The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

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

Motion by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile agreed to:

That on Thursday 1 July 1999 Government Business take precedence of Private Members' Business

Bill read a third time.

Petition praying for opposition to the suffering of wild animals and their use in circuses, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.10 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the moving of a motion forthwith that Private Members’ Business Notice of Motion No. 44, relating to an order for papers, be called on forthwith.

I hope that debate on this motion will be brief. The motion concerns an order for access to documents relating to the northside storage tunnel for the assistance of parents of students who attend Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.11 a.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I support the motion moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. This motion has come about in response to concerns of the local community and because of the ongoing concerns of honourable members about the northside storage tunnel development since a committee inquiry in the last term of the Parliament. The major modifications to the project present a significant health risk to the students of Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School, which is located near the proposed tunnel. With the volume of noxious fumes that will potentially be pumped out of an air vent in this area, it is incumbent on the Government to sufficiently investigate this matter. The local community has a legitimate argument about health concerns affecting, in particular, young children. That matter should be the concern of all honourable members of this House.

Motion agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones agreed to:

That Private Members’ Business Notice of Motion No. 44, relating to an order for papers, be called on forthwith.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.14 a.m.]: I move:

1. That, under Standing Order 18, there be laid upon the table of this House and made public without restricted access no later than 5.00 p.m., Tuesday 20 July 1999, the following documents:

(a) The alliance contract between Sydney Water and the alliance.

(b) Any commercial or environmental agreements between Sydney Water and other alliance partners.

(c) Budgetary documents showing cost savings or over-runs on the northside storage tunnel.

(d) Documents confirming Sydney Water’s studies into health impacts on the community of Scotts Creek, especially the impacts on schoolchildren.

(e) The geotechnical report supporting current changes to the northside storage tunnel.

(f) The Review of Environmental Factors Representations Report from Sydney Water to the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.

2. That an indexed list of documents tabled under this resolution be prepared showing the date of creation of the document, a description of the document and the author of the document.

Page 1784

The northside storage tunnel is currently being developed by way of an alliance contract involving Sydney Water and three commercial partners. Sydney Water is the project proponent, as well as the prime contractor, a joint venture partner in the alliance and a subcontractor to the alliance. Therefore, I suspect that Sydney Water has a conflict of commercial and public interests. Recent actions and behaviours confirm this suspicion. The initial consent of the environmental impact statement [EIS] contained a number of conditions of consent, in particular, that effective community liaison be established and used to allow public participation in the project outcomes.

Sydney Water outsourced this important task to an external public relations company. Both the alliance and the community liaison committee [CLC] now agree that the process of community liaison was flawed. How did this come to be? The CLC process seems to be designed to sell the alliance plans to the community as opposed to providing community participation in the outcome, a key condition of consent. There are concerns that Sydney Water is being motivated by the commercial terms and arrangements with its alliance joint venture partners as opposed to the public environmental and health interests, as was specified in the original EIS.

I intend to keep my speech brief because I know that the House has to deal with a lot of business today. The Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School is under threat of 600 cubic metres of toxic fumes being spewed every minute from an enormous vent within metres of the school. A number of doctors and other residents whose children attend the school have said that they will withdraw their children from the school if the project continues. They have not had a chance to vent their concerns.

The school is concerned about the health risk to 350 children who will be exposed to a large volume of noxious fumes to be pumped from an air vent of the northside storage tunnel, which is to be placed at Scotts Creek, 80 metres from the school playground. The school is frustrated with the process, which has allowed major modifications since the EIS. There has been a lack of research into the effects of the changes on the health of the community in the Scotts Creek area. Sydney Water and the alliance has replaced the community consultation process with a sophisticated public relations campaign which has denied effective community participation in the decision-making process. I ask honourable members to support my motion.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [11.17 a.m.]: I move:

That the question be amended by inserting at the end:

3. Where it is considered that a document required to be tabled under this order is privileged and should not be made public or tabled:

(a) a return is to be prepared and tabled showing the date of creation of the document, a description of the document, the author of the document and reasons for the claim of privilege, and

(b) the documents are to be delivered to the Clerk of the House by 5.00 p.m. Tuesday 20 July 1999 and:

(i) made available only to members of the Legislative Council, and

(ii) not published or copied without an order of the House.

The terms of the amendment are self-evident. I urge honourable members when considering the motion moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to adopt the amendment.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [11.18 a.m.]: The Opposition supports the motion moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. During the last Parliament I had the pleasure of chairing a committee which inquired into the northside storage tunnel. This project has continued to be of concern to the Opposition for a number of reasons. One of the problems is that the scheme has substantially changed since it was originally approved by the Government and members of the public. The tunnel will now hold more raw sewage more often and with the removal of flushing mechanisms odours and pathogens can now accumulate in the tunnel. Gases will be vented into residential areas immediately adjacent to a school and a retirement village. The tunnel was originally designed to be fully lined with concrete. The concrete lining of the tunnel has now been eliminated in several places, and sewage can now seep into sandstone and contaminate the ground water.

That particular matter was of concern because we were told that one of the things the tunnel was supposed to eliminate was seepage to the surrounding ground. The project is being rushed for the Olympics, despite the fact that this was not originally a requirement. Qualified engineers raised serious questions about whether the carbon filters will work in humid conditions, which is of concern regarding the health and safety of the people near the vents. The filters are designed to remove odours,
Page 1785
but not biological pathogens associated with sewage or industrial chemicals which could be contained in the stormwater.

The Opposition is concerned also that the project was originally costed at $370 million. That was only if the tunnel was constructed with an extension to Scotts Creek and several other additions to make the tunnel more environmentally friendly, such as a return tube through the middle for sludge that is currently trucked out of Manly from the northside harbour sewage treatment plant. This pipe was supposed to have at least eliminated those truck movements. I note in this year’s budget papers that the northside storage tunnel has had the time for completion extended to 2001 and the overall cost appears to have increased from $300 million - though I understand it could have been as much as $370 million - to $430 million.

The time taken to complete the project has been extended and the cost has been increased. It is legitimate that the House find out why this project, which the community did not want in the first place, will cost so much more. We certainly share the concerns about health raised by the Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School and local residents, and the crossbench. The Government amendment is yet another example of how it is interested in covering things up. It may run, duck, shove and hide, but it will not get away.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.21 a.m.]: I support the motion of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. As a member of the inquiry with the Hon. J. F. Ryan and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, I have been concerned about the degree of secrecy concerning a number of Sydney Water matters. Lack of transparency has been ongoing. I am certainly concerned about the Government’s amendment at this late stage. It is quite clear that the vent is in close proximity to Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School. It presents a potentially dangerous situation. I am concerned also about what appears to be effective political lobbying regarding the removal of vents from a number of other sites, for example, Tunks Park.

This project is producing an accumulation of ventilation stacks, similar to the M5-east issue when, because of political pressures, stacks were moved from certain areas and accumulated in one area. I am concerned about the impact of such a significant outlet on children’s health. As there will not be proper scrubbing of pathogens, the impact of massive quantities of sewage effluent moving through this system, particularly during storms, could be catastrophic. Often we debate the types of assessments made for the treatment of effluent and sewage.

I have a long history with Ballina Shire Council involving a debate about the difference between effluent and sewage. The fact of the matter is that no viruses are measured, only basic bacteria indicators, which do not necessarily correlate to the real danger of vapours escaping into the environment and potentially affecting the health of schoolchildren in the surrounding area. The tunnel will be ventilated in residential areas and certainly concerns have been expressed that the concrete lining of the tunnel will be eliminated. Seepage from the tunnel is a major problem. The northside tunnel was supposed to fix this problem and also leakages during storms.

If there are no proper storage facilities we will be in trouble. Many questions have been raised about the reliability of the carbon filters in humid conditions. In many cases those filters are designed to remove odours and not the biological pathogens associated with sewage or industrial chemicals, which could be contained in stormwater. It seems that the public consultation process has broken down and been replaced by a sophisticated public relations campaign once again by Sydney Water and its alliance. I urge honourable members to be careful when voting on this issue. We have at stake the health of a significant number of children and residents in this surrounding densely populated area of Sydney.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD [11.25 a.m.]: The amendment moved by the Minister introduces a procedure that had previously been embraced by the House. Therefore, it is not an exceptional amendment. The only aspect of the amendment requiring comment is that if any member of the House disputes the claim of privilege, this motion does not provide a mechanism to deal with that. However, that does not preclude the House, when it next resumes, from dealing with that issue if, once honourable members have examined the documents upon which a claim for privilege has been made, they believe that that claim has been inappropriate.

I present that as a warning to the bureaucrats who will be preparing these documents. If they believe that by prevailing upon the Minister to embrace a claim for privilege that might mean the documents are not made public, they should look closely at previous debates in this House on these issues and at decisions of the Court of Appeal and the High Court. Parliament takes the view that the public has a right to know. If the bureaucrats believe they can try to obfuscate this issue by raising a claim of privilege, just making the claim will not provide the protection. When the bureaucrats examine these documents they must genuinely assert to the House that there is a danger to the
Page 1786
community - to use a generic term rather than a legal term - in these documents not being made available. That should be the underpinning consideration as to why they should not be made available to the public and to the House.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.28 a.m.]: I was concerned that this sewage tunnel was not the best solution to the problem on the North Shore. However, it was an engineering solution and, as a former Water Board employee, I know that the Water Board loves building tunnels like the Roads and Traffic Authority loves building roads. The stink pipes, as they used to be colloquially called, had the advantage of keeping the tunnel in tact, otherwise the sulphur dioxide forms sulphurous acid and eats away at the pipes. The amount of erosion of the pipes is important. Certainly this tunnel has relatively few pipes, which I guess reflects that it is deeper than most tunnels. The trend has been to lessen the number of stink pipes because that would require less maintenance, as access to the pipes was sometimes difficult and the acid tended to erode them quickly. With the diminishing work force fewer pipes were installed. A concentration of pipes in many areas obviously causes concern and aspects such as these need to be fully ventilated, so to speak.

It is unfortunate that some things cause odours - I confess that I do not know the names of all the chemicals involved - but there is also a bacteriological component in aerosols. That has been a problem around sewage treatment plants, and it is a potential problem in this instance. We need to have this information. I am invariably concerned when I receive an 81-page folder and another 50-page document listing exemptions sought by Sydney Water. This sort of arrogance is quite intolerable. We should support the motion and get the documents as soon as possible.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.30 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the motion moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the amendment moved by the Government. There was an inference in the debate that the Government, by its amendment, was seeking to prevent the documents being made available. As I understand it that is not the case: every document will be made available to members of this House. The only question is whether, in the public interest, some documents should be made public.

As the Hon. J. P. Hannaford said, that may be a question for debate at another time about a particular document. The current debate is a big advance on past debates in this House when we could not get the Government to agree to table papers. In the first instance, making documents available only to members of the Legislative Council is the best approach. That will satisfy our concern about the Government making available papers on certain matters.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.31 a.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support. A number of matters will be revealed when the papers come to light. I am hopeful that the Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School will get some relief, as will the Montefiore retirement village, which is also under attack. A huge gas vent is quite near to the village. Some of its residents are holocaust survivors, and they do not want it next door to them. I am hopeful that this issue will be resolved in the next few months.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to sessional orders the question is: That the matter should proceed forthwith.

Precedence agreed to.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [11.33 a.m.]: I move:

That under section 41 (1) (b) of the Interpretation Act 1987, this House disallows the Fisheries Management (General) Amendment (Inland Restricted Fishery) Regulation 1999, Published in Government Gazette No. 25, dated 26 February 1999, page 1021, and tabled in this House on 11 May 1999.

I would like to express my regret at the delay in bringing forward this motion. I assure members of the House and others that it is not the result of prevarication but simply a matter of conceding to business that the Government wanted to proceed with. I know the delay has caused considerable anguish to members of the Inland Commercial Fishermen’s Association, particularly the deferment from 30 June. I am sure honourable members will know the significance of that date. Nevertheless, the motion is now before the House. The Opposition does not dispute regulations indiscriminately. In fact, regulations and notices of the Fisheries Department are one of the most prolific entries in the Government Gazette, and that is quite proper.

Page 1787

Hundreds of regulations pass with our approval. It is only on rare and carefully considered occasions that we move to disallow regulations. To the naive this regulation may seem relatively innocuous and not pertinent to the matters I want to raise, but I will explain exactly how they come together. The core issue involves the alienation of a commonly owned asset to one group to the exclusion of another group who have, up until now, had legitimate rights of access to that common asset. This matter is confined not only to access by fishermen to the resource, but also by restaurateurs, householders, and those who have enjoyed the product of the commercial fishery through the markets.

The cornerstone of the argument is surrounded with a shell of two hemispheres - conservation, which I know many honourable members in the House will be particularly interested in; and resource usage - which inevitably, at the margins, will tend to compete with each other. That is why I used the analogy of a shell around the core. The entire matter is then surrounded by ethical considerations that I will round off in my remarks. Conservation is an extremely important issue. The ecology of our inland rivers is not unique, we use that word to death, but they are very special. Over thousands of years fish species have evolved to adapt to their environment and the ephemeral flows that characterised all our inland rivers until European settlement and the very recent construction of dams on our major rivers.

The dams on the Murray River are left standing. Honourable members, apart from the Hon. A. B. Kelly, will be surprised to realise that in the last decade the Macquarie River has dried back possibly as far as Wellington, but certainly as far as Narromine. People now talk about its contribution to the Murray River. The Darling River would have been dry at Bourke. Anyone who has travelled to Bourke would have seen the wonderful historical photographs of the construction of the weir for the supply of domestic water. Construction gangs are working in dry riverbeds in cane grass up to their waists. The drying up of rivers is not unusual nor, apparently, is contraction in stock. I am certain that the indigenous population would have been well aware of that fact.

Even at the Brewarrina fishery catches were seasonal. When there were big flows into the river fishermen would congregate to catch these wonderful fish. Even where I live, adjacent to the Merri Merri Creek and the Marthaguy Creek, which are dry more often than they have any flow, if there is any worthwhile flow amateur fishermen will arrive with their lines and traps within a couple of days, and before long they have wonderful catches. Fish are an extraordinary species. They have great powers of recuperation. These misguided policies were introduced when we were in the downside of a drought, which affected the numbers of these valuable fish, particularly Murray cod and other fin fish, as they are called in the regulations.

Conservation groups support the motion. Although they do not take sides on this issue, they point out that most of the monitoring of these species in our rivers is based on data provided by commercial fishermen. Take out the commercial fishermen and exploitation of these resources is not regulated. I said that the other side of this equation was resource usage. There are some natural resources that people would say should be left as much as possible in their pristine state. I do not think that is the case for fish in our inland rivers. Fish in inland rivers create difficulties in terms of conservation policy because it is true to say that most people cannot see a Murray cod in the river.

The turbidity in the river is nothing new; people have never been able to see the Murray cod but they derive great satisfaction from being assured that native stocks are in a healthy condition. No-one has suggested that exploitation of fish stocks in our inland rivers should be avoided and that they should be returned to a pristine condition. Most people agree that some exploitation is justified. The rub of the argument is that the Minister and his department have done everything they can to enable recreational fishermen to take as many fish from the river as they like; there is no downward pressure on recreational fishermen in terms of access to the resource.

However, the Minister and the department intend to wipe out commercial fishermen who have exercised their legitimate endeavours over a period, in some cases 150 years. I am not talking about earth-shattering matters. The regulation will not stop the people of New South Wales or the Commonwealth of Australia in their tracks. I am talking about a small group, a score or more, of resilient, resourceful and self-reliant people whose income and livelihood will be extinguished if the Parliament does not disallow the measure introduced by the Government. The regulation will not wipe out commercial fishermen. It is the section 8 notice that has precipitated the crisis in the industry.

Section 8 smacks of reinforcing a feudal relationship between the department and commercial fishermen. Until share managed fisheries were introduced they had a sort of landlord and serf relationship. I note that the Hon. J. R. Johnson is
Page 1788
listening with interest to my comments. In a recent address to the Sydney Institute Thomas Keneally described the spalpeens in Ireland as being at the lowest level of any tenure. The section 8 notice demonstrates the contempt in which the department holds these people who have carried on an honest trade over many years, and something needs to be done about it.

The ethical and moral considerations are the most important part of this motion. While section 8 is not within our gift to debate or to rescind, if the regulation is denied to the Government, the Government will have to go back to the negotiating table with commercial fishermen. It is eminently possible that section 8 may be withdrawn. People describe inland rivers as a sunset fishery. That is not within my gift, although I believe that if the resource exists and is being managed as the Government should manage it, to optimise its regenerative capacity, there is a place for commercial fishermen forever.

If recreational fishermen can take fish from rivers, a proportion of commercial fishermen should also be able to take fish from rivers. The regulation will affect not only the livelihood of commercial fishermen but, as I said earlier, those who wait on the commercial markets to deliver to them a food that they richly prize. The Minister proposes to deny that, and it is wrong. If commercial fishermen are to be denied their livelihood in this day and age, in 1999, there should be just-terms compensation for what has been taken from them apparently in the interests of the greater majority, as I am sure the Minister will advance.

The basis of just-terms compensation is that if a public interest can be established the public purse should be opened to compensate those people who are disadvantaged by the decision. That principle for compensation should be adhered to, no matter who the applicants are. It does not matter whether they live in the lap of luxury, as has been asserted by those who oppose this motion, or in a rough camp on the river bank; the principle is the same.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: That’s got nothing to do with it.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: The Minister will have an opportunity to speak later in the debate. I assure him I have been told that that assertion has been made. I will respond to the Minister’s speech in due course; in the meantime I will pursue this argument, because all honourable members should hear it. Honourable members should consider that the best offer that has been made so far can only be described as paltry. A base level applies to those who cannot create a catch history. However, those who have a catch history are given no encouragement to stop fishing before 2001, and I believe the Minister should go back and renegotiate with them.

The offer is not adequate simply because the Minister is constrained by the resources available from inland fishing licences. If honourable members accept my argument that New South Wales adhere to the just-terms compensation principle, Treasury should supplement these moneys, not simply say that there is only a little money in the biscuit tin. If commercial fishermen are to put aside $200,000 worth of fishing gear and the possibility of grossing perhaps a couple of hundred thousand dollars in income over the next three years, by any commercial standard they should receive a substantial offer that would allow them to exit the industry with dignity. However, no such offer is on the table at present.

If it were in my gift to manage this fishery it would include a proportion of commercial exploitation, alongside the laudable encouragement given to recreational fishermen. I applaud what the Minister has done in terms of trying to recover fish stocks and to adjust the fish take to the drought conditions. However, those conditions no longer exist; we have had some wonderful runs in the river, and it is time to look at the role of commercial fishermen and, if nothing else, proper and just compensation. The only way to enforce that is to disallow the regulation. The Coalition would welcome the reintroduction of the regulation in different circumstances if it believed that commercial fishermen had received a fair offer and a fair deal, but they have not. Until then we will not rest in our labours to secure a better deal for them.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.48 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. D. F. Moppett. I have perhaps a slightly different perspective on this issue than that of the honourable member. While I understand the importance of the honourable member’s defence of fishing in various industries on the inland rivers, as a Green I hold as a primary objective the conservation of these resources. I pay great attention to this issue, and I still see some serious stumbling blocks as I look through the information. I was a member of the Standing Committee on State Development during the fishing inquiry, as was the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. At that time both the Minister and I were critical of the then Minister for Fisheries and his bureaucracy.

Page 1789

In this case a small group of professional fishers are being sacrificed. Many ecological and environmental issues must be addressed if we are to maintain the quality of the habitat, the river and the fish stocks. That point has also been made in a letter to the Minister written by Kathy Ridge on behalf of the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales and the Total Environment Centre. The letter states in part:

The continuing decline in water quality, quantity and the destruction of riverine habitats are the major issues affecting the continued viability of these fish species.

A request has been made by peak conservation organisations to protect Murray cod and golden perch by recommending that those species be considered for inclusion in the vulnerable species category and taking action under section 220 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994, as well as concurrently preparing fish habitat protection plans for inland fin fish species under part 7, division 1 of sections 192 and 193 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994. Without dealing in too much detail with the letter, I simply point out that it hits the nail on the head about the despoiling of inland fisheries and rivers by the construction of dams, weirs and irrigation facilities, and by short-term political vote-buying from the recreational fishing industry.

As more information is gathered, it is becoming clear that although professional fishers are controlled by a significant number of regulations, there is very little, if any, regulation of amateur fishers who are gathering significant fish takes without any real check being done. The Minister reasonably asked me what the figures are, and how I know the quantity of fish that have been taken. While the Minister has a $85 million bureaucracy to support him, my resources are somewhat less than that. Nevertheless, it is very difficult to find out exactly the size of the catch being taken by recreational fishers. Investigation of other issues associated with fisheries have revealed that the impact of recreational fisher activity is very significant and that the impact on fish stocks of one problem after another has not been addressed.

A press release issued by the Far West Anglers Association refers to people who did a trip from Colingnan to Wemen a short time ago to gauge the size of the recreational catch. The group expected to be able to estimate the size of catch data by visiting each camp and asking one person from each camp how many Murray cod that person had caught. The media release states:

After this trip, and armed with all the information, it was found that 1,219 camps were approached and that there were two Murray Cod per person (remembering that we only asked one person from each camp). This equates to 2,436 legal sized Murray Cod which were taken in this stretch of water in one weekend. Working this out on average of 6 kg per fish which roughly equals 14.6 tonne, calculate this over a year, and you would see that 584 tonne is much greater that that of the catch data from the Commercial Fisher, which does not come any were near the 20 tonne caught by the Commercial Fisher.

For argument’s sake, let us halve that estimate on the basis that it may have been a good weekend. The catch by recreational fishers is still very substantial. But what is being done about it? When I wrote to the Minister, I asked a number of questions and asked him to provide information supporting the closure of inland fisheries. My letter stated:

What studies form the basis of this decision?

What action is NSW Fisheries taking to address issues of inland native fish declines and related issues of overuse of water, pollution, migration blockages and habitat loss?

Is the government proposing an assistance package or redundancy payments for displaced workers? If not, why not?

What action are you taking in relation to recreational take and illegal catch in inland waterways?

I recognise your response by way of regulation to the protection of declining fish species, particularly Murray Cod and Golden Perch but what real action is being taken? Will you recommend protection for these species as "vulnerable species" by taking action under s220 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994?

My letter raised issues similar to those mentioned by the conservation groups. The Minister replied to my letter, which I appreciate, and his response was very timely. The Minister’s reply stated:

. . . Whilst the "native finfish" sector of the commercial fishery will be closed in around 2 years time, fishing effort is being redirected towards yabbies and carp

I believe that yabbies have been available as a very seasonal commodity and often not in commercial quantities. Carp potential is very limited and there has been debate over whether it has any potential at all. The second point made by the Minister relating to the closure of the inland commercial fishery reads as follows:

This new restricted fishery provides participants with more clearly defined and secure access rights, a framework for the sustainable management of the yabby resource. It also enables the implementation of the Government’s Carp Assessment and Reduction Program.

I believe that the assessment reduction program discriminates between fishers by providing for two levels of carp and yabby licences, one of which is transferable and has increased area and gear entitlements while the other is not transferable with
Page 1790
restrictions on gear and area. It imposes unprecedented prohibitive fees on licence applications, renewals and transfers. The transfer of carp and yabby licences will cost $2,500 compared with, for example, abalone licences for a tuna boat which cost $250.

The Minister’s letter goes on to state that closure of the native fin fish fishery is based on resource sustainability concerns. In my view, it is based on former Minister Martin’s own agenda. Investigations under the Freedom of Information Act sought copies of documents placed before the former Minister at the time when the notice of closure was gazetted. No scientific data, let alone information on the social and economic impact on members of the fishery was put before the Minister. Also, commercial fishers operate in only 5 per cent of inland waterways, and on current estimates, harvest just 0.03 per cent of the total catch. Those figures have been confirmed by the Nature Conservation Council. If the figures are wrong, then I invite the Minister to correct me.

The information I have provided makes it plain that there is a terrible imbalance between the two groups. The Minister’s letter also stated that the 1997 rivers survey was the first major assessment on the status of fish and inland rivers. It highlighted that populations of Murray cod, a keystone species, are now "fragmented and patchy and their overall abundance is worryingly low." The more recent 240-page "NSW Inland Commercial Fishery Data Analysis" produced by New South Wales Fisheries states that catches of Murray cod declined sharply from a peak in the mid-1950s but have been relatively stable since the mid-1960s. The analysis also mentions that there is a continual problem with widespread illegal fishing.

New South Wales commercial inland fishery data have considerable significance as a national resource. Far from recommending the closure of the fishery, the data analysis report actually recommends that "more detailed daily records of commercial catches and effort be collected and a sampling program for lengths/ages and other required biological information be undertaken." It also indicates that the potential usefulness of the data is as a measure of the wellbeing of the ecosystem which supports the fishery.

In conclusion, I suggest that this disallowance presents an opportunity for commercial fishers. Where are the officers of the department who will police the area? Who will look after all the problems concerning illegal fishing in the waterways throughout this State? Where are the government authorities who will police these activities? Commercial fishers have an interest in the way the Government handles this problem. They are sending their regulated catch to market and they have an interest in maintaining inland fisheries.

Presently, commercial fishers are policing recreational activities and they are in a good position to do that. The records they are required to keep to operate out of the Sydney and Victorian markets make it quite clear that their catch is regulated. In South Australia there has been some discussion of incorporating them in a heritage fishery. I have further information that I will not have time to mention but it indicates that commercial fishers are assisting in the maintenance of fish stock levels. I commend the Hon. D. F. Moppett for proposing this motion.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [11.58 a.m.]: Over the last couple of weeks, honourable members of this Parliament have had an opportunity to obtain a briefing from the Government and various interest groups on this issue. The information that I have received has made me realise that this is a very complicated issue which deserves to be treated thoughtfully. In my opinion, the disallowance involves not only the issue of environmental concern but also an issue of social justice. I took the side of the Government on this issue because it is trying to ensure the sustainable management of the fishery industry. After all, the decline of native fish stock has been a problem in New South Wales for many years.

Previous governments should have taken serious action to solve the issue a long time ago. However, I also accept that recreational fishers and the illegal fishing industry have compounded the problem. I am concerned about whether we would be able to save native fish species by phasing out commercial fisheries only. I understand that dissatisfaction is also expressed about the damage done to the river systems by general pollution and illegal fishers. No comprehensive research has been done so far to enable us to have a full picture about the seriousness of the threatened species and how every sector has had an effect on this issue.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I announce to honourable members that a Channel 2 film crew is present in the gallery and will film question time.

Page 1791

The PRESIDENT: I want to make a short announcement concerning the use of points of order during question time. Having checked with yesterday’s Hansard I find that my recollection of the words of the Minister and the words of the Hon. J. F. Ryan was absolutely accurate. The Minister did not take a point of order; he merely answered the question, as is his right under Standing Order 29 and various Presidents’ rulings. The Hon. John Ryan then rose in his place and called out "Point of order", hence my ruling, which was against his point of order. I ask that members listen closely to the debate and when they are speaking further to a point of order they state that clearly, instead of calling out "Point of order".

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I would like to make a personal explanation. With regard to that matter, I also have checked Hansard. I noticed that in Hansard the Minister jumped up and said that the question was out of order. My exact words, despite what Hansard has recorded - and I am sending something to Hansard with regard to this - were "Further to the point of order". My statement "Further" apparently is not recorded in Hansard.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Given his confirmation that the member for Auburn has applied for legal aid in a case involving allegations of corrupt and illegal conduct, and given his confirmation that the member for Parramatta has also applied for legal aid in her separate case, will the Attorney now confirm whether the member for Canterbury has applied for legal aid to cover the cost of his own case before the Industrial Relations Commission? Is it a fact that the potential total cost to taxpayers of such actions could amount to more than $3 million in compensation, legal fees and costs?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Not to the best of my knowledge and belief.

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. Will the Minister inform the House of the significant contributions to community restoration and maintenance projects that are being made by young people in the Hunter region?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I am pleased to advise the House that during a recent visit to Newcastle I was fortunate enough to both visit the Worimi Detention Centre and meet with the staff of the juvenile justice community-based services that operate in the Hunter region. I found the level of commitment to and concern for the young people to be a great credit to the staff of that office. I would also like to take this opportunity to place on the record that Lou Johnson and her team at Worimi - which I might add incorporates a significant number of women in senior positions - have done quite a remarkable job given the physical limitations of the centre. They deserve to be congratulated on the efforts they have made to involve the local community, via their community consultative committee, in the operations of the centre.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Why didn’t you put some money in the budget to rebuild it?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I add in response to the interjection of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe that she should not be concerned about funds for a replacement centre in Newcastle because they remain firmly embedded in the forward estimates. I shall return to the activities undertaken by young people on the community service organisation [CSO] program in the Hunter because that range of activities is quite remarkable. The activities involve everything from the maintenance of the grounds of the Nelson Bay Cemetery and the Snake Gully community accommodation for people with an intellectual disability through to the adopt-a-road program, assistance given to Hunter Legacy and a number of nursing homes in the area, as well as staffing the Wakefield bush fire brigade.

In addition to these regular commitments, young people assist in the Red Cross and Salvation Army annual doorknocks and are available to assist in the maintenance of the native animal carers facilities, the local scout hall, the neighbourhood centre and two museums. Honourable members would all agree that through this broad range of activities the young people involved make a significant contribution to the community. All of the above are clear examples of this Government’s commitment to rehabilitative and restorative schemes which reinforce the obligation that young people have to the community in which they live. I congratulate the office manager, David Twyman, the CSO co-ordinator, Terry Fauchom, and the entire
Page 1792
staff of the Broadmeadow office on their dedication and commitment to the young people in their care.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship. I refer to the article on page 6 of today’s Sydney Morning Herald headed "Carr Government insists Newcastle site is the best". The article leads with a paragraph:

The NSW Government remains opposed to a Badgerys Creek airport, despite the EIS, but has not ruled out co-operating with infrastructure if the project is approved.

Given the distinct impression the Government has engendered in the community and the numerous public comments of opposition to the airport, including one in this House on 23 June, will the Government now give a commitment to oppose in a practical sense the construction of the airport?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I confirm that the Government remains opposed to the construction of an airport at Badgerys Creek. As to the remaining part of the question, I suggest the Hon. A. G. Corbett obtain some legal advice so that he has a better understanding of the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament in respect of planning and associated matters on projects that are Commonwealth projects.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. As the Minister responsible for the Industrial Relations Commission, has his attention been drawn to sworn allegations that the member for Parramatta was party to fraudulent preparation of sick leave and holiday entitlements in her office while a Minister of the Crown? What steps has the Attorney taken to refer these allegations of criminal conduct to the police for their investigation?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Honourable members ought to exercise due caution when referring to matters that are sub judice and that are before the court. I do not actually take the formal point of order but these allegations - as stated in the question - if they are allegations, are before the court and no doubt they will be heard and determined objectively in accordance with the law. My understanding is that the member for Parramatta has actually referred these matters herself to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and that ICAC has indicated that there was nothing really to investigate. That is my understanding. I do not propose to comment upon allegations which are before a superior court of record in this State. I do not think it would be appropriate. It would be entirely unseemly and wrong for me to do so.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: My question is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Attorney inform the House about the new online Internet certificate validation service being jointly piloted by the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages and the Roads and Traffic Authority?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages has developed an online Internet certificate validation service. The service is currently being piloted with the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales. The authority was selected to participate because many of its clients use a birth certificate to establish their identity and because the number of fraudulent certificates being presented to the authority is, as I am advised, increasing. The purpose of establishing the service is to minimise the fraudulent use of birth certificates. The service is an innovative e-commerce method of minimising fraud and it assists other organisations like the Roads and Traffic Authority in preventing fraudulent activity by enabling them to establish whether identifications are false.

A number of recent incidents have verified the benefits of such a service. At the suburban motor registry office piloting the system a birth certificate checked on the Internet service by a staff member was found to be forged. This detection resulted in the arrest of the individual who produced the false certificate. The Roads and Traffic Authority has indicated that it wants to replace the pilot with a full service for all of its branch offices throughout New South Wales. The registry has agreed to the request but the full service will become active only after an appropriate upgrading of security features of the registry’s computer system has been completed.

The pilot activity was referred to Privacy New South Wales, which approved the service. The registry will keep Privacy informed of the system’s progress. If the ongoing assessment of the service continues to prove positive the registry proposes to expand the service to other Commonwealth and State departments and organisations.

Page 1793

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Madam President, might I draw your attention to the distinguished presence in your gallery this morning of the three leadership contenders of the Liberal Party: Mr Brogden, Mr Hartcher and Mr O’Farrell? Might I, on behalf of all members of the House, wish them well? May the best man win.

The Hon. M. I. JONES: My question is to the Hon. J. J. Della Bosca, representing the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Will the Minister advise whether a formal survey of Aboriginal relics was conducted on lot 50, Parish of Yaouk, County of Cowley prior to his authorising the sale of 960 acres of river frontage to a former employee of the National Parks and Wildlife Service? Is it true that the Minister and the Wogonga local Aborigines declared that the land was "not of cultural significance to Aboriginals" and allowed the sale of the land to proceed prior to conducting a survey? Is the Minister, and therefore the sale, in breach of the Act?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: This question is in very similar terms to a question asked by the honourable member the other day. I will urge my colleague to provide a full answer to the House as soon as possible.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question is directed to the Attorney General. Will he now refer to police for criminal investigation sworn allegations against the Labor member for Auburn that he defrauded the State of New South Wales by using his publicly funded office and his publicly funded staff for his own private financial benefit?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to do so. There are proceedings before a superior court of record, where apparently allegations have been made and presumably will be answered. I think it would be appropriate to await the course of events to continue. Any member of the community is of course capable of referring matters to the police, and can do so if he or she wants to. I do not believe that I have any obligation to do so. I am aware of many allegations and counter-allegations before many courts in this land and I do not know of any precedent which suggests that the Attorney General must refer these matters to the police, and I do not propose to do so.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: Can the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries inform the House of the latest developments in the deregulation of fish marketing?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I am sure all my colleagues in this House will be very interested in what is happening in the deregulation of selling fish. I announced yesterday the release of a final draft discussion paper on the registration of fish receivers. Deregulation of fish marketing in New South Wales will take place on 1 November this year - after this Government listened to industry concerns over the timetable for deregulation and postponed its introduction from 31 October 1997 to 1 November 1999. The discussion paper sets out proposals for the registration of fish receivers under deregulation. It includes -

[Interruption]

All this silly interjection is really bringing us as politicians into disrepute. Can Opposition members not see that the cameras are on them? The behaviour of the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn will not do him any good with the people of Campbelltown. The discussion paper sets out proposals for the registration of fish receivers under deregulation. It includes criteria for registration, fees and reporting requirements. It is industry’s chance to comment on the final proposals regarding deregulation.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: How did you get deregulation through the Labor Party?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: It is a national policy. We abide by the national policy. It is a national government policy.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Are you going to go back to electricity next?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: No. You decided not to go ahead with deregulation and have not faltered. We had the commonsense to listen to our constituents. It is to the great credit of this Government that we listen, not like National Party members, who received fewer votes than One Nation. They did not bother to listen and look what they copped at the election. We listen to constituents. We propose policies, of course. Every government is entitled to propose policies. But when we listen to the people and the majority of them say
Page 1794
that they do not want something we have the gumption not to go ahead with the proposal, because we are a listening government, unlike the Coalition.

If a person or company receives fish for commercial use from a commercial fisher the person or company will need to hold a fish receiver’s permit. Deregulation is consistent with the resolution passed by the Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture in Adelaide in 1997 to introduce a national docketing system. The docketing system is an important development. It allows for the monitoring of fish catches through an audit trail from the catcher to the final seller. It is an essential component of the national food safety standard currently under development. It will help the Government towards its objective of sustainable fisheries management.

The discussion paper sets out the criteria for those who do not need to register. They include those holding a current consent; holding a current certificate of exemption; receiving less than the minimum quantity of fish prescribed by the regulation; receiving fish as an employee or agent of another fish receiver; and receiving fish only for the purpose of transporting them on behalf of the owner.
Some of these are transitional arrangements, and the scheme will be fully implemented over 12 months. Proposed grounds for refusal are if the applicant has been convicted of certain offences, including the theft of fish, fishing gear or a boat, or if the applicant has not paid any fees due in connection with registration as a fish receiver. It is also proposed that fish receivers must have a food safety plan in accordance with the requirements of the Food Production (Safety) Act 1998, which is being implemented by Safe Food Production New South Wales. Because these requirements are not yet established, the criteria will be phased in over time.

The proposed fee for registration is $2,500, which reflects the costs of administration, inspection and enforcement. The fee will apply to all registered fish receivers issued after 1 November 1999. The fee will fund a monitoring and data collection program, inspections of premises and a random audit program to encourage compliance. A black market control program will be implemented to ensure that food safety requirements and public health are not undermined.

All records of sale and possession will include: the marketing name and weight of each species of fish sold; the date of sale; the full name and address of the seller; the full name and address of the purchaser; and the full name, address and signature of the person completing the record. Fish receivers will be required to submit monthly returns of all fish received from State licensed fishers to allow the Government to monitor commercial fish catchers effectively.

This Government believes the proposals contained in the discussion paper are reasonable. They are also important to protect public health, stamp out the black market in fish products and improve the sustainable management of our fisheries. I urge the community to comment by 31 July. I note that during my answer to this question the Coalition has been rejecting such a proposition and commenting in a very trivial manner.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: May I welcome to the House the honourable member for Epping, Mr Tink. All four of the Liberal Party leadership contenders have honoured us with their presence today. It is important that the Liberal Party leadership be settled in a democratic way. Madam President, I draw your attention to Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, page 392, which states that the wearing of military insignia or uniform inside the Chamber is not in accordance with the long-established custom of the House.

It is inappropriate for leadership problems within the Liberal Party to be influenced by the military, by a coup from Colonel Tutti-Frutti. He should dress properly and not intimidate the Liberal Party with a threat of a military coup to solve internal problems.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Point of order: We are in the middle of question time and Ministers are here to answer questions, not to raise issues which they believe are important and of some interest to them, but are of interest to no-one else, including the public. The public are entitled to have members of Parliament in this Chamber ask questions of Ministers and to have those questions answered in the best possible way. This Minister is just wasting time on a day which is obviously embarrassing to the Government.

The Hon. P. T. Primrose: Further to the point of order: I recall the Opposition raising matters regarding the wearing of buttons in this place. The Opposition had a lengthy debate about the wearing of buttons being disorderly. The Leader of the House is now raising the issue of wearing a whole uniform containing numerous buttons.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Further to the point of order: Today is Reserve Forces Day, the second celebration of that important function by the
Page 1795
Governor with representatives of the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and many other important employers. On a day like today the Governor made a point that people who serve in the Reserve Forces, as well as having other civilian jobs, are doing the work of two people. It is a common occurrence when the Governor is present for members to wear ribbons and decorations. In fact, it is a disservice not to do so. In fact, the Clerks often give instructions for that to happen.

I wear this uniform with considerable pride, particularly on Reserve Forces Day. I was not aware that it was contrary to the standing orders and took advice about that, and I ask the Leader of the Government in this House to withdraw his point of order.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I can fully understand why on a day like today the honourable gentleman is wearing his military uniform but nonetheless the practice of the Parliament is clear, as is the practice in all parliaments. If the honourable gentleman has other duties to attend to today he should do them but he should come into this House dressed as May’s Parliamentary Practice dictates.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: To the point of order: On this day, Reserve Forces Day, employers in this State are being encouraged to assist their employees to participate in today’s program. For the Leader of the Government in this House today to seek to discriminate against members in the Reserve Forces is an outrage. For the Leader of the Government in this House to raise this issue on such a day is a complete reflection upon the genuine approach taken by this Government to Reserve Forces Day. I ask the Leader of the House to withdraw his point of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. The Minister is correct. Erskine May says that members are not permitted to wear decorations in the House. Further, the wearing of a uniform or military insignia is contrary to the long-established custom of the House.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: On the basis that to dissent from your ruling -

The PRESIDENT: Order! Is the member canvassing my ruling or is this a new point of order?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Further to the point of order: Just in case it may have slipped your mind, Madam President, and if I may be more helpful, the Hon. Max Willis, on the opening of Parliament, wore all his ribbons and medals. In fact, he was criticised for wearing them on the wrong side by members of this House. That was a common occurrence in those times.

It is appropriate to wear the uniform today, and I cannot wear the uniform without the medals because I would be undressed under the circumstances. Madam President, I ask that you seek advice from the Clerks about what is a common occurrence in the State of New South Wales, and in this Chamber in particular, because practice in each State is different.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly: It is my understanding that the Minister has not taken a point of order; it was the Opposition that took the point of order, so at this stage there has been no point of order to threaten to eject the member at all.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I repeat my request to members this morning to state clearly whether they are speaking further to a point of order or taking a new point of order. If the Leader of the Opposition has objected to the Treasurer -

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: I have not said a word.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Who took the point of order against the Minister?

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Madam President, it was I who moved the point of order against the Leader of the Government for wasting the time of the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. I repeat: Ministers may answer questions in any way they choose.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: It was not an answer to a question.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: I draw your attention to a presidential ruling which set a precedent. It is a ruling of President Burgmann of 30 June 1999 and it reads:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. Although I follow the Minister’s reasoning, he has strayed from the question. He should return to it.

I ask you to uphold your own ruling.

Page 1796

The PRESIDENT: That is extremely difficult, because the Minister was not answering a question.

The Hon. M R. Egan: But I will return to the point of the question if one is asked of me.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Special Minister of State and future Leader of the House, representing the Minister for Tourism: Will the Minister ensure that people in rural New South Wales, particularly those in the Far West, will share in next year’s tourist bonanza? Will the Minister have talks with Ansett, Qantas and tourist operators to ensure that our overseas visitors will be able to enjoy wildlife safaris to the outback to view kangaroos, emus and other unique wildlife? Will the Minister also talk to the land-holders to let them know what kind of accommodation tourists need? Will the Minister work with the honourable member representing Broken Hill to ensure that those suffering from poor commodity prices can share in the tourist boom?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I take the opportunity to indicate to the House that the Minister for Tourism will take seriously the matters raised by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. The Government has consistently taken the view, on a number of economic grounds, that enormous tourism opportunities exist for New South Wales both in the lead-up to the Olympics and after the Games. We will be able to showcase not only our great city but the great hinterland and other regions of New South Wales and, indeed, the rest of the country.

The honourable member’s question relates to a specific aspect of tourism policy. The area of the State to which he referred obviously has great opportunities and great potential for tourism operators and other businesses operators in the Western Division. I will commend his question to the Minister for Tourism. I am sure she will provide a prompt answer and take appropriate action in response to the question.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question is directed to the Attorney General. Has the Attorney been informed of allegations that the honourable member for Parramatta, whilst a Minister of the Crown, and her then chief of staff perjured themselves before an Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation involving a former director-general of the Department of Community Services and a former chief of the Public Employment office? Will the Attorney also seek immediate advice from his own department as to whether these serious allegations breach the New South Wales Constitution?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I have read a considerable amount of material about the allegations brought against the honourable member for Parramatta in the Industrial Relations Commission. However, I do not recall any allegation of perjury having been made, although my memory may be defective in that respect. I will inquire into the matter, and if such an allegation has been made I will take what I deem to be an appropriate course.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Treasurer, and Minister for State Development will be delighted to hear that my question is directed to him. Will he give the House details of the latest hi-tech company to expand in the Illawarra?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I would be delighted to answer the honourable member’s question, as I visited Wollongong recently - in fact, last Thursday week, if my memory serves me correctly. I am pleased to inform the House that earlier this month one of the world’s leading telecommunications companies announced that it would expand its research and development centre in Wollongong. The Canadian company Nortel Networks will establish a wireless Internet research and development centre at the University of Wollongong.

I am told that wireless Internet is at the cutting edge of information technology development. At its simplest, it involves being able to access the Internet from mobile phones. The Wollongong centre will be central to the company’s plans to invest $150 million in Australia over the next five years. This expansion program will create some 130 new, high-value jobs, more than 100 of them in the Illawarra. The new centre will be set up at the University of Wollongong, where the company has already invested $80 million over the past 10 years.

Nortel’s Wollongong expansion is a major boost to the Illawarra’s profile as a leading force in the development of the information technology industry. It will create new opportunities for knowledge-based jobs in the region. This is a clear sign of the Government’s commitment to developing the Illawarra as a telecommunications centre for excellence in New South Wales. The company’s investment in Wollongong was in the face of strong competition from other regions throughout Australia.

Page 1797

Speaking at the announcement of the expansion, the President of Nortel’s Asia-Pacific division, Mr Reg Bird, said that the company had worked closely with the Department of State and Regional Development before deciding on the Wollongong location. He said that the company had looked at a number of locations around Australia to determine the ideal location for the wireless Internet centre. Mr Bird went on to say that, against many criteria, including the location of the company’s customers and the availability of qualified, skilled staff, Wollongong was the best choice for this facility. I congratulate Nortel on its decision, and I congratulate the people of the Illawarra for their determination to win new investment and new jobs for the region.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Not like the Department of Local Government, which was meant to go to Goulburn and then went to Nowra.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. D. J. Gay refers to the relocation of the Department of Local Government to Nowra. I am proud to inform the House that the Superannuation Administration Authority will shortly also move to the Illawarra region. I understand that that relocation will take place now that the authority has been corporatised. The authority is looking for suitable premises in Wollongong. I hope that in the not too distant future a decision will be made as to the precise location and that I will be able to give the House more good news about what is happening in Wollongong and the Illawarra.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: What about Goulburn?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The National Party does not hold its conferences in Goulburn, does it? The National Party ignores Goulburn.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. Is it a fact that PM 10 emissions in the Turrella area, where the M5 exhaust stack will be located, exceed World Health Organisation standards on a regular basis? Will the Minister explain why the exhaust gases from approximately 60,000 vehicles a day are to be dumped into the Wolli Valley without any filtration or scrubbing? Is it a fact that a Department of Urban Affairs and Planning report has identified cutting-edge technologies in Japan and Norway which obviate the need for exhaust stacks by cleaning fumes within the tunnel? Has the Minister considered the use of these technologies in the M5 tunnel?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I have no specific and detailed answer to the important question asked by the Hon. Elaine Nile, but the matter she has raised is most important for all the residents who will be affected by the M5 East exhaust stacks. I have no doubt that my colleague the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads went to tremendous lengths to talk with them. I would be shocked if the Government were not to use the latest technology to ensure that the emissions were reduced. We are a responsible Government and my colleague is a responsible Minister. I am sure that he will use every technology available to ensure that the residents of the area are not affected. To ensure I give a detailed answer, I will seek information from my colleague and inform the House in due course.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. The term of office of the Auditor-General, Mr Tony Harris, expires in September 1999. Given the Carr Government’s tradition of appointing Labor Party mates to key public sector positions, what action is the Government taking to ensure that the selection process for the new Auditor-General is genuinely independent?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The House can be assured that the selection process will be a proper one. Interviews for the position are currently being held. The position was advertised a month or so ago, and I understand a number of distinguished applicants have indicated an interest in the position. In due course an appointment will be made.

The Hon. H. S. TSANG: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the Government’s success in attracting international banking organisations to New South Wales?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am pleased to inform the House that China’s largest bank, and the world’s third-largest bank, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China [ICBC], opened an office in New South Wales on Tuesday. I am pleased to report that the Government’s new special adviser on New South Wales-East Asian business
Page 1798
relations, the Hon. H. S. Tsang, represented the Government at the official opening. This is another win for New South Wales and Australia. The new Sydney operation is the ICBC’s first representative office in Australia. Other ICBC offices are located in Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, New York, London and Luxembourg. The ICBC is the latest foreign bank to set up in Sydney. With more than 30,000 branches in China, the ICBC handles more than half of China’s settlement transactions.

The decision by the ICBC further reinforces Sydney’s position as a leading international finance centre. Of the 52 banks in Australia, 40 have headquarters in New South Wales, and of the 36 foreign banking groups with head offices in Australia, 33 are based in Sydney. The international banking industry is attracted to New South Wales for a number of reasons, one of which is its multilingual capability, as the Hon. H. S. Tsang is well aware. The industry is attracted here also because of our advanced information technology and telecommunications infrastructure -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: It was the assiduous work of Robert Webster.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I admit that Robert Webster played a fine role. The industry is attracted also to our stable economic and political climate and, of course, the convenient time zone. The Government congratulates the ICBC on its decision to open a representative office in Sydney and wishes it every success in the future.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I direct a question without notice to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Attorney General aware that the United States of America Supreme Court has upheld a Federal Appeals Court ruling which banned the distribution of Playboy, Penthouse and other sexually explicit and pornographic publications to prisoners? Is the Attorney General aware that the American Supreme Court ruling agreed that prisoners cannot claim rights to free speech because they cannot claim the same breadth of constitutional rights as ordinary citizens? Will the Attorney General move for a similar ban on sexually explicit and pornographic publications in New South Wales prisons, as they are a destructive influence on the rehabilitation of prisoners before they are released into the community and may result in immediate rapes or sexual assaults on women or children?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am aware of the judgment of the United States of America Supreme Court referred to by the honourable member. I am not aware whether it has implications for the administration of the prison system in New South Wales. Frankly, I do not know what regime is in place in the corrective services system to deal with publications that are accessible to prisoners. I undertake to raise the matter with my colleague the Minister for Corrective Services to determine whether the pronouncements of the American Supreme Court have any practical implications for the corrections administration in New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I address my question without notice to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Police. If the Government considers illicit drug abuse to be the significant problem it was held to be at the Drug Summit, does it also consider one of the criteria for assessing the performance of the Commissioner of Police would be his efforts to fight illicit drug dealers? If so, does the Government consider the arrest of 685 dealers in New South Wales last year an adequate performance, given that Victoria arrested 1,901 dealers in the same period and Switzerland, a country with an equivalent population, arrested 8,450 in 1996?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am fascinated by the ongoing campaign that the Opposition is waging against Commissioner Ryan, who is a first-class commissioner. From time to time there have been obvious attempts by the Liberal Party to undermine him. Almost every person in New South Wales would find that quite distasteful, because Commissioner Ryan has done a first-class job not only of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the New South Wales Police Service but of creating a Police Service that is corruption resistant. All members opposite opposed the establishment of the police royal commission, but members on this side of the House supported it.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: I voted against it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. D. J. Gay voted against it. I remember all of the goings-on in the lower House when the then crossbenchers and the Opposition combined to establish the police royal commission.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The lower House voted against it.

Page 1799

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: But it was one of the best things that happened during the last term of the Greiner and Fahey governments, although it was not their doing. The royal commission was established on a decision of the lower House Opposition and crossbenchers. The work that has been undertaken since then not only to improve the efficiency of the Police Service but to rid it of corruption is something which every citizen would support. I am quite confident that the Commissioner of Police has the overwhelming support of the people of New South Wales, and it does the Opposition no credit to be waging this ongoing campaign against him.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Government aware of the significant non-compliance with workers compensation obligations in the building and construction industry over many decades? What percentage of the building and construction work force does the Government believe is covered by workers compensation? If it is not 100 per cent what is the Government’s response to tackling this problem, which is leaving injured workers, who are often the main family breadwinners, on a mixture of unemployment benefits, other social welfare and family support?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I correct one aspect of the assertions contained in the honourable member’s question. Under the workers compensation scheme, injured workers are able to recover weekly benefits and/or lump sums even though the employer might not be insured, so there is an uninsured liability scheme. That does not excuse those employers who are not properly insured; it simply means that if a worker is genuinely injured and can prove his or her case, compensation is payable nonetheless. But that overlooks the substantial point of the honourable member’s question, which I acknowledge as being valid: there seems to be problem of non-compliance in the building and construction industry.

I have urged WorkCover to take all reasonable steps to ensure that employers generally have the requisite insurance against workers compensation. That proposal is not only in the interests of working people; it is in the interests of those employers who are doing the honourable and honest thing and taking out insurance. Obviously, if employers are failing to insure they are getting an inappropriate competitive advantage over those who are complying with the law. I take the honourable member’s question seriously. All I can do is to assure the honourable member and this House that I have urged that all practicable steps be taken to maximise the level of workers compensation insurance in the building and construction industry.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer. Further to this week’s alarming gambling statistics and the Government’s continuing failure to respond to recommendations from the inquiry of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] into gaming, the Public Service Association [PSA] has threatened industrial action over departmental budget cuts. Does the Government share the PSA’s concerns? What will the Government do to guarantee the integrity and honesty of the gaming industry?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Point of order: The question directly relates to matters which are before the House, those matters being the budget take-note debate and the appropriation bills.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition want to rephrase the question?

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: You have already ruled on the point of order.

The PRESIDENT: I will hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the point of order.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: To the point of order: I have asked questions about gambling statistics on at least two other occasions this week. This question has nothing to do with the budget. The Government’s continued failure to respond to the recommendations of the IPART inquiry has nothing to do with the take-note debate or other debates. The PSA industrial action has nothing to do with the budget, although the Government made a decision to lessen the scrutiny of the casino. I would have thought that was something the Government would want to put on the record. It is curious, to say the least, that the Leader of the Government is using matters that are being debated in this House as protection.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point of order: My point of order was very clear. The question -

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: The Special Minister of State even has an answer ready.

Page 1800

The Hon. M. R. Egan: That is not the point. The question directly referred to budget measures. You gave the honourable member an opportunity to rephrase his question. I would have thought that would have been the simplest thing for him to do.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member may rephrase his question and it may then be in an acceptable form.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: My question to the Minister is: Further to this week’s alarming gambling statistics and the Government’s continuing failure to respond to the recommendations of the IPART inquiry into gambling, the PSA has threatened industrial action. Does the Government share the PSA’s concerns? What will the Government do to guarantee integrity and honesty in the industry?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I am in a position to deal briefly with some aspects of the question. I am not familiar with the parameters or implications of the PSA industrial action referred to by the honourable member. He will have to be patient and await an answer from the responsible Minister. However, the Government is well aware of the potentially devastating impact that gambling has on families.

I am advised that, despite all the comments of the Opposition about the consideration by the Government of the IPART report, the Opposition was not interested enough in the IPART review process to make a submission to that inquiry. I referred to that matter earlier this week. I can assure the House that the Government and the Minister have under close consideration the detailed structural matters raised in the IPART report. I do not want to repeat an answer that I gave to a question asked earlier this week by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, so I will not go into any further detail.

It is not necessary for me, in answer to a question, to read a report on to the Hansard. However, I can do so if that is what the honourable member wants me to do. Importantly, the tax revenues from gambling activities ensure that the citizens of this State can get better access to health, education and transport facilities to make up for the Commonwealth Government’s neglect of those matters. I am happy to put that on the record. The Government has spent more than $13 million on the provision of these services - much more than the Coalition spent when it was in office. The Leader of the Government said earlier that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to make more substantial suggestions about the responses in the IPART report. The Government is looking carefully at that report. Action will be taken consistent with the key thrust of that report as it relates to responsible gambling and other matters.

The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD: My question is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Local Government. Will the Minister explain why the terms of reference of the inquiry into Bega Valley Shire Council cover examination of the conduct of only the elected representatives? Is the Minister aware that some of the council’s problems are related to allegations that the council’s General Manager, Mr Jesson, is guilty of misconduct, including perjury?

Will the Minister explain the appointment of Mr Timothy Rodgers as the inquiry commissioner, considering his clear conflict of interest, as the Department of Local Government, of which he is Deputy Director-General, has already conducted an internal investigation considered by some to have been a cover-up? Will the Minister expand the terms of reference of the inquiry to include the General Manager, Mr Jesson, and any other appropriate staff? Will the Minister disclose the current status of Mr Jesson’s membership of the Labor Party?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: In view of the detailed nature of the honourable member’s question, I will obtain an answer from my colleague in the other place.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for State Development and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for the Olympics, whether he is aware of allegations that a company or person associated with Ric Birch stood to benefit from a registration fee payable by members of the marching bands that were to be imported from the United States of America and Japan for official Games ceremonies. What conflict of interest rules apply to prevent employees of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games [SOCOG] from benefiting from the provision of services to the Games?

Will the Minister provide a guarantee to this House that there are no other incidences of SOCOG employees gaining from Olympic-related operations? Will the Minister launch an independent
Page 1801
investigation into these allegations, or does he set the same standards for his employees as the International Olympic Committee previously set for its employees?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Earlier today we were honoured by the presence in the gallery of a television crew which, I understand, was here to film question time. I notice it has now gone. If question time is going to be televised, the whole of question time should be televised. I was about to say something newsworthy, but now I will not. I am not aware of the issue raised in the honourable member’s question, but I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for the Olympics.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I direct my question to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs. Will the Minister ensure that no eligible electors within the Sydney City Council boundaries are disfranchised, and will he commit himself to requesting the Electoral Commissioner to advise every eligible elector in writing of the criteria for eligibility and the necessity for them to re-enrol even if they were on the roll for the last council election?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: This is quite an amusing question. I will seek to obtain an answer from my colleague the Minister for Local Government, but I am not quite sure how the honourable member expects the commissioner or the Minister to write to every eligible person and tell them that they should be on the roll. It is the duty of residents to be on the roll. It is up to residents to register. I do not want to canvass the rules and regulations, but commonsense should prevail. Electors on the State or Federal rolls are informed and everyone knows it is their duty to register. I am sure they have been informed. I will seek an answer from the Minister and inform the House in due course.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Fair Trading. Has the Minister noticed that many businesses continue to advertise their goods at prices ending in 99¢? Given that one and two cent coins have now disappeared from our currency and that a customer can neither proffer an exact amount of 99¢ nor receive exact change of 99¢, does the Minister agree that such a price tag might well represent false advertising?

