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

The President offered the Prayers.

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

1. That the report of the independent legal arbiter, Sir Laurence Street, dated 14 October 1999, on the disputed claim of privilege on papers on Delta Electricity be laid on the table by the Clerk.

2. That, on tabling, the report is authorised to be published.

The Clerk, pursuant to resolution of the House this day, tabled the report of the independent legal arbiter, Sir Laurence Street, dated 14 October, on the disputed claim of privilege by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones on papers on Delta Electricity.

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. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [11.11 a.m]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the moving of a motion forthwith that Private Members’ Business Item No. 44 outside the order of precedence relating to the closure of Seaforth TAFE be called on forthwith.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Mrs Nile
Mr Bull Rev. Nile
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Oldfield
Mr Cohen Dr Pezzutti
Mr Corbett Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Mr Gallacher Mrs Sham-Ho
Miss Gardiner Mr Tingle
Mr Hannaford Dr Wong
Mr Harwin
Mr M. I. Jones Tellers,
Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Jobling
Mr Lynn Mr Moppett

Ms Burnswoods Mr Obeid
Mr Della Bosca Ms Saffin
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Tebbutt
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Johnson Tellers,
Mr Kelly Mr Manson
Mr Macdonald Mr Primrose

Mr Gay Mr Tsang

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe agreed to:

That Private Members’ Business Item No. 44 outside the order of precedence relating to the closure of Seaforth TAFE be called on forthwith.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [11.18 a.m]: I move:

1. That General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 inquire into and report on the proposed closure of Seaforth TAFE, and in particular:

Page 1570

(a) the process by which the Department of Education and Training resolved to close the TAFE,

(b) the social, financial and community impact on the Manly Warringah region, and

(c) any other relevant issues with regard to the closure of Seaforth TAFE raised in submissions received by the committee.

2. That the committee report by Thursday 25 November 1999.

I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to place the facts relating to the closure of Seaforth TAFE on the record. I ask the House to endorse the referral of the closure of Seaforth TAFE to General Purposes Standing Committee No. 1. The terms of my motion require that the process of closure be examined by the committee and that the social, community and financial impact on the northern beaches region be examined, together with other issues that may arise out of submissions received by the committee.

A number of matters need to be brought to the attention of the House. The first is whether the decision to close Seaforth TAFE is, as I will contend, a broken promise. In November of last year the Carr Government gave the people of the northern beaches region a clear commitment that Seaforth TAFE would not be closed. Indeed, that commitment was reiterated in the Manly Daily of 18 November and the Northern Beaches Weekender of 20 November. The commitment could not have been any more clear. In the Manly Daily of 18 November the deputy-director of the Northern Sydney Institute is quoted as saying:

There is no proposal for the closure of Seaforth.

The deputy-director said:

If the Government was planning to sell off Seaforth that would have to be three to five years in the planning so we could make alternative plans to accommodate students.

Either the planning process has not taken three to five years or the Government has deliberately misled the people of the Manly and northern beaches region. Although the Government gave a commitment in November last year, in August this year it made a clear announcement that it would close Seaforth TAFE at the end of the 1999 academic year and require all of the 1,800 students to be relocated to other sites. The process to close Seaforth TAFE has not been three to five years in the planning but has been driven by the Government’s cuts to the TAFE budget. It is important that we analyse the process. As the Government gave a commitment last year that it would need three to five years to close this significant TAFE college and a few months later it announced that the TAFE would close at the end of the 1999 academic year, the process needs to be examined. But we need to go further.

Honourable members will recall that when we debated the St George campus bill one of the Carr Government’s main arguments was that a review of the education needs of southern Sydney highlighted the importance of retaining the Oatley campus for public education purposes. In particular, the Government used as a reason for retaining the Oatley campus the fact that the campus could be used for TAFE and adult education. In other words, as the Government had conducted a review and drawn a conclusion, the House should agree to retain the Oatley campus for public education, including adult education and TAFE facilities. If the rationale was good enough for the Government in that context, it should apply the same rationale when dealing with Seaforth.

At present the Northern Beaches Secondary Education Review Committee is analysing the future needs of secondary education on the northern beaches. Education on the northern beaches is being reviewed to determine the best structure for secondary education and how to maintain it as a strong, viable and highly competitive force in the region. In fact, the Northern Beaches Secondary Principals Council has set up a consultative committee. The Government undertook an urgent review of the St George campus at Oatley and determined that the campus needed to be retained. However, because of budget imperatives the Carr Government is absolutely determined to close Seaforth, even though a review is under way.

The Government is ignoring the review; it is not even giving the committee an opportunity to complete its review. The closure of Seaforth is not logical or rational. Using its own standards, the Government should under no circumstances attempt to close Seaforth TAFE. It is imperative that this matter be referred to a general purposes standing committee because not only are students having to make other arrangements but work has already commenced at Brookvale TAFE. There is no win-win in this situation. There is no win for the community or the students of Manly. All we have is a Government that is absolutely determined, for its own budget imperatives, to close the TAFE without due regard to the social, community and financial needs of the region.

I shall focus on some of the issues that need to be examined. At the time the Government
Page 1571
announced its decision to close Seaforth TAFE it said that it would be possible to relocate at Brookvale TAFE 1,800 students currently studying at Seaforth TAFE. That is not the situation for all students. While many courses will relocate to Brookvale, up to 500 students are studying courses that will not be relocated.

Although the Government will put its spin on the story by saying that Brookvale is literally up the road and students can travel there by bus in a relatively short time, that does not take account of the fact that almost one-third of the students will not relocate to Brookvale. All Higher School Certificate students and many fine arts students will not be transferred to Brookvale. I want to focus on the fine arts students because they serve as a good example of how the Government has ignored the needs of the community in terms of impact.

The Government has not looked at any alternatives. If this matter is referred to the general purposes standing committee, the committee may be able to make suggestions to the Government in terms of solutions in the Manly region. The fine arts faculty consists of more than 400 students; more than 90 per cent of whom are mature-age female students. Some weeks ago the Special Minister of State, in putting the spin on the closure of Seaforth TAFE, referred to students being transferred to Brookvale, North Sydney and Hornsby. The Minister said, "close by". I then said, "and Meadowbank".

In the briefing note the Minister discovered that Meadowbank was included. I point out that students from Manly must travel on more than one bus to get to Meadowbank. Meadowbank will be a considerable travelling distance for some students. It will involve a number of bus journeys, a combination of bus and train journeys or a combination of ferry, bus and train journeys. Students will have to travel for hours to get to Meadowbank.

Many of the fine arts students will be asked to finish their courses at a campus that is a considerable distance from Seaforth. But it gets worse for these students. The fine arts students currently studying at Seaforth - earlier I said that many of them are mature-age female students - are able to undertake their courses part time. Meadowbank does not offer similar part-time courses. To complete courses at Meadowbank, students will have to study full time, which is not suitable for many of these women. In the decision to close Seaforth TAFE the Government has not given due regard to the needs of all the students.

Up until 12 months ago the students were using rooms at Balgowlah Boys High School annexed to Seaforth TAFE. At the very least the Government should look at alternatives and find an annexe in the Manly region for these students because their education needs cannot be met. They will not have a second chance and they will not have an opportunity to return to the work force if they must travel to Meadowbank to complete some of the fine arts courses.

The other group of people who will be particularly disadvantaged by the relocation are Higher School Certificate [HSC] students. They will not be able to access courses at Brookvale. Under the current proposals HSC courses will not be available on the northern beaches. That will be particularly important not in 2000 but in 2001. Next year the new HSC courses will commence, so for students who finish their HSC next year and decide to repeat it - perhaps because they do not achieve the university admission index mark they want - the only place they will be able to repeat the existing HSC will be at TAFE. But under the Government’s proposal that HSC will not be taught on the northern beaches.

Currently a significant number of students are studying the HSC at Seaforth TAFE. A number of young people have dropped out of school - some have a history of truancy - and found their way to the coastal community at Manly. In seeking a second chance they have gone to Seaforth to do their HSC. From talking to students who have used that facility I know that it has been a very valuable base for them. Had the demand at Seaforth been dropping, there may have been a case for closing the TAFE. But nothing could be further from the truth. The enrolments at Seaforth have increased across a significant range of courses.

For example, in accounting and commerce in 1998 there were 510 students. This year there are 550 students. In fine arts, enrolments have increased from 239 to 304. In marketing, advertising and public relations and real estate, they have gone from 586 to 630. HSC Japanese combinations decreased from 362 to 303 because the loss of some courses at Balgowlah meant it was less convenient for some of the students to attend Seaforth. Seaforth TAFE provides important courses that will not easily be picked up at Brookvale.

There are other significant reasons why it is not appropriate to close one TAFE in the belief that every student will automatically transfer to another TAFE. I said earlier that there are more than 1,800
Page 1572
students at Brookvale. Some may transfer to North Sydney, Meadowbank or Hornsby, so perhaps 1,000 students will have to be relocated to Brookvale. This gives rise to issues involving parking and transport. Brookvale residents are very concerned about the impact of additional students on their streets and their area.

Another group that will be disadvantaged by the proposal is the disabled. There will be some upgrading of block H at Brookvale because it is not wheelchair accessible and does not meet current access standards. People with a disability have written letters to my office and to the Minister saying they will not be able to go to Brookvale as it is at the moment. Seaforth is an appropriate institution and it has wheelchair access.

Many good stories can be told about students with significant disabilities who have completed courses at Seaforth. These are the sorts of issues that the committee needs to examine. It needs to examine the process and the financial impact on the people and businesses of Seaforth. Only a few months notice has been given. People in Seaforth making investment and business decisions are concerned about the closure of the TAFE.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They need the TAFE to train their workers, if nothing else, in the Brookvale area.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: It is important for the training of workers, but we need to focus on Seaforth. The Government said in the Manly Daily last year and in the Northern Beaches Weekender that three to five years would be needed to close Seaforth TAFE. A business person in Seaforth who made decisions based on that sort of information would make different decisions if he or she knew the TAFE was being closed in December. The Government has given no consideration to these factors.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It has no concern for small business.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: The Government is not interested in small business or in the needs of the local community. Relocation of students will have a significant impact on Brookvale and business in the Seaforth region. Numerous small businesses in the area have been given just months to understand the impact of the closure. There will be a significant financial impact and staff will have to be relocated.

The bottom line is that the Government is trying to get out of its budget black hole by closing a TAFE without due consideration of the needs of the local community. It is not a question of closing one TAFE and shifting everything to another one. It is not that easy. Due regard has not been paid to all the concerns. Seaforth is considered to be a much safer area than Brookvale. Perhaps that is why so many mature-age women attend Seaforth.

There is a problem at Brookvale with car parking during the day, and also at night. Many issues have been raised in letters to me. If the motion is passed they will all be considered by the committee. The local community has been given all sorts of information and misinformation by the Government.

Let us see if we can come up with better solutions and overcome some of the problems. Mature-age women students will not easily be able to transfer the courses they are undertaking to Meadowbank, Hornsby or any of the other places that have been suggested. The most compelling reason for the matter being referred to the committee is that the people of the Manly and the northern beaches region were let down and given wrong information by the Government. It is another broken promise.

The Government reviewed the situation at the St George campus and prepared a plan. It found that it needed the campus. The Government should at least allow the northern beaches review to be completed. There should be opportunity for a full assessment of the education needs of the region. I have not found a single person in the Manly and northern beaches region who has anything good to say about the proposal to close Seaforth TAFE.

The community should have the opportunity to make submissions to the parliamentary committee. The Government knows it cannot win seats in the Manly and northern beaches region. It will not win seats while it takes the community for granted, as it has done with this decision. It is compelling that we refer this matter to General Purpose Standing Committee No.1 so that the whole process can be examined. We should work with students and staff to find solutions to their education needs. I urge the House to support the motion.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.39 a.m.]: I wish to move an amendment to the motion, that the reference be to one of the standing committees, but I will do that after referring to some of the matters raised by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. The House has now considered this matter on at least two or three occasions. Not long ago the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer dealt with the matter
Page 1573
by way of a question asked in this House, and I dealt with the matter in considerable detail in my reply to the debate on the University of New South Wales (St George Campus) Bill. The issues raised by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe are not at variance with the basic tenets of the Government’s decision in relation to the matter, as I will outline.

Much was said by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe to whip up this issue on the northern beaches. In effect, the entire issue is predicated upon an inevitable consequence of Federal Government cuts to TAFE in this State. For the clarification of honourable members I will now move an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the question be amended by omitting from paragraph 1 "General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1" and inserting instead "the Standing Committee on State Development".

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Have you talked to Tony Kelly and the committee? There are major responses going on at the moment.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: We have spoken to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on State Development, the Hon. A. B. Kelly, who has indicated that he is quite happy to conduct this reference because it relates to training needs in New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You will use your numbers on that committee to bury it. You won’t even turn up at the meetings.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: If this matter is to be examined properly, it should be considered in the context of the needs of the entire training sector and the Federal Government cuts to training in New South Wales. I am sure the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, as deputy chair of the committee, will be more than enthusiastic about contributing to such an inquiry, and I am sure he will not leave one stone unturned in ensuring that the committee is able to conduct this inquiry.

A few things need to be said about the obvious intent by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe not only to whip up this issue on the northern beaches but also to hide the fact that the Federal Government is responsible for the cuts to TAFE in this State. As has been made perfectly clear, there have been considerable cuts to TAFE in this State - in fact, as I will show, in the order of millions of dollars.

Since 1995 the New South Wales Government has increased its funding to TAFE by $53 million, despite the outrageous cuts of the Federal Government. Throughout this period Federal Government cuts to New South Wales have totalled approximately $75 million. Yet the New South Wales Government has been prepared to increase TAFE funding by $53 million.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: This is a joke. You are scraping the bottom of the barrel. You don’t support this.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: They are the figures. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti ought to sit back and listen for a few minutes, instead of raving on, as he normally does, without understanding the facts. It is little wonder that, when it came to a vote for the presidency of this House, not every Coalition member voted for the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: I voted for him.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: The Hon. D. J. Gay probably voted for him. That would have been under duress, for sure. But I could nominate one or two others who would have chosen to vote for the Hon. Dr. Meredith Burgmann, or indeed Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

[Interruption]

If the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti continues to interject, perhaps we could detail the votes for the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti for President of this House. He could not even get the entire vote of his own caucus. In fact, the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti could get only 12 of the 13 votes of his caucus members.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Point of order: With respect, in examining the motion moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe I can find no reference to voting for the President. I ask that you request the honourable member to return to the matter before the House.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: To the point of order: On many occasions in this House, Presidents have ruled that if the member speaking is provoked by way of interjections ranging over ancillary matters he or she is entitled to reply to the interjections. I am quite happy to return to the substance of the motion, but I am under incredible duress from the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, who obviously has not taken enough of his sleep-inducing mixtures to calm himself down and afford me the opportunity to deliver my contribution to this House in a calm, intelligent and intellectual way.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: To the point of order: Clearly the Hon. I. M. Macdonald has
Page 1574
nothing relevant to say on this matter; he is simply filling in time. More importantly, he is displaying what everyone knows: that whilst I maintain my integrity, he lost his years ago.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The tradition of the House is that members may reply to interjections. However, I remind the member that the standing orders require that members not be tedious and repetitious.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I ask the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti to withdraw his statement that I lost my integrity years ago. I take great umbrage at that.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The standing orders provide that members must not reflect on the integrity of other members. However, the comment was made in the cut and thrust of the debate.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: As I was saying, the motion fails to encompass the whole issue: what the Federal Government is doing to TAFE in New South Wales. As a member of the Standing Committee on State Development I look forward to analysing the figures in great detail when the committee conducts this inquiry. I think members will find that the continued economic rationalist policies of the Howard Government lie at the heart of the matter, particularly their impact on TAFE, education and research. Clearly, substantial cuts have been made in the TAFE area.

As I said, despite continued Federal funding cuts there has been an increased demand for enrolments in TAFE New South Wales, from 411,000 in 1995 to more than 445,000 this year. The New South Wales training sector is more competitive than ever, and TAFE New South Wales is determined to reposition itself to ensure its standing as Australia’s pre-eminent training provider. Increased competition and less Federal funding have resulted in budget adjustments which are necessary to improve TAFE New South Wales’s cost competitiveness compared with that of other States and private training providers.

The Seaforth centre was refurbished some 13 years ago, but since then has deteriorated to a stage where an estimated $250,000 has to be spent on the roof, and students have complained about inadequate parking and canteen facilities. The Northern Sydney Institute has reviewed its educational profile and decided to relocate courses from its Seaforth campus to nearby campuses.

[Interruption]

I know it is difficult for the Hon. Patricia Forsythe to travel any distance. People who live on the north shore are close to the city, and they are used to travelling short distances. However, it is absolute nonsense to suggest that students will be greatly inconvenienced by having to travel 3.8 kilometres from Seaforth to the Brookvale campus. I do not think that the people of the western suburbs of Sydney would be impressed by the sorts of distances that citizens who live on the north shore will have to travel to change colleges.

As northern beaches college enrolments have been declining overall, the relocation will improve efficiency and enable the institute to consolidate its educational programs and maximise the number of students actively engaged in vocational programs. These changes will provide better facilities and services for the northern beaches community. Some examples of improvements include the creation of a new engineering skills centre, the establishment of an integrated fine arts facility, better library facilities and services, longer opening hours, the provision of extra car parking spaces for students, increased security, better computing equipment and systems support. These are absolutely fundamental improvements for the overall benefit of students in the area.

A steering group has been established to develop the fine arts centre, in consultation with the fine arts staff. The institute will focus its educational program in fine arts in those areas that lead to employment. Fine arts students will seek to undertake single subjects as enrichment programs and will be able to undertake adult community education programs within the local community. Currently enrolled students will complete their studies in 1999. Continuing students will be advised how best to complete their course.

The institute profile continues to emphasise business studies as an important provision, and as a consequence we will relocate the business studies students from Seaforth to Brookvale, some 3.8 kilometres away. I know it is hard for some people on the north shore to travel 3.8 kilometres to Brookvale. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I, being country people, are used to travelling hundreds of kilometres to attend various meetings and gathering. I do not think the 3.8 kilometre journey from Seaforth to Brookvale is terribly onerous.

The institute also intends to relocate pre-vocational programs to either North Sydney or Brookvale and to relocate fine arts students to Brookvale, subject to consultation with staff and
Page 1575
students, or to give students the option of choosing to be relocated to the National Arts School or to Meadowbank or Hornsby, whichever suits them best. That is the sort of situation that has characterised educational programs in the south-west and west of this city.

In some instances students must travel some distance to attend various educational facilities. I am sure the strong-willed and hardy individuals of the Manly area will be able to cope with the changes. They will see that this is necessary for the overall development and improvement of TAFE in this State. This is at a time when duress is being create by the Federal Government’s attitude to funding.

I must deal with a couple of issues related to the Seaforth TAFE campus. Since 1996 Seaforth has experienced an effective full-time student number decline of 13.8 per cent. There has also been a decline of 3.3 per cent in effective full-time students in the whole of the northern beaches colleges between 1986 and 1999. So this is a matter of declining enrolments, and, in particular, Seaforth has suffered a very significant decline of 13.8 per cent in effective full-time student enrolments.

Enrolments at Seaforth have declined from 2,119 students in 1996 to 1,880 in 1999. That is a decline of 11.2 per cent overall. There has been a slight increase in the enrolments of some fine arts "statement of attainment" courses that cater for the personal enrichment of students. I am not against that in any way; I believe they are very useful courses. But I do not see the great difficulty in relocating around the area.

Since 1983, when enrolments at Seaforth were approximately 4,000, they have dropped to 1,880 in 1999. So something had to give in terms of the rationalisation of the educational facility in the region. That rationalisation basically is brought about by some $75 million in funding cuts imposed by the Federal Government. Something had to give. There had to be some reprogramming and reorganising to be able to conduct TAFE effectively and efficiently in the northern suburbs region.

In my previous contribution to debate on this issue I mentioned the Seaforth building. This is the third occasion on which this issue has been debated in a significant way in this Chamber. In that contribution I said that the Seaforth building was constructed in 1962. This is a very important issue because it is at the heart of the capital works problems of the Seaforth college. In 1985 the Seaforth buildings were refurbished to provide for alternative usage.

Between 1988 and 1998 there have been extensive repairs to the roof, costing some $60,000. Current advice is that the roof needs replacement, at a cost of $250,000 - merely to keep rain out of the rooms of this college! Advice is that the fine arts area at Seaforth requires new ventilation to meet occupational health and safety requirements. That work alone is estimated to cost a further $150,000. Other maintenance required includes concrete spalling and painting work, estimated at $50,000. The institute advises that the annual expenditure to maintain the Seaforth college is between $80,000 and $100,000. The estimated land value of the Seaforth site is between $1.5 million and $2 million. The site includes a heritage building which is currently used by the local community as a library.

Since 1991 the Government has spent $13.6 million refurbishing and upgrading facilities at Brookvale. So, on the one hand, the Seaforth facility is in need of substantial upgrade to meet occupational health and safety standards as well as educational standards, at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars, along with a substantial annual maintenance bill of over $100,000 to meet standards. On the other hand, at the same time as we have a decline in use of the facilities at Seaforth, the Government is spending more than $13 million to upgrade the Brookvale college. I believe that is the direction in which we should be going overall, taking into account the decline in Federal funding provided for TAFE.

The Teachers Federation requirements of 400 car parking spaces assumes that every student who enrols at Seaforth at any time during the year will require parking at Brookvale. TAFE students attend the college in various patterns, usually for only a few hours at a time. There are currently 344 car spaces at Brookvale, and more are planned. That should be adequate to ensure students have access to parking. So the issue of car parking is an absolute furphy. There will be plenty of car parking at Brookvale, now and in the future.

The fine arts single subjects are not seen as high priority in TAFE as, in the main, they do not lead to employment, a key objective of TAFE education. This Government’s commitment to art is well documented and established with the creation of the independent National Arts School in East Sydney, which now offers up to degree programs. The Northern Sydney Institute of TAFE has been offering fine arts at three locations - Hornsby, Meadowbank and Seaforth.

There are only three other locations where diploma fine arts is taught in the metropolitan area,
Page 1576
and this includes the National Arts School. People within the Northern Sydney Institute area have had greater access to fine arts programs than anyone else in the metropolitan area. Of course, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe seeks to protect the privileged position that she and her fellow citizens on the north shore enjoy.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: It is inverted snobbery that is motivating you now, is it?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: No. The point is that the community in the northern campus area has had greater access to fine arts programs than anyone else in the metropolitan area has. That is a fact.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: Drag them down - that is the attitude.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: There is no dragging down. It is about relocation. The institute has decided to establish an integrated fine arts facility at the Brookvale campus. So the need will be met at the Brookvale campus - some 3.8 kilometres from Seaforth. It is not a question of dragging anyone down; it is a question of relocation and rationalisation to improve the delivery of services and save the dollars being spent in TAFE. The institute has decided to establish an integrated fine arts facility at the Brookvale campus, which will offer fine arts programs up to certificate 4 level in 2000 together with diploma level courses in ceramics.

The great majority of full-time and part-time fine arts students at Seaforth will be able to continue their courses or begin new fine arts courses at Brookvale next year. The continuing fine arts diploma students will also be accommodated at that facility. However, they will be required to undertake photography and screen printing at the Hornsby, Meadowbank or National Art School campuses, which are centres of excellence. Continuing students will be given a priority, as is TAFE policy.

