The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 11.45 a.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge that we are meeting on Eora land.

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. M. R. Egan agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw tabled, according to sessional orders, a list detailing all legislation not proclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 1 June 1999.

The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that the Clerk has received the following nominations for membership of the standing committees in accordance with the resolutions adopted by the House on 25 May:

Opposition member: Mr Ryan

Opposition members: Mr Hannaford and Miss Gardiner
Crossbench member: Mrs Sham-Ho

Opposition member: Mr Moppett
Crossbench member: Dr Chesterfield-Evans

Opposition member: Dr Pezzutti
Crossbench member: Mr Cohen

The PRESIDENT: Order! I inform the House that the following members have been nominated by the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition as the Chairs and Deputy-Chairs of the standing committees:

Chair: Mr Dyer
Deputy-Chair: Mr Ryan

Chair: Mrs Sham-Ho
Deputy-Chair: Mr Hannaford

Chair: Ms Burnswoods
Deputy-Chair: Mr Moppett

Chair: Mr Kelly
Deputy-Chair: Dr Pezzutti

The PRESIDENT: In accordance with paragraph 8 of the resolution establishing standing committees, I advise that the crossbench members have not reached agreement about representation on the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. The following crossbench members have written to the Clerk nominating themselves for membership of the committee: the Hon. P. J. Breen, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, and Ms Lee Rhiannon.

In accordance with paragraph 8 (2) of the resolution establishing standing committees, in the absence of agreement the crossbench representation on the committee is to be determined by the House.

Motion by the Hon. M. R. Egan agreed to:

That the crossbench member to serve on the Standing Committee on Law and Justice be chosen by ballot in accordance with Standing Order 236.

Page 762

The PRESIDENT: Order! I will explain to honourable members the procedure to be followed under Standing Order 236 for the conduct of the ballot. Each member is required to give to the Clerk the name of the crossbench member he or she intends shall serve on the committee. For this purpose ballot papers have been printed and will be distributed to members. After voting, members should hand their ballot papers to the Clerk, who will record the presentation of the ballot paper against the list of members of the House.

The member reported by the Clerk to have the greatest number of votes will be declared by me to be the member of the committee. If two or more members have an equality of votes, the standing orders provide for the President to decide who will serve on the committee. The crossbench members who have nominated for membership of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice are the Hon. P. J. Breen, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and Ms Lee Rhiannon. Members will give their vote for one person only. The Clerks will now distribute ballot papers. After completion members will deliver their ballot papers to the Clerks.

[The ballot was conducted.]

The PRESIDENT: I declare the Hon. P. J. Breen elected as the crossbench member of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [12.07 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government seeks to amend certain Acts relating to courts and court procedures. These amendments are necessary to improve the operation of courts of New South Wales. The first proposal in schedule 1 to the bill is a consequential amendment that relates to amendments to be made to part 5 of the Justices Act 1902 by schedule 4. Those amendments clarify that an appeal may be brought with leave of the Supreme Court in relation to committal proceedings and interlocutory orders made by magistrates in summary proceedings.

Section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 also allows for appeals to be made to the Court of Criminal Appeal against certain interlocutory judgments and orders, including orders made in committal proceedings. The amendments therefore provide that such an appeal cannot be made if the person has already instituted an appeal to the Supreme Court under part 5 of the Justices Act 1902, and vice versa.

Schedule 2 will extend by two years, to September 2001, the period within which awards must be reviewed under section 19 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, while retaining the requirement for subsequent reviews at least once every three years. Because section 19 requires the commission to review and make changes it considers necessary to awards, the section is of key importance for the maintenance of awards that cover the most disadvantaged workers in the labour market.

The potential importance of section 19 in the provision of pay equity has also been recognised in the commission’s 1998 pay equity report. A section 19 test case was only concluded by the commission on 23 April 1999 and as at 15 April only 61 applications for review had been received by the Industrial Registry, of which five have been completed.

Given that there are about 800 multi-issue awards in New South Wales, it was considered essential that the time frame for the first review of these awards be extended. The first proposal in schedule 3 will amend the Jury Act 1977 to provide that persons who receive a notice of inclusion on the jury roll will no longer be required to return the notice to the sheriff unless they are disqualified from service, ineligible to serve, make a claim for an exemption as of right, or are required to notify the sheriff of any change in their particulars.

At present the Act requires all persons selected randomly from the data transferred from the State Electoral Commission to be sent by mail a notice of inclusion on the jury roll. Each person is required by the Act to complete and return the notice to the Sheriff. Real improvements in both service delivery standards and cost efficiencies can be achieved by no longer requiring every person to return his or her completed notice of inclusion. Dispensing with this requirement will reduce significantly the workload of the jury services section of the Sheriff’s Office. Better processing and turnaround times and higher customer service standards will be delivered as staff will no longer have to open mail, scan returns and upload data for the 65 per cent of returns which currently require no alteration to the record.

Page 763

It is also proposed that the Sheriff have a discretionary power to require individual prospective jurors to complete and return a notice of inclusion to ensure that in particular cases relevant information for the purposes of administering the Jury Act may be obtained. Schedule 3 to the bill also amends the Jury Act 1977 to provide a discretion to the Sheriff under the Jury Act to exclude from the current jury roll persons whose special circumstances preclude them from jury service temporarily but who do not fall within schedules 1 to 3 of the Act.

At present any qualified elector who cannot claim disqualification, ineligibility or exemption as of right under the schedules of the Act must be included on the jury roll in their district. The Sheriff has no discretion to remove persons from the roll who satisfy him or her on the return notice of inclusion on the jury roll that they have special circumstances which preclude them from serving on a jury. This includes persons overseas or interstate for the life of a roll. In these circumstances the Sheriff is required to include the person on the jury roll and if he or she is subsequently randomly selected, forward that person a jury summons. It is only when the person again informs the Sheriff of his or her special circumstances on receipt of the summons that the Sheriff has a discretion to excuse the person from jury service under section 38 of the Act.

The discretion now sought for the Sheriff is similar to that which exists under section 11 (3) of the Victorian Juries Act 1967. It is also proposed that the Sheriff may, in relation to a claim for exemption in these circumstances, require persons to verify their claim by way of a statutory declaration. Schedule 3 to the bill also amends the Jury Act to clarify the right of challenge in relation to civil juries. Since the commencement of the Jury Amendment Act 1997, which made provision for the anonymity of jurors in July 1998, some judges have interpreted the amendments as removing the right of pre-emptory challenge in relation to civil juries. Prior to the commencement of the amendments, section 49 of the Act provided that each party, or their representative in civil proceedings, was entitled to strike off from the list of jurors drawn by ballot the names equal to half the number of persons required to constitute the jury.

The amendments to section 49, however, remove the procedure of striking names off a list of jurors and make provision for juror identification numbers to be drawn from the ballot box in order to constitute the jury. The section provides for challenges for cause but makes no reference to pre-emptory or other types of challenges. This amendment clarifies that each party is entitled to pre-emptory challenges without restriction equal to half the number of jurors required to constitute the jury for trial. Schedule 3 to the bill also amends the Jury Act to provide for an increase in the penalties imposed on persons for failing to attend for jury service. The proposed amendments arose from a recommendation of the jury task force, which had been informed by the Sheriff that on occasions up to 20 per cent of persons summoned for jury service failed to attend.

The task force was also informed that some of those persons summoned, particularly sole traders, professionals and persons on renewable short-term contracts, had indicated it was more economical for them to pay the fine provided for by the Act rather than lose their income for the period they were required to serve on the jury. The daily attendance fee payable to jurors was never intended to fully compensate jurors for loss of income during the period they serve on a jury. There are very few jurors who are not inconvenienced, do not suffer detriment, hardship or financial loss, or do not experience disruption to their lives by performing their civic duty. However, it is essential that the integrity of jury service be maintained.

I am of the view that the penalty for an offence of failing to attend for jury service should be set at a level which would discourage persons summoned for jury service from electing to pay the fine rather than attending for jury service. It is therefore proposed to increase the penalty from two penalty units, $220, to 10 penalty units, $1,100, where the penalty is paid on receipt of an initial notice to show cause; from 2½ penalty units, $275, to 15 penalty units, $1,650, where a penalty notice is issued; and from five penalty units, $550, to 20 penalty units, $2,200, if the matter is taken to the Local Court. The proposed increased penalties fall within the normal range for offences of that type. There is currently no defence provided for by the Act and it is proposed, given the substantial increase in the penalty provided for by the section, that section 63 of the Act be amended to provide for a defence of reasonable excuse where the matter is dealt with by the Local Court.

Schedule 3 to the bill also amends the Jury Act 1977 to remove an inconsistency between schedule 1 of the Act and the provisions of the Criminal Records Act 1991 in relation to spent convictions. Schedule 1 of the Jury Act provides that a person who, at any time within the past five years in New South Wales or elsewhere, has been found guilty of an offence and detained in a detention centre or other institution for juvenile offenders is
Page 764
disqualified from serving as a juror. The Criminal Records Act, however, provides that a person is not required to disclose to any other person for any purpose information concerning a spent conviction. A conviction is spent in relation to orders made by the Children’s Court after a crime-free period of three consecutive years. It is therefore proposed to amend Schedule 1 of the Jury Act to reduce the period specified from five years to three years.

The first proposal in schedule 4 to the bill amends the Justices Act 1902 to make provision in relation to the pretrial disclosure and paper committal provisions of the Act consequent upon the new provisions of the Evidence (Children) Act 1997, allowing for child witnesses to give evidence at trial by way of a prerecorded interview. The Cabinet Office has been convening a interdepartmental committee co-ordinating steps necessary to enable the commencement of the Evidence (Children) Act 1997. It is proposed that the Act be commenced in July or August 1999 - with the exception of part 2 of the Act, which would make it necessary for all interviews with child witnesses or accused to be recorded.

Part 3 of the Act contains provisions relating to the reception of evidence of children by way of a previous recording of interview. As a practical matter, the intention is that recordings of interview only be made, initially at least, by the existing police-community services joint investigation teams. These teams are responsible, principally, for the investigation of allegations of child sexual assault. The Justices Act 1902 makes provision for the disclosure of evidence to the defence by the prosecution in relation to committal proceedings and prescribed summary proceedings. Two concerns have been raised in relation to the operation of these pretrial disclosure provisions of the Justices Act.

The first is that the provisions might require the prosecution to provide the defence with a copy of the video recording to be used at trial. This is considered inappropriate in sexual assault matters and may result in the defendant using the recording for gratification or in a trade being established in such tapes among paedophiles. Second, the provisions of section 48AA of the Justices Act would seem to require the prosecution to provide to the defence a written statement from the child witness. A formal requirement to take a separate written statement from the child witness is considered inconsistent with the aims of the Evidence (Children) Act, which sought to remove the need for a child to give a series of different statements and allow reliance to be placed on the video recording of the child’s interview.

In response to these concerns it is proposed to amend the relevant provisions of the Justices Act to provide that, first, a requirement for service of a written statement in relation to evidence to be given by the child in proceedings for a prescribed summary offence by way of a recording can be satisfied by the service of a copy of the transcript of the recording with the child. The transcript must be certified as an accurate transcript by the investigating official. Second, the provisions will also provide that such a transcript satisfies the requirements for the provision of a written statement in committal proceedings. Third, a copy of a recording of an interview with a child witness need not be provided to the defence as part of a brief of evidence or as part of disclosure in relation to committal proceedings. The prosecuting authority will be required, however, to provide a reasonable opportunity for the tape to be viewed by the defence.

Schedule 4 to the bill also amends the Justices Act 1902 to provide that a person may not make an application under sections 100D or 100G of the Act if an appeal or application for leave to appeal has been made to the Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission in Court Session. Section 100P of the Act currently prevents a person from applying under sections 100D or 100G if the person has lodged an appeal or an application for leave to appeal to the District Court, Supreme Court or Land and Environment Court. The amendment makes the same provision in relation to the Industrial Relations Commission. The Justices Legislation Amendment (Appeals) Act 1998, which commenced on 1 March 1999, replaced the provisions relating to appeals to the Supreme Court, District Court and Land and Environment Court in part 5 of the Justices Act 1902 with new parts 5, 5A and 5B.

Schedule 4 to the bill provides for further necessary amendments to parts 5, 5A and 5B of the Act. First, there is an amendment of part 5 of the Act to clarify that an appeal under the part may be brought, with leave of the Supreme Court, in relation to committal proceedings and in relation to interlocutory orders made by a magistrate in summary proceedings. Second, there is an amendment of section 104 (2) of the Act to provide for an appeal by the informant against an order of the Local Court permanently staying a summary criminal prosecution. Third, there is an amendment of section 104 of the Act to clarify that an appeal under part 5 of the Act may be brought by either party as provided for by section 69 of the Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970. Fourth, amendments of sections 107, 127 and 133AH of the Justices Act 1902 clarify the term "custody" to include periodic detention and home detention.

Page 765

Fifth, the amendment of section 123 of the Act provides that an appeal against conviction, in relation to an apprehended violence order which was consented to by the appellant in the Local Court, may be made only with leave of the District Court. Sixth, the amendment of part 5A of the Act provides that an appeal against the severity of a sentence is to be by way of rehearing of the evidence. Seventh, the amendment of sections 132 and 133AM of the Act provides for Registrars of the District Court or Land and Environment Court to supply free transcripts to the parties. Eighth, the amendment of section 133AT of the Act corrects a drafting error. Finally, the Act is amended to provide for the repeal of section 146 to be reversed in relation to appeals determined by the District Court.

Schedule 4 to the bill also amends the Justices Act 1902 and consequentially the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to provide for appeals on a question of law involving an environmental offence heard in the Local Court, to be determined in the Land and Environment Court rather than the Supreme Court. The amendments confer on the Land and Environment Court the same jurisdiction the Supreme Court has under part 5 of the Justices Act to hear and dispose of appeals relating to environmental offences. As a result of the amendments it will be possible for a person to appeal to the Land and Environment Court against any conviction, order or sentence of a magistrate - including orders in relation to committal proceedings and interlocutory orders - relating to an environmental offence.

In addition, the amendments will prevent appeals in relation to environmental offences from being heard by the Supreme Court, except with the leave of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is to give leave to appeal only if it is of the view that the appeal is likely to require the resolution of a matter relating to constitutional law or a matter of general application. Otherwise, the appeal is to be heard and disposed of by the Land and Environment Court. The Land and Environment Court Act 1979 is also amended to create a new class of jurisdiction of the Court for the hearing of the types of appeals currently disposed of by the Supreme Court and to give the judges of the court power to make rules concerning those appeals.

The first proposal in schedule 5 to the bill amends the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to provide that appeals under section 49F and references under section 49G of the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Aboriginal Ownership) Act 1996 fall within class 3 of the courts jurisdiction. As a consequence of the transfer of jurisdiction to class 3, section 37 of the Act - commissioners sitting with a judge - applies in relation to the hearing. Accordingly, the court may, in hearing the proceedings, or any part of the proceedings, be assisted by two commissioners of the court, or by one commissioner if the chief judge of the court so directs. Any such commissioner must, in accordance with section 30 (2A) of the Act, be a person who has suitable knowledge of matters concerning land rights for Aborigines and qualifications and experience suitable for the determination of disputes involving Aborigines.

Schedule 6 to the bill amends the Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970 to increase the jurisdiction of the small claims division of the Local Court from $3,000 to $10,000. The amendment arose from a recommendation contained in the "Report on Security of Payment for the New South Wales Building Industry", dated September 1998, of the Joint Standing Committee on Small Business. The recommendation initially was to increase the jurisdiction of the small claims division of the Local Court from $3,000 to $10,000 for construction industry disputes. However, following consultation with the Chief Magistrate, it was considered necessary to increase the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division generally rather than for construction industry disputes alone.

Schedule 7 to the bill amends the Supreme Court Act 1970 to enable a hearing commenced in the court by three or more judges to be continued where one or more of the judges dies, resigns from office or otherwise becomes unable to continue as a member of the Court of Appeal for the purposes of the appeal, so long as two Judges remain and the parties consent. The Supreme Court Act 1970, as presently drafted, provides that a decision of the Court of Appeal heard before three or more judges is not affected because one or more judges dies before the decision is given, so long as the majority of judges are in agreement as to the decision. Several other State Supreme Courts - Victoria, South Australia and Queensland - and the Federal Court have similar provisions to the proposed amendment in their legislation.