Does the Minister agree that the curious system of rounding up, which was introduced to perpetuate 99¢ price tags, can effectively lead to substantial overcharging when a customer buys a large number of goods - for example, supermarket items - which are all priced at a figure that ends with 99¢? Will the Minister examine the possibility of outlawing this type of misleading pricing, reject the spurious claim that rounding up is balanced by rounding down, and help bring some reality to marked prices? Does the Minister feel that this 99¢ price-marking system is fair trading?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: While I will seek to get an answer from my colleague the Minister for Fair Trading, I fail to understand how the Minister, or any politician, could interfere in marketing practices. We all accept rounding up, it has been going on -

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Look what you’ve done to Johnno, he has gone to sleep - or he is praying.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Johnno always rounds off to the nearest dollar. As honourable members think this is an important matter I will seek an answer and report back to them.

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

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I am in a position to provide a brief answer to the question asked by the Hon. M. I. Jones in relation to Aboriginal land councils. The Minister did not authorise the sale of this land. Under section 40D of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 approval is given by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council for the disposal of land proposed by an Aboriginal land council. I draw the honourable member’s attention to the relevant provisions in the statutes. If the honourable member requires further details, I will have to receive that question later and deal with it.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: On 27 May Ms Lee Rhiannon asked me a question concerning
Page 1802
remote area refuge staffing and government initiatives to break down any racist attitudes amongst New South Wales police officers. Ms Rhiannon’s question was directed to me in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The question does not fall under the responsibility only of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs but, rather, across two different departments. I have been advised by the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women that the answer to the first part of Ms Rhiannon’s question is as follows:

Refuges funded under the supported accommodation assistance program [SAAP] do not usually employ health workers. The usual title for workers employed in refuges is support worker.

The vast majority of SAAP services which provide on-site support receive sufficient funding to employ more than one support worker. Both the State and Commonwealth governments, which jointly fund SAAP, have recognised the need to ensure that service providers receive sufficient funding to eliminate the financial need for service providers to utilise sole workers in situations where on-site support is provided.

An additional $150,000 per annum has recently been committed to upgrade the funding of women’s refuge services in the Department of Community Services’ Orana Far West area. Within the next three months, women’s refuge services in Bourke, Walgett and Lightning Ridge will receive additional resources. All women’s refuge accommodation services in Orana Far West will then have a minimum base funding of $103,470 per annum, sufficient to employ more than one worker.

In addition, the Minister for Community Services has been working in partnership with the Commonwealth Minister under the national partnerships against domestic violence strategy to develop an innovative rural and remote response for women and children escaping domestic violence. This will result in additional resources to the Department of Community Services’ [DOCS] Orana Far West and Riverina-Murray areas to develop innovative responses to assist indigenous communities to address issues of domestic violence.

On a broader scale, DOCS is currently assisting the Minister for Community Services to develop a new five-year SAAP agreement with the Commonwealth and other States. New South Wales has actively promoted for inclusion in the relevant memorandum of understanding a recognition of the needs of rural and remote communities and the specific needs of indigenous communities. This will provide a key focus for the needs of these groups during the next SAAP agreement.

I have been advised by the Minister for Police that the answer to the second part of Ms Rhiannon’s question is as follows:

The New South Wales Police Service employs 55 Aboriginal community liaison officers [ACLOs], who serve as a liaison point between police and local Aboriginal communities. ACLOs are responsible for fostering mutual understanding between Aboriginal communities and police and providing police with advice on Aboriginal issues. ACLOs also contribute to police training, participate in interagency meetings, attend to the welfare of Aboriginal people in custody, and are actively involved in developing programs to address local indigenous community concerns.

Police Service ethnic community liaison officers [ECLOs] fulfil a similar role on behalf of ethnic communities in metropolitan New South Wales. The service also conducts Aboriginal community awareness workshops for police officers. The constable education program [CEP], which must be satisfactorily completed by all police recruits, contains units specifically addressing racism and police racism. These units deal with police racism generally, and racism against indigenous Australians in particular.

Approximately 37 hours of face-to-face CEP training is dedicated to cultural diversity issues. As part of their training, police recruits must undertake a seven-week field placement in a community agency, which may be an Aboriginal community agency or an ethnic agency. Any racist behaviour of police recruits is taken into account in determining their suitability for employment by the New South Wales Police Service.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: On 27 May the Hon. D. E. Oldfield asked a question of the Minister for Transport on the issue of transport industry overloading. The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer:

The New South Wales Government is committed to the effective enforcement of measures to control overloading to protect the community’s investment in road infrastructure and to prevent unsafe vehicle operations. All participants in the transport industry share the responsibility of loading safely and within legal load limits. Current government policy is to prosecute the owners of overloaded vehicles, rather than the drivers, except where it is clear that the driver has contributed to the overloading of the vehicle.

This policy provides safeguards for drivers in the situations described by the honourable member. However, it does not absolve professional drivers from their obligations to operate vehicles responsibly and safely at all times. As part of the Government’s commitment to control overloading more effectively, the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] is participating in a national process being co-ordinated by the National Road Transport Commission [NRTC] which will address all of the issues raised by the honourable member.

The NRTC is currently consulting with all jurisdictions and industry on the development of stronger sanctions and penalties as part of a revised transport industry compliance and enforcement regime. Sanctions will be commensurate with the risks to safety and infrastructure damage and the commercial benefits from overloading. A key part of this compliance and enforcement proposal is the power to prosecute others in the transport chain apart from drivers, including consignors, packers, loaders and those who receive goods. It is proposed that legal liability be imposed on all in the chain who contribute to loading breaches.

Under these proposals, a person who receives a consignment of goods will be guilty of an offence if he or she knowingly engages in any conduct that might induce or reward a breach of the mass, dimension or load restraint requirements. Paying for goods in excess of the legal payload quantity of those

Page 1803
goods will be deemed to be engaging in such conduct. The Government supports the proposals to increase the penalties and sanctions and to extend the liability for overloading and other offences to all those responsible in the transport chain.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.07 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

The Hon. A. B. Manson, as Chairman, tabled Report No. 1 of the Printing Committee, dated July 1999.

Ordered to be printed.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [2.30 p.m.]: As much as the management of fisheries is important to us, we should also be concerned about the matter of justice and fairness. After reading about and researching the issue, I have a deep sympathy for the fishermen, particularly for their loss of income, occupation and lifestyle. I note that the report on fair compensation for the proposed closure of inland fisheries, which was prepared by Hales Douglas and Associates, suggests that the average compensation per fisher should be approximately $220,000. I am not convinced by the verification of the report.

However, I doubt whether the $20,000 per commercial fisher, which the Government will provide under the restructuring compensation package, would be a reasonable amount to compensate them for leaving the industry. I congratulate the Minister for Fisheries on his efforts to settle this issue amicably. After talking to the Minister, I believe that he would be willing to revisit the compensation scheme with a view to reinstating the offer of the Government that was made to the fishers in a letter dated 9 October 1998, in particular, option three. I would appreciate the Minister addressing that issue in his reply. I support the Government’s stance in this matter.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [2.34 p.m.]: The Government has a duty to manage and protect the State’s fish according to the principles of ecologically sustainable development and to protect our community-owned resources. The Government states that the aim of this regulation is to protect the declining stocks of native fish, such as the Murray cod and golden perch, by phasing out commercial fishing for those species by 1 September 2001. The major environmental problems affecting the Murray cod and golden perch populations, however, relate to the degradation of the inland river systems, not to overfishing by commercial fin fishers. OceanWatch Australia, in a letter to the Minister dated 24 June, said:

The reasons for the serious declines in inland native fin fish have repeatedly been identified to be the overuse of water, pollution, migration blockages and habitat loss.

On current estimates, the total commercial fin fish take is only 3 per cent of the total take of the species. For the true fishing pressure on these species to be adequately addressed, it is therefore vital that all fishing pressure - commercial, recreational and illegal takes - is targeted and not merely that of the commercial fin fishery. In light of these facts, this regulation on its own can at best only provide marginal environmental benefits. OceanWatch further said:

. . . the closure of the commercial fin fishery will do little for the fish in the medium to long term.

For the long-term sustainability of these species to be assured, measures must be taken to protect the species and their habitat. The Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales and the Total Environment Centre have recommended to the Minister in a letter dated 23 June that the Murray cod and golden perch should, for example, be recommended for consideration as vulnerable species under section 220O of the Fisheries Management Act 1994; and that fish habitat protection plans should be established for inland fin fish species under part 7, division 1, sections 192 and 193 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994.

While I am supportive of any Government efforts to protect our declining stocks of native fish, I am disappointed that the Minister has refused to make such recommendations. After all, it should not be left to individual crossbench members to ensure that our native fish stocks are appropriately managed and protected. This is surely the job of the Minister. However, as I do not believe that our inland fishermen should be phased out for no result, I will make a formal nomination in the next few days to the Fisheries Scientific Committee. That nomination will call for not only the Murray cod but also several other native fin fish to be considered as either vulnerable or endangered species.

Page 1804

Some of those species are likely to become endangered, while others are likely to become extinct unless the circumstances and factors threatening their survival cease to operate. Once those species are listed, however, a species recovery plan must be developed for each species and a threat abatement plan prepared for each key threatening process in order to abate, ameliorate or eliminate the adverse effects of those processes. Then, and only then, will we have any chance of ensuring the continued viability of those species.

I support the call by the Hon. Dr P. Wong for the Minister for Fisheries to again extend to fishers the original offer, which is far more generous than the current offer of $20,000. In some cases the original offer was $20,000, and in others it was much higher. Rather than giving a blanket amount of $20,000 to each fisher, compensation should be calculated on the basis of what each case deserves and warrants. It should not be calculated on an overall basis. I ask the Minister to return to the original offer and make sure that the fishers are adequately compensated.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [2.38 p.m]: I have pleasure in supporting the disallowance motion moved by my colleague the Hon. D. F. Moppett, namely, that under section 41 of the Interpretation Act 1987 this House should disallow the Fisheries Management (General) Amendment (Inland Restricted Fishery) Regulation 1999, which was tabled in this House on 11 May. I wish to refer to the substantial report of the Standing Committee on State Development into fisheries resource management and resource allocation in New South Wales, report No. 17. The committee reported that the common property nature of fisheries resources are fundamental to an understanding of the difficulties associated with the allocation of the resource in an equitable and sustainable manner.

We pointed out that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics had found that the central problem behind overexploitation and inefficient use of fisheries resources stem from an underlying problem of open access: in the absence of private property or user rights, no individual has the incentive to constrain his or her fishing activity or invest in conservation because the benefits would also be captured by other people.

The standing committee said that determining an equitable distribution of the common property resource on a sustainable basis that has the endorsement of all user groups is a major challenge for our fisheries managers. I maintain that that challenge has not been answered in respect of the issue before the House. It is important that the House disallow this regulation because it concerns the alienation of commonly owned assets from a small group of fishermen and others who have had access up until now.

A number of considerations are involved, including the conservation issue. The standing committee found that the inland fishery had been overexploited in the past, but found also that the main difficulty arises from the physical environment and not necessarily from the fishermen, as pointed out by the Hon. I. Cohen. The standing committee found that although commercial fishers overexploited the inland fishery in the past, and in some areas there is considerable pressure from recreational fisheries, the major factors contributing to the decline in freshwater fish stocks appear to be directly related to the physical environment.

The committee analysed four interrelated areas of concern: water flows, water temperature, the riparian and riverine environment, and discharges and introduced species. It does not believe the fishermen should be targeted in the way this regulation targets them. A handful of people in inland New South Wales are being targeted by the Government in regard to this matter.

As the Hon. I. Cohen said, there needs to be more research on the impact of the recreational catch in inland areas. I cannot remember if the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries bothered to attend the public hearing the standing committee held at Narrandera RSL Club, because he preferred to generally leave the work load of Government members of the standing committee to others like the Hon. J. R. Johnson.

Whilst we were in Narrandera we heard from the inland fishers group. We were impressed by their particular plight. They are few in number and do not deserve to be shot at like fish in a barrel by this Minister and this Government. As the Hon. D. F. Moppett said, there should be just terms, but they are not on offer at the moment. In fact, the offer that has been made is rather pathetic. When cross-examined by the standing committee, the Director of New South Wales Fisheries, Dr Glaister, said on the question of compensation:

You have talked about compensation. Again I say that compensation is an issue that government must face, not public servants.

He was quite right. Unfortunately, the Government has not faced up to that responsibility. At first I
Page 1805
thought that perhaps the Hon. Dr P. Wong, who raised the issue of social justice, was on the right track. However, it seems, and the committee certainly believed, that due compensation was integral to sustainable fisheries management. The committee recommended that there be adequate compensation and that such compensation packages be worked out by the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council [RACAC].

The committee believed that the relevant structural management movement in RACAC, or wherever else in the government, should be properly funded so that it could make proper decisions about adequate compensation packages for affected fishermen. The committee was rather prescient in that matter, as the last few minutes of the debate have demonstrated. It is not appropriate that one very small group of citizens of New South Wales be thrown some crumbs of just terms. They should be treated decently by the Government. I urge all honourable members to support the disallowance of this regulation.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.44 p.m.]: It makes me sad to have to speak to this disallowance motion. As a parliamentarian, I see strong lobbies make demands and legislation quickly drafted and pushed through in days or less in response to those demands. We are all kept until midnight because the industry demands it. When a strong lobby wants something the Government cannot jump fast enough.

Here we have a weak lobby of 30 fishermen who were given a sunset clause in 1983 and understood that they could continue to fish until they wished to retire from it, and they knew they could not transfer their licence to their children or to anybody else. They thought they had a deal. Of course, they were then offered another deal: "Here is some money, you are sunsetting in the year 2000," and they said, "This isn’t very good. We would rather keep going."

The Australian Democrats strongly support protection of the environment. If we believe people are exploiting the environment and causing long-term harm to Australia’s biodiversity or environment, we say, "Tough luck. For the sake of the personal gain of a few human beings you can’t wreck the rest of the ecosystem." However, the evidence is very strong in this case, and the fisheries report, "New South Wales Inland Commercial Fishery Data Analysis" of Reid Harris and Chapman, released in December 1997, states basically that there is not enough data to say what is happening. The recommendation at the end of the summary states:

That the paucity of data for the recreational patch of inland species be redressed; that more detailed, daily records of commercial captures and effort be collected and a sampling program for lengths/ages and other required biological information be undertaken, particularly for Murray cod and golden perch, in order to ascertain the status of inland fish in the currently fished areas of the Murray-Darling.

Elsewhere the report states:

Operation of the commercial fishery has been contentious because of perceived resource conflicts with anglers, but the basis for these conflicts is uncertain, and the commercial fishery has the potential to provide valuable monitoring data on the status of fish stocks.

. . . the study indicates the potential usefulness of the commercial data as a measure of the well-being of the ecosystem that supports the fishery.

The report continues:

The ICF dataset is the only available information of value for resource assessment in NSW inland fisheries, other than recreational datasets, which are fragmentary and relatively recent.

One estimate stated that recreational fishermen were taking 500 tonnes of Murray cod from the river and commercial or professional fishermen about 20 tonnes. If that is the case, commercial fishermen are taking 0.3 per cent, which is a tiny amount. Even 3 per cent would not make a big difference. I suggest that if the commercial fishermen are having a tiny effect, recreational fishermen are having a larger effective and the general river management of flows and pollution is having a huge effect.

It is the old story: Kick the most vulnerable and feel good about it. The Minister’s regulation seeks to establish yabby and carp fishing. It may or may not be successful. If it is, all power to the Minister; but in its negotiation there is no reason why these few commercial fishermen should have their sunset licence squashed. My colleague the Hon. Dr P. Wong said, "If the Government promises to look after the commercial fishermen, I am happy to pass the regulation." I do not believe things work that way. Departments have long memories and are very inflexible. If the Government does not fix things before the regulation is passed its platitudes will not be believed in the medium term.

The only way we can make sure that this happens is by disallowing the regulation. The Minister’s plan - and I am not sure of its merits - to issue licenses to fish for yabbies and carp may be perfectly reasonable, but why have these people not been better looked after as part of this plan? I do not believe it would be beyond the wit of a department, or even of the Minister, to negotiate a fairer deal. It
Page 1806
bothers me when we say, "They are only little people, there are only 30 of them; we will squash them flat, we will kick them out. They are a stone in the shoe of progress. It doesn’t matter."

If this Parliament takes the view that people do not matter because they are not powerful, but at the same time take the view that if the lobby is powerful enough no stone must be left unturned to give it what it wants, it is a poor show for democracy in New South Wales. It is almost impossible to get rid of by-catch because one cannot have a net that catches only one sort of fish. I suspect that is a problem in all sorts of fisheries - in the sea as well as inland fisheries.

The inspection service for inland fisheries probably needs to be bolstered, given the level of four-wheel drive access, which was also mentioned in some of the reports. It is time we had more inspectors. It seems to me that we have people with a high level of understanding of the factors involved in fishing, and a lot of experience of where the fish are. So there is a lot of opportunity to offer the fishers some sort of alternative package.

The Minister said that if positions were created for inspectors it would be a matter for the Independent Commission Against Corruption. But there must be a way in which people with a lot of experience and knowledge in this area could be incorporated in a change that would be beneficial to them and deliver justice to them in a sunset industry. Such a move would also assist the department to look after rivers in the medium and long term.

It is with regret that I will vote against the regulation, because I think the Minister is making a genuine attempt to deal with fish problems in inland rivers. Perhaps part of the problem relates to the current drought. I am disappointed that his department has been unable to negotiate justice. It is caught between social justice and a quasi-environmental concern; although, I am not sure that it is a real environmental concern for this small number of fishermen and their small catches. I will support the fishermen and vote to disallow the regulation.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [2.52 p.m.]: I support the disallowance motion moved by my colleague the Hon. D. F. Moppett, who has shown a continuous and abiding interest in fisheries. From my experience serving on the Standing Committee on State Development and its inquiry into fisheries, which I am sure the Hon. J. R. Johnson will remember vividly, I am aware that this matter was the subject of a hearing in Narrandera. We had fishermen before us and we asked questions of Dr Glaister and the ministry. I am not sure whether the Minister attended that public hearing, but he was present at many of them.

We investigated the department and asked the Minister for Fisheries various questions. I am astonished and surprised that this matter has to be raised again. It is a pretty well-regulated fishery with a sunset clause, which means that none of the current fishermen can sell their licences. When the last fishermen can no longer fish the commercial fishery will die.

I may even support the continuation of the fishery past that date if there is good evidence to do so. The inquiry by Reid, Harris and Chapman did not support a closure of the fishery, but left in place the older 1983 sunset clause. Mr Reid is head of the Health Department and has acted as a major consultant on resources for both this Government and the previous Liberal-National Party Government. At that time his consultancy business was regarded as successful in getting contracts not just here, but also from the Federal Parliament.

Last October the Minister offered to buy out some of the fishers, and some of them took him up on that offer. But the remaining 33 did not. Instead of maintaining the status quo, the Minister dropped the price at which he was prepared to buy them out. He put a great deal of pressure on them. Given the power imbalance between the inland fishermen from western New South Wales and the Minister with his department behind him, I thought it was a little rich.

However, this Parliament is concerned about the resources. I am aware that fishers fish about 5 per cent of the river; they take a tiny per cent of Murray cod out of the river and the inland waterways generally. I am also aware that over the border, South Australia has a major commercial Murray cod fishery that will continue, with no sunset clause. The fishery, on all of the evidence, is doing little harm and the catch is relatively constant.

Fishing is an important tourism and food resource. It is also important for fishermen to check on the river and what recreational fishermen are doing. I urge the Minister and his department to reread the transcript of evidence given at Narrandera. The Minister should be concerned at the way in which his department is urging him to pursue this course.

During the election campaign I was astonished when I came to Sydney to discover that the Minister was still pumping out regulations about fisheries
Page 1807
after the House had risen, knowing that the House would be prorogued, thinking that it would be done fairly quietly and that no-one would notice. But people do notice. I urge the Minister to reconsider this matter and have another good think about it before he and his department continue down this path.

During the fishery inquiry we heard evidence about a person who had conducted a survey over 3½ days and could find only 1½ fish. That simply could not be the case when one considers the number of fish that come out of the river. The size and weight of the catch has been constant since the 1960s. I cannot believe that the commercial fishery activity is detrimental to the species.

During the inquiry we found an enormous keenness by all members of the community to try to do something about the impact of the large number of interruptions to the river on the breeding of these fish. We recommended to the Government and the Fisheries Department that they produce more fish bypass operations and more fish elevators. We also recommended that real action be taken to support the quality of the water and therefore the habitat for the fish, which probably has a large impact on the fishery both commercially and recreationally.

Fishing is extremely important to tourism in New South Wales and the quality of life of those who are attracted to live in country New South Wales. Country communities need activities to keep them off the street, away from television and out of politics; something that they can do after hours that is relatively harmless to the environment. So long as the Minister keeps a close watch on how many fish are taken, that will be the case. People should be able to enjoy fishing. But they should not fish rapaciously, nor should they on-sell commercially anything they catch.

We must ensure that we have adequate fisheries inspectors and that they are adequately resourced to do their jobs as they relate to commercial and recreational fishers. The Minister has considerable resources at his disposal. I know that the breeding and release of these fish is of some interest to him. The information we have to date is that about 580 tonnes of Murray cod are taken each year by recreational fishers. The amount taken by commercial fishers is of the order of 20 tonnes. They are both large catches, and the figures have been relatively constant over the years.

The Minister should apply his mind to the nature of the river, the nature of the water and the ability to protect fish in the breeding areas. I urge honourable members to support the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. D. F. Moppett: to ensure that this fishery continues in a responsible manner and to ensure that these fishers, who earn their livelihood from this fishery, are not cut off in their prime, with only a poor compensation offer from the Minister.

Another option is for the commercial fishers to move to carp and yabby fishing. When the Minister can determine that there is a market for carp and that it is worthwhile for the fishermen to transfer to carp fisheries, that will be terrific for all of us and for the river. I understand that carp go upstream and are caught, but not in the river - they are only in the river during flood times; at other times they are in small creeks, where they do damage in terms of turbidity and the way they stir up the riverbed. At present there is no commercial sale of or successful commercial operation for carp.

I urge the Minister to reconsider his position and to enter into negotiations with the commercial fishermen. The previous Minister for Fisheries would not negotiate with them, but I understand that this Minister for Fisheries has had discussions with them. I urge the Minister to enter further discussions in a kindly and thoughtful way to resolve the issue between his department and these fishers in a way that is both equitable and good for the people of New South Wales.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.01 p.m.]: In speaking to the disallowance motion moved by the Hon. D. F. Moppett, I am not sure whether all honourable members have seen the regulation to which the motion refers. The regulation at the centre of this debate - the Minister should clarify this in his speech - simply deals with a new restricted fishery. The regulation states:

The object of this Regulation is to declare a new restricted fishery. The restricted fishery, to be known as the inland restricted fishery, consists of the following:

(a) the taking of yabbies for sale from inland waters,

(b) the taking of carp for sale from inland waters,

(c) the taking of native finfish for sale from inland waters.

If a fishery is a restricted fishery, a person may take fish for sale in the fishery only if the person is authorised, by means of an endorsement on his or her commercial fishing licence, to take fish for sale in the fishery. This Regulation provides for different classes of endorsement in the restricted fishery, eligibility for an endorsement, the grounds on which the Minister may refuse to issue an endorsement or suspend or cancel an endorsement, transferability and other matters relating to endorsements.

Page 1808

The impression has been given that disallowing the regulation will enable commercial fishermen to continue fishing for native fin fish in inland waters indefinitely, but that is not the case.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Only until 2001.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: As the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti says, they can fish only until 2001. The Minister has used his power to issue a notification under section 8 relating to the inclusion of inland fishing by commercial fishermen for native fin fish. The Government Gazette of 6 November 1998 states:

I, BOB MARTIN, prohibit the taking of freshwater native finfish . . . This prohibition will take effect on 1 September 2001 and be effective for a period of five years.

This disallowance motion has nothing to do with the future of commercial fishermen who fish inland waters. There is an underlying tension in this debate because of the future of the commercial fishermen remaining in the industry. The number of individuals is not large; it could be 35, or even less because a number of them have agreed to take up endorsements and so on. I am not suggesting that they are unimportant because there are so few of them. I am simply stating that as a fact.

The number of commercial fishermen involved is relevant because rather than continue as commercial fishermen they may wish to transfer to carp or yabby fishing - in many places yabby habitats are created by artificial dams; not all the fishermen involved are old - but they are concerned about what compensation they will receive under the terms of the notification if they decide not to participate in the industry after 1 September 2001. The Government has offered a compensation package. Because of the controversy surrounding compensation packages, such offers sometimes lapse simply during the passage of time.

If the disallowance motion is defeated, I ask the Minister to give an assurance, in the spirit of goodwill, that he will seriously take up the question of compensation for those fishermen who require it. Other fishermen may wish to stay in the industry after 2001 but move into other areas such as yabbies and carp. Other members of the crossbench and I have had discussions with the Minister, who has indicated at least some sympathy for those who may not wish to stay in the industry. However, we need a bit more on the record to assist us in this debate.

Although the motion to disallow the regulation and the offer of compensation are two separate matters, they overlap. An assurance from the Minister would help honourable members to deal with this disallowance motion. If the issue of compensation is separated from the disallowance motion, the regulation should proceed. If it does not proceed, the opportunities for commercial fishermen will be reduced in the future. There will not be an inland restricted fishery program; we do not want to stop that program from proceeding. The program should be expanded to provide every opportunity to commercial fishermen to continue their industry in New South Wales, as apparently happens in the other States.

If the Minister gives an assurance in more concrete terminology rather than just sympathy, it will be possible for us not to support the disallowance motion but to allow the new restricted fishery to get under way. The Government has promised to invest a large amount of taxpayers’ money - about $1 million - to develop a specific industry that affects a small number of people. I congratulate the Government on that plan, which is part of this regulation. The dilemma is that if the House disallows the regulation it will torpedo the new restricted fishery and do nothing for inland fishermen.

As I said earlier, it would help if the Government gave an assurance of compensation. Although that is a secondary issue, both issues overlapped during the debate. I ask the Government to consider compensation so that members can vote on the disallowance of the regulation and the Government can proceed to set up the inland restricted fishery.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [3.09 p.m.]: I sincerely thank Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile for taking the theatre out of this issue.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I never raised my voice once.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I recognise the contribution made by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. This disallowance motion by the Opposition is not about helping the fishermen; it does not advance the cause of providing assistance to fishermen one iota.

[Interruption]

Page 1809

I heard the Hon. I. Cohen in silence, and he should return the courtesy. I ask honourable members to bear with me. This is an issue about resources. I am not playing a game of commercial fishers versus recreational fishers. There is no hard data except the catch records of the commercial fishers that have been supplied to my department, and they indicate the quantities that are being taken out of the fisheries. I repeat: the issue is resources.

I can only work from scientific data, and that is the real issue. I have been supplied with scientific data. My predecessor had a survey conducted in 1996. That is a matter of public record and it is available to all honourable members. The title of the report is "Fish and Rivers Under Stress".

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It has been substantially debunked.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: That is fine. I do not want to canvass the history of the sunset clause in 1983. The previous Coalition Government was in office from 1988 to 1995 yet did nothing about repealing the sunset clause.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Because the industry didn’t ask us to. What is the use of saying that now?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The honourable member is very gracious, but his previous Coalition Government never cared about the resource.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Of course we did.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: It was this Government that had the survey done to assess exactly what the situation was with the resource. The previous Coalition Government, of which the Hon. D. F. Moppett was a member, never did anything to help the fishers or to find out what the resource was facing.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: You’re absolutely incorrect. The seasonal conditions did not coincide with the time you are talking about.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The honourable member should let me continue. What saddens me very much is that the honourable member is trying to give the impression that this Government is not compassionate and does not care about the welfare of the fishers. I reject that. I am compassionate, and so is the Government. This Government would be compassionate towards, and would provide assistance to, any small business person, whether that person is a fisher with an income of $5,000 or $5 million.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: We don’t want slogans and platitudes; we want action.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The honourable member is speaking from the tail of his pants. He has not understood what the survey was about. I can only react to what is presented to me as scientific evidence. This disallowance motion does not help the fishers or their quest for compensation. I have an open-door policy in relation to fishermen, and they have come to see me twice. They did not raise the issue of compensation in any way whatsoever, except for the sector that had either a history of small catches valued at between $5,000 and $7,000 or no substantial catch history.

The fishers approached me on behalf of elderly people who had missed out on taking up one of the options, and asked for their case to be reconsidered. I reopened that option for people in the category of gross income valued at $5,000 or $6,000 for the year. Let us not be confused about what was offered.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile put his finger right on the issue. The offer of one year’s gross income averaged over five years was open to all 39 fishermen to accept at any time and then leave the industry. They could have continued to fish until September 2001 and then gradually phased out their operations, irrespective of the level of their income, or they could have accepted the option of receiving a transferable licence and going into another section of the fishing industry, namely, carp and yabbies. That would have allowed them to continue to fish and they would have received a $10,000 ex-gratia payment for their equipment.

I will not delve into the reasons why they did not take up that option. I have a chart that tells me exactly what the gross average income of each of those 39 fishers would have been. It shows that the income would have ranged from zero per year to the maximum of $145,000 as an average gross turnover over five years. The top of the scale would have applied to the maximum income to receive $145,000 under one of the options. Some of the fishers took it, and others did not.

We are now faced with having to consider what this disallowance motion is all about. The Opposition is doing exactly what Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said. It is moving to disallow this regulation in an attempt to manage the carp and
Page 1810
yabby industry. The big problem in our rivers system is carp. This Government is spending $1 million to develop a carp industry that will be commercially viable. I am not suggesting to commercial fishers that they will be able to walk into this industry tomorrow and earn the same income in the future as they have been able to earn in the past, but I must act in the best interests of the resource and the community as a whole.

This Government is doing something about the industry. Not only did the Government commission the report to assess the resource, it also offered compensation. The Government did not have to make that offer, but I suggest it would be remiss of any government not to offer compensation for fishermen who have no transferable licence and to whom the sunset clause applied. This Government offered them three alternatives.

I wish to examine the real issue underlying this debate. From the time I was given administration of this portfolio, I have kept my door open. The first request I received was from fishermen who wanted to see me, but they are yet to talk to me about compensation. When people such as the Hon. D. F. Moppett delude them into thinking he can fix their problem by disallowing this regulation, he is preying on their emotions. He is feeding those people the wrong line.

I invite the Hon. D. F. Moppett and the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner to come to my office and discuss the type of compensation package that this Government can offer the fishers. That has never been the case, and what the Hon. D. F. Moppett is doing is denying me the management tools that will create a restricted fishery for carp and yabbies.

Of the 39 fishers who received an offer, some took up the option to transfer to the carp and yabby sector. I cannot put regulations in place to manage that fishery because members opposite have consistently moved to disallow regulations that really mean nothing. I suggest that members opposite should stop engaging in theatre. These people need help. I am happy to help them and I do not need advice from members opposite.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Do you call this help?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: When the fishermen and their organisation use the proper principles of negotiation instead of sending writs and claims from their lawyers seeking $40 million compensation, discussions can commence. My door is open.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They met with you in April.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I have spoken to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Dr P. Wong. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans has the goods and services tax and motor accident compensation on his mind. He is confused with green slips and whether a goods and services tax will apply to finger-licking good chicken, and he does not listen. Not one member of the Opposition or the crossbench, except Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, the Hon. Dr P. Wong and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, has spoken to me about compensation for these people. I have had not one approach. The Hon. I. Cohen, the green of Greens, fails to look at what has happened to the resource. This is not about taking away someone’s livelihood. The Hon. I. Cohen and his Green movement should be ashamed.

The Hon. I. Cohen: I asked you about compensation for the fishermen and you told me you cannot get money out of the Treasury.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: That is absolute rubbish. The compensation issue was never raised. I said the issue was that the fishermen have to accept one fact: this fishery has been outfished, it has a section 8 on it and it will close in September 2001. I certainly do not want fishermen to lose their livelihoods or the resource to be depleted.

It is my duty and the duty of this Government to protect the resource, and that is exactly what we are doing. Nothing in this disallowance motion stops the fishery for fin fish being closed in September 2001 and the Opposition is not telling the fishers that. It is deluding them that in some way this disallowance motion will help with compensation. I say quite clearly that my first duty is to protect the resource. I have scientific evidence that the resource has been depleted.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What scientific evidence? Tell us what it is.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Why did you not challenge the report? That was the time to speak out. Why were the facts and evidence not put then? A copy of the report is available and if the Opposition was really interested in helping the fishers it would have challenged the report. This section 8 was applied last November. The Minister of the day had the power to close the fishery instantly but he phased it out until 2001 to give the fishers every opportunity to get into another industry. He offered them an ex gratia payment of one year’s gross income averaged over five years.

Page 1811

The Opposition is grandstanding in front of the fishers. It does not help their cause. The only people who have helped their cause are some sensible members of the crossbench who have been talking to me about keeping the doors open for them so that we can talk to fishermen about compensation. Those doors are open and I would like the fishermen to talk to me about issues of real concern to them, not about closing the doors on those fishermen who decided to go down the carp and yabby fishery path, and not denying them the right to continue with their futures. That is what the Opposition is doing.

I say to all members on the crossbench that this disallowance motion is not about helping the fishermen, and I am very compassionate about helping them. It is not about playing games. I want to help the fishermen get into another industry and if there is any evidence of any fishery being depleted, wherever it might be in this State, my first obligation and that of every honourable member is to protect the fish and our native habitat.

I cannot do more than offer a compensation package. That door is open. I am happy to accept a commonsense proposal from the fishermen about depletion of the fishery and why fishing must be stopped. There was a lot of play on commercial fishers versus recreational fishers. The most stringent conditions have been put on recreational fishers as to bag catch, size, when they can fish and compliance.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: How do you achieve compliance when the inspectors have run out of money for travel expenses?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Inspectors have doubled. Over seven years the former Coalition Government did nothing about this. This Government is instituting a national survey for recreational fishers, which over a year will inform the Government of the catch history of every fisherman. Yesterday I announced publicly the docketing system to comply with the deregulation of our marketing co-operatives. The Government will be able to trace from the time the fish is caught to the time it is supplied and sold. This will give the Government a good idea of the movement of the fish. [Time expired.]

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [3.24 p.m.], in reply: By any standards of commonsense and human experience, the hallmark by which people will judge whether this has been sound administration is the extent to which the industry accepts it. We acknowledge that an individual might come forward at times to protest about a common decision made on behalf of the industry - and this is only a small industry anyway - but throughout all fisheries debates in this House the evidence has clearly been that commercial fishermen are unsatisfied with the regulations and administration of their industry.

Today we have concentrated on one particular and very small industry. It has been disingenuous of subsequent speakers to say that in some way, particularly myself as the mover, we have disguised what we are trying to do. We talked about compensation and social justice, but the regulation is actually about setting up a restricted fishery for carp and yabbies. I pointed that out in my opening remarks so there should be no doubt about that. The Opposition accepts that it does not have the right to review the Minister’s decision to issue a section 8. That is the third time I have said that. The Minister should have understood that and not referred to it. The Minister wants to fob off some of the crossbenchers about the Government’s real purpose.

The Opposition acknowledges that some fishers are happy to leave the industry, whereas others wish to continue until 2001. And if the Minister were prepared to remove the section 8, others would wish to continue on in the industry. That is why the Opposition spoke about the role of commercial fishermen in the conservation area. The Opposition is not asking the Minister to revoke section 8 but in disallowing the regulation, in good faith to enter into negotiation with the industry. When the fishermen are satisfied with the offers made by the Government that will be the end of the matter. I did not go out into the community drumming up this issue or soliciting support for this disallowance. The fishers came to me, as with every other disallowance motion. They are the ones who are driving this issue.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asked me the effect of the regulation on fishermen. I explained it to him, and he will correct me if I am wrong, but when the House disallowed the regulation in relation to abalone it did not go to the heart of the matter being debated. I have an idea that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile voted with the Opposition because they understood that the only remedy and the only way that this House could express its dissatisfaction was to disallow the regulation. The Minister must also bear in mind, because he was a member of the Standing Committee on State Development, that this House expressed its dissatisfaction with the roughshod way in which the fishing industry was being dealt with by giving the committee a reference to investigate the matter. Those matters have been copiously quoted.

Page 1812

The Opposition says there has been no scientific evidence on which to base a decision. I have quoted the report to give some indication of the fluctuations that we all acknowledge exist in the case of golden and silver perch and the Murray cod, and the resilience of these species if the Government takes its responsibilities seriously and controls all those who are trying to exploit the resource. We do not want to penalise recreational fishermen but we do not want to penalise restauranteurs and others who are dependent on the product of commercial fishermen.

I was particularly concerned by our new colleague, the Hon. Dr P. Wong, who opened his remarks by talking about the critical point of social justice. I hope he still has that in mind at this stage. He said that he was concerned that somehow or another the integrity of what we were saying was being breached by the fact that some fishermen had already accepted the payout package. I say to you, Dr Wong, with the utmost respect, through you, Madam Deputy-President, that it is not a matter of concern.

As I said, there is a spectrum of fishermen - some very old, some suffering from the pressure that has been applied to them to make a decision. These are bush fellows. They live half their lives out in the bush doing what they have learnt to do, doing what they want to continue to do. They are not lawyers. They do not understand how to deal with the bureaucracy. They have made a personal decision to quit. I have no problem with that; I am hopeful that they are satisfied with their deal. But I can assure the Hon. Dr P. Wong that there are many fishermen who are dissatisfied. All they are asking us to do is put a stay on proceedings.

On previous occasions the Minister has said that delay would disrupt the whole orderly regulation of the fishing industry. On one occasion we were warned that hoards of boats from China would come down and take all the fish out of the waters of New South Wales. On another occasion we were told that fees would not be able to be drawn from the industry to pay for vital functions. All those claims proved to be fatuous.

The Minister said that his doors are open. I do not know what the point of the doors being opened is; the point is that you have to be able to get in and you have to be able to get a result out. But I will take on good faith that the Minister will enter into negotiations with the fishermen. If we hear that those negotiations have been to the satisfaction of this small group of people that have been disempowered through section 8 of the Fisheries Management Act, we will allow the regulation to go through. There can be no doubt about it: Our strategy is transparent. I believe that the Minister has been far more devious than he has been prepared to acknowledge this afternoon.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Mr Harwin
Mr Bull Mr Lynn
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Oldfield
Mr Cohen Dr Pezzutti
Mr Corbett Ms Rhiannon
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner Tellers,
Mr Gay Mr Jobling
Mr Hannaford Mr Moppett

Mr Della Bosca Mr Obeid
Mr Dyer Ms Saffin
Mr Egan Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Hatzistergos Mr Shaw
Mr Johnson Ms Tebbutt
Mr M. I. Jones Mr Tingle
Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Tsang
Mr Kelly Dr Wong
Mr Macdonald Tellers,
Mrs Nile Mr Manson
Rev. Nile Mr Primrose

Mr Samios Ms Burnswoods

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Assent to the following bills reported:

Racing Administration Amendment Bill
Road Transport (General) Bill
Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Bill

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.40 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Page 1813

There are a few preliminary matters I want to mention. It is appropriate that the House should deal expeditiously with this bill. I acknowledge the co-operation of the Opposition in relation to the processing of the bill. One technical matter was raised with me by the Law Society, and I will respond to that technical point. The Law Society apparently suggests that the bill should also provide that orders made, or directions given, in Federal Court proceedings which are transferred to the Supreme Court are to be taken to be orders or directions of the Supreme Court.

This matter has been discussed with the Parliamentary Counsel in the absence of the Solicitor General. It is noted that in relation to the transfer of proceedings, the mechanism established by the bill under clause 11 requires, first, that the Federal Court determine that it does not have jurisdiction to determine a proceeding in a State matter. Second, a party to that proceeding will apply to the Supreme Court for an order that the proceeding be treated as a proceeding of the Supreme Court. Third, that the Supreme Court make the order.

In relation to such orders, the Supreme Court is given power under clause 11 (4) of the bill to make such ancillary orders as it considers necessary for the purposes of the proceeding becoming and being recorded as a proceeding of the court. It is the view of the Parliamentary Counsel that the bill does not require a further provision along the lines suggested by the Law Society.

The broad power given to the court by clause 11 (4) has been included in the bill to enable the Supreme Court, when making an order that a former Federal Court proceeding be treated as a proceeding of the Supreme Court, to address the circumstances of each particular case and to make other appropriate orders, for example, as to evidence already received by the Federal Court where necessary. I have attempted to deal with the technical point raised by the Law Society. The Government remains satisfied that the bill adequately addresses that point on all the advice it has. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Bill is introduced as a matter of urgency arising from the determination of the High Court that State parliaments cannot effectively confer State jurisdiction on Federal courts and that the Commonwealth Parliament is not able to consent to the conferral of State jurisdiction on Federal courts. The main purposes of the bill are to provide that certain decisions of a Federal court in relation to State matters are taken to be judgments of the Supreme Court; to provide for the transfer to the Supreme Court of current proceedings in Federal courts in relation to State matters; and to enable State courts to deal with matters that arise under applied law schemes and that would otherwise have been dealt with by a Federal court.

On 17 June 1999 the High Court handed down its decisions in the matters of Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally, Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall, and Re Brown; Ex parte Amman, which considered the validity of certain provisions of the Commonwealth Corporations Act 1989 and the Commonwealth Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 that provide for the cross-vesting of jurisdiction between Federal, State and Territory courts. The majority of the High Court determined that the vesting of State jurisdiction in Federal courts is ineffective. The effect of the court’s decisions is to invalidate decisions previously made by the Federal Court and the Family Court relying purely on cross-vesting arrangements and to prevent the further exercise of such jurisdiction by those Federal courts. The cross-vesting of jurisdiction between State and State, and State and Territory courts is not affected.

The High Court’s decisions impact on the general cross-vesting scheme introduced by the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 under which State and Federal courts have reciprocal jurisdiction. Also the jurisdiction of the Federal Court under the Corporations Law, which operates throughout Australia as State and Territory law, is reliant on cross-vesting arrangements. In addition, some other State laws, in general laws associated with Commonwealth-State co-operative schemes, apply certain Federal laws as State law and also confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court. These co-operative schemes include the agriculture and veterinary chemicals scheme, competition policy scheme, gas pipeline scheme, National Crime Authority scheme and the therapeutic goods regime.

The Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Bill primarily deals with decisions of Federal courts made under various schemes enacted under State laws which, following the High Court’s determination, have been rendered ineffective. The existing schemes will continue to apply to the courts referred to in them, except Federal courts to the extent that the laws establishing the existing schemes are incapable of applying to Federal courts. The bill has been prepared through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, in conjunction with the Special Committee of Solicitors General and the Parliamentary Counsel’s Committee, as a model which all States will follow.

The bill declares that the rights and liabilities under a current judgment of the Federal Court or Family Court, including current judgments of the full Federal Court or the full court of the Family Court of Australia, in the purported exercise of State jurisdiction, are the same as if it had been a valid judgment given by the Supreme Court. The bill specifically provides that such rights and liabilities are exercisable and enforceable as if they were rights and liabilities under judgments of the Supreme Court. Similarly, any acts or omissions in relation to such rights and liabilities are taken to have the same effect and consequences as if occurring under a judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is also given power to vary or otherwise deal with any such rights and liabilities.

In addition, the bill provides a mechanism for the transfer to the Supreme Court of current proceedings in Federal courts relating to State matters where a Federal court determines that

Page 1814
it has no jurisdiction to hear the State matters. The bill makes consequential amendments to the Competition Policy Reform (NSW) Act 1995 arising from the High Court’s determination that the Federal courts cannot exercise cross-vested State jurisdiction, as it is intended that State courts will now exercise jurisdiction under the competition code. The bill also enables regulations to be made in connection with matters arising under the proposed Act. In particular, as an interim measure, regulations may be made in connection with applied law regimes for the purpose of enabling jurisdiction conferred on a Federal court by State legislation to be exercised by a State court. Regulations may also be made to validate matters arising from or ancillary to ineffective judgments of Federal courts. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [3.43 p.m.]: I support the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Bill. I note that this legislation has become necessary as a result of a determination of the High Court on 17 June this year to the effect that State parliaments are not able to confer State jurisdiction on Federal Courts, that is, in this case, the Federal Court or the Family Court, and consequently that the Commonwealth Parliament is not able to consent to the conferral of State jurisdiction on Federal courts.

Between 1983 and 1985, a former member of this House, the late honourable Sir Adrian Solomons and I belonged to what was known as the judicature committee of the Australian Constitutional Convention. That body examined in detail - between a constitutional convention held in Adelaide in 1983, at which Sir Adrian and I were both delegates, and another convention held in Brisbane in 1985 - the question of what could be done about this jurisdictional problem.

It clearly is true to say that for a long time there has been a jurisdictional problem arising out of the exercise of Federal jurisdiction. The problem has come more sharply into focus and has worsened in recent years as Commonwealth legislation has expanded into new fields. In particular, I note that trade practices, consumer protection and family law are fields in which Commonwealth jurisdiction has increased. It is a truism to say that the affairs of individuals, and even more the affairs of corporations, cannot readily be confined within the jurisdictional boundaries of a State or Territory.

That means that litigation, where it occurs, may not necessarily be disposed of and determined in either a Federal court or a State court, as the case may be, which leads to a multiplicity of proceedings. It is, to say the least, very inconvenient if parties cannot litigate in the one court all issues of controversy between them. The Australian Constitutional Convention, via the judicature committee to which I have just referred, gave a lot of attention between 1983 and 1985 to the means to deal with this problem.

The committee spent a lot of time travelling around the country to each State capital to talk to judges of superior courts, including chief justices, regarding a model of courts that would deal with the problem. I note that as long ago as 1935 Sir Owen Dixon who could be described as a demigod in the common law world, wrote for the Law Quarterly Review a paper entitled "The law and the constitution". He stated:

. . . it would appear natural to endeavour to establish the Courts of justice as independent organs which were neither Commonwealth nor State. The basis of the system is the supremacy of the law. The Courts administering the law should all derive an independent existence and authority from the Constitution. Some practical difficulties would occur in carrying such a principle beyond the superior Courts, but it is not easy to see why the entire system of superior Courts should not have been organized and erected under the Constitution to administer the total content of the law.

More recently, in 1977, Sir Garfield Barwick dealt with this matter in an address entitled "The State of the Australian Judicature" at the nineteenth Australian Legal Convention in Sydney. His Honour’s remarks are reported in the Australian Law Journal of 1977 as follows:

Sir Garfield proposed that the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia might be extended to embrace both the whole area of federal jurisdiction and also appellate work which involves State law. Appellate facilities in the State courts, other than from the inferior courts, would be dispensed with.

In January 1982 at a conference of Supreme Court judges in Sydney the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Sir Francis Burt, developed the proposal by Sir Garfield Barwick in some detail. To summarise briefly, Sir Francis Burt proposed that the High Court would be at the apex of the judicial system. Beneath the High Court there would be an Australian Court of Appeal which would have a general appellate jurisdiction to entertain appeals from the Supreme Courts of each State and Territory.

Those courts would have unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction in all matters without identity of the law-maker - that is, they would without qualification be invested with Federal and State trial jurisdiction. Inferior courts would be invested with Federal jurisdiction within their general limits of jurisdiction. There would be an appeal as of right from all final judgments of the Supreme Court to the Australian Court of Appeal. The Supreme Courts would have no appellate jurisdiction from their own judgments.

Each Supreme Court would be administratively organised into such divisions as would be necessary
Page 1815
depending upon the size of the court and the demands of business. The present structure of inferior courts, such as District Courts or Local Courts, beneath State Supreme Courts would remain in existence. The High Court and the Australian Court of Appeal would each be a Federal Court. Each would be financed by the Commonwealth and its judges would hold Commonwealth commissions. All courts beneath this court would be State courts financed by the States, and the judges of those courts would hold State commissions.

Sir Frances Burt’s proposals were extremely detailed. As I adverted to briefly, the judicature committee travelled around Australia canvassing opinion largely on the model developed by Sir Frances Burt. However, it must be said that eventually the task appeared to become too difficult to resolve quickly. Therefore the view was taken that the solution to this Federal-State jurisdictional problem lay in cross-vesting jurisdiction as between Federal and State courts. That was recommended to and adopted by the Australian Constitutional Convention. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General took up the issue. The committee endorsed cross-vesting proposals, and the Federal and State parliaments subsequently enacted the necessary legislation to give effect to the scheme.

It is true to say that the High Court of Australia some time ago upheld the legislative scheme for cross-vesting. I do not wish to engage in an attack on the High Court, however, regrettably, due to a change in the composition of the court, the High Court reconsidered its earlier decision and struck down the cross-vesting scheme so far as it involved State courts investing Federal courts with jurisdiction in regard to State matters. That has led to an unfortunate situation which the bill is designed to rectify.

This is only a temporary measure. Given that the High Court has decided in the way that it has recently, it would seem that the matter can only be cured by one of two means: a constitutional amendment or a reference of power under the Constitution by the States and Territories to the Commonwealth. With regard to the latter alternative, I believe that would be less than likely, in that some jurisdictions might not agree to that. So one probably has to rely on the hope that the Constitution can be amended to deal with this problem.

Whether such a referendum can be carried remains to be seen. I imagine that the general electorate would find the subject matter of the constitutional change stupefyingly boring. Whether that means that the proposition would be carried or defeated is perhaps not for me to say. However, I would hope that the electorate could be persuaded that this is a sensible, perhaps mechanistic alteration of the Constitution which ought to be supported. I support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.54 p.m.]: The Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Bill is a pro forma type bill, which it is necessary for this House to pass since the High Court held that State parliaments are not able to confer State jurisdiction on Federal courts - that is, the Federal Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia - and that the Commonwealth Parliament is able neither to confer nor to consent to the conferral of State jurisdiction on Federal courts.

The decision of the High Court has serious implications not only for the cross-vesting schemes - where provision is made for the cross-vesting of jurisdiction in a wide range of cases and specifically under the Corporations Law, and under which State jurisdiction has been conferred on the Federal Court and the Family Court - but also for certain of the applied law schemes, where laws of another jurisdiction are applied as State law, and under which State jurisdiction has been conferred on the Federal Court. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill, the objects of which are:

(a) to provide that existing ineffective judgments of a federal court in the purported exercise of State jurisdiction are taken to be judgments of the Supreme Court, and

(b) to provide for the transfer of current proceedings before a federal court in relation to State matters to the Supreme Court, and

(c) to enable State courts to deal with matters that arise under applied law schemes and that would otherwise have been dealt with by a federal court.

The problem with the legislation because of the High Court’s decision is that the High Court is looking at the matter of the Commonwealth Constitution. As honourable members would be aware, the States existed before the Commonwealth and were Sovereign States that emerged from the colonial situation. All the powers, except those that the States transferred to the new Federal Parliament, which started in 1901, remained with the States. As we know, family law matters have always come under the State Governments. However, it was thought that they could be handled by the Federal Court and/or the Family Court.

The High Court’s ruling is a serious ruling, but obviously it is correct. However, it highlights for
Page 1816
this Parliament and the State of New South Wales the importance of ensuring that, in spite of the State’s willingness to co-operate with the Commonwealth and other States, it should always seriously consider the implications of giving up the powers that it has. It may be that, in spite of being part of the Commonwealth, the State should be reluctant to relinquish those powers to the Commonwealth, so that this Parliament still has a role to play. If we were to transfer all the powers to the Federal Parliament - which would be an extreme position - there would be no point in having a State Parliament.

The Commonwealth should be restricted to limited areas. I believe in devolution of power, to return to the States some of the powers that the Commonwealth has been gradually accumulating. The States could then transfer as many of those powers as possible to local government, which would ensure that the governing body is close to the people. With the governing body based in Canberra, it seems that the politicians easily get out of touch with the wider community. In a sense, I support the High Court’s decision in this matter.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD [3.59 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Bill. As the Hon. R. D. Dyer indicated, the bill is an interim provision to deal with the issues that arise from the Wakim case and other cases before the High Court. At the time when I heard of the High Court’s decision I was appalled that the court had decided to terminate the cross-vesting arrangements that had been put in place. On reading that decision one can see the logical nature of the approach. It is clear that the Commonwealth’s legal advisers originally believed that there was a problem in this area, because section 9 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act indicates that the Commonwealth was expressing its consent to the conferring of power on Federal courts.

My political instinct, as distinct from my legal instinct, is that the Commonwealth drafted its unusual provision in that way after receiving advice that there was a problem and used that wording as a compromise. I use the word "compromise" advisedly, because the Corporations Law was developed as a Federal scheme with the States not ceding authority to the Commonwealth. That decision was the result of significant debate at that time. The Commonwealth wanted powers ceded to it so that Federal Court control would be beyond question. All State governments have had to pursue this legislation as an interim measure. The Hon. R. D. Dyer said that there are two alternative measures. I say there is a third option.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer outlined a constitutional amendment, or a ceding of powers to the Commonwealth, as the immediate and obvious solution. I do not have the slightest doubt that the Commonwealth wants powers ceded to it, for that has been its traditional approach. I have no doubt that in the first round of discussions by the Attorneys General that will be the first and foremost issue to be considered.

The Commonwealth will contend that the easiest way out of this would be to cede powers and thus avoid the need for a referendum. However, I agree with Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile that ceding should be the last option. I do not agree that it is necessary to have a referendum, because the Commonwealth could legislate to give State courts jurisdiction to deal with this matter. I ask the Commonwealth, when giving the States that jurisdiction, to also give them the financial resources needed to administer the courts. In the past that has not occurred.

The Commonwealth has consistently maintained that that funding was taken up during negotiations about global funding when the cake was divided decades ago, and should not be taken into account now. I indicate that the Opposition would support an identification of the cost of servicing the State’s courts to meet Federal jurisdiction and that the Commonwealth should fully fund that service. Honourable members may recall that when I was Attorney General my department and Treasury carried out a costing of administering State courts for the benefit of the Commonwealth. The States now have the trigger to revisit those costs and to indicate that there should be an agreement between the States and the Commonwealth that the States accept jurisdiction in this area and that it should be funded by the Commonwealth on a service basis.

The Act also deals with provisions under the family law jurisdiction. I am aware that the Attorney General was considering expanding the role of the Children’s Court to take over decisions on custody under the vesting arrangements. The Commonwealth has allocated funds for a Federal magistracy; those funds will be allocated to a bureaucracy, and not allocated to magistrates. The amount allocated to that bureaucracy is an outrage; that amount could very significantly expand the magistracy service in all States and meet the total needs of delivering a speedy service in the family law area.

The Coalition would be supportive of the Government if it were to further advance proposals to give family law jurisdiction to the Children’s Court. That would allow expansion of the specialist
Page 1817
Children’s Court services throughout the State, not only in Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. The costing for that is, to my recollection, is a few million dollars. That would also obviate the need for expansion of the Federal magistracy service and constitute compliance with the necessary reforms arising from the Wakim decisions.

In the interests of the people of New South Wales this proposal should be supported by both the Coalition and the Government as we move forward. I put those matters on record to assist the Government in its negotiations. The Commonwealth should fund the States to expand services to regional areas; that would be of benefit to all the people of New South Wales

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.07 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their constructive contributions to the debate. This urgent remedial legislation is necessary in light of the High Court’s decisions declaring invalid the cross-vesting legislation. In a sense is pleasing that this Parliament is the first to deal with this remedial legislation, which has been largely agreed to between the States. However, I understand that Western Australia is dealing with it this afternoon, although its time schedule is behind eastern standard time.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: We are always ahead of them.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: We are ahead of them. I understand that the Victorian Parliament may be adjourned for some months and it may take a while to catch up with this urgent measure. With the co-operation of the Opposition this Government has been able to deal with this legislation expeditiously and appropriately. As is clear from debate, this is not the ultimate solution to the problem of co-operative Federal and State litigation but it is at least a stopgap measure that will avoid inconvenience for litigants and will assist the court system. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 23 June.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD [4.10 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill, which has been the subject of review, is aimed at tidying up a number of different provisions as a result of representations that have been made to the Government. I do not need to make any significant comments about this matter. The only matter about which I make some comment - and then only for the purposes of expressing some future concern - relates to schedule 3, which amendment makes it clear that the requirements relating to service of summary briefs of evidence apply to indictable offences dealt with summarily under part 3 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act. Major concerns have been expressed about the preparation of summary briefs and the ability of police officers to prepare them within a reasonable time.