A steering committee comprising the head teachers of fine arts and ceramics is working on the establishment of the centre and the details of course provision for 2000. It is clear that many students in TAFE courses across the State would be only too pleased to have a facility like Brookvale so close at hand. I know many regional centres across the State in which TAFE facilities are at great distances and require time and effort by students to attend. The Government is constantly trying to upgrade the regional network of TAFE colleges, but it cannot continue to afford development while the Federal Government continues to cut back on TAFE in New South Wales despite the efforts of the Government to increase funding by $53 million from its own sources.

Of course, something had to give. With the decline in enrolments at Seaforth from 4,000 as long ago as 1983 to 1,880 this year, clearly there is a case for consolidation in the northern beaches area. The Government welcomes the concept of an inquiry because it has the facts and the figures and will be able to show clearly that the decision is rational and necessary and that it has made the right sorts of decisions. The closure will not greatly inconvenience the students of the northern beaches. Plenty of other students across the State have to travel many kilometres from various areas to attend TAFE courses.

The Government, therefore, has moved that the matter be conducted by the Standing Committee on State Development on the basis that the standing committees have the resources and the staff to be able to conduct such inquiries. The chairman has made it clear that the inquiry deadline of 25 November will be met and that the resources of the committee will be devoted towards ensuring a thorough inquiry into the matter. The Government believes that that is the appropriate way to go about such an inquiry that relates heavily to vocational education and training. The Government believes also that it should proceed down that path rather than refer the matter to a committee that was established essentially to look at the budget itself.

The budget was brought down in May-June. It is now four or five months later, and a standing committee is the appropriate forum for dealing with this matter. I urge honourable members, particularly those on the crossbenches, to support the Government. It will have the inquiry; it has the facts; it has made the right decisions about Seaforth; and it has nothing to hide. The Standing Committee on State Development will bring it all out. The committee will conduct a detailed inquiry and produce a final report that will cover the issue and put these matters to bed.

There is no rationale for the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 or any other standing committee to conduct these sorts of inquiries at this time. The general purpose standing committees were set up as estimates committees, designed to look specifically at the budget. It is appropriate to refer the matter to the committees that have the resources, the back-up and the staff to conduct such an inquiry.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [12.04 p.m.]: I welcome this opportunity to speak about Seaforth
Page 1577
TAFE. The axing of any educational institution that serves such an important purpose for students in surrounding areas should be of concern to this House. However, I was concerned this morning when I heard that the Hon. Patricia Forsythe planned to move this motion because last night in her adjournment speech she spoke in great praise of Mr Jeff Kennett. One of her remarks was: "He has given significant public service." Let us remember what the public service was that he gave to the people of Victoria when it came to education, which has a great deal to do with why he is no longer Premier.

Kennett closed a record number of schools - 386 in all. But he did not just stop at schools. He moved on to TAFE institutions, except he used an insidious mechanism to kill them off. It was death by amalgamations. They went from 33 to 18. So we have an extraordinary situation here. For reasons of political opportunism the Coalition has moved a good motion. However, if the Coalition were in power it would do what Labor is doing, and probably worse.

Let me go through what happened in Victoria. There was death by competitive tendering whereby colleges were forced to reduce their bids to unsustainable levels; death by contracting out basic services to private providers, leaving the public sector starved for funds; death by removing subsidies to rural and regional TAFEs that were designed to compensate for their additional costs; and death by amalgamations with universities. So Kennett was the champion TAFE destroyer. He makes the New South Wales crew look quite amateur. Because of its failure to turn around on competitive tendering maybe it will copy some of Kennett’s horror tactics.

Honourable members would have heard that the Hon. Patricia Forsythe aspires to be Minister for Education and Training. Considering her praise for Mr Kennett, one would be worried what New South Wales might face down the track if she does get that portfolio. If the closure of Seaforth TAFE goes ahead it will be the second closure of a TAFE by the Carr Government. In the first year of its first term the Government closed Dover Heights TAFE, again to great outcry. Now in the first year of the second term of a Carr Government it is after Seaforth TAFE, and that would be a tragedy for the many people who go there.

Let me turn to how it has been played out for the people at Seaforth TAFE. Honourable members should remember that the bureaucrats at Seaforth TAFE actually gave the people a promise that it would not be closed. However, without consultation, without discussion, all of a sudden the Government announced that Seaforth TAFE is to go entirely. The ramifications are huge. There are ramifications on a personal level for many individuals who would not be able to transfer to other TAFE colleges and ramifications on a wider level for the educational implications for the people of the northern beaches.

The plans include relocation of the students. Brookvale TAFE has been mentioned. If that were to occur, there would need to be development of the Brookvale site. Though it is supposed to happen by next year, no development application has been lodged to change Brookvale TAFE; no studies of traffic have been undertaken, and there would be enormous traffic implications. Again, there has been bad management in the handling of this closure. One of the tragedies referred to by previous speakers would be the closure of the very well respected art department at Seaforth TAFE if that TAFE is broken up. All the great qualities that have been built up in that art department would be lost or would end up at Hornsby and Meadowbank TAFEs, but that would involve just some of the students and some of the staff.

The collective aspects of the art department, and all that it has built up over the years, cannot be transferred and would be lost. Some of the TAFE students who have disabilities have indicated they would not be able to attend TAFE facilities in other areas. If this closure goes ahead, it will be a loss to education in New South Wales.

The arguments put by the education bureaucrats do not stack up. One of the arguments is that student numbers are declining. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald made great play of that, implying that there is no need for Seaforth TAFE because of the loss in student numbers. The information from local teachers is that student numbers have increased. In some areas of New South Wales there has been a reduction in TAFE student numbers. But one cannot deduce from that there is a decline in demand. There has been a reduction in numbers in certain areas because of government policy and mismanagement of this important form of education. The arguments do not add up to a reason to close Seaforth TAFE.

Although in this place Mrs Forsythe has previously spoken very strongly in support of Seaforth TAFE - for which I congratulate her - it is important to note that the Liberals on the northern beaches have been rather limp in their support of teachers and students at Seaforth TAFE and have not attended their protests in numbers. Again, one wonders about the political opportunism that is
Page 1578
occurring today. However, Mrs Forsythe’s recommendation is on the record, and we support it. The Greens also support the extensive work carried out by Mr David Barr, who represents the electorate of Manly on the northern beaches. On a number of occasions he has met with Seaforth TAFE students and teachers and has organised a series of deputations to enable them to bring their viewpoint to this place and meet with the people who will decide the fate of Seaforth TAFE.

We need to consider the overall situation. The fight on the northern beaches to save Seaforth TAFE is being repeated across New South Wales. That fight has been brought about because of the terrible decision of the New South Wales Government to cut $67 million from the budget of TAFE education and 630 positions, but at the same time to assist private providers. It all adds up to the "p" word, a word we do not hear any more since the Labor Government learnt its lesson in its attempt to privatise electricity. It adds up to privatisation. It must be named clearly. When private providers are brought in, it is privatisation.

The Greens strongly support the TAFE system of education because only a publicly owned and well-funded TAFE system can provide vocational education to all students, whoever they are and wherever they live, and provide them with a comprehensive range of subjects. It is important to note that this attack on TAFE is an attack on the ability of working-class families to gain an education. It would not be so surprising from the Coalition, but it is surprising from a Labor government. However, in this second term of the Carr Labor Government, it is what we have come to expect. The Greens are developing diverse coalitions with a range of community groups and unions to fight these terrible policies.

Although the Greens support an inquiry being held, we are presently determining which committee should conduct that inquiry. We welcome the co-operation between many forces to save Seaforth TAFE. Although I have offered up criticisms to the Liberal and National Party Coalition on this issue, those criticisms should be taken in good faith because we have a common position, that is, to save Seaforth TAFE.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [12.14 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe to refer the proposed closure of Seaforth TAFE to an inquiry and for that inquiry to report by 25 November. I am in two minds about supporting the amendment moved by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald. I suppose the position will become clearer later.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: If it were an investigation into the whole of TAFE we would agree with him. This is a single TAFE and should go to the general purpose standing committee as a budgetary matter.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I do not know whether referral to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 or the Standing Committee on State Development is the better option. I will share some information I received only this morning from a friend who is very involved in TAFE. She supports a reference of inquiry. I am told that because there has been no planning undertaken to close Seaforth TAFE next year, there should be a moratorium on the closure. The closure seems to be on the basis of economics. There is no rationalisation for this closure at all.

A relevant concern was expressed that Seaforth TAFE offers the General Certificate in Education, the Tertiary Preparation Certificate, and the Higher School Certificate, which are generally undertaken by underprivileged students. If they are required to transfer, they will be displaced and marginalised. To use Ms Rhiannon’s words, they are working-class students, and their educational needs should be looked at on a humane basis rather than on an economic rationalist basis.

The teachers at Seaforth TAFE work very hard to deal with these underprivileged younger students. If the students have to transfer to North Sydney or Hornsby, or even Meadowbank, they will be even more disadvantaged. Living on the northern beaches, I know that Seaforth TAFE caters for the local community, and transport in the local area is inadequate. These students will not receive any higher education at all because they cannot get to Hornsby, North Sydney or Meadowbank after work. TAFE usually caters for people who work part-time or full-time. To this extent I sympathise with the protesters, who are making loud objections at numerous protests and public meetings, and I support their cause.

I ask the Government to reconsider the closure of Seaforth TAFE until it has clearer planning strategies. Seaforth TAFE should not be closed merely to save salaries and money. With better planning, the educational opportunities of the people on the northern beaches will not be lost. As the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked, why is the TAFE to be closed so soon? The Government should plan for such a closure two or three years ahead, so that the students will not be disadvantaged by not being able to complete their education at this location. If the students know well ahead, they can plan their education and will not lose an educational opportunity.

Page 1579

I am still undecided about which committee this matter should be referred to. I know the State development committee quite well, and its chairman, the Hon. A. B. Kelly, has said that it has the resources, the time and the eagerness to deal with this issue. At the moment it has other referrals which are not ready to proceed. That committee can deal immediately with this reference and it can report back by 25 November. It is important to have a short, sharp inquiry and not one that lingers. This matter is urgent.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [12.20 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats are committed to public education and social equity, which it believes are extremely important for a harmonious society. I was discouraged by the humbug imposed upon this House today. The motion of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe is supported by the Democrats. The Liberal party wants to keep Seaforth TAFE open yet, sadly, only a few weeks ago it wanted to close St George TAFE.

The Liberal Party is demanding that the State Government spend more money. In fairness, since 1995 the State Government has provided a $53 million increase in funding, whereas in the same period the heroic Liberal Federal Government has cut $70 million in funding. The philosophy of the Liberals has been to reduce funding yet today in this Chamber the Liberal Party demands, hypocritically and opportunistically, that more money be spent on TAFE.

The Government, on the other hand, conducted a survey, after a lease was signed with Trinity Grammar School, and saved St George TAFE, without allocating new money. Presumably, money had to be taken from elsewhere, and if that is so, some other facility might have to close. The Government kept St George TAFE open but wants to close Seaforth TAFE. The Democrats are aware that 630 teacher positions are being cut in TAFE although about 50 per cent of its staff work part-time. TAFE has been a great Australian pioneer institution.

People with practical knowledge of the world can do a TAFE bridging course and become a TAFE teacher. They can work in their area of expertise or continue part-time in their job and teach people at TAFE. Adults can do their Higher School Certificate at TAFE without having to go back to school and, with a TAFE diploma, can go on to university and obtain a degree. TAFE allows the practical aspects of the workplace to blend in with academic life.

For too long those in Australia’s academic system and in universities have not liaised well with the industries they serve. For years it was impossible to even do short courses at university. One had to do a three-year course, or a one-year course for which no credit was given. One had to go to university between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. because academics did not want to go out in the evening. Effectively, education was a plaything for an elite who did not wish their academic interests to be integrated with the reality of work.

I tried to do university courses while I was working full time in the public service, and I am well aware of such difficulties. I studied absenteeism in industry and the problems of integration of education and second-chance opportunities in a work force. I realised that the Australian education system had evolved as an elitist organisation in comparison with Japanese institutions which had achieved far better integration. However, TAFE was the shining example that disproved the lessons of history by enabling the best integration of industry and education. TAFE, a model much admired by Australians, has suffered from managerial interference and the effects of economic rationalism. The Federal Government has reduced funding yet has given large amounts to groups that offer little other than impressive curriculum vitaes. There is a great danger that more cuts will be made to TAFE.

People from the lowest socioeconomic groups who climb to the top take with them an understanding of what it is like at the bottom of the heap. People who start life at the top of our society and enjoy all the opportunities of their privileged position are often out of touch with life at the bottom, and their decisions often accord with the tastes of the top social class. The Marxists claim that people are loyal to their social class rather than to their nation. If decision makers lose touch with grassroots problems, social cohesion will crumble and the risk of social breakdown will increase.

The social effect of TAFE in the wider historical and political context is extremely important and it is worrying when that is threatened. The Government wants to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on State Development and not to a general purpose standing committee. The Democrats are concerned that the Government wants to refer this matter to a committee on which it has a majority. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2, of which I was a member last year, became known as the rural health committee.

Last year that committee was funded to find out information that would not have been disclosed without our energetic efforts and extensive travel around the country. That provided some extraordinary insights into both the way the
Page 1580
Government worked in general and the dichotomy between gobbledegook managerial statements and what people on the ground actually said. The committee would not have had that insight without a majority of non-Government members. It is true that its findings have not been implemented but that is more of an indictment of the Government’s secrecy in the way it wants to do things and use its power.

I do not have faith that the Government will do the right thing by way of investigation if it refers this matter to the Standing Committee on State Development. In consequence I will certainly be voting against the amendment. According to the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, Seaforth TAFE this year has 1,883 students, and had 1,687 last year. On 9 September the honourable member for Wakehurst in the other Chamber said that Seaforth TAFE student numbers had increased from 1,687 last year to 1,787 this year. Whichever number is correct, it is a fair-size group.

Interestingly, Bob Puffett, Assistant Director-General, Technical and Further Education, thinks that the adult students can be accommodated in the local high school. That might be fine in relation to availability of teachers but would be difficult for adults attending a school where all the children are under 18. Whether that is a practical solution is another matter. The Government also says that the roof of Seaforth TAFE needs replacing. I am always amazed that buildings magically and suddenly become decrepit when it is convenient.

According to Don Muller, the New South Wales Teachers Federation redesign project architect for Seaforth TAFE, in 1995 the buildings were in quite good condition and had quite a lot of life left in them. I must confess I would be more inclined to believe him, given that sudden decrepitude seems to affect buildings when it suits political convenience.

The Australian Democrats would like to have the maximum number of public education facilities, particularly of the TAFE variety. While it may be said that it is better to rationalise two campuses into one because of economies of scale, we must recognise that we are living in a historic time. If an asset is sold in an area where land is extremely valuable, the chance of getting that asset back at a later date is small, as I said when the House debated the St George campus bill.

Basically, we as a Parliament are managing this State - if the Parliament can be said to be managing things when the Government tells us so little. We are not buying and selling; we are managing things for the future. If we sell something we assume that we will have to buy it back later if we want to have the same degree of facilities in the increasing population density in this historic time. However, buying back the asset will be immensely expensive, and people will not be willing to sell plots of land sufficient to locate a TAFE at a future time.

We will wait for a report like this to look seriously at the issues. We recognise that the Government has budget constraints. Nevertheless we would like to retain the assets we have until, hopefully, there is a more enlightened attitude towards education in Australia. It should be noted that the tiger economies of Asia believe that they cannot afford to have ignorance.

It is not a question of what education costs; they cannot afford to have a population of uneducated people, because if people are not educated they will not be employable, if they are not employable they will be on welfare, and if they are not given welfare they will be a major social disruption. They will privatise the welfare system and steal sufficient money to survive. What else would they do? In a sense it is not a question of whether we as a society can afford education. We cannot afford ignorance and we had better start thinking about how we will provide that education.

That is a problem for this Government in terms of Seaforth TAFE in particular and the TAFE system in general. It is also a problem for the Howard Government, which I believe is taking a very unintelligent approach to education. The Liberal members of this House need to look in their own eyes in terms of what their party is doing for education in New South Wales and, indeed, in Australia generally. The Australian Democrats will support this motion and oppose the amendment to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on State Development.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.32 p.m.]: I support this motion. I am most concerned, as are many people on the northern beaches, about the closure of Seaforth TAFE. This is not altogether the responsibility of the State Government; the Federal Government has made severe cuts to the education budget. The cuts include the loss of the equivalent of 630 full-time jobs, or 8 per cent of full-time staff, and at least $43 million has been stripped from the $923 million teaching budget.

At the same time as these cuts have occurred, student numbers are expected to increase by 2 per cent next year to 120,000 full-time students. There are 427,000 TAFE students undertaking part-time or
Page 1581
short courses, and these are extremely valuable. Recently the New South Wales Teachers Federation placed an advertisement in various newspapers explaining why TAFE teachers are striking and expressing severe concern about the $67 million cut to TAFE funding. The advertisement states:

We believe the cuts will:

•compromise the quality of public education
•promote the interests of private providers
•hurt business, industry and the community
•reduce opportunities in country and city NSW
•reduce subject choice
•eliminate some courses
•increase class sizes and reduce individual assistance
•compromise safety and health standards
•reduce support for students with special needs.

A large demonstration was held outside the Parliament recently. The people at the demonstration, many of whom I knew from my local area, were furious about both the Federal cuts and the State Government’s lack of assistance by making up some of the cuts with State moneys. The major impact of the cuts locally will be the loss of 1,700 TAFE places on the northern beaches from Whale Beach to Manly; 1,200 students will have to relocate to Brookvale campus to complete their studies; up to 500 students completing the Higher School Certificate and fine arts courses will be forced to travel to Hornsby, North Sydney and Meadowbank to complete their studies; and 200 students will have to travel to Hornsby.

Recently the Daily Telegraph stated that Seaforth TAFE is only the second major institution of this type to be closed this century. Although the reason for the closure is budget cuts, the campus costs only $750,000 a year, which is a tiny amount in the scheme of things. Seaforth TAFE is an important institution. The cuts will mean the end of Higher School Certificate studies for TAFE students on the northern beaches.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It will increase the resale value of the property.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile talks about the resale value of the property. As I listened to the other speakers the value of the property did occur to me. The property is in a high-value real estate area, and I suspect that it may be worth quite a few million dollars. I wonder what the property is zoned for currently; I presume it is not zoned for housing. Presumably the Government will attempt to have the property rezoned. I suspect that the local council would not wish to rezone the property, so the Minister may have to rezone the property over the heads of the local councillors.

The budget cuts will impose an enormous burden on students who want to continue their studies but are unwilling or unable to attend high schools. It is undemocratic to close a community college that gives people a second chance to achieve an education. In a letter dated 31 August addressed to the Minister for Education and Training, the Teachers Federation stated:

The closure of Seaforth TAFE would mean that the HSC has been eliminated from the peninsula. Consequently students from Whale Beach to Manly seeking a second chance at the HSC qualification would have to travel to North Beach or Meadowbank.

The relocation would make it impossible for most students to continue their courses because of the lack of public transport, part-time work, family and school commitments. There is also very little parking at North Sydney College.

Fine arts students from the peninsula would have to travel to Hornsby or Meadowbank.

Business studies and Japanese studies classes would be transferred to the Brookvale campus.

A letter signed on behalf of John Hennessy of the Teachers Federation states:

Currently, Seaforth provides an excellent "second chance" for students who have dropped out of school before completing the HSC and students who have failed to obtain the marks they need and need an opportunity to try again in a non-school environment. Seaforth also provides for students who are unable to access all of their chosen subjects at their own school.

If the Northern Institute’s decision to close Seaforth Tafe is implemented such provision will no longer be available on the Northern Beaches.

There are not many Labor seats on the northern beaches. The letter further states:

You will understand that many of the students who need the "second chance" provisions referred to come from troubled social or family backgrounds and suffer low confidence or self-esteem. You may not know that a number of such students currently enrolled at Seaforth are physically disabled.

The cuts will have a dramatic impact on local people. Interestingly, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 31 July referred to the number of Olympics tickets going to TAFE institutes. The article stated:

In the midst of a major job-cutting exercise, TAFE institutes across the State are awaiting up to $180,000 worth of Olympic tickets - most of which will be provided to their top commercial clients.

The ticketing deal is part of a commercial loyalty program, contained in a confidential discussion paper, which proposes that each of the 12 TAFE regions select its top client to receive an Olympics package worth close to $7,500.

Page 1582

So the Government is involved in Olympic package scams at the same time as it is cutting jobs.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: That is $180,000 for Olympic sponsorship and the Government cannot find $250,000 for building costs.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: It is totally outrageous. Clearly, the local community is outraged about the decision to close Seaforth TAFE. The teachers and students at Seaforth TAFE are more outraged. I have had an association with this area for some 34 years, and the decision to close the TAFE is a crying shame. If Seaforth TAFE had been in a Labor electorate I suspect that it would not have been closed. I suspect that the decision relates to local politics. The Government may have to rely on the local member after the next election. If so, it will regret closing Seaforth TAFE.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.39 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I support the motion moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, which reads:

1. That General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 inquire into and report on the proposed closure of Seaforth TAFE, and in particular:

(a) the process by which the Department of Education and Training resolved to close the TAFE,

(b) the social, financial and community impact on the Manly Warringah region, and

(c) any other relevant issues with regard to the closure of Seaforth TAFE raised in submissions received by the Committee.

2. That the committee report by Thursday 25 November 1999.

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 recently conducted an inquiry into the education portfolio during which questions were raised about TAFE generally and Seaforth TAFE in particular. To that extent the committee is already up with the issue and is ready and able to follow through on the reference. Members have referred to the staff and resources of the committee. As a result of the actions of the President and the Clerk, Mr Evans, there is now a general purpose committees secretariat which has staff and resources. I am very pleased about this. I have been very impressed with the efficiency and capabilities of the staff.

I am confident that when the general purpose committees receive a reference - in the past we were in a vacuum - they can conduct short inquiries into important and limited issues, as distinct from the standing committees, which deal with general issues of policy. At some future date the Standing Committee on State Development may investigate the whole education policy of the Government and the TAFE policy in general.

This reference specifically deals with Seaforth TAFE, a particular location at a particular time. Therefore as it would not be a broad, general inquiry, a general purpose committee such as No. 1 could cover it. I would have no objection to another general purpose standing committee conducting the inquiry but, as I said, No. 1 has already inquired into the whole area of education over a period with some reference to Seaforth.

I will not go into the details of the issue because that would be pre-empting the inquiry. I have received a lot of correspondence on it from interested citizens, the Teachers Federation and David Barr, the member for Manly, urging me as chairman of the committee to conduct the inquiry. The motion of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe pre-empted me or another member moving such a motion. As the reporting date is 25 November the inquiry would have to be short but I believe that in the time available the information could be gathered and a report prepared for the House.

The crucial issue is the solutions for the students, not just why the TAFE was closed. What can now be done to provide facilities for students? Seaforth TAFE could be kept open or something could be done to make it easier for the students to continue their courses. The committee should come up with solutions rather than just canvass the issues. As chairman of the committee I am happy to take on board the reference.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [12.44 p.m.]: I shall speak on the motion not just in relation to the importance of what is happening in TAFE in New South Wales but also in relation to how this House resolves to conduct inquiries, the time scale and who conducts them. What is happening in TAFE at the moment needs considerable attention. I have spoken in this House on TAFE funding on a number of occasions, most recently last night in the Address-in-Reply debate. I have drawn attention to the Federal Government’s continual cuts in funding and the steps that the State Government has had to take to at least partially - it is never possible to do it fully - replace the missing funding.

