaly relating to blood testing was recognised by police in the course of enforcement and, although brought to the attention of the previous government, was not rectified.

Currently, supervisors of learner drivers are subject to the limit of 0.05 grams per 100 millilitres regardless of the limit that applies to them as drivers. This means that the `special category' drink driving range - which covers learners, P-platers, drivers in the first three years of driving, heavy vehicle and coach drivers - does not apply to a person supervising a learner. Therefore a person who is normally subject to 0.02 grams per 100 millilitres blood alcohol content when driving is, when supervising a learner, allowed to have a blood alcohol level up to 0.05 grams per 100 millilitres. This is no doubt confusing to special category drivers and, importantly, if they had to take control of the vehicle they could be `over the limit' to drive.

To remedy this anomaly, it is intended to provide that the same blood alcohol limits apply to special category supervisors as if they were actually driving the vehicle. Supervisors of learners who are not in the special category will continue to be subject to 0.05.

The breath and blood testing provisions for drivers should be the same for supervisors of learner drivers, and the same blood alcohol limits should apply as if the supervisor was driving the vehicle. This proposal would remove these anomalies.

With regard to the penalties applying to supervisors whose blood samples taken at a hospital reveals the presence of alcohol in the low, middle, high or special range, it is proposed that they should be the same as if they were actually driving at the time. The penalties applying to the prescribed concentration of alcohol provisions of the Traffic Act range from $500 for a first offence in the special range - 0.02 and above - to $2000 and/or 12 months imprisonment for a subsequent, high range offence - greater than 0.15.

The proposed amendments will rectify any anomalies in existing legislation and, through the deterrent effect of the penalties, help to ensure that persons who supervise learner drivers are not impaired by alcohol in the performance of this important role. Supervising drivers who offend in this regard will be detected through the analysis of blood samples and will be penalised for a prescribed concentration of alcohol offence as if they were driving the vehicle.

The proposed amendments will reinforce existing measures against drink-driving to benefit the community.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.01]: On behalf of the Opposition I support the bill, which amends the Traffic Act 1909 so as to require supervisors accompanying learner drivers to submit to blood alcohol tests for the presence of alcohol if they attend or are admitted to hospital as a result of an accident on a public street involving a motor vehicle driven by a student under their supervision. Supervisors will be subject to the 0.02 blood alcohol limit if they would be subject to that limit were they driving the vehicle whose driver they are accompanying. The previous Liberal Party-National Party Government allocated an extraordinary $206 million to road safety in its last budget; it gave high priority to supporting measures aimed at reducing road deaths and road trauma. The extension of blood alcohol testing to learner driver supervisors is a logical and worthwhile extension to the requirements of the Traffic Act. The Opposition supports the bill.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON [3.02]: The object of the bill is to amend the Traffic Act 1909 so that supervisors accompanying learner drivers will have their blood tested for the presence of alcohol if they attend or are admitted to hospital as a result of an accident on a public street involving a motor vehicle driven under their supervision, and will be subject to the 0.02 blood alcohol limit if they would be subject to that limit were they driving the vehicle whose driver they are accompanying. As honourable members will be aware, in 1982 the then Labor Government amended the Traffic Act to provide for the introduction of a trial of random breath testing for alcohol, which eventually lead to the compulsory breath analysis of drivers, motorcycle riders and pedestrians involved in accidents, and the blood testing of people admitted to hospital as a result of road accidents.

Since the introduction of random breath testing in 1982 the annual road toll in New South Wales has virtually halved. Currently, P-plate drivers, drivers in the first three years of driving, heavy vehicle drivers and coach drivers are covered by a special category drink-drive range, but this category does not apply to supervisors of learner drivers. This means that a person who normally is subject to the 0.02 grams per 100 millilitres blood alcohol content requirement when driving is, when supervising a learner, allowed to have a blood alcohol level of up to 0.05 grams per 100 millilitres. This is confusing to special category drivers. It could mean that a learner driver supervisor could, if required to take control of the vehicle, be over the 0.02 alcohol limit by which the learner driver is governed.

The bill is intended to provide that the same blood alcohol limit will apply to special category supervisors as if they were actually driving the vehicle. The breath and blood testing provisions for drivers should be the same as for supervisors of learner drivers, and the same blood alcohol limit should apply as if the supervisor were driving the vehicle. The legislation builds on the benefits of previous measures. It amends and enhances the Traffic Act to provide for the taking of blood samples from people who were supervising learner drivers at the time they were involved in a road accident and subjects them to the same drink-drive penalties as if they were driving. Supervisors of learner drivers are not passengers in the usual sense because they have some responsibility for the safe conduct of the vehicle.

This is reflected by the previous requirement that they stay under the limit as if they were driving the vehicle. The irregularity relating to blood testing was recognised by police in the course of enforcement, but although it was brought to the attention of the previous Government, the irregularity was not rectified. I congratulate the chairman of the Staysafe committee, the honourable member for Londonderry, Mr Paul Gibson, on the fine work of the committee. I congratulate also the
Page 4830
director of the Staysafe committee, Mr Ian Faulks, and his staff on their excellent work. I support the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. I. COHEN [3.10]: By leave, I move Greens amendments 1 to 6 in globo:

Parts 2, 3 and 4

No. 1 Page 7, clause 10. Insert after line 32:

(5) If it appears to the officer preparing the assessment report that the offender is homeless:

(a) all reasonable efforts must be made by the Probation and Parole Service, in consultation with the offender, to find suitable accommodation, and

(b) the report is not to be finalised until those efforts have been made.

No. 2 Page 12, clause 17(3), lines 29-34. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(3) Nothing in this section requires an offender to be provided with a copy of so much of a report or document as may, in the opinion of a judicial member of the Board, endanger or inappropriately identify any other person.

No. 3 Page 13, clause 19, line 25. Insert "(1)" after "41".

No. 4 Page 13, clause 19, line 28. Omit "(2)-(4)". Insert instead "(2) and (4)".

No. 5 Page 15, clause 28, line 10. Insert "and to determine the impact of the Act on families" after "those objectives".

No. 6 Page 15, clause 28. Insert after line 15:

(4) The Minister is to continue to monitor, and report to both Houses of Parliament, on the impact of this Act on families. Such a report must be tabled at least once in each calendar year after the year in which the report referred to in subsection (3) is tabled.

The purpose of amendment 1, which seeks the addition of a subclause (5) to clause 10, is to change the current generally accepted procedures of the Department of Corrective Services to attempt to find suitable accommodation for a person who otherwise is eligible for home detention but who may not have a home environment in which to serve the home detention sentence. Amendment 2, which seeks to amend clause 17(3), provides that revocation reports will remain accessible to detainees while vulnerable third parties will be protected. This more carefully balances the right of detainees to have access to a report which may affect their liberty, and the need to protect informants or other vulnerable third parties from possible harmful exposure. Amendments 3 and 4 seek to amend clause 19, so that detainees will retain the right of personal appearance in the Court of Criminal Appeal. This will be effected by the removal of the link to section 23(3) of the Sentencing Act 1989, which was and is bad law.

Amendment 5, which seeks to amend clause 28(1), and amendment 6, which seeks to add a subclause (4) to clause 28, provide that after the initial review of the operations of the Act the scheme will be frequently monitored each year to ensure that home detention does indeed act as a diversion from prison and to give special attention to the potential problems of domestic conflict which may arise or be aggravated by the scheme. I remain concerned that the home detention scheme may serve as an additional sentencing option rather than as a general diversion from prison, despite the clear intent of the bill. I rely upon the improved monitoring provisions in proposed subclause (4) of clause 28 to address this concern. I expect that if there is evidence of the net widening the Parliament will move rapidly to amend the bill and restore its principal intent: that home detention is used only as a diversion from the expensive and socially damaging option of prison.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [3.12]: The Australian Democrats support the amendments. I should have thought, however, that the first amendment was unnecessary because the Minister in his second reading speech and in reply made it very clear that if an offender did not have what was considered a suitable home for home detention purposes or, in fact, had no home at all, all efforts would be made to find suitable accommodation. However, the fact that the requirement is now included in the legislation provides a safety measure and we will not have to rely on the Interpretation Act when the bill is put into effect.

I take this opportunity to state once again that it is very clear from what has been said by the Minister in his second reading speech and in reply, and by other members in support of the legislation, that the home detention option will not be available for those who have committed violent offences. It is interesting to note that the long-term analysis shows that the present level of violence in Australia measured by the homicide rate is at the same level as or lower than it was 80 years ago. The indication from studies based on United Kingdom and United States data is that the homicide rate at the beginning of this century was lower than it was in the nineteenth century, and over the long term the level of violence has been decreasing since the Middle Ages. It has also been pointed out in an Australian Institute of Criminology newsletter, which arrived on my desk today -

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the honourable member to confine her remarks to the amendments under consideration.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I believe it is germane to the amendments because of the opposition expressed by members of the coalition. It needs to be emphasised over and over again that violent criminals will not be sentenced to home detention. To allay the fears that are being promoted by the popular press and certain radio journalists, none of the statistics and research prove that we live
Page 4831
in an increasingly violent society. I am happy that the amendments have been accepted by the Attorney General and presume that there will be no division in relation to them.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.16]: The Government has had the opportunity to discuss with the Hon. I. Cohen the amendments proposed. The Minister for Corrective Services has advised that the amendments can be accepted and incorporated as part of the bill. The Government is happy to support them.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.