The amendments also provide that where an appeal is continued by two judges and they are divided in opinion as to the decision determining the appeal the appeal is to be reheard by the Court of Appeal, including, if practicable, the two judges who completed the hearing of the appeal. In relation to any other decision, the decision of the court is to be in accordance with the opinion of the senior judge present. Schedule 7 to the bill also amends the Supreme Court Act 1970 to remove the requirement
Page 766
that video link communication be of television standard. There is a capacity at the present time for high-quality reception to be available without necessarily being of television standard, which is an extremely expensive standard to deliver. The requirement for television standard is no longer necessary and it is proposed that the specification of an appropriate standard be left as a matter for the Supreme Court Rules.

Schedule 8 to the bill amends the Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898 to remove reference to the "Registrar in Probate". The Crown Solicitor has provided advice that the position of Registrar in Probate was effectively abolished on the commencement of the Courts Legislation Further Amendment Act 1998. The effect of this advice is that the current Registrar in Probate may no longer exercise the functions of a registrar within the meaning of section 19 of the Supreme Court Act 1970.

It is therefore proposed to replace the obsolete reference to the Registrar in Probate in the Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898 by a new definition of "Registrar" which requires the Registrar be appointed in accordance with section 120 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 and to be nominated by the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court for the purposes of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act. All of the amendments contained in this bill are designed to improve the operation of the courts of New South Wales. They have been formulated with appropriate consultation. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. M. Samios.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations), on behalf of the Hon. M. R. Egan [12.26 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

In November this year Australians will vote on whether Australia is to become a republic. If the referendum is passed, Australia will become a republic at the national level. The States will then have to consider whether to sever their own links with the Crown. There is an argument that section 7 of the Australia Acts of the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom needs to be amended to ensure that States can exercise their own constitutional processes to sever their links with the Crown. Section 7 deals with the relationship between her Majesty and State Governors. It states that "Her Majesty’s representative in each State shall be the Governor". The States are bound by the Australia Acts and cannot legislate in a way that is contrary or repugnant to the Australia Acts. If a State were to amend its Constitution to provide that the Governor is not Her Majesty’s representative this may be considered to be repugnant to section 7 of the Australia Acts.

Accordingly, for the sake of certainly, section 7 of the Australia Acts needs to be amended if Australia becomes a republic to ensure that States will be able to sever their links with the Crown should they choose to do so. Section 15 (1) of the Australia Acts sets out a procedure for the amendment of the Australia Acts. This can be done by Commonwealth legislation passed at the request of all the State Parliaments. Another possible way of amending the Australia Acts is by inserting in the Commonwealth referendum bill a power for the Commonwealth Parliament to make such an amendment. This is recognised by section 15 (3) of the Australia Acts, but no actual power is given in the Australia Acts to make an amendment in this way. Accordingly, there is legal doubt as to whether this course is effective.

The Commonwealth has inserted in the transitional provisions in its referendum bill, the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill, such a power for the Commonwealth Parliament to amend section 7 of the Australia Acts. The States have been critical of the initial draft of this provision, and would prefer that the amendment be made by the more legally secure and appropriate route set out in section 15 (1) of the Australia Acts. Accordingly, the Solicitors-General, Parliamentary Counsel and law officers of the States have negotiated uniform request legislation which is proposed to be enacted by each State. This bill has already been introduced into the Victorian Parliament and is expected to be introduced into other State Parliaments shortly.

The bill requests the Commonwealth Parliament to enact a bill in a form set out in the schedule, to amend section 7 of the Australia Acts. This State request bill will not come into force unless the Commonwealth’s referendum bill, the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill, is passed by the referendum and receives royal consent. Accordingly, this State request bill will have no effect if the Commonwealth referendum on the republic fails. If the Commonwealth referendum on the republic is passed, however, and all the States pass this uniform request legislation, the Commonwealth Parliament may amend section 7 of the Australia Acts by adding two subsections. These subsections provide that a State Parliament may make a law providing that section 7 does not apply to the State and that if it makes such a law, section 7 ceases to apply to the State.

This amendment therefore places the power in the State Parliament to decide, at a future date, whether it wants to terminate the operation of section 7 in relation to the State. This bill does not affect the constitutional procedures necessary for a State to sever its ties with the Crown. It does not remove any requirement in a State constitution to hold a referendum. If all States pass this uniform request legislation prior to the Commonwealth’s referendum bill being passed by the Commonwealth Parliament in August this year the Commonwealth will be in a position to remove the provision in its referendum bill dealing with the amendment of section 7 to the Australia Acts, as the Commonwealth will be able to act upon the section 15 (1) request. I commend the bill to the House.

Page 767

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [12.27 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the Australia Acts (Request) Bill, which is procedural legislation relating to the national referendum to be held in November, when the Australian people will be asked whether Australia should become a republic. As honourable members are aware, the successful carriage of the referendum - I do not think it will have a positive outcome - will cause a discrepancy with respect to the position of our State Governor, who shall continue to be chosen by the Sovereign. This debate is taking place only a short time after the funeral of our former State Governor, Sir James Rowland. Honourable members who listened to the condolence motion yesterday heard Sir James’ view in relation to our system of government in this State. His view, like all other views, needs to be respected in this debate.

This bill will formalise the distinction between the Australian Head of State, should the referendum be successful, and the counterparts in each State. Therefore, this complementary legislation, in following any future changes to the Australian Constitution, would preserve the rights of individual States to maintain their own constitutional links with the system we currently and so successfully employ. This bill recognises the difficulties that have arisen as a result of legal interpretation of section 7 of the Australia Acts, and provides a formal mechanism whereby individual States will have a right to choose their own destiny. The Coalition is committed to the preservation of State rights and in that context it is pleased to support this bill.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS [12.30 p.m.]: I lend my support to the Australia Acts (Request) Bill. In November Australians will have an opportunity to vote at a referendum on whether this nation should become a republic. That will be of historic significance to a nation as great as Australia as it tries to plot its course into the new millennium. For that reason both the State and Federal Parliaments have an obligation to ensure, if the transition to a republic is endorsed by referendum, that is done as smoothly and efficiently as possible. Federal and State governments must identify, and remove or amend, any legal impediments or ambiguities that may exist in the occurrence of a pro-republican outcome.

There is debate among constitutional experts that, in the event of a successful referendum for a republic, an impediment will be posed by section 7 of the current Australia Acts. That section deals with the powers and functions of the Queen and the Governor in respect of a State. Therefore, the bill seeks to provide a level of legal certainty. It is desirable therefore to amend section 7 to ensure that it will not prevent a State from severing its links with the Crown. Otherwise, it could eventuate that although the republican referendum is endorsed by the people the States could maintain their links to the Crown. Clearly, that would be an undesirable outcome.

The bill requests the Commonwealth Parliament, under section 15 (1) of the Australia Acts, to enact an Act to amend section 7 of those Acts. This will allow the States to sever their links with the Crown in the event that the referendum is passed. Section 7 of the Australia Acts can also be amended by inserting in the Commonwealth referendum bill power for the Commonwealth Parliament to pursue such an amendment. This is recognised by section 15 (3) of the Australia Acts. However, there is still an element of legal doubt with this path, since there is no actual power in the Australia Acts to make an amendment in such a manner. The bill before the House is the best method of eliminating any legal ambiguity with regard to section 7 of the Australia Acts.

I should emphasise that the bill does not come into force unless the Commonwealth referendum is passed. However, this is a course that has the concurrence of all States and the Commonwealth. I understand that the Commonwealth and Victorian Parliaments have either introduced similar legislation or are proposing to do so in the near future. I should emphasise that the objective of the bill is to provide legal certainty in the event that the referendum is passed. It does not affect the constitutional procedures of this State to end its ties with the Crown unless the referendum is carried. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [12.33 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Honourable members would appreciate that this bill results from quite extensive negotiations between governments in Australia. I thank the Solicitors General for their co-operation in the drafting and resolution of the technicalities of the bill. This bill has been considered by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. It seemed to all involved the right way to go forward in dealing with the consequences of the referendum on a republic. The bill seems to have the general support of the House, and I commend it to honourable members.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Page 768

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [12.35 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

Since 1995 the Carr Government has made some landmark changes to this State’s liquor laws as part of its strategy to minimise alcohol related harm. Amendments to the Liquor and Registered Clubs Acts have seen New South Wales take the lead in using the liquor licensing laws to combat the crime and antisocial behaviour often linked with irresponsible promotion and consumption of alcohol. The Government has also taken steps to tackle problems associated with extended liquor trading hours, which have been linked with disturbance, vandalism and antisocial behaviour, particularly in regional New South Wales.

Many honourable members of this House are all too often aware of problems associated with late-trading licensed premises. Unfortunately, they are not isolated incidents, but rather, have been a feature in many areas of the State. That is why the Government initiated a review of late night liquor trading in 1996. During the course of that review, more than 300 submissions were received from a wide variety of individuals and organisations, including government agencies, community groups, local councils, the liquor industry, residents, and small business. Some past and present honourable members of this Parliament also made submissions to the review, and I would like to acknowledge that.

The bill now before the House represents the legislative outcome of that review. It contains practical amendments to this State’s liquor laws which will help local communities deal with disturbance associated with late trading licensed premises. However, it is certainly not the only action that resulted from the review. Later on I will refer to other initiatives that have been implemented. But, first, I will detail the amendments contained in this bill, which has two main objects. First, the amendments will make it clear that a single complaint made to the Liquor Administration Board about disturbance to the quiet and good order of a neighbourhood may be made in relation to more than one licensed premises or registered club. Second, the amendments will enable the board to include a premises that has not been the subject of a specific disturbance complaint in a conference established to deal with a complaint.

The bill will also make a number of other machinery amendments to the Liquor and Registered Clubs Acts. I have already referred to the fact that this Government has introduced important legislation as part of its ongoing liquor harm minimisation strategy. I am pleased to be able to say that that strategy - which is made up of a range of targeted programs and actions - is having a well-recognised impact across the State. This is not just the case for late trading venues, but across the liquor industry generally. This bill complements and enhances that strategy. It will overcome some practical deficiencies in the existing disturbance complaint provisions which prevent the Liquor Administration Board from having sufficient flexibility to deal with complaints where the disturbance relates to a "group" of venues in an area.

The "quiet and good order" provisions - or the section 104 provisions, as they are sometimes known - have been in the licensing laws for many years. They have proven to be very effective in addressing late-trading and disturbance problems in many areas of New South Wales. The provisions allow "quiet and good order" disturbance complaints to be made to the Liquor Administration Board by police, local councils, residents, and others, where undue disturbance is caused by the manner in which the business of a licensed venue is conducted, and/or by the conduct of patrons after they have left a venue.

After a complaint is received by the board, it is the usual procedure for a complaint conference to be convened - where the matter is dealt with in an informal manner by a board member. A distinct advantage of these procedures is the informal setting in which all parties can participate, rather than the more formal court setting with all of its associated rules and expenses. On hearing a complaint at a conference the board member can do a number of things, including imposing conditions on the liquor licence or club certificate, seeking undertakings from the licensee or manager, taking no action at all, or, if the problems warrant it, reducing a venue’s trading hours. Conditions which the board member can impose on a licensed venue or club to remedy a problem can include, but are not restricted to:

•noise abatement measures;
•prohibition of the sale or supply of liquor before 10.00 a.m. and after 11.00 p.m.; and/or
•restriction of activities - for example, liquor promotions or discounting - that could encourage the misuse or abuse of liquor such as binge drinking or excessive consumption.

Some 70 to 100 venues each year are the subject of disturbance complaints before the board. Approximately half of those relate to hotel premises, another 20 per cent concern registered clubs, and the remainder relate to all other types of licensed venues. A problem with the existing provisions which was identified in the Government’s review of late trading is that, technically, complaints can be made only on an individual premises basis. Licensees and clubs have therefore successfully argued that complaints must be dealt with by the board on an individual basis. This leaves no flexibility for one complaint to be made involving more than one premises, or for the board to include more than one venue in its complaint conference proceedings.

While the board has, in practice, dealt with a number of disturbance complaint matters in a "group" way, this can only be achieved at present where all parties agree to the joint arrangements. If one party does not agree, the joint conference cannot proceed. This can lead to two, three, four, or even more conferences being held to go over the same issues. This, of course, places an enormous strain on residents, police and councils who have to attend multiple conferences to discuss the same problems again and again. It is also an obvious waste of time and resources for everyone involved.

Another concern which was identified in the review of late trading relates to the inability of the Liquor Administration Board to bring other licensed premises into a complaint conference, where it is clear that those premises need to be a part of ameliorating the disturbance problems in a

Page 769
neighbourhood. In this case the board, along with the licensed venues involved in the complaint proceedings, may agree in good faith to measures which could address the disturbance problems, only to have those undermined by a nearby venue that refuses to "play by the rules". The provisions in the bill will specifically remedy the problems I have outlined. They will make it clear that a complaint can relate to more than one premises, and that a single conference may relate to more than one complaint.

This amendment will allow the board to deal with late-trading problems associated with several licensed premises at the same time, rather than having to hold separate conferences for each premises. It will also allow action to be taken where there is disturbance caused by patrons from licensed premises, but where those patrons cannot be associated with a particular premises. The bill also provides that a conference convened in relation to a complaint about licensed premises may be extended to include other licensed venues, in circumstances where it is justified. This could occur where a complaint is made about disturbance relating to licensed premises and, in the course of hearing that complaint, it becomes apparent to the board that addressing the problems in that particular community would be better served if nearby licensed premises were also involved in the conference.

Of course, the Government realises that there needs to be appropriate protections for licensees and registered clubs. Therefore, the amendments have been drafted so that the board can only include an additional premises where it is satisfied that there is evidence which would support a complaint against those other premises. Alternatively, the board can include an additional premises where action taken in relation to the original premises against which a complaint has been made will be ineffective unless similar action is taken in relation to the other premises. These straightforward protections will ensure that where conference proceedings are extended to other venues, the action is justified and reasonable.

The amendments in this bill are very necessary if we are serious about developing ways of reducing the neighbourhood disturbances that can occur in and around our licensed premises and registered clubs. For some time now, the Government has been aware of the difficulties that complainants can have in identifying the specific premises which may be the source of undue disturbance from unruly patrons late at night or early in the morning. The amendments in the bill go some way to improving this situation so that the Liquor Administration Board can extend conference proceedings where it is justified.

The amendments in this bill are consistent with recent efforts to encourage and support local liquor licensing accords around New South Wales. Those accords are having a great deal of local success in reducing alcohol-related problems. Like the concept of liquor accords, the disturbance complaint procedures allow local strategies to be applied in an area. This group proceedings legislation will, I am sure, enable the board to support the range of local efforts we are now seeing by way of liquor accords. I would also like to make it clear that it was the board itself that raised these matters in its submission to the Government’s late trading review. As I have said, that review generated several hundred submissions, and the bill before the House is certainly not the only action that resulted from the review. A number of other important targeted actions have been implemented throughout 1998 and this year, and I wish to mention just a few of those for the benefit of honourable members. For example, priority has been given to:

•encouraging liquor accords in areas where liquor-related problems have been identified;

•encouraging police and councils to use the existing disturbance complaint procedures in the licensing laws as a remedy to local disturbance problems;

•advising councils about their powers in the liquor laws to address local alcohol-related problems (including the distribution of a guide specially for councils);

•circulating information about these issues to police, councils and the liquor industry; and

•targeting problem premises and hot-spot areas through compliance action by gaming and racing’s harm minimisation inspectors;

The Government is committed to continuing its efforts under the harm minimisation strategy. We want to ensure that liquor problems are minimised by targeting problem premises, and by encouraging police, councils, and the community to fully use the measures in the licensing laws that are available to remedy these problems. Finally, I want to say that these new measures are about targeting problem premises. The vast majority of our licensed venues are run responsibly and without any adverse incidents and, on the whole, they should not be affected by these amendments. The Government acknowledges the efforts of those many, many venues across New South Wales that make such an important contribution to our way of life, not just through the services they provide, but through the employment and prosperity they bring to this State. As I have already stated, the bill will also make a number of other machinery amendments to the Liquor and Registered Clubs Acts. Those amendments are of a minor, consequential or ancillary nature. I commend the bill.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.38 p.m.]: The Opposition supports this bill, which will streamline the handling of complaints related to neighbourhood and residential areas. Complaints have always been an issue with licensed premises. I guess they will continue to be so. However, the actual handling of complaints about disturbance of the quiet and good order of a neighbourhood has been clogging up proceedings of the Liquor Administration Board. This bill will allow the hearing in globo of a number of complaints regarding one premises, rather than singularly. As a consequence, a number of complaints made about the one licensed premises or registered club may be heard simultaneously. That really is a streamlining procedure and I will not spend further time on it.