I will not deal in detail with Seaforth TAFE and Brookvale because many members know more about the locality than I do. However, I point out that I live equidistant from Meadowbank TAFE and
Page 1583
Ryde TAFE. I know that Meadowbank seems a long way from the leafy north shore to the Hon. Patricia Forsythe but it is not that far. That is by the way.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues I wish to deal with the House referring matters at short notice. It has been suggested that not one but two inquiries could be held into the matter: one by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 into the particular issue of Seaforth TAFE; and another by the Standing Committee on State Development on TAFE issues generally. That would be an excellent idea. I would love to do it if the committee had time. Another proposal is to combine the two inquiries and have the State development committee inquire into the specific issue and the more general one, and to use the general context to inform the specific.

I remind the House that the reference about group homes being tendered out by the Department of Community Services was referred to the social issues committee on 16 September. The committee is a standing committee which has existed for a decade or so. It has a very well qualified and dedicated staff. It is set up to conduct inquiries in the most efficient, serious and sensitive manner possible. We had the best will in the world. We held a special meeting in a small break of the House sittings to meet the newspaper deadlines for placing advertisements. They were prepared prior to the House’s authorising resolution. We realised that, though it was slightly irregular, if we did not do that we would have to wait one more Saturday.

With the whole process of newspaper advertising, circulating our terms of reference, holding meetings with all the major interest groups, calling for submissions, receiving submissions and writing to people who had made submissions and beginning to organise witnesses, faced with an inquiry into a very specific issue with a reporting date of 30 November and a much more general issue providing the context for all of that without a definite reporting date, we will hold our first hearing this Friday.

The staff and members of the social issues committee should be congratulated on that. It has taken the social issues committee from 16 September to 22 October to hold its first hearings. Submissions closed last Friday, 15 October, but we are accepting late submissions. It will be incredibly difficult for the committee to prepare the kind of detailed report that the House expects of its standing committees.

It has taken more than five weeks to get to this stage. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 is essentially an ad hoc estimates committee that has no staff specifically dedicated to it, which has no staff readily available to work with it. It has no staff with qualifications or expertise in the area of education, for instance, as the social issues staff have in the area of community services. It is impossible for a committee to prepare a complete report within five weeks of a resolution being referred to it by this House.

As I said, it has taken the Standing Committee on Social Issues five weeks to get to its first hearing - but it has worked as hard as it possibly could; indeed, the House provided the committee with additional staff to help it proceed with its work. I very much doubt whether General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1, faced with the work it is currently doing, would be able to cope with the extra workload.

I understand that the committee will meet tomorrow night - perhaps Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile could confirm that - to deal with an estimates matter, and that it will hold further estimates committee hearings in relation to the Olympics and other matters. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 is also continuing to conduct its current inquiry. I think it has a meeting scheduled in the next couple of weeks to deal with the reference given to it by this House in relation to the budget appropriations and the remarks of the Auditor-General.

Therefore, it seems to me very foolish, indeed quite irresponsible, for members of this House to pluck out of the air a committee whose staff have no expertise to deal with this matter - indeed, the committee has no staff at all and has no real chance of getting staff. I believe that the Standing Committee on State Development should inquire into issues relating to the training needs of New South Wales. Perhaps the Standing Committee on State Development could conduct a short inquiry into the specific issue of Seaforth TAFE - for example, the Standing Committee on Social Issues is conducting an inquiry into a matter that has a reporting date of 30 November - and then conduct a more detailed inquiry into the broader issue of training needs in this State.

I have discovered that when a committee conducts an inquiry of this sort, the people who come before it to make submissions on the short-term and specific issue often say that the short-term issues do not make much sense unless they are considered in the broader context. That seems to me to be an appropriate solution.

Page 1584

I believe that this House could responsibly embark on an inquiry into TAFE, perhaps involving the State development committee preparing a brief and, almost by necessity, an incomplete report, and then conducting a more major inquiry. I cannot see much sense in the ad hoc General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1, without staff, conducting an inquiry into an immediate issue without considering its context, and then the State development committee conducting a separate inquiry into the broader issue, which would include issues relating to Seaforth TAFE. This House is becoming almost drunk on inquiries. Hardly a day goes by - certainly not a week - without this House deciding to inquire into something. When other members of this House speak they will talk about the sort of load they take on.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer and I are in competition when it comes to attending estimates committee hearings. So far he has attended nine committee hearings and I have attended 8½ committee hearings. I think he attended one today, so he has now attended 10 hearings. I know that other members of this House are serving on one committee and chairing another, and so on. The House has committees of various kinds - joint committees, standing committees, select committees and estimates committees - each comprising between five and 11 members.

However, I am constantly reminded that there are only 42 members of this House. Perhaps the time has come to call for yet another tabling of papers - we are drunk on tabling papers as well - that provide a list of the number of committees on which each of the 42 members currently serves, and some indication of the workload that that involves in terms of meetings with people, hearing evidence, reading submissions and writing reports.

I urge the House to seriously consider whether General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 - which is currently inquiring into Olympics tickets, budget appropriations, the remarks of the Auditor-General and numerous Ministers’ portfolios - can, without staff, conduct anything other than a Mickey Mouse inquiry between 20 October and 25 November. While such an inquiry may make the Hon. Patricia Forsythe and a number of other people feel good, it will not in any way be a serious inquiry. The House must examine why these kinds of committees are established and what these sorts of inquiries achieve.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [12.55 p.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue. The intended closure of Seaforth TAFE illustrates the Government’s lack of planning on education and its poor management skills in this area. The closure of Seaforth TAFE highlights the Government’s failure to consult the local community, teachers and students on this issue. We have seen this arrogant attitude in relation to the St George campus fiasco of a few weeks ago and the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Bill, which is to come before this House.

I distinctly remember that Premier Carr, following his election win, advised his Ministers in public that they must consult communities in their decision making. Seaforth TAFE is a glaring instance of this action not having been met. As late as 18 November 1998 the deputy director, Mr Sivakumar, was quoted as saying:

There is no proposal for the closure of Seaforth TAFE . . . If the Government was planning to sell off Seaforth that would have to be three to five years in the planning so we could make alternative plans to accommodate students.

However, in August this year Mr Sivakumar, who is now the acting director, announced that Seaforth TAFE would be closed at the end of the year and that students would be transferred to Brookvale, Hornsby, Meadowbank and North Sydney. I accept some of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald’s arguments that some fault must be attributed to the Federal Government for its severe cuts to TAFE education in this country. He further elaborated that some $500,000 needs to be spent to maintain Seaforth TAFE.

He also explained that so far more than $13 million has been spent on the Brookvale site. In this regard I question the Hon. I. M. Macdonald on his Government’s ability to manage the educational system of this State. On the one hand, the Government cannot find half a million dollars; on the other hand, it can spend $13 million on another site.

The Government has not denied that as a result of the closure of Seaforth TAFE, first, there will be only one TAFE campus to service the northern beaches area; second, there will no longer be Higher School Certificate classes for mature-aged students or students who fail to obtain enough marks to get into universities; and, third, art and design students will have to go to either Hornsby or Meadowbank. I assure the Hon. I. M. Macdonald that Meadowbank is much more that 3.5 kilometres from Seaforth. In fact, due to poor public transport facilities it can take people up to two hours to travel from Seaforth to Meadowbank. I suggest that the Hon. Patricia Forsythe should take a few honourable members on an educational tour from Seaforth to Meadowbank;
Page 1585
when they come back they will be less vocal and more informative.

This House has received conflicting opinions about whether student numbers in Seaforth TAFE are increasing or decreasing. This conflict further enhances the need for proper investigation into this issue. I understand that Seaforth TAFE had a $4 million refurbishment in 1985. The project architect has stated categorically that the buildings are in good condition and have many years left in them. This statement raises a question in my mind: What does the Government intend to do with the site? The closure of Seaforth TAFE is a very important matter for the local community, and indeed for the people of New South Wales. In conclusion, I quote a passage from the Daily Telegraph of 21 September, which reads:

Somehow, it doesn’t seem too smart to be closing a community college that gives people a second chance to achieve an education unless the Government needs to raise money quickly to meet the growing Olympic bill.

I support the motion moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN [1.00 p.m.]: The debate seems to have been about the choice of committee to which the matter should be referred. The motion obviously proposes its reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1. I do not think that is the appropriate committee for such a reference. The House would be better served if it were referred to the Standing Committee on Social Issues or the Standing Committee on State Development.

There seems to be consensus that the Standing Committee on State Development is the more appropriate committee to deal with the matter because policy issues are involved. The closure of a facility such as TAFE should be dealt with as a policy issue, and the Standing Committee on State Development is best placed to deal with it. The general purpose standing committees seem to be getting more and more references of matters to do with policy. It would be far better to continue to use our standing committees to deal with policy issues.

The social issues and State development committees have a history of doing good work and of dealing with issues in a bipartisan and multipartisan manner. It would be better if such a vital issue as education were dealt with by the State development committee. Having said that, I would like to place on record a few facts about TAFE and the Seaforth college. New South Wales spends more on technical and further education than any other State. More than one-third of all vocational education and training spending in Australia is in New South Wales. The Government has increased funding for TAFE in New South Wales.

[The President left the chair at 1.01 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [2.30 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe and I oppose the amendment proposed by the Government. In my time in this House I have rarely heard more diatribe than I heard from the Hon. I. M. Macdonald today. His speech was quite extraordinary. It rarely touched on the matter before the House - and even then only by accident. The motion deals with a specific item, the closing of Seaforth TAFE.

I remind the House that the Carr Government clearly promised it would not close Seaforth TAFE, but obviously that college is to be closed. That, no doubt, is the intention of the Government. I do not intend to canvass the many statements made to the House about enrolments at the college and the difficulties that will be caused to students by the proposed closure. I put aside the furphy of the 3.8 kilometre journey to Brookvale, as related by one Government member; I will simply treat that matter with the contempt and disdain it deserves.

The Government amendment is simply a move to try to stop or delay the inquiry. Already the Standing Committee on State Development has in hand four references. Whether it would or would not have the time to deal with this matter expeditiously is a matter of conjecture. The State development committee - if it proceeds at the same rate as we were told the Standing Committee on Social Issues does - clearly would not be in a position to deal with this matter before Christmas. By that stage, I am sure, the Government will have fulfilled its intent, closed Seaforth TAFE, and probably sold the land.

Some other matters raised must be dealt with. One is which is the more appropriate committee to which this matter should be referred. The standing committees on State development, social issues and law and justice were established by this House to deal with major policy issues in a bipartisan manner. The general purpose standing committees, of which there are five, were established to cover the various ministries and to deal with single-issue matters that might arise quite suddenly. Those committees can call for witnesses. Such references need not be advertised and thus the committees need not wait for weeks before dealing with a matter.

Page 1586

I remind the House that General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 has carried out very effective inquiries into matters such as land tax and electricity generation. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 dealt with rural health. Those committees have been able to subpoena witnesses and report in a short time. They were established to inquire into and report upon specific matters. The general purpose standing committees flowed perforce from a happening in the lower House and have also undertaken the role of estimates committees. They are general purpose committees firstly, though they also undertake the role of estimates committees.

I think it is proper to draw attention to the terms of the motion. In particular, it deals with the process by which the department resolved to close Seaforth TAFE. It deals also with the social, financial and community impacts of such a closure within the Manly-Warringah area. They are specific matters. The motion seeks to empower the committee to deal with any other matters that may arise during its inquiry and other matters that result from it.

To argue that Seaforth TAFE was built some 13 years ago and is in a run-down condition is to argue in favour of indicting the Government for its negligence during its five years in office. If the college is in fact run down, that is due to the Carr Government not spending adequate money on its repair and maintenance. The truth of that matter may come out at the inquiry.

The effect of the closure of Seaforth TAFE on local people and the more than 1,700 students is quite clear. They will be disadvantaged. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods had no understanding of the motion and, like another member of her faction, in my view made a speech that was insulting. I would remind the honourable member of the staffing requirements and to that end -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Who is the other member of that faction?

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I will deal with the matter at hand. The Treasurer may respond if he so wishes. I was referring to the staffing of general purpose standing committees. The assertion that those committees do not have adequate staff to deal with an inquiry into the subject matter of the motion is an absolute furphy. A director has been appointed to the general purpose standing committees, they have their own staff and they can hire, and from time to time have hired, additional staff to assist them in their inquiries and deliberations. So the argument that only the standing committees have specialist staff is nothing more than nonsense.

Whether there is to be a fight between the Standing Committee on Social Issues and the Standing Committee on State Development is irrelevant. This specific matter must be dealt with now. It must be dealt with efficiently and as a local issue. If the nominated committee wishes to carry out an investigation into TAFE generally, its staffing and everything else, perhaps the reference should be to the Standing Committee on Social Issues or the Standing Committee on State Development.

Let it be quite clear: the general purpose standing committees are designed to undertake one-off investigations. They have the resources and facilities to proceed quickly with their inquiries and report in a timely manner. They are not structured to deal with general policy, such as examining the whole of the structure of TAFE. The Government, in my view, by moving its amendment, has but one intention: to delay the inquiry and ensure that Seaforth TAFE is closed. That delay would prevent local people from having a say on the matter. They would have that opportunity through the reference of the matter to a general purpose standing committee.

I suggest without fear of contradiction that, having closed this TAFE, the Government would then promptly proceed to sell off the site, whether for housing or, as has been done in the past, for commercial or retail premises or hotel premises. The Government would sell the land to raise money to pay for the building of the Brookvale TAFE, for which no funding is available. The amendment should be seen for what it is, and rejected. This House should unanimously support the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [2.39 p.m.]: I had not intended to participate in the debate, but I am drawn to comment on what the Hon. J. H. Jobling said about the respective resources of the standing committees and the general purpose standing committees, or estimates committees as they are commonly known. The Hon. J. H. Jobling said that the resources available to the general purpose standing committees are adequate to receive a discrete reference such as the one contemplated here, and that the Standing Committee on State Development, the Standing Committee on Social Issues or the Standing Committee on Law and Justice do not have superior staffing to the general purpose standing committees.

It is intended to refer the Seaforth TAFE reference to the Standing Committee on State
Page 1587
Development, and I would argue very strongly, on the basis of my now extensive experience of general purpose standing committees, that the staffing available to the standing committees is most definitely superior and more adequate than that available to what are more commonly called the estimates committees.

I will give the House a clear example of what I am referring to. Two committees on which I serve, General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 and General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, are due to meet for deliberative purposes tomorrow. One is scheduled to meet at 9.00 a.m. and the other at 1.00 p.m. The purpose for which those meetings are scheduled, it is stated, is to consider the draft reports of those estimates committees. Last Monday evening I sat on one of those committees when it heard further evidence about the community services portfolio.

I inquired when the draft reports would be circulated and whether I could have an assurance that they would be circulated at least 24 hours before the committees were due to meet. I was given that assurance. However, as at this very moment that I am speaking, no such reports have been circulated. One does not need to be Einstein to work out that it is less than 24 hours until those general purpose standing committees are scheduled to meet.

I regard it as oppressive that members of the committee should be expected to consider draft reports without due notice. After all, although the Government is in a minority on the general purpose standing committees, Government members have their rights too, and one of those rights is to consider the detailed comments made in the draft reports and, if thought fit, to specify their dissent or suggest amendments. To this moment committee members have not been given the draft reports for those committees.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Who are the chairmen?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The chairs are from the non-government side of the House. One is the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti and the other is the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: That is an absolute disgrace in both cases. They are treating the House with contempt.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Treasurer would not treat me with contempt, though. I raise this matter because I have been told - I do not intend to name names or embarrass any member of the committee secretariat - that the staff are working 13-hour days and that the reports are late because of that workload. That does not stand with what the Hon. J. H. Jobling said. He said the general purpose committees are adequately resourced, at least on a comparable basis.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: I said they are adequately resourced.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: At least on a comparable basis with the Standing Committee on State Development, the Standing Committee on Law and Justice and the Standing Committee on Social Issues. The general purpose committees are labouring under a strain and it cannot be maintained with any certainty that -

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You are attempting to distort the facts.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: There is no distortion here. The fact is that the general purpose standing committees are wilting under their load and it cannot be said that they ought to receive a further discrete reference from the House on this Seaforth TAFE matter. It is clearly contrary to the facts for the Hon. J. H. Jobling or any other honourable member to suggest the contrary.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You are talking nonsense.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. J. H. Jobling is an expert in talking nonsense, so I would have to defer to him in that regard. However, I have made my point. The general purpose standing committees are insufficiently resourced by comparison with the standing committees. Clearly, the proper venue for a discrete reference such as this is the Standing Committee on State Development.

The Hon. I. COHEN [2.46 p.m.]: The debate has certainly been interesting. As one of the Green members of this House, I support the motion of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. This is a most important issue, and eventually it should translate to looking at the whole question of TAFE establishments throughout the State. Certainly the request of the students and teachers at Seaforth TAFE that the Minister reverse the decision to close the college is reasonable. I sympathise with them and I can understand a number of the issues that have been raised.

I have not had a great deal of time to prepare for the debate, but I consider it offensive to condemn people living on the peninsula. Young and
Page 1588
mature-age students have a right to access the educational opportunity that exists in a particular locale. To travel as far afield as Hornsby and Meadowbank is significantly difficult for a number of people; it would have a significant effect on their opportunity to be educated. There are arguments to the contrary about people living in country areas, and that is a major problem.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It is a separate issue.

The Hon. I. COHEN: It is a separate issue, and it is one that solidifies the argument that we need educational institutions in particular community areas so that everybody has reasonable equity of access to them. As a Green, I hold very dear the concept of public education for all, so I am extremely concerned about the closure of this TAFE college. I am concerned also to hear that in 1985 there was a $34 million refurbishment. I have been told that the establishment is still quite adequate, and that enrolments there are increasing, not decreasing.

I have grave concerns that the closure is a short-term budgetary saving measure on the part of the Government. I have grave concerns about the resale value of this property. It is important also to consider how disabled students would be affected by any move. I know from recent debates in this House that disabled people are adversely affected by moves, be they in relation to accommodation or educational institutions. The disabled could well be put in a position of losing their opportunity for educational advancement as a result of this rather heavy-handed move by the Government.

I do not think there is much debate among the Opposition and crossbench members, and I am sure that many Government members would be concerned about the closure of this institution. As to which committee should deal with the inquiry, many interesting points have been raised, which I will cover briefly.

In communications with Mr David Barr, the honourable member for Manly in the other House, I learned of the substantive positions on the closure of the educational institution. Mr Barr has written to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile suggesting that the inquiry be referred to the general purposes standing committee rather than the Standing Committee on State Development. That has caused significant debate, and the major issue has become which committee structure should be used to obtain the most adequate representation.

I have listened to the many issues about the value of the relative committees, their staffing and funding. I feel that we could be hoodwinked if we are not careful. Committees should not be government controlled. They are a mechanism set up by the Parliament and they should be free of any constraint by control of the purse strings. It is no valid argument for the Government to say it is feeling unco-operative because a committee is taking a particular direction. According to the politics of the day, some committees may not receive the same support as others. However, I am assured by correspondence from Madam President to the Treasurer which states:

This Secretariat will not be a panacea for all of the resourcing issues in connection with the General Purpose Standing Committees. Undoubtedly, senior officers and administrative staff of the Legislative Council will be required to provide assistance to these Committees. Senior Project Officers will also need to be brought in on a temporary basis to provide technical expertise for most inquiries. However, the advantage of such a Secretariat will be that there will be a small unit dedicated to the work of the General Purpose Standing Committees. As well as assisting in the efficient operation of these Committees, this will ensure that the essential work of Legislative Council officers in relation to the functions of the House is not compromised.

It is reasonable to ask whether the committees will be appropriately resourced. Another interesting issue is the changing nature of the Parliament and its committees. I appreciate the services of the Parliamentary Library researchers who, at short notice, provided me with an large volume of material, all of which, unfortunately, I have not had a chance to read. One reference paper, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, edited by Harry Evans, Clerk of the Senate, states:

Legislative and general purpose standing committees

The legislative and general purpose standing committees, appointed under standing order 25, are the engines of the Senate’s committee system. First established in 1970 -

The committees have a substantial history -

together with a system of estimates committees, these committees, specialised by subject, inquire into and report on matters referred to them by the Senate.

The committees cover between them all areas of government responsibility and subjects of inquiry. Specific matters, within their subject areas, are referred to them by the Senate. Some "watching briefs" are also referred to them, for oversight of areas of government activity. In 1989 they were given the task of scrutinising annual reports of government departments and agencies, and bills referred to them under the system then adopted for the systematic referral of bills to committees.

The most significant change to affect the operation of the legislative and general purpose standing committees occurred

Page 1589
in 1994 when, after the Procedure Committee reported on ways of making the committee system more responsive to the composition of the Senate, the Senate amended the standing order relating to the committees. These changes combined estimates committees with legislative and general purpose standing committees and divided the combined functions between pairs of committees in each of eight subject areas.

I will not list the areas. That reflects the changing nature of the Senate and committees, and there is more change in this House because of its composition and the increasing number of crossbenchers. Given that this House reflects the traditions of the Senate and the way that it evolves -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I advocate the abolition of the Senate and this House.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I do not think many people are interested in the Treasurer’s point of view on this matter. He is out of touch with not only the rest of the Parliament but also the people of New South Wales. If he were not a leading light in a certain political machine he would not be a member of Parliament, because no-one would vote for him.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: How many votes did the Greens get?

The Hon. I. COHEN: The Greens got 125,000 votes in 1995 - a reasonable vote. How many votes did the Treasurer get in Cronulla? I suggest that the Treasurer would do well to put up or shut up. At the next election he should stand as Michael Egan, local member candidate, and see how many votes he gets. He probably would not be voted into the lower House. The Treasurer should show some respect to those who are elected by the people of New South Wales to serve in the best way they can. Despite what the Treasurer says, many members in this House work hard, do a good job and respectfully represent the people in their community.

Probably more than anything else, that exchange convinces me that the general purpose standing committee should deal with the inquiry. The Greens support the position of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe to inquire into the closure of Seaforth TAFE college.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [2.57 p.m.]: I support the broad initiative that has been introduced by my colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. I have had a long interest in public education in New South Wales, both as a member of the National Party and of this House. I have served on advisory committees and I have a sincere interest in the welfare of our TAFE system. Vocational education is one of the hallmarks of an advanced and civilised community. Any threat to the integrity of our TAFE system is a matter of concern not only to members of this House and the local community of Seaforth TAFE but to everyone throughout New South Wales.

It is appropriate for us to institute an inquiry into the decisions that have been taken and telegraphed to the students of Seaforth TAFE. It is interesting to compare the rhetoric - I would call it humbug - from Government members about the Oatley campus with the Government’s actions regarding Seaforth TAFE. It is most appropriate that an inquiry is set in place but the real point of the argument seems to be about selection of the correct vehicle for such an inquiry. I strongly defended the appropriateness of the Standing Committee on Social Issues undertaking a broad-ranging inquiry into respite care and supported accommodation for people who suffer disability because it would extend beyond a narrow reference to a wider inquiry involving broad issues throughout the State.

That certainly is not the case today. However, a follow-on reference could be devised to enable the committee to look into vexatious subjects such as the integration of TAFE with the Department of Education and Training, a decision with which I have little truck. I do not want to canvass all those points but I do believe that it is most appropriate that this inquiry is undertaken by the appropriate general purpose standing committee. I say that with modesty, even though I am a committee member, and I look forward to the committee undertaking the inquiry. I hope the crossbench members will support my amendment. I move:

That the question be amended by adding at the end:

3. That there be a moratorium on any moves to demolish the Seaforth TAFE buildings or tenders for its sale until after the committee has reported.