In recent times we have heard of cases being struck out because those briefs have not been prepared in time. However, that depends upon the resources available to police and upon a better interface between the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions. As this matter has been raised in this legislation, it is appropriate for me to again place on the record the Opposition’s concern about the lack of resources available to the police to enable them to prepare these summary briefs.

Pressure has been placed on police in certain area commands to get more police in the front line. When that occurs paperwork is not able to be dealt with appropriately by the police. I know that the Government had good reason for setting down a statutory time frame that was meant to provide a discipline for the justice system. However, there is good reason to believe that that time frame is too constrained. If it is, it should be amended.

However, if that time frame can be adhered to, and certain police commands are not appropriately managing their resources to ensure that adequate briefs are prepared, the matter should be looked at independently and in greater detail. The Attorney General might request the Bureau of Crimes Statistics and Research to review files in which orders have been made in relation to these matters. The Police Service and the Attorney General’s Department could agree to the Bureau of Crimes Statistics and Research undertaking a review of this area to determine whether there is a problem.

Some amendments to this legislation have been circulated by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I understand that the Government is prepared to support only the second of those two amendments, and it will place certain matters on the record in relation to them. I agree with the observations of the Government in relation to those amendments. The Coalition is happy to support only the second of the two amendments. The Greens have also circulated an amendment which seems reasonable at face value.
Page 1818
However, I understand that the Government is seeking further advice on that amendment.

There is some reluctance by defendants of an interim apprehended violence order [AVO] to consent to an interim AVO because of the impact that that may have on custody or other proceedings. Whilst we might not like it, AVO proceedings are being used as tools in custody battles and in matrimonial arrangements. Solicitors have told me that they use AVO proceedings as tools in custody and other battles. I believe that that is an inappropriate use of AVOs. I know from what solicitors in regional areas have said to me that a number of defendants fight AVOs because of their concerns about the repercussions of those orders.

I believe that the Greens’ proposal would result in a lot of interim AVOs being agreed to. Confrontation within a family setting might well be resolved by issuing an interim AVO if that interim AVO is not used in final proceedings or in family law proceedings. That use of AVOs might be beneficial. We know of the threats, harassment and confrontation that occur in emotional circumstances. As undesirable as that may be, it is human nature for people to behave in that way during an emotional trauma. Once the parties have separated and calmer minds apply they regret the inappropriate language that they used at the time.

We must encourage the making of interim AVOs to be used in settling the trauma of family separation. People in married heterosexual relationships are taking out more AVOs than are people in homosexual relationships. It is a community problem. I have sympathy with the intention of the Greens’ amendment to section 562Q.

I would be happy to hear from the Government about any difficulties in relation to this matter. We can then determine whether those difficulties should be addressed and we can look at the principle behind section 562Q. If it has the impact that it I believe it will have - if it results in more interim AVOs being issued as a tool to settle confrontations and trauma within relationships - it is something that we ought to embrace.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [4.18 p.m.]: I support the measures put forward in the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill and I commend the Government for taking a consultative approach to monitoring the operation of the criminal justice system. I note that the bill contains amendments suggested by the Law Society in relation to concerns about whether sections of the Justices Act 1902, relating to briefs of evidence, apply to indictable offences dealt with summarily by the Children’s Court.

When the courts legislation was recently debated, I referred to the Council of Civil Liberties and the criminal law committee of the Law Society, being of the view that these matters do apply. A stated expression of this in the legislation would accord with the protection of the rights of children who come into contact with the criminal justice system. In a letter dated 8 June 1999 to the President of the Law Society, the Attorney General agreed with the position taken by the criminal law committee and stated, in part:

You are correct in surmising that ss 66A-60H of the Justices Act 1902 were intended to apply to all indictable matters dealt with summarily whether by the Local Court or the Children’s Court. Of course the main purpose of the scheme was to provide for the service of briefs of evidence in summary matters. In this regard, it clearly applies to summary offences dealt with by the Children’s Court . . . it is my view that sections 66A-66H of the Justices Act apply to indictable matters dealt with summarily in the Children’s Court. However in the interests of clarity, it may be appropriate to amend section 66H(1) of the Justices Act to expressly state that the provisions on the service of evidence apply to indictable matters dealt with summarily on the Children’s Court.

I am pleased that the Government is clarifying this issue formally by way of legislation. I also endorse the amendment to the Crimes Act to clarify that offences relating to certain corrupt practices extend to members of local councils, as was suggested by the Independent Commission Against Corruption as a result of its investigations.

The other amendment to the Crimes Act relating to the issuing of interim apprehended violence orders [AVOs] by a clerk of a Local Court is sensible and should avoid the need for expensive and stressful litigation. I understand that in Committee Ms Lee Rhiannon will move an amendment to address a matter raised by the Council for Civil Liberties, which is concerned to ensure that AVOs made by consent are inadmissible in evidence before court proceedings. I support that amendment.

I will comment briefly on schedule 4 to the bill and the amendments to the Young Offenders Act. I support the intention of the provision in item [2] of schedule 4 to the bill, which will ensure that the fact that a person has been issued with a warning will not be admissible in proceedings in the Children’s Court. It was never intended that the issuing of a warning be used in evidence before the Children’s Court, despite provisions to the contrary in section 68 of the Act.

Page 1819

The need for this amendment arose from amendments to the Young Offenders Act in December 1998 which required police officers to make records in their notebooks of warnings issued to young people in the course of their duties. At the time, these amendments were greeted with alarm by children’s rights representatives and legal representatives. The Minister noted in his second reading speech on 1 December 1998 that it was not intended that this record be used for the purpose of criminal history. The Minister said:

It should be noted that, notwithstanding the recording of the young person’s name, these warnings will not be recorded for the purpose of a criminal history.

However, the current provision effectively allows the recording of warnings to be used in evidence in proceedings in the Children’s Court, and I support the intention to remove reference to warnings in this section. In Committee I will move an amendment which extends the Government’s proposal to ensure that it is not necessary for a person to disclose, when applying for certain types of employment, that he or she was issued with a warning.

Another important issue has been raised about the changes made to the Young Offenders Act in December 1998. Essentially, there is concern that the formal recording of warnings on police information systems undermines the purpose of issuing informal warnings and puts those who have been issued with warnings in a worse position than those who have been more seriously reprimanded by way of caution by a police officer. I will move an amendment to address this issue, which has been raised by the Council for Civil Liberties, the Law Society, the National Children and Youth Law Centre, the Senior Solicitor of Children’s Legal Service at the Legal Aid Commission and the Youth Justice Coalition. With those few comments, I support the legislation.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.22 p.m.]: The Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill deals with a large number of matters relating to the corrupt receipt of commissions and other corrupt practices in local government, apprehended violence orders, the issuing of summons, and ensuring that the record of an official warning given to a child cannot be tendered in criminal proceedings as part of the child’s criminal history. I note that the bill also deals with other aspects.

The legislation makes it clear that a councillor - which means any person elected or appointed to civic office, including a mayor - is considered to be an agent of the council. I assume all those who work for the council are also considered to be agents, especially having regard to the recent case at Liverpool, which involved a tendering officer, who was called Mr 10 Per Cent and who was alleged to be taking 10 per cent of all tenders. That matter has been finalised by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Are those people technically agents of the council, as are the mayors?

The bill will improve legislation dealing with offences of indecency by providing that it is an offence for a person to incite another to commit an act of indecency with or towards a person in circumstances of aggravation. That is similar to a provision in one of my private member’s bills dealing with inciting others to commit crimes against any person, whether they be male or female, people of Asian background or whatever.

The only other question I have relates to the age of consent in section 77 of the Crimes Act. The age of consent is a matter of controversy to some people. It is not controversial for me because I accept the importance of the age of consent laws. It seems repetitious for the bill to state that a child is considered to be over the age of 14 years when a child is of or above the age of 14 years. I suppose the provision relates to a child who is exactly 14 years of age.

I have always had strong reservations about that interpretation of the law. If the age of consent is 16 the person who commits an offence can claim he thought the victim was 16 when in fact she was only 14. I have always said in debates on the age of consent in this Parliament that there is a loophole of two years. People who want to reduce the age of consent will reduce it a further two years because the existing law allows that gap. When the law says the age of consent is 16 years of age it is, in effect, 14 years of age. If it is lowered to 14 years of age, it will in fact be 12 years of age.

I have always wondered why the law does not simply provide that it is an offence to commit an act of indecency against a child under the age of 16 years or under the age of 14 years, and that the offender’s opinion of the age of the victim should not help that person evade the full weight of the law.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.26 p.m.]: The Greens believe the bill is broadly positive. We do have some concerns about it, but any bill that strengthens crimes legislation in a way that assists people and brings more justice to our society is to be welcomed. The Greens had proposed an amendment relating to apprehended violence orders
Page 1820
[AVOs], but that has now been withdrawn. We understand that the matter of AVOs will be revisited in a few months in an effort to make the system work more efficiently. We welcome that and hope to have an input into the consideration of that matter.

The Greens welcome the amendment to the Young Offenders Act which prohibits the use of warning data. We oppose the formal recording of warnings under the Young Offenders Act and are deeply concerned about the further use of police-recorded warnings. We believe the provision that warnings are not to be disclosed as part of a criminal history is positive but not sufficient. We believe the provisions in this bill go some way towards bringing more justice to our society, and we look forward to continued improvements.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.27 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their constructive and interesting contributions to the debate and for their general support of the bill. In due course I will move that the House resolve itself into a Committee, and I will deal with the amendments be dealt with in that context. Broadly, the Government takes the same view as the Opposition in relation to the amendments proposed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. We note that the Greens will not proceed with their proposed amendment.

I am happy to give an undertaking that apprehended violence orders will be the subject of continuing review. I am happy to liaise with the Green members of this House - and, indeed, with any other member of this House - to obtain their input into the finetuning of the AVO system, a system that is worth defending. It does a great deal of good and protects many people. That is not to say there is not room for improvement around the edges and in some of the detail. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [4.31 p.m.]: I move my amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 9, schedule 1. Insert after line 3:

[1] Section 17 Record of warnings

Insert after section 17 (2):

(3) A record made under this section must not:

(a) be kept on any computer system maintained by the Police Service, or

(b) be given to any person or body other than:

(i) the child to whom the record relates, or

(ii) a person who is the parent, guardian or legal representative of the child.

As I noted in my contribution to the second reading debate, late last year the Government moved to allow police to record details in their notebooks of informal warnings given to young people during the course of their duties. That step was not envisaged by the Young Offenders Act when it was introduced in 1997, and concerns about it were raised by the Council for Civil Liberties, the Law Society, the National Children and Youth Law Centre, the senior solicitor of children’s legal services at Legal Aid and the Youth Justice Coalition.

The Young Offenders Act sets out a carefully formulated hierarchy of interventions based on the minimum legal intervention necessary for young people in accordance with our human rights obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. The response received bipartisan support and resulted in the introduction of a graded system whereby police interventions with young offenders ranged from an informal warning to a formal caution, and then to family conferencing, before the most potentially damaging interventions of arrest and charge for the most serious of offences committed by those aged under 18.

Therefore, warnings are the lowest and most informal intervention in the hierarchy and can be issued for behaviour as minor as making too much noise or causing a nuisance. Because of its nature, it is an informal chastisement. A young person is not required to admit to the alleged offence and no conditions are attached to the delivery of a warning by a police officer. The amendments to sections 17 and 68, which were passed last year, went against the philosophy of the Young Offenders Act by requiring that details of informal warnings be recorded by police officers in their notebooks.

The regulations subsequently provided for that information to be kept on the computerised operational policing system. That is particularly unjust because a warning can be given without a
Page 1821
person admitting to an offence, and the person does not have the right to provide what may be good reasons for his or her behaviour. My amendment attempts to address the retrograde and inappropriate step that was taken last year. The logical consequence of a recording warning is the use of it by an official, on most occasions a police officer, at a later stage against the young person. For example, a recorded warning may be used to determine whether more serious intervention should be applied to a person who has gained the attention of a police officer.

The formal and detailed record keeping of warnings in this way conflicts with the spirit and intention of the Young Offenders Act. It particularly conflicts with the requirement in section 14 (3) that a young person is not to be precluded from being given a warning merely because the child has previously committed offences or been dealt with under the Act. The same provision applies for cautions and implies that consideration should not be given to a young person’s past naughty behaviour. Therefore, each intervention must be dealt with on its own merits. The requirement for formal record keeping on police computer databases goes against this principle.

The amendment will simply ensure that while police will continue to make records of when a warning has been issued, including details such as the name and gender of the person who was warned and the time and location of the instruction, that information will not be kept on police computer databases. It will also ensure that the record of the warning will be provided only to the person to whom it applies, as well as his or her parents, guardian or legal representative. That is consistent with the Government’s intention, as stated in the second reading speech, regarding the possibility of needing to verify information about a warning in the future. As the former Minister, the Hon. R. D. Dyer, noted, having access to the record of the warning may prove crucial in establishing that an allegation made against a person is false.

Furthermore, while the Attorney General’s Office has confirmed that the record of warnings will not be disclosed as part of a young person’s criminal history, the recording and storage of that information on computer represents a secondary database that police have access to and are likely to use when making decisions about young people in their area. Abuse by police of access to personal information was well-documented in the findings of the Wood royal commission and is an issue that is central to this discussion. A database with a list of prior warnings to a person about behaviour for which the person has not even had the right to provide a defence is unjust and makes receiving a warning worse than being cautioned. A youth who is cautioned at least has the right to admit to the offence and consent to the caution being given.

This issue is made more urgent by recent evidence which suggests that police are subverting the intent of the cautioning system by arresting people for the purpose of a formal caution. That was never the intent of the Act. Figures collected by a Police Service researcher show that 6,603 cautions were issued by police throughout New South Wales between April 1998 and December 1998 and a total of 11,067 cautions were issued to March 1999. That is an extremely high number of formal interventions. If most of those formal cautions represented a diversion from arrest and charge, that might be a good thing. But there is strong evidence to suggest that those cautions represent a serious net widening and increased intervention in young people’s lives. Furthermore, the overall arrest rate has increased from 2,414 legal processes in April 1998 to 8,526 legal processes in March 1999. Since the Young Offenders Act commenced operation the arrest rate of juveniles has almost quadrupled!

Unless my amendment is passed the net will further widen to include those who have been warned. The common euphemism "Have you been in trouble with the police before?" - which used to refer to whether a person had a criminal record - may refer to whether a person’s name appears on computerised police records. I believe that is contrary to the spirit and intention of the bipartisan nature of the Young Offenders Act. I would have thought that the Government would support my amendment.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.36 p.m.]: The Greens note that this bill covers the important issue of apprehended violence orders [AVOs]. We support the AVO system and also note that the Council for Civil Liberties 1999 policy states that the AVO is a simple and accessible way for victims of domestic violence to obtain orders under circumstances where they fear violence. However, the Greens are still concerned about problems with the system which include mandatory bail and sentencing provisions, mandatory matters affecting a person’s employment, difficulties with cost, and the use of AVO allegations in other court proceedings. That concern is shared by the Council for Civil Liberties.

The Council for Civil Liberties recently wrote to the Attorney General proposing law reform to address those matters. It has now received a response from the head of the Criminal Law Review
Page 1822
Division, Andy Haessler, which states in effect that its concerns, to which I have referred, are not a major problem. The present bill, however, provides some changes. The Greens understand that the matter of AVOs will be revisited. That was confirmed by the Attorney earlier. There are many positive aspects to this bill. The facility of AVOs by consent and the creation of AVOs by a clerk of the Local Court are positive initiatives which continue the good tradition of AVOs providing some relief without the aggravation and expense of litigation.

Inadmissibility might seem obvious at first glance, as the repetition of AVO allegations in a civil or criminal matter would be mostly self-serving. However, our understanding is that allegations made in AVO proceedings are currently being used, for example, in family law custody matters. The danger of doing so is that it raises the stakes and will lead to AVO proceedings being regarded as tribunals of fact, a misconception that we and others have fought to dispel. Therefore, the Greens commend the bill as it stands on this issue but acknowledge that AVOs need to be strengthened.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.39 p.m.]: I acknowledge the comments of Ms Lee Rhiannon and understand her concern about apprehended violence orders [AVOs]. As I said in my reply in the second reading debate, I would be happy to have her input into the review process on the AVO system generally. The Government cannot accept the first amendment of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, as it would prevent police from recording the warning on any of its computer systems. It would prevent also disclosure of the record of the warning to any person or body other than the child to whom the record relates or the parent, guardian or legal representative of the child.

Police currently record the details of a warning given to a child on the computer operated police system [COPS] main menu intelligence system. The warning is not recorded on the COPS criminal information system. This means that it does not form part of a child’s criminal history. The regulation under the Act authorises the recording of the warning on COPS. I agree that it is not appropriate for warnings to be recorded on a child’s criminal history. This is because the offence the subject of the warning need not be proven or admitted. The purpose of the bill is to make it absolutely clear that warnings are not to be included on a person’s criminal history.

However, it is important that the Government keep a record of warnings so police can have an accurate picture of all incidents affecting an individual victim. This is important for providing appropriate customer service and support. It is important also for monitoring offence patterns so that police resources can be deployed appropriately. The effective monitoring of the Young Offenders Act requires the police to keep an electronic record of warnings. Without this record it would be difficult to analyse and compare basic information about warnings - for example, how frequently warnings are given instead of cautions and charges, and for which offences warnings are issued.

It is essential that the names of persons who have been warned be recorded so that the effectiveness of warnings in preventing reoffending be assessed. Section 17 as currently drafted enables police also to properly exercise their discretion under the Young Offenders Act. The honourable member’s amendment suggests that a record of a warning can be kept by police only on pieces of paper as distinct from electronic forms. This cannot be supported. We live in a computer age; we need information on warnings to be stored electronically so that the Young Offenders Act can be properly applied and evaluated. The costs of not doing so would be significant.

The part of the amendment relating to the non-disclosure of warnings is also unnecessary. The Young Offenders Act 1997 already contains strict limitations on the ability of persons to divulge information obtained by virtue of the Act. Section 66 creates an offence of unauthorised disclosure of information. Information can only be divulged in the exercise of functions under the Act. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment, or a fine of $55,000, or both. This offence clearly applies to records of warnings.

As the amendment contains no penalty provisions, it may even be interpreted by the courts as limiting the operations of section 66. This would be clearly undesirable. The amendment may inhibit the transfer of information between government agencies. The transfer of information between agencies may be necessary to effectively monitor the Act and for child protection purposes. Therefore, we respectfully suggest that the first amendment proposed by the honourable member will not enhance the objects of the Act to establish a diversionary scheme which provides an efficient and direct response to youth offending.

Essentially the amendment is unnecessary. It would undermine the efficient monitoring of the Act
Page 1823
and protection afforded to children under the Act. The Young Offenders Act already contains strict limitations on the unauthorised disclosure of warnings. The amendment is rendered even more unnecessary in light of the Government’s foreshadowed support of the honourable member’s second amendment.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [4.43 p.m.]: The Act contains certain provisions to safeguard information. Who oversees those safeguards?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.43 p.m.): As I understand, the safeguards are prohibitions of police and other public sector officers. If it is alleged that there have been breaches of those prohibitions, they can be dealt with in two ways. First, a criminal offence could be created by the breach. I have said already that significant penalties apply when there is said to be a breach of a limitation on the ability of persons to divulge information obtained by virtue of the Young Offenders Act 1997. This could be reported to the police for enforcement. No doubt any misconduct attributed to police could be referred to the Ombudsman, who has the supervisory role of police officers.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [4.44 p.m.]: The Opposition has considered the amendments proposed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. At this stage we concur with the arguments put forward by the Government and, therefore, would oppose the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [4.45 p.m.]: I move my amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 9, schedule 4, lines 17 to 19. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

Omit "Subsection (1)" from section 68 (2). Insert instead "In so far as a caution or conference is concerned, subsection (1)".

Item [2] of schedule 4 to the bill ensures that warnings given by police officers may not be used in proceedings before the Children’s Court. While I proposed this amendment, I have received advice from the Law Society that a further point remains unaddressed. As currently drafted, section 68 requires that applicants for positions of judge, magistrate, police officer, teacher, child-care provider or firefighter, among other occupations, must disclose whether they were warned by a police officer when under the age of 18 years.

Given that a young person to whom a warning is given is not required to admit the alleged offence and no conditions are attached to the delivery of a warning, this seems unjust and excessive. Therefore, this amendment provides that if a person was warned by a police officer as a youth, that fact need not be disclosed if a person applies for employment as a judicial, police or corrective services officer, teacher, teacher aide, child-care provider, or firefighter. Nor will a warning be used as evidence against a young person in a hearing before the Children’s Court as the bill currently provides.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.46 p.m.]: The Government accepts this amendment. It acknowledges the honourable member’s contribution to improving the legislation. This amendment prevents a person who has been subject to a warning from disclosing that fact when applying for employment in certain occupations. As the offence to which the warning relates need not be proven or admitted, there is no real basis for requiring disclosure of that warning for employment purposes. Furthermore, employment in these positions would generally occur some significant time after the warning was given.

This amendment is consistent with the purpose behind the amendment to the Young Offenders Act, which is contained in the bill. This purpose is to ensure that a warning will not unfairly prejudice the child to whom it has been given. The Government has no objection to the use of warnings being limited in this way. We acknowledge, as we apprehended, the Opposition’s agreement to the amendment. It provides an example of legislation being improved by the dialectical process, the process of discourse and negotiation, in this House of review.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [4.47 p.m.]: Again the Opposition supports the amendment and contends that it is probably a desirable amendment to the bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment and report adopted.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [4.50 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Page 1824

On two occasions I have stated that the Coalition did not make a submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] inquiry in relation to gaming.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You’re wrong.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The Hon. D. J. Gay interjects that I was wrong. I am big enough to admit that I at least overstated the case and perhaps made an error in the way in which I construed the notes I was carrying at the time. The Hon. Richard Bull appears under his title as shadow minister for gaming and racing as one of those who contributed to the IPART report as an individual or organisation participating in meetings during the review and providing input, indicating a high level of co-operation and participation.

My remarks were directed generally to the Opposition. I meant no disrespect to the Hon. Richard Bull in his capacity as shadow minister for gaming and racing. I would appreciate it if the House would take that as a formal correction of my earlier remarks. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The aims of the bill before the House are to vary the operation of Governor’s licences with respect to the responsible serving and consumption of liquor; to allow nightclubs to stage alcohol-free entertainment for young people under 18 years of age; to clarify the operation of provisions for minors in the Registered Clubs Act; to simplify the liquor licensing regimes for function licensees - in particular surf life saving clubs and race clubs; to provide an exemption to the trade practices and competition laws relating to liquor accords; to streamline the application process for restaurant dine-or-drink authorities; and to make consequential and other minor amendments of an administrative character.

Some of the proposals in this bill were included in a bill that was introduced into the former Parliament in 1998 but not enacted. They include proposals concerning Governor’s licences, which aim to promote responsible serving of liquor, and proposals to increase the number of supervised and alcohol-free venues for young people. There are also some consequential and other minor amendments that have been carried forward from the 1998 bill. I will now address these and the other proposals contained in the bill in more detail. Governor’s licences are a category of liquor licence issued under the Liquor Act. This is one of the smallest categories of liquor licences in this State, and are a unique licence type that has existed for over 80 years. Governor’s licences were first introduced by the 1912 Liquor Act, then carried forward in the current Liquor Act.

Only certain premises are eligible for a Governor’s licence - they are railway refreshment rooms, premises vested in the Crown or a public authority constituted by an Act, or a canteen at a construction camp or at works of a public nature. A diverse range of premises operate under Governor’s licences and are used four a variety of functions. For example, large, multipurpose venues like the Sydney Opera House at Circular Quay, and Stadium Australia at Homebush Bay; and small premises like technical and further education colleges that use the licence in relation to hospitality training. The bill proposes two amendments in regard to Governor’s licences. The first amendment will require applicants for Governor’s licences to satisfy responsible serving requirements before having a licence issued.

Applicants for Governor’s licences will need to meet the same harm minimisation standards that currently apply to all other liquor licences. Before a Governor’s licence application can be recommended to the Governor by the Minister, the Minister will need to be satisfied that responsible serving practices will be in place, and will remain in place, on the premises concerned. The Minister’s decision may be based on information provided in a report on the licence application prepared by the Liquor Administration Board, or on other relevant information. The second amendment provides for the automatic cessation of a Governor’s licence when there is a change in the entitlement under which the licence was originally issued. Where there is a substantial change in the circumstances of an existing Governor’s licence - for example, where the premises are no longer on Crown land - it is appropriate that a different liquor licence should apply.

This proposal aims to preserve the unique characteristics of Governor’s licences - which, by their nature, should be restricted to certain classes of premises. I now turn to the proposed amendment in relation to minors’ entertainment. The bill introduces changes to the minors’ entertainment provisions to allow alcohol-free entertainment for minors attending licensed nightclubs. The focus of nightclubs is entertainment, and these venues are attractive to young people. This proposal will allow nightclubs to provide supervised and alcohol-free entertainment in a way that has not previously been possible. The Government’s 1996 minors’ entertainment package simplified the staging of under-18s alcohol-free entertainment in hotels and registered clubs. Many hotels and clubs responded to those changes, and as a result there are now more alcohol-free and supervised venues where young people can socialise with their peers.

This proposal will extend that scheme so that it also applies to licensed nightclubs. It will require nightclub licensees to apply to the Licensing Court for an annual minors’ function authority. The police will have an opportunity to object to the grant of an authority. A range of strict conditions will apply to the minors’ function authority, including a minimum age limit of 15 years for young people attending alcohol-free entertainment in nightclubs - this is appropriate and is consistent with the minimum age limit for similar entertainment in hotels; a specified level of adult supervision required at each function; controls to prevent alcohol being brought into the functions, and to stop persons who appear to be affected by liquor entering the functions; the steps that the licensee must take to ensure that minors attending or departing from a function do not disturb the quiet and good order of the surrounding neighbourhood; and the steps that a licensee must take to enable the safe conduct of minors in the vicinity of the licensed premises.

The court may also impose other appropriate conditions on the authority. The main difference between hotels and nightclubs is the size of the premises. Nightclubs often consist of only one or two rooms and, unlike hotels, it will no doubt be difficult to close off one part of the nightclub for an alcohol-free function. Therefore, the bill proposes additional conditions for minors’ alcohol-free entertainment in nightclubs no alcohol is to be sold or supplied on the premises during the function;

Page 1825
and there will be a change-over period of one hour following the minors’ function - a break between the end of the function and the re-opening of the premises for adult patrons.

The change-over period was recommended to me by the New South Wales Committee on Underage Drinking, an advisory group that represents young people, the liquor industry, major welfare organisations and relevant government agencies. The Committee supports this proposal to increase the number of venues that can offer alcohol-free entertainment for young people. The two additional conditions will suspend normal alcohol trading while minors are on the nightclub premises attending an alcohol-free function, and will provide sufficient time for minors to leave the nightclub and the surrounding area before normal trading resumes. If it is found that an authority is not being exercised in the interests of young people and the community, action can be taken against the licensee through a specific complaint provision in the Liquor Act.

The bill seeks to clarify and to strengthen three aspects of the Registered Clubs Act in relation to minors. The object of the first proposal is to prevent minors from selling or supplying liquor in a registered club by making it an offence for a registered club or a club secretary to allow such activity to occur. This proposal is similar to a provision in the Liquor Act, as it allows a club to apply to the Liquor Administration Board for an exemption to allow a minor to serve liquor. The bill makes it clear that such approvals will only be given where the minor is undertaking training or is employed by the club, and will only allow the minor to serve liquor in unrestricted areas of a club, such as a dining room. As a result, young people seeking employment or training in clubs will not be disadvantaged, this is particularly important in rural areas where jobs are scarce.

The second proposal for minors in registered clubs aims to allow a minor accompanied by a responsible adult to walk through bar areas of clubs. In 1998 the Government initiated legislation which not only provided community organisations with greater access to funding from clubs, but also allowed minors accompanied by responsible adults to pass through poker machine areas of clubs. This is of benefit to those smaller clubs, particularly in rural areas, where physical building constraints provide difficulties for young people who are attending special events with their parents. The proposal in this bill seeks to allow minors a similar level of supervised passage through the bar areas of registered clubs. This modest extension will overcome some practical difficulties which have come to light since the original amendment was made. The very strict conditions that will apply in this situation will ensure that minors do not remain in bar areas.

It is also proposed to rectify an anomaly that has existed in the Registered Clubs Act for some time which prevents a minor who is the guest of a temporary member from entering a registered club. The Act provides for minors to enter a club as the guest of a full member, a provisional member or an honorary member. However, it has been found that the same right is not available to a minor who is the guest of a temporary member. A temporary member is an adult who resides more than five kilometres from a club, or who is a member of another club that has similar objectives. This has implications for families who are on holidays, for example, and who wish to use the dining facilities of a registered club. Under the current law, it is not lawful for the children of those families to enter the club with their parents who are temporary members.

The proposal seeks to legalise what is no doubt already happening throughout the State. This amendment will clarify that a minor who is accompanied by a temporary member is able to enter the club premises. Another proposal in the bill concerns liquor licensing accords - agreements that are entered into by licensees and registered clubs, with the involvement of police, local councils and others. These accords have proven to be extremely effective in reducing alcohol-related problems, and there are now some 30 accords in place, or in development, in various parts of the State. Police and others report that these accords have been particularly successful in addressing late night liquor problems - with reductions in assaults, disturbance, vandalism and other anti-social behaviour. It is relevant that some accords involve an agreement that licensees and clubs will restrict trading hours, or not admit further patrons after a certain hour, say 12 midnight or 1.00 a.m.

In many cases, these accords have been particularly effective, especially in curtailing the vandalism and anti-social behaviour caused by patrons moving between venues late at night or early in the morning. Last year the Government became aware of a concern that these particular liquor accords may be in conflict with Commonwealth trade practices and competition law. In fact, it is understood that police in a number of areas indicated a reluctance to support the development of accords because they may be placed in a difficult position legally with trade practices and competition law. Therefore, this bill contains provisions that will remove any risk that arrangements, such as liquor accords, developed to minimise alcohol-related harm, would offend Commonwealth trade practices legislation or similar competition policy legislation.

The bill also contains amendments which will assist surf life saving and racing clubs in New South Wales to conduct their legitimate licensed functions. Honourable members may recall that the Government proposed amendments in 1997 which would have allowed permanent function licensees to apply to the licensing court to sell liquor at social functions. The legislation was developed in acknowledgment of a longstanding tradition in many surf life saving clubs of having weekend coldies - that is the supply of a few drinks to members on weekend afternoons. The Government’s rationale in proposing those changes was that the coldies situation, while technically unlawful in most cases, had become a common and accepted occurrence in many surf life saving clubs, and an important part of their fund raising efforts. It was felt that those functions should be brought under the supervision of the Liquor Act.

The 1997 social functions legislation was ultimately not supported, and therefore did not become law. However, the situation for surf life saving clubs remains a problem, and needs to be urgently rectified. Accordingly, the bill contains amendments to the function licence provisions of the Liquor Act in regard to surf life saving clubs with function licences. The amendments will enable them to conduct all of their functions - including their coldies functions - lawfully. The amendments include controls which limit attendance at social functions to members of the surf club and their guests. In that way, the law will not allow surf clubs to operate a public bar. Other controls will require the provision of food at these additional functions, and there will be a need for the licensee and liquor servers to have completed an appropriate responsible service of alcohol course.

Also, prior notification of functions to police, the director and local councils will be required; functions must be approved in advance by the club’s governing body; and functions can only be conducted on certain days between the hours of midday and 10.00 p.m. I wish to stress that these amendments are more limited than those proposed by the Government in 1997,

Page 1826
as they will apply to surf life saving clubs only. These clubs provide an essential service to the community of New South Wales. This Parliament should give them its support, and let surf clubs know that we appreciate the dedication of their members by allowing them to continue to raise the vital funds they need through their social functions.

The opportunity is also being taken to make sensible amendments to the function licence provisions to ensure that race clubs can operate their function licences at all of their race meetings without being constrained by the 26 function per year limit in the Liquor Act. A recent review of race club licensing arrangements revealed that many race clubs have more than 26 race meetings a year, and while clubs can obtain the Licensing Court’s approval for more than 26 functions, the Act does not provide certainty for clubs. This will be remedied by provisions in the bill which will increase the 26 function per year limit for race clubs. I wish to make it clear that other existing controls, including responsible service of alcohol and harm minimisation requirements, will remain in place for these function licensees.

This Government made important changes to the Liquor Act last year to allow licensed restaurants to sell liquor to patrons who did not wish to have a meal. The dine-or-drink restaurant legislation commenced last November, and at last count some 60 dine-or-drink authorities had been granted. The regulatory regime for these authorities was negotiated with the input and agreement of Restaurant and Catering New South Wales, which is the peak industry body for licensed restaurants in this State. The Government has been monitoring the legislation closely since the grant of the first authority on 21 November to the Argyle Tavern at The Rocks. Restaurant and Catering New South Wales has raised a number of practical problems with the new legislation, which the industry says are obstacles to restaurants applying for an authority. One of the main problems is a result of the Licensing Court’s requirement that existing restaurants applying for an authority must advertise their application in a newspaper.

In developing the dine-or-drink scheme, it was the Government’s intention that existing restaurants not be required to advertise their application in a newspaper on the basis that venues would continue to operate as restaurants with an emphasis on meals. Primary purpose and other requirements such as seating for all patrons were included in the legislation for that reason. The bill before the House contains provisions to give express effect to the Government’s policy and position so that existing restaurant licensees who apply for a dine-or-drink authority will not be required to advertise their application in a newspaper. Licensees will still be required to notify the local council, as well as display a prominent notice on the premises to inform local residents of their application. These requirements are considered sufficient to ensure that the relevant parties are made aware of the application.

Another issue of concern to Restaurant and Catering New South Wales has been the fee for a dine-or-drink authority. While the Government believes that the fees, which were settled last year with the input of the Association, remain appropriate, some assistance can be provided to restaurants that wish to apply for an authority. The bill includes provisions which will give restaurants 12 months to pay their dine-or-drink authority fee. Under the amendments, restaurants will have three months to pay 25 per cent of the fee when their authority is granted, and the remaining 75 per cent can then be paid within the following 12 months. This extended payment scheme will enable restaurants to spread the cost of their authority over a 12-month period - a positive benefit to restaurants that wish to operate a dine-or-drink venue. The bill also proposes consequential and other minor amendments of an administrative character. The amendments include some tidying up of provisions and promote consistency between similar provisions in the Liquor Act and the Registered Clubs Act. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.52 p.m.]: I would like to thank the Minister for his magnanimous admission. The Opposition enjoyed being part of the IPART inquiry. Indeed, we initiated it. We were certainly very much a part of it and we have been following it ever since. We are very keen to see its recommendations adopted by the Government at some stage. The Opposition will not oppose the legislation. In the main the amendments to the Liquor Act and the Registered Clubs Act are sensible and cover a variety of issues.

The Opposition concedes that Governor’s licences, which are available to those operating licensed premises or bars on Crown lands, should be accountable for the responsible service of alcohol and the prevention of intoxication on the premises. Honourable members would be aware of extensive debate on those issues in the past few years. Like all licensed premises, Governor’s licences should be responsible for the conduct of patrons on their premises. The Opposition supports that minor change to Governor’s licences.

When Parliament passed legislation to allow hotels and other venues to stage alcohol-free entertainment for minors, nightclubs were omitted from the category. One amendment to the Liquor Act will allow minors to participate in alcohol-free entertainment in nightclubs, provided that no other alcohol-related activity is conducted at the nightclub on that night. I am unaware of the demand for alcohol-free entertainment for minors in nightclubs, but I assume the demand is there, otherwise the Government would not have proposed the change.

The Opposition supports this sensible amendment. Sometimes it is difficult in small country clubs for minors to access unrestricted areas without passing through restricted areas in which poker machines are played and alcohol is consumed. I do not expect that anyone would abuse this privilege. It is up to club management to ensure that if minors are passing through restricted areas they do not stop to play poker machines or consume alcohol.

The most controversial change relates to the extension of function licences for surf life saving clubs. Honourable members will remember the long
Page 1827
debate on this issue several years ago. The Government did not succeed on that occasion in getting its amendments through the Legislative Council. It has now brought back a different set of changes for the second round. On this occasion the Opposition will support the changes. Race clubs are also included, but I will refer to them in a moment.

Surf life saving clubs, as well as conducting their 26 normal functions, will be able to hold members and guests only functions on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, other than restricted trading days such as Good Friday or Christmas Day. The bill will allow surf clubs to have their coldies, as they call them, for members. I do not know whether honourable members have read the conditions attached to these functions, but they are quite restrictive.

I assume that the licensing authorities will monitor the conduct of coldies to ensure that surf life saving clubs do not abuse the generous trading hours that have been granted to them. New section 51 A (3C) gives clubs the new licence and trading hours. New section 51 A (3D) makes it mandatory for clubs to give notice in writing of a function to the Commissioner of Police, the Director of Gaming and the council in whose area the function is to be held at least 14 days before the day of the function. I assume that surf life saving clubs will provide information to the relevant authorities on an annual basis when their program for the year has been determined. It is not too much to ask.

I note that so long as the surf clubs give notice of these functions, no further consent is required. When this legislation passes through the Parliament coldies will be automatic, and the Opposition has some problem with that. Most other licensed venues have to apply to the Liquor Licensing Court, a process that provides an opportunity for people to object. It is appropriate that all other licensees should traverse the same process before they are given final approval. I am hopeful that changes to the legislation to allow coldies will be used in the spirit in which they were intended.

The amendment would have been better had the Government proposed that the extra hours be approved after an application to the Liquor Licensing Court, which would put them on an equal footing with other organisations. The Opposition will not oppose the changes relating to racing clubs and surf life saving clubs, but it will watch with great interest how the clubs handle the changes.

The bill seems to be discriminatory because the Minister has provided these changes only for surf life saving clubs, which requested the changes. I wonder how tennis clubs will get on, because tennis players, like many other sports people, like to have a drink after they come off the court. Members of surf life saving clubs are not the only people who like to have a drink; tennis players like to have a drink at the club before they go home.

The routine at surf life saving clubs and tennis clubs is the same: members take a drink out of the fridge and put $1 in an ice-cream container. That is how it has always been done. In granting extra functions for members and guests of surf life saving clubs, I wonder whether the Government has not overlooked or discriminated against other clubs that might benefit from this more liberal arrangement.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Crookwell Rugby Club.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: Crookwell Rugby Club is a classic example. As the Minister knows, players at Crookwell Rugby Club and other rugby clubs have a drink after their game. They might even have a drink after training, if they are not too serious about winning. A number of racing clubs in New South Wales, especially in country areas, have considerable function centres and facilities. For example, the racing clubs in Dubbo, Wagga Wagga, Grafton and Narrandera have excellent facilities for wedding receptions and other private functions. The Government has introduced this change because several racing clubs have run out of allocated race days as a result of functions being held on their premises.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. The House continued to sit.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: Many racing clubs will benefit from these changes because they will be able to run a bar during race meetings without using one of the 26 function licences necessary under the old legislation. The Opposition supports these sensible changes. The Opposition does not oppose the bill as it makes some extremely worthwhile changes. Hopefully, surf life saving clubs and racing clubs will benefit from having extra function licences for members and guests. As I said, the Opposition will monitor these changes with interest.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.03 p.m.]: In the Government’s mind the Liquor and Registered Clubs Legislation Further Amendment Bill is almost a machinery bill to streamline some of the arrangements relating to accessibility to and availability of alcohol, licensing matters and so on. However, we must never forget, as was mentioned
Page 1828
during the Drug Summit - and I supported the aim of the Premier to have a discussion about illegal drugs - that two legal drugs, alcohol and nicotine, affect a greater number of people and cause a greater number of deaths.

As with other liquor bills, this bill seemed to be designed to expand the availability of alcohol. Year after year it has been proven that increased availability of alcohol leads to increased consumption. In this bill there is no attempt by the Government to say that the availability and consumption of alcohol are a serious social problem - some parliamentary committees have called it Australia’s major social problem. That has caused me concern me over the years I have been in this House, and that is why I introduced the Alcohol Beverages Advertising Prohibition Bill, to follow our success with the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Bill and another bill to eliminate gambling advertisements.

Those bills and a bill to prohibit alcohol advertising will not stop people from drinking, becoming alcoholics or being violent after consuming alcohol. However, they will take the pressure off people in the community, especially the young, to unnecessarily take up alcohol as a way of life. As a total abstainer I am pleased that the percentage of total abstainers in New South Wales is gradually increasing, as is the percentage of those who do not use nicotine and tobacco products. That is an encouraging development from my point of view.

Honourable members have not heard much about Governor’s licences. They seem be a handy Government instrument - the Governor acts on the Government’s advice to avoid a detailed inquiry by the Liquor Administration Board. A recent example of this relates to the associated activities at the Fox showground development. I strongly supported the thrust of that development, which is to develop the film industry, provide jobs and, through the high-class films being made, showcase our city and our State, encouraging tourism and providing more jobs in the service industry.

Restaurants and other liquor outlets are part of the Fox showground development. I understand that up to 15 outlets at the showgrounds will sell liquor. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong but the developers were simply given a Governor’s licence to sell alcohol at the showgrounds. The Government must have had reasons for issuing a Governor’s licence; in the early stages some reasons were mentioned in the media. However, residents in the area were gazumped, so to speak; they could not present objections to the Liquor Administration Board, because the Governor’s licence does not provide for an inquiry. In the past it may have been possible to argue for a Governor’s licence for a one-off sporting event in a country town, but issuing a Governor’s licence for the Fox showground development would seem to be an abuse of the procedure.

The bureaucrats - often the Minister does not initiate the process - may not have wanted to object to all the liquor outlets at the showgrounds, so they issued a Governor’s licence. That may create in people’s minds a strong suspicion that the Minister and the department are avoiding open government and not allowing people to exercise their democratic right to express opposition to proposed developments.

Although I accept that there should be some liquor outlets at the showgrounds, perhaps there are too many; 15 seems a lot for a development along the lines of a theme park, such as the parks on the Gold Coast, or a Disneyland-type attraction with activities for families with children. I understand that is what the Fox people want to do and I do not criticise that. However, in the middle will be 15 liquor outlets. I place my concerns on the record. It is possible that in his reply the Minister may suggest that my concerns are not justified and that there is no intention to use a Governor’s licence to conceal what is being done or to prevent public participation in Liquor Administration Board inquiries.

The provision of alcohol-free entertainment for minors in nightclubs is also a matter of concern. When a similar proposal was put in relation to hotels, I expressed my concern by opposing the legislation in principle. However, the Government offered the alternative of allowing entertainment to be held in a part of the hotel that was separate from the area where alcohol would be sold. Because of the separation in the building and the undertaking that no advertising for alcohol would be permitted in the alcohol-free zone, the majority of honourable members considered that to be a reasonable compromise and the legislation was passed, although the crossbench still had reservations.

The point I make in relation to this legislation, however, is that a nightclub is totally different from a hotel. A hotel often comprises large premises containing a number of bars, a bottle shop and entertainment areas, whereas a nightclub is just one large room with smaller rooms attached to it. By definition, a nightclub is a large room. This legislation proposes to bring teenagers into that type of environment.

Page 1829

I assume that on alcohol-free nights there will be no alcohol available at all in nightclubs, but I wonder whether that will really be the case. The nightclub could still provide alcohol-free entertainment by displaying a sign stating that no alcohol can be sold to a minor. Does that literally mean that there will be no alcohol available anywhere in the nightclub when it is being used for entertainment and minors are present? Will the cocktail bars in nightclubs be fitted with large shutters that can be pulled down to prevent the sale of alcohol? I find it hard to visualise that happening.

From what I have seen on films - I do not patronise nightclubs so I have to judge by what I see on television - there is usually a stage, cocktail bars set against a wall and entertainment areas where people sit at tables to have meals and alcoholic drinks. I would like to hear from the Government about how it envisages that type of restriction being enforced. Will someone inspect the facilities to ensure that nightclubs meet the restrictions outlined in the bill? The provisions dealing with restaurants being able to serve alcoholic drinks without people ordering a meal are also contained in the bill.

The Government was expecting a great increase in the number of applications by restaurants to provide alcohol without meals but I gather the plan failed. Very few applications were made, perhaps because of the very high cost of the licence which I understand was thousands of dollars. In principle, the crossbench is not in favour of the bill but will not seek to divide the House. We wish to be consistent in our opposition to any legislation that expands the availability and consumption of alcohol in New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.13 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats are concerned about this bill. Each bill that is presented to this House seems to be about deregulating either alcohol or gambling. The effect of deregulation has been studied but not as completely as it might have been, given the happy abandon with which the Government relaxes the laws. If one produces laws, I believe one should quantify as scientifically as possible the benefits and the detriments to society of the proposed legislation. To my mind that is an elementary principle of public policy.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: What about a social impact statement?

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I believe that a social impact statement is a good idea in relation to this type of legislation. We have at last moved to a position where economic impact statements are produced, and this emphasises the primacy of money in our thinking. I gather, however, that those statements do not get past Cabinet, where they are dealt with in splendid secrecy and presumably are given great weight. Of course, mere mortals are not entitled to know what actually happens.

Social impact statements simply are not being produced. When I read the Minister’s second reading speech, I noticed that no scientific statistical information had been provided. The speech contains a brief history of what the previous Coalition Government did and a few anecdotes about my local town. That is all very jolly, but the speech does not actually provide any statistics relating to the legislation. The Australian Institute of Criminology produced two papers, No. 76 in December 1997 and No. 77 in January 1998. Both papers were written by Toni Makkai. The first is titled "Alcohol & Disorder in the Australian Community: Part 1 - Victims" and the second paper is titled "Alcohol & Disorder in the Australian Community: Part 2 - Perpetrators". The first paper states:

Of all legal and illegal substances alcohol is the one that most Australians regularly consume and for the majority it is a normal part of our cultural and social activities. However, alcohol is also a major factor in homicides, domestic violence, and police custodies. The material presented here suggests that the experience of alcohol-related disorder in our society is very common. Such disorder has implications for public policy, for not only does disorder contribute to a fear of crime; it contributes to the actual incidence of crime.

This Trends and Issues paper focuses on the victims of alcohol-related disorder, while a second paper will focus on the perpetrators of alcohol-related antisocial behaviour.

The paper also comments on statistical information and states:

There is a dearth of information about the extent to which individuals across the population as a whole are victims of crime committed by someone who has been consuming alcohol. This report seeks to provide some information on the extent of alcohol-related disorder within the Australian community.

One might have thought publications of that nature would have been the starting point for this type of amending bill but, reference to the papers is nowhere to be found. It is only at the end of the process that I have had the opportunity of mentioning it. The first paper contains a table of percentages showing self-reported drinking and alcohol-related victimisation over a 12-month period. The table is divided into categories of non-drinkers, moderate drinkers, heavy drinkers, binge drinkers and harmful/hazardous drinkers.

Page 1830

The binge drinkers, that is, people who drink irregularly and who tend not to know as much as others about what goes on in hotels, recorded that in 1993, 37 per cent of them had been abused physically and in 1995, the figure was 25 per cent. In 1993, 32 per cent had property damaged and in 1995 the figure was 26 per cent. In 1993, 43 per cent had been put in fear personally and in 1995 the figure was 44 per cent. In 1993, 65 per cent had been verbally abused, and in 1995 the figure was 58 per cent. Apart from the category who had been put in fear, the percentages decreased between 1993 and 1995.

The table illustrates the extraordinarily high percentages of people who are abused, put in fear or actually physically abused. For the Government to suggest that alcohol should be more readily available really requires a more stringent examination than the issue is presently getting from this Parliament and from this Government. The conclusion of the December 1997 report states:

These data indicate that alcohol-related disorder is widely prevalent in the community with 46 per cent of a national survey sample in 1993 and 41 per cent in 1995 reporting that they have experienced this activity at least once in the past 12 months. The most common forms of alcohol-related disorder that a person reports experiencing are verbal abuse and being put in fear.

It must be recognised that an alcohol-related disorder is a significant problem. If small clubs are being given the opportunity to make alcohol more freely available after sporting matches so that people will not adjourn to the local pub, the publican will lose that revenue. I am not crying tears of blood for publicans, because they have reaped such a huge increase in revenue from gambling - another area in which social detriment has not been weighed.

In the area where I live, the local hotel, which is 3.5 kilometres from my house, is owned by the police Minister and is seeking a 24-hour licence. Honourable members might think that I would not worry about that, but near my house is a turning circle on land shaped like a peninsula. When people have had a few drinks, they hoon down the 50 kilometres-an-hour straight stretch of road and drop a wheelie in the cul-de-sac which is on a hill. They fully accelerate as they come out of the cul-de-sac and can fishtail with a great screech of tyres, which makes them feel very Rambo. I have not done this but I have heard it done on a great many occasions, particularly in the early hours of the morning.

If a hotel is opened long hours the publican no doubt benefits from increased profits but it does not necessarily improve the amenity of the suburb. Some people drink more than is good for them or play the poker machines as a form of entertainment in what is an uncontrolled taxation system of gambling. One should question whether a suburb should have to put up with a loss of amenity of life to cater to those people and to add to the profits of publicans. The matter requires further examination. Some measures in the bill are sound, such as complaints being heard in a more systematic way, but I am not sure whether the overall effect of alcohol will be better in this scenario. Once again, like many things in this House, not a skerrick of evidence has been presented one way or another.

Some years ago my sister lived directly opposite a small pub in Balmain. The licensee decided he would put in poker machines and conduct dances, stay open late and not abide by the licensing laws. He did not appear to have any problem with the licensing police, and local residents complained without effect. The matter went to court and the local residents, being politically and legally savvy people, stated that on a particular date at a particular time a police car arrived, the police loaded a large quantity of beer into the back of the car and drove off, without any money changing hands. This was said a number of times and the law was enforced. If this had not been an organised campaign by residents who had had enough, that pub would still be trading late and making a lot of noise. My sister considered moving because she could not live with the noise.

Liquor laws must take into account the violence that results from alcohol-related incidents. Notwithstanding the "Jolly good fellows" type speeches we have heard from members from both sides of the House, this issue must be considered and more research must be carried out. I am not suggesting that there should not be nightclubs but they should be located in certain areas with which they have been traditionally associated.

Those who live in Kings Cross like to feel part of life’s great rich tapestry and do not object to screaming and yelling at three o’clock in the morning. However, others prefer a quieter life. I am concerned about the bill. It may be of some benefit for amateur clubs to be able to serve alcohol, where the profits do not go to the publican or to a club, but the social effects of the relaxation of these laws should be monitored. I am disappointed that the bill does not include that aspect, except through a complaints mechanism.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [5.24 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members
Page 1831
for their contributions to the debate. The amendments contained in the bill are important. In summary, the amendments further promote the responsible serving of alcohol on licensed premises; increase alcohol-free entertainment opportunities for young people, subject to appropriate supervisory and other conditions; clarify certain aspects of the laws relating to minors in registered clubs; and provide sensible regulation and enforcement in relation to the urgent problem of surf club coldies.

I shall respond to some of the remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in relation to surf club coldies. He asked why the changes at this stage were being limited to surf club coldies. The Government’s proposal is limited to surf life saving clubs, of which there are about 130. The provisions in the bill do not extend to other types of permanent function licences - notwithstanding that some rugby clubs have their coldies during training rather than after! The issue of surf club coldies has become a particular liquor licensing problem and needs to be brought under the regulatory regime of the Liquor Act as a matter of urgency. A reasonable remedy is also needed for enforcement reasons. In that sense, the proposal is not providing a concession to surf clubs, but it is a means of bringing a longstanding practice under the control of the Liquor Act.

Surf life saving clubs are justified in having the problem remedied as a priority. Clubs provide obvious valuable services directly to the community for the benefit of the community. These are subsidised directly and indirectly through Federal, State and local governments. Surf clubs occupy prime real estate positions along the coastline, often in significant locations. Many club buildings are in a dilapidated state and warrant priority for attention and support so that facilities can be improved.

As most honourable members would be aware, most surf clubs are dual-purpose buildings and the social club is a relatively minor part of the functional operational surf club-related facilities in the buildings. Surf clubs also occupy permanent premises, so they are in a better position to consistently supervise and manage their functions in an orderly way without disruption to the public. This is particularly relevant because many permanent function licences are not operated in the same permanent premises. It is also relevant that these licences are not commercial liquor licences. They are issued only to non-proprietary associations, and functions must be conducted under the auspices of the association concerned.

I shall now respond to the remarks of the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans. Notwithstanding the fact that he was not impressed by aspects of the Minister’s second reading speech, which I thought was an excellent speech, he also pipped his speech with a number of home town anecdotes, which, despite the general interest, do not add much to the issue at hand.

The amendments in the bill are not major changes, nor are they about deregulation or further re-regulation. These changes are marginal in the scheme of things. In New South Wales the Government has adopted a harm minimisation strategy, a strategy aimed at improving the behaviour of those seeking to imbibe in public places and in licensed premises. It is about responsible drinking being promoted at all levels, responsible servicing, targeting enforcement of major problem areas, the development of liquor accords, industry education and so on. All honourable members would know that the Minister has done an excellent job in bringing about significant change in the approach to drinking in licensed premises and in general in relation to drinking behaviour.

This harm minimisation strategy is clearly more relevant than focusing on statistics and scientific research which may not deliver as much information as might otherwise be available from sensible examination of current practices. I could suggest that the Minister’s harm minimisation approach has been in part responsible for that increase in total abstinence, but that would be cheeky and I will say no more. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile raised concerns about Fox Studios. Eighteen Governor’s licences are in place at Fox Studios, the reason for which has been fairly well canvassed by the Minister. The Governor’s licence approach was taken to the facilitation of licensing for liquor-serving premises because of the unique, complex and substantial nature of the Fox Studios development and the fact that they are on Crown land.

I am advised that the Liquor Administration Board encouraged putative licensees to go about their arrangements in that way. There was a public process under the Governor’s licensing arrangements which paralleled some of the normal processes that might otherwise have been taken in the Liquor Administration Board process. On behalf of the Government I offer the Christian Democratic Party, or Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile personally, a briefing in relation to the Fox Studios licences so that he might apprise himself in greater detail to form a final view. That can be arranged with the Minister’s office.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Page 1832

Bill read a third time.

Chapter 1 agreed to.

Chapter 2

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.35 p.m.], by leave: I move my amendments Nos 1 to 26 in globo:

No. 1 Page 19, clause 38A, line 16. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead:

38A Restrictions on exploration and mining

No. 2 Page 19, clause 38A. Insert after line 27:

(2) When granting a licence or renewal of a licence, the Minister is to include the following conditions:

(a) the licence holder must not cause to be carried out any large scale or high intensity seismic survey unless an assessment has been made of the potential impact of such a survey on the environment and the Minister has, after consideration of the assessment, consented to the survey being carried out,

(b) the licence holder must not cause any seismic survey to be carried out in an area known to be a migration track of whales, being an area described in the condition.

(3) A reference in this section to the grant or renewal of a licence includes a reference to the provisional grant or renewal of a licence.

No. 3 Page 21. Insert after line 32:

41A Environmental impact statements

(1) A development application required under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in respect of any activities proposed to be carried out under a licence must be accompanied by an environmental impact statement in the form prescribed under that Act for an environmental impact statement that is to accompany a development application in respect of designated development.

(2) If the activities proposed to be carried out under a licence include large scale or high intensity seismic surveys, any environmental impact statement required to be prepared under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in respect of those activities must include an assessment of the potential impacts of such surveys on the environment.

No. 4 Page 23. Insert after line 19:

44A Appeals from grant of licence

(1) Any person may appeal to the Land and Environment Court against the grant or renewal of a licence, whether or not any right of the person has been or may be affected as a result of the grant or renewal.

(2) An appeal under this section may be made by a person on the person’s own behalf or on behalf of another person (with their consent), or a body corporate or unincorporated (with the consent of the committee or other controlling or governing body), having like or common interests.

(3) Any person on whose behalf an appeal is made under this section is entitled to contribute to or provide for the payment of the legal costs and expenses incurred by the person making the appeal.

(4) A reference in this section to the grant or renewal of a licence includes a reference to the provisional grant or renewal of a licence.

No. 5 Page 31, clause 57, lines 6-17. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(3) The advertisement must be published as soon as possible after the Minister notifies the applicant under subsection (4) that the advertisement may be advertised.

(4) The Minister is to notify the applicant in writing as to whether or not the application may be advertised.

(5) The Minister is not to notify the applicant that the application may be advertised until the Minister has consulted the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Fisheries and all three Ministers are satisfied that sufficient environmental assessments have been carried out to identify the following:

(a) areas to be incorporated into marine parks (within the meaning of the Marine Parks Act 1997) and estuarine areas to be incorporated into aquatic reserves under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, or into reserved or dedicated areas under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or into any other protected areas,

(b) areas in which fisheries management has priority,

(c) areas of high environmental sensitivity (for example, replenishment sands),

(d) areas of cultural and heritage significance,

(e) areas in which various activities under a licence might be permitted following detailed environmental impact studies.