Suspension of standing and sessional orders, by leave, agreed to.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Is it a fact that the Minister's department does not provide foster parents with sufficient information to adequately assess the needs of children being offered for placement? Why has the Minister failed to offer resources to ensure the safety of children and families involved in substitute care?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is interesting that the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, a backbench member of the previous Government, would have the temerity to ask a question about support for foster parents. This Government, in the 18 months that it has been in office, has provided a great deal more support for foster parents and foster children than was ever provided by the previous Government. For foster parents, that support is in the form of increased payments to look after children, particularly teenagers. Clearly, for children with special needs, increased payments need to be made. This Government, via its budgets, has substantially increased payments to foster carers. There are two reasons that should happen. One is the justice and merits of the matter. In other words, foster parents who look after children, sometimes difficult children, need to be adequately recompensed for providing that service.

Foster parents deserve adequate payment; indeed the thousands of foster parents deserve a medal for what they do. Without them the State would be in a parlous situation. If adequate payment is not provided people will not regard the position of foster carer as terribly attractive. If it becomes sufficiently unattractive - and I suggest that had the previous Government remained in office it would have become increasingly unattractive, given its lack of attention to increasing payments for foster carers - the pool will eventually diminish to such an extent that few will offer themselves as foster carers. In addition, in its most recent budget in May this year this Government increased the amount of pocket money to children in care, particularly to teenage children. Teenagers tend to have a somewhat more expensive lifestyle than younger children.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Tell me about it!

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Anyone who is a parent of teenage children, as the Hon. D. J. Gay is and I am, would recognise that to be the case. The situation is no different when children are in foster care. If they want to go to the movies or buy a birthday present for their friend, they need access to a reasonably small but nonetheless adequate weekly payment.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Are they opposing it?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Those opposite were so opposed to providing such funding that they never did anything about it when they were in office. The Treasurer has just increased the amount of pocket money teenagers in foster care receive. The Government has carried out the two matters I have referred to since it came to office - and that was not a long time ago. It is certainly much less time than the time the previous Government was in office. The previous Government had an appalling record with regard to social policy and social welfare. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe is rocking from side to side expressing her boredom.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: An appointment to the industrial bench is looking more attractive Ron.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Is the honourable member making the offer? As an Opposition member he is not in a position to make such an offer.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Finish the answer.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I notice the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is back in the House. His absence was noted yesterday. When he is not present question time tends to be much quieter. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is a remarkable person. When he is outside the House, in a social context, he is absolutely charming.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: And intelligent.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: And intelligent. But when he comes into this House he undergoes some form of metamorphosis. Suddenly his whole personality changes!

Page 4832

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Go ballistic for us.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti invites me to go ballistic. I am not a registered medical practitioner - I am not even an unregistered medical practitioner - but, without meaning to be unduly unkind, I have sometimes wondered whether the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti might need a brain transplant when he comes into this House. If I may return to the question asked by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Question time is not designed for intimate conversations across the House. I entreat the Minister to answer the question and I entreat other members to minimise interjections.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: While an ongoing mechanism is being established regarding substitute care, the Government has acted quickly to review care arrangements for all children currently in long-term care.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: The Government is doing an excellent job in that regard.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I believe so. This review addresses whether the individual needs of these children with regard to care, counselling, health and education services are being met. The second key strategy for children in care announced by the Premier, apart from the mechanism to which I have just referred, is a $600,000 package to improve consumer and carer support and participation.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Where did he get that money?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: From the Treasurer. Returning to what I was saying earlier, foster carers often feel isolated when facing the complex issues associated with caring for children and adolescents who more often than not have been abused or neglected. Carers can seek advice from welfare workers. However, it is through peer support that they are often able to manage in times of crisis. The funding to which I have just referred will be used for increased training for carers. Newsletters will be published and meetings held so that carers are given up-to-date information vital to the unique role they play. In a number of areas the Government is taking seriously the needs of foster carers, in contradistinction to the sustained neglect by the previous Government.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: My question with approval and without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Can the Minister inform the House of the details of the Government's promotion of an innovative self-help program for teenagers?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I willingly acknowledge the honourable member's support for and interest in the wellbeing of young people. Recently I had the pleasure of launching Operation Tuned In, a program run by teenagers for teenagers. The program, which is being piloted in Mount Druitt and Dubbo, will provide a range of activities for youth in those local areas. Young people from each area will be appointed to a board and will consult local teenagers about the activities they want and need. The activities could include such events as dances, seminars, sports coaching clinics and practical workshops. A talent bank of more than 400 people, such as sports people, actors, models, business people and specialist counsellors, have agreed to participate in special projects. All profits from the activities will be channelled back into the program. Operation Tuned In will specifically target young people in years 10 and 12 at high school who are not likely to go on to tertiary education. By directly asking young people what activities they want, instead of adults telling them what they need, we can help teenagers to take responsibility for their lives and their futures.

[Interruption]

I am glad that the Hon. M. R. Kersten supports this announcement. I am pleased to say that I was able to provide direct assistance to Operation Tuned In with a $20,000 seeding grant from my discretionary fund. I consider that to be money well spent - or well loaned as it will be repaid once the program is on its feet. Operation Tuned In is being underwritten by the Labor Council of New South Wales. An advisory board has been established to assist with fundraising, and includes representatives from the State Chamber of Commerce, the Australian Medical Association, the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales, the New South Wales Law Society, the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Commonwealth Bank. So the big end of town is well represented and is very supportive of this initiative. My colleague in another place, Mr Paul Gibson, the member for Londonderry, who initiated this program, is chairman of the board of directors. I extend my congratulations to him. I am pleased to support his program with its emphasis on young people helping themselves and each other.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Is it a fact that two young people placed in foster care on the north coast by the Department of Community Services sexually abused two very young people of the families with which they had been placed? Is it a fact that the department knew that the two young people were capable of sexual abuse, yet departmental officers did nothing to ensure that the foster parents were provided with this information?
Page 4833
Why has the Minister not taken any action to ensure that young persons are not placed in such danger? In light of these incidents, one in March and the other in August, can the Minister guarantee to foster families and State wards that the standard of professional advice and assistance offered by the department are adequate to guarantee the efficacy of the substitute care system?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Patricia Forsythe is developing a practice of raising casework matters in this House, well knowing that she cannot name the people in question or otherwise identify them, and nor can I. Throughout the State there are hundreds of cases of children from dysfunctional families being placed in care where various things can and do go wrong. Things went wrong under all previous governments, and they will go wrong under this Government. The Department of Community Services is dealing with very difficult casework matters. Since I have been Minister for Community Services I have noticed that no parent has told, me or written to me stating, that he or she is abusive. However, when children are placed in care parents tend to nitpick about something that might have gone wrong.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Sexual abuse is not nitpicking.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am not claiming that this matter is nitpicking. I am saying by way of general background that it is not uncommon for people who have neglected their children to be very observant of the performance of the department and its officers and to neglect their own record. If the Hon. Patricia Forsythe cares to advise me of the details of the matter in question, it will be promptly and thoroughly investigated. One of the reasons I have made changes at the top level of the department is that I am not satisfied with its performance. I will get a better performance out of this department if it is the last thing I do.


The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. What is happening with the Government's enterprise agreement approval principles test case?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I commend the Hon. A. B. Manson for his continuing interest in industrial relations reform in New South Wales. In reforming the State's industrial relations laws, the Government recognised that New South Wales employers and unions alike sought a more responsive and streamlined industrial relations system, one which is able to evolve to meet the changing circumstances faced by New South Wales enterprises. A key component in achieving that reform is the new Act's enhanced role for the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission to deal with significant industrial relations issues, including the power to hold test cases to set general standards and procedures. This power is not novel. The New South Wales commission has used similar powers in the past to set minimum standards for matters such as wages, shift work and redundancy entitlements.

The new Act requires the Industrial Relations Commission to hold a test case to set principles to be followed by the commission in determining whether to approve enterprise agreements. The Act provides that the principles for approval are to be set and published within six months of the commencement of the Act. In determining those principles the Full Bench is to have regard to the relevant statutory tests for approval of agreements. Regard will also be given to the need for an appropriate process to ensure that sufficient information about the effect of the agreement is provided to employees who are to be covered by the agreement. The commission will also have regard to the objects of the Act and the public interest.