I am reminded that part of the royal anthem states "Confound their politics". The Government would do that if it had half the chance. When the Government becomes aware of what will be exposed by this inquiry it will move swiftly to sell the campus or demolish the buildings so that the inquiry’s decision will be irrelevant anyway. The ultimate irony may be that in its haste to sell the campus it will sell it to a private school. I commend my amendment, and the motion, to the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [3.02 p.m], in reply: I thank all 13 members who have contributed to this debate and, in particular, I thank the crossbench members for their thoughtful
Page 1590
comments. I could take issue with the remarks of one or two members but I do not think that is appropriate. I will focus very briefly on comments made by Government members. Despite Government rhetoric, its only substantive argument for closing Seaforth TAFE, with its 1,883 student body, is that the building was last renovated in 1985 and repairs would cost $250,000. The Government is spending huge amounts on Olympic tickets but can only offer a $250,000 repair bill as its best argument. If the Government wishes to save money it should allow building students to add to their skills by repairing Seaforth TAFE, and thus achieve the best of all possible worlds.

I support the amendment moved by my colleague the Hon. D. F. Moppett. The amendment tests the bona fides of the Government. The Government said it is happy to have an inquiry conducted by the Standing Committee on State Development, so it should accept the amendment. The Government says that the Standing Committee on State Development has resources and staff that other committees do not have, but that is wrong. Project officers can be appointed to the general purpose standing committees, which already have directors and committee officers. If the Treasurer is going to stifle the work of this Parliament by some Treasury budget cut -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: When I was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee we had no staff, we needed no staff and we did the work that we were paid to do.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: The Treasurer has heard the contributions of many members of that committee. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has chaired the committee, the Hon. Dr P. Wong and the Hon. D. F. Moppett and I are happy to do the work, and I can assure the Treasurer that we have the support of staff. The claim by the Government that the committee has no resources is a ruse and is plainly wrong. If the Government does not understand the facts, it can rest assured that crossbench members do understand them.

The second argument of the Government is that the standing committee is inquiring into training needs in New South Wales. But this issue concerns not only training needs but financial and social impacts on the people of the northern beaches. The Standing Committee on State Development would not focus on those impacts. By the Government’s own admission that committee would focus only on training needs.

Any inquiry must take a broader look, for example, at the impact on the person who runs the Seaforth art supply shop and on others in the local community. The committee should focus on the needs of the students and staff who attend and work at Seaforth TAFE. We need to ascertain why the Government said in November last year that it had no intention to close Seaforth TAFE. It also said that three to five years was needed for such a major decision to be made, but nine months later a decision has been made.

The general purpose standing committee is a perfectly appropriate vehicle not only because it will have a different focus than that of the standing committee but because time is of the essence. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 has scheduled a deliberative meeting tomorrow evening. At that time it can deal with issues such as advertising and staff. The chairman of the committee provides the best advice about that. Not one member of the committee is in any doubt that we have the time and the commitment to get the work done by November this year.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald began by stating that this matter has been dealt with on two or three occasions. The Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer also dealt with this matter, but both would put the Government’s spin on this matter. The Opposition wants to look at the facts from as broad a perspective as possible. If the matter is sent to the Government-controlled Standing Committee on State Development, that committee will direct how the inquiry is conducted every inch of the way.

If the matter is sent to a general purpose standing committee which does not have a Government majority, that committee will look at it in a broad perspective. I have every confidence in the work of general purpose standing committees. One of the most important statements the Government ever made to members of Parliament is that no TAFE campus will close. The reality is that the Government has decided, for whatever reason, to close Seaforth TAFE.

Not long ago the Teachers Federation was told that no TAFE campus will close, but that is wrong. I hope that the Government correctly evaluates this State’s training needs and accurately assesses the impact of Federal Government funding decisions and the number of TAFE literacy courses that have been forced to closed in New South Wales. The Federal Government has put millions of dollars into literacy training and has contracted out provision of literacy courses across Australia.

This Government is not prepared to admit that it is not funding TAFE literacy work but instead is
Page 1591
shifting that obligation back to the Federal Government. Members opposite talk about TAFE funding cuts but they never mention that the State Government is shifting responsibility for students and courses to the Federal Government. The Government is being dishonest in its interpretation of the Federal Government’s policies and in its response to those policies. I look forward to the standing committee looking at those issues, which are somewhat different to the closure of Seaforth TAFE. It is perfectly appropriate that the general purpose standing committee deals with that issue. I urge all honourable members to support the motion and reject the amendment of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald.

Amendment by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald negatived.

Amendment by the Hon. D. F. Moppett agreed to.

Question - That the motion as amended be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Mrs Nile
Mr Bull Rev. Nile
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Oldfield
Mr Cohen Dr Pezzutti
Mr Corbett Ms Rhiannon
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Hannaford Mr Tingle
Mr Harwin Dr Wong
Mr M. I. Jones Tellers,
Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Jobling
Mr Lynn Mr Moppett

Ms Burnswoods Mr Obeid
Mr Della Bosca Ms Saffin
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Tebbutt
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Johnson Tellers,
Mr Kelly Mr Manson
Mr Macdonald Mr Primrose

Mr Gay Mr Tsang

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Bill received and read a first time.

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

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

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

That the following message be forwarded to the Legislative Assembly:

The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that on Thursday 9 September 1999 in accordance with section 5 (1) (a) of the Regulation Review Act 1987 Mr Malcolm Jones was appointed to serve on the Regulation Review Committee as a Member of the Legislative Council.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [3.18 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

There has been widespread public criticism of the tablecloth-size ballot papers for the March 1999 Legislative Council election and the multiplicity of parties represented on them. There has also been widespread public criticism of the complicated preference arrangements between groups of candidates and the lack of control voters have over their preferences if they choose the convenience of voting above the line.

During the election campaign the Premier announced that after the election he would bring forward a number of proposals to tighten the minimum requirements for registering a political party. This bill introduces proposals that address the concerns referred to by both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition during the election campaign. It also introduces measures to remove the ability of political parties to determine voters’
Page 1592
preferences for other groups of candidates in Legislative Council elections.

These proposals are not designed to make it too difficult for people to contest elections. They are designed to prevent a recurrence of the waste of public time and money that occurred in the March 1999 Legislative Council election as a result of the abuse and manipulation of the current voting and registration system. The State Electoral Office incurred an extra $10 million in costs in printing and handling the tablecloth ballot paper.

Currently, voters who choose to vote above the line do so for convenience. Certainly, with the tablecloth-size ballot papers, few would have wanted to confront numbering a ballot paper below the line. However, the single mark voters put on a ballot paper above the line is taken to indicate a list of preferences registered by the relevant party or group. Voters are rarely aware of the list of preferences of a party or group, particularly when 81 registered party tickets are hung throughout a polling booth.

Nor are voters in control of the distribution of these preferences. Often, all the voters know is that they are voting for their preferred party or group. For example, at the last election 60,000 people voted for one party but ultimately ended up electing a person from another party who was No. 17 on the first party’s preference list. It is highly unlikely that these voters knew that their votes would end up electing the person that they did. If the voters had had a choice, other than having to number individual boxes below the line, they might have chosen differently. The last election also revealed that there were some parties that based their whole electoral strategy on preference deals rather than seeking primary votes. Such actions only add to the cynicism of voters and undermine public trust in our system of parliamentary democracy.

Clearly, the allocation of preferences has swung too much under the control of party organisations. Accordingly, it is proposed to give people the ability to choose their own preferences both above the line and below the line. This will mean that a person voting above the line may number preferences for the different groups from one onwards. The first preference indicated for a group will take the voter’s preferences through the whole list of the candidates in that group below the line. The second preference indicated for a further group will then continue the application of preferences to all the candidates in that group below the line, and so on.

While parties may still hand out how-to-vote cards which indicate to voters how a party would like the voter’s preferences to be given, the choice is left to the voter, who may give as many preferences as he or she chooses. I acknowledge that this proposal was initially raised by the Greens. The Government considered the proposal on its merits and adopted it as part of this electoral reform proposal. A consequence of this proposal is that only groups with at least 15 candidates will be able to apply for a group voting square above the line. The Constitution requires that a voter shall be required to record his or her vote for 15 candidates for the Legislative Council. Voters may record further preferences if they wish, but they must record preferences for at least 15 candidates. This is an entrenched provision and may only be amended by referendum.

With optional preferential voting above the line, voters may elect to record only a first preference vote above the line. Accordingly, any vote above the line must reflect a vote for at least 15 candidates below the line. To ensure that this is the case, only those groups that include at least 15 candidates will be permitted to apply for a group voting square above the line. Groups of two or more candidates will still be permitted to be on the ballot papers, as required under the Constitution. However, groups with fewer than 15 candidates will not be eligible to apply for a group voting square above the line. A voter who wishes to vote for a smaller group will need to do so by voting below the line.

With the introduction of optional preferential voting above the line, it becomes particularly important to ensure that each group represented above the line includes at least 15 candidates, for the constitutional reasons I have outlined. Accordingly, a new requirement will be introduced to deal with the situation where a group represented above the line is left with fewer than 15 candidates because of the death or disqualification of a candidate. All groups represented above the line will be required to lodge with the Electoral Commissioner the name of another group represented above the line to which the first group wishes its preferences to be directed if it is left with fewer than 15 candidates because of death or disqualification.

Most of the 264 candidates who contested the last Legislative Council election were endorsed by one of the 81 parties represented on the ballot paper. In contrast, only 27 parties contested the 1995 Legislative Council election. It is well known that the current electoral system for the Legislative Council allows at least one or two candidates to be elected virtually by chance. This has led to a lottery approach to Legislative Council elections, where parties are formed and people contest the election under a catchy party name in the hope of winning
Page 1593
the prize of election to Parliament. The Government proposes to discourage the lottery approach by tightening the minimum requirements for registering a political party to ensure that only genuine parties with at least some level of community support may contest elections.

The real advantage of having a registered party is that its name may be printed on the ballot paper. The bill does not make it more difficult for people to run as Independents or to form groups for the Legislative Council elections. However, if a group is not nominated by a registered party, it will appear as an unnamed group on the ballot paper and will not be able to take advantage of a catchy name which may not reflect the real platform or philosophy of a party. The bill will increase the minimum number of members required to register a party from 200 members to 1,000 members. A minimum of 1,000 members is not an unreasonable requirement for a State election. One thousand members represent less than 1 per cent of the votes that were required for a quota in the March 1999 Legislative Council elections.

The bill will also abolish registration based on parliamentary representation. Currently, a party that has at least one member who is a member of Parliament is entitled to be registered, regardless of the size of its membership. Abolishing this special treatment for parliamentary parties will ensure that all parties are required to have and maintain a minimum level of community support. I acknowledge that this proposal was initially raised by the Hon. J. S. Tingle. The Government considered the proposal on its merits and adopted it as part of this electoral reform proposal.

At the last election there were many allegations that the same people were registering many parties. To ensure that a group of people cannot register multiple parties, the bill provides that the same member cannot be relied upon by more than one party to qualify or continue to qualify for registration. The Electoral Commissioner will be able to compare the list of 1,000 members submitted by each party to ensure that no member is relied upon by two or more parties. The bill does not provide that a person may not be a member of more than one party. However, each registered party will have to have 1,000 members who are not counted by any other party to satisfy the minimum membership requirements.

The bill, and the associated regulations, will ensure that the increase in minimum membership requirements, and the other party registration changes introduced in the bill, will not apply to local government elections. The Government recognises that very small parties may wish to contest council elections on local issues. The bill introduces a requirement that a party must submit with its application for registration membership declaration forms completed by each of its minimum 1,000 members. Currently, a party must include in its application for registration a list of the names, addresses and signatures of the minimum number of members.

There were allegations in the March 1999 election campaign that some voters named as members of a party thought that they were signing a petition rather than joining a party. The membership declaration forms will introduce a more formal process for confirming that a person genuinely wishes to be a member of a party, and will prevent parties potentially tricking voters into joining parties to satisfy the minimum membership requirements.

The bill introduces a requirement that each party pay a one-off registration fee of $3,500. This fee is not designed to restrict registration of a party to the wealthy. The fee represents only $3.50 per member for the minimum number of members, and $3.50 is a small amount to ask each member to contribute to a party. If party members are not willing to pay $3.50 each for the party to be registered, their true support for the party may be questioned. Currently, no fee applies to registration of a party, despite the high cost of advertising and approving applications for registration as a political party.

A rush of microparty registrations occurred before the March 1999 election, which saw many parties with no track record of membership or community support and proffering dubious supporting documentation spring up overnight. The bill introduces a restriction on newly registered parties. For the first 12 months after their registration registered parties will not be able to nominate or endorse candidates for an election.

In addition, during this period their party name will not be able to appear on ballot papers and they will not be able to register electoral matter for an election. This will ensure that a party must maintain the minimum number of members for a period of 12 months before it can contest an election. It is designed to ensure that only parties with membership and community support, and a genuine desire to participate in the political process, are able to obtain the benefits of registration.

The 12-month restriction will also apply to a registered party which has its registration cancelled.
Page 1594
If the party is reregistered, it will have to wait for 12 months before it may nominate or endorse candidates for an election. The 12-month restriction will not apply to existing registered parties that continue their registration by complying with the new registration requirements in accordance with the transitional provisions in the bill. Candidates who are members of a registered party and who contest elections during the period when the party cannot nominate or endorse candidates will not be excluded from obtaining public funding under the Election Funding Act 1981 if they satisfy the conditions for such funding. However, they will be eligible for funding only as Independents or as non-party groups. They will not be eligible for funding as a party.

The Government has been careful to ensure that this bill does not advantage existing parties at the expense of new parties. Existing parties will be required to satisfy the new minimum membership requirements, lodge the requisite number of membership declaration forms and pay the registration fee by 31 December 2000. If existing parties do not comply with these requirements, their registration will be cancelled by the Electoral Commissioner. The bill provides for the Electoral Commissioner to issue a warning to parties that do not comply with the new requirements by 31 December 2000 before cancelling their registration. This ensures that no party will have its registration cancelled because it inadvertently fails to comply with the new requirements.

The bill introduces a requirement that registered parties lodge annual returns with the Electoral Commissioner by 30 June each year. The annual returns will be required to include information showing that the party continues to have at least 1,000 members. It is intended to commence this legislation next year. As a consequence, because existing parties will have to provide information on registration and prove compliance with the new requirements by 31 December 2000, it is proposed that the first annual return thereafter for existing parties would be required by 30 June 2002. In addition, the Electoral Commissioner will be empowered to require a registered party or an applicant for registration to provide further information in relation to its compliance with the minimum membership requirements. These provisions will ensure that parties continue to satisfy the minimum membership requirements.

This proposal is necessary to address public concern about Legislative Council elections. It is designed to shrink the tablecloth-size ballot paper without interfering with the ability of genuine small parties to contest Legislative Council elections. Control over the flow of preferences will be determined by voters. It is a measured, balanced proposal that will prevent unscrupulous people from manipulating the electoral system. It is the product of consultation and co-operation, and the Government acknowledges the contribution made by members of the Legislative Council to the development of this proposal. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. H. Jobling.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.34 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Sexual Assault Communications Privilege) Bill seeks to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 by re-enacting the provisions of division 1B of part 3.10 of the Evidence Act 1995, with modifications, in order to address issues arising out of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Young (1999) NSWCCA 166 and the experiences of those working with the privilege since the Evidence Act provisions were commenced. The principal purpose of the bill is to redress the finding of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Young’s case that the sexual assault communications privilege enacted in division 1B of part 3.10 of the Evidence Act did not apply to the production of documents by subpoena. The court also declined to extend the common law doctrine of public interest immunity to encompass sexual assault communications.

The consequence of the decision in Young’s case is that a person who is entitled to assert the privilege when an attempt is made to adduce evidence of a sexual assault communication in a criminal proceeding is unable to assert the same privilege when a document is produced to the court by way of a subpoena or other procedure. The practical result of this decision is that a party - usually the defence - may inspect sexual assault counsellors’ notes obtained on subpoena, unless a court takes the view that there is no
Page 1595
legitimate forensic purpose in allowing such access. This is so even if later in the proceedings an attempt to adduce such material in evidence may be thwarted by the present provisions of part 3.10, division 1B of the Evidence Act.

The Government always intended that the sexual assault communications privilege should be capable of application in appropriate cases at all stages of the trial process. So that there is no unwarranted disclosure of confidential communications made by a sexual assault victim, I now introduce this bill.

Because sexual assault communications privilege is primarily invoked in the course of criminal trials, the bill transfers the sexual assault communications privilege from the Evidence Act into the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and applies the privilege in criminal proceedings - which are defined as proceedings relating to the trial or sentencing of a person for an offence, whether or not a sexual assault offence - and includes proceedings relating to an order under part 15A of the Crimes Act, which relates to apprehended violence. The bill also amends the Evidence Act to apply the privilege in civil proceedings which arises out of the same acts as constituted an offence or alleged offence, in earlier criminal proceedings.

The test for setting aside the sexual assault communications privilege in this bill is the same as that in the Evidence Act provisions the bill replaces. It is applied both in relation to documents sought to be produced and to the adducing of evidence. In both circumstances the court must be satisfied, before it permits inspection of the document or documents or the adducing of the evidence, that the contents of the document or documents or the evidence to be adduced has substantial probative value; that other like evidence is not available; and that the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of protected confidences and protecting the principal confider from harm is substantially outweighed by the public interest in allowing inspection of the document or documents or the adducing of the evidence.

It will not generally be possible for the court to have enough information about the case which will be presented at preliminary criminal proceedings - which are defined as meaning committal proceedings and bail proceedings - to determine whether maintenance of the sexual assault communications privilege should be allowed. For this reason the bill provides for an absolute privilege at this stage. In a similar vein, the bill provides for the court to put aside a determination on whether a document should be produced to a party for inspection to a point in the proceedings when it is able to apply the test.

The bill also addresses a number of other issues arising out of Young’s case and the experiences of those who have worked with the legislation since its proclamation. Specific matters addressed in the bill include the definition of counselling communication. In R v Young Mr Justice James observed that the only confidences capable of protection under the current Evidence Act privilege were the alleged victim’s own ruminations or, more happily expressed, the alleged victim’s own confidential communications.

Clearly, potential access by defendants to the views of others involved in the process of sexual assault counselling - such as the counsellor’s responses to a protected confider, or observations or treatment details concerning a protected confider communicated between counsellors who are concerned with the same case - will result in the therapeutic basis for the counselling being undermined in just the same way as if the protected confider’s own ruminations were accessible.

Accordingly, the definition of "counselling communication" is expanded to incorporate all communications made in the course of counselling, including communications by a counsellor to the confider, between counsellors about a protected confider and communications between a counsellor and a person present to facilitate the counselling session - for instance, the non-abusive parent of a child sexual assault victim.

I shall now deal with the definition of "document recording a protected confidence". The case of Young also raised an issue concerning what amounted to the contents of a document for the purpose of the privilege. So as to clarify this issue a definition of what amounts to a "document recording a protected confidence" is provided in the bill, to the effect that it includes any part of a document that records a protected confidence and includes any report, observation, opinion, advice, recommendation or other matter that relates to the protected confidence made by a protected confider. Next I deal with the definition of "protected confider". Because the definition of "counselling communication" has been expanded, the definition of "protected confider" now includes any person who made a protected confidence.

The victim - or alleged victim - of a sexual assault who makes or receives a protected confidence or about whom a protected confidence is
Page 1596
made is defined as the "principal protected confider". Other protected confiders may include counsellors or persons present in a counselling session for the purpose of facilitating the counselling. The principal protected confider - the alleged victim of the sexual assault - is the person for whom maintenance of the privilege is most important. For this reason, the notice provisions have been amended in the bill to formalise a process which has been put in place by the police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning notification of the principal protected confider about the intention of a party to adduce evidence of otherwise privileged material.

The bill also requires other protected confiders to be notified where possible. However, there is scope for the court to give leave to permit inspection of documents or the adducing of evidence where notice has not been given to confiders - other than the principal confider. The notice provision has also been amended to provide guidance as to the information to be provided in the notice. Notwithstanding the increased range of communications that may be protected by the privilege the bill makes it clear that only the principal protected confider is able to consent to the privilege being waived.

To provide certainty with respect to whether or not consent to the privilege being waived has been given, the bill requires that the consent must be in writing and specifically refer to the particular document or evidence which may be otherwise privileged. It has become apparent that it is relatively common for defence counsel in sexual assault matters to seek access to material used in an application for victims compensation. This material may include information arising from a counselling relationship. A cognate amendment to the Victims Compensation Act seeks to categorically close this avenue of investigation. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. H. Jobling.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.44 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Professional Standards Amendment Bill amends the Professional Standards Act 1994 to provide that a limited liability scheme which has been approved by the Professional Standards Council can provide for members of an occupational association to opt out of the scheme. The Professional Standards Act provides for occupational associations to implement limited liability schemes for their members. Schemes may require members to hold professional indemnity insurance, participate in risk management schemes, and be subject to complaints and disciplinary procedures.

If occupational associations implement schemes a statutory cap on damages applies to their members for some types of civil liability. Schemes must be approved by the Professional Standards Council established under the Act. Before the council approves a scheme it must advertise the proposed scheme and members of the public can comment on the schemes.

When considering a scheme the council must take into account the position of persons who may be affected by the limitation of liability set out in the scheme; the nature and level of claims against members of the association concerned; the risk management strategies of the occupational association; the cost and availability of insurance; and the standards determined by the occupational association in relation to insurance policies. The Act currently provides that a scheme may apply to all persons in an occupational group, or a specified class or classes of persons within an occupational association. The council has approved five schemes to date, including a scheme for solicitors and a scheme for chartered accountants and certified practising accountants. Each of those schemes provides for members of the relevant occupational groups to elect not to participate in the schemes.

Advice has been received that these schemes are likely to be invalid because although the Act allows for the exemption of a class or classes of persons from a scheme, the Act does not allow members of a class which is covered by the scheme to opt out of it. The bill before the House amends the Act to overcome this difficulty, by enabling individual schemes to provide for the exemption of certain persons from the scheme. The bill also validates the existing schemes for a limited period and makes other consequential amendments.

Of course, if a member of an occupational group opts out of a scheme, he or she will no longer have the benefit of limited liability which is conferred by the Act, and his or her assets may be placed at risk by an action for negligence or breach
Page 1597
of contract. Nevertheless, chartered accountants and certified practising accountants generally hold professional indemnity insurance and solicitors are generally also required to hold professional indemnity insurance, subject to the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 1987. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. H. Jobling.

Consideration resumed from 19 October.

Schedule 1

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.51 p.m.]: I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 3, Schedule 1. Insert after line 3:

[1] Section 71A

Insert after section 71:

71A Gambling warnings in advertising

(1) In this section:

Gambling advertising means any material, including pictures and symbols, that advertises or promotes, or can reasonably be taken to advertise or promote, gambling in general or the type of gambling that is available at the casino.

Gambling warning means:

(a) the following statement:

Is Gambling a Problem for You?
G-Line (NSW) is a Confidential, Anonymous and Free Counselling Service
Free Call 1800 633 635

or

(b) such other statement as may be prescribed by the regulations.

publish includes display or disseminate in any way, whether by oral, visual, written or other means (for example, dissemination by means of cinema, video, radio, electronics or television).

(2) Any gambling advertising published, or caused to be published, after the commencement of this section by the casino operator or a casino employee must include a gambling warning in accordance with this section.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(3) If the gambling advertising is published in written or printed form (for example in a newspaper or on a billboard), the gambling warning must:

(a) be in black against a white background, and

(b) be in bold Times Roman font, and

(c) occupy at least one fifth of the area used (both for text and space) for the gambling advertising.

(4) If the gambling advertising is published in visual or oral form (for example, on television or radio), the gambling warning must be given orally and must occupy at least one fifth of the duration of the advertisement.

(5) This section does not apply to any gambling advertising published in accordance with a contract or arrangement entered into before the commencement of this section.