Page 1833

No. 6 Page 34, clause 63. Insert after line 19:

(2) The Minister must not grant an exploration licence to the applicant unless the Minister has considered any comments from the public on the application made in accordance with sections 57 and 60.

No. 7 Page 40. Insert after line 11:

79A Application must be advertised

(1) The applicant must advertise the application in a newspaper circulating throughout the State.

(2) The advertisement must contain:

(a) the applicant’s name and address, and

(b) a map and description of the blocks applied for that are sufficient for the blocks to be identified, and

(c) the address of the Minister, and

(d) a statement:

(i) that the applicant has applied for an exploration licence over the blocks described in the notice, and

(ii) that invites comment from the public on the application, and

(iii) that requests that comments be sent to the applicant and the Minister within 30 days after the day on which the advertisement is published.

(3) The advertisement must be published as soon as possible after the Minister notifies the applicant under subsection (4) that the advertisement may be advertised.

(4) The Minister is to notify the applicant in writing as to whether or not the application may be advertised.

(5) The Minister is not to notify the applicant that the application may be advertised until the Minister has consulted the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Fisheries and all three Ministers are satisfied that sufficient environmental assessments have been carried out to identify the following:

(a) areas to be incorporated into marine parks (within the meaning of the Marine Parks Act 1997) and estuarine areas to be incorporated into aquatic reserves under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, or into reserved or dedicated areas under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or into any other protected areas,

(b) areas in which fisheries management has priority,

(c) areas of high environmental sensitivity (for example, replenishment sands),

(d) areas of cultural and heritage significance,

(e) areas in which various activities under a licence might be permitted following detailed environmental impact studies.

No. 8 Page 40, clause 81, line 16. Omit "79". Insert instead "79A".

No. 9 Page 40, clause 81. Insert after line 22:

(4) The Minister must not provisionally grant an exploration licence to the applicant unless the Minister has considered any comments from the public on the application made in accordance with section 79A.

No. 10 Page 51. Insert after line 31:

106A Application must be advertised

(1) The applicant must advertise the application in a newspaper circulating throughout the State.

(2) The advertisement must contain:

(a) the applicant’s name and address, and

(b) a map and description of the blocks applied for that are sufficient for the blocks to be identified, and

(c) the address of the Minister, and

(d) a statement:

(i) that the applicant has applied for a renewal of an exploration licence over the blocks described in the notice, and

(ii) that invites comment from the public on the application, and

(iii) that requests that comments be sent to the applicant and the Minister within 30 days after the day on which the advertisement is published.

(3) The advertisement must be published as soon as possible after the Minister notifies the applicant under subsection (4) that the advertisement may be advertised.

(4) The Minister is to notify the applicant in writing as to whether or not the application may be advertised.

(5) The Minister is not to notify the applicant that the application may be advertised until the Minister has consulted the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Fisheries and all three Ministers are satisfied that sufficient environmental assessments have been carried out to identify the following:

(a) areas to be incorporated into marine parks (within the meaning of the Marine Parks Act 1997) and estuarine areas to be

Page 1834
incorporated into aquatic reserves under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, or into reserved or dedicated areas under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or into any other protected areas,

(b) areas in which fisheries management has priority,

(c) areas of high environmental sensitivity (for example, replenishment sands),

(d) areas of cultural and heritage significance,

(e) areas in which various activities under a licence might be permitted following detailed environmental impact studies.

No. 11 Page 52, clause 108, lines 4-19. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) The Minister may:

(a) provisionally renew the licence, or

(b) refuse to renew the licence.

(2) The Minister must not provisionally renew the licence unless the Minister:

(a) has considered any comments from the public on the application made in accordance with section 106A, and

(b) has made an assessment of whether or not the applicant has complied with this Act, the regulations and the licence conditions.

No. 12 Page 70, clause 140, lines 6-17. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(3) The advertisement must be published as soon as possible after the Minister notifies the applicant under subsection (4) that the advertisement may be advertised.

(4) The Minister is to notify the applicant in writing as to whether or not the application may be advertised.

(5) The Minister is not to notify the applicant that the application may be advertised until the Minister has consulted the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Fisheries and all three Ministers are satisfied that sufficient environmental assessments have been carried out to identify the following:

(a) areas to be incorporated into marine parks (within the meaning of the Marine Parks Act 1997) and estuarine areas to be incorporated into aquatic reserves under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, or into reserved or dedicated areas under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or into any other protected areas,

(b) areas in which fisheries management has priority,

(c) areas of high environmental sensitivity (for example, replenishment sands),

(d) areas of cultural and heritage significance,

(e) areas in which various activities under a licence might be permitted following detailed environmental impact studies.

No. 13 Page 71, clause 143. Insert after line 6:

(2) The Minister must not provisionally grant a retention licence to the applicant unless the Minister has considered any comments from the public on the application made in accordance with section 140.

No. 14 Page 79. Insert after line 17:

163A Application must be advertised
(1) The applicant must advertise the application in a newspaper circulating throughout the State.

(2) The advertisement must contain:

(a) the applicant’s name and address, and

(b) a map and description of the blocks applied for that are sufficient for the blocks to be identified, and

(c) the address of the Minister, and

(d) a statement:

(i) that the applicant has applied for the renewal of a retention licence over the blocks described in the notice, and

(ii) that invites comment from the public on the application, and

(iii) that requests that comments be sent to the applicant and the Minister within 30 days after the day on which the advertisement is published.

(3) The advertisement must be published as soon as possible after the Minister notifies the applicant under subsection (4) that the advertisement may be advertised.

(4) The Minister is to notify the applicant in writing as to whether or not the application may be advertised.

(5) The Minister is not to notify the applicant that the application may be advertised until the Minister has consulted the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Fisheries and all three Ministers are satisfied that sufficient environmental assessments have been carried out to identify the following:

(a) areas to be incorporated into marine parks (within the meaning of the Marine Parks Act 1997) and estuarine areas to be

Page 1835
incorporated into aquatic reserves under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, or into reserved or dedicated areas under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or into any other protected areas,

(b) areas in which fisheries management has priority,

(c) areas of high environmental sensitivity (for example, replenishment sands),

(d) areas of cultural and heritage significance,

(e) areas in which various activities under a licence might be permitted following detailed environmental impact studies.

No. 15 Page 79, clause 165. Insert after line 23:

(2) The Minister must not provisionally renew the licence unless the Minister:

(a) has considered any comments from the public on the application made in accordance with section 163A, and

(b) has made an assessment of whether or not the applicant has complied with this Act, the regulations and the licence conditions.

No. 16 Page 98, clause 202, lines 17-28. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(3) The advertisement must be published as soon as possible after the Minister notifies the applicant under subsection (4) that the advertisement may be advertised.

(4) The Minister is to notify the applicant in writing as to whether or not the application may be advertised.

(5) The Minister is not to notify the applicant that the application may be advertised until the Minister has consulted the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Fisheries and all three Ministers are satisfied that sufficient environmental assessments have been carried out to identify the following:

(a) areas to be incorporated into marine parks (within the meaning of the marine Parks Act 1997) and estuarine areas to be incorporated into aquatic reserves under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, or into reserved or dedicated areas under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or into any other protected areas,

(b) areas in which fisheries management has priority,

(c) areas of high environmental sensitivity (for example, replenishment sands),

(d) areas of cultural and heritage significance,

(e) areas in which various activities under a licence might be permitted following detailed environmental impact studies.

No. 17 Page 99, clause 206. Insert after line 25:

(2) The Minister must not grant a mining licence to the applicant unless the Minister has considered any comments from the public on the application made in accordance with section 202.

No. 18 Page 106. Insert after line 17:

223A Application must be advertised
(1) The applicant must advertise the application in a newspaper circulating throughout the State.

(2) The advertisement must contain:

(a) the applicant’s name and address, and

(b) a map and description of the blocks applied for that are sufficient for the blocks to be identified, and

(c) the address of the Minister, and

(d) a statement:

(i) that the applicant has applied for a mining licence over the blocks described in the notice, and

(ii) that invites comment from the public on the application, and

(iii) that requests that comments be sent to the applicant and the Minister within 30 days after the day on which the advertisement is published.

(3) The advertisement must be published as soon as possible after the Minister notifies the applicant under subsection (4) that the advertisement may be advertised.

(4) The Minister is to notify the applicant in writing as to whether or not the application may be advertised.

(5) The Minister is not to notify the applicant that the application may be advertised until the Minister has consulted the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Fisheries and all three Ministers are satisfied that sufficient environmental assessments have been carried out to identify the following:

(a) areas to be incorporated into marine parks (within the meaning of the Marine Parks Act 1997) and estuarine areas to be incorporated into aquatic reserves under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, or into reserved or dedicated areas under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or into any other protected areas,

(b) areas in which fisheries management has priority,

(c) areas of high environmental sensitivity (for example, replenishment sands),

Page 1836

(d) areas of cultural and heritage significance,

(e) areas in which various activities under a licence might be permitted following detailed environmental impact studies.

No. 19 Page 106, clause 225, line 22. Omit "223". Insert instead "223A".

No. 20 Page 106, clause 225. Insert after line 28:

(4) The Minister must not provisionally grant a mining licence to the applicant unless the Minister has considered any comments from the public on the application made in accordance with section 223A.

No. 21 Page 112. Insert after line 14:

240A Application must be advertised
(1) The applicant must advertise the application in a newspaper circulating throughout the State.

(2) The advertisement must contain:

(a) the applicant’s name and address, and

(b) a map and description of the blocks applied for that are sufficient for the blocks to be identified, and

(c) the address of the Minister, and

(d) a statement:

(i) that the applicant has applied for the renewal of a mining licence over the blocks described in the notice, and

(ii) that invites comments from the public on the application, and

(iii) that requests that comments be sent to the applicant and the Minister within 30 days after the day on which the advertisement is published.

(3) The advertisement must be published as soon as possible after the Minister notifies the applicant under subsection (4) that the advertisement may be advertised.

(4) The Minister is to notify the applicant in writing as to whether or not the application may be advertised.

(5) The Minister is not to notify the applicant that the application may be advertised until the Minister has consulted the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Fisheries and all three Ministers are satisfied that sufficient environmental assessments have been carried out to identify the following:

(a) areas to be incorporated into marine parks (within the meaning of the Marine Parks Act 1997) and estuarine areas to be incorporated into aquatic reserves under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, or into reserved or dedicated areas under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or into any other protected areas,

(b) areas in which fisheries management has priority,

(c) areas of high environmental sensitivity (for example, replenishment sands),

(d) areas of cultural and heritage significance,

(e) areas in which various activities under a licence might be permitted following detailed environmental impact studies.

No. 22 Page 112, clause 242. Insert after line 20:

(2) The Minister must not provisionally renew the licence unless the Minister:

(a) has considered any comments from the public on the application made in accordance with section 240A, and

(b) has made an assessment of whether or not the applicant has complied with this Act, the regulations and the licence conditions.

No. 23 Page 128, clause 274, lines 5-16. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(3) The advertisement must be published as soon as possible after the Minister notifies the applicant under subsection (4) that the advertisement may be advertised.

(4) The Minister is to notify the applicant in writing as to whether or not the application may be advertised.

(5) The Minister is not to notify the applicant that the application may be advertised until the Minister has consulted the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Fisheries and all three Ministers are satisfied that sufficient environmental assessments have been carried out to identify the following:

(a) areas to be incorporated into marine parks (within the meaning of the Marine Parks Act 1997) and estuarine areas to be incorporated into aquatic reserves under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, or into reserved or dedicated areas under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or into any other protected areas,

(b) areas in which fisheries management has priority,

(c) areas of high environmental sensitivity (for example, replenishment sands),

(d) areas of cultural and heritage significance,

(e) areas in which various activities under a licence might be permitted following detailed environmental impact studies.

Page 1837

No. 24 Page 128, clause 276, line 20. Omit "274". Insert instead "274A".

No. 25 Page 128, clause 276. Insert after line 23:

(2) The Minister must not provisionally grant a works licence to the applicant unless the Minister has considered any comments from the public on the application made in accordance with section 274A.

No. 26 Page 134. Insert after line 17:

292A Application must be advertised

(1) The applicant must advertise the application in a newspaper circulating throughout the State.

(2) The advertisement must contain:

(a) the applicant’s name and address, and

(b) a map and description of the blocks applied for that are sufficient for the blocks to be identified, and

(c) the address of the Minister, and

(d) a statement:

(i) that the applicant has applied for the renewal of a works licence over the blocks described in the notice, and

(ii) that invites comment from the public on the application, and

(iii) that requests that comments be sent to the applicant and the Minister within 30 days after the day on which the advertisement is published.

(3) The advertisement must be published as soon as possible after the Minister notifies the applicant under subsection (4) that the advertisement may be advertised.

(4) The Minister is to notify the applicant in writing as to whether or not the application may be advertised.

(5) The Minister is not to notify the applicant that the application may be advertised until the Minister has consulted the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Fisheries and all three Ministers are satisfied that sufficient environmental assessments have been carried out to identify the following:

(a) areas to be incorporated into marine parks (within the meaning of the Marine Parks Act 1997) and estuarine areas to be incorporated into aquatic reserves under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, or into reserved or dedicated areas under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or into any other protected areas,

(b) areas in which fisheries management has priority,

(c) areas of high environmental sensitivity (for example, replenishment sands),

(d) areas of cultural and heritage significance,

(e) areas in which various activities under a licence might be permitted following detailed environmental impact studies.

No. 27 Page 134, clause 294. Insert after line 23:

(2) The Minister must not provisionally renew the licence unless the Minister:

(a) has considered any comments from the public on the application made in accordance with section 292A, and

(b) has made an assessment of whether or not the applicant has complied with this Act, the regulations and the licence conditions.

Amendments Nos 1 and 2 would modify the title of the proposed section to more adequately reflect the provisions to be contained within it to ensure that seismic surveys cannot be carried out in known whale migration tracks and that large-scale and high-intensity seismic surveys cannot be carried out in other areas unless their potential impacts have been adequately assessed. Amendment No. 3 would ensure that environmental impact statements accompany development applications required under part 4 of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Amendment No. 4 would provide open standing provisions or third party appeal rights to enforce the provisions of the Act. Amendments Nos 5 to 26 would ensure that all licence applications are adequately advertised for public comment, that the comment is taken into account by the Minister and that the Minister will consult with the Minister for Fisheries and with the Minister for the Environment on the adequacy of any environmental assessments to identify areas which will come under their jurisdictions.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [5.36 p.m.]: The Government cannot accept any of the amendments moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I once more emphasise to the Chamber that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 will apply offshore to three nautical miles. Accordingly, the amendments are unnecessary.

On the question of inviting public comment, there are specific clauses in the bill - namely 57 and 60 - which require that when an advertisement is placed notifying that a mining title is proposed the advertisement must call for public comments to be forwarded within 30 days. The government of the
Page 1838
day will therefore have regard to any public comment, thus ensuring that before any exploration or mining title is granted offshore the viewpoints of all relevant stakeholders will be taken into account before a final decision is made. To conclude, the Offshore Minerals Bill contains all the necessary environmental safeguards to protect the marine environment.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [5.37 p.m.]: Unfortunately, on this occasion the Opposition cannot support the amendments of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. As I represent the Hon. George Souris, the Leader of the National Party, in this House I went to him and indicated that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones was not only a sincere bloke but a very decent bloke who was trying to do the right thing. But it was to no avail: He said that he felt that on this occasion the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries was right, and that is a big call.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [5.38 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 to 9 in globo:

No. 1 Page 19, clause 38A, line 24. After "Minister", insert "administering that Act".

No. 2 Page 19. Insert after line 27:

38B Protecting the environment to be taken into account

(1) In deciding whether or not to grant or renew a licence, or to extend the term of a licence, the Minister is to take into account the need to conserve and protect:

(a) the flora, fauna, fish, fisheries and scenic attractions in the area concerned, and

(b) the features of Aboriginal, archaeological, historical or geological interest of the area.

(2) The Minister may cause such studies (including environmental impact studies) to be carried out as the Minister considers necessary to enable such a decision to be made.

38C Inclusion of conditions for protecting the environment

The conditions subject to which a licence is granted or renewed must, if the Minister considers it appropriate, include conditions relating to the conservation and protection of:

(a) the flora, fauna, fish, fisheries and scenic attractions in the area concerned, and

(b) the features of Aboriginal, archaeological, historical or geological interest of the area.

No. 3 Page 195, clause 430, lines 17-19. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) The regulations may prescribe rates of royalty for the purposes of this Division.

No. 4 Page 195, clause 430, line 20. Omit "determined". Insert instead "prescribed".

No. 5 Page 195, clause 430, line 23. Omit "determined". Insert instead "prescribed".

No. 6 Page 195, clause 430, lines 26-28. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 7 Page 196, clause 431, line 3. Omit "determined". Insert instead "prescribed".

No. 8 Page 196, clause 431, line 10. Omit "determined". Insert instead "prescribed".

No. 9 Page 196, clause 431. Insert after line 11:

(4) A determination under this section takes effect on the day on which the instrument of determination is published in the Gazette.

I will deal quickly with the Government amendments. Government amendment No. 1: This is an attempt to clarify the powers in relation to exploration and mining in aquatic reserves. This is necessary in the event that the portfolios of mineral resources and fisheries are not held by the same Minister at any future stage. This will ensure that the Minister for Fisheries has the final say on mining in those sensitive areas. Government amendment No. 2: After consultation with various interested parties, including the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, the Government has decided that it is appropriate to move amendments to strengthen the environmental protections already present in the bill.

Government amendment No. 3: Having consulted with the Opposition, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to have the rate of royalties prescribed in regulations. This is consistent with existing practice and the Government’s policy of public accountability. Government amendment No. 4: Following on amendment No. 3 it is necessary to change the reference to the setting of royalty rates from "determined" to "prescribed". Government amendment No. 5: This amendment has the same effect as amendment No. 4. It is proposed for the same reasons. Government amendment No. 6: Given that amendment No. 3 removes the instrument by which the Minister determines the rate of royalty, new section 430 (4) becomes unnecessary.

Government amendment No. 7 follows the same principle as amendment No. 4 and changes the reference to royalty rates from determined to described. Government amendment No. 8 is the
Page 1839
same as amendments Nos 4, 5 and 7 and changes the reference to royalty rates. Government amendment No. 9 relates to the fact that the Minister in making a decision to reduce the rate of royalties will need to determine a appropriate rate. While it is not a requirement of the national model, the Government is satisfied that a decision to reduce royalties under clause 431 could be a public one. That ensures transparency in the decision-making process.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [5.40 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendments. The staff of the Hon. George Souris have examined them and agree with them. I was interested, having regard to my responsibilities in this House, to notice the similarity between these amendments and the amendments moved by the Hon. J. H. Jobling on a previous occasion. The bill was withdrawn when the Government could not agree to the amendments of the Hon. J. H. Jobling. That is an indication that at least in this instance this Minister is willing to negotiate and listen. He has adopted a number of Opposition amendments. I am sure the Hon. J. H. Jobling, who has a greater working knowledge of this matter than I, will want to contribute to the debate.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [5.41 p.m.]: I support the Government’s amendments, especially amendments Nos 3 to 9. The Hon. D. J. Gay is absolutely correct, it was almost a year ago to the day that the Opposition proposed these amendments in exactly the same words. I do not know why the former Minister declined to agree to them. These amendments remove any opportunity or temptation for a Minister to be persuaded to a course which could lead to improper conduct or malpractice. Without these amendments the House could not examine and scrutinise regulations. That would have enabled a Minister to put a special note inside a stamped envelope and do a mates-rate deal. I am pleased that the Government has adopted these amendments. I thank the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries for taking the step forward. It is a shame it did not happen a year ago when the bill could have progressed. The Opposition’s amendments at that time have been vindicated.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.43 p.m.]: I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged to a certain extent that the environment needs protecting and that that will be taken into account when licences are granted or renewed. Had the Greens amendments been moved they would have included principles of ecologically sustainable development [ESD] within the bill which should have been acceptable. I understand that somebody who did not know what an ESD was said that if minerals were taken out there could not be an ESD. He did not realise that ESD included the surrounding environment as well as the taking of minerals out of the ground. Another person - not this Minister - said that an ESD is not needed because once the minerals are taken out they cannot be extracted again and therefore it cannot be sustainable.

There needs to be education on ecologically sustainable development. Obviously I cannot move the Greens amendments but they are available for honourable members to peruse. Those amendments should have been accepted by the Government. I hope that when a licence is proposed every Minister will take into account the principles of ecologically sustainable development and maybe in the future when the principles are better understood they will be incorporated in the Act.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [5.44 p.m.]: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones referred to the Greens amendments which deal with ecologically sustainable development. ESD is a laudable principle and one that I and the Coalition support. Had the Greens moved the amendments I would not have supported them. Ecologically sustainable development is part of pushing the process that extra mile. As yet there are no common ESD guidelines within New South Wales. Instead, when one has been formulated and agreed to, the next time it is applied in a bill the ESD principles are taken to a higher plane. I suspect that in many instances ESD principles are used to hamper the process. The amendments of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to the third party appeal rights will apply a handbrake or hamper the process instead of allowing it to work.

Amendments agreed to.

Chapter 2 as amended agreed to.

Chapters 3 to 5 agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

Second Reading

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [5.51 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Page 1840

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

Leave granted.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Roads Act 1993 to include "transitway" as a new classification of road that will enable uniform control and management to be exercised over the whole length of transitway routes. In November 1998 the New South Wales Parliament released "Action for Transport 2010", a transport construction program for the next 10 years. This fully costed, 10-year plan is a key plank in the Carr Government’s post-Olympics jobs plan and will create more than 28,000 construction jobs across New South Wales. This program will make travel in New South Wales modern, safe, efficient and accessible. It will help to improve air quality and leave a better environment for our children.

The cornerstone projects of "Action for Transport 2010" for Sydney are undoubtedly the 90 kilometre rapid bus-only transitway network and the Parramatta Rail Link. More than $50 million has been earmarked in this year’s budget for these important projects. The 90 kilometre bus-only transitway network will be constructed in stages and completed by 2010. It will significantly improve public transport in western Sydney. It will deliver substantial environmental benefits including reduced vehicle emissions, improved air quality and noise reductions in local residential areas.

Bus-only transitways will provide shorter, more reliable and more consistent travel times than are currently available by car. The network will be constructed to allow for possible future conversion to light rail. Significant improvement in public transport accessibility to industrial areas in western Sydney will contribute markedly to the ability of people without access to a car to find work. It will provide employers with the ability to draw on a wider employment market and reduce dependency on car travel. The concept of a bus-only transitway is new and unique in New South Wales. It does not fit comfortably under existing classification of roads under the Roads Act 1993. The new bus-only transitways, where off-road, will be on private land owned, leased or controlled by the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] and open only to authorised vehicles.

Authorised vehicles would include buses owned by a transitway operator selected by competitive tender and contracted to the Department of Transport or emergency vehicles, maintenance vehicles and other vehicles approved by the Roads and Traffic Authority. The new transitway road classification will enable the construction and operation of transitways for limited classes of vehicles and traffic. It will allow the RTA to exercise and fund the functions of acquiring and leasing land and effecting associated facilities such as bus stations for transitways and bikeways. It will enable the RTA to apply the traffic law also to transitways that are not public roads.

By 2010 the rapid bus transitway construction program will cut air pollution and protect the western Sydney environment; create 3,200 construction jobs; provide better public transport connections in areas currently being revitalised with new housing; and establish better links to education centres, hospitals, recreation, health services and major suburban centres, including Liverpool, Parramatta, Blacktown, Strathfield and Castle Hill. It is important that the Roads Act 1993 is amended to ensure that the transitway network will operate efficiently and effectively. I commend the bill to the House.

I wish to provide clarification with regard to the number of construction jobs to be created by transitway projects. The 90 kilometre transitway network will create 3,200 jobs, and the Liverpool-Parramatta transitway will create 840 jobs.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.51 p.m.]: The Opposition supports this simple bill. Anyone who reads the legislation will understand that it amends the Roads Act by simply inserting the word "transitways" after the word "freeways" to allow transitways to be official types of roads. It is part of the Government’s strategy to have these new transitways through western Sydney.

Since the bill was introduced an environmental impact statement has been prepared on the Badgerys Creek proposal. I am not sure whether transitways will impact on the delivery of people to that area via the proposed western Sydney orbital, because the legislation and the second reading speech of the Minister do not indicate exactly where the transitways will go. The legislation is not route-specific and will allow the concept of transitways to be adaptable in the future, wherever the Government decides that transitways should go.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: It is a good concept.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I believe that it is an excellent concept that is worthy of the support of the House. It is a new and innovative way of moving people, rather than simply building railways, tramways or expressways. The concept is well worth trialling as a future way of getting people around Sydney, especially on routes that are off the rail network. As members would understand, the rail network tends to focus on the central business district of Sydney and ignores the cross-routes. A lot of people now travel to work via the cross-routes and do not necessarily go into the city. The Opposition is pleased to support the legislation.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.54 p.m.]: The Greens are committed to public transport solutions for western Sydney. This bill, however, fails to work unequivocally towards that objective. While the Greens support the reservation of all or part of existing roads for public transport, we do not believe that the creation of a network of purpose-built bus transitways will best serve the needs of western Sydney.

Public transport uniquely offers solutions to declining air quality, growing traffic congestion, social inequity in mobility, and the increasing costs of providing urban infrastructure. Western Sydney is
Page 1841
afflicted with each of these problems and is in urgent need of a public transport renaissance. Yet the Carr Government and Transport Minister Scully seem to be fixated on transitways, which are a much-less-than-ideal solution to urban transport needs. One wonders why.

This is not to say that buses cannot play an important transport role. They indeed do, as evidenced by the experience of the eastern suburbs of Sydney, where more than 40 per cent of journeys to work are based on public transport, thanks to an excellent network of buses feeding into the eastern suburbs railways lines. The simple point that seems to have eluded both this Government and its predecessors is that each mode of transport has its own operational characteristics, which should be exploited to the maximum advantage of the transport public.

What Action for Transport 2010 - that glossy colour brochure produced by the Labor Government just before the election - offers and this bill facilitates is not a balanced diet. Both are fatally skewed in favour of private buses running on bus-only facilities, motorways and freeways. There is a basic, commonsense axiom of transport planning: Buses are best at short-haul, low-volume trips, feeding into centres. Light rail becomes more appropriate when demand volumes increase, and heavy rail is most suitable for trips between centres of commercial and residential concentration.

Transitways contradict this basic law. I repeat: Buses work best on short-haul, low-volume routes. The reasons are simple and obvious. Buses have limited capacity. High-volume demand thus implies large numbers of buses with consequent adverse noise and air quality impacts. Buses supply low standards of passenger comfort, particularly compared to light and heavy rail. While acceptable for short trips, long-haul travellers deserve better.

The entire transitway proposal also disregards the adverse impacts on the local environment and residential amenity. Compared to light and heavy rail, buses at speed are noisy and polluting. As concern with the health impacts of exhaust emissions associated with diesel engines grows, transitways will look less attractive. As it is likely that the successful tenderers will be private bus operators, there can be little confidence that the bus fleet will be adequately maintained to minimise these impacts.

The Greens do, however, support the strategic reservation of existing road sections for public transport. The success of the T2 and T3 lanes, although somewhat spotty around metropolitan Sydney, show hope for the eventual conversion of more of the existing road network away from private motor vehicle use. While practical difficulties exist with regard to policing these reservations, the social and environmental benefits of a better public transport system make perseverance worth while.

The development of fixed public transport assets such as rail and light rail bring particular benefits. While economic theory is obsessed with the values of flexibility and responsiveness, to satisfy transport needs dependability, reliability and legibility - that is, the ability of passengers to be able to immediately and simply determine destinations of approaching vehicles - are much more important.

A service route that has been in operation for many years and supplies reliable transport attracts economic and social activity which grows to depend on it. The eastern suburbs of Sydney are an excellent example of the way in which patronage of a dependable public transport system grows as the users fashion their work and social lives on it. We cite the example of the eastern suburbs because we believe that it is about time the western suburbs gain the benefits of public transport. Cities, communities, industries and commerce can grow around fixed transport assets and regular services.

Transitways are a compromise attempt at developing these benefits. While they offer some of the attractiveness of the fixed asset, the absence of fixed rail and the inherently poor quality of service for long-haul duty implies that they will always be inferior to traditional public transport options. So we are left to wonder why the Government is promoting a network of transitways. The influence of Mr Bosnjak and other private bus operators, and their mouthpiece, the Bus and Coach Association, over Government transport policy in western Sydney surely grows out of their campaign donations to both political parties.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Come on, that is rubbish.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I have seen it in action too often. The member’s protest demonstrates his concern. The bus operators seem to be able to write legislation that suits their needs, regardless of the public interest. The Public Transport Act 1990, for example, created a series of contract-based areas in which private operators are allowed to exert feudal powers, caring not a toss for the needs and convenience of their passengers, actual or potential. The previous Government, which wrote the bill, and
Page 1842
the Carr Government, which has failed to reform it, had consigned the people of western Sydney and other parts of the State to second-rate public transport, forcing them into ever-greater reliance on private motor vehicles. They enjoy neither the benefits of regulation in the public interest, nor the supposed discipline of market forces, which would not work in any case.

Exclusive franchise areas should be seen as a privilege. Private monopolies are increasingly rare and must be tempered by much stronger and more independent regulation. In practice this would mean greater intervention by the Department of Transport on routing and timetable matters. The current bill will serve only to entrench the powers of those private bus operators. The Greens alternative is aimed at providing western Sydney with the very best public transport options. As a first step we would allow the State Transit Authority access to all of Sydney thus ending the control of Bosnjak and his ilk. Government buses are run in the interests of the public and not for private profit. They will begin to supply timetables and ticketing options that are focused on moving people, not money.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: That is socialist codswallop. I have never heard such rubbish in my life.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No, this is about servicing the people, something the member would not understand. This network would be supplemented by a comprehensive community transport program and increased numbers of transport development workers. Access for the elderly and the disabled is a priority. One of the problems with the way in which the Coalition and the Labor Party are working in western Sydney on transport means that people on low incomes and those who have passes cannot gain discounted fares.

The Greens would move to construct a comprehensive network of light and heavy rail. The Greens recognise that this is a long process and would require significant resources. An excellent start would be the immediate commencement of the Liverpool Y-link. The Greens are committed to public transport that serves the needs of all people. The bill does not work towards that most important goal.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.02 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats are concerned about this rush to bus transitways and about the privatisation of buses in western Sydney, where the profits are high and the service is poor.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: What do you mean by "privatisation of buses"? What has been privatised?

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The matter just mentioned by my colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon - the franchises of western Sydney buses, which are of a far inferior standard compared to government buses in the eastern half of the city. A comprehensive transport system under the same timetabling would be a far better arrangement.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: The Democrats have supported private enterprise at times.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had taken the time, which I suppose he has not, to read the Australian Democrats transport policy entitled "Going Places", which was researched thoroughly by Neil Halliday and Simon Disney from my office and is currently available on the Democrat web site, he would know that research indicated that frustration with services was a common theme.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You mean that your office has been putting together a policy for the Australian Democrats?

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My office puts together a lot of policies and does a lot of hard work in trying to improve legislation and the lot of the people of New South Wales. It gets less help from this Government than it would like.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: It will be ICAC for you.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Are we not supposed to have policies?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You will be behind bars before you know it. And I will not visit you.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Well, there is a Murphy! The policies that I am introducing to help people in New South Wales come from my office, but not in this building. My office is the office of the New South Wales leader of the Democrats. In that office I delegate to people in the Democrats to produce these things; and they do, voluntarily and thoroughly, and with the public interest in mind, rather than the interests of other lobby groups.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Voluntarily? In your office?

Page 1843

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Yes. A few people were critical of the State Transit Authority’s service frequencies, but the majority centred on the private operators’ inability to provide services at the times and frequencies which suited travellers. On the whole, private buses do not appear to be customer-focused; rather, they seem to go for the quantity-over-quality approach. They provide a number of services at peak hour and vastly reduced services at other times. The irony is, of course, that low-income earners tend to be forced into the outer suburbs of Sydney. The Australian Democrats transport policy states:

The Democrats support: . . . retaining our public transport in public hands. (We will actively oppose the privatisation of our public transport services.)

There should be a rail network. The tragedy of the rail network in Sydney is that there has been so little rail building since the 1930s that the whole of western Sydney is effectively disfranchised. This has huge implications for transport planning. We agree that bicycleways should be developed.

The Australian Democrats support the concept introduced by the Greens - bikes are a good mode of transport, but tend to be seen as an impediment to pedestrians. I am concerned that this is just another token system that will not put money into rail transport, both heavy and light, in western Sydney. That is what the Democrats suggested. Certainly the Parramatta-Chatswood railway is extremely important. A railway should be put into the orbital loop so that the suburbs which are developing will be provided with transport. Commuters need transport, and that cannot be provided with bus transitways.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.08 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Roads Amendment (Transitways) Bill. This is an imaginative plan by the Government and we are impressed with the information supplied to the crossbench concerning all aspects of the transitway system. Transitways will be a new road classification in the Roads Act 1993, whether over public roads or private land owned, leased or controlled by the Roads and Traffic Authority. It will prescribe the classes of traffic that may use a transitway and will apply the traffic law to any length of transitway which is not a public road. The plan has many positive aspects.

Honourable members who attacked this bill seemed to be under the false impression - and I do not represent the Government - that the Government somehow has only one plan and that is to introduce transitways. I have been impressed with the implementation of the expanded railway system. This is not an either/or situation, it complements the expanded railway system. I see the two systems working hand in hand. It appears that some honourable members have missed that point. I know that this cannot be accomplished overnight: it is part of the Action for Transport 2010 12-year plan to improve the quality and efficiency of rail, bus, road and other public transport services in New South Wales.

It will involve transitways from Liverpool to Parramatta, Parramatta to Strathfield, St Marys to Penrith, Parramatta to Blacktown, Blacktown to Castle Hill, Blacktown to Wetherill Park, and Parramatta to Mungerie Park. I am sure that people in those areas, especially those seeking to get to workplaces who may not have a car, or who may not use their car if this system is available, will be pleased that the Government has taken this initiative. We are pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [6.10 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his contribution and support. I thank also Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile for his contribution.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Don’t forget my interjections.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: And the Treasurer for his interjections and for providing the money. The transitway network is one of the most significant transport initiatives ever undertaken in Sydney. It will provide state-of-the-art public transport for western Sydney. I am amazed at the continual allegations, by the Greens in particular, about the Bus and Coach Association. They are absolutely ludicrous. The bus-only transitways will be tendered for in the normal process of tendering that the Government has adopted.

The transitway is a new public transport initiative. It does not preclude other public transport modes being used. All options will be looked at when planning to improve public transport - light rail, heavy rail or bus-only transitways. Bus-only transitways will provide more flexible and higher frequency services. The Government is committed to ensuring that the exclusive transitway buses will be low-floor, airconditioned and environmentally friendly.

The Government is working to improve private bus services and working to introduce a performance assessment regime that will provide better service.
Page 1844
We are working to introduce an integrated ticketing strategy with State Rail, State Transit and private buses. The Government is committed to building the Parramatta-Chatswood rail link. The transitway will be built parallel to the 90-kilometre transitway network. I thank all honourable members for their contributions, and I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.13 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [3]. Insert after line 21:

(2) The Minister must not make a declaration under subsection (1) unless:

(a) an independent study has been conducted to determine whether any parts of the proposed transitway that have not previously been a public road will be suitable for use for the purposes of light rail, and

(b) the study has found that those parts of the proposed transitway will be suitable for that use, and

(c) the Minister has published the details of the independent study in a daily newspaper circulating in New South Wales, including the name of the person who undertook the study and a summary of the findings of the study.

The Greens are sceptical when the Government talks about the option of eventual conversion of transitways to light rail use. Transport planning in New South Wales is dominated by the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] and the motorway lobby, with the Government acting as a compliant servant of these interests. Honourable members should not be deluded by well-intentioned declarations to leave open options for transitway conversion. The ugly reality of transport in New South Wales is that many interests are working to subvert the development of rail-based transport. The ability of the RTA at the planning stage to foreclose on future conversion to light rail should not be underestimated.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: We are talking about the biggest railway development in the State for about 50 years.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: We are talking here about transitways. We have massive problems with buses, and the Government is trying to avoid that issue. The intent of the Greens amendment is to ensure that future conversion to light rail is always an option. This would be achieved by requiring the Minister to publish details of an independent study certifying that engineering features of the transitway were appropriate for subsequent conversion. This would ensure that the matter was publicly accountable and would effectively block deliberate attempts to subvert the spread of sustainable transport options.

There is no long-term future in fossil-fuel powered transport, because the fuel is a limited resource and because of growing concerns with urban air quality. Further, as outlined in my speech on the second reading, bus transitways do not deliver high-quality public transport services. At most, bus transitways must be seen as a temporary solution which gives way to light rail as patronage grows. However, as long as the business of transport planning remains in the hands of the RTA, light rail corridors remain at risk. I commend this amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [6.15 p.m.]: The amendment by the Greens is unnecessary and cumbersome. To require transitways to be light-rail compatible would limit the Government’s public transport options. Even the Greens may recognise that in some transport projects bus transitways are the preferred option - for example, when gradients are too steep or on existing roads whose turning arcs are too narrow for light rail to be built. The Government is also committed to building cycleways along transitway routes. The Greens’ amendment may limit the construction of bikeways.

The planning process for public transport infrastructure already requires an assessment for public consideration of all public transport modes. The Greens’ provision would just delay important public transport initiatives. The Greens can be assured that Action for Transport 2010 committed the Government to build a 90-kilometre western Sydney transitway network to be converted to light rail if light rail becomes viable in the future. The detailed planning for this will be part of the planning processes that are currently being undertaken.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.17 p.m.]: I reinforce the comments of my colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon. If a tracked system is built, it will affect the way suburbs develop. This
Page 1845
does not happen with buses. Given that a large amount of the transitway will be on existing roads, it is almost something of a fiddle. In areas where it will not be on existing roads it should be compatible with light rail. This proposal is basically a political sop. It is better than nothing but it is much less than what should be built.

Given the amount of money being spent on transport, much more should be spent on tracked vehicles for western Sydney - meaning light and heavy rail. This amendment should be supported so that eventually light rail can be built there. This has far greater capacity than heavy rail and will allow increased urban densities which will lessen urban sprawl and the pollution associated with a car-based system.

The Hon. I. COHEN [6.18 p.m.]: I support the amendment by Ms Lee Rhiannon on behalf of the Greens. I listened to what the Minister was saying but my understanding is light rail has the capacity to operate effectively. In some places, such as Randwick, there are gradient problems and light rail may not be able to cope, and it may be very expensive to operate there. I do not think that is the situation in this case. It is important that we look at future light rail options. Many bus services in western Sydney are privately run. The Greens believe these should be taken over by public transport. In the future the major parties and the people of New South Wales will thank the Greens for making allowance for light rail in those corridors, as it will be an effective, environmentally conscious mode of transport.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [6.19 p.m.]: I support Greens amendment No. 1. This amendment relates to constructing new transitways in places where previously there had not been a public road. It establishes a process for an independent study and will ensure that all transitways are designed to be converted to light rail at some future date. It is a positive amendment. I support it.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Breen Dr Wong
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Corbett Tellers,
Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Cohen
Mr Oldfield Ms Rhiannon

Mr Bull Mr Moppett
Ms Burnswoods Mrs Nile
Mr Della Bosca Rev. Nile
Mr Dyer Mr Obeid
Mrs Forsythe Dr Pezzutti
Mr Gallacher Mr Ryan
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Gay Mr Shaw
Mr Harwin Ms Tebbutt
Mr Hatzistergos Mr Tingle
Mr Johnson Mr Tsang
Mr M. I. Jones
Mr Lynn Tellers,
Mr Macdonald Mr Jobling
Mr Manson Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.26 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [3]. Insert after line 9:

(5) If a regulation:

(a) prescribes classes of traffic, that do not include private vehicles, that are permitted to enter or travel along a transitway or any part of a transitway, or

(b) prohibits a class of traffic that comprises or includes private vehicles from entering or travelling along a transitway or any part of a transitway,

a later regulation that has, or purports to have, the effect of permitting private vehicles to enter or travel along the transitway or any part of the transitway is void.

With great pride transport Minister Carl Scully recently told a group of residents affected by the Government’s treachery on the M5 East that he was a road builder. He said that there was little he would do for them. He was admitting with refreshing honesty for once his commitment to the motorway lobby and his program of covering Sydney with a network of monster roads.

Given the history of deceptive behaviour by the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Carr Government on the environmental impact assessment process for the M5 East motorway, there is thus justifiable fear that transit ways will become the Trojan horse of transport planning. In engineering terms transitways can be converted to a motorway or freeway with little additional cost. In some cases it
Page 1846
would involve little more than some lane marking and signal adjustment.

Even if there is no secret motorways-by-stealth strategy, there is always the risk that the anticipated bus patronage does not eventuate. The temptation to convert the transitway for use by private vehicles or, for example, heavy freight, might be irresistible for this or future governments. Greens amendment No. 2 would remove this risk by declaring void any regulation that sought to convert a transitway to other uses. If those crossbenchers who have been working recently with people from the M5 lobby are going to protest against the M5 lobby, they need to consider also their position on transitways. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [6.28 p.m.]: The Government does not support this amendment as it would put an unwanted constraint on the flexibility required to manage changing travel patterns. To say that a transitway project is the construction of a motorway by stealth is quite ridiculous and is at odds with statutory and public requirements of the planning process.

It is expected that some lengths of transitway, particularly in central business district areas, will be bus priority roads and may have different arrangements at different times of the day. The Government needs to be able to manage traffic flows properly and this requires a degree of flexibility. The Greens amendment will make the Roads and Traffic Authority less likely to see tight prescriptions in the first instance, thus limiting the level of bus priority sought.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [6.32 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech, which is the same as that given by the Minister in the other place, incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The prime purpose of the Gas Supply Amendment (Safety) Bill 1999 is to amend the Gas Supply Act to provide for improved safety regulations for gas appliances and gas installations. In particular, the amendments will give us the ability to make regulations regarding the safety of gas appliances at the point of sale, and the maintenance, operation and replacement of gas appliances and installations. In addition, the bill will resolve an anomaly by extending the power to make regulations to cover flues attached to gas appliances. These improved safety provisions are part of the Government’s ongoing and comprehensive program of reforms to the gas industry.

The aim of the reform program is to introduce a competitive market in natural gas in New South Wales that is of benefit to consumers. Competition in the supply of natural gas will benefit gas consumers as well as the wider economy. At the same time, the Government is ensuring that customer safety is not compromised. The Carr Labor Government began the gas reforms with the Gas Supply Act in 1996. The Act saw New South Wales become the first State in Australia to provide access to third parties to gas distribution systems, removing major barriers to entry for new market participants.

New South Wales is alone amongst the mainland States of Australia in that it has no known commercial deposits of conventional natural gas and no commercial production of gas. Most of the natural gas sold in New South Wales is produced in the Moomba fields in South Australia, and distributed to customers through networks owned by a single operator and sold by a single associated large retailer. This situation is now changing. It is changing because of the reforms put in place by the Carr Labor Government.

In September 1998, the interconnector pipeline connecting New South Wales with Victoria was completed. The interconnector was built because access to existing markets for new supplies of gas is guaranteed by the Government’s gas reforms. Since the Carr Labor Government was elected a growing number of rural and regional centres have become part of the New South Wales gas grid, including Forbes, Parkes, Narromine, Dubbo, Wellington, Culcairn, Henty, Holbrook, Walla Walla, Howlong, Corowa, Mulwala, Tocumwal and Finley, as well as the Blue Mountains.

Pipeline construction work is currently under way or planned to bring gas to Lockhart, Tumut, Gundagai, Batlow, Adelong, Gilgandra, Dunedoo, Coolah, Gulgong, Mudgee, Coonabarabran, Gunnedah, Werris Creek, Quirindi, Tamworth, Narrabri, Moree, Temora, Cooma, Bombala, Jindabyne, Berridale and Tweed Heads. In addition to new centres being supplied, the reforms that the Government is putting in place are opening up the market to retail competition. In fact, New South Wales is ahead of all the other States and Territories in opening its market to competition.

From 1 July 2000 all gas customers in the State, including households, will be able to take advantage of competition in the gas retail market. The Government has pursued these reforms in order to provide benefits to customers in the form of greater customer choice, lower prices and improved quality of service and supply. In this changing gas market, a high priority for the Government continues to be ensuring the

Page 1847
safety of gas customers. There are a number of safety requirements imposed on gas network operators and retailers under the Gas Supply Act 1996.

The Gas Supply (Safety and Operating Plans) Regulation 1997 requires gas network operators to develop and implement independently audited plans for the safe operation of their gas distribution systems. Gas network operators must demonstrate that they have considered all possible hazards to their systems. They must put in place provisions and emergency procedures to minimise any potential danger. Gas retailers are required, as a condition of their authorisation or licence, to develop and implement a consumer safety awareness program to make sure that their customers are informed on the safe use of gas. The Gas Supply Amendment (Safety) Bill builds on these requirements.

The bill extends the scope of the regulation making powers of the Gas Supply Act and removes an anomaly contained in the Act. In addition, the bill amends the objects of the Gas Supply Act to include the promotion of the safe use of gas. The bill amends the Gas Supply Act to provide for improved safety regulations concerning both gas appliances and gas installations. A gas installation comprises the piping, fittings and controls in a customer’s premises - that is, the link between the reticulated gas supply and the actual appliance.

The bill does not impose any new requirements, but simply gives us the ability to make regulations regarding the safety of gas appliances at the point of sale and the maintenance, operation and replacement of gas appliances and installations. In addition, the bill will resolve an anomaly by extending the power to make regulations to cover flues attached to gas appliances. The Gas Supply Act’s existing regulatory powers do not cover the safety of gas appliances at the point of sale. As a result, a person may legally obtain an appliance which has not been certified as safe. If the appliance were faulty, or designed for a form of gas other than that supplied, and if the appliance were then to be connected to a gas supply, a serious accident may occur. The bill will broaden the scope of the Act to provide the power to make regulations prohibiting the sale of unsafe appliances.

The bill is consistent with the Australia and New Zealand Minerals and Energy Council agreement, to which New South Wales is party, that there should be common safety arrangements for gas appliances. The bill will bring us into line with most other States and Territories that already have the power to regulate the safety of gas appliances at the point of sale. In order to adhere to the agreement, New South Wales needs to be able to ensure that only gas appliances properly certified in respect of safety can be sold. The bill is also consistent with the requirements of mutual recognition agreements. All jurisdictions party to such agreements need to have appropriate regulations covering the sale of goods. If they do not have such regulations, then regulations in other jurisdictions could be ineffective.

To ensure the effectiveness of legislation as it affects gas appliances in Australia and New Zealand, New South Wales needs to be able to introduce appropriate regulations covering the sale of gas appliances. Responsibility for the safe use of gas appliances lies with the owner or occupier of the premises where the appliance is installed and used. Some gas appliances may not be properly maintained or they may be installed in places where there is poor ventilation, such as in bathrooms and under kitchen sinks. This presents a significant safety concern. A specific example is the old-fashioned type of water heater often installed above the bath. In New South Wales these have not been certified for connection to gas systems for many years. Nevertheless, there are still many such units in service and their safe operation may be compromised in the event of poor maintenance or back draughts. In certain circumstances, they may cause fatalities.

As I just pointed out, the maintenance of a gas appliance is the responsibility of the owner or user, regardless of whether a specific law says so. Even so, it is desirable for safety legislation to be able to require gas appliances to be maintained in safe order or even removed from service if maintenance is no longer feasible or does not ensure safe operation. This will assist the industry with its public awareness campaigns aimed at the users of unsafe appliances. The bill covers this. When appliances are found to be unsafe and there is no satisfactory alternative, they would need to be disconnected. If such a regulation were found to be necessary, then it would be phased in over a reasonable period of time. It is intended that enforcement of any new regulations based on the new provision would be through existing arrangements.

For example, gasfitters would be required to notify the network operator of appliances which are unsafe, and the network operators already have the power to enter premises to disconnect such appliances. New regulations concerning potentially unsafe appliances would initially apply only to the old-fashioned water heaters in bathrooms that I have mentioned, not other gas appliances. Extending regulations to cover other gas appliances will be considered only if, and when, they are found to be a problem. As with gas appliances, responsibility for the maintenance and safe use of gas installations lies with the owner or occupier of the premises concerned. The safe use of gas, at times, can be as much related to the safe operation of the pipes and fittings connecting the appliance to the gas supply source as it is to the appliance itself. It is therefore prudent to extend the Act’s regulation-making powers to include the installation, alteration, maintenance, repair, replacement and operation of gas installations.

An additional matter that the bill addresses is an anomaly in the Act’s definitions. The bill resolves this by including in the definition of "gasfitting work" the connection and disconnection of flue piping. The effect of this will be to require that such work be done only by an appropriately qualified person, as is the case for other gasfitting works. Let me emphasise that the bill amends the Gas Supply Act by enabling improved safety regulations concerning gas appliances and gas installations to be made. It is intended that any new regulations made pursuant to the new powers under the Gas Supply Act will be developed in close consultation with all stakeholders to ensure that they are practical and cost effective.

The details of the approach to be taken will be developed as part of the consultation process and any new regulations will be subject to the usual regulatory impact statement and public consultation processes. I emphasise that the New South Wales Government is strongly committed to improving safety in the community. These amendments to the Gas Supply Act demonstrate this commitment. We are creating a safe and competitive gas market that benefits New South Wales gas consumers. As the gas market becomes increasingly competitive, the Government will ensure that the safety of gas customers will not be compromised. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [6.32 p.m.]: The Opposition supports this bill, which goes a long way towards promoting safety. It amends the Gas Supply
Page 1848
Act 1996 so that the safe use of gas becomes a priority. It enables regulations to be made on safety matters regarding gas installations, appliances and flues. I understand that it also extends the definition of "gasfitting work" in the Act to include work carried out on flues. The bill will bring New South Wales into line with other States and territories. The industry has required this bill for a number of years, and in the main it meets the needs of industry.

The Opposition is concerned that the Government has chosen not to consult on the bill. The Australian Gas Light Company [AGL], which is probably the main stakeholder, was not even asked for an opinion. Frankly, since the Government was re-elected a recurring problem in the community is that it chooses not to consult stakeholders. The Labor Government is showing its arrogance by not consulting people, as we saw with the local government bill and many other bills before the Parliament. Once again, the Government has failed to consult.

Some of the points incorporated in this bill will patch up omissions in previous Government legislation. It is good that the Government is finally starting to catch up. The industry still has some concerns about one important safety issue, which is flued gas water heaters in bathrooms. Unfortunately this bill does not address the concerns of industry that these very old heaters are becoming increasingly dangerous and should be phased out. Indeed, some of these heaters are probably near 60 years old.

AGL, the Department of Energy and the Department of Fair Trading have produced a brochure indicating what we should look for. Some of the gas heaters in the brochure probably date back to the 1930s or the 1940s. Despite a coroner’s report, and despite the industry asking for legislation, the Government has decided to do nothing.

The State Coroner recommended the implementation of a five-year plan that commenced in February 1998 to replace these water heaters. The industry code that permitted such water heaters to be installed in bathrooms and kitchens was withdrawn for safety reasons in 1987. Recently a coronial inquiry revealed that if flued gas water heaters in bathrooms are not properly maintained, deadly levels of carbon monoxide can be produced.

Further, exhaust fans can suck flue gases back into the bathroom, increasing the problem and the dangers. It seems incredible that an extraction fan in a bathroom that sucks out air could be dangerous. If a gas water heater is not properly ducted and carbon monoxide is not going up the flue properly, the extraction fan could suck the carbon monoxide back into the bathroom, and that is the problem.

AGL has notified its 800,000 customers in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory of its concern about this danger and has sent inspectors to homes in some cases. Inspectors have frequently found that these heaters should be removed. More than education is required; legislation is required. I ask the Government to take note of these concerns. A number of government departments have indicated that they support the intent of the State Coroner’s recommendations, and I ask the Government to consider legislation that reflects its support more strongly. With those concerns, which I hope the Government will address in a later bill, the Opposition supports this bill.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [6.37 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. D. J. Gay for his contribution to this debate and for his support of the bill. I have noted his concerns. The Gas Supply Amendment (Safety) Bill is the most effective way of providing for improved safety regulations for gas appliances and gas installations. As the Hon. D. J. Gay noted, it will deliver the ability to make regulations for the safety of gas appliances at point of sale and the maintenance, operation and replacement of gas appliances and installations.

The bill will also resolve an anomaly by extending the Minister’s power to make regulations to cover flues attached to gas appliances. The Hon. D. J. Gay spoke about consultation. It is important to note that this amending bill will enable the Minister to make new regulations, and any new regulations made pursuant to the new powers under the Gas Supply Act will be developed in close consultation with all stakeholders to ensure that they are practical and cost effective. So consultation will take place at the time regulations are proposed to be made.

The improved safety provisions are part of the Government’s ongoing and comprehensive reform program in the gas industry. The aim of the reform program is to introduce a competitive market in natural gas in New South Wales that is of benefit to consumers. Competition in the supply of natural gas will benefit gas consumers as well as the broader New South Wales economy. No doubt it is important to have effective ways of providing for improved safety regulations, and that is what this bill does.

Page 1849

The New South Wales Government is strongly committed to improving safety in the community. I have noted the comments made by the Hon. D. J. Gay in relation to flued gas water heaters and this bill provides for the making of regulations in that regard. Once again, I thank the Hon. D. J. Gay and other members for their support of this bill and their contributions to the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [6.41 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 1996, the Carr Government introduced a number of significant reforms for the regulation of the home building industry. The major change was the replacement of the government operated insurance scheme, with a scheme provided by approved private insurance companies. The new scheme commenced in May 1997. It has provided increased protection for consumers as well as opening up the provision of insurance to competition. After two years of operation, the system has shown itself to be an effective alternative to a government operated scheme while the Government retains a critical role in regulation.

The scheme as it now stands requires insurance cover of at least $200,000 to be provided for each dwelling. The period of cover for defective work is 7 years from completion of the project while for incomplete work, the cover is 12 months from when work ceases. The Department of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring the operation of the insurance scheme. The department meets regularly with insurers to discuss administration and issues impacting on consumers.

Industry, insurance providers and consumers provide the department with valuable feedback on the scheme’s operation. The Government requires the Department of Fair Trading to liaise with these groups to ensure that the legislation operates well. As a result of this ongoing liaison, and the department’s monitoring of the scheme, the Government considers it necessary to make a number of changes to the Home Building Act. The changes will ensure that consumers are provided with even better protection against faulty and incomplete work while giving those in the industry greater confidence that the scheme is operating fairly from their perspective.

The bill contains reforms that link the ability of a contractor to obtain insurance with their ability to obtain a license from the Department of Fair Trading. This measure ensures that standards within the building industry are maintained at their best and consumer confidence is maintained. Licensees contracting to do residential building or supply a kit home for an amount over $5,000 are required to enter into a written contract and attach a certificate of insurance to that contract. While a contractor cannot do work over $5,000 without insurance, there is currently nothing in the Act to prevent an undercapitalised contractor from continuing to hold a license.

The Government believes that the public is entitled to expect that a licence holder is not only technically qualified and experienced but also that he or she has the financial capacity to undertake the work. To improve industry awareness of the insurance provisions and to give consumers greater confidence in the licensing system, the bill provides for the linking of licensing with insurance. In this regard the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading will not be able to approve an application for, or renewal of, a licence unless satisfied that the applicant has or is eligible to obtain insurance cover for future work.

Where the director-general is informed that a licence holder no longer has or is eligible for insurance, the director-general will be able to suspend the licence until the licensee provides proof to the contrary. The form of proof would consist of written notification from one of the approved insurers that the applicant has a current annual policy or, if job specific insurance is favoured by the applicant, that the applicant is eligible to obtain such insurance.

Contractors who currently hold special limited categories of licence that exclude work over the value of $3,000, will not be affected by the proposed change. Contractors who engage in low value work with unrestricted limits on the licence will need to provide evidence of eligibility for insurance as a threshold for licensing. The proposal to link licensing with insurance is consistent with moves in other jurisdictions to streamline the process; for example, it is in line with provisions which operate under Victorian legislation. Victoria has a private insurance scheme similar to the New South Wales scheme.

In addition to home warranty insurance requirements, the bill will enable a regulation to be made to specify additional types of insurance; for example public liability could be a prerequisite to granting a licence. Additional insurance will be prescribed only where appropriate to provide consumers with increased protection. Before such a regulation is made consultation will take place with consumer and industry groups.

The Home Building Act also obliges those homeowners who choose to conduct their own building work to take out insurance in certain circumstances. If an owner builder wishes to do work relating to a single dwelling or a dual occupancy costing over $3,000 which requires council approval, he or she must obtain an owner-builder permit from the Department of Fair Trading. Permits are restricted to individuals who intend to reside in the building after the work is done. Where the work costs more than $5,000 the permit holder must not enter into a contract for sale of the land within a period of 7 years from completion of the work unless insurance covering the work has been taken out by the owner-builder.