An application has been made to the commission by the Government, by the Crown, to set these principles. The matter was listed for mention on 10 October. At that hearing it was agreed that conferences of the parties would take place, that the Government should file and serve its proposed draft principles and written submissions by 4 November, that other parties should file their written submissions by 11 November and that hearings in the enterprise agreements principles test case would commence on Monday, 25 November. That is an expeditious, efficient and appropriate response by the tribunal to the requirement to set principles in a test case for enterprise bargaining in the New South Wales jurisdiction. The Government is confident of a positive outcome to that case which will ensure that employees working under enterprise agreements are not exploited, while at the same time promoting workplace reform and increased productivity.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Health. Do 17 people per day die of smoking-related illnesses in New South Wales? Is the Minister aware that the level of funding for the New South Wales Quit campaign is among the lowest in Australian States? Is the Minister also aware that in California a $US50 million per year expenditure on an anti-smoking campaign reduced the number of smokers from 25 per cent of the population to 15 per cent over eight years? Will the Minister assure the House that he is aware of the value of the New South Wales Quit campaign and undertake to provide an equivalent amount of $A7 million per year towards the New South Wales Quit campaign? If not, will the Minister, at the very least, undertake to increase
Page 4834
funding for the New South Wales Quit campaign to $2.8 million per year to match the funding in Victoria?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The honourable member may be assured that the Government recognises the value of campaigns such as the Quit campaign. However, I shall refer the detail of the question to my colleague the Minister for Health so that a full and considered response may be obtained.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: My question without notice, which is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, refers to the case of Jonathan which was raised on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's AM program this morning. Has the Minister asked his department for a full report on this incident? Did the Minister's department recently tell the mother of the person referred to as Jonathan that he was "in care" and then deny this later and say that he was "in institute care placement"? Is it acceptable that there should be such confusion over a placement and that a child can be sent interstate with so little follow-up or care? Does the Minister regard this as normal or appropriate departmental practice or does he believe that his department has been negligent in its care and protection of Jonathan? In light of this and earlier matters raised by my colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe will the Minister now admit that there are serious problems in his department in addressing the needs of State wards?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I thank the Hon. Virginia Chadwick for her intelligence in giving sufficient facts, unlike the shadow minister, to enable me to identify the matter to which she refers. I have been advised of the facts of the case to which the Hon. Virginia Chadwick refers. However, I am not in a position to disclose the personal details of particular cases. The Department of Community Services is aware of the allegations made previously by the youth's mother against his father. However, the youth expressed a desire to be reunited with his father and never confirmed his mother's allegations. A number of alternative accommodation options for the youth proved to be unsuccessful. Subsequently, the department agreed to the child's wishes and he was returned to be with his father in 1994. The policy of the Department of Community Services is to ensure, where possible, that children remain with their families and the wishes and concerns of a young person are taken into consideration when making decisions. As the Hon. Virginia Chadwick mentioned in her question, further allegations were made on radio this morning by the youth and his mother. I have received advice from the department today which appears to answer satisfactorily the allegations that have been made.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Did that advice come from the northern regional office?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I repeat that I am not prepared to disclose the personal details of this family. However, I remind the House that there are two sides to every story. I also remind Opposition members, who appear set to continually raise casework matters in this House, that while I am always prepared to ensure that the department is looking after the interests of its clients, there are appropriate avenues for complaint. The most obvious of these is a personal approach to my office, and, of course, the Community Services Commission is virtually a standing inquiry into the Department of Community Services. People with a grievance against the department or its funded services can take their complaint to the Community Services Commission. While the raising of a constituent's grievance in this House is an important avenue for a member of Parliament, I am yet to be convinced that members of the Opposition are serious about resolving people's complaints. I believe that they are more interested in political grandstanding.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Did he say on 11 September that he expected negotiations for the showground film studio to be finalised within a fortnight? How does he explain that more than a month has lapsed with still no word on the finalisation of that deal? Is this further confirmation that the deal, which the Treasurer has been saying for more than a year was just weeks away from completion, is in fact in trouble?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: After the Carr Government had been in office for about a month I suggested to the Opposition that its performance in question time was so pathetic that it really should establish a question time committee. The Leader of the Opposition says that on 11 September I said that the showground lease and the Fox lease would be completed within a fortnight - and they were! On 25 September I publicly announced that fact at a press conference. I told the world, and it was reported in all the media on 25 September. A fortnight after I said it would be done, it was all done. It has all been finalised.

The performance of the Opposition in question time over the 18 months or so that the Government has been in office is having a deleterious effect on my health. I was led to believe that as a Minister of the Crown for the hour or so before question time my adrenalin would be pumping, my nerves would be hopping. That certainly has been the experience of every other Minister of any other government that I have ever known. There was real pressure on Ministers before question time. In fact, it would take people an hour after question time to calm down and relax. What I have found is that in the hour before question time and during question time a quiet calm descends upon me. It is the only time of day when I do not need a cup of coffee and I do not need a cigarette.

Page 4835

The other week I was frightened that something was wrong with me. So I went to the doctor and I told him the problem, that instead of the adrenalin pumping and instead of me racing here and there about this issue or that issue I quietly sign the files, answer my correspondence, and return telephone calls. I said, "I don't know what's wrong with me. I really should be in a state before question time but I never am." I went through all the things I eat. I told him I drink a lot of coffee, I smoke a lot of cigarettes, and I eat a lot of butter and sugar. He said, "All those things are very bad for you". He asked some more questions and took some tests. He got me to march up and down on the spot with my eyes closed. He said, "I will assess all this information overnight, come back tomorrow and I'll tell you what's wrong".

I went back to the doctor the following day. He said, "I have diagnosed your problem. It is good Government. You have such a strong and compelling case that whenever they ask you a question you can beat them around the ears". I was a bit uncertain about whether that diagnosis was right, but I am going to send my doctor a copy of a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and my answer and the diagnosis will be confirmed. I suggest, first, that members of the Opposition should ask questions they write themselves and not questions sent to them from the other place. Second, they should not only keep up with public issues, they should also insist that their shadow colleagues, including the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, and their staff should do likewise, because as I promised on 11 September the deal was finalised on 25 September.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask a question without notice of the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is it a fact that in view of the front page report in the Sydney Morning Herald today the royal commission held an in-camera hearing into allegations that a former judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales is a pederast? Why was this hearing on a senior public figure held in secret while other hearings, especially those involving bishops, priests, senior police officers, et cetera, are held in public? Is this the only instance of an in-camera hearing or have other members of the legal profession, or those from other influential areas of society, also had secret hearings?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: It is entirely a matter within the discretion of the royal commissioner as to whether evidence is taken in-camera and how he conducts his royal commission. All members of the House would understand that when terms of reference are given to a judge of the Supreme Court to conduct a royal commission, that discretion in procedural terms has to be respected. As has been reported in the press there is a call for a report in relation to a certain segment of the royal commission. I will be communicating with the royal commissioner about that particular matter. As has also been reported in the press it is clear that I have no power, nor have I any desire, to direct or instruct the royal commissioner in the conduct of his important duties conferred upon him by this Parliament.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. The Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, is on the record as stating that "rounding down of dividends will go once I am Premier, that is official Labor policy". Will the Minister explain to the House why wagering taxation reform has remained unchanged?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Leader of the National Party put a proposition to the House and the following question was a non sequitur, so I am unable to assist him.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice. Given the recent review finding of the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority that 40 toxic substances can be emitted from the Waterloo incinerator and that these are raining over the people of the surrounding areas, and that the councils operating it have been given six years notice to upgrade, will the Government now close the incinerator without any further delay? Why should the residents put up with another 10 months of being poisoned by this incinerator? Has the Government established an alternative waste minimisation and recycling strategy for the eastern suburbs, as announced last August, to ensure that waste currently being incinerated is recycled and not dumped in yet another landfill? If not, when will the strategy be put in place?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I appreciate that the honourable member has raised a matter of current controversy and importance and I will refer the question to the Minister for the Environment to obtain a response.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development. Has the Minister been advised of the impact on employment, distribution channels and transport operators flowing from the reported decision of the Australian Wool Exchange to shift Newcastle's valuable wool sales activities to Sydney
Page 4836
over the next six months in an apparent step to centralise wool sales? I add that the same thing happened in Goulburn. Given the contribution by the wool sales for six decades to Newcastle's standing as an export hub, is the Minister satisfied to sit back and ignore another nail going into the coffin of the Hunter's export role?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. D. J. Gay may be assured that the Government takes very seriously the interests of the people of Newcastle and the Hunter region of the State. The House will realise that this very week the Premier has been involved in discussions with representatives of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited regarding the company's future intentions in relation to steel making in Newcastle. If BHP was to take a decision to substantially downscale or, even worse, remove steel-making facilities from Newcastle, that would clearly have a major impact on employment levels there. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick in particular knows that I consider myself to be an honorary Novocastrian. I make that claim because between 1982 and 1988 I represented this House on the Council of the University of Newcastle.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: And you did a good job too.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Thank you very much. I rose to the dizzy heights of Chairman of the By-laws and Constitutions Committee of the university council. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick will be delighted to hear that I rendered the university's legislation into non-sexist language, among other things. In addition, I chaired a committee of the university council looking into to the governance of the university, and I would claim that the committee made very useful recommendations. I miss my time on the University of Newcastle council, and I have a great affection for Newcastle and the Hunter region. The Hon. D. J. Gay asked a question concerning wool-selling facilities. I am concerned about the form of his question to me. Anything that might affect employment opportunities and economic activity in Newcastle is a matter about which I personally would be concerned, and I am sure the Government would also be concerned.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Will you do anything about it?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: What I will do about it is refer the question to my colleague the Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development for a full consideration and response as soon as possible.


The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask 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, a question without notice. In the light of the decision by the Commonwealth Government not to proceed with the current round of the national estate grants through the Australian Heritage Commission, and in the light of the Minister's comments during the estimates committees of this House, will the Minister extend the New South Wales heritage assistance grants scheme to projects for the natural environment and Aboriginal heritage? Will the Minister fund those projects which have been assessed and recommended to the Commonwealth for funding by the New South Wales Heritage Council relating to the natural environment and Aboriginal heritage, for which there is currently no funding?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the question to my colleague.