(6) The casino operator must not after the commencement of this section enter into or extend the duration of any contract or arrangement for the publication of gambling advertising that does not comply with this section.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

The amendment relates to changes to warnings in gambling advertising. Honourable members will note that the amendment is reworked from the Government’s amendment and taken from the text in the schedule. The amendment would change the form of the letters used in the advertising from capital letters. Research on communication shows that capital letters do not have more impact than headings in which only the initial letter is capitalised.

The size and boldness of the letters and the wording is more important. The wording in the amendment has probably not been researched. It does not look particularly exciting. Honourable members would remember the wording "smoking is a health hazard" that existed for many years on tobacco packs. It was moved to the least conspicuous part of the tobacco pack and printed in the least contrasting colours so it would not be noticed.

I remember that one of the famous efforts of the British-American Tobacco Company was yellow on white. I have tried to specify that the wording must be in black on a white background, in bold Times Roman font, occupy at least one-fifth of the area and be in a specific point size on gambling machines. The amendment simply provides that any advertising must contain warnings. The ambit position of the Australian Democrats basically is no advertising for gambling at all. I had a spare amendment to hand just in case that was defeated owing to the lack of insight of some honourable
Page 1598
members. This is a fall-back position so that there is a warning about gambling.

We are moving backwards along the tobacco road. Tobacco advertising was eliminated a mere 40 years after it should have been. Before there were warnings, there were pathetic warnings and then no warnings. Now we have returned to having some warnings, which is the subject of this amendment. I trust that honourable members will not take the tobacco analogy too far so that it will take another 40 years to get to where we ought to be with regard to gambling and the whole cycle will take two generations to go from no gambling to tonnes of gambling, back to no gambling, with untold misery in between. I ask honourable members to accept these gambling warnings. As the Government is not willing to ban advertising of gambling, the advertising at least should carry warnings.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [3.55 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment. There is already a regulation-making power in section 170 of the Casino Control Act. The section provides:

In particular, regulations may be made for or with respect to any matter specified in Schedule 3.

Advertising relating to a casino is specified in schedule 3 to the Act. There is, therefore, adequate provision already in the Act to deal with gambling warnings in casino advertising. The amendment is not necessary. May I make the broader observation in light of comments that Government speakers have made already in this debate about the incorporation of matters that probably are better left to regulation rather than to hard-writing in the legislation. I agree with the assertion of the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans that there is a fair amount of evidence from various scientific authorities that upper case, lower case letters and bolding is a more effective form of communication than capitalised letters.

That is a technical issue based on research, and it is something that a Minister dealing with the general spirit of the legislation by regulation is better qualified to implement from time to time as research becomes available. It would seem to me to be a classic case of why some of these matters should be left to be dealt with in regulations rather than attempting to hard-write them into the bill. The other observation related to that that I would make is that the provision allows the Minister to make a determination. I am assured, although I have not spoken to the Minister yet, that on the production of such evidence the Minister would act appropriately and so change or prescribe the form of lettering for such advertising. Therefore, I urge honourable members to reject the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.57 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats amendment No. 2 and the Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 3 are very similar. The Christian Democratic Party has sought in relation to the Government’s proposed regulations to follow exactly the wording of the regulation so as not to change Government policy. The Christian Democratic Party seeks to incorporate the regulation in the bill, as I have explained before, to give greater weight and legal authority to the regulation or requirement that is headed in our amendment No. 3 "Dangers of gambling - notice to be displayed on gambling machines". It has the sample wording "Don’t let gambling take control of your life. Gambling can become addictive. Excessive gambling can ruin lives."

We accept that there may be some debate about the most powerful form of lettering to try to catch the attention of members of the public, particularly those who are gambling. However, we would, to assist the Government, support our amendment No. 3, which is in line with the actual wording of the regulation. The Christian Democratic Party will not oppose Australian Democrats amendment No. 2, but favours the policy approach that the Christian Democratic Party has been taking of using the same wording as the Government has exhibited in its draft regulations.

The Hon. I. COHEN [3.59 p.m.]: The Greens support Australian Democrats amendment No. 2, which has slightly stronger wording than is currently in the regulations. In line with the position in the tobacco industry, which is required to have warning labels, the Greens consider that warnings on gambling machines in certain establishments is a worthy and appropriate approach. Whilst a warning will not stop people gambling, it will remind them of the implications of excessive or addictive gambling.

Amendment negatived.

Pursuant to sessional orders progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

Page 1599

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice. Why did the Director-General of the Department of Juvenile Justice publicly deny that Richard Taavale was about to be transferred to the adult prison system? Why did the officer claim that Taavale was merely depressed at the possibility that he could be transferred to prison? Why was the media told that Taavale was due to be transferred from Minda to a brand new, purpose-built facility at Mount Penang next Monday? Why did the Minister allow such misleading and untruthful statements to be made to the media, given that on Sunday, prior to his escape, Taavale signed an inmate lodgment form for transfer to the Department of Corrective Services?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: As I advised the House yesterday, at the time of the sentencing of this individual in September 1998 the trial judge directed that he be held in a juvenile facility until the age of 21. I am further advised that the offender had appeared in Bankstown Local Court the Friday before his escape on charges relating to an earlier incident at Minda Juvenile Justice Centre. He was refused bail by the magistrate and remanded to an adult correctional facility.

Department of Juvenile Justice staff at Minda were preparing the detainee for transfer to an adult correctional facility. Before the transfer could take place he effected his escape from Minda. I reiterate: All of the circumstances surrounding his escape are the subject of an investigation. If any issue of negligence by staff arises, disciplinary action will follow. I make it clear that such a breach of security is unacceptable.

The comments of the director-general to the media were based on information he had at the time. The information I have been given is that the offender appeared in Bankstown Local Court the Friday before the escape, was refused bail by the magistrate and remanded to an adult correctional facility. Juvenile justice staff were preparing the detainee for transfer to an adult correctional facility but before the transfer occurred he effected his escape from Minda.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Will the Minister advise the House of the benefits to safety from an update of the Department of Mineral Resources records of mine workings?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The regular, intelligent and appropriate questions of the Hon. A. B. Manson enable me to keep the House informed of issues relevant to the resources industry, about which the Opposition fails to ask any questions. I know that members of the Liberal Party are not interested in jobs in regional New South Wales, but I thought members of the National Party were. I put the Opposition on notice, especially the National Party, I am taking note of how many questions it asks that are relevant to my portfolio. I will take note also of the subject matter of those questions and their relevance to regional New South Wales. The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn, for example, does not seem to know what his shadow portfolio is. He has not asked me a question during question time in the past six sitting days. I think that he is suffering heat stroke from too many trips to the Kokoda Track.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Point of order: The Minister is attempting to vilify the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn. I have forgotten the subject of the question asked of the Minister. Whatever it was, the Minister has taken so much time to abuse the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn that I am sure he too has forgotten.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Ministers may answer questions however they choose.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I commend the Hon. A. B. Manson for his continued interest in the mineral resources portfolio. This project, which is of great significance for mine safety, will help colliery surveyors locate all records of past mine workings in the locality of a present-day mine. Over the next two years all records will be collected from more than 900 coalmines that have operated in New South Wales since the early 1800s. The project will include a thorough search of regional libraries, historical societies, State archives and company and government records.

Plans showing the mine tunnels will be scanned into a database. These images will provide an important reference point for colliery surveyors. The original plans will be filed separately and their use will be restricted to stop damage and prevent loss. An important part of the project will be the preparation of a State map showing the location of all colliery workings. From a safety viewpoint, the ready availability of workings information will enable colliery management to carefully plan mining operations near old workings.

Page 1600

The second part of the project will be to provide similar information for all metalliferous mines in New South Wales. As a result, the Carr Government will be able to readily provide mine workings information to all parties that have an interest in mining. This database will be accessible and available to the mining fraternity throughout New South Wales in order to prevent any future mishaps such as occurred in Gretley.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice. Is it a fact that a report, recently released by the National Drug and Alcohol Centre, on a 30-month study of 229 marijuana users found that marijuana is a drug of addiction with severe withdrawal symptoms for its users? Is it a fact that this study found that more than 200,000 Australians are addicted to marijuana? As marijuana is an addictive drug with harmful health side effects, will the Government reject any moves or proposals by the drug lobby to soften the drug laws by legalising marijuana for the treatment of cancer and AIDS patients - a policy that has been a complete failure in California?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not conversant with the study referred to in the question of the honourable member. In any event, as the matter is not within my portfolio, I will refer the question to the appropriate Minister for a considered response.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice. Does the Minister stand by the statements of her director-general that at the time of Taavale’s escape, "there were four staff on duty in that courtyard with six young people at the time"? Does the Minister agree that those claims made by the director-general to the national media were also wrong? Were only three staff on duty at the time? Was the fourth person in the area off duty? Does the Minister agree that the group was not all located in the courtyard as claimed?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I am advised by the Department of Juvenile Justice that at the time of the escape there were four staff on duty for six detainees. Once again I reiterate that the circumstances surrounding this escape are subject to an investigation. There clearly has been an unacceptable breach of security, I do not back away from that. The community has a right to be concerned and I have made it very clear that there will be an investigation. If it is found that staff were negligent and at fault, appropriate disciplinary action will be taken. I do not back away from that; it is an unacceptable situation.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I ask a supplementary question. Has the director-general informed the Minister that the ladder used by Taavale to get over the wall was obtained from a room, the lock on the door to which had been reported broken more than one month ago? In view of the announcement of an inquiry, made by the Minister today will she guarantee that there will be a full and open inquiry into not only the events and circumstances leading to Taavale’s escape but also the management decisions that facilitated the escape and the director-general’s blatant attempts to cover up incompetence after the event?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I did not announce an inquiry today. From the time I became aware of the escape I have said that an urgent investigation would be undertaken by the Department of Juvenile Justice into the circumstances surrounding the escape. The question of how much of the report of that investigation will be made publicly available will be subject to its detail. The report could raise disciplinary and security issues that would be inappropriate to raise in the public domain.

I have said from the time I learnt of the escape that an inquiry would be undertaken by the Department of Juvenile Justice. I might add that inquiries are undertaken after any escape from centres managed by the Department of Juvenile Justice. It is my understanding that the director-general’s comments to the Sydney Morning Herald were based on his understanding of the details surrounding the escape at the time. Further, I have been advised that the offender appeared in Bankstown Local Court on the Friday before the escape on charges relating to an earlier incident. At that appearance, bail was refused and he was remanded to an adult correctional facility.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. What measures are being taken to provide better access to the Workers Compensation Resolution Service in regional New South Wales?

Page 1601

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Increasingly the Government is enhancing services within the Department of Industrial Relations to citizens of rural and regional New South Wales. Last week I opened the new Workers Compensation Resolution Service [WCRS] premises and the refurbished Department of Industrial Relations Contact Centre at Coffs Harbour. The WCRS commenced as a pilot conciliation service for disputed workers compensation claims in March 1997 based on the recommendations of Sir Laurence Street.

Following favourable independent reviews I gave approval for the WCRS to expand its operations. The reviews established that the conciliation pilot had been a success and would result in substantial savings to the scheme. That has been reinforced in a recent review of WCRS by Trowbridge Consulting which identified savings in legal and investigation costs of approximately $19 million per year as a result of the operation of WCRS. The aim has been to establish a workers compensation conciliation service that ensures disputes are resolved quickly and economically.

WCRS is now able to resolve a much larger proportion of workers compensation disputes. In doing so, WCRS will be able to significantly increase its impact on achieving savings for the New South Wales workers compensation scheme through the conciliation of disputes. The WCRS receives an average of 2,100 applications for conciliation each month.

Of the 2,100 applications for conciliation, approximately 55 are from the North Coast region. Hence the Government is providing that service based in Coffs Harbour to North Coast applicant workers and respondent insurers. That matter has been very well received by the parties. The launch of the services was well attended, and I am glad to be able to expand services of both workers compensation and industrial relations throughout the State.

The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Agriculture. Will the Treasurer acknowledge the devastating impact dairy industry deregulation will have on New South Wales farmers, one third of whom are likely to be put out of business? Is the Treasurer aware that before the recent Victorian State election the Australian Labor Party [ALP] promised a moratorium on the deregulation of the dairy industry?

As deregulation was an initiative of the discredited former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett and his economic-rationalist National Party associates, will the Treasurer approach his newly elected Labor colleagues in Victoria to keep their moratorium promise and abandon the Kennett-inspired dairy industry deregulation scheme due to come into effect on 1 July 2000? Will the Treasurer acknowledge that if he succeeds in convincing the Victorian ALP to keep its promise, he will save farmers in New South Wales and countless other jobs in this State, as well as stopping increases in the price of milk and a reduction in the quality of milk, which otherwise will be suffered by millions of people in this State?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. D. E. Oldfield had just reminded me that I am the Minister in this House who represents the Minister for Agriculture. Obviously members of the National Party have never asked one question of the Minister in this House representing the Minister for Agriculture.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: The Minister for Agriculture is in the other place.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is precisely the point I make. It is incredible in the many months since the election not one question has been asked by a member of the National Party of the Minister in this House representing the Minister for Agriculture. Not one question about agriculture has been asked of the Government by any of the four National Party members in this House.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Point of order: The Minister was asked a question. He clearly knows nothing about agriculture as he knows nothing about any of the matters I raise with him week in, week out. He is filibustering because he has no idea how to answer the question. Madam President, I ask you to direct him to answer the question rather than abuse the members of the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the honourable member of my earlier ruling.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: To the point of order: It is true that the Treasurer took the question, but it is also true that he would not have been asked a question as the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture because the Special Minister of State represents in this House the Minister for Agriculture.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: What a pathetic performance from the once great National Party!
Page 1602
There are four members of the National Party in this House and not one of them has asked one question of the Minister for Agriculture since the election. No wonder Country Labor is sweeping the bush!

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. As I have ruled many times, Ministers may answer questions however they choose.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Point of order: On many occasions during the 11 years I have been a member of this Chamber the Chair has ruled that honourable members should not wear badges. I note that the Hon. D. E. Oldfield is wearing a badge.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Previous rulings, including one by former Deputy-President the Hon. D. J. Gay, related to the size of badges. Badges bigger than the Legislative Council badge are not to be worn in the Chamber.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: We are seven months into this parliamentary term and members opposite, including four National Party members, have not asked one question of the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture. They have not asked one question because, as I said on another occasion recently, they spend all their time in the coffee shops in Glebe. That is the problem. They should be ashamed of themselves.

If the Opposition asked me more questions about agriculture, I would probably be in a position to answer the Hon. D. E. Oldfield’s question. However, as I am not in a position to answer the honourable member’s question, I will refer it to my colleague the Minister for Agriculture. Members opposite should be ashamed of themselves because they have given up on the bush; they are not interested in the bush at all. The only thing they are concerned about is the leadership deadlock in the National Party.

In seven months, Opposition members have not asked one question about agriculture; nor have they been able to resolve the leadership deadlock in the National Party. In seven months there have been two votes for the Hon. D. F. Moppett and two votes for the Hon. D. J. Gay. It is two all.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Do you have yours resolved?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is all sorted out. That is more than the National Party can do. National Party members should sort out their leadership and start focusing on the concerns of rural and regional New South Wales instead of being obsessed with their internal problems. Not one question about agriculture in seven months!

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Why has the Attorney allowed WorkCover to release a 101-page plain English guide to the draft occupational health and safety regulation 2000 when the regulation itself has only 196 pages? Will the Minister order WorkCover to release a further plain English guide to the plain English guide?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am sure the honourable member would not oppose the idea of a plain English guide to the regulation being released. Knowing a little about drafting and legal documents, I would have thought that the fact that the guide might be significantly longer than the regulation is not irregular or untoward per se. If a document, albeit in a lengthier way, explains clearly to citizens, employers and trade unions -

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: It is actually shorter.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: If the plain English guide is much shorter -

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: The Minister hasn’t even read it.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The point seems to be so obscure as to be almost irrelevant. If the plain English guide is clear - and I do not detect any hint in the honourable member’s question about a lack of clarity - explanatory, understandable and comprehensible, so be it. It sounds like a very good idea to me.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Can the Treasurer update the House on the progress of the Albatross Aviation Technology Park in Nowra?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: The Minister hasn’t been there so he would not know.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have been there. In fact, I was there recently. I believe it was the third occasion I have visited Albatross Aviation Technology Park. The State Government is doing a great deal to help create highly skilled jobs in regional New South Wales - the sort of jobs that mean young people from regional areas do not have
Page 1603
to move to Sydney to further their careers. The Government sees a positive future for regional New South Wales. That positive future was on show in Nowra recently when I opened Kaman Aerospace International’s multimillion dollar helicopter support facility.

The Government worked hard to convince Kaman to locate its new Australian facility at Nowra’s Albatross Aviation Technology Park. Indeed, I even went to the United States of America to convince the people at the Kaman headquarters to locate their facility at Nowra. Kaman is the technology park’s first tenant, and I must say that it is quite a catch. The State Government and Shoalhaven City Council have been working closely to establish the park, which is expected to generate 500 new full-time jobs during the next decade. The opening of the Kaman facility at Albatross Aviation Technology Park is a big step in the right direction.

Kaman will employ some 100 highly skilled staff in Nowra over the next two years. The $6.5 million facility will be used by Kaman to help it supply and maintain 11 Seasprite helicopters for the Royal Australian Navy. Kaman’s operations at the technology park will have major flow-on effects for businesses in Nowra and, indeed, throughout the State. It is estimated that the local content requirements of the helicopter contracts will pump more than $200 million into the Australian aerospace industry.

Nowra-based companies are already responding to this opportunity. For example, the Computer Sciences Corporation recently announced that it will expand its Nowra staff to 40 to provide support to the Seasprite program. I wish Kaman Aerospace every success in Nowra, and I look forward to sharing with the House other success stories from Albatross Aviation Technology Park.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment. Given that the previous Minister for the Environment stated at a public meeting in Toongabbie in March this year that the Government would deliver at least $3 million to assist in purchasing Old Toongabbie Forest, can the Minister inform the House when those funds will be forthcoming to save this priceless urban bushland, which is now at risk of destruction by developers?

In light of the classification of this site as one of great significance by the National Parks and Wildlife Service in its urban bushland biodiversity survey, what action is the Government taking to safeguard the site? What is the Government doing to assist in lobbying the Federal Government to obtain matching funds from the Natural Heritage Trust for this site? If the Government is unable to assist in saving Old Toongabbie Forest, does the Minister agree that the funds allocated for preserving urban bushland are woefully inadequate?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I am aware of some of the issues surrounding Old Toongabbie Forest in that discussions between the National Parks and Wildlife Service and residents who are Friends of Old Toongabbie Forest are ongoing. However, I do not have a detailed response to the honourable member’s complex question so I will take it on notice and undertake to get an answer from the Minister for the Environment.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I ask the Treasurer: What stage has the Government reached with the Commonwealth to ensure that the liquor industry and bookmakers are not overtaxed with the introduction of the goods and services tax from next year?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have indicated before in relation to gaming that all the States, to my understanding, have given a guarantee to the Commonwealth Government and the gaming industry that there will not be double taxation. It will be necessary for the precise arrangements to be worked out to ensure that that is the case. In relation to liquor, I am not aware of any commitments except to vineyards in relation to cellar door sales.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Quite a few negotiations are going on at the moment.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That could well be but they have not come to my attention.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Bookmakers?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of any details.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Will the Treasurer advise the House of the latest developments in the growth of New South Wales as a centre for biotechnology industries?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is an appropriate question. Last Wednesday I opened the
Page 1604
Johnson and Johnson research centre at the Australian Technology Park. I hasten to assure members that it has nothing to do with the Hon. J. R. Johnson.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: The technology park certainly has.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, the member has been involved with that, as have many other members at various times. The decision by a leading American company to locate a research facility here in Australia is a mark of confidence in New South Wales as a centre for Australia’s biotechnology industries. And it is a mark of confidence in the skills and ingenuity of Australian scientists. The world market for biotechnology is expected to grow to about $58 billion by 2001. With Johnson and Johnson research being established at the Australian Technology Park, New South Wales is set to play an increasingly important role in this growth industry of the new millennium.

Johnson and Johnson is the world’s largest integrated health care company, and its products extend beyond the familiar household products. The company’s Australian research arm conducts leading-edge research and development, including work on the Australian derived gene shears technology. Australian biotechnology research is expected to double in size over the next five years, generating 15,000 new jobs. Sydney is the headquarters for more than 80 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and the base for a third of biotechnology start-up companies in Australia. Already the industry in New South Wales generates about $2.5 billion a year, provides 7,000 high-tech jobs, and creates annual exports worth $600 million.

The Government is working to develop the Australian Technology Park and the associated universities and research institutes as the nucleus for the future growth of the biotechnology industry in New South Wales. More than $2 million has been provided by the Government toward the cost of establishing the Australian Technology Park. In addition, the Government has committed $12 million towards the establishment of a high performance computing centre at the park, which will provide the computing power essential for high technology research.

The Government is also implementing the New South Wales action plan for biotechnology, which focuses on developing business and management skills in start-up companies, enhancing investment, and promoting exports. The State Government will continue to encourage the development of biotechnology industries in New South Wales.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question is to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development. I refer to the article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald regarding the release of a University of New South Wales report into the poverty line split between city and country, particularly the situation in the Newcastle suburbs of Windale, Islington, Carrington, Tighes Hill and Wickham.

What will the Government do to remedy this appalling situation in a city that has been irrevocably changed due to the closure of the steel mills, its backbone, and which now faces social disparity and dislocation? Will the Government review the situation in the Hunter urgently, where just one suburb alone, Windale, ranks first for unemployment, second for long-term unemployment, third for the proportion of residents who left school before 15, fifth for lowest income and sixth for unskilled workers? The list goes on.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Point of order: The question is far too long. The first two sentences would have been adequate. The question gives a whole lot of additional information that is available in the article.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: I have finished the question, Madam President.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member has finished the question.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I usually read the Sydney Morning Herald but I missed that article this morning. I will familiarise myself with it. I apologise to the honourable member for not being aware of the content of the article. I make just a couple of points about the Hunter and the general impact of the closure of the steelworks on the city of Newcastle and the Hunter region. This may come as a surprise to some members but prior to my becoming a Minister I had personal knowledge of the Newcastle and Hunter business community and the concern about the Newcastle economy because I was the managing director of two excellent radio stations operating in the Hunter Valley. Very good people worked for them.

During that time I developed an association with Newcastle, which, of course, is one of the great Labor cities. in my previous life as General Secretary of the Labor Party I had a lot to do with the Newcastle area, though not always as its favourite son. Newcastle is a great city with a fantastic future.

Page 1605

Newcastle and its suburbs have been through a fair bit of trauma as a result not only of the recent closure of the steelworks but of the gradual winding down of secondary manufacturing industry. Because of its port and the mines, Newcastle was built up during the period when Australia’s secondary industry consolidated. Newcastle exists in the shadow of the Sydney metropolitan area but is not close enough to share some of the advantages of Sydney. It has a great natural environment, which I think many people are unaware of.

It has very distinctive natural gifts, from its beaches through to its great port. I, for one, have a great deal of confidence that, with a progressive Government such as ours, initiatives such as the Hunter Advantage Fund, very fine members of Parliament, and a community that has shown the capacity to adjust to new circumstances, not only through this hardship but through some generations of hardship, Newcastle and the Hunter will come through the challenges created by the closure of the steelworks.