The purpose of the insurance is to provide cover for purchasers of owner-builder work against defective work. Each year the department issues around 15,000 to 20,000 owner-builder permits. In view of the low risk to subsequent owners and the cost for owner-builders, after careful

Page 1850
consideration the Government has decided that the requirement for owner-builders undertaking minor work to have to arrange insurance covering their work is too onerous. The bill therefore provides that regulations will be able to be made to prescribe classes of work done by owner-builders that will not require insurance.

While the class of work is a matter for further consultation prior to regulations being made, such work may include items such as pergolas and decking. Removing the need for minor work to be insured by owner-builders will have a limited impact on subsequent purchasers. This is because under the existing legislation, certain defects in owner-builder work are already excluded from cover. In this regard, a subsequent purchaser is not covered for any defects itemised in a report on the owner-builder work obtained by the insurer, at the time the policy is issued to the owner builder. It is likely that most defects in minor owner-builder work will be identified in such a report and therefore not covered.

Removing owner-builder insurance for minor work should not expose purchasers to increased risk. Further, as from 1 January this year a licensed contractor engaged by an owner-builder to do work over $5,000 must take out insurance covering the contractor’s work. Such insurance covers both the owner-builder and the subsequent owner of the property against defective work done by that contractor. A significant proportion of owner-builder work is performed by licensed trade contractors engaged by owner-builders. Accordingly, subsequent purchasers will have access to cover under each trade contractor’s insurance policy in respect of the work undertaken by those contractors.

In 1997, the Government introduced a reform to change the insurance requirements for development projects. A "developer" as defined in the Act is not the builder of the project but the proprietor who normally intends to sell the completed dwellings to individual purchasers. The Act provides that a developer must not commence the project unless insurance covering the work is in place. As it stands, a developer may not enter into a contract for sale of a dwelling in a project unless a certificate of insurance is attached. For builders of development projects, the Act provides they must not contract to do the work unless insurance covering the work is in place.

While the responsibilities of builders and developers under the Act for development work currently overlap, the practice of the approved insurers has been to issue the insurance to the builder rather than the developer. Insurers have told the Government they are reluctant to insure developers for two main reasons. Firstly, unlike builders, developers do not have an ongoing relationship with the insurer. Secondly, there is a fear that development companies will be wound up some time after completion of the project and that the insurer will not be able to call upon them to fix any problems that may occur. Thus insurers prefer to issue cover for the builder’s work. The bill removes the requirement placed on developers to arrange insurance cover and places the responsibility on the building contractor engaged to do the work.

While developers will no longer arrange insurance cover, they will continue to be obliged to provide purchasers of dwellings in the project with a certificate of the insurance. Where the developer is selling dwellings in a project off the plan before a builder is engaged, the developer will still be required to provide the purchaser with the certificate of insurance within a specified time. As mentioned previously, the Act provides that a person must not contract to do any residential building work or supply a kit home costing in excess of $5,000, unless a contract of insurance is in force. If the contractor fails to do this there are serious consequences for the contractor.

Section 94 of the Act provides that if a contractor fails to have insurance in place at the time the contract is entered into, he or she cannot recover any money for work done. The policy behind section 94 is to deter uninsured work having regard to the possible significant detriment that might be suffered by the client due to lack of insurance cover. However, the strict operation of section 94 has had unintended consequences. Cases have been brought to the attention of the Department of Fair Trading involving contractors who have failed to provide insurance at the date of contract, but have taken it out some time thereafter. Subsequently, a dispute has arisen and the client has relied on the strict terms of section 94 to deny payment to the contractor even though the work was not defective and insurance cover was in place.

While consumers must be protected against uninsured operators, the strict terms of section 94 may operate unfairly where there is an intention to insure, yet the supply of the certificate of insurance cover has not been contemporaneous with the signing of the contract. The operation of section 94 was the subject of criticism by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in the 1998 case of Casa Maria Pty Limited v Trend Properties Pty Limited. The Court expressed the view that there is a need for some attention to be given to the present form of the section if it is not to become an "instrument of oppression".

To address the existing consequences of section 94 the bill introduces amendments which provide that a licensee is not entitled to enforce the contract, or recover moneys for work done, until the licensee obtains insurance covering that work. In light of this change it would be inconsistent for the Act to continue to provide that insurance must be in place at the date of the contract. The Act will therefore be amended to provide that a person who contracts to do any residential building work or supply a kit home must not commence that work or supply the kit unless a contract of insurance is in place.

A certificate of the insurance will also have to be given to the other party to the contract before commencement of the work or supply of the kit. These requirements will be subject to a fine of up to 100 penalty units ($11,000), the same penalty which currently applies for contracting without insurance. So consumers will not be exposed to loss during the period immediately prior to the insurance being obtained, the Act will make it an offence, with a fine of up to 100 penalty units ($11,000), for a contractor to receive or demand a deposit or other payment until such time as insurance is in place.

The Act provides that the director-general may exempt from the insurance requirements: A license-holder doing work on his or her own property, that is, a "speculative builder"; a developer having work done; and an owner-builder. An exemption may be granted unconditionally or subject to conditions. An exemption may only be granted if there are exceptional circumstances or full compliance is impossible or would cause undue hardship.

In view of the change to the insurance requirements for development work previously mentioned and to cater for exceptional cases which may arise, the bill will amend the Act so regulations can be made to prescribe additional persons or classes of persons who will be entitled to apply for an exemption. The final form of the regulation will be subject to consultation, however an example that may qualify is where a church or charity organisation builds a retirement village for their own use, where the units remain the property of the church or charity and are not onsold.

Page 1851

In order to bring consistency to compliance in the Department of Fair Trading’s compliance division, it is also proposed to amend the Act to provide for penalty notices to be issued in certain cases. The offences under the Act which can be the subject of a penalty notice will be prescribed in the regulations. The use of penalty notices is an important part of the overall compliance strategy for the Department of Fair Trading. Provisions allowing for penalty notices are contained in the Fair Trading Act, the Motor Dealers Act; the Trade Measurement Administration Act, the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act, the Landlord and Tenant (Rental Bonds) Act, the Residential Parks Act and the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act.

These Acts include regulations which allow a penalty notice to be served on the offender in respect of a prescribed offence. If the alleged offender does not wish to have the matter dealt with by a court he or she may pay the penalty to the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading. Where the penalty is paid no further proceedings may be taken in respect of the alleged offence. The amount of the penalty is prescribed and cannot exceed the amount which can be imposed by a court.

The home building industry is an important area within Fair Trading and can involve significant loss for consumers. Serious emergency situations such as the Newcastle earthquake or the recent Sydney hailstorm can leave consumers exposed to unlicensed and uninsured operators. In such situations it is vital that the Department can respond rapidly to protect consumers and the ability to issue penalty notices will act as a deterrent to illegal conduct and allow for better use of compliance resources.

The amendments proposed to the Home Building Act reflect the Government’s commitment to better consumer protection in the home building area and improving licensing and insurance processes for builders and business at the same time. Consumers can be well pleased with the proposals outlined here today. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [6.42 p.m.]: The Opposition acknowledges that the Home Building Amendment Bill amends the Home Building Act 1989. It also provides that the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading must not approve an application for the grant, renewal or restoration of a contractor licence unless the director-general is satisfied that the applicant is able to comply with requirements under the Act relating to insurance. It also provides that the director-general may suspend a contractor licence if the holder of the licence fails to comply, or becomes unable to comply, with those requirements, and to enable the holder of a licence that has been so suspended to apply to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of that decision.

The bill also makes further provision in relation to the obtaining of insurance for residential building work done under a contract or the supply of a kit home under a contract. I feel I have made a sufficient contribution and that the Leader of the Opposition is better able to continue.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [6.43 p.m.]: This bill amends the Home Building Act, which passed through this place in May 1998. At that time the Opposition put on record its concerns about some aspects of the bill, particularly issues relating to insurance and the impact that would have on builders. The object of this bill arose partly from questions raised by the Opposition at that time. I refer particularly to proposed new sections 92, 93 and 94.

It is a shame that, with so many worthwhile and legitimate suggestions that the Opposition makes about the Government’s legislative reform program, the Government initially discounts them out of hand and then has to return later with its tail between its legs and correct its mistakes. The Government has done that again with this bill. The bill appears before the Chamber, shortcomings are identified, the Government maligns any suggestion that it should be amended as merely playing to the hands of those to whom the bill is designed to manage, before returning it at a later date to be corrected, with the Government stating that it has all been part of the consultative program.

Time and again we hear, and we are continually confronted with, the Government claiming it is identifying the mistakes it makes in the initial legislation. There is a continuing trend towards the Government utilising the regulatory process to determine the nuts and bolts of the legislation. The Opposition is of the view that this growing trend is not in the best interests of good legislative reform.

I would like to thank the Master Builders Association [MBA] and the Housing Industry Association [HIA] for their assistance in examining this bill. I am pleased to be in a position to ensure that their views on this bill are presented. The bill proposes a new section 19 (2A), which deals with licence applications and certain documentary requirements. But there is no mention of what documentation is required and there are no guidelines currently in existence that ensure that all decisions taken by the director-general, not only with respect to this section, are indeed right.

Similarly new section 40 (2A), which eliminates the discretionary power of the director-general, and new section 83B (2A), dealing with the role of the tribunal, are not clear. These measures do not clarify which tribunal is being referred to. The bill has been prepared in a very untidy way and it is quite apparent that the level of presentation that the Opposition has come to expect from this Minister is
Page 1852
a poor performance compared to Ministers who have gone before him in this portfolio.

Earlier this afternoon comments were made in the Chamber about the performance of the Attorney General when he was Minister for Fair Trading. Those comments were not made lightly. The Opposition had a fair degree of respect for his performance in that capacity and it is unfortunate that the Government has not given him the opportunity to continue in that role but has given it to the member for Ryde, who, going by this piece of legislation, is not up to the task. The Opposition hopes that he lifts his game and ensures that future legislation is presented in the proper form.

Another area of concern relates to new section 92 (2), and particularly the process by which insurance must be taken out before any work is performed. The HIA has acknowledged the difficulty this causes with respect to preliminary work such as drawing up plans and their subsequent submission to council. The Coalition is aware that insurance must be taken out before matters are submitted to council, but it believes that strict interpretation of this section could cause some difficulties in the process of business practice flexibility. The Coalition, like the HIA and the MBA, is not an apologist for sub-building work or unlicensed tradespeople, nor does it wish to see honest, hardworking small business people in the industry fall victim to unscrupulous consumers.

It is imperative that reforms designed to protect those operating within an industry do so on an equitable basis. It is the Opposition’s view that consideration could be given to enabling some preliminary work, such as the drawing up of plans and obtaining prices, which all take time for the builder when trying to prepare an offer for a customer, so that they can be adopted without reducing or affecting the integrity and essence of this bill. The HIA is still concerned about the implications and what it sees as the unfair use of new section 94 (1).

The Opposition is of the view that the Government should liaise with industry to ensure that individuals and builders who have fallen prey to the problems this current amendment hopes to address will not be left without an opportunity to have their problem heard. The industry is concerned about the time lag between the passage of the original bill and the finalisation of this bill. The predicament of victims should be given priority by the Department of Fair Trading. The Minister is endeavouring to patch up the mistakes made by the Government with the original legislation in 1988. I ask the Government to seriously consider the concerns of the Opposition with respect to this bill rather than address them again in 12 months or so once the problems raised by the Opposition sink in. I ask the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries to consider the recommendations of the Opposition and bring them to the attention of the Minister for Fair Trading before the matter is finalised. The Opposition does not oppose this bill.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [6.50 p.m.], in reply: Whilst I do not agree with many of the comments of the Leader of the Opposition about the performance of our new Minister, nevertheless I thank him and the Hon. D. J. Gay for their contributions, and I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [6.52 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 Registration of Interests in Goods Act 1986 provides a system for the registration of security interests for motor vehicles, and other prescribed goods, so that potential purchasers can check whether the goods are encumbered. In November 1991 Premiers and Chief Ministers agreed to develop a National Vehicle Security Register to address the financial losses suffered by consumers, credit providers and motor vehicle dealers from the fraudulent movement of encumbered or stolen vehicles across State and Territory borders.

A national vehicle security register project was established under the strategic national agenda of the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs. Its terms of reference were to conduct a review of vehicle security registration legislation in Australia. The review was to identify and examine inconsistencies between each jurisdiction and to develop a nationally consistent vehicle security registration system. Currently all jurisdictions have laws relating to vehicle security interests, despite the lack of consistency in the laws. The level of protection for consumers and security holders varies according to the State in which they live or where the transaction takes place.

Page 1853

This lack of consistency has the potential to have significant impact on residents living close to State borders who purchase a vehicle in the neighbouring State. The national vehicle security register project engaged Professor Duggan to prepare a comparative analysis of each jurisdiction’s law and make recommendations aimed at achieving national consistency. A discussion paper was distributed to industry groups, consumer organisations, government departments and other interested parties during 1995. Submissions generally endorsed the objectives of the national vehicle security register project. The final Duggan report was prepared based on community response to the discussion paper.

In August 1997, the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs gave in principle support for legislative change, based on the report’s recommendations. The Registration of Interests in Goods Amendment Bill 1999 implements the recommendations of the report so New South Wales becomes a consistent jurisdiction. In November last year, Victoria amended its vehicle registration legislation. Western Australia has implemented a number of the recommendations, with the remaining to be enacted through the course of the year. I am advised that South Australia intends to introduce a bill this year.

In addition to the proposed reforms aimed at providing nationally consistent legislation, the bill includes an amendment intended to address legislative deficiencies which have been identified in the financial provisions of the Act. The bill makes clear that, in the case of unregistered security interests, the meaning of "notice" of a security interest in a vehicle is limited to actual notice or wilful ignorance. The register of encumbered vehicles [REVS] legislation of each State and Territory incorporates the following two principles:

(a) where a security holder has a security interest registered, the interest of the security holder will prevail in any dispute; and

(b) where the security holder’s interest is not registered, the purchaser’s rights will prevail where the vehicle has been purchased in good faith and without notice of the security holder’s interest.

"Notice" is defined by each State’s legislation as either:

(a) constructive notice - that is, facts that could be discovered by making reasonable enquires; or

(b) actual notice or wilful ignorance - for example, where a person consciously chooses not to check a register of which she/he is aware.

Professor Duggan said the main policy concern about notice is to ensure that any loss falls on the party who is better placed to avoid that loss. The risk of loss should act as an incentive to any security holder to ensure that an interest is registered. Where notice is limited to actual notice or wilful ignorance and the onus is on the purchaser, there is a stronger incentive for a security holder to register an interest than when a constructive notice rule applies. Accordingly, the proposed amendment makes clear that, in the case of unregistered security interests, the meaning of "notice" of a security interest in a vehicle is limited to: a person’s actual knowledge of the registrable interest; or that a person has been made aware of the existence of the registrable interest and has deliberately abstained from making an initial or further inquiry when the person might reasonably have expected such inquiry to reveal the registrable interest.

To ensure consistency for repairer’s making claims, New South Wales will implement the Duggan report recommendation that a repairer’s lien takes priority over the claim of the security holder. This will result in the repairer’s costs being paid first after the disposal of the vehicle by the security holder. Duggan concluded that, if a repairer’s lien did not take priority regardless of the sequence of events, motor vehicle repairs would become more costly, to the detriment of owners and security holders alike. Currently this issue is governed by common law.

Where a validly created possessory line has priority over a registrable interest the proposed amendment enshrines this principle to provide that a repairer’s lien on goods, whether or not registered, takes priority over any registrable interest in the goods whether or not the registrable interest is registered and whether the registrable interest arose before or after the repairer’s lien. The bill goes on to define a repairer’s lien to mean a lien on goods in the possession of a person as the security for payment of services or materials furnished in respect of those goods by that person in the ordinary course of business.

At present, the Act does not contain provisions that deal with the choice of jurisdiction to apply. This means that in New South Wales the common law would determine whether the Act applied to a dispute. The choice of law rules need to be nationally consistent, otherwise, the outcome may be different depending on the State or Territory in which the action is brought. Inconsistent choice of law rules can also lead to situations where the laws of two or more States have simultaneous application. The proposed amendment provides that section 9 - which is the operative provision of the Act - applies to a purchase of goods only if the goods are situated in New South Wales at the time of the purchase. Another aspect of the bill deals with extinguishment. As noted earlier, in most REVS statutes, the two general rules which underpin extinguishment disputes are that:

(a) if a security interest is registered, it is protected from extinguishment; and

(b) if a security interest is not registered, it should be extinguished if the vehicle is later purchased by a purchaser in good faith and without actual notice of the security interest.

The Act currently provides for a number of exceptions to these rules. For example, section 9(3) provides that, where a person purchases a vehicle, which is subject to a registrable interest, from a motor vehicle dealer in good faith and for value - the purchaser acquires the vehicle free of the security interest and the security holder’s interest is extinguished. However, the Duggan report identified a situation where the application of these two general rules has an unintended result. This is where an unregistered security interest is held over a vehicle, in the possession of the debtor and the debtor colludes with a "purchaser" to sell the vehicle to a financier with the express intention of having the financier supply the vehicle on terms to the "purchaser", where both the debtor and the "purchaser" are aware of the security interest.

Examples of the supply of the vehicle by the financier to the "purchaser" on terms would be by lease or hire-purchase agreement. Presently, in such circumstances, the security interest would be extinguished under the Act as a result of the collusion of the debtor and the "purchaser". This bill addresses the situation by preventing the extinguishment of the security interest if the "purchaser" failed to act in good faith and had notice, at the time of the payment of the purchase price, of the registrable interest to which the goods are subject.

Page 1854

Under the Act, where the debtor sells a vehicle to a purchaser, the onus lies on the security holder, to prove that the security interest has not been extinguished. An exception to this is the case where the debtor and the purchaser are related parties - for example, of the same household or related companies. Here, the onus of proof falls on the purchaser to prove that the security interest has been extinguished. The Duggan report indicates that proof that the security interest has been extinguished is, in both cases, most likely to be established based upon whether the purchaser acted honestly and without notice of the security interest.

It further points out that the matter of the purchaser’s honesty is more likely to be within the knowledge of the purchaser than the security interest holder. Accordingly, the Duggan report recommends that the most appropriate rule concerning the extinguishment of security interests should be that the onus of proof lies on the party who claims that the security interest has been extinguished, that is, the purchaser. This shift of onus of proof should have limited ramifications in practical terms. In general, it should be fairly easy for a person to establish that they purchased goods in good faith, for value and without notice of the security interest.

The proposed amendment accepts the recommendation and reflects an approach taken by Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania and Queensland to provide that the standard of proof for "related companies or persons" is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Currently, the Act does not contain provisions that deal with priority disputes, hence in New South Wales, common law principles are used to settle disputes between competing security holders. In order to achieve substantially consistent legislation regarding priority between two or more competing registered security interests, the Duggan report recommends that each jurisdiction’s legislation determine priority. The proposed changes are consistent with the main principles of the Victorian-Western Australian model which are:

(a) if there are two or more security interests in relation to the same goods and one or more of those security interests is registered, the interests will take priority based on the date of registration;

(b) the order of priority is subject to any express contrary provision in the Corporations Law and to any agreement between the holders of the security interests; and

(c) in the case where there are two unregistered security interests in a vehicle which is subsequently repossessed by the holder of one of the security interests, the party having possession of the vehicle has priority over any subsequently registered security interest.

This legislation improves the provisions relating to compensation matters At present, the Act provides that in the case of computer system errors the security interest is extinguished; however, the holder of the security interest is entitled to compensation. Section 14 of the Act currently limits the amount of compensation payable to the security holder, to the value of the loss or the amount of the purchase price of the vehicle, whichever is the lesser. This limitation disadvantages the holder of the security interest in cases where the actual value of the vehicle is greater than the purchase price. In such circumstances the security interest holder will be left to bear the shortfall.

The Duggan report recommends that the amount of compensation should be limited to the lesser of the amount of the debt or the value of the vehicle. The value of the vehicle should be taken to be the purchase price unless it is established that the value is greater than the purchase price. The amendment to the Act reflects this. As mentioned earlier, the bill also includes an amendment intended to address legislative deficiencies which have been identified in the financial provisions of the Act. The Act already establishes the registration of interests in goods account. Funds in this account are generated from fees charged for using REVS.

Section 11 of the Act details a very limited range of purposes for which funds in the account may be used, such as payment of an award of compensation for loss and amounts required to repay an advance made by the Treasurer. Historically, it has been the practice of the Department of Fair Trading to levy an administration charge against the account to meet staffing and other operational expenses incurred in administering the Act. This practice is in keeping with the then Government’s stated intention when the Act was introduced. On 16 April 1986, during the second reading speech, the then Minister stated that "the cost of operating REVS will not come out of consolidated revenue . . . operating costs will be achieved by charging a nominal fee for a certificate that will contain details of encumbrances".

It has become apparent the Act does not fully reflect the intention of the Parliament. This position has recently been confirmed by advice received from the New South Wales Crown Solicitor. The Crown Solicitor commented in his advice that the wording of section 11, as originally enacted, suggested that Parliament intended REVS to be self-funding in the sense that fees paid into consolidated fund would match the costs of REVS. However, in 1989 the Act was amended by the Registration of Interests in Goods (Amendment) Act 1989 which substituted the current section 11. This substituted section is far more prescriptive as to the purposes for which withdrawals can be made from the account.

In the 1989 amendment Act’s second reading speech in reference to the new section 11, the then Minister commented that ". . . the bill reflects the fact that REVS is now a commercial, off-budget operation . . . " To ensure there is no ambiguity, it is proposed to amend the Act to enable an amount authorised by the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading, with the consent of the Minister for Fair Trading, to be paid out of the account to meet costs which are incurred by the department in administering the Act. It is also proposed to amend the Act to enable the account to be used for a broader range of purposes in the Fair Trading portfolio to provide even greater consumer protection. Expenditure of this nature will require the consent of the Minister.

The ability to use the account for a wider range of purposes will enable the department to fund various activities, which can benefit motor vehicle consumers and industry alike. This could include consumer protection measures encouraging the purchase of motor vehicles from licensed motor dealers and compliance strategies for the purpose of increasing conformity with other legislation in the Fair Trading portfolio which also relates to motor vehicles, for example the Motor Dealers and Fair Trading Act. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [6.52 p.m.]: The Opposition is pleased to support the Registration of Interests in Goods Amendment Bill, which was introduced into the lower House last week and provides for the registration of interests in goods - currently limited to motor vehicles and boats - and for the
Page 1855
extinguishment of interests when goods affected by such an interest are purchased by a private buyer in good faith and for value without notice from a private seller.

This is a good bill because it clarifies a number of discrepancies with respect to the registration of interests in goods. It is in accordance with a trend that is occurring in other jurisdictions throughout the country whereby all other jurisdictions - they are not opting out of this national proposal - are ensuring that there is consistency in interests in respect of property.

The bill is straightforward. It provides changes to the standard of proof and puts in place certain protections, particularly in respect of motor vehicle repairers who previously have fallen in the cracks of the system. This bill gives repairers, who have become victims of predators who have taken control of property, an opportunity to be compensated in a fair and proper way before the creditor disposes of the property, or its complete value.

The bill informs persons who have acted in good faith and purchased property how not to fall victim to predators. I am sure honourable members have heard about people, more often younger people, who purchase a motor vehicle in a private sale in the hope of getting a vehicle cheaper. They are not interested in a warranty; they are interested only in having a car that they can afford and is reliable.

Notwithstanding the existence of REVS, some people buy a car and find that within a short period of time a creditor has towed away their prized possession, leaving them with the difficulty of claiming compensation from the person from whom they bought the vehicle. It appears to be a complicated bill when one reads the overview but the objectives are straightforward. The Opposition is pleased to support this bill.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [6.56 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his contribution and his most favourable comments. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

[The President left the chair at 6.58 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [7.30 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 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill continues the well-established statute law revision program that is recognised by all members as a cost-effective and efficient method of dealing with amendments of the kind included in the bill. The form of this bill is similar to that of previous bills in the statute law revision program. Schedule 1 to the bill contains policy changes of a minor and non-controversial nature that the Minister responsible for the legislation to be amended considers to be too inconsequential to warrant the introduction of a separate amending bill. Schedule 1 contains amendments to 51 Acts. I shall mention some of those amendments to give honourable members an indication of the types of amendments that are included in the schedule.

The amendments to the Constitution Act 1902 will provide for the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, rather than the Chairman of Committees, to act in the place of the Speaker when he or she is absent from New South Wales. The amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 and the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 will provide for the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board and the Privacy Commissioner to be appointed on either a full-time basis or a part-time basis. The amendments also abrogate the doctrine of incompatible offices to the extent that it would preclude the holder of the office of president of the Anti-Discrimination Board or of Privacy Commissioner from also holding judicial or statutory office.

The bill amends the City of Sydney Act 1988 so as to empower the Electoral Commissioner, rather than the general manager of the City of Sydney, to exercise technical functions related to enrolment for elections for the City of Sydney. Last year the Electoral Commissioner was made responsible for the preparation of electoral rolls. The bill makes a number of minor amendments to public sector superannuation legislation. The amendments to the First State Superannuation Act 1992 will ensure that the salary nominated by an executive officer at the time of making an election to become a member of the scheme under that Act is not less than the monetary remuneration payable to the officer at the time of the nomination.

The amendments to the Superannuation Act 1916 will provide for a minimum benefit when a scheme member dies before retirement and his or her surviving spouse also dies without having commuted a reversionary pension so as to achieve consistency between the treatment of contributors and pensioners who die without having commuted their pension. Other amendments in schedule 1 include amendments to the Landlord and Tenant (Rental Bonds) Act 1977 and the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 1941 to provide for

Page 1856
the costs and expenses of administering the Residential Tribunal Act 1998 and the Residential Parks Act 1998 to be payable out of the statutory interest account or rental bond interest account established under the Acts, restoring the funding scheme that existed before the enactment of the 1998 Acts.

The Subordinate Legislation Act 1989 is amended so as to postpone the repeal of the Recreation Vehicles (General) Regulation 1985 until 1 October 1999. The regulation is due for repeal on 1 September 1999. The bill contains a number of amendments to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The amendments will empower an appropriate regulatory authority to require information to support an application for surrender of a licence, in the same way as it is currently authorised to require further information from an applicant for the issue, transfer or variation of a licence, and will achieve uniformity in various provisions regarding the date from which certain decisions of a regulatory authority operate and the date that the issue or variation of a prevention notice takes effect.

Under the proposed amendments a clean-up notice or prevention notice that is issued in good faith and in respect of which a dispute arises will be able to be confirmed by the authority that is in fact the appropriate regulatory authority. The amendments provide that action already taken before such a confirmation is valid and that any future action with respect to the notice is to be taken by the authority that is ultimately determined to be the appropriate regulatory authority. The last schedule 1 amendments that I will mention are the amendments to the Police Offences Act 1901. The amendments repeal part 3 of the Act, which contains a number of offences that are outdated or that are now dealt with in other legislation. For example, section 70 provides that a person is liable to pay a maximum penalty of $4 if in any street or public place the person beats or dusts any carpet or flies any kite.

Schedule 2 deals with matters of pure statute law revision consisting of minor technical changes to legislation that the Parliamentary Counsel considers are appropriate for inclusion in the bill. Examples of amendments in schedule 2 are those omitting unnecessary material and those updating references to statutory bodies and statutory office holders. Schedule 3 updates references to Acts. Schedule 4 updates references to courts of petty sessions, which were abolished and replaced by local courts, and to police magistrates and stipendiary magistrates, the functions of which are exercised by magistrates. Schedule 5 contains amendments to technical features of legislation to facilitate the implementation of a new computer mark-up language to improve on-line access to legislation on the legislation database prepared and maintained by the Parliamentary Counsel’s office. This database forms the basis of the public’s electronic access to the legislation of the State.

Schedule 6 amends the Justices Act 1902 for the purpose of removing the gender-specific language used before the policy of using gender-neutral language in legislation was implemented. This is one of the few remaining significant Acts that were not covered by the program included in previous statute law revision bills. Schedule 7 contains repeals of amending Acts that are at least 10 years old and contain no substantive provisions and of more recent Acts that contain only amendments incorporated in reprints or amendments to repealed Acts. The schedule also repeals the Juvenile Migrants Act 1926, which is of no practical utility. Schedule 8 contains provisions dealing with the effect of amendments on amending Acts, savings clauses for the repealed Acts and a power to make regulations for transitional matters if necessary.

The various amendments are explained in detail in explanatory notes set out beneath the amendments to each of the Acts concerned. Rather than repeat the information contained in those notes, I invite honourable members to examine the various amendments and accompanying explanatory material and, if any concern or need for clarification arises, to approach me regarding the matter. If necessary I will arrange for government officers to provide additional information on the matters raised. If any particular matter of concern cannot be resolved and is likely to delay the passage of the bill, the Government is prepared to consider withdrawing the matter from the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [7.32 p.m.]: The Opposition has carefully considered the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It is the standard omnibus bill that is presented to Parliament usually twice a year to clean up a lot of small changes, some regarding Acts, amendments or understandings. A quick perusal of the bill indicates that there are 51 such items listed. This is a mechanism whereby the Government can advance minor changes without having to go through a deal of hardship in presenting a plethora of bills. The Opposition is concerned about schedule 1.24, which deals with the Meat Industry Amendment Act 1998 No 129 and provides:

[3] Schedule 1 [87]

Omit "12 members" from section 45 (2) of the Meat Industry Act 1978 (as proposed to be inserted by Schedule 1 [87]).

Insert instead "13 members".

[4] Schedule 1 [87]

Inserted after section 45 (2) (i) of the Meat Industry Act 1978 (as proposed to be inserted by Schedule 1 [87]):

, and

(j) one, who is a member of a trade union, is to be a representative of consumers of abattoir meat and processed meat.

The Government indicated to me that in the Committee stage it would agree with the Opposition’s amendment that would delete lines 6 to 16 from schedule 1, page 28, and lines 8 and 9 from page 29. I thank the Government for ensuring that that will happen. I will check with the Clerk whether that should be page 28, lines 8 and 9. The Clerk has pointed out that in the second part of the amendment there is an explanatory paragraph under schedule 1 on page 29 that is consequential on the first amendment that the Opposition will move. I thank the Government for indicating its support of the Opposition’s amendments. The Opposition supports the bill.

Page 1857

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [7.36 p.m.]: I thank the Government for the courtesy extended to me in regard to my contribution to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which may have sounded a little like a reference to the Home Building Amendment Bill. The Home Building Amendment Bill was a step forward in regulating the building industry and I understand the Opposition supported it. Perhaps a more far-reaching reform is required and I ask the Minister, who is anxious to prove his mettle, to review the existing legislation relating to the regulation of home builders to make sure that it is doing its job.

As an illustration, I refer to the activities of a builder named Rocco Vitalone, who trades in the Macarthur and southern Sydney area as Vital Homes. This man has a builder’s licence, operates alone, employs no regular tradespeople and has no regular staff. In early January I delivered numerous letters - a wad of mail nearly an inch thick containing letters of complaint relating to 20 homes - to the Minister for Fair Trading.

There are seven matters relating to the behaviour of this builder in the Commercial Claims Tribunal operated by the Department Fair Trading. The complaints range from failure to lodge proper documents with relevant local councils to adding unnecessary concrete piers and slabs to new houses which are frequently not required by engineers and sometimes have not been properly drawn on council plans. Despite that, this builder charges for the additional piering at twice the going rate. He has cost his customers thousands of extra dollars.

Endless complaints have been made that he does not construct houses according to building plans submitted to councils or according to contract specifications. He has constructed houses with odd door openings. I saw one bathroom which had had its door opening reconstructed to fit a wardrobe door. There have been instances of wrong-sized windows, the use of weatherboard in place of bricks and the use of second-hand building materials. I saw a rusty laundry tub installed and, in a more serious instance, I saw a housing frame, which had been manufactured for a different style of house, left out in the rain and then recut and recycled into another housing job. It had been so badly recut that it did not fit properly on the slab.

There have been numerous complaints about the fixed price for his jobs. I have been informed about many customers who have started with a low price and have ended up paying thousands of dollars more for the house than they intended to. In one instance he painted the walls in a house the wrong colour. He then agreed to paint the walls in the colour the customer required, but he charged the customer extra for repainting and at a rate as though it was a variation to the contract. All builders charge a loading for variations to contracts, but Mr Vitalone charges for variations to the contract at a rate 30 per cent above the normal price. That is an extraordinary charge.

I visited one home in the Narellan area which was originally quoted at a price of $69,900. The finished home ended up costing the home owner $102,000 - $33,000 over the contract price. In this case Mr Vitalone submitted the home plans to Camden council and failed to obtain approval. At that point the customer wanted to cancel the contract and go elsewhere but Mr Vitalone threatened the home owner - who spoke English as a second language and who was not particularly familiar with the law - with legal action, saying he was breaching the contract.

This was a flagrant misstatement. Most home building contracts are invalidated if they fail to gain approval of council. Mr Vitalone told the home owner that if he did not go ahead with the house he would sue him for $15,000 compensation for breach of contract. This was a totally fallacious claim. The customer buckled under that threat and wound up paying $33,000 more for the home than he originally intended.

I have been informed of lengthy delays by Mr Vitalone in completing houses. I have seen and been made aware of projects that Mr Vitalone started on the understanding they would be completed in 16 weeks, which is standard for a project home, but which have taken in excess of two years to complete. I have seen some building sites where little more than the slab has been laid in nine or 10 months. These delays have cost owners thousands of dollars in extra expense and interest and, in many instances, they have had to seek alternative accommodation. If they were building the house as an investment property, they have lost the rental income they would have gained had the home been constructed in the proper time.

It particularly concerns me that Mr Vitalone has been able to master the art of delaying and stalling the existing complaint mechanism which is designed to deal with builders like him. He basically stalls the complaint process using a wide variety of tricks. As a result, some customers walk away from the complaint exhausted from the process - either because they can wait no longer or they spend so much money in the process they can no longer afford to go on with their complaints. Even to lodge
Page 1858
a standard complaint most customers need to spend about $1,000 to get engineering advice or to hire a building consultant. It is then normal for them to wait up to six weeks just to get a preliminary hearing in the relevant tribunal.

Sometimes it takes two or three months before they get to the first hearing where evidence is actually presented. Sometimes there is another hearing and sometimes a visit to the site, and between each hearing there are weeks of delay. Finally, the referee makes a decision. It is not unusual for the housing complaint process to take six to eight months. When someone complains to the Building Tribunal that it took nine months to build a house, it can be particularly galling to have another six to eight months added to that.

I have just found out about one couple that took Vital Homes to the tribunal and, because their case was particularly urgent, the Department of Fair Trading organised for their complaint to be expedited. In any event, even the expedited claim took eight weeks from the time of the original complaint until evidence was presented. To illustrate Mr Vitalone’s gall, in the tribunal, after he had been confronted with evidence that it was nine months before he did anything more than excavate the property and that he had carried out the excavation without council approval or permission from the owners, he made a cross-claim of $30,000 against the customers. He said that if they were prepared to pay him $30,000 he would walk away from the job, and he expected that money as compensation for the profit he had lost by not completing the home.

On another occasion Mr Vitalone allowed a case to drag on through the tribunal. Again, the issue was the length of time it had taken him to construct the house. Much of what he had constructed had to be demolished. As the referee was about to make a ruling Mr Vitalone rushed into the tribunal and announced that he was making a claim in the Local Court against the home owners for $150,000 for loss of profit and damages, thus robbing the customers of a settlement in the tribunal and causing more delay and, without a doubt, causing the home owners to incur more costs. He was obviously hoping that these people would give up, because not everyone has the resources to go on and on in this process.

The processes we have in place to catch builders such as Mr Vitalone of Vital Homes need to be tightened up to ensure he cannot continue to do this. I have also met unpaid contractors. I met a concreter who is owed $25,000 and a gyprocker who is owed $1,700, and I understand Mr Vitalone owes a kitchen company in the Liverpool area more than $2,000. It is not just individual home owners who have been making complaints about Mr Vitalone.

I contacted a number of councils in the areas where he builds houses. I was amazed to learn that public authorities such as councils knew so much about his misdeeds and were quite able to commit in writing a great deal of detail about what a rotten builder Mr Vitalone was. Despite that, he is still able to take customers and continue to cause the havoc that he has caused to so many people. I received a letter from Wollondilly Shire Council dated 5 February, which stated:

As a general comment, it appears from Council’s records that the following matters are common issues for all applications submitted and processed by this Council.

•Erosion and sediment control protection measures are not installed and/or maintained.

•Piers, and in some cases concrete slabs, are filled with concrete before inspected and/or approved by Council’s building surveyors.

•Engineer’s certificates are not supplied until much later in the project, generally at final inspection phase.

•Termite protection certified by the builder and not by accredited termite protection installer . . .

•Smoke detectors not installed in dwellings at time of final inspection.

•Roof and wall frame loading points often inadequate or inappropriately located.

The council says a builder in its area regularly builds houses on which the roof and wall frame loading points are often inadequate or inappropriately located, yet the builder continues to accept customers and cause havoc. Building consultant K A Goddard Pty Ltd looked at a building constructed by Mr Vitalone and provided this report:

As can be seen in the report there have been many errors throughout the construction of this very small and simple to build residence. The majority of mistakes occur from elementary mistakes in the setting out of the residence followed by extremely bad workmanship. Any person that calls himself a licensed Builder should be able to set out this very simple residence without any mistakes and control his subcontractors to provide a finished [sic] to the residence acceptable to all parties. Mr Vitalone does [not] fall into this category.

Mr Vitalone has caused -

and he names the persons involved -

. . . who only required a very simple residence erected on their property, a terrific amount of stress, trauma and cost due to his

Page 1859
inability to be able to read a plan and transfer the information into erecting the residence.

In my opinion Mr Vitalone is not a fit person to hold a Builders Licence and I would have no hesitation in recommending to the Department of Fair Trading that his Licence be revoked immediately and stamped with "Never to be renewed" and that "Mr Vitalone is not a fit person to ever a hold a Builders Licence."

That appears to be the case, but it would appear that a file an inch thick full of complaints from me to the Minister about this man, and endless actions before the building tribunal - where, apparently, his reputation is well known - have still not resulted in the removal of this builder’s licence. Most honourable members would agree that there is enough evidence hanging around this man to warrant something being done. I urge the Minister to do something about it. I accept that the Home Building Amendment Bill was a first step and I welcome it, but more things might need to be done if other builders operate as Mr Vitalone does.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [7.50 p.m.], in reply: The Government remains committed to providing consumer representation on the Meat Industry Authority board. However, because of time limits placed on it at this stage it will address the issue at a later date. Permission of the consumer representative under the current Act was an oversight and I reiterate that the Government will correct that omission at the next opportunity. It is appropriate at this time to include union representation on the board while the rationalisation of abattoirs continues.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Schedule 1

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [7.53 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 28, schedule 1.24, lines 6-16. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 2 Page 29, schedule 1.24, lines 8 and 9. Omit all words on those lines.

I thank the Minister for his support for the amendments. These amendments are a sensible move and relate to the Meat Industry Authority Amendment Act. The people in the meat industry are particularly pleased to know the Government accepts the amendments. I commend the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedules 2 to 8 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [7.56 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.

Australia has taken a national decision to change the mapping datum used in Australia. That change will affect everyone who uses mapping, spatial data or co-ordinates of latitude and longitude. The aim of this bill is to define the new datum, called the Geocentric Datum of Australia or GDA. A "datum" is a mathematical model of the surface of the earth on which mapping and co-ordinate systems are based and is fundamental for describing where things are in relation to each other.

As the words imply, "geocentric datum" is a datum which has its origin at the earth’s centre of mass. The key advantages of the GDA over Australia’s current datum are that GDA is totally compatible with satellite-based navigation systems such as the global positioning system [GPS] and with major international geographic information systems. The current mathematical model in use in Australia - the Australian Geodetic Datum or AGD - was designed to best fit the Australian region. The GDA is designed to model the whole planet.

Retaining the current Australian system in an international environment where positioning, navigation and information systems relate to a global earth model is becoming increasingly inefficient and difficult. The use of a globally compatible co-ordinate system within Australia is now inevitable given the rapid increase in the use of GPS technology in the land transport, aviation, maritime, defence, emergency service and community sectors. A number of

Page 1860
Commonwealth agencies, including defence, aviation and maritime industries, have already adopted the geocentric datum. The longer we stay with the existing system the more difficult and expensive it will be to convert to GDA.

The proposed legislation is the product of recommendations made by the Inter-governmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping [ICSM] which comprises the Surveyor-General of New South Wales, or his counterparts from all Australian jurisdictions, New Zealand and Defence. ICSM has recommended that Australia convert to GDA by the year 2000 and has provided the new co-ordinate framework to enable this to happen. The Surveyor-General of New South Wales proposed the adoption of GDA for all government agencies from 1 January 2000 in line with commitments by other jurisdictions. This proposal was endorsed by the New South Wales Government late last year.

Adopting a geocentric datum allows for a single standard for collecting, storing and using geographic data. This will ensure compatibility across various geographic systems at the local, regional, national and global level. This is the main reason that the GDA will form the basis for the Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure [ASDI] - which provides the infrastructure to manage Australia’s key spatial data sets. Adoption of a geocentric datum will also provide a range of benefits including: providing direct compatibility with global positioning system measurements and mapping or geographic information systems [GIS] which are based on the geocentric datum; minimising the need for casual users to understand datum transformations; allowing more efficient use of organisations’ spatial data resources by reducing the need for duplication and unnecessary translations; helping to promote wider use of spatial data through one user friendly data environment; and reducing the risk of confusion as GPS, GIS and navigation systems become more widely used in business and recreational activities.

Adoption of GDA does not mean that positions on the earth’s surface will move, rather, the geographic co-ordinates or latitudes and longitudes used to describe the position of objects will vary by about 200 metres in a north easterly direction because of the different models. The actual size and orientation of the change will vary slightly from place to place. It should be possible to convert existing digital spatial data to GDA where the datum of the original digital data is known. Raster or image data such as remote sensing images may need to be treated differently and the suppliers or developers of this data will be consulted on any transformation issues. It is estimated that about 30 per cent of all geographic information is still held as paper maps. Much of this information may not require conversion. All organisations will require individual strategies for paper-based products. Some simple strategies for existing paper-based maps may involve the placement of warning stickers or stamps alerting the user to the change.

Part 2 of the bill provides a mechanism for defining in mathematical terms the Geocentric Datum of Australia. The proposed legislation also empowers the Surveyor-General, as the Government’s chief advisor on surveying and mapping, to amend or replace the datum from time to time and to specify systems to be used in map projections in connection with the datum. Map projection systems provide a means of describing the earth’s three-dimensional curved surface in the form of a two-dimensional map and the grid co-ordinates used such as Easting and Northing or geographic co-ordinates, which are latitude and longitude.

To remove ambiguity and for consistency, the Government, through the Surveyor-General, needs to specify official map projections to be used in New South Wales. Legal boundaries are generally defined by physical features or marks on the ground. These boundaries, such as State borders and land titles, will not change, though the co-ordinates of them may. There are some minor exceptions to this general principle in the mining sector. Some boundaries may have been defined by co-ordinates in terms of the AGD. These boundaries will not change, although the co-ordinates will be different when converted to GDA. In some cases, boundaries have been defined by co-ordinates without reference to a co-ordinate system.

In these instances, the physical location has always been uncertain and this will remain. Part 3 of the bill deals with regulation-making powers allowing the Governor to make regulations giving effect to this legislation. Schedule 2 to the bill deals with amendments to various Acts. These Acts are the Mining Act 1992, the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1982 and the Survey Co-ordination Act 1949. Under the Mining Act 1992, amongst the range of titles granted are exploration licences and assessment leases. There are presently about 780 exploration licences; 180 exploration licence applications; one assessment lease and 19 assessment lease applications in New South Wales.

Exploration licences and applications for those titles are granted and applied for in respect of areas of land defined as "units". The same can apply for assessment leases and assessment lease applications. To describe the system briefly, the State of New South Wales is covered by parallels of latitude and meridians of longitude. A "unit" is defined in section 370 of the Mining Act 1992. A unit is an area bounded by one minute of latitude by one minute of longitude. Each unit is approximately three square kilometres in size. The datum used for the latitudes and longitudes is set out in section 371 of the Mining Act 1992 and refers to the Australian Geodetic Datum 1966.

This bill provides that section 371 is to be replaced by a new section referring to the new Geocentric Datum of Australia. This will mean that latitudes and longitudes, and therefore "units", will move approximately 200 metres to the south west. Schedule 2 to this bill sets out in detail how all exploration licences and all applications for exploration licences, which are defined by reference to units, will shift to the south-west by approximately 200 metres. This will occur on the commencement of the appropriate clause. The same will apply to assessment leases and assessment lease applications where they are defined by units.

Officers of the Surveyor-General’s Office and the Department of Mineral Resources have been involved in the development of this provision. The movement of all licences and applications on a nominated date is the desirable course to take. It will overcome the need to keep two sets of maps, one on the old system and another on the new system. This approach will also overcome the considerable difficulties which would otherwise arise of having some titles on the new system and some on the old and the associated problems of being able to ensure that boundaries of licences and applications do not overlap. However, it is recognised that some licence holders may have located valuable mineral deposits within their licence areas adjacent to northern and eastern boundaries.

For this reason, paragraph 5 of the clauses dealing with exploration licences and paragraph 3 of the clauses dealing with assessment leases have been specially included. Under these clauses, the holder of an exploration licence and

Page 1861
assessment lease may apply, within 90 days after the commencement of the clause, to the Minister for Mineral Resources to have the licence or lease restored to the whole or a specified part of the land excluded. Of the total of some 780 exploration licences, it has been estimated that perhaps 20 to 30 licences may be ones where licence holders may seek a restoration to an original boundary.

Similar amendments are being made to the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1982. There are presently 27 petroleum exploration licences and two petroleum exploration licence applications under the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991. There are presently no licences or applications in the coastal waters offshore of New South Wales under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1982. In respect of the amendments to the Survey Co-ordination Act 1949, the bill will amend clause 6 of that Act requiring all surveys carried out by or on behalf of a public authority, other than surveys carried out in accordance with the Surveyors Act, to be made in accordance with the geocentric datum of Australia. No private organisation will be forced to change.

Individual State government policies may require State agencies to comply with GDA at least for the transfer of data. As always, individual organisations will be based on a co-ordinate system they require - AGD or whatever. However, as others change to GDA, it may become increasingly inefficient to use project-based co-ordinate systems where external data is required. Adoption of this bill will see Australia and New South Wales well placed to take advantage of emerging global technologies and related standards. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [7.56 p.m.]: The Opposition fully supports this bill. It is of a technical nature and is necessary to complement the rapid development of our modern positioning system. It is interesting to see the Hon. R. S. L. Jones in the Chamber as I know he is concerned about environmental matters. Many of us are familiar with the little gimmicks, as I call them, that people have in their cars whereby they have only to press a button to find out how far they are from London or wherever.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: GPS.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: GPS systems. I suppose some people would say, "So what?" However, I should like to speak about how they have revolutionised aerial spraying of herbicides, fertilisers and insecticides. Where once people would be at the end of the paddock with flags and then dart when the aircraft went over spraying, now it is a matter of flying only once over the boundaries of the area to be sprayed, the button is clicked and it shows with wind directions and everything exactly where to fly in the rows across the paddock and when to turn the spray on and off. Along with myriad other things that is one small example of how technology is moving ahead. We welcome it and this legislation simply facilitates developments in that technical area.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [7.58 p.m.]: The only query I have with the legislation is how compensation will be determined for miners who have to move their markers by 200 metres. Has that been determined or quantified? Where will the money come from? Will miners be given other exploration land? Perhaps the Minister for Mining could enlighten us. The proposition has been put to me that 200 metres south-west is too great a move too soon, and that this should be amended to only 100 metres. It was a purely jocular proposition; it was the type of suggestion one makes on 1 April. We no longer live where we thought we were living; we now live 200 metres south-west, which is a concern.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You could have waterfront.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: The waterfront is now in the ocean. Places like mine which used to be on a hill are now officially on the waterfront. Obviously, the bill must be passed. We now know from satellites exactly where we are; we no longer have to use ground maps. I do not think the Minister will respond to my question about compensation for the miners. However, I would like to know how compensation can be quantified, and whether it will be a lot of money. If the miners cannot be given land, can they be given cash instead? Perhaps the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment can help me on that point.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [8.00 p.m.]: The Opposition supports this bill. Last night I finished reading what could be described in the popular vernacular as a factional book, which is a book of facts but written as a novel. The title of the book is Longitude. It was the most marvellous read, absolutely incredible. The British Parliament established a prize for those who were able to establish longitude. The prize dates back to the Astronomer General, Mr Halley, who is synonymous with the comet.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: The 1702 Halley’s comet.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Yes. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones has a shared history with Mr Halley as they are both Poms. The honourable member has acknowledged where Halley’s comet got its name. The observatory at Greenwich is zero longitude. During the 1700s the development of an accurate timepiece for sea travellers to judge longitude was the greatest achievement. In the 1790s one
Page 1862
experimental piece travelled with Cook to Australia. Another experimental piece travelled with Bligh on his ill-fated trip.

In connection with what the Government is doing as we move into the next millennium with global positioning and measuring distance from the centre of the earth, I recommend Longitude to honourable members who what to read an interesting account of recent history. It is only about 100 years ago that we could not accurately judge longitude. That particular book - I am not sure whether it is in the parliamentary library but it is a bestseller at present - is well worth reading.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [8.03 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. D. F. Moppett, the Hon. D. J. Gay and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones for their contributions to the debate. Adoption of the proposals in the bill to define the geocentric datum of Australia will ensure that New South Wales remains in step with international best practice by implementing a single standard for collecting, storing and applying mapping and positional data at all levels - local, regional, national and international. The Government appreciates the Opposition’s support for this bill.

I can inform the Hon. R. S. L. Jones that the mining industry has agreed to the changes and has been fully consulted on them. When a licence holder can demonstrate to the Minister for Mineral Resources that valuable mineral deposits are situated within 150 metres to 200 metres of a northern or eastern boundary, there is provision for that holder to put a case to the Minister within 90 days after the appointed day for the licence to be restored to the whole or the specified part of the land excluded.

If the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has further questions beyond the information I have provided I am happy to speak further to him after the debate. However, I appreciate his support for the bill. By embracing this new datum, New South Wales will be well placed to take maximum advantage of current global technologies. I thank honourable members for their constructive input, and I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 30 June.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY [8.06 p.m.]: The proposed changes to the Local Government Act are the Government’s response to the needs of local government. One need is that some councils want to pursue voluntary amalgamation. In the bush that is vital. The Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs, Harry Woods, has consistently said that a strong rural local council can be a significant player in regional development. That is particularly the case in country New South Wales. Voluntary amalgamation is another way for councils to be involved in regional development.

Regional development means jobs and prosperity for regional centres and rural towns across New South Wales. The Minister in his second reading speech said that there is an unusual situation in the northern tablelands. From my history in local government I remember that a number of doughnut councils always resisted having discussions with neighbouring councils. These included Armidale, Dumaresq, Albury, Hume, Goulburn and Mulwarree. At present the airport for the city of Armidale is in Dumaresq shire. The Armidale and Dumaresq councils have seen the advantages of pooling their resources for the benefit of ratepayers, and that is why they are pursuing voluntary amalgamation.

Those two councils have approached the Minister with a view to voluntary amalgamation. As I said, for a long time Dumaresq did not consider the advantages of amalgamation. As a result of this bill some 24 councils are considering their future. In rural and regional New South Wales some councils provide all the infrastructure and services while their immediate neighbouring councils gain most of the rate revenue and contribute nothing to the provision of facilities and services that the ratepayers use daily.

In 1980 Dubbo Municipal Council, as it then was, was surrounded by Talbragar Shire Council. The ratepayers in Talbragar shire contributed nothing to the library, the swimming pool, roads, street lighting, the town hall, the senior citizens centre, waste and garbage disposal, tourism, main street development and other regional development
Page 1863
in the city of Dubbo. Talbragar and Dubbo councils amalgamated in 1981.

To digress for a moment, I understand that it is proposed to include a provision for referendums in the Act. One does not need to be Einstein to work out how the ratepayers in the former Talbragar Shire Council area, who used the services and facilities provided by the residents in the Dubbo council area every day when they travelled to the city, hospital, airport, swimming pool or library but made no contribution to those facilities, would have voted in a referendum to amalgamate.

They would have unanimously supported non-amalgamation. They would not support a referendum that would make them contribute to something in the future that they are already getting without making a contribution to it. This bill is about giving councils a say in their future. Councils are in the best position to judge their long-term viability and how they can provide the necessary service and infrastructure to ratepayers. This is not forced amalgamation as the Opposition would have one believe. The Opposition does not seem to understand that the Act has contained a provision to force amalgamation since 1919. The then Minister, who happened to be my local member at the time, the Hon. Gerry Peacocke -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: A fine fellow.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: I agree. In 1993 he put that same provision into the Act. The Carr Government will not force amalgamation. That has been our policy from the outset. The Minister has stated that there will be no forced amalgamation. The Government has said that it is its policy and if any person wishes to look at Labor Party policy, which is on the Internet site http://nsw alp.labor.net.au/policy/policy.localgovernment.htm, its policy has been and continues to be no forced amalgamation. It is not just a matter of the Minister changing his mind; he would have to change the minds of 860 delegates at the Local Government Conference, so it will remain Labor Party policy.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It will only remain if you pass our amendments.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: Why didn’t you put them into the 1993 Act under Gerry Peacocke?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Because I wasn’t here.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: Why didn’t Gerry Peacocke? Why wasn’t it put into the Act in the years since 1919? It has not been used in that time, although it has been there all the time. Only when two or more councils agree to amalgamate following a rigorous consultation process will it proceed. On employment, the Minister has stated that he would protect the rights of workers in any possible voluntary amalgamation. In rural areas local councils are often the major employers.

The impact on employment from forced redundancy in country areas is critical. With the doughnut council amalgamation, there should not be too many changes of employment. A number of us who come from the country would realise that amalgamation of councils from a fair distance away could force some problems in the transfer of staff from towns when staff are vital for the future of those towns. It would also be unfair to employees if entitlements and benefits accrued in councils were lost due to an amalgamation. When it is time for proclamation for a new amalgamated council following the decisions by the councils involved, the Minister will ensure that the rights and entitlements of staff are preserved.

This will mean, among other things, preservation of employment conditions as if the employee is continuing with the same employer, subject to the same remuneration and benefits and with the same duties until a new award or agreement is reached. It will also mean preservation of all leave and superannuation entitlements within the council and that no forced redundancies as a result of amalgamations can occur within three years of an amalgamation. Unions, the local government, industry and the affected councils will be consulted during the drafting of these proclamations.

Since the bill was proposed I have received phone calls and visits from general managers and mayors throughout country New South Wales. The majority of those mayors who have contacted me are members of the National Party, some have been candidates for the National Party and they are saying "No referendums". They have been to the Minister today -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Name them.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: The Mayor of Guyra was here this afternoon and the former Mayor of Wellington rang me this morning. If they are forced to have a referendum before an amalgamation there will not be any amalgamation. I support the bill unamended.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Is Ron Hoenig a member of the National Party?

Page 1864

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: He is not one of the ones that contacted me.

The Hon. I. COHEN [8.15 p.m.]: I have a number of concerns about the Local Government Amendment (Amalgamations and Boundary Changes) Bill. I heard the comments of the previous speaker and have no objection in principle to a number of amalgamations or rationalisations if the proper process is followed and if there is adequate community consultation and public participation. A number of people representing the Government in various capacities are keen for these reforms to be passed. The comment is often made that there is not a great deal of interest in local government outside Byron shire where I come from, and I disagree with that strongly. There is strong community interest in local politics and more and more communities are taking an interest and participating in local government.

It is important that if there is to be change at the local government level it is done in such away as to achieve, where possible, a great degree of community consensus. Once upon a time this Chamber was a repository of non-doing. There has been a change in local government and people are now realising that they have an opportunity to participate at that important level of government. It should be treated with more respect than it was in the past because it is not constitutionally recognised. Communities should be adequately represented at that level.

The Greens oppose the bill because it allows forced amalgamations to occur and it is the Greens policy to condemn forced amalgamations. The bill also allows for councils to defer elections, which the Greens are also totally opposed to. Clause 218F is the key to forced amalgamations. The Greens will be moving amendments in Committee to ensure that this does not occur. Clause 218F deals with the referral of proposals for examination and report. On making or receiving a proposal, the Minister must refer it for examination and report to the Boundaries Commission or to the director-general. The director-general must furnish his report to the Boundaries Commission for review and comment.

The Minister may then recommend to the Governor that the proposal be implemented with such other modifications as the Minister determines and may do so even if the modifications constitute a new proposal. I have great concerns about that reference to "such other modifications as the Minister determines". That is a dangerous precedent, particularly with a Minister who in conservation circles is not known for his balance and openness when dealing with issues that he has been involved in. I cite particularly his role as the member for Clarence on a number of forest issues and the endangered bats at Maclean, when he acted in a way that was not becoming of a Minister.