I would like to refer generally to trading hours and to neighbourhood disturbances. Honourable members would be aware that in May 1996 the Government initiated a review of the trading hours of clubs and hotels in New South Wales. Some 300 submissions were presented to the Government. Those submissions have been analysed by the Government and the department. Unfortunately, we have not heard anything more since that review concluded. Whether the Government has decided that the results of the 300 submissions were inconclusive I do not know. That could well be so
Page 770
because about a third of the submissions were in favour of extending trading hours, another third were in favour of restricting trading hours, and yet another third were ambivalent on the issue. So the whole exercise seems inconclusive.

The number of submissions highlights the complexity of trading hours and the issues raised by general neighbourhood disturbance. I am aware of many instances of residents complaining about disturbances around a hotel. One notable Woollahra resident had a great deal of trouble with his local hotel. Eventually, the resident’s complaint led to quite radical changes in the hours of and conduct associated with the hotel. Obviously these are important issues for Woollahra and Paddington residents who wish to live in quiet neighbourhoods. It seems those suburbs have a hotel on every corner. They certainly have the highest density of population anywhere in New South Wales, or indeed Australia.

One appreciates the difficulties of running a hotel in those circumstances whilst trying to maintain quiet and good order among patrons. The Government walked away from the review process, choosing to leave it to local communities to try to sort out some of the issues. One good initiative came from the Australian Hotels Association. One of its senior members, Mr John Franks, brought back from Fremantle an accord arrangement which has been picked up by the Government and the department.

Many accords operate successfully throughout the State between licensees and local authorities, in particular police, to ensure good and proper conduct by patrons when they leave an establishment. It has been pointed out to me that problems are experienced in many towns and suburbs when patrons leave one premises and go to another. They surf their away around three or four premises which have different closing hours, and cause a great deal of trouble. This problem has been overcome to some extent by licensees not allowing new patrons into their premises after a certain hour and by all licence holders, both clubs and hotels, agreeing to limit the number of people who can enter their premises after a certain hour.

The legislation will put an end to this problem, but I will touch briefly on some other problems. One minor amendment will allow proxy voting for members of the Harold Park racing club. This has been a contentious issue for the club. Because of a challenge to its procedures, proxy voting has been prohibited. Members of the club have opposed proxy voting because current board members would have a virtual guarantee of continued appointment under fixed arrangements. The removal of the prohibition against proxy voting for that club will no doubt cause concern amongst the members who believe that the traditional method of electing committee members is the preferred option. The Government is in a no-win position on this issue.

Schedule 1 [5] to the bill amends section 74A of the Liquor Act and introduces a commercial licence in lieu of a Governor’s licence. The Government has not been forthcoming about why this change has been proposed. I assume it is because of the 50 Governor’s licences that were awarded to the Fox Studios development at the old showground site, which are really beyond the spirit of a Governor’s licence. I ask the Special Minister of State, if he is listening to my remarks, to advise whether this amendment has been brought about by the Fox Studios anomaly, or whether there is another reason for issuing a section 74A commercial licence rather than a Governor’s licence.

The legislation will hopefully improve the complaint issue, which has frustrated hoteliers and licensed clubs for many years; it would be in the interests of all if it can be streamlined. Obviously, local residents need a form of communication with authorities if they feel aggrieved by antisocial behaviour. The Opposition has a few concerns about the new commercial licences, but generally supports the thrust of the legislation.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. A. B. Kelly) left the chair at 12.45 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

The Hon. A. B. MANSON [2.30 p.m.]: I join with other honourable members in extending congratulations to the newly elected members of this House and those who have been re-elected. I congratulate also those new members who have made their inaugural speeches. I support the amendments to the liquor laws contained in the bill. They allow complaints to be made to the Liquor Administration Board and provide for complaint conferencing in the event of alcohol-related disturbances around licensed premises. The amendments arise from the Government’s review of late-night liquor trading in 1996-97. They build on the Government’s strategy to reduce alcohol-related harm, crime and antisocial behaviour such as noise, vandalism and violence arising from irresponsible promotion and consumption of alcohol.

Each year between 70 and 100 licensed venues are the subject of complaints before the board. New South Wales has approximately 10,000 licensed
Page 771
premises, so that number may not seem large. However, for those who live near a licensed venue that is not doing the right thing it can become frustrating. The amendments in the bill empower not only the Liquor Administration Board but local communities that are affected by alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. Under the provisions of the legislation the Liquor Administration Board will be able to convene a complaint conference. Upon hearing the complaint the board will be able to impose conditions, seek undertakings and, if required, reduce venue trading hours.

The first main objective of the amendments is to enable the Liquor Administration Board to act on a single complaint against neighbourhood disturbance involving a number of licensed premises. The second principal objective is to permit the Liquor Administration Board to conduct group conferences. These can be extended to other premises to encourage wider local input. This will help to develop a greater understanding of the problems and will lead to positive results. Allowing for single complaints against one or more premises will reduce the need for multiple conferences. This will also allow for a single conference relating to one or more complaints.

Licensed premises, the police, local councils, residents and the Liquor Administration Board will be able to develop local strategies to reduce the incidence of alcohol-related antisocial behaviour and will further develop harm minimisation. Alcohol-related antisocial behaviour is a social health problem that can be reduced by commonsense discussion. The amendments contained in the bill will help to develop responsible service and conduct of those who run licensed premises and those who use them. I support the bill.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [2.34 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. The bill contains important public interest and alcohol harm minimisation measures. It gives further effect to the Government’s commitment to act on the issue of alcohol-related violence and antisocial behaviour. The measures contained in the bill are sensible and balanced. They will not cause hardship for responsible licensees and clubs that operate their premises properly. On the other hand, when premises do not manage liquor trading responsibly - and that includes taking steps to minimise unruly and drunken behaviour by patrons - complaint action can be taken to address disturbances to the neighbourhood.

The measures contained in the bill will ensure that the Liquor Administration Board can properly deal with complaints, which are generally made by residents who are sick of sleepless nights or damage to their property. The board has already had some success in regard to complaints and group conferencing, but the circumstances have all required the consent of the individual venues and the parties involved. The bill will strengthen the board’s hand so that it can get on with trying to sort out alcohol-related problems in a neighbourhood.

The proposed group procedures will also complement the very good work being done around the State on liquor accords. On the whole, accords are proving to be very successful in reversing the disturbing and antisocial behaviour that has been associated with extended liquor trading. However, as more and more accords are put in place, it can be anticipated that some accords may not produce the required results. Therefore, the group procedures for disturbance complaints are being introduced at the relevant time, because it may be that where a liquor accord does not work, the group disturbance complaint procedures will be necessary to achieve a remedy once and for all.

I should respond briefly to the points made by honourable members during the debate, especially those issues that were raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He spoke about the Government’s late trading review and the action that had resulted from it. Many beneficial outcomes have resulted. The bill is one such outcome. The proposal for the Liquor Administration Board to be permitted to convene group disturbance proceedings is a direct outcome of the review. All of the liquor accord work being done around the State is another positive and beneficial outcome. At the last count some 30 local liquor accords were in place or in train.

There have been a number of other tangible results from the late trading review. For example, the Government is encouraging police, councils and residents to use the current disturbance complaint procedures and all of the other measures in the licensing laws that can be used to ameliorate alcohol-related problems in and around licensed venues.

The Government is also encouraging members of the liquor industry to adopt late trading management strategies. That sensible and preventive approach relies on the goodwill of licensees and the community to stop problems before they occur. All these significant strategies have resulted from the late trading review. They reinforce the other significant work that is being done as part of the Government’s harm minimisation strategy. I wish to respond to some of the matters raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in relation to the proposed
Page 772
issue of Governor’s licences to Fox Studios for the Moore Park development.

I make it clear on behalf of the Government that a maximum of 18 licences will be issued to Fox Studios. Those licences are required for the range of entertainment and hospitality venues that will form part of the Fox Studios complex. The Government has given careful consideration to the application because those venues will result in social and economic benefits for Sydney. Under the Liquor Act Fox Studios is entitled to apply for Governor’s licences. The licences will include a range of controls to ensure the responsible service of alcohol and responsible operation of the premises.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred also to the proxy voting provisions in the bill. I confirm that amendments made to the Registered Clubs Act in 1997 allow proxy voting in elections for directors of registered clubs which are also registered racing clubs. The purpose of the amendment was to take account of inherently dispersed membership of the clubs and the need to ensure that the board properly represents that membership. The 1997 amendment provided that if the appropriate majority of members decided to change the rules of the club to permit proxy voting at elections for directors, they could do so. That did not mean that proxy voting would take place automatically.

A practical anomaly has since been identified with this exception, in that it does not apply to voting at general meetings of race clubs. Those meetings consider substantive matters which relate to the future direction of the clubs, and it is clearly desirable that any decision taken at the meetings should be representative of the membership of the club. Accordingly, the amendment before the House will enable proxy voting at general meetings of registered clubs that are also registered racing clubs.

However, I stress that, as with the original proxy voting amendment in relation to the election of directors, this exception will have effect only when the membership of an affected club first decides to amend the club rules to permit proxy voting. Overall, this sensible measure will give this special category of registered clubs the tools with which to better govern their affairs in the best interests of their members. I again thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.44 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted

This bill is designed to make a one-off change to the Standard Time Act 1987 to give effect to an increased period of daylight saving for the year 2000. This change to the Standard Time Act allows for daylight saving to be introduced from Sunday 27 August 2000 to cover the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The early introduction of daylight saving next year will have many operational benefits for the staging of the Games. An increase in late afternoon daylight hours will have positive security, transport, logistical and other implications. In particular, it will allow increased daylight hours for spectator movements to and from Games venues in the latter part of the day. Many afternoon events end at around 5.30 p.m. with evening events beginning between 6.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. With the introduction of daylight saving the large crowd movements to and from these stadia will take place in bright sunshine rather than twilight and gloom.

This of course will allow for improvements in crowd control and safety. Security needs for events are lessened in daylight hours. A later sunset time will also provide greater flexibility in the conduct of events that rely on weather conditions or which cannot run to a pre-determined time such as tennis, beach volleyball, softball, sailing and baseball. The introduction of daylight saving will also have benefits for the one sport that begins early in the morning. Owing to wind and weather conditions in September, rowing would need to start at 7.30 a.m. without daylight saving. The extension of daylight saving will allow rowing to start at 8.30 a.m., which will be of great benefit for spectator enjoyment. This is particularly important as rowing is a sport which can accommodate large numbers of spectators.

Importantly, the early introduction of daylight saving for the Olympic period can only serve to enhance the experience for all spectators, visitors and New South Wales residents who are keen to enjoy the carnival atmosphere that this unique event will bring. During the Olympic and Paralympic Games the city and the country - indeed New South Wales as a whole - will come alive. There will be parties and celebrations in our streets and parks to mark the occasion. Extended daylight saving will make those experiences more pleasurable and more memorable, especially for families taking advantage of the extra three weeks of school holidays. Further, the Olympic Co-ordination Authority has estimated that an extra eight million people will visit the central business district alone during the period of the Games. Obviously, extended daylight saving will allow a greater experience for these people as they shop, dine or simply soak up the atmosphere of this Olympic city.

We have chosen the date of 27 August for the start of daylight saving for a very specific reason. This is the Sunday preceding

Page 773
the opening of the Olympic village. The timing will thus avoid confusion for athletes, officials, media, broadcasters and many international visitors once the Olympic period has officially begun. Starting daylight saving on the last Sunday in August is also consistent with the fact that daylight saving regularly starts and finishes on the last Sunday of a particular month. This legislation honours a commitment given to the International Olympic Committee, sports federations, and broadcasters at the time of Sydney’s bid that daylight saving will commence earlier than normal in 2000. It also follows up commitments by the former Government made during the bid that daylight saving would be in place for the Games. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [2.45 p.m.]: This is just another example of an arrogant metropolitan government imposing what it believes to be a popular decision amongst city people on the rest of New South Wales. I am not going to regale all the arguments about daylight saving; they are often reduced to trivia. On the one hand, some people argue that it is marvellous because it produces more daylight, and it is said that country people oppose it because it fades the curtains or it produces more daylight which is detrimental to them. Of course, the truth is it does nothing to the amount of daylight; it simply sets a different time at which people conduct their activities by artificially moving the clock. That is rather useful when one is talking about the summer season in a climate like that of Australia.

Classic debates and clashes have taken place between sections of our community, particularly among rural people, who believe that the introduction of daylight saving is a rather silly and fatuous concept and suggest that people who want to spend more of their evening leisure time in daylight hours should make adjustments to their hours of activity under eastern standard time. Of course, that debate is over and most people in the country recognise that in high summer at least they should join with the majority of New South Wales in accepting that a changing of the clock to daylight saving time is an appropriate concession to other people in New South Wales.

It is interesting to note that it has been difficult enough to get agreement over the eastern seaboard of the Commonwealth of Australia. Indeed, colleagues of the Government in another State have rejected the concept of daylight saving. We all recognise the tremendous disruption that occurs not only between Brisbane and Sydney but across the border with Queensland because of its rejection of the concept of daylight saving. This bill is not about daylight saving per se, as I am sure honourable members would hasten to point out. This is about a special introduction of daylight saving related to the Olympic Games.

Again, it puts aside the views of country people as if they were of no consequence and the views of those who will not be involved in the events and will not see the Games. When the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games suggested the change to daylight saving, a spokesman for the Olympic organisers said that it would result in the rowing events - which are always held early in the morning when the water is most likely to be still - being held in the dark. The boats would have to have a candle on the front of them to ensure that collisions did not occur, and the spectators would see nothing. It was decided to change the time for these events - we shift the clocks back and they shift the events forward. This is a mixed bag of benefits to those who are interested in the Olympic Games.

My chief concern is for country people. I believe a case can be made out that country people have come to accept that during high summer there is some justification for an artificial alteration of the clock to get people started earlier and to enable others to enjoy the leisure of the late afternoon. To suggest that this should come in at the time of the summer solstice is one thing, but here we are talking about introducing daylight saving from the end of August.

People still have to start work at 7.00 a.m. or 7.30 a.m. This early introduction of daylight saving would merely impose on them another hour of groping about in the dark, getting ready for work and starting their business and daily routine in the dark simply because they do not have the normal daylight associated with the natural movement of seasons in Australia. I do not intend to go on about this at great length. I daresay that the sweeping majority that the Government commands in the Legislative Assembly may very well be reflected also in a vote in favour of the measure in this Chamber later this afternoon. But who knows?

It is interesting to note that in that other place a member who claims to be one of the representatives of the new country Labor group was noticeably absent from the vote, and that some of the new country mayors, who were going to set the country on fire with their determination to represent country areas, also absented themselves. I heard that they thought it was more significant to be seen attending a Local Government and Shires Association meeting.

I am not sure that the constituents who elected them to the New South Wales Parliament will agree that that priority is appropriate. They certainly would have preferred to hear what their local
Page 774
representatives think about this rather extraordinary measure. It is not backed up by any empiric argument that in August in Sydney or in New South Wales it would be great to get up an hour earlier. No persons in their right mind would say that unless they are of very leisurely habits, and I would not dare to suggest that the Ministers opposite are of such leisurely habits.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I am often up at 4.00 a.m.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: On a previous occasion when I thought it appropriate to comment on the habits of a colleague and friend of mine I recalled a quotation by that legendary figure Beau Brummel, who said he liked to rise in the morning when the morning was well aired. I know, though, that however appropriate that comment might be to other members, the likeness to Beau Brummel is likely to escape anyone sitting next to my esteemed colleague opposite.