It may come as a surprise to some honourable members, but Newcastle has the potential to take advantage of a lot of great opportunities. It has a first-class university facility, and a lot of new industries are starting to locate to the Hunter. All members of this House would do well to look at the difficulties experienced in various parts of the Hunter community. The best way for all people in the Hunter to advance is for them to take advantage of the Hunter’s natural gifts. This Government has been doing that for some time and will continue to do so.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is directed to the Treasurer, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is it a fact that it is now a waste of time proceeding any further with the registration of Country Labor? Is it a fact that Country Labor died when it was rolled on compulsory competitive tendering [CCT] at this week’s caucus meeting? Why did the people of regional New South Wales have to rely on a member outside the Country Labor section - a member with an eastern suburbs seat, the former Minister for Local Government, Ernie Page - to move a motion against CCT at that caucus meeting? Does the motion, which failed on factional lines, mean that the factions within the Labor Party -

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: Point of order: The purpose of question time is for members to ask Ministers questions about public administration. The question that the Hon. D. J. Gay is asking relates to a political party and not to public administration.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: To the point of order: I was asking the Leader of the Government, representing the Premier, about a matter to do with compulsory competitive tendering. That is certainly a matter that affects this State, and there is a concern that the factions in the Labor Party are stronger than any particular alliance for country people. I know that the Labor Party does not want me to ask this question, because its child is still-born in this situation. County Labor has failed its first and major test.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. Standing Order 29 provides that Ministers may be asked questions about public affairs, and compulsory competitive tendering is obviously a matter of public affairs.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Where does that leave caucus in relation to the union movement and the Australian Labor Party conference? Does the motion, which failed on factional lines, mean that the factions remain stronger than Country Labor? Where does that leave the five Ministers of this House - including the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council - who passed my motion on CCT a week ago?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I understand the sensitivity of National Party members of this House to both the formation and success of Country Labor. The role of Country Labor is, of course, to fulfil the job that the National Party once pretended to do on behalf of regional and country New South Wales. After seven months of this Parliament the four National Party members in this House have not asked one question about agriculture.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: We ask them of the Minister for Agriculture, in the lower House.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: We don’t ask them of you because you don’t represent the Minister.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Members opposite say they ask such questions in the lower House. I am informed that since the election, Country Labor’s eight members of Parliament have asked more questions than all of the National Party’s 13 members of Parliament. Obviously Country Labor has a very important role to play in developing New South Wales and protecting the wellbeing of the communities and the people of country and regional New South Wales.

Page 1606

The National Party gave up representing the people of country New South Wales a long time ago. Members of the National Party are interested only in their internal squabbling and their internal leadership difficulties. Do not worry, Country Labor will look after the bush and all of the people who live in country New South Wales.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations a question without notice. I preface my question by warning Opposition members that if I were to return to the front bench they could expect some more stonewalling answers. Will the Attorney General inform the House what the Victims of Crime Bureau is doing to deliver quality services and support to victims of violent crime in New South Wales?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Victims of Crime Bureau was established in 1997 pursuant to the Victims Rights Act 1996. The bureau, in partnership with the Sydney City Mission, runs a 24-hour victims support service. In 1998 the service took almost 10,000 calls from victims of crime. The service can refer victims of crime to more than 2,500 service providers around New South Wales and Australia. Those service providers are listed on a comprehensive database maintained by the bureau.

To assist the Victims Compensation Tribunal to administer the Approved Counselling Scheme, the bureau has approved almost 400 qualified counsellors throughout New South Wales who provide therapeutic counselling to victims of violent crime. To ensure that these counsellors are of the highest calibre, the bureau has developed a code of conduct and statement of fitness which all counsellors are required to sign.

A recent initiative of the bureau relates to interstate counselling. Victims of violent crimes that took place in New South Wales who now reside in other Australian States and Territories can access the Approval Counselling Scheme. To date 100 victims have accessed this initiative, the majority being from Queensland and Victoria. The bureau plays an integral role in linking the key Government and non-Government agencies that provide services to victims of crime. One strategy to achieve this linkage is an interagency forum which is convened by the bureau on a quarterly basis to facilitate a whole-of-government approach to the delivery of services to victims of crime.

As part of its role in monitoring the Charter of Victims Rights the bureau piloted a regional forum for government agencies on the Central Coast. The forum, held in May 1999, was convened in partnership with the New South Wales Police Service, New South Wales Health, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Central Coast Community Legal Centre. The aim of the forum was to provide information, share initiatives, and provide participants with an opportunity to develop or review agency policies and practices to ensure that victims’ rights are protected and promoted. Two further forums are to be held in 1999, in the Hunter and the Central West regions.

The bureau produced a video called "Your Day in Court" and a booklet to assist victims of crime who are required to attend as witnesses in the Local or District Court. The video was awarded a gold plaque in the category of "Human Relations - Social Interest" at the International Communications Film and Video Competition, Chicago Film Festival. The bureau continues to be an integral part of the Government’s response to victims of crime and has established an excellent reputation with government agencies and community groups.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: I ask the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation, a question without notice. In relation to the Snowy Hydro Scheme, the Snowy River is now receiving less than 1 per cent of its original flow of water. I also understand that a request has been made for a return to 28 per cent of the original water flow to save the Snowy River.

According to the Total Environment Centre Inc, the new Labor leader of Victoria has undertaken to support the 28 per cent flow. Since most of the river is within the boundary of New South Wales, what is the Government’s plan to redirect the flow of water to the Snowy River? What measures will the Government take to bring back the previous social, economic, cultural and environmental values of the river?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his question, which obviously deals with a number of very serious issues in respect of the Snowy River and the Snowy Mountains Authority. The question clearly has ramifications across portfolios. I might choose, rather, to draw the attention of the honourable member to the report of the Webster inquiry. In the meantime I will obtain a considered answer for the honourable member. No doubt this matter will be the subject of further debate and report to the House.

Page 1607

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship. In asking this question I need to explain that recently the Powerhouse Museum purchased a fifth century BC Athenian cup known as a Kylix for an amount of more than $175,000, in anticipation of receiving a number of other ancient Greek items for an exhibition at the Powerhouse during the year 2000. Is it a fact that the Greek Minister for Culture is now refusing to allow these additional items to leave Greece, thus putting the whole proposed exhibition in jeopardy?

Further, is it a fact that the purchase of this antiquity was contrary to the Powerhouse Museum’s acquisitions policy? Is it a fact that the Director of the Powerhouse Museum is currently overseas on a two-week visit to Greece, trying to shore up the failing exhibition? How much has the Director of the Powerhouse Museum spent on trips associated with this proposed exhibition? Why will it take him in excess of two weeks to sort this simple matter out? Is it a fact that this purchase and exhibition are one of the factors that the museum trustees took into consideration in their recent decision not to reappoint the director to his position after his term expires in December this year?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of any of the matters that the Hon. J. F. Ryan has raised, so I will refer the question to the Minister for the Arts and obtain a response.

The Hon P. T. PRIMROSE: Can the Minister for Fisheries advise the House of the effect upon the oyster industry of the Federal Government’s proposed change to tax arrangements?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank the Hon. P. T. Primrose for this most timely question. The Australian Taxation Office has proposed a change in the current tax arrangement that applies to oyster farmers. The proposal could have dire consequences for the oyster industry and the future development of aquaculture in New South Wales. The Federal Government has proposed the implementation of the new tax arrangement by 30 June 2000. The new tax was outlined in a Federal Government position paper that was released for public comment in May 1999.

In August 1999 the Oyster Farmers Association wrote to me to seek support for their efforts to try to get the provisions relating to the new valuation of trading stock for New South Wales oyster farmers abandoned or phased in. The tax arrangements would require oyster farmers to value their trading stock. This would mean that oyster growers, in the first year of the introduction of the new tax arrangement, would be taxed on the stock value of their oysters as well as on their sales. This could effectively double the farmers’ tax bill for that financial year.

In support of the oyster industry, last month I wrote to the Assistant Federal Treasurer, Senator the Hon. Rod Kemp, seeking special consideration for the concerns of the Oyster Farmers Association about the development of the new tax. I received a reply from Senator Kemp thanking me for my representations and advising me that he was meeting with the Oyster Farmers Association on 29 September 1999 to discuss its concerns.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Who writes these Dorothy Dix answers?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: You will never change, quite obviously. You have not got a clue beyond the bit of ancient history you know. Oyster farming is the largest producer of aquaculture product in this State. The oyster farmers produce more than $30 million worth of product a year. They employ people all along the coast. They are very concerned about the Federal tax changes.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Why not make a ministerial statement on the matter?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Here you are gabbling on, not interested in listening. I do commend your Federal colleagues. At least they have the courtesy to meet with the farmers and talk about the issues that concern them. I also made representations to the Hon. Warren Truss, the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and the Hon. Mark Vaile, the Federal Minister for Trade, about the matter. I understand that, at the meeting with the Assistant Treasurer, although sympathy was expressed for the issues raised by oyster farmers, it was also said that there was some doubt as to whether anything could be done for them.

Information from industry indicates a reluctance by the Assistant Treasurer to interfere with the existing taxation rulings. I have been advised that my Federal counterpart, the Hon. Warren Truss, has also written to the Australian Taxation Office seeking a reassessment of the tax. This new tax can only be seen as draconian and a threat to sustainable aquaculture, not only in New
Page 1608
South Wales but right around Australia. It could threaten the future development of other aquaculture species in New South Wales.

I urge the Federal Government to reassess the impact of this tax on the future viability of the Australian aquaculture industry. I must give a lot of praise to my Federal colleagues Minister Vaile and Minister Truss for acting promptly and being very concerned about aquaculture all around Australia, but particularly here in New South Wales. The oyster industry is our largest aquaculture producer.

The Hon. P. J. BREEN: My question without notice is to the Attorney General. Is the Attorney General aware of statements made by the High Court’s Chief Justice, the Hon. Murray Gleeson, to the effect that 28 per cent of litigants in hearings before a single judge of the High Court are unrepresented, and that the rate of unrepresented litigants is even higher in the Family Court - perhaps as high as 35 per cent? Are these figures consistent with the number of unrepresented litigants in other New South Wales courts?

What does the Attorney intend to do to assist unrepresented litigants in New South Wales in addition to anything the judges might do? Would the Attorney consider instructing the judges to make court procedures less complicated in order to assist unrepresented litigants?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Hon. P. J. Breen raises a substantial and important question about legal aid. He referred to the comments of the Chief Justice of Australia, Mr Justice Gleeson, about unrepresented litigants in matters before single justices of the High Court. I think it is worthwhile putting this matter in context. Proceedings before single justices of the High Court are exceptional. Hearings in the High Court’s are invariably heard by full benches of that court and, overwhelmingly, litigants are represented before the full benches, as distinct from single-member hearings.

In relation to the Family Court I am not nearly so well informed. I know there is a complaint, and perhaps a legitimate complaint, that people are unrepresented before the Family Court because of the absence of legal aid. That is really a matter for the Federal provision of resources. I do not propose to comment on that. In so far as the honourable member asks me to instruct judges about simplifying procedures, I do not think the verb "to instruct" is appropriate. I would try to work with the heads of jurisdictions to try to simplify rules and procedures, and that should be done, but it is not the province of the Executive Government to instruct independent courts how they conduct their business.

The honourable member has raised very significant issues, including the shortage of legal aid, which, if I can try to avoid vulgar partisan rhetoric, any objective observer would say is the result of Federal budget cuts. That is indisputable. The New South Wales Government has increased the budget in real terms going to legal aid in each of its years in office, or perhaps generally during its term of office, and has also worked to ensure that greater proportions of interest payments from solicitors’ trust account investments are given to legal aid.

I do not want to be triumphalist about this, but I think I can reasonably say that the State Government has been pro-legal aid; the Federal Government has been against legal aid and has hacked into it, dividing off so-called Federal matters from State matters and generally restricting the amount of resources available for legal aid. I am sure those negotiations would go on in terms of maintaining a single Legal Aid Commission in New South Wales that deals with both Federal and State matters.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Treasurer aware that the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair, appointed by the New South Wales Minister for Health to advise him on hospital and multipurpose centre needs relevant to smaller New South Wales country towns, has found that some country hospitals are being held together, as he puts it, by the paint on their walls?

Is the Treasurer also aware that Mr Sinclair has reinforced the findings of the Legislative Council’s General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 on the crisis in rural and regional health services and that he has particularly pointed out that community involvement in local health service decisions - or, rather, the lack of community consultation - is a matter of concern in these communities?

Is it okay for unions to get consultation from the Carr Government but not for communities to have consultation on local health issues? Now that the redoubtable Mr Sinclair has added his testimony to that of scores of witnesses to the Legislative Council’s inquiry, will the Carr Government get
Page 1609
serious about addressing the rural and regional health crisis that continues unabated in New South Wales?

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: We take the issue seriously, but you don’t.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I think the point that the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer makes is very pertinent. This Government does take very seriously Mr Ian Sinclair. It not only appointed him to conduct the investigation to which the honourable member has referred but, of course, he was also invited by the Government to be the co-chair of the Drug Summit, which was held in this Chamber. So the Government does hold him in high regard, as it does many people on the other side of politics. But of course the National Party withheld from him the seat that he held for 30 years. He was once a member of the Legislative Council, but recently the National Party decided that they would not give him preselection as a National Party candidate.

If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 15 September the Hon. R. S. L. Jones asked me a question without notice relating to the Police Service and cannabis use. The Minister for Police has provided the following response:

Police officers swear an oath to uphold the law and the use of marijuana is against the law. The New South Wales Police Service has developed a Drug and Alcohol Policy following the recommendations of the Wood Royal Commission. The Royal Commission recommended that strict procedures needed to be put in place to prevent police drug use:

•the incompatibility between the use of substances that can impair judgement and co-ordination, and duties which call on an officer to respond to crime and emergencies and drive a motor vehicle;

•the risk of officers, who use illegal drugs, being compromised or blackmailed;

•the possibility of such officers joining schemes to protect suppliers;

•the reduced commitment of such officers to drug law enforcement; and

•the need for the Service to maintain discipline.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 15 September the Hon. D. J. Gay asked me a question without notice relating to TransGrid return rates. I can now supply the following response:

The New South Wales Government sought, and obtained, regulatory concurrence to an extension of the TransGrid determination due to delays in a number of key reports:

•the National Electricity Code Administrator’s (NECA) review of electricity network pricing;

•the report on electricity pricing by the New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) to the Premier; and

•a subsequent decision by IPART on distribution and franchise retail prices.

These reports impact regulated electricity charges to customers. Furthermore, the issue of the draft Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) determination in May 1999 meant that new prices would not be able to be implemented from 1 July 1999.

A delay of seven months was considered appropriate in order to:

•finalise the reports listed above;

•provide the two to three months required by the electricity business to develop and implement new tariffs; and

•avoid any conflict with the businesses’ focus on Y2K (1 January 2000) strategies.

The delays in finalising the reports meant that the implementation of the ACCC’s decision on 1 July 1999 was not practical. The most efficient way to achieve the postponement was to continue the current IPART determination past its expiry date of 30 June 1999 to 31 January 2000. The ACCC is expected to finalise its decision on TransGrid shortly so that it can be implemented from 1 February 2000.

Possible movements in interest rates were not a factor in the decision to seek the extension.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 15 September the Hon. Elaine Nile asked me a question without notice relating to Police Service budget cuts. The Minister for Police has provided the following response:

On 14 September 1999 a youth wanted in relation to an arson attack on a Newcastle church was arrested in the ACT.

The arrest came after lengthy inquiries and assistance from the Australian Federal Police, who detained the youth.

Newcastle Police went through the appropriate procedures with the Australian Federal Police to apply for an extradition order for the youth, who had been living in the ACT, not Queanbeyan as reported in the media.

The New South Wales Police refuted claims that they were prevented from arresting the youth due to budget cuts.

Page 1610

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 15 September, the Hon. D. E. Oldfield asked me a question without notice relating to Kings Cross police. The Minister for Police has provided the following response:

The Minister for Police has been advised by Commander Dick Adams, the City East Region Commander, that he has every confidence in the efforts of the Kings Cross Local Area Command to ensure Kings Cross is a corruption resistant environment where police deliver high quality policing services in challenging circumstances.

Selection for promotion within the New South Wales Police Service is competency based, with a panel including police and non-police personnel recommending the appointment of successful interviewees.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: On 22 September Ms Lee Rhiannon asked me a question about women’s prisons. The Minister for Corrective Services has advised me:

Labor policy (Labor’s Corrections Policy 1995) is to expand the availability of alternatives to prison such as community work programs, periodic detention and home detention. Those promises have been kept. Labor also promised (Corrective Services: Our record and plans 1999) to continue to monitor sentencing trends and policing to ensure an adequate number of gaol beds are available.

National trends for women in custody and projections for New South Wales indicate that a decrease in the women inmate population is unlikely. The Department of Corrective Services has a positive obligation to accommodate the increasing number of women referred into full-time custody by the courts. The Department of Corrective Services Women"s Action Plan was reviewed by departmental staff and representatives of interested non-government agencies in August 1998. The issues discussed included managing growth in the inmate population. Senior departmental staff and representatives of the Department of Health and the Department of Public Works and Services and external consultants conducted a value management study in February 1999 to address the increasing prison population (both men and women) statewide. The need for additional and restructured accommodation for women inmates was confirmed.

When the new Windsor facility becomes available, the Department of Corrective Services intends to use the accommodation at Mulawa Correctional Centre as a remand and reception centre for women and for the continuation of the specialist program provided for women with major, chronic mental health problems. The Windsor facility will be purpose-built with a program planning and induction unit, a crisis unit, a small unit for mothers and children, and a clinic with hospital beds. The new centre will prepare women for their progression to Emu Plains Correctional Centre where they will be able to undertake pre-release programs.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: On 23 September the Hon M. I. Jones asked me a question about horseriding practices. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following answer:

a) Minimum impact horse riding practices include:

•Riding only on authorised horse trails and not pulling horses off the trails and into the bush when passing others

•Not creating new trails or short cuts through the bush

•Not riding across rock platforms with Aboriginal engravings

•Not riding during or after heavy rains when the tracks are waterlogged

•Keeping the size of horse parties small

•Not galloping or cantering through the park

•Taking care when passing others on the trails

•Feeding horses with feed which will not result in weed dispersion

b) Methods which may be used to promote these practices include signs along horse trails and the development of brochures about good horse riding practices. Many of the above are already included in the Horse Riding Code for the Australian Alps National Parks.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Honourable members have asked me in the past about the filling of the position of the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board. I should just like to inform honourable members that the Government has reappointed Mr Chris Puplick as both President of the Anti-Discrimination Board and as Privacy Commissioner. I am sure that he will continue the good work he has done. Such disinterested and mature executive appointment shows the kind of Government we are. It does put in perspective the occasional niggling, negative, spiteful criticisms of some of the appointments the Government has made. If honourable members reflect on the overall appointments they will see that they are dealt with on merit.

Questions without notice concluded.

The House proceeded to Government House at 5.15 p.m., there to present to the Governor its Address-in-Reply to the Speech His Excellency had been pleased to make to both Houses of Parliament on opening the session.

The House returned at 8.00 p.m.

Page 1611

The President reported that the Address-in-Reply to the Governor’s Speech had been presented, and that His Excellency had been pleased to give thereto the following answer:

Madam President and Honourable Members
of the Legislative Council,

It gives me much pleasure to receive your Address and to thank you for your expression of loyalty to Her Majesty The Queen.

I am also glad to have your assurance that earnest consideration will be given to the measures to be submitted to you.

I have every confidence that your labours will advance the general welfare and happiness of the people of this State.

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Schedule 1

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.02 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 3:

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

[1] Section 72A

Insert after section 72:

72A Dangers of gambling - notice to be displayed on gaming machines

(1) In this section:

gambling warning means one or more of the statements listed in subsection (3) together with the following words:

IS GAMBLING A PROBLEM FOR YOU? G-LINE (NSW) IS A CONFIDENTIAL, ANONYMOUS AND FREE COUNSELLING SERVICE FREE CALL 1800 633 635

(2) The casino operator must display a notice in accordance with this section that contains a gambling warning.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(3) The statements referred to in the definition of gambling warning in subsection (1) are as follows:

DON’T LET GAMBLING TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR LIFE
GAMBLING CAN BECOME ADDICTIVE
EXCESSIVE GAMBLING CAN RUIN LIVES
EXCESSIVE GAMBLING CAN DESTROY FAMILIES AND FRIENDSHIPS
EXCESSIVE GAMBLING CAN LEAD TO THE LOSS OF YOUR HOME
EXCESSIVE GAMBLING CAN AFFECT YOUR HEALTH

(4) The notice must be prominently displayed on the front or on top of each gaming machine kept at the casino.

(5) The gambling warning contained in the notice must be in capital letters of not less than 0.5 centimetres in height.

(6) The notice may be attached to a gaming machine or may consist of a permanently visible light emitting display that forms part of the machine.

72B Counselling signage - notice to be displayed

(1) The casino operator must display a notice in the following form at each entry to the casino in accordance with this section:

IS GAMBLING A PROBLEM FOR YOU?
G-LINE (NSW) IS A CONFIDENTIAL, ANONYMOUS AND FREE COUNSELLING SERVICE
FREE CALL 1800 633 635

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) The words contained in the notice must be in capital letters of not less than 0.8 centimetres in height.

(3) The notice must be displayed in such a manner and in such a place that it would be reasonable to expect that a person entering the casino would be alerted to its contents.

I referred briefly to this amendment when debating Australian Democrats amendment No. 2. The amendment uses the exact terminology of the proposed regulation. I assume that all honourable members have the composite set of amendments supplied by the Clerks to enable them to follow the numerous amendments to be moved by honourable members. This amendment inserts new section 72A, and provides for a warning that is similar to tobacco warnings.

There should not be debate about that amendment or wording. It is very straightforward and it is a big improvement on the present situation, in which there is no warning. I urge the Government and the Opposition to agree to the amendment and perhaps some others. I do not suggest that all of the amendments should be included in the bill, because I understand that the inclusion of some 50 pages of amendments would cause problems with the bill. However, some of the amendments are so straightforward that they should be accepted.

The Hon. I. COHEN [8.05 p.m.]: I support the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. It is reasonable and it is consistent with warnings that apply to tobacco products. It
Page 1612
recognises the extent of the problem in the community caused by gambling. It really is a basic responsibility of the Government to take note of a number of these amendments. They could be taken as an appropriate and timely reminder to the public that we have a gambling culture that could run amok unless there is some degree of control. Anything that focuses on the social aspect of the issue is a step in the right direction. The amendment does not say "Don’t gamble"; it just asks patrons to be aware about gambling.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [8.06 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendment. The general issue of signage clearly falls within the category of matters previously canvassed, and is better dealt with by way of regulation. The Government has taken the very deliberate step of seeking to consult broadly with the community about the fine details of the nature of warnings. As was foreshadowed, it is at least possible to envisage a situation in which a requirement for warnings - on either technical or psychological grounds, or about the formation of the print through to the advertising force of messages - could change from time to time and at quite short notice. They are matters that would rely on relatively technical advice.

Part of the basis of requiring counselling signage to be displayed on individual gambling machines will include consideration of extending the arrangements to the casino. Honourable members should be aware that the casino recently announced that it will place counselling signage on its gambling machines in any event, regardless of government regulation or this legislation. It may therefore be that a regulation of the kind envisaged in the exposure draft package is not required. Nevertheless, the Government will be closely reviewing the comments received on the package before moving forward provisions that are sensible, balanced and workable.

In relation to the counselling signage at the casino itself, it should be remembered that the casino operator already is required under paragraph 27 of the Casino Control Regulation to prominently display information about the availability of telephone counselling services relating to problem gambling. For that reason, the Government does not support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.08 p.m.]: I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 3:

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

[1] Section 72A

Insert after section 72:

72A Dangers of gambling - notice to be displayed on gaming machines

(1) The casino operator must display, in accordance with this section, a notice in the following form:

Is Gambling a Problem for You?
G-line (NSW) is a Confidential, Anonymous and Free Counselling Service
Free Call 1800 633 635

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) The notice must be prominently displayed on the front of or on top of each gaming machine kept at the casino.