The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Given the concern of Standard and Poor's that the Carr Government was losing control of the budget process with knee-jerk political decisions, will the Treasurer detail where the funds will come from to satisfy the liability of $73 million per annum to which he has committed this State? Will he allow the Auditor-General to review these costings? How much will his scheme cost to administer?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I refer the Hon. J. M. Samios to my answer to a question on the M4 and M5 cash back scheme yesterday.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Has the Department of Community Services written to service providers of child care, advising them that the new regulations applying to centre-based and mobile child-care services, and family day care and home-based child care services, to be effective as at 1 September 1996, are not to be enforced? Is that because the department has now found that these regulations are unworkable? How effective has the consultation process been with child-care service providers in the formulation of new regulations? Is the Minister now prepared to enter into proper consultation?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Members of this House will be well aware that under the Subordinate Legislation Act there is a staged and regular repeal of all subordinate legislation, including the subordinate legislation to which the honourable member refers. There is a timetable that must be adhered to by law and it was adhered to in this case. I am advised that there was substantial consultation with the sector regarding this matter, and it was not possible to extend the period of consultation having regard to the requirements of the law. The child-care
Page 4837
sector is complex. Various forms of child care are provided, such as long day care, preschools, occasional care, before and after school care, and so on. I am advised that substantial consultation occurred, but it is not possible to satisfy the concerns of everybody. Consultation means talking to people and obtaining their views. It does not necessarily mean giving effect to the views expressed in every case, particularly when one considers that those views may be contradictory in a given case.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, and Minister for State and Regional Development, representing the Minister for Transport. In response to the Premier's lukewarm commitment to the future of the Hunter region's economic infrastructure, and the Government's acknowledged lack of influence with Broken Hill Pty Company Limited over long-term steel plans at Newcastle, what action is the Government proposing to take to protect the viability of the Newcastle-based grains handling facility and State Rail from reported extensions of Queensland Rail's links from Goondiwindi to Moree? Is this just another disheartening loss of export dollars and employment for northern New South Wales due to State Government inaction and insensitivity to regional infrastructure?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Department of State Development and, I think, Treasury have looked at this proposal by Queensland railways.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: They are serious about it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, they are serious about it.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: It will cost this State millions.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not sure if that would be the case. The Hon. J. H. Jobling will be aware that under the national competition principles, if a new operator wants to run freight, the national competition agreements entered into by all of the governments of Australia and supported by the Liberal and National parties, both in government and in opposition, lay down certain requirements, which are imposed on all States. The Hon. J. H. Jobling takes a pessimistic view if he automatically assumes that the Queensland proposal will disadvantage the Hunter region. It could well mean that the Hunter port will deal with freight from Queensland and New South Wales ports could clean up as against Queensland ports.


The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Is the Minister prepared to meet with the parents of residents of Peat Island to explain to them the impact of the closure of Rizkalla? If not, why not? Given the view of the acting director of nursing that staff stress levels are likely to increase with the closure of the unit, have additional resources been offered to the staff to ensure they are able to cope with the closure?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I have previously answered questions concerning Peat Island and I have given details of the staffing available there, which in my view and in the view of the Department of Community Services is adequate to service the needs of the clients. The honourable member referred in particular to the Rizkalla unit. On various occasions since I have been Minister I have met representatives of the Peat Island residents' parents association.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Have you been to Peat Island?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Virginia Chadwick, with her usual inquiring mind, wants to know whether I have been to Peat Island. I have been to Peat Island. I have visited many institutions run by my department and a remarkable thing happens when I visit some of those institutions.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: They all close?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: No. For example, when I visited the Lachlan Centre at North Ryde, I was told, "Minister, you are the first Minister to have visited this facility since Peter Anderson."

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You are kidding!

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am not kidding. That is what I have been told. The clear inference to be drawn from that comment is that the Hon. Virginia Chadwick, the Hon. John Hannaford and the Hon. Jim Longley never darkened the door of many of these institutions because they were not interested. The Leader of the Opposition is looking very embarrassed because he knows that he never went there. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick has never been there either. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick brought this on herself by asking whether I had been to Peat Island. I have been to Peat Island and I have also been to a number of other facilities. The Opposition ought to be very embarrassed about its record in government, its neglect of and lack of interest in the facilities it ran.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher is interested in the Rizkalla unit, and I refer him to the answer I gave on 17 September this year concerning that matter. As I said at that time, the accommodation at Peat Island known as the Rizkalla unit currently houses 16 elderly people with multiple disabilities. It is an old building that is in need of major repairs, and the conditions are inappropriate to the needs of its residents. Discussion has been had with staff, parents and union representatives about the proposal to relocate residents to more appropriate
Page 4838
accommodation at other units on Peat Island. The date for relocation is currently the end of this month. I again assure the House that the places to which the residents of Rizkalla are moving are all major improvements on the existing conditions in Rizkalla. This means that even though placements in other units at Peat Island might not yet conform to the standards required by the Disability Services Act, they are more appropriate to the assessed current needs of the residents than the rundown and overcrowded Rizkalla unit can provide.

Planning for the relocation of clients from Rizkalla has been revised and only two clients will move to the Pines unit. They will be accommodated in the refurbished area downstairs, which will include individual bedrooms, shared bathroom-toilet and a small sitting room. This will eliminate the need for shared accommodation. The current staffing arrangements at the Pines will be maintained. A further two clients will relocate to community accommodation during the next six to 12 weeks. The timing of transition implementation at Peat Island will be critical in determining priorities for all improvements. Final decisions about possible renovation of the Rizkalla unit will have to be taken in this context. At the same time, it is expected that along with the rest of Peat Island everything will be done to assist the units where the former Rizkalla residents will be placed to achieve the maximum possible standard of support and care for all residents.


The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I ask the Minister a supplementary question. In the light of the Minister's previous answer, I would like clarification of what he meant when he said "six to eight weeks". Was he talking about six to eight weeks from when he gave his answer in September, or was he talking about six to eight weeks from today?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I cannot be precise to the day as to the relocation. However, the honourable member may be assured that the relocation to which I have referred is imminent.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that there have been documented cases of patients recovering when life-support machinery has been turned off after a diagnosis of brain death? Is the Minister further aware that one such case was recorded in the Hansard of the Northern Territory during the debate on euthanasia? Given such documented cases, and given that in cases of organ donation life-support machinery is often not turned off and the removal of organs follows a diagnosis of brain death only, will the Minister ensure that donor families are given information that life-support machinery will not be turned off? Will they also be given the facts of such documented recoveries before being asked to make a decision to proceed with organ donation? Will the Minister also ensure that an inquiry is held into the medical and ethical issues raised in relation to the definition of death as a result of modern and evolving medical technology?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I said earlier in question time that I am neither a registered nor an unregistered medical practitioner. The question is a very serious, technical and detailed one. Having regard to the technicality of the matters raised and their importance, it is appropriate that I refer the question, as I shall, to the Minister for Health so that a full response can be obtained.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is directed to 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. Is the Premier aware that all State Premiers in Australia have publicly and directly rebuked the racist views of the Federal member for Oxley? Is the Premier also aware that motions to support multiculturalism and Aboriginal reconciliation have been moved by Premiers in other States, such as South Australia? Is it a fact that to date the New South Wales Premier has not made any significant comments, despite the fact that he is also the Minister for Ethnic Affairs? Does the Premier acknowledge the fact that the current public debate on race is hurting many members of the ethnic and Aboriginal communities? Will the Premier do anything about it? If so, what?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the question to the Premier.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Treasurer. The Premier, when Leader of the Opposition, is on record as stating, "rounding down of dividends will go once I am Premier. That is official Labor policy." Will the Minister please explain to the House why the Government has not honoured its promise?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Probably because of further and better particulars.


The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: I direct my question without notice to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Transport. Further to a question I asked the Minister yesterday in regard to country rail services, will the Minister confirm that staff losses in Parkes will total 25 employees, in
Page 4839
Ivanhoe nine employees, and in Broken Hill 17 employees? Will the Minister further advise as to what staff losses will occur in the near future?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer that question to my colleague the Minister for Transport.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice. Is the Minister aware of allegations by a shooter in South Australia that quantities of kangaroo meat coming from northern South Australia are heavily contaminated with radioactivity? What tests are being undertaken by the Department of Health to check on radioactivity in kangaroo meat coming from South Australia?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I must concede that I am not aware that kangaroo meat coming from the northern part of South Australia may be contaminated by radioactivity. However, I shall have the matter investigated and referred to the Minister for Health for a considered response to be obtained and supplied.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. How many licence applications have been received from companies wanting to retail energy in New South Wales, excluding the six distributors already operating in the State? How many of these licences have been approved and issued?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: There are 12. However, I am not sure at this stage, even though I have been dealing with correspondence, whether the number of licences granted is 12 in addition to or including the six New South Wales distributors. I am now advised that the number is 12 in addition to the six. I know one company has either just been issued or is very close to being issued with a licence. Under the legislation a number of consultations have to be undertaken before approval is given. I anticipate that before much longer a number of the applicants will receive their licences.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I ask the Treasurer, and Minister for Energy a supplementary question. Given that most of the applications were received in early September and that the market commenced on 1 October this year, when will these licences be issued? Has the Government deliberately protected New South Wales government-owned companies from fair competition, especially from Victorian operators?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I certainly have not heard that complaint from any of the 12. I would be surprised if it is a complaint they would make.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: It is a fact.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: What is a fact?

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: That they have not received their licences and feel they are discriminated against.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: They have not told me.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Has the Treasurer approved $100,000 in financial support to the Newcastle City Council to host the major international conference Pathways to Sustainability - Local Initiatives for Cities and Towns to be held in June 1997? On his behalf will the Premier announce the Government's support for this important conference? If not, why not?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will take the question on notice. From recollection, I am not aware of such a grant but I will certainly find out.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of the Standing Committee on Social Issues report, "Sexual Violence: Addressing the Crime"? Is the Minister aware that various Sydney hospitals are being asked to respond to the recommendations for more resources for sexual assault response teams? Is he also aware that those teams are unable to maintain their current staffing levels and are flat out to make any response to the recommendation of the committee? Is the Minister further aware that in cases of child sexual assault victims are being turned away through lack of resources in those units? What does the Government propose to do about the shortage of resources in this tragic area of suffering in our community?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am certainly aware in general terms of the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues to which the Hon. D. F. Moppett refers. The question of sexual assault, of course, is a very important one. On 2 September my colleague the Minister for Health launched the New South Wales child health strategy discussion paper, "Caring for Health - Caring for Children". To achieve its goal of improving health, NSW Health is implementing its child protection strategy, including adoption of policies and procedures for physical abuse and neglect and sexual assault of children.