People in rural areas would like to feel that they are part of the Olympic Games. There has been a tremendous effort by various communities, through their local councils, to become involved in the commercial side by supplying goods and services to the Olympic Games. But, sadly, the examples have been few and far between. On a previous occasion I reflected on the sad news that when one local council with the appropriate facilities offered far and wide to host a team from overseas to train for equestrian events, I think it was, it found that the cost to do so was more than it could justify pursuant to its charter to its ratepayers to spend their money basically on providing subsidised accommodation and associated activities.

The council believed that training expenses should be met out of the Olympic Games budget, not pushed back to country people with the comment, "Look, we can’t provide a range of tickets that you can afford but we can pass back to you the responsibility of subsidising the activities of some touring teams." I do not want to see teams discouraged from coming to Australia for the 2000 Olympic Games because they are having difficulty with their budgets, but it is not up to country people to shoulder the burden of making up the deficit from their budget. Nor do I think it is up to country people to shoulder this unreasonable request to disturb their routines and habits simply to have extra sunlight later in the day, simply, it is suggested, to provide a more pleasant ambience for the athletes and the spectators.

I do not believe that a good case has been made out, particularly when one considers what time of the year this is. In my view experiments with extended daylight saving over recent years have generally been met with a great lack of enthusiasm around the city, and certainly with some hostility in the country because as the season goes on and days begin to shorten people realise that daylight saving is creating more inconvenience than it is producing enjoyment.

If that is true of March and October, it is doubly true at the end of August. It is an outrageous suggestion in my view and in the view of country people that they should have to accept this imposition. At the end of the day it could be said that country people should simply ignore it, but standard time cannot be ignored. Business, schools and all other major activities are predicated by the setting of a standard time in the State of New South Wales. It appears that it is the will of the Government that for the Olympic Games daylight saving will be extended. I do not think any justification for it has been put forward. We certainly have not heard arguments here.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: You might try to convince me. You might talk me out of it.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I certainly would not like to go that far. On behalf of the majority of country constituents I can say that the introduction of this measure by the Government will not be accepted in good grace. In fact it will be met with some resentment and antagonism, and I regret to say that some of that attitude will inevitably continue to fuel the feeling of being left out of the Olympic Games, which I know all of us would like to avoid. For people who are not enjoying buoyant economic circumstances and cannot afford a ticket for the opening and closing ceremonies or other major events, this measure will add insult to injury and rub salt into already smarting wounds.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.58 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats support this bill. We are perhaps a little uncertain why we traditionally get out of bed and go to bed at the times we do. Each day I am fortunate to hear birds singing at sun-up and at sundown, and that seems to be the natural rhythm of life. It seems to me that the human race starts its day later and later so that we actually get up when it is already light, which wastes daylight time, and we go to bed long after dark, so we have to spend a lot of money on electricity, which of course only exacerbates the
Page 775
greenhouse problem. It seems that our waking day is getting longer and longer and that our convention is to remain awake longer into the darkness of evening. Now that we have discovered coal-fired power and we are damaging the ozone layer and have the greenhouse problem, perhaps the best solution is to organise daylight saving in such a way that it maximises the amount of daylight we can enjoy and thereby minimise our energy consumption.

Obviously, administrative measures would need to be put in place because daylight varies with the distance from the Equator and the time of year. People who can analyse this systematically could balance greenhouse savings with administrative convenience and introduce daylight saving in such a way that it minimises Australia’s energy consumption and cost and reduces the greenhouse gases and their effect. I am surprised that this has not been suggested already. If we cannot change our habits we should change our clocks to achieve these improvements. Daylight saving appears not to have been examined with regard to energy consumption or cost, and it is time that was done. I am not an expert on milking cows but I know that shift workers find it difficult to adjust their internal clocks.

I have worked in the area of occupational health and safety and examined problems faced by nurses and other shift workers in adjusting to that work. Those groups are out of step with the social norm by virtue of working rotating shifts around the clock. That is an inconvenience and it should be compensated for in awards. It comes down to what is best for the majority and for the environment, and to taking account of cost savings. Daylight saving should be approached in a more systematic way, perhaps introduced in consultation with the sustainable energy authority. The bill will result in an economic saving during the Olympics and although it is a step in the right direction it does not go far enough. The Australian Democrats would like to revisit the whole concept at a later time. However, at this stage we support the bill.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [3.02 p.m.]: I support the Standard Time Amendment Bill, whose aim is to make a one-off change to the Standard Time Act 1987 to extend the daylight savings period provided in that Act. As has been illustrated by the Government and other speakers this afternoon, including my colleague the Hon. D. F. Moppett, this one-off change is to correspond with the Year 2000 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. It will bring forward by two months, to Sunday 27 August 2000, the present daylight saving period.

There is no denying the rationale behind this change. Indeed, it was part of the former Government’s bid to secure the 2000 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games because it would benefit the operation of the Games. It acknowledges that the Games are not purely for Sydney but for people throughout the world, and that all people who cannot participate in them should be able to at least watch them. This measure will benefit the people of this State, particularly those in Sydney and elsewhere who will attend the Games. The people of Sydney will be the main beneficiaries of extended daylight savings during the Games because they will take part not only in the Olympic events but in all the associated carnival celebrations that will be held throughout the city.

The Coalition is conscious of the potential impact extended daylight saving will have on some sectors of the community, as was clearly expressed by my colleague the Hon. D. F. Moppett, who represents the people of western New South Wales. Some of the groups concerned about the impact are in the farming sector, and others are concerned about the potential safety impact on young children travelling to school in increased hours of darkness. In this Chamber and in another place the National Party has put its arguments forcefully and ensured that the voices of its constituents have been heard. It is to be congratulated on standing up for the people outside the metropolitan area, who, as the Hon. D. F. Moppett rightly points out, may not have an opportunity because of work commitments or economics to attend the Games. There will be questions in the next few months as to whether the working-class, whom I represent, will be able to participate at the Games.

The Liberal Party has listened to its Coalition colleagues and formed the view very early that each member of the Coalition should be afforded the opportunity to reflect his or her view on how this measure will affect their constituency. As I say, the Hon. D. F. Moppett eloquently put the National Party’s view, but, in essence, the Coalition is happy to support the bill and looks forward to its passage.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.07 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I particularly thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support for this bill. I acknowledge the eloquent dissenting voice of the Hon. D. F. Moppett, who expressed his different position. However, the Liberal Party supported the measure in the Legislative Assembly and I apprehend that the feeling of this House will be to support it here. My understanding is that the bill honours a commitment given to the International Olympic Committee and to various other participants
Page 776
at the time of the bid that New South Wales would make this accommodation on daylight saving. It is difficult to persuasively argue against that commitment at this stage, particularly given that rural New South Wales is benefiting and will benefit from the Olympic Games.

During the construction phase of the Games many country firms have won contracts worth million dollars, and many more will win contracts to supply produce and other commodities to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games. Rural and regional New South Wales will benefit from increased expenditure by tourists and Olympic competitors. The Tourist Olympic Forum, which includes government and industry representatives, has held numerous seminars and has developed a major guideline document to assist regional tourist authorities in maximising advantages arising from the Olympics.

Social and cultural benefits will flow from pre-Games training arrangements. Country New South Wales will host international teams and have access to the torch relay and the goodwill and general enjoyment that will inevitably surround the staging of the Games. In short, we ought to be united in support of the Games and see this extension of daylight saving as a reasonable and justifiable adjunct to their conduct. I commend the bill to the House.

Question - That this bill be now read a second time - put.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Mr Manson
Ms Burnswoods Rev. Nile
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Obeid
Mr Della Bosca Mr Ryan
Mr Dyer Ms Saffin
Mr Egan Mr Samios
Mrs Forsythe Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Gallacher Mr Shaw
Mr Hannaford Ms Tebbutt
Mr Harwin Mr Tingle
Mr Hatzistergos Mr Tsang
Mr Johnson Dr Wong
Mr Kelly Tellers,
Mr Lynn Mr Jobling
Mr Macdonald Mr Primrose

Mr Bull Mr Moppett
Mr Cohen Tellers,
Mr Corbett Mr Gay
Miss Gardiner Ms Rhiannon

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [3.17 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The New South Wales Thoroughbred Racing Board was established in 1996 following the passage of the Thoroughbred Racing Board Act 1996 through the Parliament. The Act provides that the board shall consist of 11 members as follows: four members nominated by the Australian Jockey Club; two members nominated by the Sydney Turf Club; one member nominated by the Provincial Association of New South Wales; two members nominated by the board of directors of the Country Racing Council Limited; one member nominated by the Racing Industry Participants Advisory Committee, known as RIPAC; and the chief executive non voting member.

The Thoroughbred Racing Board is responsible for the control and regulation of the thoroughbred racing industry in New South Wales and has performed this role since 1 July 1997. This function was previously performed by the Australian Jockey Club. Many honourable members would no doubt recall that the legislation to create the Thoroughbred Racing Board followed a major review of the State’s thoroughbred racing industry commissioned by the Government in 1995. The review was undertaken by Ian Temby QC. In its short history the Thoroughbred Racing Board has been an outstanding success and has vindicated the Government’s decision to make radical changes to administration of the thoroughbred racing industry in this State.

Coupled with the significant financial benefits which have flowed from the privatisation of the New South Wales TAB during 1998, the future of the thoroughbred racing industry has never looked brighter. One of the principal objectives of the legislation to create the Thoroughbred Racing Board was to give the various sectors of the thoroughbred racing industry direct representation on the industry’s controlling body. While the new structure has worked well, if there has been a criticism it has come from the participants sector of the industry which has called for increased direct representation on the board. I should stress that this is not a criticism of specific board members, but rather the overall board structure. The participants sector is currently represented on the board through its nominee from RIPAC, a body constituted under the legislation to represent owners, breeders, trainers, jockeys,

Page 777
bookmakers, industry employees and consumers of racing and betting services.

The Minister for Gaming and Racing has responded to the concerns of the participant sector by directing that his department conduct a review into the current structure of the board and associated matters to determine whether a change to the composition is appropriate. That review is commencing shortly and should it ultimately be determined to alter the structure of the board, I am advised that the Minister is looking at introducing appropriate legislation during this year’s spring session of Parliament. In the meantime, under the provisions of the legislation, the term of office of half the members of the Thoroughbred Racing Board will expire on 30 June 1999.

In this regard, the Act provides for a four-year term for board members, with the term of office for half of the first members of the board to be two years only. This arrangement was designed to ensure that the term of office of no more than half the members of the board will expire at any time, thereby providing for a continuity in board membership. Without pre-empting the findings of the review into the structure of the board, the Government believes that it would be in the interests of the thoroughbred racing industry to maintain stability in the membership prior to any possible change to the composition of the board in the near future.

The bill before the House removes the provision that the term of office of half of the members of the Thoroughbred Racing Board will expire after two years and will enable the Minister for Gaming and Racing to extend the expiry date for the term of office of these members to a date no later than 30 June 2001, which is the expiration date of the maximum four-year term allowable under the legislation. This legislation is designed to provide stability to the Thoroughbred Racing Board in the lead-up to a possible change in the membership composition, a measure which can only be of benefit to the thoroughbred racing industry. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.18 p.m.]: The Opposition supports this legislation. Honourable members would recall the jockey tapes scandal, as it became known, in 1995, following which the Government announced a review of the rules of racing to be conducted by Justice Temby, which concluded in November of that year. Following that inquiry and its recommendations, the Government introduced legislation that became the Thoroughbred Racing Board Act.

The Opposition supported that legislation because for once it enabled not only the Australian Jockey Club but the Sydney Turf Club, provincial racing, country racing and industry participants to have a say in the conduct of racing in this State. The Thoroughbred Racing Board has been in existence since about April 1996 and to all intents and purposes has done a very good job.

There has been agitation from participants represented by the Racing Industry Participants Advisory Council to have more representatives on the Thoroughbred Racing Board. To enable a further review of the membership of the board, the Government has introduced this bill. Effectively, the bill will allow serving board members an extension of their tenure until 30 June 2001, giving ample time for a review of the Thoroughbred Racing Board and for the drafting of legislation to effect any changes that may be necessary to the membership of the board.

The review will be difficult because of the diversity of industry groups representing owners, breeders, trainers, jockeys, bookmakers and others. It is difficult for one person to represent the views of such diverse groups, although I believe John Rouse has done a very good job in attempting to do so as the current representative of those groups on the board. Even if the number of representatives were to be increased by one, the two representatives would find it very difficult to represent the views of various stakeholders. Although an additional board member might be satisfactory in one respect, I am quite sure that if either person were seen to be representing one sector of participants, other sectors not directly represented would feel aggrieved.

The Opposition will watch the review with interest. We are happy that the review will take place, as we were with the Temby review. The Opposition, through me as shadow minister, made representations to the Temby inquiry. On numerous occasions I had discussions with the Government and the Australian Jockey Club before legislation was introduced to establish the Thoroughbred Racing Board.

One alternative, of course, is to change the composition of the Thoroughbred Racing Board to increase the number of Sydney Turf Club representatives by one, at the expense of the Australian Jockey Club or one of the other sectors of the industry. The industry has a general belief that the Australian Jockey Club probably is overrepresented with four members while other industry groups are underrepresented. One would need the wisdom of Solomon to devise a solution that will make everyone happy and lead to a consensus conclusion.

I wish the Government well with its review. I am sure it will be interesting, and I look forward to participating in that process. Though the bill contains essentially machinery provisions and has nothing to do with the composition of the board, it will alleviate the difficulties that would be encountered in having to reappoint some members at the end of June this year for a further term. I think
Page 778
the Government has acted correctly by extending the terms of those members to June 2001 to enable the review to take place. With those few brief comments, the Opposition has much pleasure in supporting the legislation.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [3.23 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and for their support of the proposals contained in the bill. As indicated in my second reading speech, the Thoroughbred Racing Board has been an outstanding success. The Government recognises that has been, in no small part, due to the calibre of the members serving on the board. The impending review of the Thoroughbred Racing Board is designed to ensure that the board is structured to best serve the needs of the thoroughbred racing industry. The bill is in no way a criticism of the performance of the existing board. It clearly is in the interests of the industry to have stability in the lead-up to any change in the membership of the board, and this legislation will enable that to be achieved.

With regard to inquiries made on behalf of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones outside the House, firstly, I can confirm that any changes to the composition of the Thoroughbred Racing Board will need to be brought back to the Parliament and dealt with in legislation. Secondly, in relation to the review itself, I understand that an issues paper will be forwarded to all major industry stakeholders - namely, all race clubs, industry participant organisations and the Thoroughbred Racing Board within the next week. Those bodies will be invited to make submissions to the review by 16 July. Should the Minister determine that an amendment to the legislation is required, it is proposed that legislation will be introduced during the spring session of Parliament. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [3.26 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Technical Education Trust Funds Amendment Bill. The purpose of this bill is to streamline the management of student trust funds under the Technical Education Trust Funds Act 1967. Key measures are to simplify reporting requirements, give greater flexibility in control of the trusts covered by the Act and to provide individual trustees with an exemption from personal liability for actions taken in good faith. The Education Trusts Funds Act has the object of providing vocational education and training institutions including the University of Technology, Sydney and Technical and Further Education Commission Institutes with the power to manage student trust funds in a manner consistent with that traditionally available to universities. The bill significantly improves the administrative aspects of the Act.

Currently the trustees of a fund administered under the Act must, for the time being, hold two or more offices specified by the Governor for that purpose by order published in the Government Gazette. At the time the Act was passed the relevant student trust funds were not managed by corporate bodies. Since that time the University of Technology, Sydney Act 1989 and the Technical and Further Education Commission Act 1990 have been enacted. Both pieces of legislation create a corporate body. The bill allows the Governor to appoint either a statutory corporation or two or more individuals to be the statutory trustees of a fund under the Act. This gives greater flexibility while still ensuring that trusts under the Act are properly administered.

It is now common practice for members of statutory councils and boards of educational institutions to be exempt from personal liability arising from decisions made in good faith while performing statutory duties. It is reasonable that statutory trustees of a fund under the Act be placed in a similar position. The bill provides that a statutory trustee who is an individual as opposed to a corporation is not personally liable for acts or omissions in relation to the trustee’s functions under the Act. This exemption from liability is restricted to actions taken or omissions made in good faith. The exemption extends to a person acting under the direction of a statutory trustee irrespective of whether the trustee is a corporation or an individual.