It seems as though the Minister can still recommend forced amalgamations even if the councils do not agree and there is no such recommendation from the Boundaries Commission or the director-general. The Government went into the March 1999 election with a local government policy. Specifically, the introduction to the policy stated: "Carr Labor Government will . . . oppose forced council amalgamations". Additionally, the Minister has stated on numerous occasions in the House that he will not go down the forced amalgamation path. For instance, on 3 June David Barr asked the Minister:

If there is a public inquiry into two or more councils regarding an amalgamation proposal and there is no agreement between the two affected councils after the inquiry process, will the Minister force these councils to amalgamate?

The Minister said "No". Similarly, on 1 June I asked whether the Carr Government will continue to oppose forced amalgamations and whether it remains government policy. The Greens made representations to the Premier during the election campaign regarding forced amalgamations because of their concern. The Greens were relieved when the Premier was willing to put in writing that the Australian Labor Party would not proceed with that undemocratic process. I asked whether the Premier stood by his promise and commitment that no forced council amalgamations occur, to which the Treasurer replied:

The Government has no proposal for any forced amalgamations of local Government councils.

Currently the Minister argues that the 1993 Act allows for forced amalgamations to occur. However, this bill significantly increases when they may occur. Chapter 9, part 1, division 2 of the 1993 Act deals with what must be done before areas can be constituted or altered. Section 218 states that if there is a proposal the Minister must refer it to the Director-General or the Boundaries Commission. The Director-General deals with minor alterations or variations and the commission deals with major proposals. The Minister may then recommend to the Governor that the proposal be implemented with such modifications arising out of the report of the Director-General or the commission. However, the section states quite clearly that the modifications must not constitute a new proposal.

Page 1865

Under the 1993 Act the Minister could not propose forced amalgamations if the Boundaries Commission did not recommend them. In this bill the modifications can constitute a brand new proposal and under proposed clause 218F (4) the Minister can now go against the recommendations of the Boundaries Commission entirely. The bill provides a much stronger amalgamation power than is already in the Act. The Greens believe that in light of ALP policy, and the Minister’s statement in the House, no forced amalgamation provisions should be locked into the legislation. We are pleased that a Government amendment now specifies that the Minister cannot recommend a new proposal to the Governor.

However, the Greens are still concerned that the Boundaries Commission can recommend that councils amalgamate even if one of the councils does not want it. The Minister can then recommend to the Governor that those councils amalgamate. In the Greens view if a council does not want to amalgamate that should be the end of the matter. The Greens will move an amendment in Committee to address that issue. The bill gives councils that wish to consider amalgamation the right to defer the September 1990 election to 31 December 2000.

The Greens are concerned that many councils are jumping at the opportunity to consider the issue of amalgamation simply so they do not have to go to the polls this year rather than because they really support amalgamations. The Greens will move an amendment in Committee to ensure that does not occur. The Greens will also move an amendment in Committee that ensures that no forced amalgamations can occur. In December 1998 the Minister for Local Government in a press release made the following points:

Harry Woods today called on the Richmond River and Casino councils to put off amalgamation talks until after the local government elections in September next year.

Mr Woods said it was clear from a recent survey of Richmond River Shire residents that the councils had more work to do if they wanted to convince people of the benefits they believed amalgamation offered.

If the councils wish to re-activate their proposal for amalgamation after March next year, I believe it would be appropriate for them to delay that decision until after the council elections due in September.

It appears that the Minister has done a complete backflip on this issue. Last night I spoke to the Minister about this matter and he does not remember attending a meeting of approximately 200 people at Evans Head on 29 December. A number of sources have told me that at the meeting the mayor and other councillors were booed by people concerned and angry at being confronted with an amalgamation between the Richmond River Shire Council, a coastal council, and Casino Council. Whilst those councils may have had historic links in the past, these days few people go to Casino to do shopping or attend to their daily activities; they go to either Lismore or Ballina.

I have been told that 36 per cent of people from Casino go to the coast for holidays - 32 percent from Lismore and 6 per cent around the shire. It is quite clear that there are cultural links on the coast, particularly with the indigenous Bundjalong people. Their links are not with Casino but up and down the coast. As I understand it, there is a clear connection between even Wardell and McLean shires rather than Casino and Richmond River.

I live in the region and many recommendations of those in the community to whom I have spoken were that Casino and Kyogle should have a much more reasonable relationship than stretching the boundaries from the coast to inland. Local people feel strongly about many issues, one of which is that they do not wish to pursue that type of amalgamation. It is incumbent on the Minster to consider these issues and to consider the feelings of the people.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly spoke about doughnut councils in other areas. In Albury there is a great deal of concern about the amalgamation of Albury and Hume councils. Recently when I was there people told me that they are not so much concerned about amalgamation itself but fear there will be no election in September if those councils consider amalgamation. They are concerned about the Albury highway dispute that has been an ongoing festering sore in the community. They want to guarantee that those two councils will go to an election. I have heard many statements to the contrary but I think it is reasonable that people from all shires throughout the State go to an election at the end of the four-year period. Four years for State elections is the maximum term of tenure in this country.

It is reasonable for those people to vote in the next election on the fixed date and deal with the amalgamation issue as an election issue. Later new councillors will be elected on the basis that amalgamation was on the agenda during that election. That would be the most adequate and effective way of dealing with this situation and that would be democracy in action. I received a letter dated 29 June from Margaret Hole, President of the Law Society of New South Wales, who said:

Page 1866

I am writing to express the serious concern and reservations of the Law Society of New South Wales at the principle underlying the proposed procedures for amalgamation and associated postponement of elections contained in the above Bill which has just been introduced into Parliament.

The Law Society is not opposed to the concept itself of an amalgamation of councils subject to comprehensive public consultation or a referendum process.

As formulated, the procedures appear to be in breach of the principles of Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: "Peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development".

Australia, as a signatory to those covenants, together with its constituent States and Territories, is committed to respect and observe those economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights.

A procedure introduced by an elected government, which allows for:

•voluntary amalgamation between two or more councils, without public consultation or;

•an amalgamation following a Ministerially directed inquiry not open to the public

cannot be seen to be democratically based.

When viewed in the light of a possible Ministerial order, or a succession of orders, postponing the election of popular representatives, there appears to be a concerted action designed to force on local government electors, without choice, a political regime designed to thwart and prevent the election of locally based representatives. It is such locally elected representation which is at the heart of the democratic process in forwarding and defending the rights of citizens within their local communities.

I ask that the Bill be deferred to a Select Committee to consider its effect and the denial of due electoral process.

That is signed by Margaret Hole, President of the Law Society of New South Wales. The example of the Richmond River and Casino shire councils merger is interesting as it highlights many of the concerns that the Greens have about amalgamation. The fact that a majority vote of council is perceived as a voluntary amalgamation was put to the people in Richmond River. After a Morgan poll, which received a 44 per cent response rate, the outcome was that 61 per cent of respondents opposed the proposed amalgamation of the Richmond River and the Casino shires.

I have also received a copy of a letter sent to the Minister for Local Government by Councillor Ray Jeffrey of the Richmond River Shire Council dated 18 June. In his letter Councillor Jeffrey outlines a number of reasons for his opposition, including that there may be other alternatives that might consider other issues, and common environmental problems and their management. The ability of councils to manage environmental, social and economic issues must be properly assessed before amalgamations proceed. Dr David Brockhurst, a lecturer in ecosystems management at the University of New England, was on the radio this week talking about the amalgamation of local councils. He commented:

It’s important to consider ecological issues and social identities . . . With current levels of government and resources becoming fragmented, we need to find practical, regional frameworks that manage social systems and their operation.

The Greens are not opposed to amalgamation, but we believe amalgamations should follow a carefully considered decision by the community. The Greens councillor on Concord Council, Therese Doyle, also has expressed concern about the amalgamation of Drummoyne and Concord councils. Councillor Doyle said:

Bigger and fewer municipalities means diluted representation for residents . . . Government needs to be brought closer to the people, not further removed.

Councillor Doyle is one of many inner-west councillors who hold that amalgamations should be put to a referendum. Concord Mayor, Peter Woods, the President of the Local Government Association of New South Wales and the moving force behind Concord Council amalgamating with Drummoyne Council, claims that his council does not have a big enough rate base to be economically viable. According to Councillor Doyle:

Concord is experiencing a population boom. By 2010, households will have increased by approximately 30%. Amalgamation is no more than an ideologically inspired move by the economic rationalists.

The Greens are concerned that there may be some very negative consequences if amalgamations occur, whether they be forced or not. One of those relates to employment. The Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees Union has expressed concern about the lack of protection for workers in terms of redundancy issues and the maintenance of wages and conditions if staff are transferred. The union did propose amendments that would have protected the rights of employees in the event of amalgamations.

Essentially, those amendments sought to ensure that there would be no forced employee redundancies due to amalgamations and that employees, if transferred, would be entitled to the same wages and entitlements as they were before the amalgamations. However, the amendments have
Page 1867
been withdrawn, as requested by the union, as the Minister gave a ministerial undertaken in his speech in reply to the second reading debate regarding protection provisions. In an open letter to the crossbenchers dated 30 June the union stated:

Since writing to you we have had the opportunity to listen to the second reading speech of the Minister for Local Government . . . The Minister has now given a public and very firm commitment that employee protection provisions shall be implemented by the state government prior to any amalgamations proceeding under this legislation.

Following discussions with members of the Lower House, the MEU is confident that the government shall take such further action as is necessary to secure employee protection provisions relating to council amalgamations.

We hope, for the sake of the union’s employees, that this does indeed occur. The Greens are concerned that councils may lose valuable services when amalgamations take place. This may all be in the name of efficiencies. In Committee, the Greens will move an amendment to ensure that the Boundaries Commission, when undertaking an inquiry into any amalgamation proposal, must take into consideration any potential loss of services.

The bill leaves it open as to whether an inquiry is necessary if there is a proposal to amalgamate. It appears that when all affected councils have agreed upon amalgamation a public inquiry will not be required, although the Minister will be empowered to order a public inquiry if circumstances so warrant. The Greens believe that there should be a Boundaries Commission inquiry for all proposals to amalgamate. The public should be notified, through advertisements in local newspapers, about the pending inquiry and be entitled to appear at the inquiry and make submissions. The Boundaries Commission should take into account the submissions and oral evidence presented at the inquiry. The Greens will be moving amendments to address that issue.

Finally, the Greens are of the view that any amalgamation proposal and ward structure - or no ward structure, as the case may be - can be implemented only if the proposal is supported by decisions made at constitutional referendums conducted by each of the councils affected by the proposal. In other words, the residents and ratepayers should have input to the amalgamation proposal and council structure after the amalgamation. There is a great deal of concern in the community about the amalgamation proposals.

The Greens would give their support to this measure if we believed, and were given adequate evidence to support such a belief, that the Government is acting in a manner that clearly reflects the will of the majority of members of our community. As I said earlier, I believe the culture of local governments and those participating in local government has changed greatly. However, I have fears that we could be moving towards setting up councils on a larger scale if ward changes are introduced. How will we be able to stop wards consisting of a very small number of constituents?

Small wards would put a great deal of extra power in the hands of major political parties. That flies in the face of an historical change taking place whereby more and more small groups and independents are gaining the confidence of and leading and representing their communities, as is the wish of the community. There is a trend away from voting for major parties, as was the habit of the past. If the Government is seriously interested in moving towards a democratic resolution of this matter, it will take heed of the positions adopted by the Greens and accept the amendments that I will move in Committee.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.38 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports, in principle, the Local Government Amendment (Amalgamations and Boundary Changes) Bill. The briefings that we received on the bill indicated that the purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism by which councils interested in genuine discussions about amalgamation could seek from the Minister approval to defer their local government elections. The bill will facilitate voluntary amalgamations of council areas by providing for the postponement of the council elections due in September 1999, when councils are actively formulating an amalgamation proposal, and by streamlining the processes laid down in the Local Government Act 1993 for dealing with such proposals.

Councils that have actively considered an amalgamation or submitted a formal voluntary amalgamation proposal may seek the postponement of their election by ministerial order in the Government Gazette, for up to 12 months in the first instance. This will enable them to concentrate on reform without the distraction of having to face an election at a critical time in the reform process.

However, in no case can an election be postponed beyond the end of the year following the postponement order - 31 December 2000 for postponement of the elections due in September 1999. I note that some honourable members have proposed amendments which would bring that date to early September, that is, prior to the Olympic Games, but I do not know whether they will continue with those amendments.

Page 1868

The Minister will have power to revoke such an order, in which case elections must be held within four months. Existing public notification requirements which simply duplicate consultative processes already taken by affected councils and notices given in relation to the holding of a public inquiry will be omitted. I will move an amendment to spell out what involvement there should be in understanding the wishes of the people, the ratepayers, in councils which are considering amalgamation.

The bill also provides that if all affected councils have agreed upon amalgamation, a public inquiry will not be required - that is a bone of contention with this legislation - although the Minister will be empowered to order a public inquiry if circumstances so warrant. The Christian Democratic Party is concerned about a significant change from the Local Government Act 1993, which states:

218 The next step

. . .

(2) The Minister may recommend to the Governor that the proposal be implemented with such modifications arising out of the Boundaries Commission’s or Director-General’s report or such modifications as the Minister determines, if the Minister is of the opinion that the modifications do not constitute a new proposal.

That restricted the flexibility of the Minister; he could proceed only if the modification did not constitute a new proposal. The same words are included in the amending bill, although I understand that the Government will seek to amend them. New section 218F states:

Referral of proposal for examination and report

. . .

(3) If a proposal that is not supported by one or more of the councils affected by it has been referred to it by the Director-General under subsection (1):

. . .

(4) (b) . . . and may do so even if of the opinion that the modifications constitute a new proposal.

The original Act said "do not constitute a new proposal" but the amending bill says "constitute a new proposal". That substantial change in the Minister’s powers is of concern to honourable members in spite of the Minister’s frequent statements that he is not promoting forced amalgamations. The bill appears to have the potential for him to do that.

I am pleased that the Minister has recognised that change, although it is not clear where the change came from. It was not demanded by him and may be a drafting error, or perhaps a bureaucrat thought it would give the Minister greater power. The Government’s foreshadowed amendment No. 2 will restore the original words, and I am pleased about that. It is important that I record how important it is for members of Parliament to carefully scrutinise legislation because the word "not" could have an important impact on local government.

The bill refers to inquiries but it is not strong enough. In consultation with members of the crossbench and the Opposition, the Christian Democratic Party has drafted an amendment about inquiries. The Minister’s advisers have suggested that my amendment is not necessary because the Local Government Act contains references to seeking the views of the community. Clause 263 (3) (d) provides that the Boundaries Commission is required to have regard to the attitude of the resident and ratepayers of the areas concerned. Clause 265 states:

Boundaries Commission may conduct survey or poll:

(1) To assist it in determining the attitude of the residents and ratepayers of an area or areas for the purposes of section 263 (3) (d), the Boundaries Commission may conduct (in such manner as it thinks appropriate) an opinion survey or poll of the residents and ratepayers.

(2) The residents and ratepayers of the area or areas concerned may participate in any such opinion survey or poll but are not required to do so.

That means it is not a compulsory survey whereby people would be fined, as they are for not voting, or at least not having their names crossed off, at a State or Federal election. The bill further states:

(3) The Boundaries Commission may request the Electoral Commissioner, a council or any other person or organisation to conduct any such opinion survey or poll.

My amendment does not introduce a novel concept; it makes a couple of important changes in emphasis. It provides that the Boundaries Commission or the director-general must - and I emphasise the word "must" - at no cost to the councils of two or more areas considering amalgamation, seek the views of the electors of each area by means of advertised public meetings, invitations for public submissions and postal surveys or opinion polls in which reply-paid questionnaires are distributed to all electors. That is straightforward.

Page 1869

There will be no requirement for a referendum, but the amendment will allow for a formal poll. If the Boundaries Commission feels it is an important matter it will be able to conduct a formal poll, which is really a form of referendum. That will not be made compulsory by my amendment; it will be an option that the Boundaries Commission or the director-general will have available.

To that extent the amendment will not make a dramatic change. It will simply specify the sorts of things that should be done by the Boundaries Commission or the director-general. That takes up the point made by the Hon. I. Cohen. Many of these bills were drafted years ago and there has been a real change of climate - not only in Australia but right around the world. It is happening at the moment in Kosovo. It happened in Eastern Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It happened in the Soviet Union - now Russia - and in Czechoslovakia and Poland.

People are demanding a say in their futures. It has become a worldwide phenomenon. Previous governments - both Labor and Liberal - have not had to comprehend that. I suppose it has always been the heartbeat of human beings, but now it is a visible cry that our voices be heard at all levels of government - local, State and Federal. That will affect the way governments operate.

In the past, governments have acted like Big Brother: we know what is best for the people, we are only doing this because we know what is best for you, and we will make you do it. That attitude has to change. The debate we are having tonight is just a small step forward in reflecting the will of the people. People will have to be consulted. People have said to me that the Minister has said this and others have said that. They were going to vote against the amalgamations. Maybe that is the will of the people, and they will not amalgamate.

Instead of councils insisting on ramming things through, they should take them to the people and let the people vote on whether they wish to re-elect their councillors. Perhaps some councils are discussing amalgamation when that does not fully reflect the views of the ratepayers. Again, councils may be acting like Big Brother, saying they know what is best for the council area but they are not prepared to test the will of the people.

I am in two minds about this bill. I almost feel that we should force all councils to go to the election in September. That would lead to a more democratic outcome. I am not suggesting that there is a conspiracy but the Government may not realise that some councils apply pressure to avoid facing the voters. That is my interpretation.

One hears it said that if we proceed with this amendment it will be so serious, so draconian, that the Government will withdraw the bill. When one thinks about it, we cannot lose. If the Government pulls the bill the elections will be held; if we go ahead with this amendment we will at least get an expression of the views of the people. The Government is in a bind. I foreshadow that amendment and I will move it in Committee.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [8.53 p.m.]: I want to speak only briefly on the Local Government Amendment (Amalgamations and Boundary Changes) Bill. It is perfectly clear that in the lead-up to the election, the Opposition had a policy that was clear and understood by the community. We said we would support voluntary amalgamations in the belief that 177 councils may be more than is necessary across New South Wales or that some communities felt they would benefit from amalgamating with a neighbouring council.

There are many small councils, especially in country areas of New South Wales. Having said that, we would always have acted in the interests of local communities so that local communities would have a say. As I understood it, the Government also went to the election with a policy of voluntary amalgamations.

[Interruption]

The Labor Government has sacked more councils than we ever did. The Opposition has been concerned for some time about the Government’s true motives with this bill. When the bill was tabled in the other place and the shadow minister read it, he was quite certain it was not concerned merely with voluntary amalgamations, with allowing councils an opportunity to amalgamate, or allowing the community to have a view, but with forced amalgamations.

In debate in the other place and in meetings with advisers the Opposition and the shadow minister made it clear at all times that the bill would allow forced amalgamations. It gives more of a role to the Minister than anything to do with voluntary amalgamations. Of course, the Minister has denied that - in Parliament and in the community. Many groups have been saying that it is just some figment of the Opposition’s imagination.

When I heard on ABC radio this morning that the Minister was quoted as saying that the bill
Page 1870
contained a drafting error, I did not accept it. That was the weakest, most wishy-washy excuse I have heard for a long time. I have thought about it all day and I realise what the definition of a drafting error is. It is when the Opposition and the crossbenchers have the numbers.

The Hon. Dr P. Wong: They found out about it.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Yes, they found out about it. The object of the bill is quite clear. Paragraph (a) of the overview of bill states that the object is:

to facilitate the amalgamation of local government areas and the alteration of local government area boundaries . . .

On the next page of the bill honourable members will see:

Proposed Division 2A enables the Governor to make a proclamation that amalgamates two or more local government areas . . .

It says a little later:

The effect of an amalgamation proclamation will be to dissolve two or more former areas and to constitute one or more new areas.

The bill makes it clear how this will be achieved. It states:

A proposal for amalgamation or boundary alteration may be made by the Minister, by one or more councils or by an appropriate minimum number of electors . . .

There are three triggers, and one is the Minister. I have been looking through the various schedules to the bill to see which one was the Government’s drafting error. After all, the Government has heard the shadow minister say on numerous occasions that the bill was all about forced amalgamations, and the Government has denied it. Which provision contains the drafting error? Could it be proposed subsection 218F (4)? The bill states:

The Minister may recommend to the Governor that the proposal be implemented:

(a) with such modifications as arise out of:

(i) the Boundary Commission’s report, or

(ii) the Director-General’s report . . .

(b) with such other modifications as the Minister determines . . .

Surely that provision is the crux of the matter. It is clear that the Minister could recommend changes. The Boundaries Commission or the director-general could examine and then, with various modifications, the Minister could determine it. This is about the stroke of a pen from the Governor on the advice of the Minister, with the director-general of his department acting in cahoots. This is forced amalgamation by whatever name one wants to dress it up.

The Government and the Opposition are proposing to accept some amendments from the crossbenchers. Opposition members have had to suffer the nonsense of groups in the community suggesting that forced amalgamation was a figment of our imagination. The Minister has denied to our face what we were saying. Nevertheless, despite the excuse I heard on the radio this morning that this is some sort of drafting error, the reality is the Government has always had another agenda. All of us in this House agree with voluntary amalgamations, but the Government has an agenda on forced amalgamations and it has been found out.

This House will not allow that to occur because we believe, above everything else, that the community has a right to have a say about these issues. It is appropriate that many councils consider the amalgamation issue, but that must be done in concert with local communities. Local communities must have a voice. We have said so often that local government is that tier of government closest to the people. We cannot ignore the people; indeed, we must be prepared to listen to their will. The Opposition will certainly examine amendments that give effect to the community’s role in decisions. We will certainly act to ensure there will be no suggestion of forced amalgamations.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.00 p.m.]: The Greens oppose this bill as it will inflict massive damage on the development of local government. The stated intent of the bill is to streamline procedures for amalgamations of councils in order to improve efficiency and quality of service. In this line of thinking the rights of communities to be represented by individuals who respond to their needs and who act in the best interests run a poor second to the desire to cut costs. While the Greens oppose wasteful practices and seek to improve the quality of services, we do not believe that increasing the size of councils will always achieve that.

The ingredients of successful local government stretch well beyond size. Community empowerment is a key ingredient. Outcomes that respect the rights of all participants will occur only when local communities have the ability to directly enter into the decision-making process. This bill does nothing
Page 1871
to ensure that when residents have won such rights there is not a regression to a more autocratic style. The so-called voluntary amalgamation proposals are at the whim of the elected councils, without adequate consultation with the people. Imagine if Premiers Beattie and Carr stated that they intended to merge their two States without recourse to a plebiscite, and that State elections were to be postponed for more than a year to allow this to happen. Obviously there would be an outcry; there should be an outcry now.

Even if we accept at face value the stated motivation for bringing this bill before the House, the proposition is fatally flawed. The Greens suspect that there is a much more sinister set of motives behind this bill. As with so much that goes down in New South Wales politics, outcomes represent a web of convenience for those on the inside more than any thoughtful consideration for public interest. For example, we can easily see why so many mayors have jumped on Harry Woods’ amalgamation cart. It is a sad indictment of some of them to say that they have sold out their voters for tickets to the official box at the Olympics. Other mayors, particularly those of inner Sydney, seek to put together councils when they can more easily get the numbers.

Make no mistake, once some of these individuals have gained undisputed control, they will make a beeline for the two councillors per ward rort. Under the provisions of the Local Government Act voting is then on a preferential basis, doing away with the inconvenience of proportional representation. While producing councils that would be more amenable to the needs of big developers, this would be a catastrophe for the community, for the local environment and for the reputation of local government. At least this partly explains the Government’s haste in bringing this bill before the House.

It is not a matter of urgency. On the contrary, some large-scale changes should be carefully thought out, exposed to the discipline of public scrutiny and debate, and decided on a timetable that is long enough to involve the entire community. It would appear far more sensible to conduct the process of boundary adjustment over a four-year cycle, culminating in new elections in September 2003. But this would not satisfy the Labor insiders seeking to rort the system for their own purposes.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: What outrageous slander!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: There will be more because there are so many problems. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald knows that rorts go on in the councils. This bill is the latest attempt by Labor to manipulate the electorate. Local government is crucial to the democratic process. It is at this level of government that Independents and minor parties have the strongest voice. Labor recognises this and knows that for its long-term political survival it needs to limit the opportunities for non-major party candidates to gain a public platform. What better place to do this than to structure local councils in ways that favour major parties.

This is the Labor strategy that is driving Woods’ and the Minister’s intense lobbying to stop referendums being held in areas where councils want to amalgamate. Labor's offer of inquiries is an attempt to win support away from holding referendums. We appeal to crossbenchers to carefully consider why Labor refuses to agree to referendums. It knows that if a referendum is held in many areas its preferred option on amalgamation will not succeed. It is important also to recognise that constitutional referendums are integral to the organisation of councils.

If a local council wants to abolish wards, create new wards, change the method of electing the mayor or change the number of councillors, a referendum must be held. Referendums are part of the landscape of local councils and are nothing new. Under the Labor bill when an amalgamation occurs councils will be dissolved and reconstituted. Therefore, it is essential that a referendum take place. Anything less means that the people are locked out of having any input and the make-up of the final council will be determined by major party powerbrokers.

Local government has much to offer: its size and predominance of proportional representation are great assets in creating a more responsive and democratic environment. The Greens believe that, freed from the yoke of arbitrary and self-serving State government intervention, much could be achieved in empowering communities and individuals and involving them in a meaningful way in the decision-making process.

Quality outcomes that safeguard the natural and built environment, protect heritage, enhance the community’s self-awareness and provide increasingly valuable human services at a local level are within easy reach. It would take only some imagination and a degree of genuine power sharing by this Parliament. Local government, council employees and the community deserve better than this bill would deliver. The Greens oppose the bill.

Page 1872

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.07 p.m.]: Before commencing my speech I should like to put some questions to the Minister. As Minister Harry Woods expressed a desire for the amalgamation of some shire councils if possible before the local government elections in September, will he explain what criteria he used to justify such amalgamations? Has his department carried out a cost-benefit analysis to measure the possible administrative savings against the loss to the economy in small towns if shire council offices are closed? Is the Minister aware that many local councils already use contractors to carry out necessary public works rather than to invest substantial sums of money on earthmoving and road-building equipment?

Is the Minister further aware that the distance between many small towns will mean that country people will have to travel considerable distances if council offices are located at another centre? Will the Road and Traffic Authority [RTA] functions now available through local government offices remain available if shire council offices are closed? How will the range of community services currently administered by local and State government be affected? Can the Minister give an assurance that local libraries will not be closed or their hours curtailed to the detriment of students? There is some doubt that bigger is necessarily better. This has been shown in many cases where amalgamation has led to bigger councils but quality of services does not improve.

Manning Clark, the eminent historian, divided Australians into three basic groups: convicts, overseers and squatters. The convicts were the poor old people at the bottom of the tree. The squatters were given large tracts of land for no apparent reason other than the fact that they were British and had good breeding. Squatters have their analogy today in the multinational corporations and large lobby groups. The overseers were bullies to the convicts and tugged their forelocks to the squatters. Australian governments generally fall into the overseer category: they do not have much concept of letting the convicts have any say and they are deferential to people with power and money. Nothing much has changed.

Australia needs to have a serious discussion about what sort of government it wants and whether it needs three tiers of government. Unfortunately, such a discussion was avoided in the terms of reference of the Constitutional Convention. In an almost arrogant way the agenda was stolen from the Australian people. There could and should have been a more broad-ranging discussion about the type of Australia we want. Here again, the same thing is happening. A major change is being made to local government but the people are not involved in the process.

I have received a great deal of correspondence about this matter. One constituent from the south of Sydney said that six of the 12 councillors in his council area were elected to office with less than 8 per cent of the vote in their respective wards. There needs to be an investigation of the voting patterns so that the voting numbers correspond with the outcome. This is a concept almost unknown to the Government and, dare I say, to the Opposition. The two major parties want to get 75 per cent of the vote and have 95 per cent of the seats, which is a totally undemocratic concept. That means the lower House becomes a rubber stamp for whichever major party is elected to office. The concept of diversity in government seems to be beyond the comprehension of the major parties, particularly the one in power in New South Wales at the moment.

I do not want to take an undue amount of time because I know we are short of time tonight. I cannot help but wonder in a cynical way if this delay in elections is a sweetener to the councillors who might favour amalgamation. If they agree to amalgamation the sweetener is that they do not have to face elections for another year, which smacks of an overseer deal. The councillors, or the overseers, are given assistance and the convicts do not get a say.

There are a number of areas where local government becomes entangled in other issues. In Albury, where the council does not favour a bypass of the city, the bypass issue has become entangled with the issue of council amalgamations and the possibility of delaying the elections. In the Concord and Drummoyne areas, the head of the Local Government and Shires Associations supports an amalgamation. Such an amalgamation would favour his council, thus creating a conflict of interest in regard to his position as head of the Local Government and Shires Associations.

It was pointed out to me in correspondence, and was alluded to by the Hon. I. Cohen, that although the Richmond River shire councillors want to amalgamate with Casino Council - which is in the area of the Minister - not one of them had a pro-amalgamation platform at the last election. The results of a Morgan Gallup poll conducted in the Richmond River shire show that 61 per cent of the people were opposed to amalgamation, 29 per cent were in favour and 10 per cent were undecided. Clearly, the people do not want an amalgamation of
Page 1873
the council, even though many people say it is too small to survive. That fact may be unfortunate for people who want amalgamations.

I have been told by people who are pro-amalgamation, and whose opinion I respect, that there should not be a referendum on the matter because the people will not vote for amalgamation. In other words, because the people do not know what is good for them, others will decide for them. We have a tradition in Australia of not asking the people. Every now and again the major parties have to face an election.

They do not like it very much but they have to put up with it because that is the system. But one has the feeling that what the people think does not matter to the major parties. The results of the poll in Richmond River suggest that is so. The major parties say if the people do not want amalgamation, never mind; the councillors do, and that is good enough.

In a democracy we should take the people into our confidence. We should discuss the issues with them and follow their lead, not keep them in the dark and fiddle things through. Under proposed section 218F the implementation of the proposal is effectively at ministerial discretion and relies on the Minister’s opinion as to whether or not it is a new proposal. It states that the Minister may recommend that the proposal be implemented even if he or she is of the opinion that the modifications constitute a new proposal. Whose opinion? The Minister’s opinion. That is a good example of subjective judgment if ever there was one: even though everyone else may be of the opinion that it is a new proposal, that might not be the Minister’s opinion.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It is a drafting error.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: This is an amendment, so it is obviously to fix a drafting error. The major parties must face the fact that people are not ready for council amalgamations and more discussion should take place about the type of government we want in Australia. The percentage of people who do not vote for a major party is increasing, which creates diversity in government. From that diversity we will get a richer society and a better government. It is time that the Government came to terms with that and recognised it in this bill. The Democrats will vote for proposals that favour involvement by the people in their destiny.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [9.16 p.m.]: There is no doubt that local government is an important form and level of government. In fact, it is probably the form of government closest to the people. It is not the wealthiest or most powerful form of government, but, because of its closeness to the people, those who tamper with it do so at their own peril. Since this bill was proposed I have received faxes, emails, letters and telephone calls, as I am sure many honourable members have, from people expressing their points of view. It is fair to say that most viewpoints have been that they do not like the idea of forced amalgamations.

What has emerged from this hotchpotch of arguments, faxes and emails is that the big question seems to be: Should we have a referendum or a plebiscite or some form of community consultation before local government areas are amalgamated? No-one is more concerned than I am to ensure that people are consulted when something happens that is going to change their lives. But I would simply like to inject into this debate a very simple question. With regard to the need for referendums and plebiscites and letting the communities in two local government areas decide whether or not they will amalgamate, I ask the simple question: Do they care? I suggest that the answer would be probably not.

Let me quantify that. In the days when local government voting was not compulsory the average turn-out for local government elections was 30 per cent to 40 per cent. I am not saying that is how it should be; I am saying that is how it was and, to a large degree, that is how it is today. If the average citizen was asked to name his local councillor he would not be able to do that. I am not saying that is how it ought to be; I am saying that is how it is, whether we like it or not. Strangely enough, people are not sufficiently interested in local government because although it is the form of government closest to them, they do not hear very much from it.

Local government deals with the things that affect people’s everyday lives - kerbing, guttering, garbage collections. But for some reason people are not interested. A great deal has been made of forced amalgamations. I experienced it in 1949. The Hon. D. J. Gay has assured me that it is not so, but the Minister has assured me it is. I do not know who is right. I was in an area of southern New South Wales in 1949 when two councils were forcibly amalgamated because one had become unviable.

I have sought from the Minister’s office a round-up of the number of forced amalgamations there have been. The Minister’s office was unable to provide that information. But his office did tell me that in the round of amalgamations in 1981, 14
Page 1874
councils were created from 33. We do not know how many of them were forced, but the suggestion is very few. We should find out how often the forced amalgamation provision is used before we get too upset about it. Let us find out what it is about.

Much has been said about the poll that was taken in Richmond River shire because of the proposed amalgamation of Richmond River and Casino councils. I am only a new politician but I am a long-time journalist, and good journalists always check their sources. So I did that. I rang Richmond River Shire Council and said, "We have been told that 61 per cent of people in your area oppose amalgamation. Can you please send me a copy of the poll?" I seek leave to table a copy of the poll documents for the edification of honourable members who might like to read them.

Leave granted.

The Roy Morgan research poll states:

Almost two out of every three people in the Richmond River Shire aged 18 years or over oppose the proposed amalgamation of the Richmond River Shire and Casino Shire Councils (61%). Only 29% of residents favour the proposal, whilst a further 10% are undecided.

The Hon. I. Cohen and the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans referred to that poll in their contributions to the debate. Those figures are rubbish. There is no way that 61 per cent of the population in Richmond River shire can be said to oppose amalgamation. Let me give honourable members the figures. In terms of the response rate the Roy Morgan poll document states:

The opinion poll comprised of 6,346 mail out questionnaires sent to all people aged 18 or over in the Richmond River Shire.

Almost one in two questionnaires (44%) were completed correctly and returned.

The document shows that 52 per cent did not respond. Here we go with this lack of interest again. I am fairly lousy at mathematics but Roy Morgan’s figures show that 44 per cent of the 6,346 residents who received the questionnaire responded. In my book that makes 2,792 residents, 61 per cent of whom are opposed to amalgamation. That boils down to 26 per cent of the total number of people surveyed in that shire.

Many people in the area may want to amalgamate, and many people may not want to amalgamate - but they did not take part in the poll. Therefore, as a referendum in the normal sense requires at least a 50 per cent vote, what purpose would a referendum serve in an area in which people are not sufficiently interested to take part in the poll, as they used to be not sufficiently interested to vote in local government elections? Let us take it one step further. I had the staff in my office speak to the General Manager of Casino Council, Mr Ross Schipp. He said Casino Council had conducted a poll in the local newspaper. Incidentally, Richmond River shire is a larger area but the populations of the Casino and Richmond River shires are roughly similar.

Casino Council’s newspaper poll had a 10 per cent response rate. Mr Schipp said that it was not a bad response rate, considering the poll was voluntary and considering people’s interest in local government. Let me give the rest of the figures: 62.58 per cent voted for amalgamation, 26.3 per cent voted for resource sharing and fewer than 10 per cent voted for the status quo. Those figures are as meaningless as the figures in the Morgan poll because they do not represent any reasonable proportion of the electors in the area.

I have read the amendments proposed by the Hon. D. J. Gay and the amendment proposed by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I simply ask whether they will serve any purpose. Will they simply hold up the amalgamation process when both councils want to amalgamate? Both Richmond River Shire Council and Casino Council applied for amalgamation in August last year. It is not a new proposal. Will plebiscites, referendums or other kinds of polls make any difference if fewer than 50 per cent of the population vote? If we amend the Act to include the requirement for a referendum, all we will probably do is put a brick wall in the face of referendums which councils wanted.

I have enormous respect for the Hon. I. Cohen’s interest in local government. He said that councils amalgamate off their own bat. Councils are supposed to represent the opinion of electors. I do not know whether these councils have strayed from what their electors want. However, there is no source of information other than the council if not more than 44 per cent of those who received the mail-out bothered to respond to it. We may simply be talking about the end of the rainbow which we will never reach. I am not saying that I would necessarily be appalled if this were introduced, but I am saying that it would not prove anything.

If we cannot get more than 26 per cent - and that is what it amounts to - of the electors in Richmond River shire to say that they are opposed to amalgamation, we are entitled to assume that the other 74 per cent are not opposed to amalgamation.
Page 1875
They may not be in favour of it but they are not opposed to it. As far as I am concerned referendums, plebiscites and polls are simply a lot of unamalgamated nonsense.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [9.26 p.m.]: I shall answer two of the points made by the Hon. J. S. Tingle. The honourable member suggested that people are not interested in polls or plebiscites. If that is the case, perhaps there should not be compulsory voting in Federal and State elections. For example, only 60 per cent, 50 per cent or even 40 per cent of the population vote in elections in America and Indonesia. Elections are part of the democratic process.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Why have a vote?

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: I agree. So the Hon. J. S. Tingle’s first point is a fallacy. Democracy is about asking people to give their opinion. The honourable member’s second point was even worse. According to him, the Morgan poll showed that a tiny 26 per cent supported amalgamation. That is 61 per cent of 2,921. I am a doctor and I believe in statistics. If that is a translation it is highly statistically significant. If honourable members are in doubt they should ask the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, who is the expert. If those figures are applied to medical practice they are virtually absolute. There would be no fallacy. If the statistics are translated they are highly significant. If honourable members believe in science, as I believe they do, that is what it is all about. First, it is a matter of democracy and, second, it is a scientific fact.

The Hon. J. S. Tingle: You have to get 50 per cent in a referendum.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: Yes. If it is compulsory it will be 100 per cent. That would translate into exactly what it is - 61 per cent. I am sure the Hon. J. S. Tingle believes that. I support the principle of the Local Government Amendment (Amalgamations and Boundary Changes) Bill, which is the voluntary amalgamation of councils. The concept of council amalgamations has merit in some cases. Some councils want to amalgamate because they are too small, and some councils want to amalgamate for other reasons. Furthermore, they believe that they can be more efficient. Whatever the reason, citizens have a right to express their view. A number of my concerns about the bill arise from an apparent restriction to those same democratic rights and freedoms.

Some aspects of the bill seek to deny the people of New South Wales the right to have a say about the future of their local councils. The bill will create a situation in which councils can amalgamate without prior consultation with their community. Provisions for public inquiries before dissolutions of council areas occur already exist in the old Act but they have not been carried over into this bill. That is perhaps because of the presumption that amalgamations will be voluntary and that public inquiries would not be necessary. Such a presumption is dangerous to the democratic process.

The process created in the bill will vastly limit public consultation, even when amalgamations are disputed by one of the councils involved. Under the current provisions the only public consultation that is required to be conducted is by the Boundaries Commission, which is required to consider the attitude of residents and ratepayers in the areas concerned. It is possible that there will be no comprehensive public consultations at all because a public inquiry by the Boundaries Commission can be conducted only with the approval of the Minister. However, that process of consultation is further limited by the bill because the Minister now has increased powers and discretion.

Under the bill the Minister can implement a proposal for amalgamation, even when it is not supported by one or more of the councils affected, if he is of the opinion that the modifications constitute a new proposal. Therefore the Minister may not only disregard recommendations by the Boundaries Commission or the director-general, but he may enforce changes that may be very different from original proposals for amalgamation.

The democratic process is severely limited by these provisions. An analysis of the operation of the bill highlights the ability of the Minister to override the suggested proposal by the councils involved to avoid a public inquiry and to ignore proposals by the Boundaries Commission. What is the purpose of due process if ultimately it can be circumvented by the Minister? The effect of this provision might be that the Minister may force amalgamations. In his second reading speech and in subsequent consultations with members on the crossbenches the Minister denied that the bill would have this effect, but it is a power that is currently contained in the bill and must be addressed.

I intended to move an amendment in Committee to remedy that aspect of the bill.
Page 1876
However, I understand that the same amendment will be moved by the Government following my consultations with the Minister’s office. I am pleased that the Minister is nevertheless listening to some of the concerns in relation to the bill and is attempting to remedy them. The effect of the amendment will be to bring the powers of the Minister into line with the powers the Minister has in relation to boundary changes under the Local Government Act 1993, which is currently in force. In addition to that amendment, I would also support any amendments that will allow a comprehensive democratic process, more public consultation and insight into the issues relating to council amalgamations.

Any amalgamations will have fundamental and long-term effects upon the operation, direction and representation within the council. It is a fundamental right of citizens and residents of local government areas to at least be provided with an opportunity to voice their opinions and make submissions. It is unfortunate that governments are often averse to the idea of a referendum when making structural reforms. A referendum is an opportunity for citizens to take part in the organisation and direction of government. Constitutional referendums are already required if a local council wants to abolish boards, create new wards, change the number of councillors, or change the method of electing mayors and councils. Those provisions exist in the current Local Government Act, but again they have not been carried into the amending bill.

I understand the reason for the omission of the referendum requirement is that the amalgamation of councils will supposedly be voluntary. However, as I said earlier, the structures created in the bill go far beyond voluntary amalgamations. The bill does not specify methods of amalgamation when all councils consent, and it creates provisions for circumstances in which proposals are not supported by all sides. I understand that the Government will move amendments in Committee to allow for a comprehensive public inquiry to be held by the Boundaries Commission. I commend the Government for consulting with crossbenchers and addressing some of our concerns. I understand that other amendments will be moved that will go further towards allowing full consultation at the level of the Boundaries Commission and the director-general.

The Government may be concerned that these amendments may make the functions of the respective public bodies and the Minister too prescriptive and even unworkable. I do not agree with such reasoning. This is an excellent opportunity to amend the Local Government Act and establish a democratic procedure for changes at local government level, and it should be acted upon. For an issue of such magnitude as the amalgamation of councils, which by its very nature serves to change the entire dynamics of local government, it is exceedingly important that the people have a direct say in that decision. I also note that although I support the principle of amalgamation of some councils, that may not always be the best approach when reforming local government.

The "bigger is better" theory, combined with such notions as economies of scale, are not always reflected in practice. My office has conducted a quick survey of local councils of various sizes. The survey highlighted that one particularly big council had significantly higher rates than others. The amalgamation can also serve to reduce employment opportunities within the council. I understand that the Government has given an undertaking not to implement forced redundancies because of the amalgamation process. Furthermore, in some cases big councils can serve to erode the personalised service that a smaller, more dynamic council can provide. An amalgamated council means that the ratio of ratepayers to councillors will be proportionally larger.

Such a broad constituency will make it more difficult for the council to have a close relationship with the people. One of the greatest strengths of a local council is its grassroots nature, and that is something we should foster. When one considers how much local councils are paid, one sees that it is a relatively cost-effective representative system. One must also take into account that a larger amalgamated council will ensure that the threshold for election as a local councillor will rise. The effect of that may make it significantly more difficult for independent and other non-major party candidates to be elected.

That could lead to local councils being dominated by the major parties and thus becoming instruments for the agenda of major parties. Thus it is important that the "bigger is better" theory be regarded in the context of "too big is not too good". However, once again I note my support of amalgamation where it is needed, particularly with small councils. The bill is lightweight when it comes to due process. In many respects it is more about keeping up appearances than actually ensuring open and transparent government. It is possible that the bill might do more damage than good unless due process and public importance are enshrined in it.

I must also express my deepest concern that during the recent consultations with the Minister and his advisers some of the claimed facts were not
Page 1877
facts. I have been misled on many occasions. In the beginning the adviser of the Minister denied that the bill contained draconian clauses. Then the adviser accepted it. He wanted to bargain for my support for the amendments. I compare that to Minister Obeid, who is a professional politician. I regret that that happened and I do not want it to happen again. One of my deepest regrets - and I say this in all sincerity - is that such an undemocratic and unfair bill could be introduced in this House by a Labor Party Government, which, in the past, was supposed to represent the views of the common people.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.39 p.m.]: I wonder whether the Hon. J. S. Tingle believes that when the Morgan people conduct an opinion poll prior to a Federal or State election 100 per cent of voters are polled. He does not seem to be aware that when a poll is conducted only about 2000, 3,000 or 4,000 people are polled, but extremely accurate results are produced. A 44 per cent poll of the Richmond River people is actually a very high proportion of people voting on a non-compulsory poll.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: There would be less than a 1 per cent variance.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: There would probably be less than a 1 per cent variance, as the Hon. D. J. Gay said. That is a very high number of people. I used to be in the mail order business and if we got a 1 per cent response we thought we were doing well. To get a 44 per cent response shows a very high level of concern within the community. In fact, it turns out that the poll also showed that 96 per cent of people in the Richmond River shire were aware of the amalgamation, which again is a very high percentage of people.

Twenty-eight per cent felt that the existing arrangement was working well and that there was no need for change, and 24 per cent did not want to take on Casino shire’s financial problems. The people of Casino seem to have a financial reason to amalgamate and will be loading up the people of the Richmond River shire with their financial problems, according to this poll. Also, 20 per cent felt that their rates would increase and 15 per cent felt that the services and funding would be cut should the proposal go ahead.

The bill effectively removes residents from the voluntary amalgamation equation. It removes from the existing Act sections 216 and 217, which provide for a period of public consultation. Residents will no longer be given 28 days notice of any proposal to amalgamate, nor will they be able to make representations to, and have those representations considered by, the Minister. As long as the majority of councils vote in favour of a proposed amalgamation, there is no guaranteed process of public consultation at all within the bill, even if a minority of councillors and a great majority of the community vociferously oppose it. This is a shocking state of affairs when there is a good chance that many of the amalgamations will be against the wishes of the residents.

There is also opposition building up among ratepayers in Maclean to two proposed amalgamations. They ask why elections due in September should be postponed 12 months and why a referendum cannot be organised with the election so ratepayers have the chance to express their opinion on whether or not they want to join with another shire before they are faced with a fait accompli. They ask for the economic models that show they will be better off financially if they restructure their municipal boundaries and for figures projecting their rates for the next five years if they do amalgamate, as well as what other costs and expenditures may be involved. These questions need answering.

Therefore, there should be plebiscites or referenda held before any mergers can occur. Mayors and councillors should have to put the case for an amalgamation before the people who elected them, and any decision made by the people in regard to that amalgamation should be binding. We cannot afford to let mayors, councillors or even the Minister ignore the wishes of the community. New section 218 (2) of the bill, which gives the Minister power to ignore and modify council proposals as well as the recommendations of the Boundaries Commission and the director-general, must therefore also be amended, as it may well be. The Government, the Greens and the Opposition will move amendments in Committee and all honourable member’s should consider those amendments very carefully indeed.

As the Total Environment Centre quite rightly points out in its briefing note to members of Parliament on 25 June, "There are very few chances to reform Local Government Areas and this opportunity should be grasped to do the job properly". The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we can trust the people and do we actually believe in democracy? It would appear that the Government, or this Minister, does not believe that we can trust the people. If the people believe that the amalgamation is in their interests, they will vote for an amalgamation. If not, they will vote against it. If the arguments put to them are sound, they will vote for it. We should let the people decide.

Page 1878

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [9.43 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions, which have been varied and wide and have offered good comment. The Government’s Local Government Amendment (Amalgamations and Boundary Changes) Bill seeks to assist those councils wishing to pursue voluntary amalgamation. The reason why voluntary amalgamation is attractive to councils is that it enables them to provide a better quality of service and infrastructure to their community. We have 177 councils in New South Wales ranging in size. Some, not all, are struggling to keep their heads above water. Approximately 40 per cent of councils are spending more than 20¢ in the dollar on administration when the norm is 10¢.

The main tenet of this bill is to defer specific elections when two or more councils resolve to pursue voluntary amalgamations. This makes perfect sense. It is not fair that ratepayers should go to the polls in September only to find they have to vote again some months down the track if a voluntary amalgamation proposal is approved. The Opposition supported this notion during debate on this bill in the other House. This is what the member for Albury said:

There could be good reasons for councils wanting to defer their elections. If they are not able to defer their elections it could result in ratepayers paying unnecessary expenses.

We agree. Now there are amendments on this table from both the Greens and the Opposition to require a referendum before a voluntary amalgamation proceeds. It is the Government’s intention to shelve this bill if those amendments proceed.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Is that a threat?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: It is a statement. We are putting our cards on the table. There is nothing wrong with that. Don’t waste our time, don’t waste your time, and don’t waste the public’s money in keeping this House sitting.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You are going to pull this bill if you don’t get everything you want. Despite the fact that you are going to get the deferral you want, you are going to pull the bill. You will suffer for that. It is a stupid thing to do.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: We are making a statement that if the House desires to go down a certain path, that is fine. A referendum is costly, time consuming and unnecessary. A council is the elected body of a community. The Boundaries Commission is required to fully consider the attitudes of ratepayers and residents to such a proposal. These amendments are simply designed to frustrate this process. They will complicate rather than streamline amalgamations. We will make sure that the 20 or so councils which have already formally informed us that they wish to pursue voluntary amalgamations know that it is the Opposition which scuttled this process and defeated their chances to pursue a voluntary outcome.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: And the crossbenchers.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: We do not worry about 1 per centers and 1.5 per centers. You did not even get a quota so don’t give me that. The intent of this bill is to allow the Government to postpone elections for a period of up to 12 months where two or more councils want to pursue a proposal for an amalgamation. If that occurs, the Minister will refer that proposal to the Boundaries Commission. The Boundaries Commission must give regard to a variety of issues, including community interest, financial impact, geographic concerns and the attitude of residents and ratepayers.

The process used by the Boundaries Commission in conducting the examination will need information to be obtained so that an objective view may be formed on relevant matters to be considered. For example, the attitude of residents and ratepayers in affected areas is a matter to be considered. Information on this issue can be obtained by the use of surveys, opinion polls or formal polls conducted by the Boundaries Commission. Where there is strong community feeling a poll or survey should be considered positively. The situation for each proposal will be unique to each and the factors will need to be carefully examined.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: That is my amendment.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: That is in the Act. It will be incumbent on the Boundaries Commission in assessing the factors to ensure that relevant information is obtained and each source of information will be needed to seek out the circumstances of councils affected by a proposal so that the requirements of the legislation can be properly and objectively assessed. A survey of residents can be conducted if the commission deems it necessary to be satisfied as to the views of the community as well as those of the council. The Boundaries Commission will then report with recommendations on a voluntary amalgamation. Only if the councils agree will the Minister follow the recommendations.

Page 1879

I make it clear that there will be no forced amalgamations. There seems to be a misconception by the Opposition and others that this bill provides for forced amalgamations by stealth. The current Act already allows for forced amalgamations, as did the 1919 Act. By virtue of the 1919 Act, the Minister currently has within his powers the ability to force amalgamations. The Government does not need to change any legislation to force amalgamations.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: He needs a good political minder who can read legislation.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: In response to the interjection by the Hon. D. J. Gay, let me assure him that Labor has better political advisers than does the National Party. That is why Labor is in government. The honourable member will be occupying the opposition benches for a long time. I hope his properties are within the zone I reserved at Crookwell. Perhaps he will find some gold, get some royalties and find something better to do. Obviously, he does not have good advice.

The Government supports voluntary amalgamations and is assisting councils that want to take that path. At no stage has this Government sought to use the existing provisions to force amalgamation. Since the Minister first raised the issue of structural reform, he has been taken aback by the positive response that he has received from both metropolitan and country councils. The Minister has also received support from the Local Government Association, the Shires Association of New South Wales, the Property Council of New South Wales and the Urban Development Institute of Australia. For the benefit of those who have been talking about local government representing the first tier, I will read a media release by the property council which states:

The Property Council of Australia today slammed a State Opposition proposal that would require a referendum for councils seeking voluntary amalgamation.

NSW President Mark Davidson believes, "There is a growing recognition within many local councils of the need for structural reform to achieve improved efficiencies in administration and service delivery to their local communities.

That’s why the Property Council has been a keen advocate of this for so long . . .

Instead of taking cheap political shots at the Government, the Opposition should congratulate them for showing leadership to those councils that want to look at amalgamations by giving them a process to follow.

I also wish to read a letter from the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales, which the Hon. D. J. Gay made a gesture about, as though the current secretary, Murray Kidnie, has no relevance; as though the secretary of that association has no right to write a letter. I would like Hansard to record that the Hon. D. J. Gay suggests that Murray Kidnie, the secretary of the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales, has no rights or should not have written this letter; that he had no authority.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Point of order: On a point of clarification, I actually had not stated anything. Perhaps the Minister is referring to a comment last night when the Hon. H. S. Tsang said that the President of the Shires Association wrote a letter, and I said, "No". It was not the President of the Shires Association; it was the secretary of the Shires Association. I am clarifying the record. The Minister is misleading the House about what is recorded in Hansard.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: To the point of order: If the Hon. D. J. Gay refers to Hansard, he will see that he made a gesture as to the irrelevance of the secretary. The Hon. D. J. Gay was saying that it did not matter - as though the secretary of that association did not matter, if it was he who wrote the letter - and that he would only accept the president’s letter. Let me say to the honourable member that the secretary is entitled to write the letter, and I would be surprised if he wrote that letter without the authority of the president.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. As I said yesterday, some members are taking inappropriate points of order. It would have been more appropriate for the Hon. D. J. Gay to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 70. I would have allowed him to do that.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Madam President, may I make a personal explanation?

The PRESIDENT: Order! You cannot make a personal explanation when the other member is speaking.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: The other member is not speaking.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I have -

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the member and the Minister to be seated while I am speaking.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You haven’t stood. Standing Order 83, Madam President.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have asked you to sit down.

Page 1880

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Standing Order 83 - I refer you to Standing Order 83.

The PRESIDENT: If you know your standing orders, you should know that you cannot make a personal explanation while there is a question before the House. The member cannot make a personal explanation at this time. The Minister may proceed.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Thank you, Madam President. I quote from the letter sent by the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales to the Hon. H. F. Woods, and it is signed by Murray Kidnie, secretary of that association. The letter states:

The Bill appears to address the concerns expressed by the Associations in relation to the potential disruption of conducting Local Government elections while councils pursue voluntary amalgamations.

The Local Government Act itself ensures that there is a thorough process undertaken, including public consultation, once a proposal is referred to the Boundaries Commission.

I wish to cite another letter from the Local Government Association of New South Wales which was sent by the president, Peter Woods. The letter states:

It is our sincere hope that this legislation will pass without amendment . . .

On behalf of the Local Government Association I wish you well and thank you for your efforts in ensuring Councils are able to chart a course that will ensure effective Local Government. Local Government has been urging constructive reform of a pro-active nature and appreciates the manner by which we are able to constructively facilitate this.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: You can’t see the trees for the Woods.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Quite obviously, the Hon. D. F. Moppett is not in touch with his constituency. On another issue, the Minister was clear: Any voluntary amalgamations of councils would be completed only when the rights of employees are protected. There have also been some suggestions that councils - although not all - are seeking a deferment of their elections simply to be in power in time for the Olympics. That is totally unfounded and, quite simply, it is outrageous.

I remind this Chamber that if the councils are not seriously pursuing the proposals or have abandoned them, the Minister has the power to revoke a deferment and order elections. I wish to quickly respond to suggestions that bigger councils will only favour the major parties and will shut out Independents or minor parties. This does not follow. Gosford City Council is a case in point. As one of the State’s largest councils with more than 150,000 people, six of its 10 councillors are independent.

This bill is an important piece of legislation because it gives councils the ability to decide their own destiny. The Government will be moving a number of amendments. A number of concerns have been raised throughout the bill’s preparation process. The Government will address those concerns through amendments which are proposed to be moved during the Committee stage. When an amalgamation proposal is referred by the Minister to the director-general, then the director-general’s full examination and report will be referred to the Local Government Boundaries Commission for its review before any recommendations are made to the Minister.

As the Minister previously stated, he will only act on the recommendations of the boundary commission and with the agreement of the two or more councils that are involved. He may not do so if he is of the opinion that the modifications constitute a new proposal, and he will not make that modification if the proposals constitute a new proposal.

That amendment was the result of consultation with crossbenchers. The Opposition has no right to claim credit for their good work. The Government is certainly interested in doing anything that creates a better law. The Government’s policy has remained consistent: We will not force amalgamations, and we are certainly not about increasing the Minister’s powers in that area.

The other amendments require the Boundaries Commission to hold an inquiry for the purpose of exercising its functions in relation to a proposal for the amalgamation of two or more areas that have been referred to it. Before inquiries are held by the Boundaries Commission, reasonable public notice must be given. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

The Hon. D. J. GAY [10.03 p.m.]: I informed the Minister’s advisers earlier that I would ask a question about schedule 1 to the bill. Item [1] of schedule 1 reads:

Page 1881

Chapter 9, Part 1, Division 1, heading

Omit ", altered".

Item [5] of schedule 1 reads:

Chapter 9, Part 1, Division 2, heading

Omit "or altered".