Page 4840

The child protection strategy is currently under development by the Department of Health. The strategy will bring together existing sexual assault policies with newly developed evidence-based policies regarding the physical and emotional abuse and neglect of children. A draft strategy is currently being distributed throughout the health system for consultation by the end of October 1996. Last year the Department of Health established a network of child protection coordinators throughout New South Wales. There were 17 coordinators appointed, one for each area and rural health service. Also, a statewide education officer position was created to serve the needs of staff working in the area of child abuse.

In April the Government provided a further $300,000 in recurrent funding for the appointment of two additional child protection coordinators at Broken Hill and Taree, as well as for Aboriginal family health workers. NSW Health operates 46 child sexual assault services across the State. Those units provide a 24-hour crisis counselling and medical service to children and young people who have been sexually assaulted. These child sexual assault services also provide long-term counselling and support to children who have been sexually assaulted and their non-offending carers, court preparation and support, community education and prevention activities.

The New South Wales Women's Health and Sexual Assault Education Unit, run by the Department of Health, offers courses for a range of health workers, as well as other professionals in the field, on counselling children who have been sexually assaulted. NSW Health is working with the Premier's Department and other key agencies and contributing to the review of the Child Protection Council interagency guidelines to ensure that there is a consistent interagency response to child protection issues. Coordinated interagency response regarding child protection is a very important matter.

No matter what department is involved, it is important that there be cooperation with other involved and relevant departments. NSW Health is also currently participating in a Public Employment Office working group which has been convened by the Premier's Department. This working group is developing a whole-of-Government approach to the recommendations of the Community Services Commission report on residential care, with particular reference to recruitment and screening of staff, in response to issues raised at the Wood royal commission. These activities reflect the department's genuine commitment to a supportive interagency system of child protection which offers a high quality, child-focused response across New South Wales.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I ask the Minister a supplementary question. In view of the inordinate time that has elapsed since the tabling of the report, when can members expect a comprehensive response from the Government to the recommendations about sexual assault by the Standing Committee on Social Issues?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I believe that the response I gave evidences the fact that the Government, in this case via NSW Health, is taking, and has taken in the recent past, a number of important initiatives regarding the need for child protection facilities. The honourable member referred in his question to particular recommendations made in the report. I cannot, without notice, deal with all of those matters. I do not have the recommendations in front of me at the moment. However, the matter raised is important and I shall refer that part of the question to my colleague the Minister for Health so that he can provide a considered response to that matter.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: In view of the time, if members have further questions I suggest they place them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.


Debate resumed from 25 September.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [4.29]: It is particularly interesting that I should resume my contribution to this take-note debate today after it was discovered yesterday that whatever the Government's intention may be, it will not be possible to sell the Rydalmere Biological and Chemical Research Institute without amending legislation. As was stated yesterday during question time in another place the site is dedicated for laboratory purposes only and cannot be sold for any other purpose. In his response to a question the Minister for Agriculture seemed to suggest it would be an easy exercise to get the revocation through both Houses of Parliament. I believe he will be disappointed in that optimistic view. The entire debate will be reopened and we will once again explore the reasons the Government believes it is necessary to close down this most important biological and chemical research institute.

This report of the Standing Committee on State Development contains ample evidence that, except for the spokesperson for the Government, not one single witness believed that this research institute should be closed. The report has been carefully constructed to create the illusion of substantial arguments for and against. In fact, 188 submissions were against the proposals and only one in favour, and that came from the executive of the Department of Agriculture. Similarly, of the 76 witnesses examined, only the executive supported
Page 4841
the proposals. There was support for the proposal only from the Government. The report gives the same space to the lone supporter as it gives to the 250-odd opponents. That is not balanced reporting. The committee heard enough expert evidence against the proposals, including evidence from independent witnesses who did not make submissions, to recommend against the closures 10 times over. Despite that the Government members on the committee supported the decision.

It is clear that the Government put its political imperatives before the interests of agricultural industries and agricultural science and even before the proper treatment of its own employees. This report is a whitewash. No wonder our society is so cynical about politicians and the political process. Time and again the Minister touted the proposals as improvements in service to the industry. Why was the committee unable to point to even one industry group that supported the Government? In fact, the executive admitted to the committee that there was no consultation with industry, staff or even middle management about the decision. Lack of consultation was justified by the confidentiality surrounding budget initiatives. This is no justification for embarking on a major reorganisation of the department without prior discussion or consultation.

Indeed, the closure of the veterinary laboratory in Wagga Wagga was against recommendation 3 of the report, which recommended that the laboratory should stay open. The committee members heard evidence from a wide range of sources before recommending that the laboratory stay open. I have a copy of the Minister's press release on the matter. He was very proud of his press release that announced an additional veterinary position for Wagga Wagga. Twelve days after making that announcement we learned that Wagga Wagga veterinary laboratory would transfer all of its functions to the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute and to Orange.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is outrageous.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: It is quite ridiculous because the new veterinary staffer, who now must be a senior veterinary officer for that area, is in fact a veterinary pathologist. To put him in charge of a team that, laughingly, the Minister believes can cover the whole southern region of New South Wales is to waste his expertise and his efforts over the years to gain a higher degree in veterinary science - a degree that not too many people have. Obviously, the Minister does not appreciate the size of the southern region. Nor does he understand that one additional veterinary position cannot oversight the work of the Rural Lands Protection Boards, formerly known as the Pastures Protection Boards. The Minister has moved a person who is carrying out excellent pathology work into a seemingly impossible coordinating role. In his press release the Minister said:

Dr Links will be part of the veterinary team servicing the needs of producers in the Albury, Holbrook, Gundagai, Wagga Wagga, Narrandera, Urana, Corowa, Jerilderie, Hay, Deniliquin and Moulamein Rural Lands Protection Boards.

Within the area formerly serviced by the Wagga Wagga veterinary laboratory is the Illabo region, which is now a prime fat lamb producing area and exports produce all over the world. In fact, fat lamb from Illabo has been described on menus in New York restaurants as the finest fat lamb that can be bought. Despite that, Illabo's industry will no longer be closely monitored by the Wagga Wagga laboratory. It will now be monitored from the institute at Menangle or at Orange. Where is the common sense in that? Similarly, the veterinary laboratory in Wagga Wagga previously serviced areas such as Coolamon, Junee and Grenfell. It is ridiculous that the Minister should issue such an offhand press release. If it shows anything, it shows that the Minister does not appreciate the value of Dr Links. The Minister said:

Dr Links has a special interest in pathology work, having gained considerable experience in the regional veterinary laboratory network.

That is the way that this ignorant Minister treats veterinary pathologists of international repute. It is a disgrace, and this matter should be brought to the attention of all people in New South Wales, not just the people of Sydney. Another suggestion doing the rounds is that the Minister has said that the BCRI must close on 31 January 1997. It is rumoured that the Minister has said it will be closing its doors come "hell or high water" before then. The new facilities in which the BCRI will supposedly be located will not be finished until some time in 1997, so one assumes that all the equipment at the BCRI will have to be put into storage, at considerable cost to the taxpayer. Even worse, delicate laboratory equipment, which will be double handled by removalists, may be damaged.

The cost of relocating one plant collection from Rydalmere to Menangle has been estimated at about $10,000. Apparently New South Wales Agriculture will have to hire refrigerated containers to store some of the materials now held at Rydalmere. We do not know what that will cost the taxpayer. It is ludicrous to put a firm date on a ministerial whim - the closure of Rydalmere - the consequences of which will be the expense of double handling by removalists and the storage of materials and equipment. On a previous occasion I referred to my disappointment about the selective quoting of the report by the chair of the committee, the Hon. Patricia Staunton, on 18 September. I would not have believed that she would do that. On page 4245 of Hansard the Hon. Patricia Staunton referred to Dr Edge and said:

He stated on page 99 of the report:

The establishment of the `Centres of Excellence', the key centres, will in my view be a significant benefit to agriculture in this State . . . The concept is fine.

Page 4842

If the honourable member were a Minister I would say that she misled the House, because on page 99 of the report Dr Edge, Deputy Chief of the Division of Plant Industries and Director of the Biological and Chemical Research Institute, said:

The establishment of the `Centres of Excellence', the key centres, will in my view be a significant benefit to agriculture in this State. In my view there are too many of them. The concept is fine.

However, Professor Gibbs said:

. . . in the case of Rydalmere, they have access to people working in universities and within CSIRO. Not all of these centres are going to be able to afford a electron microscope, for example. Is the proposal that quarantine matters are handled by having a series of experts all over the countryside with specimens being shunted from one to the other with concomitant risks?

. . . it looks to me as though the decision has been based on reports that are now several years old, and one asks: What is the contemporary relevance of what is being done? If you set up a Committee to find out what is going on there, would you come to the same decision? I am sure you wouldn't.

That is an important statement. Dr Edge further stated:

If I had to say the establishment of those centres versus the break-up of BCRI, on technical grounds, I would say it is deleterious. There are significant benefits but there are significant losses, and the losses exceed the benefits.

That is what Dr Edge said, but the chair of the committee said that a leading scientist, Dr Edge, said that "the concept is fine". The honourable member took his words out of context. She did not read all the doctor's statement, the final words of which are of overwhelming importance. It is extremely damaging for the chairman of a parliamentary committee to quote out of context. To do so is to put a totally wrong spin on everything in the report. Because of the high regard in which I hold the Hon. Patricia Staunton, a highly intelligent person, this is a particularly tragic state of affairs.