The bill amends the Annual Reports (Departments) Act 1985 and the Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984. It changes the reporting requirements for a department or statutory body that is a statutory trustee under the Technical Education Trust Funds Act. Departments or statutory bodies will be able to report in relation to their functions as statutory trustees within the annual report for the department or statutory body itself. This means that reports on similar funds administered by a department or statutory body can be presented in one place irrespective of whether the fund is under the Education Trust Funds Act. This is a logical
Page 779
measure which has the desirable effect of making such reports both more meaningful and more accessible. The bill brings some aspects of the Act, including titles of office holders, up to date. It contains transitional provisions and makes minor consequential amendments to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [3.30 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the Technical Education Trust Funds Amendment Bill. Madam President, I take this opportunity to acknowledge your election. Last week when I spoke in debate on the Walsh Bay Development (Special Provisions) Bill I overlooked my first opportunity to acknowledge your election as President and to wish you well. I also acknowledge the many members who have given their inaugural speeches during debate in recent weeks, including the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer - who set a precedent in this House by giving his inaugural speech on its first full sitting day of the session - the Hon. Lee Rhiannon, the Hon. H. S. Tsang, the Hon. Dr P. Wong, the Hon. D. T. Harwin and the Hon. J. Hatzistergos.

We are all looking forward to many interesting debates and I certainly wish the new members well and congratulate each of them on their election. Many people see the role of the Legislative Council as anachronistic or not representing the community of New South Wales. We have heard members from diverse and interesting backgrounds express different points of view. I welcome all new members; they have each added to the vitality of this House as they bring fresh and different perspectives to debate.

The Technical Education Trust Funds Amendment Bill is notionally an education bill as it is under the authority of the Minister for Education and Training but, in reality, it could equally be a finance bill as it has more to do with the administration of trust funds than education. The bill is probably long overdue in amending the Technical Education Trust Funds Act 1967, which is out of date in many ways. The original Act was introduced to provide for the administration of trust funds in relation to academic prizes for students undertaking technical education in an era before the introduction of the University of Technology, Sydney - certainly before the creation of the Technical and Further Education Commission.

In those days administration of trusts fell to individuals who bore some personal liability. This bill allows for the appointment of a statutory corporation as a statutory trustee of the fund administered under the Act. In other words, that is a recognition of the development of universities and the commission. To that extent the Opposition has absolutely no difficulty in supporting the bill. I was surprised that the Minister, in his contribution to the second reading debate, referred to the streamlining of management of student trust funds, simplifying the reporting requirements, and giving greater flexibility and control of the trusts covered by the Act - in other words, simplifying and clarifying the process and making it more open and accountable to the community.

This type of legislation probably represents at least 80 per cent of the work of parliaments. It is not the sort of legislation that gets headlines, or even a line in a newspaper; but it is very much a bread and butter issue for Parliament. Perhaps legislation of this type is overlooked by the community, which only hears about the confrontationalist aspects of Parliament and not the fact that members work together to introduce legislation which is designed to improve the administration of various departments and authorities in this State. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.33 p.m.]: It is an honour for me to endorse the Technical Education Trust Funds Amendment Bill, which, as the Hon. Patricia Forsythe said, has attracted a great degree of consensus between all parties in this House. The Act facilitates the establishment and administration of awards and prizes for tertiary students who are starting in a technical environment. The bill was designed to place the student trust funds of technical education institutions of the day on a similar footing to those of universities. Honourable members would agree that that is an admirable course of action and one that should be carried out at this time.

I know that the Hon. J. H. Jobling would agree with me, because he is a serious person who has always supported the evolution and development of institutions of technical and further education. He comes from an area in which technical and further education has been very important. In Muswellbrook, the home of mining and wine making - two very important industries for New South Wales - he has demonstrated over again his commitments to those industries. For that he should be commended.

I take this opportunity to speak about an ancillary matter that affects every campus in this country: the Liberal Party’s policy to impose national voluntary student unionism. Honourable members would have to be concerned about the long-term impacts of that decision. The Hon. D. T. Harwin has
Page 780
already made an impact in the newspapers. It took me three years to make page 3 of the Daily Telegraph, but he made pages 1, 2, 3 and 4 within weeks of being elected to this Chamber. Yesterday he had a quality mention that I could not fail but see when I opened the Daily Telegraph. That is what I call a mega ability to attract publicity; to be on the front page of the Daily Telegraph, and I commend him for that.

All parties, including the Labor Party, the Greens, and the Democrats, probably take the attitude that all publicity is good publicity. The Hon. D. T. Harwin should have a PhD in publicity. I saw his name in black-and-white and I realised that I would have great difficulty matching that. In many ways voluntary student unionism impinges on this bill. The approach of the Federal Minister, David Kemp, is undermining the integrity and development of Australian tertiary campuses by trying to create voluntary student unionism.

In Western Australia alone, since the Court legislation, there has been an absolute diminution in student services. It is quite clear that if the same policies were applied across the country there would be no student welfare, no student services, and universities would be far the worse for that. I am sure the Hon. D. T. Harwin would come to that conclusion, as he is such a cultured individual and a gatherer of publicity in his short time in this House.

I am sure the Hon. J. M. Samios, the Knight of Kythera, will agree that the Federal Coalition Government should be condemned. He will agree with my condemnation of the Federal Government for its unwarranted attack on student rights and services in this country. This type of activity has ensured that universities have been far richer. Imagine a university without a decent Students Representative Council, without campaigns such as the Hon. D. T. Harwin ran to defeat my good friend Anthony Albanese, in league with some rather opportunistic types that were associated with the Australian Labor Party at the time, as a consequence without taking into account the great role played by student unionism on campuses. The Federal Liberal Government and its National Party cohorts is undermining student unionism.

The bill brings arrangements under the Act into line with current technical education management practices and structures. The key measures will simplify reporting requirements, permit the appointment of corporate bodies as trustees and exempt individuals who are trustees, or the agents of trustees, from personal liability, provided that they act in good faith. The bill will give greater flexibility. That is what the New South Wales Government is about. The bill will permit the New South Wales Technical and Further Education Commission and other corporate bodies to be appointed as trustees by the Governor, for example. Agencies will be able to report on student trust funds as part of their usual annual report. This will make reports on trust funds more accessible.

The Hon. D. T. Harwin believes in accessibility, particularly when it means he can get a few lines in the Daily Telegraph. Individuals acting as trustees or the agents of trustees will have no need to fear personal liability, provided that they act in good faith. This will ensure that appropriately qualified people will not be discouraged from taking on such roles and is consistent with provisions in a range of other fields. The bill also tidies up some aspects of the principal Act and brings references to public offices and the like up to date. Whilst the bill is essentially of a machinery nature, as was alluded to by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe in her rather long dissertation on the bill, it will have practical benefits for the administration of student trust funds. That is what the legislation is all about.

I hope that Senator Colston, Senator Harradine and the Australian Democrats do the right thing and oppose the Federal Coalition’s voluntary student unionism initiative. I am sure that the Hon. D. T. Harwin agrees with me. His life would have been less colourful had he not had that wonderful opportunity to make a mark on the body politic of the University of Sydney campus a few years back. He probably would not have had the cathartic feelings he must have had when he opened the Daily Telegraph yesterday.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [3.44 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. I. M. Macdonald for his profound comments on the bill. I thank also the Hon. Patricia Forsythe for her courtesy. As the Hon. I. M. Macdonald pointed out, the bill essentially is of a machinery nature. I should take the time of the House to remind honourable members of the background to the bill. The Act has as its object providing vocational training institutions with the opportunity to manage student trust funds in a manner that is comparable to the powers traditionally given to universities. That was one of the key points of the legislation. There is a parallel with the way in which universities are required to manage their trust funds. That remains the model for this legislation.

Other management provisions will simplify reporting. The legislation requires statutory trustees
Page 781
to report separately on trusts managed under the Act. It requires also separate preparation of audit certificates, which must be tabled in the Parliament. The necessity for reporting on trust funds separately imposes some burdens, including financial burdens, which will be lifted by the simplification of reporting under the new arrangements in the legislation. The bill gives effect to trusts for the benefit of students of educational institutions to report annually to Parliament. The report of the trust can be incorporated as part of the report of the educational institution.

Sweeping changes have been made to the complexion and structure of technical education in New South Wales since the passage of the Technical Education Trust Funds Act 1967. This amending bill will bring the administration of education trust funds under the Act into line with modern educational arrangements. Educational administrators charged with the management of trust funds under the Act are entitled to be protected from personal liability provided that they act in good faith. This is consistent with a wide range of similar functions under the legislation. The proposed changes to the reporting requirements do no more than ensure that departments and statutory bodies are able to report on all the funds that they administer in one commonsense location - their annual report. Annual reports are already required to be tabled in both Houses.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. J. J. Della Bosca agreed to:

That sessional orders be suspended to allow questions to be called on forthwith.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is directed to the Treasurer, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Given his announcement today that a referendum will be conducted, in conjunction with the September local government elections, to determine the composition of the upper House, how does the Government intend to conduct the referendum in areas where council elections are to be deferred to allow amalgamations, as was announced yesterday by the Minister for Local Government? Will the referendum in those areas be delayed for 12 months or will it be held separate to the local government elections? If so, what will be the additional cost?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. D. J. Gay talks about a proposal to hold a referendum. I point out that at this stage that is all it is, and if a referendum was held in conjunction with local government elections in September, legislation for that referendum would need the support of this Chamber. If that eventuated, I suppose - and I would have to discuss the matter with my colleague the Minister for Local Government - the referendum would have to be held on the same day throughout the State. It might mean that in the limited number of local government areas in which the local government elections were delayed people would have to go to the polls twice rather than once. But, as I say, I have not discussed the matter with the Minister for Local Government.

The Hon. H. S. TSANG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries - and not to the Minister for Juvenile Justice. What is the Government doing about reducing the by-catch of juvenile fish during commercial prawn trawling operations?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Citizen Obeid!

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: One-vote Duncan! The Hon. D. J. Gay will always be affectionately remembered as one-vote Duncan. The issue of by-catch is recognised as one of the most important issues facing trawl fishing around the world. I am pleased to say that the New South Wales Government is recognised by experts in North America, Europe and the United Nations as having one of the world’s most progressive and innovative approaches to dealing with prawn trawl by-catch problems. Our scientists have conducted extensive research into the by-catch and discarding of small fish by commercial prawn trawlers in our estuarine and oceanic fisheries.

We have worked with fishers to identify the many species and sizes of fish discarded by prawn trawlers throughout the State. We have also worked with industry to develop new modifications to prawn
Page 782
trawl nets which allow unwanted fish to escape while under water yet have no effect on catches of the targeted prawns. These modifications are devices known as by-catch reduction devices, or BRDs. Depending upon the device and location, between 50 per cent and 90 per cent of unwanted fish escape through the devices. Additional benefits can include a reduction in sorting time. In many cases the quantity and quality of the prawns caught are also improved.

To their credit, the prawn trawlers of New South Wales have taken a positive approach to the new by-catch reduction device designs. I am pleased to say that many operators are already using the devices voluntarily. However, to ensure maximum and long-term compliance the devices were made mandatory in Port Jackson and Botany Bay in November last year. They will be made mandatory in all ocean prawn trawlers by 1 July this year. All other estuarine prawn trawl fishers are scheduled to have the devices fitted in time for their summer season later this year.

By-catch reduction is important to ensure that small and juvenile fish deaths are minimised in all fisheries. This Government is the first government in Australia to make the use of these important conservation devices mandatory. I emphasise that we remain committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the State’s valuable fish resources and will continue to implement strategies that conserve fishery resources.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads, whether the Minister is aware that the Canterbury City Council commissioned a study on the single-stack proposal for the M5 east motorway tunnel and that the findings show that the single stack for gas emissions will have a negative impact on the air quality in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Turrella stack.

Is the Minister aware that the report shows that the local air quality impacts are almost certain to include breaches of air quality goals in respect of carbon monoxide, ozone and nitrogen dioxide, and that this will impose unacceptable and unreasonable health risks in the Turrella vicinity? Is it a fact that an environmental impact statement [EIS] has not been performed on the single stack proposal? Will the Government give an assurance to undertake an EIS on the single stack proposal, since this proposal is significantly different from the original design proposals for gas emissions?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I am certainly concerned about any exhaust system that might influence or affect local residents. I do not know the answer to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile’s question but I will convey the question to my colleague in the lower House and will attempt to obtain a detailed answer to his question.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. The commercial fishing industry has been trying to move to a more equitable form of restructuring and property rights for more than four years, as outlined in the recent Profish newsletter. In light of the Minister’s meeting with Profish today, why has New South Wales not adopted a management plan for any fishery?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said in his question, I had a lengthy and good discussion today with representatives of Profish. They represent a number of commercial fishers and are most interested in the share management of fisheries. I explained to them that I am prepared to receive a detailed submission from them as to the proposal. The issue at stake is that there is not a majority view that fishers want share management. I have always undertaken that I would go with a majority agreement from the stakeholders in those estuaries.

They told me that they are not keen on the cost repayments of the fishery. I make it clear that if we were to go down the path of managed fisheries and handed the fishers a community asset, which they could transfer and sell, we would expect cost recovery. There has been no negotiation on that, and we are yet to work out a community contribution for that asset. The Profish representatives fully understand that I am not in a position - and no Minister would be - to hand over to the private sector a community asset without some community contribution. We agreed on the principle -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: It was never envisaged in your original scheme.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: No, that was always envisaged in the Fisheries Management Act that the Coalition enacted in 1994. What that Government did not tell the stakeholders was that there was a community contribution that had yet to be worked out. The Coalition never told them what that would be. I assure honourable members that once the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal and the Treasurer work out the figures, they might be more than a little displeased with the amount that they
Page 783
would have to contribute each year. That is the untold story about share management. Yet I have told the Profish representatives that if they present a submission, argue a case and get the stakeholders on side with their estuaries, I will be happy to consider it.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I direct a question without notice to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Attorney inform the House as to the level of funding allocated by the Government to crime prevention initiatives in New South Wales over the past 12 months?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The crime prevention division in the Attorney General’s Department is working closely with communities in rural and regional New South Wales to assist them to develop strategies to address crime within their local areas. The division is providing both practical and financial support to those communities. The Government is committed to crime prevention in this State. In the past 12 months the crime prevention division has provided grants of more than $2.2 million to communities in the State through the Safer Communities Development Fund.

The Safer Communities Development Fund enables local authorities and community groups to receive financial assistance through the division for the implementation of local crime prevention plans, safer community compacts and operational area grants. The fund supports a number of innovative projects. The Coonamble Neighbourhood Centre is a local community radio service with a focus on positive parenting and promoting government and community services, and it includes Aboriginal content and presenters. The community safety guides project in Maclean Shire Council and Canterbury City Council trains young people to promote crime prevention by forming links between local people, their community and council, and providing community information to members of the public.

The trial of a young offenders mentoring program in the Parramatta, Coffs Harbour, and Clarence areas is also important. This three-year project will match trained adult mentors with young people who receive a caution or who participate in a youth justice conference under the terms of the Young Offenders Act 1997. The Government recognises the particular needs of country New South Wales. Accordingly, it has funded two special projects. An anti-violence project in the Bega shire aims to reduce violence involving young people both as victims and perpetrators.

A local government prevention of alcohol and other drug-related youth crime project in Orange will formulate a comprehensive picture of alcohol and other drug-related youth crime in the area, provide a base line, and develop strategies to address the identified problems. Both of those projects involve extensive consultation with young people and aim to produce resources and training material which can be used statewide. In the 1998-99 financial year, 15 local councils were funded to undertake safer towns and cities projects over two years to develop a local crime prevention plan for endorsement and implementation as safer community compacts. I will not list the figures, but details of the grants are available from my office.

The 15 councils that were given grants to undertake the projects are: Moree Plains Shire Council, Wagga Wagga City Council, Lismore City Council, Newcastle City Council, Fairfield City Council, Narrandera Shire Council, Wellington Council, Canterbury-Bankstown City Council, Manly City Council, Gosford City Council, Albury City Council, Shellharbour City Council, Maitland City Council, Cessnock City Council, Sydney City Council, Queanbeyan City Council and Yarrowlumla Shire Council. This constructive and positive program would be supported by all members of this House.