I ask the advisers of the Minister for Local Government, through the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, why the word "altered" has been omitted. This bill is not simply an amalgamation bill; it also deals with boundary changes. To my understanding the word "altered" should remain in the bill to enable boundary changes that are not covered by council amalgamations.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [10.05 p.m.]: The bill establishes procedures to deal with amalgamations and boundary changes. It includes processes to deal with major and minor matters and forced and voluntary amalgamations.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Did you say forced amalgamations?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: No, with major and minor matters and forced and voluntary amalgamations.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: I love your word.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The Hon. D. J. Gay does not acknowledge that the Act gives the Minister that power. I do not know where he gets his information, but I guarantee that the Minister has the right information. The omission of the terms in items [1] and [5] removes those requirements because they are included in divisions 2A and 2B. The new divisions provide a streamlined process for voluntary amalgamations. They retain the same characteristics and continue the requirement for an inquiry where there is not an agreement.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [10.06 p.m.]: My attention having been drawn to new section 218A, I have referred to new section 218B, which I suspect provides an answer to my question. I move Opposition amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 3:

[1] Section 16 What matters must be dealt with at a constitutional referendum?

Insert after section 16 (d):

(e) support a proposal for the amalgamation of the area with any other area.

I was not going to move this amendment because I believed, following extensive consultation with the Opposition, that the amendment drafted by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the crossbenchers was a better amendment. But the Opposition is not going to be threatened by anyone, least of all the Government. It is absolutely disgraceful that the Government has tried to blackmail this Chamber tonight.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: We are not blackmailing at all. That is absolute rubbish!

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Minister was blackmailing. His comments in his second reading speech were a disgrace. I acknowledge that they were written by someone else - by the Minister in another place or his advisers. A member cannot come into a House of Parliament in Australia and blackmail the Opposition by saying that if an amendment gets through, the Government will pull the bill. I believe that the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, which was arrived at through consultation, is a better amendment than that which has been moved by the Opposition. At the time the Opposition believed its amendment was the best available.

The Government is arrogant. The Opposition will not be bluffed by anyone. The numbers indicate that this amendment will not be agreed to. The Opposition was going to save the time of the Committee by conceding that, following consultation, other amendments were better than its amendments. Circulated Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 6 follow on from amendment No. 1. As I indicated, the numbers dictate that we will lose amendment No. 1. I will speak to the amendments that we intended to move and the reasons for moving them.

Section 16 of the Act deals with constitutional referendums. Opposition amendment No. 1 would have added to the matters able to be decided by a constitutional referendum. Currently, a constitutional referendum allows a council to do a number of things if the community approves. These include dividing the council areas into wards and increasing or decreasing councillor numbers. Under the amendment a constitutional referendum could also be used to gauge support or otherwise for the amalgamation of a council area with any other council area.

The amendment is very important in that it will guarantee members of the community a say on the possible amalgamation of their council with another council. Under the Government’s proposal
Page 1882
community input is not guaranteed. Opposition amendment No. 2 would add to section 18 of the Act, which provides more detail about constitutional referendums. The Opposition amendment would ensure that a constitutional referendum to decide on an amalgamation proposal would be held by postal ballot. This would ensure that the voters of a council area were inconvenienced as little as possible. They would have their say on amalgamations but they would not be required to front up to a polling booth; instead, they could make their feelings known via a postal ballot.

The amendment would also ensure that the constituents did not have to re-enrol as postal voters, and would allow all voters a postal vote. Finally, the amendment would provide that the Boundaries Commission should design the questions to be asked at the constitutional referendum. I dare say that the Boundaries Commission would have little trouble doing this as the task is quite small and well within its scope. Opposition amendment No. 6 relates to page 6, schedule 1 to the bill. It would remove the megalomaniac part of the bill which gives the Minister overriding powers. The Government has taken everyone for fools: The bill would enable the Minister to take on board any amalgamation proposal and refer it to the Boundaries Commission or the Director-General of the Department of Local Government, but at the end of the day the Minister would have the final say.

The bill would allow the Minister to recommend an amalgamation proposal with modifications from the Boundaries Commission, from the director-general or even from himself. Worse still, he could do that even if those modifications resulted in an entirely new proposal. That is the part that is the so-called drafting mistake. Basically, the bill allows the Minister to create his own amalgamation proposal. Every council, every ratepayer, the Boundaries Commission and the director-general may as well go home because at the end of the day the Minister would have the final word. So much for democracy! I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and hope that he would not use this provision. But, then again, the Government put the provision in there, which speaks volumes.

This is the compulsory amalgamation provision that the Minister says is a drafting mistake. Opposition members in the other place alerted the Minister to this so-called drafting mistake, yet he insisted that it still involved voluntary amalgamation. A former general manager in this Chamber tonight who should know better continued to insist that it still involved voluntary amalgamations. I do not know when the amalgamations become compulsory. This morning on radio station 2BL the Minister admitted that it was a drafting mistake. Perhaps that was because the Opposition and the crossbenchers had acquired the numbers and the Minister was about to introduce his own amendment to remove this drafting mistake. As I said earlier by way of interjection, perhaps it would be better if the Minister were to employ some staff who understand how to read legislation so that he does not have any more of these so-called drafting mistakes.

The Opposition’s amendment would ensure that the Minister could not recommend that any amalgamation proposal be implemented unless it had gone to a constitutional referendum and the people of each affected area had been consulted. This would restore the power to the people which the Government is trying to steal. The provisions do not relate only to amalgamations. Small boundary realignments would not require a constitutional referendum. As I indicated earlier, I believe that the amendment proposed by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is a better amendment. When the Opposition amendment is defeated the Opposition will support that amendment.

As I said earlier, I would not have moved the Opposition amendment had the Government not made the threat to the Chamber tonight. I hope the crossbenchers understand that no Opposition can bow to such a threat. We have indicated in the other House and during the second reading debate in this Chamber that we will support deferment of council elections. If the Government wants to pull this bill it is in the certain knowledge that the Opposition has already pledged support for deferment of council elections in the areas in which amalgamations are proposed. When the Government threatens the Opposition that is the sort of response it will receive. Honourable members, many on the Government benches, will understand that no Opposition can accept such a threat.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Could the Hon. D. J. Gay clarify the position with the two consequential amendments that follow Opposition amendment No. 1?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Mr Chairman, I have formally moved Opposition amendment No. 1. Amendments Nos 2 and 6, which were consequential, have not been moved. I have only spoken to them, understanding that when amendment No. 1 is lost I cannot move Nos 2 and 6.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.17 p.m.]: I support Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 6. I think they
Page 1883
reflect Greens amendments Nos 1 and 9. The amendments ensure that the Minister may recommend to the Governor that an amalgamation proposal be implemented only if it is supported by decisions made at constitutional referendums conducted by each of the councils affected by the proposals. This is important so that communities get to decide whether their council should amalgamate. The Greens consider that the current proposal to have a Boundaries Commission inquiry should only be the first step, not the final step, in any amalgamation proposal.

The community would not be able to participate through a Boundaries Commission inquiry to the extent necessary when such an important change to a council may occur. Already, under the 1993 Act, section 16 specifies that a constitutional referendum is needed for a council to abolish wards, divide areas into wards, increase or decrease the number of councillors, or change the basis on which the mayor attains office. In the case of amalgamations, councils will be dissolved and reconstituted. Why should there not be a constitutional referendum for this?

As the shadow minister so eloquently stated last night in his speech, councils are not people, only representatives of the people. The residents and ratepayers should be able to have a say in the makeup of their new council. The currently elected councillors were not elected on an amalgamation platform. Therefore, the public should be entitled to a referendum. It is absolutely essential that there be a referendum so that the community can say whether it wants amalgamation. Amalgamations could well lead to loss of services, employment and effective representation, amongst other things.

A council may vote for amalgamation with a one-vote majority. Slightly less than 50 per cent of councillors may be totally opposed to amalgamation. The minority councillors will be unable to have a say in the amalgamation issue even though they represent slightly less than 50 per cent of the community. Therefore the community must have a say about this issue. I received some information belatedly, which I have not distributed. It refers to amendment No. 1. It sets out a series of points on holding a referendum that is fair, equitable and democratic. It states:

A constitutional referendum is to be taken on the question of whether a council should support a proposal for the amalgamation of the area of the council with any other area. The council must facilitate the development of the yes and no cases in the referendum and the council must ensure that the proponents for each case are chosen by a transparent process that ensures that the proponents for a case are genuine supporters of that case and the council must ensure that each case is funded equally.

I support the two Opposition amendments.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.20 p.m.]: I understand the arguments that the Leader of the Opposition has used in wanting to make it obligatory to have a full-scale, in fact a constitutional, referendum. There is no flexibility available to the Boundaries Commission. The Greens, through the Hon. I. Cohen, also support this proposition. I am concerned that this amendment makes a referendum obligatory, but that there may be a situation in which it is not necessary to have a referendum.

In the amendment that I have foreshadowed the members of the crossbenches tried to make the formal poll or referendum one of the options that the Boundaries Commission should consider. It may be necessary to have a referendum in some cases but not if there is a clear-cut opinion by the council or residents in favour of the amalgamation. While understanding the reasons why the Hon. D. J. Gay has moved the amendment, the Christian Democratic Party will not support it. We will move an amendment and we hope the Minister will accept it and that the bill is not withdrawn.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.22 p.m.]: Concerning the referendum, I note that some members have discussed inquiries and commissions of inquiries with me. I am sure that members of this Chamber have been involved in commissions of inquiry that have been so easily turned around to meet the will of the Minister.

Recently I attended a commission of inquiry into an environmental matter that was splitting a community. There was no recording of the inquiry, no Hansard, and I found that the original positions put by the Minister as the parameters of the inquiry were virtually ignored by the commissioner. I have a great concern about other methods of working out a number of issues in the community. Either commissions of inquiry have to be vastly improved and far more impartial, or else we need a referendum to decide on these issues.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.23 p.m.]: My comments relate to the statistical validity of referendums. The current Federal Government was elected with 39.7 per cent of the vote. Given party solidarity, 20 per cent of the people, which is half of 39.7, would determine policy. So, that 20 per cent would have more than 50 per cent of the seats. Effectively, if we are talking democracy, 20 per cent becomes 100 per cent.

[Interruption]

As Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said by way of interjection, the kitchen cabinet may indeed fill the whole party against its will, and it may be less
Page 1884
than 20 per cent. That 20 per cent becomes 100 per cent. We would not get that with a referendum. I disagree with the Hon. J. S. Tingle. On simple statistical calculations, 61 per cent of 44 per cent, which is a significant sample return, is 26.8 per cent of the total population. The chance of that occurring, if the majority of people were not opposed to the amalgamation, would be less than one in a million on the margin of errors. One may be cynical, but the reality of the statistics cannot be changed. And that was a statistically significant sample.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [10.25 p.m.]: Under this amendment an amalgamation may be possible only if a constitutional referendum has approved it. The Government cannot support the amendment. The community will and can have its say at the ballot box when it votes for councillors to represent it. A referendum is a costly and time-consuming process that defeats the purpose of the democratic election process by which councils have been created in the first place. The role of councils is to look after the interests of their community. A council will not be making a recommendation for voluntary amalgamation unless it recognises that it is necessary to efficiently provide the quality of service that the community expects.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Breen Mr Lynn
Mr Bull Mr Oldfield
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Dr Pezzutti
Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon
Mr Gallacher Mr Ryan
Miss Gardiner Dr Wong
Mr Gay Tellers,
Mr Harwin Mr Jobling

Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Moppett

Ms Burnswoods Ms Saffin
Mr Corbett Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Della Bosca Mr Shaw
Mr Dyer Ms Tebbutt
Mr Egan Mr Tingle
Mr M. I. Jones Mr Tsang
Mr Macdonald
Mrs Nile Tellers,
Rev. Nile Mr Manson
Mr Obeid Mr Primrose

Pairs

Mrs Forsythe Dr Burgmann
Mr Hannaford Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Samios Mr Johnson

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: As Opposition amendment No. 2 is consequential upon Opposition amendment No. 1, which has been negatived, I rule it out of order.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.34 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 9:

[3] Section 210 Division of areas into wards

Insert after section 210 (5):

(5A) In the case of an area constituted under section 218A as a consequence of the amalgamation of two or more former areas, the council must take a poll of electors on the question of whether the area should be divided into wards whether or not the Boundaries Commission has recommended that the area be divided into wards.

This amendment ensures that if the Boundaries Commission recommends a certain ward system - or no ward structure - after amalgamation, the council must poll electors on whether the council should adopt any recommendations as to the division of its area into wards. The amendment allows the community to have a say about the sort of ward structure it wants, if any, after amalgamation.

Current councillors may not have been elected on the basis of a ward structure. Independents or minority councillors may have been elected. However, under the new system a new council may be reconstituted and such people may never be elected as councillors. Using as an example the Randwick, South Sydney and Botany local government areas, if they reconstitute they might put in place a ward structure that is wholly dominated by Labor councillors. This can be done via the two councillors per ward structure in which the optional preferential voting system applies. This is the case in Botany, where they are all Labor councillors. This bill is about ensuring the best possible result for Labor, particularly in the east Sydney and south Sydney areas. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Page 1885

The Hon. D. J. GAY [10.36 p.m.]: The Opposition cannot support Greens amendment No. 2. We have a problem with making it compulsory to divide an area into wards. The Opposition has some concern that the amendment may be outside the leave of the bill, but does not suggest that it should be voted against for that reason. The compulsion to divide an area into wards creates a problem in putting together these agreements. The Opposition believes that it would be better if communities were able to make their own decisions.

I understand the Hon. I. Cohen’s motives in moving the amendment. Certainly many members of the National Party at one stage believed that the establishment of wards was the only way to protect country communities. At present there is mixed feeling about the issue. The Opposition believes that in any amalgamation the local community needs to be able to make its own decision, and that it should not have something forced on it. The Opposition opposes the amendment.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.38 p.m.]: As I understand the amendment it does not seek to make wards compulsory but to provide a choice about whether an area should be divided into wards. The Greens do not advocate wards for all local councils in the State. The amendment provides a choice. It certainly does not compulsorily advocate wards. There may be a misunderstanding about the amendment based on an earlier draft of it which the honourable member may have had, or advice from my office may have been unclear. The Greens do not advocate, and have never advocated, wards as the way to go necessarily. However, in certain circumstances the community may wish to have wards.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [10.39 p.m.]: The Hon. I. Cohen is partly correct when he says that the amendment does not make wards compulsory but provides that a poll may be taken with respect to wards. The Opposition believes that the amendment would complicate any poll put to the community.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [10.40 p.m.]: This amendment relates to a requirement for a poll of electors on whether an area should be divided into wards. The legislation already provides for a requirement for a constitutional referendum of electors for the formation of wards under section 210. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. In any case, it would not be appropriate for the Boundaries Commission to make recommendations with respect to wards. This is better left to councils and their communities, as is already provided in the legislation.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [10.40 p.m.]: The Opposition will not move its amendment No. 3. It will withdraw its amendment No. 4. With the concurrence of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, it will move an amendment to withdraw "Director-General" from his amendment as it is in conflict with the amendment it is supporting.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.41 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 3:

No 3 Page 6, Schedule 1. Insert after line 4:

(2) In the case of a proposal for the amalgamation of two or more areas under section 218A, the proposal must be referred to the Boundaries Commission.

This amendment will ensure that when making or receiving an amalgamation proposal the Minister must refer it to the Boundaries Commission but not the director-general. Currently, the bill does not require a mandatory inquiry if there is agreement between councils. In the Greens’ view it is preferable that the Boundaries Commission examine this issue, as it has the power to conduct a more thorough inquiry than the director-general. We agree that minor boundary adjustments should not be referred to the Boundaries Commission. The rest of proposed section 218F and section 218 of the Act allow for minor boundary adjustments to be considered by the director-general. This amendment will achieve that.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [10.43 p.m.]: The Opposition agrees with the Greens and supports this amendment. As the honourable member said, it will ensure that all small boundary adjustments do not have to go to the Boundaries Commission but can be handled by the director-general. We understood that to be the intention of the Greens and that is what was detailed to the Committee. That was the intention of one of our amendments that fell by the wayside at the last vote. It is a sensible amendment and details some areas that I suspect the Government missed in its drafting. I congratulate the honourable member on his amendment.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [10.44 p.m.]: A proposal for an amalgamation of two or more areas must be referred for examination and report by the Boundaries Commission and no-one else. The Government’s amendment will address this issue, therefore we cannot accept this amendment. It will remove the ability to streamline the voluntary amalgamation process which is one of the purposes of the bill.

Page 1886

As a number of councils have already indicated their desire to examine the voluntary amalgamation proposal, this would tie up the Boundaries Commission for an extended period and defeat the purpose of assisting councils wishing to amalgamate voluntarily. The director-general will still be subject to the same strict requirements as the Boundaries Commission under section 263 of the Act but the Government’s amendment will ensure that the director-general’s report is reviewed by the Boundaries Commission.

Amendment negatived.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.45 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 6, schedule 1. Insert after line 8:

(3) For the purpose of examining a proposal for the amalgamation of two or more areas under section 218A, the Boundaries Commission or Director-General, as the case requires, must (at no cost to the councils of those areas) seek the views of electors of each of those areas:

(a) by means of:

(i) advertised public meetings, and

(ii) invitations for public submissions, and

(iii) postal surveys or opinion polls, in which reply-paid questionnaires are distributed to all electors, or

(b) by means of formal polls.

(4) The period over which the views of electors are to be sought as referred to in subsection (3) must be a period of at least 40 days.

(5) Part 3 of Chapter 4 applies to a formal poll taken by the Boundaries Commission or Director-General in the same way as it applies to a council poll referred to in that Part.

My amendment proposes to involve public consultation in the proposed amalgamations in a simple way, as distinct from the earlier proposal that was defeated. It referred to a prescriptive constitutional referendum. My amendment will not require thousands of dollars to be spent to have the proposed amalgamations brought to the attention of the public. It is virtually normal procedure to write to any relevant organisations or groups asking for public submissions.

My third method of seeking views gives flexibility to the Boundaries Commission to have either a postal survey or an opinion poll, and we have deliberately included the word "or" at the end of that provision so that a formal poll is not required by the Boundaries Commission. It is an option. The commission can take into account the first three proposals and/or the last one or parts of each. The amendment gives the Boundaries Commission flexibility. Nothing in this motion forces it to have a full-blown, formal poll or referendum. It is an option open to the commission in a particular situation.

There has been some question about the length of time required, and I know 28 days has been mentioned, but I believe no harm is done by having a period of 40 days, as suggested in proposed new subsection (4) of my amendment. As stated by the Hon. J. S. Tingle, although there is a degree of interest within the local council area, it takes time for the news to filter through to everyone. Someone could be away on holidays or involved with some family tragedy or illness, or someone could be away attending a wedding or some other happy activity, and may not be aware of the proposed amalgamation.

The consultation period needs to be longer than three or four weeks because a good proportion of the population will always be on holidays or potentially absent from the electorate. A consultation period of 40 days from start to finish is not too long and allows a fair time frame for advertising public meetings, media reporting and community debate. In that way the issue will be brought to the attention of the public. If an advertisement is placed in the local paper it will force that paper to make it a front page story and in that way everybody will become aware of the proposed amalgamation.

Clause (5) of my amendment refers to another clause in the original bill in which the council poll is included as one of the matters that the Boundaries Commission could consider. My amendment does not require the onerous task of a referendum. However, it provides for reasonable and diverse community participation, an opportunity for the public to have a choice, and it encourages and entrenches the spirit of a democratic process. This is a reasonable amendment. Some of the Government’s advisers said that some of these things have already been done. If that is the case, I urge all honourable members to support the amendment. I gather that there is already strong support for my amendment and I understand that it will be carried.

It is not helpful in this sort of climate to have hanging over the Committee the threat that the Government will withdraw the bill. I call on the Government, even at this late stage, to reverse its heavy-handed approach in this debate. If my
Page 1887
amendment is carried it will be considered in debate in the other place and I hope that it will be accepted, even though it is not the intention of the Government to accept it in this Chamber. I hope that the Government accepts my amendment. Once the bill is returned to the Legislative Council it will have to be debated in this Chamber tomorrow. We had advance notice of that possibility. The Government might dig in its heels and return the bill to the Legislative Council with an amendment to my amendment. Let us include a greater degree of participation in the amalgamation process.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.53 p.m.]: This is a reasonable amendment. Even those people who are rusted onto the Australian Labor Party would be able to support it. Earlier, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile referred to a period of 40 days. Perhaps he should have referred to 40 days and 40 nights, as I am sure that is where that provision came from - "Get behind me Satan for thou art a stumbling block to me." I hope that this amendment will be carried and that even those who are slavishly following the Labor line will be able to agree to it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.54 p.m.]: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has moved an amendment which has some virtue but which also has some significant faults. The honourable gentleman said that if his amendment is carried and the bill goes to the Legislative Assembly it is possible that that House will propose an amendment to his amendment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Government might be able to negotiate some changes to his amendment, which might be acceptable to the Government, the Committee and the honourable member. A number of honourable members have an interest in this matter. They could participate in discussions over the next 10 minutes or so. If the honourable member is willing to do that I suggest that, to suit the convenience of the Committee, the Chairman do now leave the chair and report progress.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

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

Motor Accidents Compensation Bill
Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill
Courts Legislation Amendment Bill
Offshore Minerals Bill

Message received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council’s amendments.

Debate resumed from 30 June.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [10.57 p.m.]: It is with considerable enthusiasm that I speak to the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the former member for Lismore, Bill Rixon, who became very ill just after he retired from Parliament. I am pleased to report that he is making a rapid recovery due to the good care he received at Lismore Base Hospital and Prince Charles Hospital in Brisbane. I hope that he has a happy and well-deserved retirement. I am sure that Bill would have been pleased to have heard Thomas George’s inaugural speech. I am sure that Thomas George will ably take over the role played by Bill Rixon.

Thomas and I are of the same view in relation to the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills. I welcome the Federal Government’s budget this year, which should set the scene for all budgets in Australia as the Federal Government is providing a lot of the money. After the budget was brought down by Mr Costello the Sydney Morning Herald referred to it as a responsible and fair budget. That has been recognised across the board. One newspaper carried the headline, "Budget appreciated by rural doctors." The Leader of the National Party in the other place welcomed the budget in a rave review. It is well-known that he attempted to bring services back to country New South Wales that had been removed by this economically irrational and callous Government. So much for Country Labor!

Page 1888

I had reason to speak with my colleague the Hon. John Fahey when the Treasurer, the Hon. M. J. Egan, was drafting the New South Wales budget. He said, "It should be a good budget because we have given New South Wales quite a lot of extra money." He said, "Total payments to New South Wales should come to about $10.795 billion", which is a considerable increase in total payments of $643 million. With that increase in general purpose revenue I would have thought there would have been extra money for the Treasurer to play with - and play with it he did.

What Finance Minister John Fahey did not appreciate at the meeting of the Council of Australian Governments when he allocated funds was that our Treasurer would be so unfair in the way he spent the Commonwealth’s money. The Commonwealth spent its money in country New South Wales and this State Government has spent its money very much in the city.

In 1997-98 New South Wales had economic growth of about 4.1 per cent, in 1998-99 it was 4.5 per cent, but in 1999-2000 it is expected to be only 3.25 per cent. The main reason for the bump-up in the last financial year was, of course, an increase in private consumption. However, this year debt constraints will start to emerge and people will spend less money. The Treasurer said that unemployment is expected to drop from 7 per cent to about 6.75 per cent in spite of extra funding for the Olympics, but mainly because of the drop in capital funding. I do not know what will happen when these funds are no longer being drip fed.

For the accrual-based budget there is an operating surplus, after abnormals, of about 1 per cent of gross State product for 1999-2000, compared with a surplus of some 1.1 per cent of gross State product last year. Accrual-based operating surpluses are decreasing at a time when all other States are bringing forward major surpluses. In cash-based terms we expect a surplus this year of only $214 million, which is 0.1 per cent of gross State product. Last year our surplus was $382 million in cash terms.

The underlying outlays are expected to rise by only 0.3 of 1 per cent. Compared to outlays, that is a fall in real terms of about 7.5 per cent from last year. Last year there was an increase of 7.6 per cent; this year the rise is 0.3 per cent. It represents a huge drop in outlays. Total revenue also will fall by 0.3 of 1 per cent. Taking into consideration what the State Government receives from the Commonwealth, this means that the State is raising less money of its own. Whilst the Treasurer is talking about tax breaks rather than giving them, each year he relies more on what comes from the Federal Government.

The non-financial public sector net debt is expected to remain largely unchanged this year while in other States the average continues to fall. I am indebted to one of the people who came into my office to assist in getting these figures out. It is interesting to note that in all other States the non-financial public sector debt has continued to decline and that, comparatively, New South Wales has a higher percentage of gross State product debt. That is not a good position to be in. New South Wales is meant to be the leader in the field, but our debt levels for our State product are much higher. In other words, our ability to service that debt is much less than that of other States.

So much for the Treasurer’s boast about how he is going to make this State debt free by 2015 or 2055 or God knows when, because he should be in a better position than he is to service that debt. New South Wales is cutting back on some expenses, particularly in employment: funding of 1,400 voluntary redundancies and a freeze on recruiting of what are called non-front line public servants with no allowance being made at all in this budget for price rises. I now know why the Government is resisting the justifiable price rise for teachers. I do not know how it will pay the already committed 3 per cent pay rise for nurses this year.

I shall refer in more detail to extra spending in this year’s budget. The generosity just about killed me when the Treasurer announced $36 million extra for rural health, until I realised it was to be spread over four years. The budget allocates a $9 million increase in funds for rural health. Of course, that matches the miserly $5 million extra allocation for funding for drug treatment, rehabilitation, education, policing and the like. General Purpose Committee No. 2 examined rural health funding and the Hon. A. B. Kelly knows that the extra $5 million will not go anywhere near providing equity to fund rapidly growing areas - even to fund such sparsely populated areas as Wentworth; and certainly not the North Coast and mid North Coast, which will receive $50 million less than it should.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly: The rural health budget has increased by 41 per cent.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: But in equity terms we are well behind, compared to the city. There has been a lot more Commonwealth funding to cover that. The State Government had a resource distribution formula to bring forward rural funding this year. A mere $9 million extra was
Page 1889
allocated, which will go nowhere near producing more equity. All of the debts will not be repaid and those that were behind will not be brought up to date. That is a shame.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly: The RDF starts today.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No, it has been in place since 1996 and was to be fully implemented by 1999. Implementation has not even commenced. The only way that can be done is if extra money is allocated. The same amount of money has been allocated to western Sydney, which does not have the same population as rural New South Wales, or the problems or the inequity. However, I shall return to that later.

It is interesting that the Minister has made allowances for unspecified tax deductions of $150 million in 2001 and 2002 - I would like to know what they are - and $175 million in 2002-2003. This is in addition to the already predicted and announced much-delayed drop in payroll tax. The Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer, who is that the table, would understand that it is difficult to attract business to that part of the State with the highest unemployment, the North Coast, or to try to compete with Queensland’s 5 per cent payroll tax levels, cheaper electricity and petrol prices, lower State charges and taxes. It is difficult to try to attract industry into that part of the State - the most wonderful place to live - and it is very hard to try to overcome the unemployment levels we face border to border.

The New South Wales budget does not take into account the impact of the Commonwealth’s national tax reform measures. I dare say the Treasurer will be back to us fairly soon with a supplementary budget once the goods and services tax [GST] comes into place and adjustments are made. I hope when he makes these changes next time that he will find the money to put into services in regional New South Wales. I, like the Premier, went through the newspapers the day before the budget was delivered. Under the front-page headline "Show Us the Money" the Northern Star newspaper asked, "Will Labor honour its election promises to the North Coast?" and listed the promises that had been made.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Did we?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No, I will come to that. Do not push me too quickly; this is my lunge for leadership speech. In fact, the editorial by Mr Dean Gould said that the reputation of the State Labor Government was at stake. He told the people what had been promised so they could read the budget in the paper the next day. What did they read the next day? They read: "Jobs cut in health; spending up by $300 million".

The article made it quite clear that did not mean that health spending was up. It meant that it was not up enough to keep jobs. That fact is perfectly clear. I will briefly detail in a moment the number of nurses that will be lost from the system, nurses we cannot afford to lose, particularly from country New South Wales. There is a wonderful quote in one article from Michael Costa, a person that the Minister would know. The article states:

Unions reacted angrily to the job cuts, with NSW Labor Council secretary Michael Costa saying it fell short of a Labor budget.

So much for touting it as a good Labor budget, a budget that Labor could be proud of. The Northern Rivers Echo, a wonderful newspaper, has a headline: "Budget a dud for Lismore and Ballina". Another article of the same date is headed: "Government under fire on poll pledges", that is, poll pledges that were not honoured. In an editorial on 25 June Mr Gould said:

This is not a party political issue. The Carr Labor Government is simply continuing a tradition which has been firmly entrenched for decades. Out of sight, out of mind . . . It is time to take our bat and ball and go elsewhere.

That editorial is talking about secession. It is saying that it is about time to secede from the State because the area is too far away for the Labor Party to be concerned about it. In terms of tax in general, it is important to note that whilst the Treasurer talks about reducing State taxes, he is anticipating a massive rise in taxation receipts over the next few years. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the Treasurer will rip $130 million more out of gambling to be used for funding. What does the Sydney Morning Herald have to say about this wonderful budget, the budget to be proud of? Under the heading "Mr Carr’s big spending" the editorial states:

Mr Egan has produced projections that show how the Government is on track and how inevitable the debt erasure outcome is.

The Auditor-General has cast serious doubts on these projections. So has the expert who explained to me what the projections mean. I do not pretend to be a mathematics guru, but my expert agrees with the Auditor-General. The Sydney Morning Herald editorial continues:

Page 1890

. . . State taxation has grown by 23 per cent per capita over the past five years while the main resources of NSW Government income have not even kept pace with the inflation rate.

The editorial further states:

The Auditor-General’s report also found that the Carr Government might have acted unlawfully twice, in spending public funds for party political purposes.

Before the budget was even drafted, an article on the front page of the Northern Star of 29 April was headed: "Promise broken. Premier’s backflip on police numbers". Old backflip Bob is at it again. On a visit to the area during his election campaign the Premier said that no police would be ripped out of the country to go to the Olympics. The article states:

But North Region NSW Police Association organiser Mr Greg Black said yesterday that Mr Carr had made a mistake.

"He may have been caught on the hop and not properly briefed -

that has not stopped Bob before -

but there will be a definite commitment required from country New South Wales to police the Olympics."

That was the first part of the article. I am sure the Northern Star took the attitude that it had better put on the record before the budget came out what had been promised - and it was not much - and what the Government was going to do.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: Premier Carr looks after the country towns, like Nowra.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Mr Carr, does he? I do not know about that. Certainly the North Coast has missed out. The North Coast has had no real increase in health. Our public hospitals will be under further stress trying to cope with the ever-increasing demand for services with fewer staff.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Where did you get that press release from?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I spent a lot of time drafting it, so I am giving the Minister the benefit of the information in it. My press release was broadcast over all the airways and it was not treated with the scepticism that the Minister shows for it, because the people and media outlets of northern New South Wales have come to trust my honesty.

This year the number of admissions for overnight services have been split into two. Honourable members would be interested to know that the Minister for Health is expecting fewer admissions. In fact, he is expecting overnight routine admissions to fall by approximately 8,000. But he anticipates that the number of acute admissions through the emergency department will increase by 15,000. That means that more seriously ill people will be admitted through the emergency department to the wards overnight. Yet there will be 3,800 fewer ward nurses than there were the year before and a mere 300 nurses in the emergency department, a drop of 150. I see real trouble ahead for our nurses and other staff who are being placed under increasing stress.

All of the North Coast’s capital works programs are behind schedule and under budget. Coffs Harbour Hospital, which was meant to be completed in the first term of the Government, has been delayed by at least two years since the Government announced the project for the second time. The project was underspent by $5 million last year; that money was spent elsewhere. The budget for Taree Hospital on the North Coast has blown out by $5 million and the last year’s allocation was underspent by $2 million. The Tweed Heads redevelopment is now another year behind schedule. Only $200,000 was spent on it last year, even though the budget allocation was $4 million. This Government underspent last year’s capital budget and this year it cut back on the capital budget by 7.5 per cent.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: You have not mentioned Coffs Harbour Hospital.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I just did. It was meant to be completed in 1995. It has now already been postponed to 2003. Last year its budget allocation was underspent by $7.5 million. There is not even a bit of concrete on the ground.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: We have spent $2 million on site costs.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: There is not a bit of concrete on the ground. The Government promised that the hospital would be finished in 1995. The Treasurer allocated the money last year but made sure that it was not spent.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: What did I do? Did I blockade the site?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Probably.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: I gave them the money.

Page 1891

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: You allocated the money but you made sure they did not get it to spend.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: How did I do that?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I would love to know. We might discover the papers on that. Evans Head school seems to be the only school on track for completion this year. The only new capital works on the whole of the North Coast is a mere $600,000 to begin a new hall at, guess where? Have a guess. It is on the tip of the tongue of the Special Minister for State, that obdurate person who is the reason we are still sitting tonight. It is in the electorate of Harry Woods.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Let’s not spend any money in Clarence.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: That is the only new eduction budget for the whole of the North Coast.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Madam President, I want to take a point of order.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: This is a spurious point of order.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is arguing that no money should be spent in the electorate of Clarence. I want the people of Clarence to know that. I want the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti to tell the House why he thinks no money should be spent in Clarence. Is that the official position of the Liberal and National parties? I see by their nodding that it is. That is a deplorable situation. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti should apologise.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I do not need to take that point of order seriously but I will allow you, Madam President, to rule on it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Under Standing Order 84 the Treasurer may not have been taking a point of order. He may have been requesting that the words be taken down. I assume that is what the Treasurer was requesting.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Taking down what I said, not what he tells us?

The PRESIDENT: Under Standing Order 84, yes.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: What I said, not what he thought I said? I will continue. The only money spent on the North Coast of New South Wales was for a new school hall at Westlawn Public School. Primary school enrolments on the North Coast have increased by 2 per cent every year. It is the only part of the State where student enrolments continue to increase. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who was once a parliamentary secretary for education, would know that the number of students on the north coast, who have a growing need for high schools and primary schools, is vastly greater than in the whole of western Sydney.

In capital works terms all they will get is $600,000 and the continuation of Evans Head school, which is two years behind schedule. That school has not been completed, and only $600,000 has been allocated for new projects for education on the north coast. That is a tragedy! The fact that it is in Harry Woods’ seat of Clarence is not a surprise. I am sure that many other schools need a hall as well. If there were any fairness there would probably be 20 times that amount being spent on the North Coast. There is no real growth in health funding; in fact, health funding has decreased by more than $130 million this year. Once again public hospitals will be seriously stressed. Road capital works projects are behind time and underspent.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Are you giving your entire budget speech tonight?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No, I am making a brief speech tonight. The dual carriageway from Brunswick to Yelgun will be two years late and barely $4 million is allocated this year. The dual highway from Yelgun to Chinderah has been pushed back by a year to 2003 and the budget has blown out by $30 million. The Alstonville bypass, an important road for the people on the North Coast travelling from Ballina to Lismore, is meant to have been completed three years ago but will not now be completed until 2002, and barely $1 million has been allocated to it this year.

In terms of the Ballina bypass, we must now wait until 2006 for a road that was announced by Bruce Baird in 1989. That is appalling. Clearly, the Pacific Highway and the North Coast highways have had their completion dates extended to help pay for the Olympic Games. No wonder the Premier and the Treasurer will not release a North Coast budget paper. The Government produced a Western Sydney budget paper but not a North Coast budget paper. At Tweed Heads the Treasurer promised to produce a North Coast budget paper. I am appalled that job growth on the North Coast will continue to be hampered because the Treasurer has not kept his promise.

This year the Federal Government increased its budget by $644 million. Where has the money gone?
Page 1892
It has gone to help fund the Treasurer’s mates. I am concerned that once again people in New South Wales with a mental illness will be seriously disadvantaged. One person with a mental illness who committed a crime or was detained for something that other people thought was not the right thing to do languished in Grafton gaol for three months while awaiting a psychiatric report.

After three months the magistrate dealing with the case could only question what the court could do with the person. That matter has been on the front page of the Northern Star, and I have drawn the attention of the Treasurer to it. Did we get more money for mental health services on the North Coast? We will have to wait and see.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: If we all listen to you long enough we will all be as mad as you.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I have two minutes left of my speaking time and I will use them.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You are trying to send us crazy.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No, I am not. I am simply telling the Treasurer that if he wants to be fair he should visit the North Coast to see what the needs are.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: When I visited the North Coast people there had never heard of you.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: This is the lying Treasurer we have come to know and love. One headline in the Northern Rivers Area Health Service newsletter states, "The Show must go on". And what a show it was! The newsletter contains pictures of Harry Woods and the chief executive of the area health service.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: That is the Echo, is it?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No, it is the Northern Rivers Area Health Service newsletter entitled "Health Bites". The Minister and the chief executive opened all these projects, but most of them are not yet operating because there is no money in the budget. For example, the Minister opened the dialysis unit at Ballina, but it is still not operating. The area health service will not be advertising for staff for the unit until next month.

The money allocated for all the projects that were opened with spades and shovels turning bits of soil has not been spent. The Minister allocated the money so the openings were trumped up, but he ensured that the money was not forwarded so it could not be spent. But the show must go on. Before the State election, throughout February and March, the Minister visited the North Coast to open all these projects, but no money was allocated for operating costs. The cruellest opening was the Aboriginal Medical Service in Casino. I attended the opening of that service because I thought it was a good project. However, no thought had been given to employing staff and there was not one stick of furniture.

Grafton Aboriginal Medical Service staff travelled to Casino to show the staff there how to operate the new service, which was good. When I asked the chief executive about the allocation of $500,000 per annum he said that it would be in next year’s budget. We will have to wait and see whether it is in next year’s budget. The intensive care ward at Grafton has been overlooked, although the previous Government allocated money in 1994-95.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Your 10 minutes are up.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No, I have one minute remaining. The intensive care ward at Grafton was not completed until February this year. When the Minister opened the new ward there was not one stick of furniture or one monitor. It was a bit like the new children’s wing in western Sydney which was opened by the Minister. The area health service had to wait for four months for money to fund the nurses.

The Hon. D. T. Harwin: A hospital with no patients.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Again, a ward with no patients. The show must go on. And that is all it was - a show! In April the chief executive of the Northern Rivers Area Health Service said:

The Northern Rivers Area Health Service is currently in a sound financial position. However, with continuing falling private insurance rates and rapidly rising costs for new drugs and new technology, there is no doubt that the Board will have to make difficult decisions in the upcoming twelve months so as to meet the needs of our communities . . .

The show must go on in February but in April the area health service is telling us that things would be tough. We know that the Northern Rivers Area Health Service is not in a good financial position because it will run over budget by another $2 million. Does the Treasurer know how much the
Page 1893
Northern Rivers Area Health Service ran over budget last year? Of course he does - $142 million. This year the Government has allocated an extra $300 million to the area health service, which is still paying off debts from previous years.

I want to ensure that when we appropriate this budget the Treasurer will spend the money as he says he will spend it, and spend it in the next 12 months. That will ensure that projects with an allocation of $12 million receive the full $12 million, not only $4 million. If we approve allocations for capital works programs we want to ensure that all the money is spent this year, not in the never-never, and that the Government does not continue to make the same announcement of $12 million next year and until the program is never completed. That has happened with a number of other programs, and the Treasurer knows the ones I am talking about. I hope that the Treasurer will read what I have said because he cannot listen fast enough; he does not have the brain to do so. I am sure that someone in his department will read what I have said and understand it.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: At 10.30 a.m. every day the Treasury staff have tutti-frutti time; they sit around over a cup of coffee and laugh about what the honourable member said the day before.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: One day the Treasurer will end up with a headline in the Sydney Morning Herald stating, "Responsible but fair". When the Treasurer gets such headlines it is time for him to retire because he knows that he will have done as good as he will ever do.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. P. T. Primrose.

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.29 p.m.]: I seek leave to withdraw the Christian Democratic Party amendment with a view to resubmitting it with two changes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.29 p.m.]: I move the following Christian Democratic Party amendment:

Page 6, schedule 1. Insert after line 8:

(3) For the purpose of examining a joint proposal of 2 or more councils for the amalgamation of two or more areas under section 218A, the Boundaries Commission or Director-General, as the case requires, must seek the views of electors of each of those areas:

(a) by means of:

(i) advertised public meetings, and

(ii) invitations for public submissions, and

(iii) postal surveys or opinion polls, in which reply-paid questionnaires are distributed to all electors, or

(b) by means of formal polls.

(4) The period over which the views of electors are to be sought as referred to in subsection (3) must be a period of at least 40 days.

(5) Part 3 of Chapter 4 applies to a formal Pollution: taken by the Boundaries Commission or Director-General in the same way as it applies to a council Pollution: referred to in that Part.

I draw the attention of the House to the two minor changes to the amendment, which help to clarify its objective. The new wording is "examining a joint proposal of two or more councils" because the word "proposal" was simply too vague. The amendment now refers to a serious proposal by two or more councils for amalgamation. When that happens the public will become involved as a result of advertising, et cetera. The second change is the deletion of the words "(at no cost to the councils of those areas)".

The Hon. D. J. GAY [11.30 p.m.]: I congratulate the Treasurer on taking an initiative in Committee, one of consultation rather than confrontation. The Opposition joined in the consultation. As I indicated earlier, we thought the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile was worthwhile. In many respects it was better than the original amendment of the Opposition. Although we are not entirely happy with the changes, it is a compromise. To ensure that people are able to participate in democracy we have all had to compromise a little on this amendment. We have accepted a fair compromise.

The Opposition, the crossbenchers and the Government have been working on legislative changes in backrooms and across counters inside and outside the Committee. I hope we have got the changes right. We have certainly acted in good faith. If we have missed something it was not for want of trying. We certainly wanted to remove compulsory
Page 1894
amalgamation, and that has been partly achieved. More will be done as we go through the bill.

We also want people within council areas to have the democratic right to vote in elections. I have only one outstanding concern about the amendment, and I have approached the Minister about it. The first line says, "For the purpose of examining a joint proposal of two or more councils . . . ". My concern is that if there were a predatory strike by a single council on another council or another group of councils, does it fall out of this area? The Minister has indicated that it does.

The Minister for Local Government also indicated that in Committee the Minister for Mineral Resources would read onto the record a statement confirming that in the case of a predatory strike - that is, a unilateral strike by one council on one or more other councils where the amalgamation was not voluntary and the other two councils did not welcome the approach - the Minister could not and would not recommend that amalgamation to the Governor.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It must be a joint proposal.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: It must be a joint proposal from both councils. That is a major breakthrough by the Minister. I am hopeful that the Minister will read that statement onto the record.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [11.34 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendment. I confirm that in the case of a unilateral proposal for amalgamation between two or more councils, unless those councils agree an amalgamation will not proceed.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Do I take it that the Minister did not disagree with any other statements that I made preceding his statement?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I am supporting the -

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: He is saying the same thing.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: He is saying the same thing. The Minister’s adviser was nodding.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I will hand the text to the Hon. D. J. Gay.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.35 p.m.]: We are content with the statement made by the Minister. It was claimed earlier that Federal funding had been made available to councils. I understood that something would be said about that. I know that the State Government is not supplying it, but there was to be an acknowledgment.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The statement made by the Minister is the statement I asked for. He said, "In the case of a unilateral proposal for amalgamation between two or more councils, unless those councils agree an amalgamation will not proceed." Can I add the words "of both" before the words "will not proceed"?

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: It could be more than two.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: If those two or more choose to proceed.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: Unless all of them agree.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I want to be sure about this.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: We want to be sure about what you are saying.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Where it says, "unless those councils agree" I want it to read, "unless all those councils agree".

The Hon. M. R. Egan: But what if the proposal is for an amalgamation of three councils, and only two councils agree?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I said "all".

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: What if two councils want to do it and one wants to opt out?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The two can do their own amalgamation.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Very well.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: But is the Government happy with that?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Happy with that.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [11.38 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 1:

Page 1895

No. 1 Page 6, schedule 1, line 10. Insert ", or that is an amalgamation proposal (as defined in section 218G)," after "it".

In cases in which an amalgamation proposal has been referred to the director-general by the Minister it is appropriate that the Boundaries Commission should be given the opportunity to review the report. This will provide public confidence in the process and ensure accountability.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [11.39 p.m.]: Initially the Opposition decided to oppose this amendment. We have consulted further with the Government and gave an undertaking to support it. The Government explained that the inclusion of the director-general would be a bonus rather than a hindrance in speeding up the process. The Opposition now supports the proposal with greater alacrity because with the director-general acting as well as the Boundaries Commission a later Opposition amendment on the change of dates is much more feasible.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [11.40 p.m.]: I withdrew Opposition amendments Nos 3 and 4. I now withdraw Opposition amendment No. 5 because that once again applies to the director-general.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [11.41 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 6, schedule 1, lines 26 and 27. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

but may not do so if of the opinion that the modifications constitute a new proposal.

Concerns have been expressed that the Minister may make recommendations to the Governor which are inconsistent with the recommendations of the Boundaries Commission. This amendment ensures that a proposal, which in reality is an entirely new proposal, will be referred back through the report and examination processes of the Boundaries Commission.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [11.41 p.m.]: Even in my second reading speech I indicated that I would support this because it is to remove the drafting mistake. The Opposition supports the so-called Government drafting mistake where it gave the Minister the absolute power to do whatever he liked. It is the sort of drafting mistake that the New South Wales Right of the Labor Party and this Government loves. When the Opposition highlighted this drafting mistake in the other place the Government said that there was no mistake; it was still voluntary amalgamations. When it got to this place and the Government discovered that not only had the Opposition noticed the drafting mistake but that the Greens, the Hon. Dr P. Wong and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile had discovered this so-called voluntary amalgamation, it then became a drafting mistake.

I suspect that if the Government members and the Hon. A. B. Kelly, who is ably chairing this Committee and served in a previous occupation as a general manager, had carefully read and discovered it, as well as some of the backbench of the Labor Party they also would have noticed that it was compulsory amalgamations, because that is what it was. It was clearly compulsory amalgamations. I am disappointed that someone as experienced as the President of the Local Government Association, who sits in the Chamber tonight and who sent a letter of support saying that there was no such thing as compulsory amalgamations in this bill, happened to miss it as well.

It is terrible that the President of the Local Government Association has failed so dismally by his staff, but I am sure he will make amends. I humbly suggest to the Minister, the President of the Local Government Association and the Secretary of the Shires Association that they all endeavour to employ someone on the staff who can read legislation and will remove these mistakes so they are not embarrassed again. I know that the President of the Local Government Association abhors compulsory amalgamation, as does the Minister. He has indicated that time and again. Frankly, many of us who are cynics in this place believe that it may not have been an accident and that some people may not have actually missed that accidentally. The Opposition supports this amendment.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [11.45 p.m.]: I also support the amendment. I want to ask a few questions. If this drafting is a mistake, it is a terrible mistake and whoever drafted it should be severely reprimanded. If it was a deliberate lie, that is totally disgusting. I want to make it clear that in discussion with a staffer of the Minister, he assured me no mistake was made. He assured me there were exemptions to the old version. When I confronted him, then he withdrew. He offered a deal to me. I resented that and if that staffer approaches me in that manner again, I will kick him out.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.46 p.m.]: We support the amendment. I did discuss this with the Minister last night and I do believe it was the drafting mistake of which he was not aware.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [11.46 p.m.]: I will not move Opposition amendment No. 6.

Page 1896

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.46 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 4.

No. 4 Page 6, schedule 1. Insert after line 27:

(5) However, the Minister may only recommend to the Governor that the proposal be implemented if it is supported by all of the councils affected by the proposal.

New section 218F appears to leave it open for the Minister to force councils to amalgamate. That is a proposal not supported by all councils. The proposal can be implemented with such other modifications as the Minister determines and can include a totally new proposal. The amendment is not that the Boundaries Commission or the director-general recommend against amalgamation. The amendment seeks to allow voluntary amalgamations to occur.

The Minister has stated publicly in the Chamber that this is the Government’s position on this issue. While the Government amendment ensures that the Minister cannot recommend to the Governor an entirely new proposal, he can still recommend to the Governor that two or more councils amalgamate, even if one council does not want to, so long as the Boundaries Commission recommends it. In our view no council should be forced to amalgamate, no matter what the situation. I commend Greens amendment No. 4 to the Committee.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [11.48 p.m.]: Can I ask for Government advice as to the reading of Greens amendment No. 4, which states:

No. 4 Page 6, schedule 1. Insert after line 27:

(5) However, the Minister may only recommend to the Governor that the proposal be implemented if it is supported by all of the councils affected by the proposal.

The amendment moved by the Hon. I. Cohen to my mind is remarkably similar to the undertaking that I sought from the Minister. I hope that the Government will support the amendment to actually ratify within the bill the undertaking that I sought because the words "However, the Minister may only recommend to the Governor that the proposal be implemented if it is supported by all the councils affected by the proposal" are virtually the same words we sought. In fact, the amendment, which has been written by Parliamentary Counsel, picks up the philosophy of what we were asking for.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [11.49 p.m.]: Any change to a proposal recommended by the boundaries commission must be supported by all councils affected, and this amendment is unnecessary. The Government has already stated as a matter of policy that the final decision on any amalgamation proposal will rest with the affected councils.

If there is no agreement by the two or more councils involved, there will be no amalgamation. That is why the Government will not support this unnecessary amendment. Moreover, in view of the fact that the Hon. D. J. Gay took the liberty of addressing both the President of the Local Government Association and the secretary, as well as the President of Shires Association, I am informed by the President of the Local Government Association that approximately $400,000 was made available to the Local Government Association for the local government reform process and that a significant amount remains which will be available for amalgamations.

The Federal Government concurs with action being taken by the Local Government and Shires Associations which may provide up to $30,000 to councils to collectively prepare amalgamation proposals. That is the information provided by the President of the Local Government Association, who is present in the Chamber. I take the liberty of informing the Committee of his feelings on the matter.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [11.51 p.m.]: Earlier I asked for a commitment from the Minister, which he gave and which I certainly accept. The commitment came about because both the Minister and I leaned over a desk outside the Chamber and scribbled to the best of our ability. It was done in good faith, and I acknowledged that, on the part of the Minister.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: It is in Hansard.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: It is in Hansard. What we have here is the same as the Opposition’s amendment except that it was written by Parliamentary Counsel using the proper words to entrench the feeling that the Minister and I brought together outside the Chamber. The feeling was, however, that the Minister may only recommend to the Governor that the proposal be implemented, if it is supported by all the councils affected by the proposal.

If the Minister or his staff can show the Committee how that is different from the undertaking that the Minister gave me, I will gladly step back from it. Frankly, I cannot see how it is different, and I cannot see why the Government would oppose this because it is the same as the
Page 1897
philosophy that we signed off outside the Chamber. I ask the Government why it will not accept this simple amendment which has been written by Parliamentary Counsel and which entrenches the philosophy whereby we exchanged words and signed the proposal.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Breen Mr Lynn
Mr Bull Mr Oldfield
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Dr Pezzutti
Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon
Mr Gallacher Mr Ryan
Miss Gardiner Dr Wong
Mr Gay Tellers,
Mr Harwin Mr Jobling
Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Moppett

Ms Burnswoods Ms Saffin
Mr Della Bosca Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Tebbutt
Mr M. I. Jones Mr Tingle
Mr Macdonald Mr Tsang
Mrs Nile Tellers,
Rev. Nile Mr Manson
Mr Obeid Mr Primrose

Mrs Forsythe Dr Burgmann
Mr Hannaford Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Samios Mr Johnson

The CHAIRMAN: Order! There being 17 ayes and 17 noes I will maintain the tradition of the Chair voting to retain the status quo of a bill. As the amendment is against the status quo I cast my vote with the noes and declare the question resolved in the negative.

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.02 a.m.]: I will not move Greens Amendment No. 5. I move Greens amendment No. 6:

No. 6 Page 7, schedule 1, line 1 to page 10, schedule 1 line 22. Omit all words on those lines.

This amendment ensures that councils can defer elections while an amalgamation appraisal is being considered.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [12.03 a.m.]: As I said in the debate, and to the Shires Association, and as the Opposition indicated in another place, the Opposition has already given its word that it will allow deferment of council elections, and, unlike others, it does not go back on its word. The Opposition cannot support this amendment.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [12.04 a.m.]: It is not postponing elections, it is deferring elections for the benefit of ratepayers. It is not fair for ratepayers to go to the polls in September only to find that they have to vote again some months later if a voluntary amalgamation proposal is being considered. The process of holding elections is a costly one that will be borne by the ratepayers. If at any stage the Minister is satisfied that no progress is being made on a voluntary amalgamation proposal he can revoke the postponement and order elections to be held within four months. Postponement of an election must be associated with a serious intent to pursue a voluntary amalgamation; otherwise the normal democratic process should apply.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.04 a.m.]: The Greens have always expressed concern about the legitimacy of councils: which councillors will be on a council at a particular time, and were they elected on the understanding that amalgamations of councils could take place? After four years governments and councils grow tired and the community wants a change.

The Greens believe that it is appropriate that the elections should take place at the designated time. A new council would then be elected with the community knowing whether amalgamation was likely to take place. The council can then proceed with the various proposals with some legitimacy. That can only come about by an election at the appropriate time, which the Greens believe is part of the democratic process.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.05 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party does not support this amendment because it would defeat the purpose of the bill.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [12.06 a.m.], by leave: I move Opposition Amendments Nos 7 and 9 in globo:

Page 1898

No. 7 Page 7, schedule 1. Insert after line 17:

(2) An order under this section may not be made in respect of a council unless the council has resolved to seek the making of such an order.

No. 9 Page 9, schedule 1. Insert after line 8:

(2) An order under this section may not be made in respect of a council unless the council has resolved to seek the making of such an order.

These amendments will mean that the council elections scheduled for September cannot be deferred unless the council specifically asks the Minister for a deferral. I have heard that many councils would like to consider an amalgamation but do not want to defer the elections. Many councillors wish to retire. Crookwell council wanted to consider voluntary amalgamation but because six of its councillors wished to retire it did not do so. Had they seen this bill before the 30 June deadline they might have chosen otherwise. The Government has indicated to me that it will support these amendments. Therefore, I will reserve my rights.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [12.07 a.m.]: The Hon. D. J. Gay is correct. The Government supports these amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [12.08 a.m.], by leave: I move Opposition Amendments Nos 8 and 10:

No. 8 Page 7, schedule 1. Insert after line 27:

(4) Despite subsections (2) and (3), 31 August 2000 is the latest date to which the election requirements of this Act may be postponed by an order made under this section before that date.

No. 10 Page 9, schedule 1. Insert after line 15:

(3) Despite subsection (2), 31 August 2000 is the latest date to which the election requirements of this Act may be postponed by an order made under this section before that date.

Under the provisions of this bill councils can defer the local government elections for 12, or even 15, months. There has been much criticism of the fact that certain councillors and mayors may be seeking to extend their term of office until it suits them. These amendments will ensure that councillors remain in office no longer than August 2000. Therefore, if a council decides it wants to defer its election, it has until 31 August 2000 to hold an election.

Earlier in the evening an amendment was agreed to that will allow the director-general to act with the Boundaries Commissioner. The Minister indicated that 26 councils were considering amalgamation. That would mean 13 amalgamations. It has been unkindly suggested that some mayors in this city are considering amalgamating just to stay in office for the Olympics. That is a terrible slur.

The mayor of Concord is in the Chamber tonight. He would agree with me that it is a terrible slur. I want to remove that slur. The Opposition is here to help the mayor of Concord. We do not want people saying that he pushed for amalgamation just to stay in power for the Olympics. We want people to be able to say that the Mayor of Concord is not only a great bloke but is acting on behalf of his constituents, thinking about an amalgamation only for all the right reasons.