Honourable members should spend some time talking about what the BCRI is doing and why it is necessary for it to remain at Rydalmere. As the Government cannot sell the BCRI without amending legislation, I suggest it take the opportunity to reconsider its decision. The Sydney Basin is one of the most productive and diverse agricultural regions in New South Wales, with an annual farm gate value of at least $1 billion. According to the Australian horticulture statistics handbook, its estimated export value in 1993-94 was $200 million, with considerable potential for growth. The export of fresh produce places stringent demands on the control of pests and diseases - fields in which the BCRI scientists lead the world.

About 90 per cent of Sydney's perishable fruit and vegetables are produced in the Sydney Basin, so the location at Rydalmere is ideal for servicing agriculture both in the Sydney Basin and elsewhere in the State. Sydney is the hub of the State's transport and communication systems, and the BCRI conducts field research at more than 90 sites across the State. Research officers are not tied solely to Rydalmere. Table 5 on page 4 of the BCRI submission, which is headed "Location of clients of BCRI Scientific Services and Consultancies in 1994-95", shows that the Sydney Basin accounts for 61 per cent of chemistry specimens, 63 per cent of pathology specimens, and 68 per cent of entomology specimens. The western region accounts for 8 per cent of chemistry specimens, 2 per cent of pathology specimens, and 7 per cent of entomology specimens. In the central western region the proportions were 9 per cent chemistry, 10 per cent pathology, and 9 per cent entomology.

Those figures support further the argument that the BCRI should be kept open. It is critical that an adequate number of scientists have the opportunity to work together in one laboratory. If groups of scientists are to be hived off and sent to other smaller centres, there will be no interchange of ideas. There will be no free flow of information between one science speciality and another, which is how all the best work is done. For example, at present there are six soil management professional officers at the BCRI. They are located centrally because they have statewide responsibilities. They form the New South Wales Agriculture core unit of agricultural soil management expertise. Dr Terry Abbott is the program leader in soil management. His program is organised into six project areas: soil structural degradation, irrigation salinity, dry land salinity, soil acidity, soil nutrient decline or loss, soil contamination and soil management decision support systems.

Dr Yin Chan, a senior research scientist and soil physicist, is working on identifying and treating soil structural degradation in the State's dry land farming systems from Walgett to Wagga Wagga. His research is important to encourage farmers to adopt best soil management practices to ensure sustainable agriculture and conservation of the soil resource. Mr David McKenzie, a soil physicist, is carrying out research on soil structural degradation in New South Wales irrigated farming systems, with emphasis on cotton. Mr McKenzie pioneered the development of soil pack manuals, which are designed to help farmers make better soil management decisions. The work of Mr Roy Lawrie, a soil chemist and surveyor, centres on controlling the decline of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium in New South Wales soils and in reducing the loss of these nutrients to ground water and waterways because they encourage blue-green algae.

All honourable members would be aware of the blue-green algae problems being experienced in the Hawkesbury area. If Mr Lawrie is not allowed to continue to work in the Sydney Basin, which is close to the Hawkesbury area, and he is sent north, south, east or west of the State, what will be the point of his work? An environmental soil scientist and a soil chemist are also to be relocated. The department, Dr Sheridan and the Minister are determined to spilt this core unit. If the Biological
Page 4843
and Chemical Research Institute is closed, Mr Lawrie, Mr Dougherty and Mr Whatmuff will remain together at Richmond, while Dr Abbott and Dr Chan will be relocated to Wagga Wagga and Mr McKenzie will be sent to Tamworth. The frequent consultation that these experts had when they were part of a core unit will vanish, and that will be to the detriment of farmers and the public of New South Wales. The relocation of the BCRI from Rydalmere and the splitting up of this core unit will affect the interaction that they now have with other universities and tertiary centres in New South Wales. In fact, the BCRI is ideally located to interact with all Sydney universities, and this is mutually beneficial for the training of higher degree students.

This willing, frequently non-paid research group makes many Federal and industry funded research projects possible. At the moment the BCRI has 20 higher degree students working on research projects on site. If those projects are dispersed into nine or 10 regional centres, students will not be able to continue their research or studies at universities in Sydney. The research students also have access to the largest and oldest library agriculture collection in New South Wales. All these research functions depend upon close team interaction. The depth and diversity of expertise is unique. The planned dispersal of this group to up to 14 different locations will destroy the heart of agricultural research in New South Wales and destroy expertise on which other Federal and State authorities depend. It will take decades to repair the damage.

I refer now to take-all, a plant disease which is presenting a serious problem to all Australian wheat-growing areas and which is responsible for losses of the order of $200 million per annum. There was no effective control of this disease until a Biological and Chemical Research Institute scientist developed an effective biocontrol which has been successfully trialled. It is the first commercialised biocontrol of this disease in the world. Research and development of this major breakthrough are being funded by the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Technology and Regional Development and the biocontrol will be manufactured in Australia by Bio-Care Pty Limited, New South Wales.

This is a prime example of what can be done by a group of scientists working together in Sydney for the benefit of the Federal Government, with funding that has come from both State and Federal levels, resulting in a product being manufactured by a private firm in New South Wales. It is a supreme example of the benefit of research carried out by a core team of scientists. Bacterial blotch of cultivated mushrooms is controlled by strategic application of a biocontrol agent developed at the BCRI that mimics the disease agent. This product, which is being exported to New Zealand and South Africa, is being developed for worldwide use. Successes of this magnitude have been achieved at this institute - the institute that the Minister seems intent on destroying. I do not know where he is getting his information from. Why does this Minister, who cannot count among his professional qualifications anything scientific, think that he knows better than all the scientists who gave evidence?

The Minister believes he knows better than people like Sir Gustaf Nossal, a Nobel Prize winner with a reputation that is renowned worldwide. It makes my hair stand on end that the Minister is not prepared to consider all information that is presented to him. He is determined to ignore expert opinion. He is not even consistent. Yesterday the Minister - who is facing a motion of no confidence moved by the coalition - offered an explanation for closing down certain centres. He talked about the five veterinary centres and said that it was a terrible waste of money. I do not have yesterday's Hansard with me but the Minister in another place said words to the effect, "Think of the expense of having five lots of electric lights burning at these centres. I am saving money because I am closing them down."

The Minister says that he will be saving money by closing five veterinary centres, so why is he opening 14 agricultural centres, all of which will burn electricity? What good will that do him? The Minister is not acting logically, even within the confines of his own argument. I am disappointed with this report from the Standing Committee on State Development. I have visited the BCRI, the Wagga Wagga veterinary laboratory and the Orange facility. I know that a most excellent facility will be provided at Menangle, but I also know that, since the Wagga Wagga veterinary laboratory was closed early, at the whim of the Minister, there have been problems. Phials of blood from the south of the State were broken in transit to Menangle. Fresh samples had to be called for because it was not possible for the blood to be examined.

It is not possible to do autopsies in Menangle on whole sheep or cattle carcasses; they cannot be sent by courier. When I visited Wagga Wagga I was told about a sheep breeder from the district who had found two dead sheep in his paddock. He was very worried because he could see no reason for the sudden death of the sheep. He put them in the back of his utility and drove to Wagga Wagga, which took about 45 minutes. The pathologist at Wagga Wagga was able to conduct an autopsy in his autopsy room. However, an autopsy room is of no value to someone doing plant research. Such facilities would not be required for such research. Within about an hour and a half the sheep breeder was told why those animals had died.

I point out again that the autopsy could not have been carried out except under the controlled conditions of a laboratory because of the danger of releasing the spores of potentially damaging disease, spores that can live for as long as 100 years That is why it was necessary for him to take the animals to a laboratory with a special autopsy room with barriers so that when the animals were opened up the spores would not escape, as they would if the autopsy was done in a local veterinary surgeon's office. There must be an understanding of the
Page 4844
scientific problems that face this sort of veterinary investigation. The Minister for Agriculture appears to have no understanding and will not listen to those who have an understanding of the problem.

The Minister has no background in agriculture or veterinary science and apparently has no commonsense. He had decided what would happen and he went ahead willy-nilly until yesterday when he was held up because it was ascertained from Government Gazette No. 146, dated 16 December, 1960, that the site of the BCRI at Rydalmere was dedicated for use only as a laboratory and it cannot be changed until section 84 of the Crown Lands Act has been complied with. I do not expect that any Minister would know of a dedication in the Government Gazette 35 years ago but the legal officers of his department should know, particularly when the Minister has announced his intention to sell the site. What were the department's legal officers doing when the Minister said the site would be sold? The Minister has received money in advance from the Treasurer in expectation of the site being sold and has been able to use that money ahead of the sale, the legal officers in his department not having ascertained whether it is possible for the Government to sell the site.

What is the Minister's answer to that in the Legislative Assembly? His answer is that the site is not being sold by the Department of Agriculture, it is being sold by the Property Services Group. Where are the legal advisers to the Property Services Group? Do they take everything on trust from government departments? Do they not investigate matters further? If they do not, that proves that the legal officers of the Department of Agriculture and the Property Services Group are equally incompetent. That is even more terrifying because the Property Services Group has been given the job of selling off excess government property all over New South Wales, whether it belonged previously to State Rail, the Department of Health, the Department of School Education, or the Department of Community Services. The Minister for Community Services, who is at the table, is legally trained. His department may have property that it wishes to dispose of, and perhaps that should be carefully checked out.