(3) The words contained in the notice:

(a) must be in black against a white background, and

(b) must be in bold Times Roman font and 16 point type.

(4) The notice may be attached to a gaming machine or may consist of a permanently visible light emitting display that forms part of the machine.

This amendment provides that warnings should be placed on gaming machines. It is a simple proposition. The player has in front of him or her all the flashing lights saying how exciting it is to play the machine. But it mostly happens that money is not won, so more and more money is put in. People must wonder, "Is this good for me?"

The amendment simply requires that each gambling machine has a sticker asking "Is gambling a problem for you?" and giving a number. It is really terribly simple. The wording in the amendment was suggested by the Government. It has not been researched, but the wording can be changed if research shows that there is better, more effective wording. People need to know that help is available, and they need to know that when they need help. It is a minor suggestion and I believe it should be in the Act.

It is increasingly annoying me, or offending me if you like, that everything now is expected to be in the schedule - in other words it is to be a ministerial discretion. Is this Parliament here to give Ministers discretion? The Parliament will pass a bill with a title but everything will be decided by the Minister, who will write a schedule as he or she
Page 1613
thinks fit after discussion with the lobby groups. The Parliament may disallow it, but that is the most it can do. Should it do that, there will be noting in the Act, and that would be an invidious position for the Parliament. So, this amendment is necessary. In its arrogance this Government often does not proclaim legislation. If it does not like how the House has amended one of its bills it does not ask the Governor to assent to it. It does not care a fig what the Parliament says.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Or it says, "We will put the schedule in when it suits us."

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Or, as the Hon. J. H. Jobling says, it says, "We will put the schedule in when it suits us." This Government basically wants to govern without recourse to Parliament, and often takes no notice of Parliament. This bill is such an example. The amendment is reasonable. I would reasonably expect the Government to support it if I were talking about the reasonableness of the amendment rather than the reasonableness of the Government. I would hope that Opposition members, who are pleasantly interjecting about what a terrible Government we have, see the merit of this amendment and supports it should the Government not do so.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You are hardly saying it is good government though, are you?

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: In general he thinks we are a good Government.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The question is whether the Opposition will support this amendment. That is my present concern. I urge the Opposition and the Government to support the amendment, which will help gamblers in their hour of need, and make the legislation explicit that that is what is to happen.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [8.13 p.m.]: The Government opposes this amendment. It seeks to take the corresponding clause from the exposure draft regulations relating to clubs and hotels, which are currently available for public comment, and insert it in this bill. I have already canvassed, as the Opposition spokesperson and other members from the Government side have, whether it is appropriate to put these exposure draft regulation provisions in the bill.

I do not intend to take up more of the Committee’s time by arguing at length on each and every one of these amendments. The general issue of signage is clearly an appropriate matter for regulations, and the Government has taken the deliberate step of seeking to consult broadly with the community about the fine details and nature of warnings and the counselling signage that must be displayed on individual gaming machines. Part of that includes consideration of extending these arrangements to the casino.

Honourable members will be aware that the casino recently announced it would replace the counselling-related signage on its gambling machines in any event, and it may therefore be that a regulation of the kind envisaged in the exposure draft is not required. The Government is not prepared to support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.14 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 4:

No. 4 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 3:

[1] Section 72C

Insert after section 72:

72C Right to make complaint - notice to be displayed

(1) The casino operator must display a notice at each entry to the casino in accordance with this section to the effect that patrons of the casino may make a complaint to an inspector under section 110 about the conduct of gaming at the casino.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) The words contained in the notice must be in capital letters of not less than 0.8 centimetres in height.

(3) The notice must be displayed in such a manner and in such a place that it would be reasonable to expect that a person entering the casino would be alerted to its contents.

This is a very simple amendment, and it is not very long. The Government may feel that some of the previous amendments were too long and had too much content to put in the bill. However, this one is simple. Honourable members must remember that the Committee is amending the Casino Control Act 1992. On page 3 of the bill there is a blank above line 4. This amendment would be inserted at line 3, and that makes sense if one looks at the Casino Control Act. I point that out to honourable members who may not understand, as I did not when I first looked at the bill, where the words would fit in. They fit into the Casino Control Act. This is a simple amendment to add a new section 72C as follows:

Page 1614

Right to make complaint - notice to be displayed

(1) The casino operator must display a notice at each entry to the casino in accordance with this section to the effect that patrons of the casino may make a complaint to an inspector under section 110 about the conduct of gaming at the casino.

This fits in with the Labor Government’s whole approach to the Ombudsman, the complaints systems, the Health Care Complaints Commission and so on. It will inform the patrons of the casino that they have certain rights. They do not have many rights, but they have the right to make a complaint.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.16 p.m.]: The amendment seems reasonable, and the Australian Democrats will support it.

The Hon. I. COHEN [8.16 p.m.]: I ask the Minister why the Government will not accept such a simple, reasonable and very low-key amendment. I would like an explanation. The Minister said he did not want to go through each point but I would be very interested to learn why the Government will not accept this amendment.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [8.17 p.m.]: It was very prescient of the Hon. I. Cohen to anticipate that the Government will not support the amendment. The essence of the amendment, as was made clear in the introduction by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, is to require the operators of Star City Casino to display at each entry to the casino a notice that patrons may make a complaint to a government casino inspector about the conduct of gaming in the casino.

I am not a frequenter of the casino, although I have been there on more than one occasion. Even so, I am aware that government casino inspectors are available at Star City; that is made obvious to patrons by sufficiently clear means. The casino inspectors occupy a special-purpose booth situated in the main gaming area of Star City Casino, and obviously patrons with grievances about the conduct of gaming at the casino may, I suppose, although I have not checked this personally, present themselves at the booth, make contact with the inspector and, if desired, make a complaint of a general nature or, indeed, of a particular nature under the various gaming and liquor Acts that control the casino’s operation.

The presence of the government casino inspectors is referred to in printed information and materials available at Star City Casino and in its immediate precincts, and especially in publications that set out the rules for gaming in the casino. Star City is obliged to make available the casino gaming rules to patrons on request. In addition, the whereabouts of government casino inspectors at the casino can be pointed out to any inquiring patron by the Star City Casino gaming staff. I have not been such a frequenter of Star City to be able to say with any great deal of subjective confidence whether there is anything to be gained from this amendment, but it would appear that there is little, if anything, positive to be gained from it.

I am advised that requiring Star City to display this sign would run the risk that too many signs at casino entry points would have the grossly undesirable consequence of distracting the attention of patrons from reading the most important sign of all - that stating that persons under the age of 18 must not enter or remain in the casino. No doubt this House would unanimously agree that a line should be drawn between the risks associated with problem gambling and under-age gambling.

The Government focuses on the under-age warning sign at entry points to the casino. I boldly speculate that the social consensus would be that that is the most important warning at casino entry points. For that reason the Government opposes the amendment. To summarise my answer to the question by the Hon. I. Cohen, there are two reasons. First, the Government is advised that the matters envisioned in the amendment are already covered - patrons have the capacity to make complaints about the operation of the casino. That is made clear in all of the relevant points and by virtue of the placement of government inspectors. Secondly, the most important warning, about under-age entry, could be overlooked by patrons. Members should have regard to that point when considering the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.21 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 5:

No. 5 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 3:

[1] Section 74 Credit prohibited

Omit "within the boundaries of the casino" from section 74 (3). Insert instead "in or in the immediate vicinity of the casino or the building in which the casino is located".

Both sides of politics in this Parliament have supported in principle the proposition to prohibit the availability of credit at the casino through automatic teller machines [ATMs]. This amendment prohibits
Page 1615
ATMs within the boundaries of the casino and expands it slightly to include "in or in the immediate vicinity of the casino or the building in which the casino is located". The wording that is sought to be omitted - "within the boundaries of the casino" - could refer only to the walls of the casino, and ATMs could be placed just outside the entry. A patron could walk outside the door and draw more credit.

This amendment proposes that ATMs should not be placed inside or outside the casino or in the immediate vicinity of the casino. The purpose of the amendment is to make it as difficult as possible for people to access an ATM. Again, this is a simple amendment that is consistent with the Government’s policies. We merely seek to eliminate the dangers. As banks close their branches they install more ATMs on the street. At many locations ATMs are set into the wall of a building, which may not be a bank building. This responsible amendment would fit in with the purpose of the bill, which is responsible gambling.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.23 p.m.]: The original intention was that the installation of automatic teller machines in or near the casino would be banned. As I said in my contribution to the second reading speech, I know a fellow who cannot trust himself with a credit card. He buys goods, takes them home and returns them later, so that he has access to money throughout the fortnight and does not starve. That is what happens to people with a serious gambling problem. There is no reason for the money to be readily available. That was the original intention when the casino was set up, and it is eminently sensible to include this amendment in the legislation.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [8.25 p.m.]: This amendment would have the effect of preventing the installation of automatic teller machines anywhere within or in the immediate vicinity of the Star City casino complex. The amendment goes beyond the findings of the major inquiry conducted by former Chief Justice Sir Laurence Street into the establishment and operation of a casino in 1991, before this Parliament passed legislation authorising casino gambling in New South Wales. This requirement was thought unjustified by Sir Laurence and unwarranted by the Government. As to automatic telling machines in casinos, Sir Laurence said:

There are strong grounds for prohibiting ATMs from casinos, and I recommend them accordingly. However, even if ATMs were to be excluded from the casino premises they could not reasonably be prohibited from installation outside casino property. I do not recommend that any attempt should be made to do so.

Sir Laurence accepted that it was inappropriate for ATMs to be installed within the gaming areas of the Star City complex, the part of the complex which qualifies as the casino. He did not accept that ATMs should be banned from the Star City complex altogether. Therein lies the difficulty in sorting out the various issues. In terms of commercial operation, Star City is more than just a gaming precinct. It has restaurants, bars, theatres and retail shops. As I alluded to in previous debate, I have attended the casino only once to partake in gaming activities. The other times I have been there to attend the theatre.

A business may have an ATM as a component of its operation. To suggest a limitation on the operation of other commercial operations within the casino is inappropriate. The Hon. J. R. Johnson has drawn to my attention another consideration about the proximity of ATMs to gambling facilities. This applies more to the general issue of the location of ATMs near gambling facilities in clubs and hotels. If ATMs are located outside the casino precinct and well off site, we would get the honey pot effect. As a matter of habit, people gamble late at night, and there would be security risks with muggings. The Hon. J. H. Jobling and the Hon. D. F. Moppett have anticipated the potential for an upsurge in petty street crime associated with people transacting large sums of money at ATMs far away from security staff and the eyes of other patrons.

Older patrons and people less able to defend themselves may be exposed to attacks and theft. Although there is probably some good to be gained from the proposed amendment, on the whole the symbolic act of locating ATMs away from the casino gaming precinct and outside the entire property would not have the desired effect and would merely lead to greater inconvenience and physical risk for patrons.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.29 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party understands that other facilities such as restaurants, referred to by the Minister, are in clubs. Obviously people would use credit cards to pay for meals in a restaurant. They would not eat a meal and then rush off to an automatic teller machine to draw out the money to pay for it.

Today very few people pay cash for meals so I do not think that is an argument for ATMS. We are concerned about the use of ATM machines by people to draw out large sums of money in order to go back into the casino with the money to put into
Page 1616
the poker machines. That is the reason we are trying to stop easy availability of funds. I suppose the risk of being mugged might also discourage people from withdrawing large sums of money, but that is another point.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [8.30 p.m.]: I am not aware of any account accessible through an ATM that provides open access to all funds in an account. Usually a daily limit applies on what can be withdrawn. In most cases, in the scenario that has been painted, those using the ATM would quickly reach their limit and would be unable to access any further cash.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [8.31 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 1:

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

[1] Section 76 Junkets and inducements

Insert at the end of section 76 (1):

(c) the offering to persons individually of inducements to apply for review of exclusion orders.

This amendment proposes to amend the regulation-making power in section 76 of the Act to allow for prohibiting the offering of inducements to a person to apply for a review of an exclusion order. This amendment will provide an effective mechanism for dealing with concerns raised by the Hon. Dr P. Wong in relation to the possibility that the casino may put pressure on casino patrons who are subject to self-exclusion orders to seek to have those orders removed. I commend this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.32 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 6:

No. 6 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 3:

[1] Section 76A

Insert after section 76:

76A Inducement to gamble prohibited

A casino operator must not offer or provide a person with any of the following as an inducement to gamble at the casino:

(a) free cash, or free vouchers or tokens of any kind that can be used for the purposes of gambling on an approved gaming device or that can be exchanged for cash,

(b) free points or credits on a gaming machine,

(c) membership (whether on payment of a fee or not) of a jackpot or other gambling club,

(d) free or discounted food or drink,

(e) free entry in any lottery,

(f) gifts or rewards of any other kind.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

This is a straightforward amendment with which the Government and the Opposition agree.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.33 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats support this reasonable amendment.

The Hon. I. COHEN [8.33 p.m.]: This amendment is similar to the Greens amendments regarding inducements. The amendment refers to the casino whereas the Greens’ amendment refers to pubs and clubs. However, the principle is the same, and we support the amendment.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [8.34 p.m.]: The Government opposes this amendment although clearly there is some merit in its general intent. The draft regulations to this responsible gambling bill are currently out for public comment, as has already been canvassed. The amendment will prohibit the offering or supply of free or discounted liquor as an inducement to participate in gambling activities at hotels and registered clubs, among other matters.

It struck me that it is extremely unlikely that those sorts of inducements would be offered in a casino. It may be that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile or other members are aware of such practices; if they are, that can be drawn to the attention of the Minister under the public comment proposals currently in place for consideration of the regulations. It may well be appropriate, following the review of those comments, for the casino inducement provisions to be re-examined.

I foreshadow that if there are obvious abuses, as suggested at least by implication by the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, the Government and the Minister will not hesitate to act. At the moment the Government will wait and see what comments are received before moving forward with any further detailed regulations. The Government opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Page 1617

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [8.35 p.m.]: During the drafting of the Unity Party amendments my office had many consultations with the Government. I am happy that the Government has taken up many of the suggestions of the Unity Party and I do not wish to proceed with my amendments.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [8.36 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 3:

[1] Section 80 Review of exclusion order

Insert after section 80 (5):

(5A) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to matters to be taken into consideration by the Authority in making its decision with respect to an application for review of an exclusion order.

This amendment proposes that section 80 of the Act be amended to add a regulation-making power to allow for matters to be taken into consideration by the authority in making its decision to review an exclusion order. This amendment is very similar in its aim to Government amendment No. 3 which I will move shortly. The Casino Control Authority presently provides for two processes to have self-exclusion orders either reviewed, shortly after they have been made, or eventually revoked.

The Hon. Dr P. Wong has proposed that there should be certain matters which must be taken into consideration before removing a self-exclusion order. It is envisaged that regulations made under the proposed new sections may provide that a matter to be taken into consideration in making a decision to review or revoke an order is whether the person who is subject to the order has undertaken or is undertaking counselling to assist the person to avoid any financial, social or other harm that may arise from the person’s gambling activities. This will be a relevant consideration when the person subject to the order is a problem gambler. The Government thanks the Unity Party for its helpful suggestions and for its assistance in developing this amendment. I commend this amendment to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [8.37 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 3:

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

[1] Section 82 Duration and revocation of exclusion orders

Insert at the end of section 82:

(5) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to matters to be taken into consideration by the person who gave an exclusion order before the person decides to revoke the order.

This amendment will amend section 82 of the Act in a way that corresponds with the amendment to section 80 to which I have just referred. This amendment adds to the regulation-making power that would allow for matters to be taken into consideration by the person who gave an exclusion order before the person decides to revoke the order. I have previously outlined the background of this amendment when discussing Government amendment No. 2. I commend this amendment to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [8.39 p.m.], by leave: I move National Party amendments Nos 1, 2, 4 and 5 in globo:

No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1 [2], lines 1-3. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [3], lines 4-6. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 4 Page 4, schedule 1 [4], lines 7 and 8. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 5 Page 5, schedule 1 [6], lines 4-15. Omit all words on those lines.

The purpose of these amendments is the same, that is, to make it quite clear that the casino is the source of those funds. The bill has been drafted to introduce the euphemisms of community benefit levy and community benefit fund. The Opposition is of the view that it is entirely proper for the bill to state explicitly that the money is to be derived from casino operations, and for the fund to be the "Casino Community Benefit Fund" and the levy to be the "Casino Community Benefit Levy". I do not think the amendments entail a great deal of argument. It is simply a matter of being honest and transparent about the purpose of the fund and the source from which it is derived. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. I. COHEN [8.40 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I support these amendments. The Government’s intention is to omit the word "casino" from "Casino Community Benefit Fund". Perception is important. Currently, only the casino contributes to the fund; general gambling operators such as clubs and pubs do not contribute to the fund. Removing the word "casino" from the name of the fund will create the impression that all gambling operators are contributing to a general fund, but that
Page 1618
is not the case. The Greens will support an amendment to change the name of the fund when all gambling operators contribute to the fund. Until that happens, it is important that the casino be identified as the sole contributor to the fund.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.41 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the amendments moved by the Hon. D. F. Moppett. These amendments would make it clear that the fund comprises moneys collected from the casino as a levy. Honourable members have said that at some point a similar levy should be applied to hotels and clubs, although I know they are resisting such a proposal. Funds should be available for problem gamblers, and that is the next point the Committee will be examining in detail. In the future we may end up with a casino community benefit fund, a registered clubs community benefit fund and a hotel community benefit fund.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.42 p.m.]: I endorse the comments of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. I. Cohen, and support the amendments moved by the Hon. D. F. Moppett. If the casino is the only contributor to the fund it should have its name on the fund. Certainly, for-profit hotels should also contribute to the fund. I think clubs should be looked at in terms of how much community benefit they provide.

The idea that clubs cannot distribute profits but must spend the moneys on facilities gives them some mitigating circumstance, but that needs to be examined. If the casino is the only contributor, the fund should be called the Casino Community Benefit Fund. As the casino makes most of its money from the machines rather than the tables - certainly, the casinos in Nevada make most of their money from the machines - they should be treated the same as other sources of gambling.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [8.43 p.m.]: The Government does not support these amendments. The trustees of the fund recently agreed to remove the word "casino" from its name to overcome community uncertainty as to the source and purpose of the funds derived from the community benefit levy. As a result, the Government wants the Act to reflect the decision of the trustees to make clear that the fund is not funded by donations from the casino; it is funded from Government revenue.

The only connection with the casino is that the amount of money allocated by the Government for the purposes of the fund is based on a proportion - amounting to 2 per cent - of the casino’s gaming revenue. It is important to note that taxation agreements with the casino operator provide that if the fund no longer exists the amounts paid by the casino to the Government will not alter. Similarly, if the Government decides to increase or decrease the proportion allocated to the fund the casino operator will again pay exactly the same amount to the Government.

I emphasise that it is simply not the case that the casino pays 2 per cent and all other gambling operators pay nothing. The casino pays its gaming tax obligations, as does every other operator, and the Government directs a portion of the overall tax it receives for the purposes of the fund. To argue that it is somehow the casino’s money is simply wrong. There are two ways of looking at this. First, is it a good idea for the benefit fund simply to be described as the Casino Community Benefit Fund because of its immediate association with gambling? It is a community benefit fund that is used for other purposes which may be related indirectly to social problems or somewhat differently to compulsive gambling.

The second and more important angle is that it infers in some way that this is a philanthropic exercise by the casino. This form of taxation is like any other form of taxation. It is not something from which the casino should necessarily gain some credit. Honourable members said that all gaming operators should pay tax. There have been controversies relating to the gaming revenue of hotels and clubs and the State’s taxation arrangements. Clearly, hotels and clubs pay tax. While the casino is in an unusual position as a one-off operator, the benefit fund should not be seen as anything other than what it is: a community benefit fund created for the purposes of social benefit from matters indirectly and directly related to gambling.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [8.46 p.m.]: I was first introduced to this sort of argument by the Hon. Peter Nixon when we used to upbraid him about the lack of any relationship between the excise tax on fuel and road revenue. He introduced a wonderful word that was supposed to spiflicate the Opposition; he said, "There is no hypothecation of revenues from the source to the application. It all goes into consolidated funds, and the Government, out of its magnanimity, decides what appropriations to make to various purposes." The Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer seemed to be using the same lame argument to justify this euphemism of the community benefit fund. It is almost like the community chest cards in Monopoly. The good old Government is grabbing all this money and giving
Page 1619
back only a little in the community chest to alleviate these problems.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: It’s like $10 million out of $1 billion.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: Yes. It would have a more salutary effect on those who see the money being distributed, even if they are beneficiaries of the fund in terms of trying to mitigate their habits. It would be better if it was transparent that the money was being derived through taxation, admittedly, from its source. In this case it is most appropriate that the fund be known as the Casino Community Benefit Fund and the levy be known as the Casino Community Benefit Levy. Despite the Minister’s learned arguments, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Division, by leave, called off.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [8.50 p.m.]: I move National Party amendment No. 3:

No. 3 Page 4, schedule 1. Insert after line 6:

[4] Section 115 (7)

Insert after section 115 (6):

(7) On and from the commencement of this subsection, any provision of a trust deed relating to expenditure of money for the benefit of the community is, to the extent that it provides for expenditure otherwise than for the purpose of avoiding or alleviating harm associated with the misuse and abuse of gambling activities, to be read as if it instead provided for expenditure for that purpose.

The purpose of this amendment is to make it transparent that expenditure from the fund will not be dipped into for other purposes which at first instance may appear to be related in some way to relief of the effects of gambling abuse but which subsequently become a precedent by which money can be siphoned off for all sorts of other purposes. The purpose of the amendment is clear, though its wording is complex. It will strengthen the bill. I join with other members who see the central issue in the bill as ensuring that, though responsible gambling is legal in New South Wales, some money is returned to overcome the social problems of individuals who cannot resist temptation, and their families.

That is what Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has so often called it. Others would see it as an almost diabolic addiction. Gambling in many cases is destroying lives. The building of a new women’s prison has been mooted. Apart from drugs, the root cause of the problems of many people is gambling. They are unable to control their expenditure. Gambling is the most insidious and probably the most common source of household budgets being blown out and deprivation being visited on families. The amendment is important to strengthen the purposes of the bill, and I commend it to the Committee.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.52 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is very pleased to support the amendment. We have been lobbied by a number of the groups involved in the counselling of persons with gambling addiction. The Productivity Commission estimated that this involves 330,000 Australians. Various bodies such as the Wesley Mission, led by the Reverend Dr Gordon Moyes, have indicated that money has been taken out of the fund for purposes other than what they believe and what I believe was the intention of the Parliament.

It was intended that money raised from the tax on the casino be for the purpose of avoiding or alleviating harm associated with the misuse and abuse of gambling activities. The amendment makes that clear. There have been reports of some of the money from the fund being allocated to buildings. The Government may believe that fits the original purpose of the fund; I do not believe it does. As there is such funding pressure on counselling bodies, every cent should be going in that direction. We support the amendment.

The Hon. I. COHEN [8.55 p.m.]: The Greens do not support the amendment, which seeks to restrict how the casino community benefit funds are used. Currently, a small amount of the funds can be used for general community benefit projects. The amendment would restrict the use of funding to counselling and treatment services only. The Reverend Harry J. Herbert of the Uniting Church Board for Social Responsibility pointed out in his letter to me dated 6 October:

Although it has been said that the fund has supported general community benefit projects to the disadvantage of some counselling applicants, we do not believe that this has been the case. In providing funds to counselling and treatment organisations the fund needs to properly assess such matters as the treatment methods, qualifications of staff and cost efficiency.