Changing the date to 31 August would allow us to remove that possible slur. It would allow plenty of time for the amalgamation process to take place. It is a pretty simple amendment. I do not think it needs any more elaboration. I urge honourable members to save the mayor of Concord and others from the stigma. The amendment would allow plenty of time for the process to go ahead.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [12.11 a.m.]: The proposal to limit the latest date to which an election can be postponed to 31 August 2000 relates to Opposition claims that the reforms in the bill are about keeping mayors in power until after the Olympics.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: No, I just said that was wrong.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The Minister for Local Government has been quite clear: Non-genuine voluntary amalgamation proposals will be revoked and elections called. Also, because the Boundaries Commission will examine all amalgamation proposals, it will take some time to properly examine proposals and enable elections to be held in every case before the date in August next year. In view of the fact that we have agreed to the proposals of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile which will mean approximately 40 days are required for each amalgamation, the date will need to be put back - it will take more time, as I am told. Therefore the amendment is unnecessary and unworkable.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.12 a.m.]: In view of the Government accepting my earlier
Page 1899
amendment, which provides a time frame of 40 days, plus the other matters of advertising and seeking the views of those affected by the proposed amalgamation, it is not possible for the Christian Democratic Party to support the amendment bringing the date back from 31 December 2000 to 31 August. We are concerned that 28 councils are seeking amalgamation. Nobody knows how many there might be in due course. They are dealt with consecutively, so even though quite a few of them might be dealt with before the date, the Boundaries Commission could still be working right up to the date in the bill. We support retaining the date in the bill.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [12.13 a.m.]: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said that nobody will know how many councils will seek amalgamation. That is not quite right. It is now 2 July. The cut-off date was 30 June. There will be no more adjourned into this process. It is a finite number.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: We do not know what applications will be received.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: We are not talking about an infinite number; it is finite as of now.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.14 a.m.]: On a point of clarification, perhaps the Minister could explain the situation. While we were having a discussion in the outer room a comment was made that the Boundaries Commission was not full time but part time, that people work on it only at certain times. If that is the case, why cannot more people be appointed to the Boundaries Commission? Is there no facility in these special times to increase the numbers to enable completion of the work within the time proposed by the Hon. D. J. Gay?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [12.15 a.m.]: I am advised that the 30 June cut-off date is simply for those that want to defer their elections, but it does not mean that there will not be more councils - two or more - that will seek amalgamations. That is still open to them. This is about the elections. The councils have spent the money on the process and if we deny them the time and we cannot get it all sorted out it will be just a waste of money for their ratepayers.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [12.15 a.m.]: This is not about people that might be seeking an amalgamation later on. We are talking about the deferral of an election and the date when the election is deferred to. It is only about the 28 or so councils that applied before 30 June. That is all it is about, not about the others. We are talking about a date by which the elections of those councils need to be finished. There are 28 in place, to form 13 councils. There are 14 months. There is a 40-day process. There is more than 40 days for each of them - simple arithmetic!

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Breen Mr Lynn
Mr Bull Mr Oldfield
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Dr Pezzutti
Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon
Mr Gallacher Mr Ryan
Miss Gardiner Tellers,
Mr Gay Mr Jobling
Mr Harwin Mr Moppett

Ms Burnswoods Ms Saffin
Mr Della Bosca Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Tebbutt
Mr M. I. Jones Mr Tingle
Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Tsang
Mr Macdonald Dr Wong
Mrs Nile Tellers,
Rev. Nile Mr Manson
Mr Obeid Mr Primrose

Mrs Forsythe Dr Burgmann
Mr Hannaford Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Samios Mr Johnson

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.22 a.m.]: I will not move Greens amendment No. 7.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [12.22 a.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 3:

No 3 Page 10, schedule 1. Insert after line 31:

(2A) Reasonable public notice must be given of the holding of an inquiry under subsection (2).

Page 1900

When conducting an inquiry under the Boundaries Commission the present practice is to give public notice. This amendment ensures that reasonable notice will continue to be given for the holding of an inquiry.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [12.23 a.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 4:

No 4 Page 11, schedule 1, lines 1-5. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(2A) Despite subsection (2), the Boundaries Commission must hold an inquiry for the purpose of exercising its functions in relation to a proposal for the amalgamation of two or more areas that has been referred to it in accordance with section 218F.

Under this amendment, when an amalgamation proposal has been examined by the Boundaries Commission it will be necessary to hold an inquiry. This will ensure that the views of the public can be brought before the commission, which will exercise its functions in relation to a proposal through this inquiry process.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.23 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support this amendment. We are pleased that the Government is to hold these inquiries in public. We thank the Government for the amendment.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [12.24 a.m.]: The Opposition thanks the Government for acceding to the wishes of the crossbenches and the Opposition in putting this measure in place. This is another part of the people’s participation in removing the doctrinaire approach in the original bill.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.24 a.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 in globo:

No. 9 Page 11, schedule 1. Insert after line 5:

[10] Section 263 (3) (e1)

Insert after section 263 (3) (e):

(e1) the impact of any relevant proposal on the ability of the councils of the areas concerned to provide adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities,

No. 10 Page 11, schedule 1. Insert after line 5:

[10] Section 263 (3) (e1)

Insert after section 263 (3) (e):

(e1) the impact of any relevant proposal on the employment of the staff by the councils of the areas concerned,

No. 11 Page 11, schedule 1. Insert after line 5:

[10] Section 263 (3) (e1)

Insert after section 263 (3) (e):

(e1) the impact of any relevant proposal on rural communities in the areas concerned,

No. 12 Page 11, schedule 1. Insert after line 5:

[10] Section 263 (3) (e1)

Insert after section 263 (3) (e):

(e1) in the case of a proposal for the amalgamation of two or more areas, the desirability (or otherwise) of dividing the resulting area or areas into wards,

No. 13 Page 11, schedule 1. Insert after line 5:

[10] Section 263 (3) (e1)

Insert after section 263 (3) (e):

(e1) in the case of a proposal for the amalgamation of two or more areas, the need to ensure that the opinions of each of the diverse communities of the resulting area or areas are effectively represented,

These amendments provide extra factors for consideration by the Boundaries Commission when it undertakes its inquiries. They are the impact of the proposal on services and facilities in the areas concerned; employment of staff by the councils, rural communities and effective representation. They recognise the guarantee of the Government of no loss of employment. Nevertheless, there are real concerns in the long term about the effect these amalgamations could have on the staff of councils.

The Boundaries Commission also has to consider possible ward structures, or no ward structure, as the case may be, post-amalgamation. These amendments are important as they will have huge impacts on rural communities, job losses and loss of services and facilities when councils amalgamate. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [12.26 a.m.]: These are matters that the Boundaries Commission must take into account. They are eminently sensible
Page 1901
amendments that no-one could quibble with. The Boundaries Commission must note the impact of any relevant proposal on the ability of councils to provide adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities. That is sensible. Greens amendment No. 10 relates to the impact of any relevant proposal on the employment of staff by the councils, and that is sensible. It is better than an earlier amendment of the Hon. I. Cohen, by which he wanted the employment to continue. Greens amendment No. 11 relates to the impact of any relevant proposal on rural communities in the area concerned. You bet the Opposition supports that one!

The Opposition is not excited about Greens amendment No. 12, the proposal for the amalgamation of two or more areas, and the desirability or otherwise of dividing the resulting area into two wards, but there is no compulsion. Greens amendment No. 13 states that in a proposal for the amalgamation of two or more areas there is a need to ensure that the opinions of each of the diverse communities of the resulting area or areas are effectively represented. That is fair; they are not asking the impossible. The Opposition supports it.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.27 a.m.]: This is a real test of whether Country Labor means anything, especially whether it will support Greens amendment No. 11 in particular. We will see if Country Labor actually means anything.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [12.28 a.m.]: Unfortunately, amendment No. 9 appears to be unnecessary, because the higher purpose of boundary changes, particularly voluntary amalgamations, are directly related to the ability of councils to facilitate and improve service delivery to the community. Greens amendment No. 10 relates to the impact of employment on the staff of the council. Staff considerations are not related to whether amalgamation or boundary change should occur.

Protection of council employees is a different question and the Minister has said that he will protect employees’ rights during the amalgamation process. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. Amendment No. 11 deals with the impact on rural communities of voluntary amalgamations. These matters are part of consideration under section 263A in any event, with respect to the financial advantages and disadvantages to residents and ratepayers of the areas concerned. The impact on rural communities is already a relevant factor in examining proposals. Therefore the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment No. 12 relates to a requirement that the Boundaries Commission consider the desirability or otherwise of dividing the resulting four areas into wards. Division into wards is an electoral device, and the Boundaries Commission is not normally involved in electoral issues. These matters are best left to the council and its electors to determine in accordance with the existing provisions of the Act. Therefore the amendment is inappropriate.

With regard to amendment No. 13, in examining a proposal for amalgamation the Boundaries Commission needs to ensure that the opinions of diverse communities of the resulting area are effectively represented. This is already an issue. Under section 263 the Boundaries Commission or the director-general is required to examine the community of interest, geographic cohesion and the existing historical and traditional values, as well as the attitude of residents and ratepayers. Therefore the amendment is unnecessary.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [12.31 a.m.]: These amendments are aspirational. I do not believe that this is an unfair aspiration for the Boundaries Commission to -

The Hon. Dr P. Wong: There are no aspirations within the Labor Party.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Hon. Dr P. Wong says that there are no aspirations within the Labor Party. This is something that we would like to achieve and the Boundaries Commission should consider. I cannot believe that the so-called new Country Labor Party would rule out something as aspirational as this, as one member said in this House tonight.

The Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries maintained that amendment No. 10 was really about protection. It is not about protection. In fact, an earlier amendment moved by the Greens related to the protection of jobs. The amendment provides that when a proposal is being put together an inquiry should be held to consider the impact of the proposal. What is wrong with that? There is no compulsion that a final decision must be made on the proposal. It is an aspirational matter that should be taken into consideration when the submission is being put together. The Opposition supports the amendment. If the Greens wish to divide on it, we will support them.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

Page 1902

The Committee divided.

Mr Breen Mr Oldfield
Mr Bull Dr Pezzutti
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Rhiannon
Mr Cohen Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher Mr Tingle
Miss Gardiner Dr Wong
Mr Gay
Mr Harwin Tellers,
Mr M. I. Jones Mr Jobling
Mr Lynn Mr Moppett

Ms Burnswoods Ms Saffin
Mr Della Bosca Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Tebbutt
Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Tsang
Mr Macdonald
Mrs Nile Tellers,
Rev. Nile Mr Manson
Mr Obeid Mr Primrose

Mrs Forsythe Dr Burgmann
Mr Hannaford Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Samios Mr Johnson
Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [12.42 a.m.]: When the Treasurer delivered the budget he said it was every inch a Labor budget. To understand what he meant by this I had to look at what Labor means these days. I went to the University Co-op Bookshop and picked up a little book entitled Labor without class. On the back cover of the book the author talks about the "Chardonnay Socialists" who have captured the Labor Party these days. He says:

In a bid to woo the trendy urban middle class Labor has deserted the working class it was set up to defend. Like the old inner city suburbs, the ALP has been taken over by university educated professionals who have imposed a social agenda that is hostile to Australian blue collar culture.

I then looked at what the leading commentators in the major newspapers had to say about what is Labor, so I could understand why this budget is every inch a Labor budget and what impact it will have on the Labor heartland in western Sydney. In the Sydney Morning Herald of 1 May, in an article about how the middle-class progressives have hijacked the Labor Party, Paddy McGuinness said:

The values of the common people were once the values of the Labor Party, but more and more they have been displaced by the middle-class takeover of the Labor Party.

He continued:

The Labor Party has become the party of hereditary privilege, and power is passed from generation to generation and by marriage. Just as the old Communist Party in Australia used to be a matter of a few royal families -

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: Come on, this is old rhetoric.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: The Minister should understand this. I have to understand it before I can understand the impact of the budget on western Sydney, which I will come to shortly. Paddy McGuinness continued:

- the Labor Party on the union side now tends to be in the hands of a few families . . . While there is an increasing proportion of women, these are for the most part middle-class activists of influential families or who have been born or married into the Labor establishment.

The Left is in essence white-collar, dominated by teachers and lawyers, and especially by middle-class women, usually university educated.

Page 1903

The truth is that the middle-class progressives detest just about everything about the common people of Australia, their lifestyle, their behaviour, their moral values and their preferences.

I found an article by Michael Duffy in the Daily Telegraph of 12 June which referred to the book by Michael Thompson. He said:

Ferguson and Thompson believe the Labor Party has been taken over and run for the benefit of a group of university educated middle-class people known as "the new class". They have separated the Labor Party from its roots and now regard the working class as racist, wife-beating rednecks. This "slanderous portrayal" said Thompson, entitled the new class to "bully governments into adopting authoritarian means, such as anti-discrimination and anti-vilification legislation and tribunals, conditions on tax concessions and the like, to implement their ideologically-loaded agendas on feminism, multiculturalism, the environment and so on.

In referring to this new elite class that has hijacked the Labor Party the article said:

. . . Thompson believes its high level of education makes it morally superior to the working class. This justifies its "hijacking" of the ALP, but in fact its agenda is self-interest, based on exploitation of workers.

To support this he gave three examples:

Free university education is an obscene subsidy to the middle classes. It has made almost no difference to the small number of working class youth at university.

State Governments still refuse to remove equitable quantities of resources (for hospitals, universities, transport) to western and south-western Sydney.

I will come back to that in a moment. The article continued:

The new class in trendy inner-city suburbs oppose urban consolidation, low-income housing and light industry which they believe, although do not say publicly, will lower their property values.

Thompson has written that this is "social apartheid . . .

"As a builder’s labourer," Thompson said, "it occurred to me that when the working class were militants we got the sack, whereas middle class radicals got careers.

Indeed, some have risen to the highest office in this Chamber. The anniversary of Ben Chifley’s famous "light on the hill" speech was on 12 June. Michael Duffy said:

[Chifley] would have been amazed to learn that, 50 years later, the working class would be in revolt again, this time in a desperate bid to recapture control of its own party.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: He would be very pleased.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I hope you have every success in that. In the Australian on 17 June Frank Devine nominated his favourite passage in Thompson’s book Labor without class.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Is he a Labor supporter?

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Yes, he is an old Labor man, but this is in the old days when they were fair dinkum, before they were captured. He headed his article:

Hail to the Chif, but the light on the hill’s gone out.

The article continued:

As romantic and inspiring as Labor’s past is, there’s no going back to it, I’m afraid.

The New Class . . . believes their moral superiority enables them to bully governments into adopting authoritarian means -

I went through that before. In musing over why Chifley was such a Labor hero, Devine wrote:

It took me some time after lapsing to work out why I admired him so much and why I felt an occasional unwelcome pang of longing for his kind of Labor Party.

He then explained that:

It comes essentially down to the simplicity of his life and his proudly working-class philosophy. His tiny cottage near the railway station at Bathurst is the greatest Labor shrine.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: It is not near the railway station.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I am just quoting Devine. He continued:

To revive a romantic past and recapture its heartland, Labor needs a new Marxism-free Chifley as leader. Unfortunately, the nearest approach its got to a Chif is John Howard.

This obviously rankles those opposite. These days the values of new Labor seem to be based on the principle of whatever it takes. I refer to my home town of Campbelltown. If we want an example of what is wrong with Labor we have only to look at that area. A few years ago the local member was a champion of the Labor left - a front-line schemer against silvertails and fascists. He was not going anywhere so he changed his colours and grovelled to the New South Wales Right. He then got a ministry and almost broke his neck getting out of the working-class area that he had championed for so long and he joined the silvertails in Roseville.

Page 1904

A cartoon in the Daily Telegraph the following day depicted him departing Campbelltown in a chauffeur-driven limousine, with a glass of chardonnay in his hand, telling his driver, "Campbelltown is a nice place to visit but you wouldn’t want to live here." And his latest mate on the International Olympic Committee is an old fascist. "Whatever it takes" is a most appropriate slogan for Labor.

If one understands the gentrification of the Labor Party, one can then understand the rationale behind this Treasurer’s budget scam for western Sydney. The Treasurer said that he will pay for the Olympics up front, but a look behind the figures shows that western Sydney is heavily subsidising the Olympics by having overdue infrastructure projects delayed. Major works promised for western Sydney in the 1998-99 budget, but not delivered, total more than $100 million.

Today there is a public perception that politicians do not tell the truth. The perception is that politicians manipulate the public by deceiving them with false promises. The people of western Sydney are reminded of this deception every time they travel through a tollgate on the M4 and M5, or whenever they have to seek treatment in a public hospital out west.

This Government brought itself into further disrepute with this budget. It is a smoke-and-mirrors budget designed to look nice but when we delve a little deeper we find the truth. It is a smokescreen that covers up the fact that this Government has failed to deliver in the manner it promised. I pointed out in debate last week that this Government has failed to deliver more than $100 million worth of capital works funding to western Sydney. That is not a figure I have manufactured. I have not sat down, tried to work out what western Sydney needs and then added up that amount. These figures relate purely to funding that the Government has previously promised but has failed to deliver.

If ever a Labor government is to be condemned for its contempt of the battlers in western Sydney it is this Government. When I look across the Chamber, apart from the Hon. A. B. Manson and a few others, I do not think there are more than one or two workers: there is a reputed multimillionaire, a Pitt Street farmer, a couple of rent-a-crowd followers, a couple of silvertail lawyers, and a little thespian who does not want to be here but who would never get an audience in the old Seymour Theatre so we have to put up with his daily prancing on this stage. No wonder this Government does not understand western Sydney!

We simply cannot take this budget at face value. We must look at it in comparison with previous budgets. We must look at what the Government previously promised, what it delivered and what it promised this year. When we do that we see that it did not deliver on a large amount that it previously promised - an amount that it has again promised in this year’s budget.

As I said earlier, in excess of $100 million has been promised and not delivered. On a first look at this year’s budget one could argue that at least it is being delivered now, but how can the Government be believed? How can we believe that a government will pay us when it has a track record of not delivering on its promises? This Government has failed to deliver on its promises to western Sydney in the past and there is no doubt in my mind that it will fail to deliver on those promises again.

Let me outline a few examples. I refer honourable members to Camden and Campbelltown hospitals. Last year’s budget papers indicated that the Macarthur sector strategy had $3.2 million spent on it to June 1998. In 1998-99 a further $6.8 million was budgeted. In this year’s budget we can see that to June 1999 a total of $7.3 million had been spent. That is a shortfall of $2.7 million. We can also see from last year’s budget that this project was to be completed by 2002. We can now see that its completion date has been delayed until 2003. And the Treasurer says that this is "every inch a Labor budget".

The neonatal emergency transport service building project at Westmead Hospital was to result in the neonatal emergency transport service being housed in the same building as the Childflight helicopter. The importance of this is obvious but, for the benefit of Government members, I will explain. I will tell Government members how the system currently works. The Childflight helicopter is currently located on the oval at Westmead Hospital.

The support staff for this service - including doctors, nurses and pilots - are located in an old building on the grounds of Westmead Hospital. This building is worthy of one thing: demolition. It cannot be heated in winter and it cannot be cooled in summer. It is infested with rats and cockroaches, and I am informed that staff keep packets of Ratsak and cans of Mortein handy at all times. This is a service that is on call 24 hours a day so doctors, nurses, pilots and other support staff also sleep in this rat- and cockroach-infested building.

Kosovar refugees refused to sleep in better accommodation than this! When the main team of
Page 1905
pilots is sleeping and the support team is on standby the main team gets by with only two beds while the support team is forced to sleep on the floor. When they are called out to provide medical assistance they must transport themselves from this building to the helicopter housed on the back lawn. They had to walk until the Central Coast taxi service donated a golf buggy a couple of years ago.

Upon returning they must then transport a critically ill child from the back lawn into the hospital via the ambulance. If an ambulance is not available the child must wait. The response times are significantly affected by the fact that the staff are not housed with the helicopter. The delay of this project puts lives at risk and forces staff to work in totally unsatisfactory conditions. This proposed building would see the helicopter located on the roof, thereby allowing it to depart almost immediately following a call for help. This building would be linked to the hospital via walkways, enabling patients to go directly from the chopper to the hospital to receive immediate medical attention.

The fact that this project has been delayed for two more years is an absolute scandal. In last year’s budget the full amount was allocated for this project. The building should be completed and operational by now. But absolutely nothing has happened. We can see in this year’s budget that virtually nothing has been spent on this project. The only money that has been spent from the allocated funds for this project has been on maintaining an existing substandard building. To add insult to injury - potential fatal injury - this project’s completion date has been revised to 2001, with only $1 million of the $3.6 million required being allocated this year. Staff must continue to work in a derelict, vermin-infested building and sick children will be placed at risk until this Government gets around to completing the project.

The Government promised to have this project completed in two years time, but how can we believe it? This is every inch a Labor budget. The Liverpool Hospital child admission unit was due to be finalised in 2000 but, yet again, it did not receive all the funding promised last year and it will be delayed another year. The funding for the New South Wales Breast Cancer Institute at Westmead Hospital, which was highlighted in this year’s Western Sydney Budget Statement, was promised in last year’s budget but, again, the Government failed to deliver, thereby giving it the opportunity to promise funding again this year.

People in the Currans Hill area could be forgiven for thinking that they are getting two schools. One school was budgeted for in 1998-99 and this year another school is budgeted for. When will this school be operational? It is forecast to be finished in 2001 but, given that only part of the money has been allocated and the project completion date has already been pushed back once, how are we to believe that this Government will deliver? In 1998-99 the Government budgeted $45 million for three schools in western Sydney. There was a shortfall in expenditure of $29 million. So $24 million of that shortfall will be spent in 1999-2000.

The school at Currans Hill might get built and the Treasurer will still pocket a cool $5 million. In Papua New Guinea people would call this Treasurer a trick man. Stage two of the Camden High School project has been put off for a year after it, too, did not receive all that was promised in last year’s budget. People in western Sydney people who are on low incomes will have to wait until after the Olympics for relief as the Treasurer has chopped $33 million from the housing construction budget. As I said earlier, this is every inch a Labor budget. Small businesses in western Sydney will have to go it alone after having the Industries Assistance Fund slashed from $2.2 million 1998-99 to just half a million in 1999-2000. Industry training programs in western Sydney have been halved from $8 million to $4 million in 1999-2000.

Last year the Government crowed about the implementation of a $14 million suicide prevention program. The figures show that all it did for western Sydney was crow. This year the Government allocated a paltry $260,000 for the program. The new ambulance vehicles announced for western Sydney in 1998-99 have again been announced in 1999-2000. Expenditure on new school educational facilities for western Sydney is down by $21 million on the 1998-99 budget; expenditure on school building maintenance is down by $2 million. The Treasurer should realise that these people cannot be taken for granted forever.

No increases have been granted to urgent community programs such as the youth justice conferences for young offenders, the schools as community centres program or the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flexible family service project which targets children with disabilities. The neighbourhood improvement program designed to overcome the folly of an earlier generation of social engineers has been chopped. Airds and Macquarie Fields housing estates received $15 million in past budgets but only $1 million was allocated this year to Mount Pleasant. The struggling families of Mount Pleasant will get nothing this year. They have every right to feel cheated.

Page 1906

The Treasurer even tried a bit of sleight-of-hand politics with his allocation for sport and recreation for western Sydney. In 1998-99 he allocated $200,000 to each of the Western Sydney Academy of Sport and the south-western Sydney academy, but he did not spend it. Rather than build up their expectations too high, this year he halved the allocation that he did not deliver. The arts in western Sydney have not escaped the Treasurer’s knife either. The western Sydney regional arts program and performing arts fund have both been chopped and the cultural grants program has been reduced from $2 million in 1998-99 to $1.67 million in 1999-2000. The arts and media centre at Campbelltown TAFE was allocated $4 million last year but the Government delivered less than half that amount.

The Treasurer adopts the used car salesman approach to the western Sydney and Macarthur area assistance schemes by pledging to maintain funding at a "comparable level to previous years" but not making any provision for a specific amount. How can family community development services plan with such a cavalier approach? The Government boasted of a $4 million increase for regional parks, national parks and nature reserves for the people of western Sydney, but then announced $4.5 million worth of the same projects announced last year. We might be westies, but we are not stupid.

Waste management expenditure for western Sydney is down from $3.1 million to $2.3 million. So much for the Government’s commitment to its much-touted waste reduction plans. Probably the most heartless action of this Treasurer is the reduction in the home and community care program for western Sydney from $550,000 in 1998-99 to a lousy $350,000 in 1999-2000. This program is specifically designed to assist the frail, the aged and the young with disabilities. This is every inch a Labor budget. I repeat: $104 million was promised last year and not delivered. That is probably why Michael Knight lives in Roseville. He cannot look the people out there in the face.

The budget papers include a massive blow-out for Olympic expenditure when one compares last year’s allocation with what was actually spent. It is apparent where at least $104 million of that blow-out came from. If the Treasurer wants to win back the respect of the people of western Sydney, I commend to him this excellent book. We will all be quoting from it because if you cannot help yourselves, we will help you. In fact, I will even buy some copies for you.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Ian Macdonald will be in it.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: He should be. In fact, his name is not mentioned, but certainly by reputation he is in here as one of the most eminent Pitt Street farmers.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Who’s that?

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: The Hon. I. M. Macdonald. I commend the book to you. Perhaps it is not too late before this debate concludes to think more about western Sydney and make sure we get some of the resources we need.

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN [1.03 a.m.]: In view of the hour I shall be extremely brief and concentrate on just one aspect of the budget that is of particular interest to me. The House may be aware that a particular distinction of the electorate of South Coast for the last 26 years is that it was not represented by a Government member in Parliament. This year the people of the South Coast eagerly awaited the outcome of the first budget as they were represented by a member of the Government. The member for South Coast has well and truly failed his first test. The budget contains nothing but broken promises for the electorate of South Coast. Wayne Smith promised the people of the South Coast he would deliver a series of things but not one is mentioned in this budget.

He promised the people of Culburra and Sussex Inlet that they would have ambulance stations; he promised the people of Milton, Mollymook and Lake Conjola that $3 million would be allocated for the Milton-Ulladulla Hospital. Absolutely nothing was delivered. This budget has no timetable for the electrification of the rail line from Kiama to Bomaderry. This budget includes nothing to deal with the crisis in respite care accommodation for the South Coast, particularly for children with disabilities.

This budget contains nothing at all for Main Road 92 - but we had a foretaste of that before the budget when Minister Scully welshed on previous commitments to the people of the South Coast. There has been much talk about the allocation for Shoalhaven hospital, but I note that of the $28 million for that total project only $1 million is allocated in the budget. Given the way this project -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: On a point of order: The honourable member is talking about the hospital that the Coalition would not build. It took a Labor Government to commit funds to this important hospital project as well as the provision expenditure for the Princes Highway. The honourable member has misrepresented the budget.

Page 1907

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: On a point of order: The Treasurer is not taking a point of order. He is participating in the debate. He has a right of reply in a couple of minutes.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: After reflection, Madam President, I must admit I am probably on weak ground taking a point of order, but I thought points needed to be made.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I certainly would have ruled against the Treasurer if he had continued in that vein. The member may continue.

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN: The Treasurer told the House about stage two. Stage two of Shoalhaven hospital’s extensions may have been given the go ahead, but I refer him to the South Coast Register of 9 June which makes it quite clear that subcontractors, who have been waiting for more than two years to be paid, have resolved that work on the $28 million second stage will not commence until they have been paid. They are owed $1 million for work carried out on stage one. Mr Peter Phillips said:

. . . we’re blowed if we’re going to allow construction of stage two to begin until we’re paid.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is a disappointing budget for the people of the South Coast. The Government will have to do a lot better next time.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [1.07 a.m.]: I could not let this budget pass without making a couple of brief comments. The Treasurer is in an interesting position. He has referred to cutting State taxes and having a heavy surplus, but he has failed to adequately acknowledge that much of this achievement occurred from growth in the overall economy, not only of New South Wales but of Australia. He is looking for applause as he slides downhill. His achievements for the surplus and his ability to cut taxes have not resulted from any savings he has generated.

Those achievements and growth in the State economy are due largely to the achievements of John Howard. The impact of the tax cuts on the economy have been measured from their perspective and not from actual impact. The Treasurer is taking credit for the fact that he is not imposing taxes this year that he need not have imposed anyway because the economy was going to grow. He is simply taking credit for something that was going to happen naturally because of growth in the economy.

This year New South Wales will benefit from an additional $200 million because the payments from the States to the Commonwealth have been discontinued. It is not an achievement of the Treasurer to cut taxes. I am not referring to other arrangements with the Commonwealth, that is extra money. I am referring to the arrangements that were made when the Howard Government first came to office and the Commonwealth asked the States to make special payments. This year we are not paying those payments, and will benefit by $200 million as a result.

I am not surprised that the Treasurer is able to reduce taxes prospectively in the State by $290 million. Some of that reduction occurred because the payment by the State to the Commonwealth has been discontinued. I understand that the Government has not made provision in its budget surplus for an increase in public sector wages. If there is an increase in public service salaries, the bottom line of the budget would be somewhat of a fudge.

I note that the budget is based on a growth rate within the State of 3.5 per cent. The growth rate for most of Australia is already a bit more than 4 per cent. It is highly likely in the current climate, particularly given decisions in the United States of America, that the growth rate will continue. In all probability, the Treasurer will have an even bigger surplus than he predicts because the growth in the economy is likely to be strong for the rest of the year. All he is doing is taking the credit. He is going downhill fast, when the curve of the land was going to be downhill in any event.

The reason I wanted to speak to the budget debate was to point out some curious features of this every inch a Labor budget, in particular, the cuts to some areas of the Department of Community Services. I am concerned that the budget for child and family support has been cut by $500,000 this year. The Treasurer has also reduced funding for child support services, such as foster care.

I believe that this State does not make enough provision for foster care. That is one of the first cheques that should be written in New South Wales so as to ensure that the children who are not fortunate enough to have families to care for them are looked after. This year the State will be cutting the program for child and family support by $500,000. There are 6,000 to 7,000 children in this State in substitute care. We can ill afford to reduce funding. Believe it or not, payments to foster parents will decline by $6 million this year, from $46 million last year to $40 million this year. I am
Page 1908
very concerned about the impact of those cuts on substitute care.

Another area I am concerned about is disability services. Over the next year the number of clients in large residential institutions will decrease by only 12. This State is supposed to be deinstitutionalising our large residential care facilities for people with disabilities. But all we are going to achieve this year is a reduction of 12 clients. That is not good enough. One of the reasons the State is not doing very well in that area is because the capital works for building group homes is down this year by $4 million. The Treasurer may want to cut his budget, but he should not be considering disability services and child and family support services.

Additionally, there is a reduction generally of $35 million in the amount of money to be spent on disability services. Undoubtedly, that was the reason behind comments from the New South Wales Council for Intellectual Disability, which were made shortly after the budget was brought down, that this represented a failure by the Government for the sixth year in a row to adequately provide for the needs of people with disabilities. I am also concerned that the very valuable post-schools option program is not being properly funded for adequate growth.

The Government’s first priority should be to look after people with disabilities. These people have suffered physical disability and impairment through no fault of their own. To use a term that was used earlier in debate, the average punter believes that we should look after them before we do anything else, but the State is cutting services to them and not increasing services in places where they are needed. This budget hurts those who are least able to speak for themselves. They have been punished the most by Labor in this unfair and, in many respects, disappointing budget.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [1.15 a.m.], in reply: I commend the bills to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. J. H. Jobling agreed to:

(1) That standing orders be suspended to allow the rescission of the order of the House of Wednesday 23 June 1999 that the second reading debate on the Mining Amendment Bill be adjourned for five sitting days.

(2) That the order of the House of Wednesday 23 June 1999 that the second reading debate on the Mining Amendment Bill be adjourned for five sitting days be rescinded.

(3) That the order of the day for the adjourned second reading debate on the bill be called on forthwith.

Debate resumed from 23 June.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [1.17 a.m.]: The Opposition supports the Mining Amendment Bill, but in doing so we must examine its purpose. In some regards it is ambiguous, but the essence of the bill seeks to make clear the provisions under which native title exists on mineral and coal claims in both the exploration and mining phases, particularly on the opal fields around Lightning Ridge and White Cliffs.

The bill is pertinent to those areas because they are located within the Western Division of the State where the majority of land title is currently western lands leases and used for pastoral pursuits. There are a number of new definitions within the bill and a part abolition of land-holder veto rights. The Leader of the National Party, who has carriage of this bill in another place -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Is he still the leader of the National Party?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Yes, he is still the leader of the National Party, and will be for some time. The Treasurer, who has time to be idle and is still here at twenty past one, is commenting on matters of leadership. The Treasurer should beware of the smiling one beside him. During question time I see the anger that Government members direct at the Treasurer. The Hon. George Souris contacted the New South Wales Minerals Council about this bill. In a letter dated 1 July the Minerals Council stated:

As you will be aware, the NSW Minerals Council has been keenly supporting the establishment of the low impact exploration regime under the Native Title (NSW) Act. However -

the Minister should listen to this because it is important -

we were surprised when this Bill was introduced without prior consultation on the draft. On such vital issues for our industry,

Page 1909
we would have appreciated more time to consider the wording and consult with our membership. Nonetheless, we support the Bill’s native title aspects.

Recently we have heard the same litany from honourable members who have spoken in the House: once again the Government has failed to consult. In relation to four bills before the House today, the common complaint from the major players was that they had not been consulted.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I am the great consulter.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: They complain that the Treasurer talks to them too much. The great insulter! No-one does an insult better than the Treasurer.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: That’s true.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Treasurer better leave because I cannot compliment him any further. Once again the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries has not consulted. Several interested parties have indicated that they were not consulted by the Minister. I hope that this temporary Minister has learnt his lesson and that he will consult more in the future. It would be better if he consulted his stakeholders rather than plan ambushes in Crookwell. At least he has been to Crookwell. The Opposition supports this bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [1.23 a.m.]: The Mining Amendment Bill aims to simplify, clarify and streamline the interpretation and administration of the Mining Act 1992, particularly with regard to the rights of landowners affected by mining titles. However, it is not merely land that is affected by mining titles. Watercourses can also be undermined and polluted by mining. For instance, coalmining has turned Cataract River into a river of flames. An article entitled "Strike a light and stand well back" in the amazing international publication New Scientist of 16 August 1997 stated:

Coalmining has turned the Cataract River in New South Wales into the "river of flames". Strike a match and toss it into the river at a spot called Cataract Gorge, near Wollongong, and the water is liable to burst into flames up to half a metre high. Parents in the nearby residential area of Douglas Park are worried that children could be hurt. Local people are also worried about the risk of flames igniting bushfires.

This week the CSIRO, Australia’s national research organisation, offered the first explanation of why the river catches fire. After a three-month study, it’s researchers say that coal mining beneath the riverbed is to blame.

The mine, operated by BHP, Australia’s largest company, is fracturing sandstone layers that trap large amounts of gas. The flammable mixture, mainly methane with a little carbon dioxide and other trace gases, is bubbling into the river at a rate of about 20 litres a second . . .

BHP has been mining under the river for 10 years. In the past only tiny amounts of gas reached the surface and presented no fire hazard. The company hopes that the problem will go away.

Of course, the problem did not go away. The article also stated:

BHP wants to start new mines under the river. "BHP would like us to be able to say that this is an unusual occurrence related to some unusual geology," says [Simon] George [a CSIRO scientist]. "It may well be, but we can’t say for sure."

Last year the property owners took BHP to court and BHP was ordered to pay compensation. It would have been better if BHP had not mined under Cataract River in the first place and caused these appalling problems. After consulting the Total Environment Centre and other interested parties, I intend to move amendments in Committee. As the amendments are beyond the leave of the bill I shall move a contingent notice of motion to seek the leave of the House to move a motion to instruct the Committee of the Whole in relation to this bill.

My proposed amendments would allow the Minister responsible for water resources to impose conditions on a mining lease relating to the water flow of a watercourse over or adjacent to a mining lease area, allow the Director of Planning to impose conditions on a mining lease relating to environmental damage generally and in particular as a result of mining methods, and allow the Minister responsible for water resources to be notified of and object to any application for a mining lease and any consolidation of mining leases.

Those amendments would ensure that the appropriate authorities are consulted about the protection of water flows and the environment, and that any conditions placed on mining leases to protect water flow and to prevent or mitigate environmental damage are adhered to. The Government should have done that. Indeed, I should not have had to prompt the Minister. If he had the power to impose conditions we would not have the problems we have seen with Cataract River. Hopefully, the Committee of the Whole will agree to my amendments.

The Hon. I. COHEN [1.27 a.m.]: It is interesting that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones raised the issue of Cataract River because I remember asking a question about it during the last Parliament. I was laughed down when I spoke about the river of flames. The Hon. J. H. Jobling laughed heartily when I asked whether the river of flames was
Page 1910
historically true. I am pleased that the matter is at least being debated seriously.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: The methane eruption is well known.

The Hon. I. COHEN: It was not accepted at the time. I have had discussions with the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries about the issue of indigenous rights. I do not have any notes or other information so I must accept his word. I am pleased that this bill will recognise indigenous rights. That is timely. I applaud a mineral resources Minister who considers the issues of the Aboriginal community, which have been neglected for many years.

When indigenous rights are not necessarily set out clearly mining operators are obliged to make contributions to a fund for utilisation by the indigenous community. This bill will give greater security to property owners who object to mining on their property. In one case many years ago at Middle Head near Macksville on the mid North Coast of New South Wales sandminers wanted to mine a property but the property owner adamantly objected. The property owner was so adamantly opposed to the mining that he supported protests on the site. He felt that he had no input into how his land was used; mining completely ruled over other land uses.

In this bill the Minister has shown greater sensitivity in terms of environmental impact studies, and has included rights to landowners and residents in close proximity of mines. Historically the mining industry has had too much power to intimidate those who use the land for other purposes, and the bill is a significant step forward in meeting the needs of the changes in land use. I commend the Minister’s efforts.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [1.30 a.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. I. Cohen and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones for their contributions to the debate. I also thank the Opposition for its support. I assure the House that I and my staff have been in consultation with the Minerals Council at all times. As a matter of fact, the second Government amendment has the agreement of the Minerals Council. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones negatived:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the moving of a motion forthwith for an instruction to the Committee of the Whole in relation to the bill.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 3

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [1.32 a.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1, line 3. Omit "from".

No. 2 Page 26, schedule 3, line 30. Omit "may be". Insert instead "is to be".

The first amendment corrects a small error that occurred in the preparation of the bill. The second amendment has been moved to ensure that meaning and intent of the provision is unambiguous.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [1.33 a.m.]: The Opposition accepts the amendments and congratulates the Government on picking up the drafting error and taking on board the suggestion of the Minerals Council. Had the Opposition not spoken to the Minerals Council we still may not know about it. That is also the case with the New South Wales Farmers Association and the Lightning Ridge Miners Association. Given the effect of this bill on the Lightning Ridge miners, it is incredible that they were not consulted.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 3 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [1.36 a.m.]: I move:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 7 September 1999 at 2.30 p.m., unless the President or, if the President be unable to act on account of illness or other cause, the Chairman of Committees shall, prior to that date by communication addressed to each member of the House, fix an alternative day and/or hour of meeting.

Amendment by the Hon. J. H. Jobling agreed to:

Page 1911

That the question be amended by the addition, at the end, of the following paragraphs:

(2) Notwithstanding the above, the President, on receipt of a request by a majority of the members of the House that the House meet at an earlier time, must by communication addressed to each member of the House fix a day and hour of meeting in accordance with the request.

(3) For the purpose of paragraph (2), a request by the leader of any recognised party or group is to be deemed to be a request by each member of that party or group.

(4) A request may be made to the President by delivery to the Clerk of the House, who must notify the President as soon as practicable.

(5) In the event of the absence of the President, the Clerk must notify the Deputy-President, or if the Deputy-President be absent any one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, who must summon the House on behalf of the President, in accordance with this resolution.

Motion as amended agreed to.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [1.38 a.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [1.38 a.m.]: I have some 1,536 pages of an unpublished two-part analysis of crime and crime prevention by academic Raymond Hoser. The analysis is based on studies in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. Although the document makes a number of findings of fact, I have not had the time to verify them. The author of the study makes a point of stating that so far as he can make out, based on a full-time two-year study, the material is factual.

The document details a number of useful ideas for combatting the illegal trade in drugs in New South Wales and Victoria, and strategies for improving law enforcement. The titles of the documents are "Victoria Police Corruption" and "Victoria Police Corruption - 2". They deal with a number of areas, of which police corruption is only one. If I am given permission to table these documents I ask honourable members to peruse them to get an idea of problems facing drug law enforcement officers in this State and Victoria.

The study deals with issues in the three eastern States. I do not have time now to speak on the whole range of areas covered here. However, suffice to say that they are wide ranging and go beyond the drug trade, police corruption and law enforcement. Not only that, the documents link the various areas in a manner so as to allow the reader to form a better understanding as to how to combat the illicit drug problem and related health and criminal justice issues.

The documents also deal with matters such as the criminal justice system, law courts and so on in the various States, and ways in which it can be streamlined and improved, with better outcomes for all parties, including a reduced likelihood for miscarriages of justice, such as may occur when a person is falsely accused of an offence, for example, drug trafficking. I seek leave to table the documents.

Leave granted.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [1.40 a.m.]: Tonight I would like to speak about the recent opening at Mays Hill of the Sydney Murugan Temple of the Tamil community. Many honourable members may have seen this fantastic new temple situated near the intersection of the Great Western Highway and the expressway at Mays Hill. I was pleased some years ago to be able to help the Tamil community obtain some of the land the Roads and Traffic Authority had left over from roadworks. Some years ago the Tamil community first built its cultural and Tamil centre there but it was on 17 June that the community was able to open the Sydney Murugan Temple. Until now the Tamil community in Sydney, although very large, has not had a temple anywhere in Sydney. Most of the people have travelled to the Hindu temple at Helensburg.

Some 6,000 people attended on the morning of 17 June but the most public part of the ceremony was the official opening in the afternoon by the Governor-General, Sir William Deane. He gave an impressive speech, which drew a number of links between the contributions of the Tamil, Indian and Hindu communities in general to the diversity and richness of the Australian community. He paid tribute to the multiculturalism we have developed over many years.

In particular, I pay tribute to such members of the Tamil community as Thurai Thuraisingam of Eastwood, whom I have known for some years, and other people in that area associated with the activities of that community. I have had the pleasure of attending activities often held at Ryde Civic Centre. They have also been associated with the Eastwood Tamil Studies Centre, which operates at
Page 1912
Eastwood Public School, and similar schools and study centres in many other parts of Sydney, particularly the Strathfield-Homebush area and the Wentworthville-Blacktown-Seven Hills area.

Thurai and other leading members of the Tamil community, like so many other members of immigrant communities in Australia, have devoted many years of their lives to raising the money necessary to put in the work for religious, cultural and education centres. They can certainly be proud of the temple at Mays Hill. If any honourable members have not visited the temple I recommend that they do so. The sculpture and work of the Indian craftsmen who spent some 18 months to two years doing all the statues and other decorative work around the outside of the temple, and indeed inside, make a fine architectural addition to that part of western Sydney.

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN [1.43 a.m.]: One month ago the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place gave a speech to the Sydney Institute in which he made a number of interesting observations about the challenge that my party faces at this point of its 55-year history. Two of his observations were, first, that the Liberal Party does not value its head office staff, and, second, that if the New South Wales Liberal Party continues to take a Kleenex approach to our professional staff we will be condemned to repeat the mistakes of past campaigns.

For almost 25 years the New South Wales Liberal Party, under the general secretaryship of the Hon. Sir John Carrick, possessed one of the most effective and professional political machines in Australian political lives. Tonight I wanted to pay tribute to a man who was an integral part of that machine. I do so as he and his wife prepare to move to Tasmania and as they cease to be involved in the day-to-day life of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party.

That man is Bill Raine. Between 1955 and 1982, he was continuously a member of the staff of the New South Wales and Tasmanian divisions of the Liberal Party of Australia. Bill Raine’s first campaign was the 1949 Federal election where he stood on polling booths in the Federal electorate of Robertson. He subsequently became involved in the Young Liberals as a member of the Terrigal Youth Club.

Bill Raine joined the Liberal Party staff as the field officer for Robertson. He was one of the most outstanding examples of the field officers trained by the New South Wales division, alongside men such as A. T. Lenehan and Bill Wakeling. Their professionalism was legendary and their services frequently employed by other divisions of the party. After eight years as a regional-based field officer, he was promoted to administrative supervisor and was in charge of fundraising. But he continued to work in the field as the need arose. He was regarded as an authority on by-election campaigning, the Electoral Act and scrutineering.

Bill Raine was, and remains, a fervent advocate of the need for both Coalition parties to engage in triangular contests in Labor-held and vacant rural seats as the best way of maximising the Coalition vote and keeping Labor out. With Sir Eric Willis and Sir John Carrick, Bill handled numerous electoral redistributions for the party, including the Federal redistribution in 1991 on which I worked with him.

In early 1969, Carrick was visited by representatives of the Tasmanian division seeking guidance on how to overthrow Tasmania’s State Labor Government. Carrick, Raine and Wakeling virtually ran that very successful campaign which resulted in Angus Bethune’s Liberal Government being elected after 35 years of defeats. Thus began Bill Raine’s attachment to Tasmania. When the Tasmanian division was looking for a new general secretary in 1974, Bill Raine was appointed and served in that position until 1977. Perhaps Bill Raine’s finest hour was as campaign director in Bass during the 1975 Bass by-election. Bill recruited the successful candidate, Kevin Newman, and put together a masterful campaign which heralded the end of the Whitlam Government.

He ran the successful campaign which resulted in the Liberal Party winning five Federal seats in Tasmania in December 1975. Back in New South Wales in 1977, he was appointed assistant general secretary of the division. It was a difficult time in the history of the division; a time that shared many similarities with the present in that the division faced financial constraints and internal tension. Bill is remembered as a consummate party bureaucrat. Sir John Carrick told me that Bill’s "understanding of organisational politics is as good as I have seen", which was high praise from someone of Sir John’s calibre.

Bill played the game of politics honestly, with incredible dedication and by always maintaining his integrity. Since leaving the employment of the party, Bill has remained actively involved in the party. He has been working in the North Shore State electorate
Page 1913
conference and has served as part of Jillian Skinner’s campaign team as well as her conference treasurer. On occasions, the Liberal Party has boasted that it is the most successful party in Australia’s political history. It can only make that boast because of the effective political machine that chalked up those successes during the first 30 years of its history, to which Bill Raine made a vital contribution.

The challenge for the Liberal Party is to rebuild that sort of organisational capacity. The Liberal Party is not good at saying thank you or acknowledging the work of its secretariat. Fortunately, in Bill’s case, this weekend an appropriate dinner to pay him tribute and farewell him will be held. I thank Bill for his contribution to the Liberal Party and also for what he has taught me. I wish him and his wife Sue a happy continuation of their retirement in Tasmania.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [1.48 a.m.]: Last night’s adjournment debate was a typical example of the way in which the Liberal Party constantly attempts to downgrade and attack me every time I rise to speak in this place. All I was trying to do was clarify why I resigned from the Liberal Party and express my point of view; yet I was disrupted and viciously attacked. I will not stand back any more and allow this to happen.

For the last year I have always been polite and courteous in dealing with all my former Liberal colleagues, but, in return, most are always malicious and spiteful towards me. If they intend to treat me in that demeaning way, I must stand up and defend myself. In fact, their current appalling disavowal attitude towards me has forced me to re-evaluate the whole history of my relationship with the party. Unfortunately, I have come to some disturbing conclusions.

I have now realised that for the 10 years that I have been in Parliament, the Liberal Party has thought of me as nothing but a token member. The Liberal Party exploited me, enticed me into the party and brought me into Parliament only because it suited the party at the time. Except for a few members, the Liberal Party is a racist and bigoted party. I realise that, in 1988, the Liberal Party was a party of white, middle-class, middle-aged conservatives who needed to broaden their support base. Of course I understand that they courted me to get more votes.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Madam President, as reluctant as I am to interrupt the member in her tirade against the Liberal Party, I feel I must, because she has targeted the leadership of the Liberal Party and has spoken against it. It is my understanding that when a member targets the leadership of a party, which consists of members of this Chamber and the other place, it can be done only by way of substantive motion. The honourable member has not done that. She has deliberately used unsubstantiated statements in an adjournment debate to target a party that she used to enter Parliament and only left it when she failed in her own aspirations to become President. She is now courting another party. Frankly, if she believes that strongly against the Liberal Party, when she came in on that ticket, perhaps she should resign.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Further to the point of order: Unless I misheard the member, she was talking about an institution, not a particular leadership or any particular individuals in this House or the other.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: An institution cannot be described as white supremacists. That was a very unfortunate statement. There are many gentle Liberals and many gentle people in the Coalition. This was not targeted at the Coalition or its members.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: It is a nasty party, the Liberal Party - a nasty racist party.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Further to the point of order: I would ask the Leader of the Government to withdraw what he just said.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I did not hear what he said.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: If Hansard has recorded it, I want it withdrawn by the Leader. He knows what he said and he knows he should withdraw it.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I am happy to repeat what I said: It is a nasty racist party. There is nothing in the standing orders that prevents me from saying that. It would be a different thing if I had made that comment about a particular individual who found that term offensive, as most good people would. The honourable member has to understand that his party, for the stance which it takes on many issues, has to be able to be criticised.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: To the point of order -

Page 1914

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Further to the point of order: I raised the point of order.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: No, it is his second point of order, Madam President.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I asked for an apology in the middle of the point of order because if any party in this country has a history of racism it is the good old Labor Party, with its good old white Australia policy.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: That is a long time ago.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I am a proud member of the Liberal Party of Australia, and since the Leader of the House has described it entirely as a general slur I ask him to withdraw that statement. It is outrageous, it is inaccurate and it describes the Leader of the House more than he would ever believe.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. Standing Order 81 refers to imputations and personal reflections on members. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho was talking about an institution. She was not making personal reflections on members. It may or may not be good manners to say that an institution is racist, but both sides have done that.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: I haven’t.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I certainly have. They have not asked for it to be retracted either because they know they can’t.

The PRESIDENT: Members on both sides have said that those on the other side are members of a racist party. The honourable member may proceed.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: They have just succeeded to disrupt me again and stop me talking again. No doubt it is a conspiracy and this contempt for me is still very apparent. It is disgraceful how they shun me and are rude to me. [Time expired.]

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: [1.53 a.m.]: I wish to make a few brief comments on two former members of this Parliament. I refer first to the former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Tim Fischer.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: He still is, isn’t he?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: He might be, technically, but for a short time. I had the good fortune of serving in this Parliament from 1978 to 1984. I think Tim Fischer was a member of the Legislative Assembly for most of that period. He went to the Federal Parliament in about 1984.

From my knowledge he was certainly one of the most assiduous local members, one of the most indefatigable I have ever met, a man of considerable intellect and integrity. I do not think that he was as eccentric or as idiosyncratic as his image would suggest. In fact, I think that was something that he developed to great effect. Above anything else, he was one of the most decent human beings I have ever met. At least one gesture towards me from him I shall never forget. There was no need for him to make it; it was just an indication of his decency that he did.

Most people thought he was silly to move to Canberra, because they thought that, if he had remained here, when the Coalition Government came to office he would have been a Minister in it. But he proved us all wrong: He made the right decision. He became the Leader of the National Party in the Federal Parliament, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Prime Minister.

As Deputy Prime Minister he performed a first-class job for Australia and for his party. In many respects he was very courageous, particularly on the guns issue and the rise of One Nation. It was a great political tribute to him that he managed to protect the National Party in the last Federal election when any other leader would have seen great inroads made to National Party numbers. I am sorry to see Tim Fischer resign his job as Deputy Prime Minister. I am pleased that he will stay in the Federal Parliament, and continue to contribute greatly not only to his own party but also to the national Parliament and to Australia.

Secondly, I would like to say something about the announcement today of the appointment of the former President of this House and former Liberal Cabinet Minister in New South Wales, Virginia Chadwick -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: A former Opposition Whip.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: A long time ago she was Opposition Whip. She was appointed chief executive of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. This appointment by the Federal
Page 1915
Government, in particular Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment, is a very good one. She was a very formidable Minister. Madam President, she was a very distinguished predecessor to you and a friend to members on both sides of the House. This is an inspired appointment. I hope that no-one will criticise it on the basis that she had Liberal Party political affiliations. She is a woman who can do a superb job, and I am sure she will.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [1.58 a.m.]: I draw the attention of members to a tragedy unfolding on the sixth floor of this building. The Parliamentary Library as we know it is at risk. Funds have been slashed once again. Library staff, who have maintained services through six years of budget cuts, cannot and should not be expected to carry these costs. The pressure on library staff is unacceptable and the very service that we all depend on is under threat. The Parliamentary Library is one of the jewels in this place. The staff are a pleasure to deal with and the service they provide is the very foundation of so much of the output of both Houses of the New South Wales Parliament.

Rob Brian, the Parliamentary Librarian, and his staff work wonders. But how long this can be maintained is doubtful. The cash allocation for the library is $2,274,000. This is actually $1,000 less than the library received in 1993-94. In the intervening years there has been a 15 per cent increase in salaries as well as a rise in other costs. But, on this ever-shrinking budget, library staff have continued to maintain the high standards we rely on. The Parliamentary Librarian estimates that the library needs $308,000 just to stand still, and an extra $8,000 has been made available so there is a shortfall of $300,000.

To cope with this huge shortfall, library staff have taken on an extra workload. This should not have to occur. I do not know how the Parliamentary Librarian manages his workload; he has no secretary and no deputy parliamentary librarian. Rob Brian is shouldering a massive workload so that the services we all use will not be cut.

The library has a vacant research officer position, which I understand has been vacant since last February. This job has been advertised, applicants interviewed, and someone offered the position. But now the job is on hold; so someone has lost a job before he has even started. One would expect that there could be legal implications over this situation.

Do the controllers of the library purse strings realise that something has to give? We cannot maintain the fantastic range of services provided by the library on the present budget. So, is something going to be sacrificed? If so, what? The newspaper clipping service, media monitoring, research service, interlibrary loans and photocopying are just a few of the services that we all depend on.

I doubt if we would agree that any of these services should be cut to any degree. The Greens call on the Government to urgently review the library budget so current services can be maintained and the positions of deputy parliamentary librarian, secretary to the Parliamentary Librarian and the research assistant are filled.

This is a most urgent matter. Parliament is here to serve the people of New South Wales. The Parliamentary library is integral to us carrying out this objective. If money has to be cut in this place why should the library staff and services be cut? There are many areas in this place where money could be saved. Members’ expense accounts would be a good place to start, but a proposal on that issue will have to wait until another adjournment speech.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [2.03 a.m.]: I refer to the disgraceful contributions last evening and this evening by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. I am outraged by the dishonesty evident in her speech.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Point of order: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is clearly impugning the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, as he well knows.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Impugning what? Motives? What motives, give me a quote? Quote the standing order.

The PRESIDENT: Standing order 81.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Does it say impugning motives?

The PRESIDENT: It refers to personal reflections.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The remarks that the member made were clearly a personal reflection on the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. He knows they are out of order unless they are by way of substantive motion. I suggest that, Madam President, you rule the honourable member out of order.

Page 1916

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The speech by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho was particularly outrageous to me and I use the word advisedly because, in this Chamber, of all the people who have supported, encouraged, helped, consoled and aided her in this place, I have been at the forefront. At a time when it was perhaps a little unfashionable the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho had been called a rat by others outside the party and by members inside the party. But I thought that, no, I should persist with Helen as she had been upset. It was an emotional response and I had known her long enough, but she persisted.

I thought that personal support, loyalty and understanding were something we shared. I have been seriously abused in that regard. I was particularly concerned when the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho referred to how lucky it was that we did not have a bigger defeat in the October 1998 Federal election. Unfortunately for her we did have a bad result but we did win the election. The Prime Minister and his excellent Deputy Prime Minister, until yesterday, have been running the show in Canberra.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho made the point that there were swings against the Coalition and that the loss of many marginal seats showed people’s disgust for and disappointment with the Liberal Party. In fact, in New South Wales - her home turf, the only place that will publish her - we lost just one seat, Paterson. It was mainly because of the beat-up by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho of her own position to achieve notoriety in her own right that we had a focus on what she called racism and all the other ugly terms she used.

I am astonished and surprised that the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho persists in trying to justify her position. It is clearly unjustifiable. Each time she digs the hole, she digs herself in deeper. It is my belief that she should examine her position carefully and come back to this House with a better explanation than she has given to date as to why, through ambition or otherwise, she has trodden the path she has trodden, and meanwhile turned her back on her loyal friends and supporters on every occasion. It is an understatement to say that it has hurt me deeply and personally. Her continued justifications - if that is what they are - are nothing but a sham.

I hope that during the recess the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho realises her position and that she will come back to this place and say, "I am ambitious. I go with the flow. I go where ambition takes me." If she were perfectly honest like that, we would all understand. But it is unjustifiable, unreasonable and unacceptable of her to try to cloak her resignation from the Liberal Party in some other way, damaging people along the way.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: She was beaten by a better person; she was beaten by Virginia Chadwick.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: That is right.

The Hon. H. S. TSANG [2.06 a.m.]: I echo the remarks made by my leader in this House about the Hon. Tim Fischer. I travelled with Tim Fischer on the inaugural Qantas flights to China. During the flight everyone joked about Tim Fischer and the way he dressed, especially when he wore his Akubra hat. But when we arrived in Shanghai and he walked down the ramp in his Akubra hat and waved to the crowd of Chinese people waiting to welcome him, he did Australia proud.

Tim Fischer carries himself well. He might be an ocker, but he is a well-respected one. During the trip to Shanghai Tim Fischer performed great service for Australia. He has brought about an enormous increase in trade between Australia and China. On return to Australia I met him several times when he received delegations from China. During those times he was a tremendous host and a respected politician. He does not regard political allies, whether they be Labor or Liberal, as being important for Australia, but he does regard trade as being important for Australia. I have great respect for the Hon. Tim Fischer. I wish him and his family well.

Motion agreed to.