The fact that the Minister for Agriculture has seen fit to say that it is not his fault, he cannot help it, and it is the business of the Property Services Group makes the matter even more serious. When the disallowance motion, the revocation motion or the revocation legislation to allow the BCRI site at Rydalmere to be sold comes before this House, the Australian Democrats will vote against it because the closure was a ridiculous idea in the first place. Hopefully, the legal problem that has arisen will make it impossible for the sale to go through. The delay caused by that problem will give the Minister for Agriculture an ideal opportunity to work out why he must change his mind. I refer honourable members to chapter 10 of the report. That chapter is devoted to the evidence in opposition to the break-up of the BCRI. The report states:

. . . the loss of critical mass, practicality of the Department's "Centres of Excellence" proposals, possible loss of Departmental expertise, effect on existing BCRI-based projects, and concerns about plant quarantine and the effect that the removal of BCRI expertise and scientific collections will have on the neighbouring AQIS Plant Quarantine Station.

That chapter of the report is important and all honourable members should ensure that they read it carefully. The people who gave evidence and who opposed the closure also should be listed. Dr Maxwell Day represented the Division of Entomology, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and Professor Adrian Gibbs represented the Australian Academy of Science. Can honourable members believe that those two distinguished gentlemen do not know what they are talking about? Of course they do. Does the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture honestly believe that his scientific expertise is greater than that of the representatives of the Australian Academy of Science, the CSIRO or a Nobel laureate like Sir Gustav Nossal? Regrettably, if that is so that is surely a case of arrogance gone mad.

I am very disappointed in the conclusions in this report. However, I am delighted that for the benefit of future generations of parliamentarians all the evidence is in the report, and all the evidence shows that the Government is totally and absolutely wrong. It is absolutely mind boggling and breathtaking to believe that any Minister could have read the report, if the Minister has bothered to read it, and not seen the warning signals. Surely his staff could have read the report, seen the warning signals and told the Minister that in relation to this matter he perhaps should think again. Obviously that has not happened. Once again I say that I am bitterly disappointed. I believe that the Government now has an opportunity to think again, and I hope it will do so.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD [5.09]: In this debate I will endeavour again to live up to my belief that issues such as these should be approached with a great deal of objectivity. Members should treat the facts presented to them with a great deal of care and come to whatever conclusions they regard as appropriate. In 1995, early in the life of the Government, a policy decision was taken to cut the budget of the Department of Agriculture by about $32 million over four years. The first instalment of that cut was $9 million for this financial year. In response to this large cut, a cut of well over 10 per cent of the budget of the department, a number of propositions put before the Government by Dr Sheridan were agreed to.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: There was more than that. There were two decisions: close the BCRI and move it, plus that one.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: The decision was taken to cut the budget of the Department of Agriculture. I do not need prompting from the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti to deal with these issues.

Page 4845

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: None at all, I would have thought.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: As the honourable Minister says, "None at all." At some point the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti will be able to make his own contribution to the debate.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I already have.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: He may be able to make further contributions in the future but he should stop trying to make a contribution for me. I am capable of doing it myself. The decision to cut $32 million from the budget of the Department of Agriculture, which led to a series of policy decisions, stemmed from an economic rationalist approach: the opinion that the Department of Agriculture needed to cut back and put more of the services conducted by the department into the hands of private producers across the State. When Dr Sheridan presented his evidence to the committee he was quite clear that the user-pays principle was being applied to the Department of Agriculture.

Fortunately, there has since been a considerable backdown and the proposed cuts to the department's budget have been greatly reduced. They were reduced because of broad criticism of the policy decisions by farmers, scientists and veterinarians across the State and because many regional branches of the Labor Party were dead against some of the decisions. Fortunately the Government has abandoned the approach that led to the decisions that are dealt with in the report. The approach has been abandoned in the sense that the $32 million budget cut has been lifted from the shoulders of the department. In evidence before the committee Dr Sheridan was clearly of the view that the Biological and Chemical Research Institute should, in effect, be relocated and dispersed throughout the State. He had held that view for 10 years or more.

According to evidence before the committee, he had tried to implement this proposal in 1990 under the previous Government. He almost succeeded but was stopped by the intervention of the then Premier. He had a clear agenda in relation to the BCRI. He saw the proposed $9 million cut in the first year and the $32 million cut over four years as an opportunity to move in and relocate or disperse the department. It is clear that the Minister adopted an approach put to him by the department. I believe he would not have had many choices at that stage. Given the significance of the proposed cuts, which were horrendous in the extreme, few options would be available to save large amounts of money. I place the blame in the first instance not at the feet of the Minister for Agriculture but on the overall Government decision to impose such massive cuts that would inevitably result in a series of policy decisions that would enrage the community generally.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You have not read the report. The report says that they were two separate decisions.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: There is no doubt that they were separate decisions, but once the framework was set up for such a substantial cut to the department's budget some hard decisions had to be taken. As I have said on many occasions, the wrong path was taken in relation to this series of decisions. As the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby pointed out, one basis for the sale of the BCRI was the prospect of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The committee received a number of glowing reports about the amount of money that would be obtained by Treasury through the Property Services Group for the sale of the site. That figure ranged from $10 million or $11 million to about $20 million, with some sort of significant development proposals for the area.

I was shocked to learn that there is a solid legislative bar to the sale of the land. At no stage was the committee informed of such a bar by the Property Services Group, the Department of Agriculture, or any other government witness. It is absolutely astounding that public servants, who are rather well recompensed these days for their endeavours, could not locate the real property regime relating to that tract of land prior to making the decision to relocate the BCRI. The Government is now left in a rather difficult position because it is assumed that any attempt to change the status of the land will be defeated in this House and the Government and the community will be left with an empty shell worth many millions of dollars.

In recent years about $8 million has been spent refurbishing the centre to make it a centre of real combined excellence where research can be conducted across the various pathways of scientific endeavour and where significant findings have been made in relation to agricultural research and development in recent years. Those buildings will now be left as an empty shell. The Treasury coffers will not receive any funds, and the money and the resource will be lost to agriculture forever unless there is some reconsideration of the use of this site. Honourable members know the difficulties relating to the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service about this site. Over the years AQIS has invested resources in the site and has conducted scientific contract work to assess the various problems that could be faced by importation or outbreaks of various diseases in New South Wales. The quarantine service has been left hanging because it was not given any consideration in the initial decision to sell the BCRI.

I do not want to bore honourable members by going into the details at great length of the decision to close the BCRI. However, the decision was hasty and ill-conceived. It was a policy decision taken in response to a regrettable situation, which was abandoned later in the year because of the public outcry. In a nutshell that is my overall view of the
Page 4846
BCRI. The evidence in the report is clear cut. Members who are far more intelligent than I am have dealt with the scientific import of that centre and its output over a number of years.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Name us all.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I will not name the members; they can read their own names in the debate. If honourable members read the section of the report dealing with the scientific endeavour conducted at the BCRI they will conclude that to abandon the facility is a grave risk at the very least. It may be that smaller centres of excellence could over time produce significant research, but I saw no evidence before the committee that that would be the case. No-one who gave evidence to the committee was able to say that smaller units based in regional New South Wales will ipso facto lead to great research and development. The Government is endeavouring to ensure, with the BCRI and with scientific research related to industries such as agriculture, that the quality of output is such that the productivity of Australian agriculture and its environmental sustainability is enhanced. However, no research was put before the committee to show that the decision to disperse the BCRI would have that result.

The traditional reasons tended to relate to the need to decentralise, which, incidentally, ran contrary to the decision to bring the veterinary laboratories into Sydney. On the one hand the Government was decentralising the BCRI, but on the other hand it was relocating veterinary laboratories to Sydney. Somehow no contradiction was perceived. The argument was that if a scientific institution with a worldwide reputation was split up and put into regional areas, the decentralisation process would assist agricultural scientific research. There was no evidence whatsoever that that would be the outcome. That is probably the saddest aspect of the evidence presented to the committee over 11 hours and three days earlier this year. There was no evidence that the relocation would lead to any great leap in scientific knowledge in New South Wales.

However, the risks were obvious. A great deal of evidence was forthcoming from a number of eminent scientists that the existing interrelationships and the multidisciplinary approach taken at the BCRI between various scientific units conducting research into a whole range of areas enhanced scientific development and led to greater breakthroughs in research. As the evidence progressed it became clear that the committee would not get any analysis of any real scientific benefits, as distinct from saving a dollar or making a dollar, or getting a good feeling about what was being done, particularly in regard to the old veterinary laboratory at Wagga Wagga that was to be closed. No real discussion was had with members of the committee and no presentation was made to them about anything of great note being achieved by dispersing the BCRI.

I had the opportunity of speaking to staff of the BCRI when I made a private visit some time before the committee's visit. I was very impressed by what I saw. I went right through the building without the pressure of being a member of the committee and walking around like a stuffed gnome. I had the opportunity of going through the various sections of the BCRI and getting a real understanding of the interrelationships there. I can only feel a great sense of disappointment with the decision made about the BCRI. As the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has asked, where do we go now that we know the BCRI site cannot be sold without action from this Parliament? It is quite clear from the reaction of members here that such action would not be successful in this Chamber. What will happen to the BCRI? I only hope that decisions taken last year are not necessarily regarded as immutable and that approaches put forward at that time cannot be reconsidered or reassessed.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: We will have a change of government.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: That will not happen. I was also concerned by the shoddy, ill-prepared and misleading information presented to the committee by the Department of Agriculture. At first it came out rather slowly. Committee members were initially presented with facts sheets relating to the closure of regional veterinary laboratories. On 14 November last the Minister presented to the House, in answer to a question from the Hon. D. J. Gay, a chart which gave a break-up of the expenditure and a comparison between the four regional veterinary laboratories. That document was important because at face value it purported to show financial backing for the closure of two centres and the retention of the two centres at Wollongbar and Orange. In evidence the comparisons of percentage cost recovery between the regional veterinary laboratories were as follows. Wollongbar was said to recover 36 per cent of its expenditure by way of charges as against costs, and Wagga Wagga was said to recover only 28.6 per cent. Clearly, the departmental evidence tended to suggest there was a good reason for the closure of a veterinary laboratory that was performing poorly compared to one that was performing adequately. The Armidale veterinary laboratory was said to recover 19.9 per cent of its expenditure and Orange was said to recover 19.1 per cent.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Are they the estimates committee answers?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: Correct. Fortunately, on 11 December the Minister was able to provide further information in the Legislative Council. That information tended to show the costs of each laboratory per rural lands protection board ratepayer. Armidale was said to cost $62.91 per ratepayer; Wagga Wagga, $46; Wollongbar, $39; and Orange, $24. In other words, the two veterinary laboratories to be kept open cost the Government
Page 4847
much less per ratepayer than the two that were closed. The committee was somewhat sceptical of the figures but, fortunately, subsequent work showed the absolutely shocking misinformation contained in the figures. The department was derelict in its duties in relation to both the Parliament and the people of New South Wales in the production of those figures.