In addition, four community-based organisations have been funded to implement a volunteer Aboriginal night patrol in their local areas on a trial basis. The night patrols will be responsible for the local transport of young Aboriginal people who are at risk in public places at night to their homes or to some other safe place. The organisations are the Riverina Aboriginal Sports Corporation in Narrandera, Carnma CDEP Aboriginal Corporation in the Wentworth-Dareton area, Forster local Aboriginal land council and Kempsey Shire Council.

The Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, in association with the Koori Centre at the University of Sydney, has been awarded a grant of $68,750 for a support and evaluation project to assist with the Aboriginal night patrols. I believe that the provision of funds from the Safer Communities Development Fund to locally based agencies has proved to be a successful model of the Government and community partnership in dealing with crime prevention planning at a local community level. From time to time one hears of heavy-handed authoritarian ideas being launched. This is the answer.

This is the alternative: community consultation, a sophisticated crime prevention
Page 784
program that people in the community actually agree with and participate in. This is working, and I want to make sure that all members of the House know that this is what the Government is doing in a positive and practical sense.

The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD: My question without notice is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Government aware that Qantas is planning to employ foreigners who will be based in various countries as flight attendants? Is the Government aware also that unless this wide-ranging export of Australian jobs is stopped, Qantas will commence its jobs-related treachery by employing 150 Thai nationals based in Bangkok? Is the Government further aware that this money-grubbing exercise by Qantas, which has just announced a 30 per cent increase in profit, will not only cost Australians jobs but will also exploit the lower wages and conditions of workers in Third World countries?

Is the Government aware that Qantas claims that its self-seeking plans relate to culture and language, hence denying the ability of young Australians to know such customs and languages and ignoring the fact that many Australians of Thai ancestry could obviously fill such position from Australia? Will the Government, in the interests of the current and future employment of residents of New South Wales, lobby the Federal Government on this issue and use its influence to have Qantas drop its plans to internationally redistribute Australian jobs?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am aware of press reports concerning the topic that the honourable member raises. I do not think there is much that the New South Wales Government can do about the employment programs of Qantas. It is dealing with its industrial relations under a Federal award regime. It has, at least prima facie, a right to recruit overseas, although I gather there is opposition to the recruitment of people overseas by that firm. There may be some role for symbolic politics but I do not think there is anything in a practical, effective or instrumental sense that either this Parliament or this State Government can do.

The Hon. D. E. Oldfield: Take a stand and let them know that you think it is wrong and that you do not like it.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I will take on board the comments made by the honourable member, but my focus is on what actually can be done to create a fairer society in New South Wales rather than engage in that kind of symbolic politics.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice. Is it a fact that four of the juveniles who participated in each of the recent serious disturbances at the Kariong detention centre were wards of the State? Is it also a fact that none of the four had ever had regular visitors; indeed, none of them had any visitors, including district officers from the Department of Community Services? Will the Minister undertake a review of all State wards in juvenile justice centres to ensure that no juvenile is left without any contact with departmental officers, so that issues of concern to juvenile detainees can be addressed?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the honourable member for her question, but I cannot respond to the detailed aspects of it. On a number of occasions the honourable member has raised specific issues that would be more appropriately placed on the notice paper, given their specific detailed nature. If the honourable member is truly seeking an answer to the comprehensive matters she raised she should place them on the notice paper. I undertake to provide an answer to the honourable member’s question.

I inform the House that the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Community Services have a joint project that relates to wards in the juvenile justice system. They represent a high- risk group in terms of poverty, homelessness, alcohol and other physical, emotional and sexual abuse, so they may end up as a high-risk group within the juvenile justice system. The Department of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Community Services are adopting a collaborative approach to deal with some of the issues relating to State wards within the juvenile justice system. I will undertake to provide more detailed information in regard to the specific aspects of the honourable member’s question.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: My question without notice is to the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer. Will the Minister inform the House as to activities conducted by the Motor Accident Authority Paralympic program?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his question.

Page 785

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: We had this question and answer two weeks ago.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: It might be the same question, but I have different information.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Read Hansard.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The Hon. J. H. Jobling is a specialist at that. This important question relates to an important program, the Paralympic program, which is an injury prevention program that targets young people between the ages of 13 and 25 years. This age group is most at risk of serious injury on the roads. If honourable members opposite would listen they would realise that this relates to a number of serious matters. It consists of a team of Paralympian athletes - Team MAA - who undertake direct, face-to-face road safety talks and appearances in collaboration with other road safety stakeholders, such as police, schools, local government and the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority.

In exchange the athletes receive a yearly scholarship of $8,000 so they can pursue their sport and prepare for the Paralympic Games in 2000. The program began in June 1997 with a team of 10 athletes and was launched by the Premier and two MAA athletes who abseiled off the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Did the Premier abseil off the harbour bridge?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I was waiting for a member opposite to say that, and I could not think of anything to say, but I do not believe so. Since then the program has grown to include 17 athletes. The program promotes the tag line "You only get one body, drive safely." The athletes have suffered serious injuries in car crashes but have had outstanding sporting success despite amputations, brain damage, paraplegia or quadraplegia. Most of the athletes in Team MAA have developed international sporting careers, won multiple medals, and set national or international records.

Part of the appeal of the program is that the athletes tell a personal story of injury, rehabilitation and achievement to young people in their own communities. The audience can ask questions and see the real results of road crashes and rehabilitation programs. For young people, who demand graphic, credible and realistic messages, the athlete’s personal appearance is a powerful counter to the intractable myth - particularly for young males - that, "It won’t happen to me." The program is a free service for the community and is well used by the full spectrum of government and community organisations.

Since the beginning of July 1998 Team MAA has spoken face to face with more than 8,000 people, more than 80 per cent of whom have been between 13 and 25 years of age. The figure grows to about a quarter of a million with media coverage of their appearances in the press and electronic media. Fifty-three per cent of talks were carried out in metropolitan Sydney, 19 per cent in northern New South Wales, 24 per cent in south and south-western New South Wales and 4 per cent in far west New South Wales. There is no metropolitan bias in this program. Thirty-six per cent of talks were carried out in collaboration with the police, 29 per cent with local government campaigns, 13 per cent with Health Department campaigns and 8 per cent in MAA campaigns.

Formal audience evaluations found that over 80 per cent rated the Paralympian talks as excellent, and it should be remembered that these are the young people most at risk of becoming road trauma victims. I ask honourable members to bear with me while I name some of the current Team MAA members. Angela Ballard, a 16-year-old wheelchair racer became a paraplegic in a car crash at seven years of age. She set national records and is part of the Australian women’s wheelchair relay team. Wayne Bell is a 28-year-old pentathlete who is an above-knee amputee following a motorcycle crash. He holds the Australian record for shot-put.

Fabian Blattman is a 40-year-old wheelchair racer who became a quadriplegic following a motorcycle crash. He holds world records and was a multiple medal winner at the Atlanta Games. Craig Cannane is a 24-year-old wheelchair basketball player who became a paraplegic when he crashed his trail bike. He plays for the Sydney Comets. Cameron De Burgh is a 27-year-old swimmer who lost a leg above the knee on his trail bike when he was 16 years old. He has broken national records and won silver at the Atlanta Games. Grant Mizens is a 21-year-old wheelchair basketballer who became a paraplegic in a car crash. He plays for the Sydney Comets.

Duncan Nisbet is a 27-year-old wheelchair basketballer who became a paraplegic in a car crash. He also plays for the Sydney Comets. Lisa O’nion is a 31-year-old veteran wheelchair basketballer who became a paraplegic in a motorcycle accident. She was a member of the Australian women’s team at Barcelona and Atlanta. Branka Pupovac is a 25-year-old wheelchair tennis player who became a
Page 786
paraplegic in a motorbike crash, is currently ranked fifteenth in the world and is part of the Australian team. Christie Skelton is a 18-year-old wheelchair racer who became a paraplegic in a car crash at the age of nine. She is a multiple medal winner and a member of the Australian women’s wheelchair relay team.

Frances Stanley is a 32-year-old sprinter who lost her leg above the knee in a car crash. She is a national record holder and Atlanta Paralympian. Wayne Teagle is a 32-year-old sailor who became a paraplegic as a teenager following a car crash. Sailing is a new event for this Games and Wayne is in line for the team. Stephen Wilson is a 26-year-old runner and long jumper who lost a leg when hit by a truck as a child. He is a multiple medal winner at international competitions. Lastly, Craig Windham is a 38-year-old skier who lost an arm in a motorbike accident. Craig was team captain for the Lillehammer Games and is now also a medal-winning waterskier.

I look forward to having the opportunity to further inform the House about the Paralympian program and the success of some of those fine athletes. All of these people’s injuries were caused by car or motorcycle accidents, and that adds to their value in contributing to road safety and injury prevention. I believe that this initiative is of great value to the community and the House. I thank the House for listening to my contribution without interruption.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for the Olympics. Given the New South Wales Government’s commitment that the Sydney Olympic Games will abide by the highest green criteria and that the Olympic Co-ordination Authority has not complied with this commitment by developing CFC, HFC and HCFC-free refrigerants and processes, does the Minister accept that the failure to comply with that fundamental commitment to a green Olympics will be an embarrassment for the Minister for the Olympics personally and New South Wales in general?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will certainly refer Ms Lee Rhiannon’s question to my colleague the Minister for the Olympics for a response to the specific matters she has raised. Let me assure her and the House that the Sydney 2000 Olympics will not only be the best Olympics the world has ever seen, they will also be the greenest Olympics the world has ever seen. Indeed, the whole of the Olympic village in Homebush will be the biggest solar-powered suburb anywhere in the world. It will showcase not only our environmental credentials but also the quality of our Australian technology.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice. Since receiving the Sherlock-Shier report into the Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre, what action has the Minister taken to ensure that activities being provided for the detainees are appropriate to their needs? In view of the recent series of violent incidents, has the Minister asked the director-general to guarantee that videos showing a high level of violence, including sexual violence, will no longer be shown to the detainees?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The honourable member has raised an important issue in relation to juvenile justice centres, that is, the programming available for young detainees and the nature of those programs. The honourable member is probably aware, because I have previously reported it to this House, that a number of improvements have taken place at the Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre which address programming for the detainees. A centre program working party has been established to improve centre programming and case management.

This will involve increased input from the department’s senior psychologist and head of programs. An Aboriginal caseworker has also been appointed permanently to the centre to address the appropriateness of programs for the young Aboriginal detainees. That issue has been raised on a number of occasions and is seen as an important part of ensuring that appropriate programs are provided to young detainees at the Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. What difficulties are currently being experienced by the coal industry, particularly in the Hunter Valley? Does the Minister have any positive news for the industry in that region?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, who I know has a very strong
Page 787
interest in the welfare of the Hunter and, in particular, the workers in the Hunter region. I am pleased to advise that 15 new mining projects are being progressed in the Hunter region. Those projects have the potential to provide up to 1,200 new jobs and more than $1.5 billion in capital investment in the region. For example, it is anticipated that the Gretley colliery, near Newcastle, will reopen soon. Approximately 100 jobs will be created when the new owners of the mine, York Mining, commence operations.

I am also pleased to report that the Bengalla open-cut coalmine, near Muswellbrook in the upper Hunter Valley, shipped out its first coal in April this year. In 1999 the mine is expected to produce approximately 1.5 million tonnes of coal for the export market. Production is expected to increase to approximately six million tonnes during the next four to five years, depending on market conditions. Bengalla is employing nearly 100 workers, virtually all of whom live in the Singleton-Muswellbrook district.

This Government is committed to providing jobs in rural and regional areas. Projects such as the Bengalla mine provide hope to an area that has been badly hit by retrenchments in the coalmining industry during the past two years as a result of savage cuts in coal prices. Because the mine is within about three kilometres of Muswellbrook, stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the mine did not have an adverse impact on the town’s residents.

Management of noise was one of the most critical issues. The mining company spent two years researching and developing the design of mining equipment and infrastructure to identify ways to reduce noise and meet the tough standards set in the development consent. The company has also relocated the main service infrastructure away from Muswellbrook. While that was less convenient for the company, it has helped minimise the impact of the mine on Muswellbrook residents. Bengalla is also proof that this Government’s main priorities can be successfully addressed and jobs can be created in regional areas, while ensuring that the environment is protected to the benefit of all.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship. Minister, I refer to the front-page article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald headed "Web of hate: meet Sydney’s KKK", which reported the presence of the Ku Klux Klan [KKK] in New South Wales. It is reported that a representative of the imperial klans in Sydney has said, "Our aim is for a white Australia."

Does the Minister agree that that is a racist statement? Does the Minister also agree that racism should not be allowed to grow in our State or in Australia? Will the Government take steps to investigate the activities of the KKK in New South Wales and the likely threat it may impose on the wellbeing of the Aboriginal and Asian communities?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho for a very good question. Although I saw the photograph on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, I have not yet had the opportunity to read the article. I must admit that on looking at the photograph I assumed the story had something to do with the United States of America. I would not have thought for one moment that the Ku Klux Klan has any presence in Australia. I am concerned about what the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho has said and I will certainly acquaint myself with the article. I do not believe any member of this Parliament would want to see an insidious and evil organisation such as that have a presence in this country even if it consisted of three lunatics. I shall follow up this matter.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Has the Government calculated the number of young people in New South Wales who will lose their jobs if junior rates of pay are abolished?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The answer to that question is no, because it really is a wholly academic question. Junior rates of pay are being properly considered by way of an inquiry conducted by Justice Monroe of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission [AIRC]. The Government has made crystal clear its view that reform of youth rates should not occur unless suitable wage models can be developed to protect youth employment. Any possible approaches the Government may put forward are for the purposes of discussion and development of possible models, and should be viewed in that context.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I ask a supplementary question. Why has the Department of Industrial Relations outlined the Government’s commitment to the elimination of junior rates of pay
Page 788
in its submission to the Industrial Relations Commission? Will the Government now withdraw its submission? Will the Minister guarantee the continuation of junior rates of pay in the Industrial Relations Act?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The honourable member should have listened to my answer. The submission to the AIRC, and the policy commitment of the Government, is that reform to youth rates should not occur unless suitable wage models can be developed that protect youth employment. I do not know whether the honourable member has actually read the submissions to the AIRC. The Government has certainly put submissions, and they correspond entirely with the principle I have defined.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Will the Treasurer please inform the House about recent efforts to improve our performance in food exports in northern New South Wales?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: During the past five years, exports in the food sector - Australia’s largest manufacturing sector - have grown very strongly. In 1997-98, total food exports were approximately $18 billion. Growth in exports has averaged more than 8 per cent a year over recent years, with processed food and beverages being the best performers. While overall export growth has been strong, region by region demand has varied dramatically. Our Asian markets, historically big consumers of Australian food, are still recovering from the recent financial crisis in Asia.

To help exporters find new buyers, my Department of State and Regional Development and Austrade - another example of Commonwealth and State government agencies working happily in tandem - have held export seminars in regional areas. Recently the department held a seminar in Lismore to investigate export opportunities for local products in western Europe. I am sure the Hon. D. J. Gay and other country members, in particular, the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, who is one of the few genuine voices for the country in Parliament, and the Hon. A. B. Kelly - the Hon. I. M. Macdonald is much more a bushman than the urbane Tony Kelly - would be aware that the western Europe food market is worth about $190 billion every year.

Some of the major trends in western Europe that favour our exporters are: improved European Union-wide distribution systems; major retail chains revolutionising the industry, looking for new products and new formats; the enormous potential in central and eastern Europe as European Union subsidies decline; a growing demand in Europe for clean food products, for which Australia already has established a good reputation; the favourable exchange rate; and our ability to supply in the off season, an important factor, as the Hon. D. J. Gay would know if he visited Crookwell more often. Eighteen businesses from the Lismore district attended the seminar and heard from guest speakers from organisations such as Austrade UK; the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation; the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service; International Cargo Express, which is a freight forwarder; and the Commonwealth Bank.