The Minister put those figures on the record in the Parliament as though they were fact, but the endeavours of the committee showed that the figures were absolute nonsense. When the committee was able to analyse the figures a far more reflective situation was revealed. In fact, the conclusions drawn from figures presented to the Parliament were based on the fact that a whole lot of costs associated with two centres were not there; they were rated at zeros. So Wollongbar and Orange did not have phone calls, postage or cleaning services. They must have been rather filthy places. A whole range of costs was not applied against those centres. From then on the whole financial analysis of the so-called comparisons between the veterinary laboratories fell apart under some fairly severe questioning by a number of the committee members. I remain extremely sceptical of just about everything the department produces. I think it admitted at the time of the committee -

Pursuant to resolution debate interrupted.


The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.30]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [5.30]: Next month Sydney will be the location for the celebration by Celtic organisations of various important events, for example, the Council of the Celtic Studies Foundation dinner which is held annually in Parliament House and will be held this year on Friday, 15 November. The Scottish Australian Heritage Council will be celebrating Scottish week culminating in a lunch at Parliament House in celebration of St Andrew's Day. Sadly, there will be absent from these celebrations one person who over the years has played an important role in the good work of the Celtic Council of Australia and the Scottish Australian Heritage Council. I refer to the late Duncan MacLeod who passed away earlier this year and is now survived by his widow, Flora MacLeod. I am sure it will be of great interest to honourable members if I mention some facts about Duncan's early background. He was born at Breakish on the Isle of Skye in 1924 and spoke only Gaelic until he entered primary school. He attended secondary school at Portree high school, achieving distinctions in both Scots and Irish Gaelic, Latin, German and English. He later became a ship's engineer after studying that science in Glasgow, and in 1961 emigrated to Australia and married Flora MacLeod, the daughter of a Gaelic-speaking MacLeod from Skye.

We knew him as an enthusiastic and painstaking teacher of Scots Gaelic. For many years he edited the Gaelic language journal, Gaelic Messenger, and participated in the production of the Scots Gaelic program on station 2EA for more than 15 years. It was my pleasure to support the establishment of Gaelic as a community language on station 2EA when I was a member of the Special Broadcasting Service, despite the negative and apprehensive opposition of certain bureaucrats who saw no future, as they put it, in promoting what they considered were the dead languages of the past. Of course, Gaelic languages are not dead languages of the past. They are languages spoken by a great host of Celtic people here in the Antipodes as well as in the new world in the United States and Canada, and, of course, in the United Kingdom. In this respect Duncan MacLeod can be regarded as one of the great antipodean pathfinders in promoting the Gaelic language. Subsequently, he played an important role in the establishment of the Celtic Council of Australia - whose chairman, Peter Alexander, is well-known to honourable members - and the Scottish Australian Heritage Council, and later in moves to establish the chair of Celtic studies at the University of Sydney. In that regard members will be pleased to know that the moves to establish the chair have been rewarded. [Time expired.]


The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN [5.35]: On 27 September, as a Fellow of the Senate of the University of Sydney, I attended the opening of Kirkbride, the new location of the Sydney College of the Arts, which is now part of the University of Sydney. The small group of sandstone buildings is part of the former Rozelle mental hospital. Put simply, the restoration work that has been carried out is stunning. It begs to be inspected by all members of this House. It occurred to me that the picturesque site of the former hospital would be a fitting and spectacular area in which to house the Conservatorium of Music. I ask members to imagine the glorious circumstance of the teaching of music in the same environment as the teaching of painting, sculpture, ceramics and so on. I might put it as the conjunction of the school of the arts and the school of music.

Presently part of the Conservatorium of Music, as members know, is situated in the Greenway building - a building close to Government House in part of which, if I remember correctly, Governor Macquarie stabled his horses - and quite a distance
Page 4848
away in Pitt Street is the other part. The continuation of this set-up is that one part of the pre-eminent institution is separated from the other part. I am not the first, not even the one hundred and first, to suggest that there ought be a consolidation of the Conservatorium of Music. It is of paramount importance that the comfort and wellbeing of the students are served and the educational activities of that institution are conducted more efficiently. Years ago when I was deputy chairman of the Eastern Sydney Area Health Service, the two principal hospitals in that service, Prince of Wales Hospital at Randwick and Prince Henry Hospital at Malabar, were - and are - miles apart.

The inefficiencies involved in running patients and medical staff from one hospital to the other did then, and still does, generate most vexing inefficiencies. The consolidation of those two major hospitals at either one of the sites would overcome such inefficiencies and inconveniences. Surely it must be the same with the Conservatorium of Music. I suggest that there is a most pressing need for the Government to avoid institutionalising the separation of the two parts of the Conservatorium of Music. The problems that were inherent in the Sydney College of the Arts, which to the best of my knowledge was scattered, inhibited in a scholarly institution the interaction between the students of diverse branches of a discipline; for example, in the case of the College of the Arts, sculpture, performance, photography and painting, or in the case of the conservatorium perhaps wind and string instruments. Architect E. M. Farrelly, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 20 August 1996, said:

The hospital buildings, a fabulous maze of sandstone neo-classicism, offer a vast array of well-lit, airy and near indestructible rooms opening to a succession of linked, verandah-fringed courtyards. Studio space to die for.

I put to this House and to the community at large that there is a golden opportunity for a government of foresight to develop the Conservatorium of Music in what I have already described as a spectacular area on one of the reaches of Sydney Harbour.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.40]: I bring to the attention of honourable members a very important milestone for the world: the 150th birthday of anaesthesia. In Boston today celebrations are being held for the first use of anaesthesia by a dentist, Mr W. G. Morton, who administered ether to a patient undergoing surgery for the painless removal of a tumour from his jaw. This was the first public demonstration in the world of painless anaesthesia for surgery. Quite rightly, the use of anaesthesia is being celebrated around the world as the establishment of painless surgery. Demonstrations are being held in hospitals throughout the State. A display at Parliament House was opened by the Minister for Health, Dr Andrew Refshauge. The display in these hallowed halls will be manned this week by young and old members of the College of Anaesthetists. I thank you, Mr President, for permitting such a demonstration and exhibition in this place.

It is important for honourable members to know that in 1847 at St John's Hospital in Launceston Dr William Hughes operated on an anaesthetised young female patient who had two teeth and a tumour removed from her jaw. At the same time, in June of 1847, a Sydney dentist, John Belarasio, who had previously used anaesthesia, publicly demonstrated painless dentistry. There was much controversy about how earlier a demonstration and use of anaesthesia was held at Scone in the Hunter Valley. Historical displays of the development of anaesthesia and the demonstration of today's sophisticated anaesthetic equipment are being mounted in hospitals throughout the world. The royal college has commissioned a special logo for this occasion.

Also on this occasion the first emeritus laureate for anaesthesia history, by an American university, will be picked up by our very own Dr Gwen Wilson, who has travelled to Boston to collect her award. She is recognised as the pre-eminent historian of anaesthesia. On this day it is worthy to note that last year over a period of 10 days the largest world congress on anaesthesia was held in Australia, by far the largest world medical congress ever held in Australia. All aspects of intensive care, anaesthesia, resuscitation medicine, retrieval medicine and, of course, palliative care, which are all areas of expertise that are part of the development of anaesthesia, were discussed.

It is important to note that last year the press ignored that important meeting and the implications of medical procedures for the people of New South Wales; and again today this anniversary has been ignored. Except for the appearance of a representative from the Sydney Morning Herald, every member of the press seemed to be gawping at the people who were brought in for the euthanasia debate in the other place. Yet here in Parliament House was a display and demonstration of 150 years of people being saved from pain and suffering - some 800,000 in New South Wales alone - as a result of the speciality of anaesthesia. The media stayed away in droves.

On the other hand, it should be noted that in New South Wales another important event occurred. I am indebted to my colleague Gwen Wilson, who said that in 1888, following a huge congress in South Australia, the Hyderabad Chloroform Commission investigated deaths under anaesthesia of chloroform. In New South Wales people were not satisfied with the result and the Government tabled a report on deaths at operation between 1882 and 1887, which was the first such committee report in
Page 4849
the world. As a result, a series of public meetings were held and the first specialist anaesthetists were appointed to teaching hospitals in Sydney. This is world-beating information. Anaesthesia in Australia is by far the safest process in the world. Its merits are published in literature and its procedures are recognised around the world, because our public
investigation of all deaths under anaesthesia and the tabling of reports, rather than the sweeping of incidents under the carpet, have allowed us to build on the experience of our elders. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.