The experiences of David Cameron and his wife, who attended the seminar, helped to show how these seminars can help producers. I am told the Camerons grow Tahitian limes, custard apples and stone fruit on their Lindendale property. They have begun to find the domestic market for their products becoming more and more cluttered, and they are looking to export, primarily to Hong Kong. I am advised that the Camerons were a bit daunted at the prospect of exporting. However, with the help of the Department of State and Regional Development and Austrade, they discovered how to establish themselves as an export operation, how to gather overseas contracts, and how to launch their export drive. I commend the Camerons for participating in the export assistance program, and I wish them every success in the future.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: I direct a question to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment, representing the Minister for Corrective Services. Is the Government planning to build a prison at Port Macquarie, or anywhere else on the mid-North Coast? If the Government is planning a prison, will the prison be medium or high security? Can the Minister indicate what level of local government opportunities would be available if a prison were built on the mid North Coast? If a prison is contemplated for this area, can the Minister assure the House that there will be full local consultation to address the concerns of residents before a final decision is made?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. J. S. Tingle for his question, which raises a matter on which I cannot respond. I will take the
Page 789
question on notice and undertake to obtain a response to it as soon as possible.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I direct a question without notice to the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer, representing the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Can the Minister inform the House of the result of discussions between Federal and State governments and the grape industry regarding grapevine virus B - known as GVB - found by the Waite Diagnostic Unit and believed to have initially come from cuttings imported from Israel in 1993 to Victoria? What action has the Government taken to ensure that the valuable New South Wales vineyards are checked to be sure that GVB has not been imported to our vineyards, with the potential to destroy our vines and ruin their yields, as phylloxera did earlier this century?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: Regrettably, my response would not do the honourable member’s question justice, so I will take it on notice, consult with my colleague in the other place and obtain an answer as soon as possible.

The Hon P. T. PRIMROSE: I direct a question without notice to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Would the Treasurer please inform the House of the success of the recent New South Wales Government business mission to the United Arab Emirates?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Why didn’t you go?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is true that I did not go, but I did farewell the delegation that departed our shores. I was sorry that I could not go but, as the honourable member knows, I could be overseas every day of the year if I took up all the opportunities that come my way. In early May a trade delegation led by New South Wales Government representatives travelled to the United Arab Emirates [UAE], and attended meetings in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. The UAE is our largest trading partner in the Middle East, with two-way trade with New South Wales valued at $230 million.

The Hon. J. M. Samios: That is a lot of money.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is a lot of money, as the honourable member points out. Last year New South Wales exports to the UAE grew by 90 per cent. Whilst that is an impressive growth rate, New South Wales still only accounts for 6.3 per cent of Australia’s total exports to the UAE of $1.1 billion. Those figures are clearly wrong, so I will have them checked. Obviously, $230 million is more than 6.3 per cent of $1.1 billion. The first figure refers to two-way trade with New South Wales, and the second monetary figure refers to Australia’s total exports to the UAE. I will try to have that reconciled, and I will correct the error in an announcement to the House tomorrow.

Eleven New South Wales companies participated in the mission, including firms involved in the food, water and transport industries. The delegation met with a number of United Arab Emirates businesses and banks, as well as the Minister of State for Finance and Industry. Early results of the mission have far exceeded expectations, with participants reporting very strong interest in their technologies, products and services. The mission generated over 150 strong business leads, worth a potential $19 million in immediate export orders, rising to $24 million over the next 12 months.

A number of participants were particularly pleased with the results of the mission, including Hunter Watertech. That was a company once owned by the Hunter Water Board, and sold in an employee buy-out some years ago. Hunter Watertech already has identified $2.5 million worth of sales for the supply of telemetry and automation products. It also expects to be awarded a $15 million contract in the near future. Airvac RSM Limited and WaterTube Limited found UAE contacts to market their innovative waste transport and water management technologies and products - something that they had not been able to achieve during previous visits. The aim of the mission was quite straightforward - to earn a bigger slice of the UAE export market for New South Wales companies. I am pleased to report that the first step in achieving that goal already has been taken, with participants now being well positioned to capitalise on this important Middle East market.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: I ask a question without notice of the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship. Regarding the Premier’s decision to replace the Ethnic Affairs Commission with the Community Relations
Page 790
Commission, did the Premier consult with community organisations, groups and individuals prior to the announcement of the decision? If the answer is yes, will the Premier disclose the names of all organisations, groups and individuals that were consulted?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the Hon. Dr P. Wong for his question, which I will be pleased to refer to the Premier for his response.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I ask a question without notice of the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Can the Treasurer explain why the Carr Government refuses to provide financial assistance for the restoration of St Patrick’s Cathedral in Parramatta? Why is it that the Government was happy to provide $5 million towards the construction of the spires of St Mary’s Cathedral, a purely aesthetic addition?

Why does the Government refuse assistance when the tragic actions of a mentally ill man resulted in the burning down of a western Sydney landmark, yet is willing to part with $5 million for the spires on a perfectly functional, upright cathedral in the central business district of Sydney? On what basis does the Government refuse to provide financial assistance? When will the Government stop neglecting the people of western Sydney and redress the present imbalance?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It should not come as any surprise to the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn that it would be exceptional for either the Commonwealth or State governments to provide assistance for a church or cathedral. Both governments have assisted St Andrew’s Anglican Cathedral with its major restoration and reorientation of its interior. The Commonwealth Government has assisted St. Mary’s Catholic Cathedral with its general restoration and the State Government has assisted with the completion of its spires. Both St Mary’s and St Andrew’s are exceptional cases; as the premier cathedrals of the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church they are two of the best cathedrals in Australia.

I am aware that the Commonwealth Government has not assisted with the rebuilding of St Stephen’s Cathedral at Parramatta. However, I understand that the cost of rebuilding that cathedral is covered by the insurance policy held by the Catholic Church. The Commonwealth and State governments have assisted with other aspects of the redevelopment of the burnt-out cathedral. As a general rule, the Government does not provide assistance for building, rebuilding, or restoration of churches, but an exception has been made by both governments in relation to the two premier cathedrals in Sydney.

Last Saturday I was pleased to witness the erection of the framework for the spires on St Mary’s. Honourable members should make the effort to see the work that has been undertaken as they will then appreciate what a dramatic improvement the spires will make to what I believe is Australia’s greatest cathedral. The spires will make an impact on that sandstone heritage precinct, and honourable members will be greatly impressed by their completion.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I ask a supplementary question. Is the Treasurer aware that according to Bishop Kevin Manning of Parramatta, restoration will begin soon and will be totally funded by the $8 million insurance payout plus donations, which indicates that there is indeed a shortfall from the insurance payout?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I understand that the $8 million covers the rebuilding of the cathedral, and the additional finance is for other diocesan facilities. I could be mistaken, but I understand that the reconstruction of the cathedral is covered by the diocese’s insurance policy. In any event, as a general rule, neither State nor Federal governments provide assistance for building, additions to or restoration of churches.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question without notice is to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Can the Attorney General inform the House of the progress of enterprise bargaining under the New South Wales industrial relations system?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Enterprise agreements are an important part of the Government’s package of industrial relations. We do not seek to favour enterprise agreements over enterprise awards; we leave it to the parties to determine what best suits their interests. But the Government seeks to facilitate enterprise bargaining if that is what the parties want. Survey data indicates that small businesses believe that the award system has worked well in the past. There was a strong level of activity in enterprise agreements in 1998 and the first quarter of 1999. More agreements are
Page 791
being lodged and approved, and approved at a much faster rate than in the past. In 1998, 358 enterprise agreements were lodged with the Industrial Relations Commission, an almost 40 per cent increase on the 1997 numbers.

Importantly, the time taken to process enterprise agreements had fallen significantly under the 1996 Act to approximately 21 days in 1998, an improvement on the 1997 average of approximately 25 days. That compared favourably with the time taken to register an enterprise agreement under the 1991 Act, which was approximately 81 days. In addition, 254 applications for new or varied enterprise awards were lodged in 1998, compared with 243 in 1997. Importantly, almost 80 per cent of applications for new awards in 1998 were for enterprise awards.

Businesses in New South Wales are making innovative enterprise agreements and enterprise awards. A wide range of employment conditions can be found in agreements and awards approved in 1998. While the most common feature is a pay increase, flexible working hours, family-friendly provisions, performance-based pay schemes, profit-sharing arrangements and consultative mechanisms also appear as significant items on the enterprise bargaining agenda.

There is a link between the ease of use of a system and the outcomes it produces. By making the system as simple and user-friendly as possible for those making awards and agreements, the New South Wales system encourages the parties to focus on the content rather than the form of the arrangement, which facilitates workplace innovation. Achieving workplace innovation assists the New South Wales economy to remain internationally competitive, and also enhances the productivity of the State. That meets the overarching objective of the Government’s industrial relations agenda to increase the productivity of the State via fair workplace reform.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is the Treasurer aware that charities may invest only in banks, building societies, credit unions and property, which return a poor yield? Is the Treasurer willing to change the Act so that charities can invest in State or Commonwealth government bonds, which may give a higher yield to groups trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not sure that that question comes under my portfolio; it is probably a matter for the Attorney General. My recollection is that as he is such a far-sighted gentleman he has already taken some steps on this matter, but I will check. As Treasurer, I have no objection to charities investing in government bonds - not that there are many State government bonds now, except those that are turned over each year.

This Government is the first in the history of this State to have reduced rather than added to the State’s debt. Once upon a time one could be certain that the State would have to borrow another $500 million or $1,000 million each year. This Government has actually reduced the State’s liabilities, although, as I pointed out last night, we will borrow more than $3,000 million for the superannuation conversion offer.

Essentially that is to make a contribution to the pooled superannuation fund over the next three years. However, that is very much an exception these days, because the Government is a net contributor to the national savings rather than a net borrower. I will certainly talk to my colleague the Attorney General to determine whether the matter raised by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans has been covered. I am sure he will give a first-class reply.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Despite the obvious reluctance the Minister has about the arrangement referred to in a previous question, is he aware that a share managed fishery has been established for the rock lobster fishery? What research is being undertaken by the Minister’s department in relation to the lobster fishery? Does that research confirm the extensive recruitment of young lobsters to that fishery and the successful recovery of stocks since the drought years of the early 1990s? Will the Minister rule out the possibility of the lobster fishery reverting to a restricted fishery under his ministerial stewardship?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The honourable member has asked, as usual, a sensible question. He is always interested in the welfare of fishers. I met representatives of the rock lobster fisheries only last week. They came to discuss issues relevant to their fishery. From what I could gather, they are happy with the present conditions. The rock lobster fishery is the only share managed fishery. The fishers have
Page 792
not been able to bring properly under control the theft that occurs in the industry. Their proposal is that management place more emphasis on compliance and the investigators who oversee theft in the industry.

I have had no approaches from representatives of the industry to suggest that they would prefer to leave the share managed fishery. However, they are worried about rising costs. They would prefer, as is common, not to have to pay high community costs. As I said, their principal problem relates to theft of stock and increased supervision. It is a matter for the stakeholders in that fishery. If they want to go down a certain path, I will be more than prepared to accept and consider a submission from them.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I have a supplementary question. In view of the Minister’s immediate currency of knowledge about the industry, can he inform the House of the level of community contributions and whether they are in accord with the management plan that was agreed to when the share managed fishery was established?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I will endeavour to give the honourable member an exact figure, but to the best of my knowledge it ranges between $9,000 and $22,000. It depends on how many shares there are in the fishery. I will endeavour to give the honourable member an exact answer.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment whether she can inform the House why the Environment Protection Authority did not undertake a prosecution over the chemical spill into the Brunswick River on 12 February 1998 under the Clean Waters Act. Is the Environment Protection Authority considering an appeal against the inappropriate and insignificant fine imposed under the Dangerous Goods Act?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I will take the question on notice and supply an answer to the honourable member as soon as possible.

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

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: On 12 May the Hon. R. S. L. Jones asked me a lengthy question. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

Questions without notice concluded.

Bills received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. J. J. Della Bosca agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bills through all their remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.

The following bills were returned from the Legislative Assembly without amendment:

Superannuation Administration Authority Corporatisation Bill
Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

Madam PRESIDENT

The Legislative Assembly requests the concurrence of the Legislative Council for the Honourable M. R. Egan, MLC, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council to attend at the Table of the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday 22 June 1999 for the purpose only of giving a speech in relation to the New South Wales Budget 1999/2000.

Legislative Assembly J. H. Murray
2 June 1999 Speaker

Consideration of message deferred.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [5.00 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

Page 793

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.00 p.m.]: In October 1992 I drew the attention of the House to the life and work of Donald Mackinnon Geddes, a person who had contributed to the community of Newcastle over many years and who had been a councillor from 1977. Tonight I draw the attention of the House to the life and work of his twin brother, Richard Mackinnon Geddes, who passed away last Thursday and whose funeral was held today. The funeral was attended by more than 400 citizens of the Ku-ring-gai municipality and people representing local government from many parts of the State.

Richard Mackinnon Geddes was born in Newcastle in August 1937. He was educated at Newcastle Boys High School and was very active in the cadets, rising to the rank of cadet underofficer. He remained involved in the Old Boys Association throughout his life. Like his brother, he gave much to his community. In the case of Richard Geddes it was to the community of Ku-ring-gai, a community in which he had lived since 1972. He is remembered as a councillor representing the Wahroonga ward since 1987, and he served as mayor for three years, from September 1995 until September 1998.

Richard Geddes was employed in many different capacities during his life but principally he worked in the areas of shipping and transport. Like his brother, he believed in giving back to the community. As children in the Newcastle area he and his brother received much support from Legacy and it was from that community support that they came to understand the importance of giving back to the community. Today at his funeral Richard Geddes was described as a person who had a genuine love for people and a person who was committed to numerous community organisations. As I look at the list of organisations to which he belonged in recent years and the positions he held, I am sure all members of the House will understand what a valuable contribution he made to his community and how much he will be missed.

Over the years he served as Vice-President of the Australian Shippers Council, President of the Australian Chile Chamber of Commerce, Vice-President of the Australia-India Business Council, Chairman of the Export Development Group of New South Wales, a member of the judging panel of the Austrade Export Awards, Chairman of the judging panel of the New South Wales Export Awards, Chairman of the Australian Chambers of Commerce Export Council and a member of the Liberal Party of Australia. He had been a director of the Australian Institute of Export, New South Wales, a member of the Chartered Institute of Transport, and an honorary member of the Australian Institute of Transport. He served as President of the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils. He was on the board of the Ku-ring-gai Old People’s Association and the board of the Marian Street Theatre.

I guess the community of Ku-ring-gai remembers him as a person who had a vision for the community, a person who believed in going forward, a person who was prepared to work through some of the difficult community issues - issues about current urban strategy which have caused much concern in the area. He was always looking for solutions to problems. Like his brother, he was in many ways a big person, a big person in stature. He was a person who contributed right across the community. At the conclusion of his funeral service today people said that it was the largest service anyone could remember, certainly in the Wahroonga region and across the Ku-ring-gai community. I place on record my respects to his wife, Rosalie, and to their children. I acknowledge that in the passing of Richard Geddes we have truly lost a person who gave much to the community.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.05 p.m.]: I have been asked by Mrs Lorraine Heffernan of Penshurst to bring to the attention of the House what she calls hepatitis C - the neglected epidemic. Mrs Heffernan’s son, Matthew, who is a haemophiliac, was infected with hepatitis C. Since 1981 a number of people have been infected with various diseases through blood transfusions, including her son. He was a mild haemophiliac. In 1981 he received one blood transfusion. That blood contained hepatitis C. She said:

The initial shock and the constant concern both for my son and myself has taken us through a grief process and unhappiness. We received incorrect advice from hospital personnel, liver specialist and GPs along the way . . . He will not have further tests as his stress levels increase or decrease according to the readings. He has therefore chosen to manage with good living, positive outlook and herbs. He also chose not to have interferon which was a good choice as it has now been discovered that he would not have benefited from this and would have gone through unnecessary side effects.

It is a shock to realise that more than 200,000 Australians, almost half of whom live in New South Wales, are estimated to be living with hepatitis C virus [HCV] infection. Very many will have symptomatic illnesses as a result of their infection, particularly of the liver. It is estimated that approximately 11,000 HCV infections occur across
Page 794
the nation each year - that is, approximately 30 new infections each day. Almost half of these infections occur in New South Wales. Approximately 90 per cent of these new infections occur as a result of blood-to-blood contact when people share equipment used for injecting illicit drugs. However, Matthew received HCV through a blood transfusion because he is a haemophiliac.

There have been 110,000 notifications of the positive diagnosis of HCV - more than 45,000 of them in New South Wales - to 1997. Therefore, of those estimated to have HCV, more than half have been diagnosed with it. Of those diagnosed, approximately 63 per cent are men and approximately 34 per cent are women. Almost 60 per cent of people diagnosed are aged 30 to 49, and almost 30 per cent are aged 20 to 29. The latest figures, released in December 1998, show more than 52,000 people have been diagnosed with hepatitis C in New South Wales. Mrs Heffernan asked me to refer to the report of our standing committee. She was most encouraged by its investigation, its report and its recommendations. However, she would like to know when the recommendations will be implemented. At page 406 of its report the committee noted the need for an advocate:

. . . the Committee considers it to be the role of motivated parliamentarians to come forward to fill the gap.

Recommendation 132, on page 408, states:

That the Premier invite his parliamentary colleagues from both Houses and all political parties to form a hepatitis C Parliamentary Liaison Group. The role of the Liaison Group would be to advocate and support HCV related policies within the political domain with an overall objective to limit the spread of hep. C in the general community and the Corrections system.

On page 123 the committee states:

The implications of HCV on future health funding are profound. If $4 billion is to be spent on HCV in the next 10 years, this money will not be available for services.

This mother is calling particularly for increased funding for research from both the Federal and State governments. She raised the fact that in the Australian Capital Territory hepatitis C-infected persons have received compensation from that Government. That is another matter to be considered by this House. I urge the House and the Government to give consideration to some parliamentary machinery as well as investigating increased funding for research into this very important matter - the HCV epidemic. It can no longer be neglected.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [5.10 p.m.]: I wish to read from a speech made by a Cooma resident, Ms Elizabeth Clarke, during the recent election campaign. First, let me say that I believe the Cooma-Monaro Shire Council is one of the best managed councils in this State. As it will take longer than my allocated five minutes to read from this speech, I advise that the Hon. Jenny Gardiner will continue to read from it if I fail to complete it. It reads:

We the ratepayers in Nulgarra Pl, Nuralda Pl, Nulang Pl and Nambucca St are here to address Council about our concerns with the lack of adequate essential services.

I acknowledge that you sent me a comprehensive letter telling me that the problems will be put on the 5 year plan. But if I may draw on an analogy to demonstrate the unacceptability of this plan: If Councillor Phillips’ or Councillor Rushton’s, or Mayor Kaltoum’s wife were to say to any one of them, "Darling, the drains in the laundry are overflowing after only two loads of washing. Do you think you could fix them for me?" I imagine any one of them would then say, "Oh, Darling, I don’t know. I’m a busy man. I have to work all day in a demanding and difficult job. Then I have all this council work which just seems to keep increasing, no matter what I do. And now we have this Clarke woman really harassing us. I tell you, it’s just getting too much. I’ll tell you what. I’ll put it on my five year plan for all the other things I have to do around here." Now, these wives, being red-blooded ladies, would, I imagine, come back with a rejoinder similar to this. "Five years! Don’t you darling me, you louse. Go to your bedroom, pack your bags, go out to the back yard and select which dog house you want to live in for the next five years!"

We, as well as yourselves, would like the opportunity to enhance our properties in the same manner that other better serviced members of the rate paying community are able to take advantage of. Inadequate drainage, wastewater, road incompletion, etc, discriminates against us, putting us at a disadvantage to our peers.

You have had the inadequate system of coping with rain water pointed out to you and while you are to be commended for the immediate and courteous way in which you addressed this, you must realise that at best they were only band-aid attempts which proved futile. A more permanent solution is urgently needed. Kerbing and channelling, with the appropriate drains, seems to be the only solution.

Now Council will, being council, immediately raise the spectre of "NO MONEY". This is not true. Council does not have a high debt loading. Its borrowing capacity is very good. This bespeaks of elements of very good management for which you are to be commended and one which the towns’ citizens can be rightly proud of. However the fact that you will consistently and only unwillingly address yourselves to long-term existing problems with the greatest reluctance suggests that elements of monetary hoarding are going on, no doubt for a rainy day. But a couple of those rainy days have now arrived.

Because of its excellent debt loading and I would imagine, its’ excellent credit rating, Council can choose to borrow the money at low interest rates from various bodies. It can also

Page 795
choose to utilize the current "Work for the Dole" which attracts Federal funding. There are other methods such as Public Works Grants and Public Works Loans which would cost out economically. It is up to you to investigate them. This would reduce significantly the cost to the rate payers, who are currently paying excessive and exorbitant rates as it is, with council continually loading them further with excessive unnecessary charges to the extent that home ownership in this shire is looking increasingly unviable and has the potential to drive home buyers to other regions.

The Special Rates that Council insists on telling us are a "MUST DO" are in fact also not necessary. Section 495 (1) (P493) of the Local Government Act of 1993 says "A council may make a special rate for or towards meeting the cost of any works, services, facilities or activities -

[Time expired.]

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [5.15 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to introduce a new and exciting youth group, ReconciliACTION, to my parliamentary colleagues. I had the honour of launching this organisation on Monday 31 May at the MLC Centre Dendy Theatre. The youth group was presented as part of National Reconciliation Week. This youth group is dedicated to fostering reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. It is administered by people aged between 15 to 25 and has the full support of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation [ANTAR]. The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation has shown its support by funding ReconciliACTION to set up its own web site. It is a voluntary, non-profit, non-denominational and non-partisan organisation called ReconciliACTION.

ReconciliACTION was involved, and is continuing to be involved, in the international project called Let’s Talk. This worldwide project aims to bring peace as well as to bring young people across various social divides together to discuss problems of conflict and reconciliation. Let’s Talk had its origins in Northern Ireland and spread to England and Australia and will soon be establishing itself in Israel, Palestine and Rwanda. As part of this project, workshop-based conferences began in Britain and Ireland in 1997. They are continuing in Europe throughout 1999 and in Australia until 2000. The Let’s Talk initiative provides an opportunity for young people to communicate in order to analyse and act upon issues at a local level and at an international level.

It is very important to encourage these fledgling groups because often young people feel disfranchised and powerless to voice their opinions. This is not a situation that we should foster. After all, these same politically active youth are the leaders of tomorrow. Therefore, the sooner they begin playing an active role in our community and society, the better it will be for all concerned. We must guide these youths along the right path of tolerance and understanding so that they create a more harmonious world and respect one another’s differences. This is especially crucial in the light of the front page of today’s Sydney Morning Herald, which announced the emergence of the Ku Klux Klan in Australia.

It is reported that a Sydney man has stated that they have established a "real nice size Klavern in the Realm of Australia" and their aim is for a white Australia. Allegedly this man is associated with the Nationalist Movement and Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party. A major KKK group, the Imperial Klans of America, based in Kentucky, has set up branches in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. I am outraged that such a situation has been allowed to develop in Australia, where our way of life is one of tolerance and multiculturalism. I know that this group is only able to recruit from the fringe elements in our society but, needless to say, Hitler began with these same elements. It is because of lunatic groups such as the KKK that young people in ReconciliACTION should, and must always be encouraged to, meet and promote their peaceful messages.

I was honoured to be invited to launch this group and it was a pleasure to see them in operation. The conveners are Ben Butcher and Nicole Breeze, who are doing an admirable job. Rebecca Bourne was the Master of Ceremonies at the launch and Duncan Underwood spoke on behalf of the group. He introduced the association and spoke of its aims and aspirations. The author, Linda Jarvin, spoke, as did Phil Glendenning. Phil is the national co-ordinator of Australians for National Title and Reconciliation, which is very much in support of ReconciliACTION.

Another interesting speaker was Cassandra Gibbs, an Aboriginal woman working on the Let’s Talk project. She gave an interesting insight into its work and elaborated on the continuing focus of this project, which is focusing on the youth in Australia. They aim to communicate effectively with the young in Australia to teach them to be tolerant of the differences in our society and to work towards a peaceful resolution. This is a new and vibrant group and I feel we should show our support. I congratulate them on their initiative and I am sure members of this House will join with me in wishing ReconciliACTION all the very best.

Page 796

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [5.19 p.m.]: I was so affected by the story of Elizabeth Clarke of Cooma that I believe the full story needs to be told. My National Party colleague the Hon. D. J. Gay put the first chapter on the record, and I shall continue with the second chapter. The Hon. D. J. Gay quoted Miss Clarke, who in turn quoted the Local Government Act 1993. She said:

Section 495 (1) (P493) of the Local Government Act of 1993 says, "A council may make a special rate for or towards meeting the cost of any works, services, facilities or activities provided or undertaken, or proposed to be provided or undertaken, by the council within the whole or part of the council’s area, other than domestic waste management services".

Please note, Councillors, that it does not say "MUST". There is a legal definition of each of the words "may" and "must" and they do not correspond. There are alternative sources of financing these projects which you could avail yourselves of if you so choose, as previously mentioned.

I refer now to the fact that there are 177 councils in NSW. Of these 177, 171 were looked at, and of these, only one has imposed a Special Rate for drainage. Ask yourselves, Have you, Council, imposed a Special Rate for drainage?

In light of this information, it is not unreasonable then, to expect that there be an examination of the charges imposed on the ratepayers of Cooma, with the necessary reduction in these charges.

There appears also to be an anomaly within the rating system, with little logic. Why for instance, would a block of 400 or so square metres, only a few metres away from a block of 800 or so square metres, both exactly supplied with the same lack of services and maintenance, yet both have rates of $1200 or so? Why are other blocks, in better marketable positions and with far superior infrastructure and services, charged less rates than we pay? Why when the Valuer General recently re-evaluated our blocks to a lesser amount, did our rates not only not go down accordingly, but were increased, when you Council, tell us that rates are charged according to the Valuer General’s evaluation. Why do our rates go up far in excess of CPI?

Cooma’s rating system is one of the highest in Australia, and while I have not completed my investigations to the extent that I can accurately pinpoint you on a list and say, for example, that you fall tenth or fifteenth on the list, nevertheless from the information to hand, have no doubt that you are high on this list. If one extrapolates this, then we should also be high on the list of adequate provisions of services. We are not.

If people invest money in their properties they are entitled to believe they’ll get a reasonable return in time to come and not to see their work and investment undermined by Council.

In choosing to accept our money as rates you then impose on yourselves a Duty of Care and Obligation and Charter of Responsibility in providing and maintaining adequate services. Instead you fob us off by telling us there is not the money available and you will put us on the Five Year Plan. This is simply another system of buck-passing as the 5 year plan is rotational and infinite and in 20 years time we might still find ourselves on this rotational plan. We must insist on a firmer, more immediate commitment.

At the moment there is a concerning question of insurance liability. It may be that if Council has not provided services then our insurances are made void. Some of our insurance companies are currently examining the legal liabilities of Council if they fail in their assumed Duty of Care and Obligation and Charter of Responsibility in the event of any damage to our houses.

Which brings me also to a health question. All of us in those streets mentioned earlier have been experiencing problems with sewage to some extent, some even going so far as to replace all their plumbing in an effort to improve it, but to no avail. All of us have experienced a back flow through our toilets to some extent, and one person came home from work to find the sewage had blown back up through his toilet to overflow on to his bathroom floor. Others have found small pools of brownish water on the toilet floors, as I did. The difference here is that I was at a loss to explain it - until recently. Some of the long term residents tell me that it is not an uncommon phenomena. Please put yourselves in this position. Coming home to find sewage on the house floors. I cannot imagine that any of you on a personal level would feel any less horror or disgust if this is what you found when you came home from work. I can’t even begin to describe the horror this event raises in me. The fear of disease including the deadly Hepatitis viruses, stuns me. We would, I believe, have a good chance of successful litigation against Council if we were to come down with any thing that could be attributed to faecal matter, all things else being equal.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. I. COHEN [5.24 p.m.]: I wish to refer to the St Mary’s Cathedral spires. This matter, which was raised in question time, is of great concern to me and many others in the community. The spires are costing $9 million and it is anticipated that they will be finished in June 2000. However, that is not the end. According to the Sydney Morning Herald of 4 September 1998, it seems that the overall refurbishment of St Mary’s Cathedral is in the vicinity of $27 million. Much of this money has already been raised because the former Keating Government pledged $5 million and the Carr Government has pledged a further $5 million. The taxpayers of New South Wales have contributed significantly to this one building.

So much money has been poured into this sectarian achievement yet so much is ignored. The Treasurer is an enthusiastic supporter of this project and has discussed it in the House before, yet he will deliver a rather draconian budget which will affect many people in New South Wales and reduce the social services sector. Also, it will have a significant impact on many of the State’s bureaucracies because there will be inadequate infrastructure or employment to be able to facilitate development in the new national parks. Money is being put into
Page 797
spires to heaven while people in New South Wales are deeply suffering.

In an article entitled "Communities First: Social and Economic Priorities for the 1999/2000 State Budget", it is clear that 17 per cent of people in New South Wales have a disability - that is one in every six people - and that 13 per cent of people in New South Wales have a handicap as a result of a disability. It was terrible that these people were unable to receive justice before the election. They are in a terrible state and I feel for them. It is totally inappropriate to develop these spires when so many people in our State need assistance. The article further stated:

People with disabilities often remain caught in a poverty trap without support of family. For example, in 1993, at a time when the overall unemployment rate was 12.3%, the rate for people with a handicap was 21.6%. Income disparities are just as wide. 77% of men and 54% of women without a disability had an income of more than $200 per week compared to 50% of men and 26% of women with a disability. The recent NCOSS survey into the provision of Emergency Relief funding showed that people who are on a Disability Support Pension were the third highest population group receiving Emergency Relief, behind the unemployed and sole parents.

It is also significant with the supported accommodation assistance program [SAAP]. The article continued:

SAAP services have not seen any growth funding for the last five years, despite clear evidence of increasing demand from homeless people . . .

The draft NEW SOUTH WALES SAAP Evaluation demonstrates beyond doubt the need for increased funding resources to meet demand for services. The draft document estimates that some $36 million is needed to meet the needs of the additional 28,500 homeless people, plus 9000 dependent homeless children turned away in 1996/97.

Data from the Homeless Persons Information Centre (HPIC), and anecdotal evidence from service providers, indicate ongoing difficulties in meeting the need for both crisis and longer-term accommodation . . . There is increasing evidence of a need to establish more services in the outer western suburbs of Sydney across all areas of SAAP. The lack of service provision for homeless men in Western Sydney and families across the state has recently been highlighted.

Service development issues continue to be of importance, in particular, the provision of adequate resources for SAAP Accreditation and implementation of SAAP Standards.

The Treasurer is enthusiastic about these types of projects. I say to him before he hands down the budget that I hope the many people who literally live in the gutters of Sydney, whom we see when we travel to and from work, get some solace from the extensive steeples that are being raised using millions of dollars of ratepayers’ money. Those people not being catered for, and that shows the disparity between the so-called spirituality in our community and real spirituality, which would look after them rather than build edifices at a time when the social services of New South Wales are suffering so greatly.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [5.29 p.m.]: I wish to continue the contributions of my colleagues about Elizabeth Clarke from Cooma. She stated further:

These houses are no longer workers’ accommodation owned by a corporate structure that no one cares about. We have a lovely little house owned by Kim and Rowland, Pat’s house is a very pleasing-to-the eye little cottage, Anne and Henry who have just bought their place, are busy as they embark on making it a comfortable house in which to retire. Mal is slowly turning his house into a pleasant cottage, while Erica and Keith’s place is simply gorgeous. Ruby and John’s place is also an absolute credit to them for the hard work they’ve done and how attractive they’ve made it.

Others are also turning their houses into most comfortable and pretty homes. All these people have taken care, only to have their efforts continually and it seems permanently, undermined by the lack of Council infrastructure and lack of responsibility in dealing with the problems that exist, and from what seems a lack of caring by Council.

So deeply entrenched is this culture of continual shrugging off of our problems, that it is creating resentment. While our houses may be historically interesting or pretty, and the area quite beautiful with a magnificent array of trees that create a peaceful and unique environment because of the parkways they are set in, and gorgeous native birdlife that inhabit this area, yet not once has this area even been considered for inclusion in the Tidy Towns Competitions. And with Council’s continual neglect we have to say we would be ashamed to be included. Council’s part in maintaining the area is too lackadaisical. The acts necessary to make it a healthy, safe environment are lacking on council’s part.

These are urgent problems that Council has had about 22 years to address. Don’t now tell us that you will put us again on the infinite rotational 5 year plan. The problems are now. Please deal with them now.

Motion agreed to.