He continued:

Page 1620

The fund should not be confined to the funding of counselling and treatment services. Just as important is the funding of preventive measures such as family support services, youth programs and programs to address other addictions. Almost all problem gamblers present with other social needs.

The Greens agree with this assessment. It is reasonable and understood that there is support for the amendment but if we look a little further we see that the assessment put forward by the Reverend Harry Herbert is astute. We agree with it and therefore we cannot support the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.56 p.m.]: As the Hon. I. Cohen said, there may be legitimate community activities that need funds. But the money should not come from this fund. It should come from general government budgeting - through community services, youth programs and all the other departments of government. This relatively small fund was never intended to carry this sort of weight. The bodies involved in gambling counselling are complaining that they are not getting sufficient funds and there are not surplus funds for other projects. If there is too much money in it for the counselling area -

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: It would cover only 1 per cent of the harm done.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I have had complaints from the counselling bodies that counsel problem gamblers that not enough money is available. So how can the money be put into a youth project or a family support program? Money for that purpose should be provided through the normal government budget process.

The Hon. I. COHEN [8.58 p.m.]: In further support of the Greens position I state that the Council of Social Service of New South Wales also opposes the amendment for the same reasons the Reverend Harry Herbert and I have expressed.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [8.58 p.m.]: No-one in this Chamber would not be familiar with the eminent position which the Reverend Harry Herbert holds in our community. We know that he is an astute and sedulous advocate for a whole range of activities for which the Government and the community share responsibility. In the best of all possible worlds there would be an increase of funding across a wide range of things. But our position in this is very clear. We stated it before the election and we are sticking to it. If we are going to tax gambling in this way we need to apply the money directly so that the Government cannot gradually take a higher and higher proportion into general revenue.

There would be a few members in the Chamber who can remember the Opera House lottery. People thought it was terrible to encourage gambling for a prize of $100,000. To sell the lottery it was claimed that the money would fund our hospitals. But in no time the Government had subsumed all the money into general revenue. This is the thin edge of the wedge.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: The money from lotteries would not pay for a fortnight’s running of eastern suburbs hospitals.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I again remind honourable members that from these small diversions it is amazing how far the disposition of these funds eventually gets from the original content. We have an opportunity to make it clear that we want to see the maximum concentration of these funds directed to the purpose to which we want them directed, that is, counselling and assisting people to at least control, if not abandon, a very destructive habit.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.00 p.m.]: There are two dangers with regard to the amendment: first, the Government will swipe the money and put it into something else; and, second, we are so obsessed with treatment that we never get to prevention - which is what happens in gaols and in the medical world.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: We are not into punishment.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Not in this particular bill, you are not.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: And not in the medical world. Be careful.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Yes, one has to be very careful in the medical world. I am well aware of the dangers in the medical world; I have struggled with them for some years. It may be my profession, but I think it would rather cure than prevent, which is its great fault - and, if we look at it, its great economic fault. If the Council of Social Service of New South Wales and Harry Herbert say that they want some scope to use the funds for prevention rather than for counselling they should be given that scope. We must look to prevention. These funds represent only 1 per cent of the money that actually comes from problem gamblers.

The 1999 Productivity Commission report into gambling shows that in New South Wales problem
Page 1621
gamblers spend an average of $12,000 each per year and non-problem gamblers spend an average of $625 each per year. One-third of the gambling revenue in New South Wales - which is about $1 billion - comes from 15 per cent of the gamblers, who spend $12,000 each and cannot afford it. That is a huge problem. Obviously, $10 million is a drop in the bucket. If we do not address the issue of prevention we will not have enough money to pay for the cure. It is a question of how cleverly that money is used. I believe that needs to be looked at closely. I am not sure that putting a lot of restrictions on the use of the money is the way to deal with the matter. Therefore, the Australian Democrats do not support the amendment.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [9.02 p.m.]: I support the amendment. It is important to note that in this instance treatment happens to be prevention as well. If gamblers are spending all this money, it is appropriate for us to target it to counselling services which will prevent them from falling into the same trap. There is a danger that there will not be enough money to contribute to other services. We should not have a casino in any event. It is the Government’s duty to provide more funding for family support and other services.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mrs Forsythe Rev. Nile
Mr Gallacher Dr Pezzutti
Miss Gardiner Mr Ryan
Mr Gay Mr Tingle
Mr Hannaford Dr Wong
Mr Harwin Tellers,
Mr M. I. Jones Mr Jobling
Mrs Nile Mr Moppett

Mr Breen Mr R. S. L. Jones
Dr Burgmann Mr Macdonald
Ms Burnswoods Mr Oldfield
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Rhiannon
Mr Cohen Ms Saffin
Mr Corbett Mr Shaw
Mr Della Bosca Ms Tebbutt
Mr Dyer Tellers,
Mr Hatzistergos Mr Manson
Mr Johnson Mr Primrose

Mr Bull Mr Egan
Mr Lynn Mr Obeid
Mr Samios Mr Tsang

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedules 2 to 7

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.11 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 7:

No. 7 Page 7, schedule 2. Insert after line 19:

[4] Section 18 Court may grant licence

Insert after section 18 (10A):

(10B) Subsections (1) and (2) do not authorise the court to grant a licence authorising the sale or supply of liquor on any part of licensed premises in which gambling activities are conducted. A licence granted before the commencement of this subsection does not after that commencement authorise the sale or supply of liquor in any such part of the licensed premises.

This is a new proposal and one that is not in the regulations. I do not believe it has ever been referred to in the Parliament, but from a consideration of the social and other problems of gambling, and taking into account the number of people who are getting out of their depth by using their money on gambling, it can be seen that one of the reasons for the gambling problem is the close relationship between poker machines and the consumption of alcoholic beverages.

The amendment seeks to give the court, when granting a licence, the power to take into consideration that a hotel must not place poker machines in the same locality as a bar or other area in which alcohol is supplied. The hotel would have to have a poker machine room separated from areas in which liquor is sold.

The amendment provides that the court may grant a licence, but subsections (1) and (2) do not authorise the court to grant a licence authorising the sale or supply of liquor on any part of licensed premises on which gambling activities are conducted. The amendment provides that a licence granted before the commencement of the subsection does not, after that commencement, authorise the sale or supply of liquor in any such part of the licensed premises.

The amendment would not stop a hotel from getting a licence, but it would require the court to take into consideration the location of the bar and supply of liquor as against the location of the poker machines in the hotel. The poker machines and
Page 1622
licensed areas must be separated by some means. The Licensing Court would hear an applicant and make a decision based on the information provided.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.13 p.m.]: This amendment and an analogous amendment to the Registered Clubs Act cannot be supported by the Government. The effect of the amendment would be to prevent the Licensing Court from granting a liquor licence that authorised the sale or supply of liquor in any part of the licensed premises in which gambling activities are occurring. If adopted, this amendment would prohibit the provision of liquor as a normal and accepted element of the service that patrons of hotels and clubs, as well as members of the community at large, have come to expect in areas in which gambling activities are permitted to occur on those premises.

In the Government’s view this amendment represents an unreasonable and unrealistic curtailment of a service to which customers of hotels and clubs have come to feel they are entitled. If any hotel or club patron is intoxicated, irrespective of whether the patron is in a gambling area of the hotel or club concerned, the law already requires the hotelier or club to seek removal of the person from the premises. In the Government’s view this is the most appropriate means of dealing with patron access to gambling facilities where liquor may be sold and supplied.

In general terms the provisions of the amendment need to be considered against the general background not only of this legislation, which deals with gambling harm minimisation, but also of the various amendments and programs brought forward by the Minister responsible for the service of alcohol.

As anyone could reasonably see, the Government’s approach to areas of public recreation that cause social problems, such as service of alcohol and gaming, has been to focus on those who may well have problems with those particular forms of recreation, creating social difficulties and personal problems for those people, and to attack the problem at that level. It would seem to be an unnecessary, and probably inappropriate, limitation on the large number of patrons of such premises. The amendment would generally be unacceptable in the community.

Amendment negatived.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.16 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 8:

No. 8 Page 7, schedule 2. Insert after line 19:

[4] Section 20 (4C)

Insert after section 20 (4A):

(4C) It is a condition of a licence to sell or supply liquor on licensed premises that liquor not be sold or supplied in any part of the licensed premises in which gambling activities are conducted.

This amendment is similar to my previous amendment, although it applies to other premises where gambling takes place. When I moved the previous amendment I think the Hon. J. R. Johnson interjected, "They could take the liquor into where the poker machines are." He could amend the amendment to provide that patrons are not to take liquor into poker machine areas.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Where are they to have a drink? Out on the street?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: No, they would drink in the bar or another area of the hotel where liquor is sold.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: It is a long time since you have been into a pub!

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: We never had poker machines in pubs until your Government allowed that. That is a recent occurrence, and it is creating major social problems. The amendment seeks to alleviate those problems. It is designed to discourage intoxicated people from gambling.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.18 p.m.]: I repeat what I said in respect of the previous amendment: the Government considers that this amendment represents an unreasonable and - in the sense of current practice and custom - unrealistic curtailment of a service to which customers of hotels and clubs are rightfully entitled. In response to the observations of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, I must say that in respect of intoxicated persons on any licensed premises - be it a hotel or club - the hotelier, club management and any of their agents and employees are required by the law enacted by this Government to remove such patrons from the licensed premises.

The measure must be considered in the context of other changes that have been made in recent times to the Liquor Act and in the light of the change to the liquor culture that this Government is trying to bring about. While in no way resiling from the general problem of problem gambling and some
Page 1623
of the difficulties associated with locating liquor services near gambling machines, the Government believes that the current controls and improvements in those controls will be sufficient to deal with the problem, rather than have a total prohibition that would probably be impossible to implement given current expectations. Total prohibition would be considered by the overwhelming majority of patrons of licensed premises to be an unacceptable impost.

Amendment negatived.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.20 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 9:

No. 9 Page 7, schedule 2. Insert after line 29:

[6] Section 66B

Insert after section 66A:

66B Director may receive complaints about the conduct of gambling from patrons of licensed premises

(1) A patron of licensed premises where approved gaming devices are authorised to be kept may make a complaint to the Director about the conduct of gaming at those premises.

(2) On receiving a complaint referred to in subsection (1), the Director must:

(a) carry out such investigation or inquiry into the complaint as the Director considers appropriate, and

(b) decide whether to make a complaint under section 67.

(3) The Director must inform the licensee of the licensed premises of the substance of the complaint and give the licensee a reasonable opportunity to make a response to it.

(4) The Director may carry out all such investigations and inquiries in relation to the complaint as he or she considers necessary in order to ascertain whether a complaint should be made under section 67.

(5) The Director must inform the complainant of:

(a) the investigations and inquiries that he or she has carried out, and

(b) whether the Director will make a complaint under section 67.

(6) A complaint referred to in subsection (1) is not an authorised complaint for the purposes of section 67.

This is a most important amendment. It deals with the action to be taken or practices to be adopted to minimise harm associated with the misuse and abuse of gambling activities. We support the amendment in the Government’s bill but we are adding detail as to how the director will deal with complaints. Amendment No. 9 inserts new section 66B, the heading of which is:

66B Director may receive complaints about the conduct of gambling from patrons of licensed premises

The section outlines the procedure that should be followed in that regard. Subsection (5) states:

(5) The Director must inform the complainant of:

(a) the investigations and inquiries that he or she has carried out, and

(b) whether the Director will make a complaint under section 67.

The problem with the Government’s legislation is that it does not spell out the procedure when a complaint is made or the process. This amendment merely codifies that in a very simple way.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.21 p.m.]: The Government does not support amendment No. 9 of the Christian Democratic Party. The amendment seeks to place in the Act, as Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has canvassed, a procedure that currently occurs in the vast majority of complaints made to the department. It is not appropriate to incorporate it in a legislative form.

A number of the complaints that the department receives are frivolous or vexatious or are clearly the result of personal disputes between people at a club or a hotel. In these circumstances, it is obviously inappropriate to require the full range of investigative activity to be undertaken. More generally, it is important that the Director of Liquor and Gaming continue to have sufficient flexibility to allocate resources to the serious incidents to ensure that the public interest is properly pursued and protected.

The proposal, if fully implemented, could jeopardise the director’s ability to allocate resources in line with the relative risk to the public interest posed by the complaint. While the Government therefore opposes the amendment, honourable members may be assured that the department will continue to deal with the complaints made to it in the most effective and efficient manner possible in the circumstances which exist at the particular time. As I think I previously mentioned to honourable members, the diligence of the Minister, Richard Face, with respect to these matters and the expectations he places on the department are beyond reproach. It seems to me that by mandating this provision we would risk a serious misallocation of
Page 1624
resources which should be appropriately concentrated where they are needed.

The Hon. I. COHEN [9.23 p.m.]: The Greens support the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and feel that the direction of complaints in that way is a reasonable position.

Amendment negatived.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.24 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 10:

No. 10 Page 8, schedule 2. Insert after line 7:

[7] Section 91A Restrictions on use of "casino" etc to advertise licensed premises

Omit section 91A (2) and (3).

[8] Section 92 Gaming-related advertising

Omit the section. Insert instead:

92 Prohibition on gambling advertising

(1) In this section:

gambling advertising means any writing, or a still or moving picture, sign, symbol or other visual image or an audible message, or a combination of any two or more of them, that gives publicity to, or otherwise promotes or is intended to promote, gambling or gambling facilities at licensed premises.

publish includes display or disseminate in any way, whether by oral, visual, written or other means (for example, dissemination by means of cinema, video, radio, electronics or television).

(2) A hotelier or an employee of a hotelier must not publish, or cause to be published, any gambling advertising.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(3) A hotelier must remove any gambling advertising displayed at the licensed premises as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(4) This section does not apply to any gambling advertising published in accordance with a contract or arrangement entered into before the commencement of this section.

(5) A hotelier must not after the commencement of this section enter into or extend the duration of any contract or arrangement to publish gambling advertising.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(6) Any contract or arrangement for the doing of anything prohibited by this section (being a contract that purports to have been entered into after the commencement of this section) is void.

This amendment relates to hotels. One of the problems with the bill is that it deals with casinos, hotels and registered clubs so some of the amendments have a similar sound about them. We are now dealing with advertising related to hotels. Honourable members would have noted since poker machines were allowed in hotels the dramatic change in the external aspect and the type of advertising that now appears all over the front of hotels. It has changed them from any vision of an English-type club atmosphere to mini-casinos with huge signs advertising poker machines, virtually using the word "casino".

I know that the Government’s intention is to prevent the word "casino" appearing on hotels, so there is now an urgent need for such an amendment to prohibit a hotelier or an employee of a hotelier publishing, or causing to be published, any gambling advertising. The amendment covers the different sections that cover the various possibilities and would cover particularly signs outside hotels that promote gambling or gambling facilities at licensed premises. I understand that Australian Democrats amendment No. 4 is similar, and there may be others.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.26 p.m.]: I support the Christian Democratic Party amendment. Therefore I will not move my amendment No. 4.

The Hon. I. COHEN [9.26 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens, I support the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile in keeping with the Greens position on the desired restriction of advertising on such an establishment.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.26 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment. It seeks to remove the current exceptions to the Liquor Act that permit the use of the word "casino" inside a hotel where it is not externally visible or in particular prescribed circumstances. These provisions were inserted into the legislation in 1994 prior to the establishment of the Sydney casino with a view to ensuring that hotels did not present themselves to the public through their advertising or any other externally visible manner as casinos.

The Government is not aware of any level of community concern about the minor exceptions that exist to this very broad-ranging prohibition being inappropriate. These exceptions relate to signage inside a hotel which is not visible from outside the premises and the special circumstances which may
Page 1625
be prescribed in regulations from time to time. To date, none have been prescribed. They are sensible exceptions that seek to balance the need to ensure that hotels do not attract customers by engaging in misleading activities while providing an appropriate level of latitude to promotional material that may be used inside a hotel.

In relation to advertising generally, while the Government recognises the strength of views held by some honourable members about the need to prohibit all types of gaming advertising, this bill reflects the view that it is appropriate that gambling advertising should be subject to certain restrictions but not completely prohibited. Whether honourable members like it or not, gambling is clearly a well-accepted, harmless pastime for many in our community and at least the majority, if not the overwhelming majority, of gamblers.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Not for all.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The Hon. D. J. Gay says it is not for all. It has been conceded in this debate by both sides that there is a percentage of the community who gamble who are described as problem gamblers. The claims as to what percentage of gamblers in the community are problem gamblers vary. The optimists say that the percentage of gamblers who have had some form of problem gambling at some point in their gambling experience may be anything up to 10 per cent, maybe even 15 per cent.

Therefore, between 85 and 90 per cent of the community gamble as an acceptable and normal part of their recreational activities. We live with that reality and we need to make policy in accordance with that reality, while recognising the need to give some support and, if necessary, rehabilitation and opportunities to those who cannot control their compulsion or inclination to gamble so they can give up their destructive habits.

Those who are not problem gamblers - that is, the vast majority of gamblers, and people who are indifferent to gambling - may have some interest in last week’s Lotto jackpot, the nature of gambling machine operations at a club or hotel, the existence of the casino as a general entertainment option, or the types of sporting events that punters may bet on at the TAB. Those who suggest that all gambling advertising should be banned have the onus of showing that it is the most desirable policy position in all the circumstances.

It is apparent that the weight of evidence does not support a prohibitionist approach. That has also been said in general terms in response to other amendments during the course of this debate. Both the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] and the Productivity Commission - whose reports have been quoted by those advocating prohibition or a stronger regulatory approach - have conducted detailed examinations of these matters within the past 12 months. They did not seriously contemplate, although at least one canvassed, a total ban on advertising.

The Productivity Commission argued in its draft report that there were grounds for tighter controls on gambling advertising. Clearly there is always a view about the advertising of a product, particularly a potentially harmful product, that in some circumstances the methods of advertising can trigger compulsive behaviour or other problems. If examples of such problems were presented to the Government and to the Minister, the House could be assured that, where necessary, the regulations would be varied and, if required, appropriate amendments to the legislation would be introduced.

The bill introduces a specific regulation-making power relating to hotel advertising. The exposure draft regulations contain a comprehensive range of new controls. We are arguing about the extent of the movement towards tighter regulation rather than whether there should be regulation. The Government has discounted prohibition as an option but is prepared to look at regulations that work and are effective. We believe it is important to concentrate our regulatory authority and powers on those who may suffer from gambling, those who have some compulsion or difficulty with gambling.

The Government is prepared to review any of the controls in light of public comment or concerns raised by members of Parliament and professionals or counsellors involved in the field. Their concerns will be taken into account in the composition of the draft regulations and in any future amendments to the regulations once they are put in place. For that reason, the Government is unable to support the amendments.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.33 p.m.]: I am struck by the extraordinary parallel between the arguments about tobacco advertising and the arguments just advanced by the Special Minister of State.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Respectable arguments.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The Minister said they were respectable arguments. Tobacco has killed millions of people and will
Page 1626
continue to kill millions of people, as successive Parliaments have raised fatuous arguments and prolonged inactivity against that harmful product and the harm caused by gambling. To say that advertising does not convince people is a weak argument. They say that if advertisers diddle with the words, say this but not that, it will not have the same effect. There are an infinite number of ways to create a positive effect in words or imagery. If advertisers are told to change the images, that is merely a challenge for them to repaint the activity as a normal part of life.

In the days when governments said they could not stop companies advertising cigarettes, because for example people might prefer brand A to brand B, advertisers relied on the respectability and attractiveness of the product. That occurred for another 20 or 30 years while the ridiculous arguments continued. In this debate we have heard the argument that only certain types of advertising are harmful, and advertising must not be banned because many people gamble without experiencing any harm.

The Minister sought to minimise the harm of gambling. He said that 85 per cent of people do not suffer harmful effects. He ignored the other 15 per cent. The hard data of the Productivity Commission shows that a third of the money from gambling comes from problem gamblers. That is a very large percentage from a proportion of gamblers much smaller than a third. According to the Productivity Commission report problem gamblers spend about $12,000 a year on gambling and gamblers who do not have a problem spend about $625 per year.

The people who can least afford it spend a large amount of money. That was glossed over in the Minister’s speech. He is an apologist. He will not do anything; he will merely let the industry do what it wants, market its concept and rake in the money. Someone else will pick up the harm, funded by 1 per cent of the gambler’s losses.

The Minister also reversed the onus of proof. He did not say that the companies spending millions of dollars on advertising should show that advertising does not work and does not increase the harm. If the companies were rational, they would not spend the money on advertising if it did not work. They would not spend millions of dollars on advertising unless they were sure to get their money back.

Generally, companies undertake studies to determine whether advertising campaigns are successful, but those studies are not made public. The Government reverses the onus of proof and says that, although the gambling industry has billions of dollars of gambling revenue from which it can pay millions of dollars for advertising, the do-gooders who pick the people up out of the gutter should prove that it does harm. Then the Government will stop it.

That is what the tobacco industry did: it advertised its product and hooked all the kids, and challenged its opponents to prove that its product was harmful. The industry knew from its secret surveys that its product was harmful, but it did not make them public. Now that the tobacco company records are being viewed through court actions, it is all out in the open.

For 40 years the tobacco industry has demanded that the health groups prove what it already knew, but without the experimental and financial mechanisms and surveys to assist them. Tobacco companies could plan a campaign, test market it, see the difference it made, look at the daily sales increases and see how well it worked. Then they told the health groups to prove that the advertising was successful. The tobacco companies said it did not work, that they were only making an image for their companies or differentiating one brand from another.

Now we have the reverse onus of proof argument in gambling advertising. We are told to prove that it actually works. The gambling industry has spent millions of dollars on advertising, but it is suggested it does not know if advertising works. What implausible nonsense! The reverse onus of proof is exactly what happened in the tobacco industry. Now another industry which does social harm is protected by the Government, and the Leader of the Government makes the same limp apologies that we have heard in the tobacco debates. I want to make that parallel because we are at the beginning of a cycle which may take three or four generations to complete and gambling is again restricted as it was 20 to 30 years ago.

The genie is out of the bottle, and the Government is now making its venal apologies. I want to point out to honourable members the parallels for this House in relation to gambling advertising. I ask that honourable members support the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, which is indeed very similar to mine. My amendment included advertising in the electronic media but as this amendment is not likely to be supported by either the Government or the Opposition I suppose it does not really matter.

Page 1627

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.40 p.m.]: Indeed it does matter. I will briefly take issue with the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans on two points. First, in respect to advertising driving demand, I do not suggest that there is an onus of proof in this debate. All members have to proceed on the information at their disposal. It is reasonable that the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans suggest whether the operators of casinos, hotels or clubs are investing billions, millions, hundreds of thousands, thousands, or hundreds of dollars and whether they are deliberately directing advertising to the 10 or 15 per cent of problem gamblers.

Obviously that would be an issue which, as I have already said, the Government would take up. On behalf of the Minister I have already said on that policy point that the Government is committed to the view that any advertising that seeks to take advantage of those who have a compulsion to gamble or have a behavioural problem would be unacceptable and, if appropriate, regulations would be put in place. The reality is that advertising provides information to a large number of people and drives demand. Those who participate in gambling need that information, and advertising is part of normal commercial arrangements.

Second, the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans referred to smoking. There is clearly an important ethical distinction between policy relating to gambling and the tobacco industry. The analogy drawn by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans is inappropriate. As I have said before, most people accept the zero threshold for cigarette smoking. At all levels, smoking is universally harmful and it is the extent of the harm to different individuals that is important. On the other hand, gambling is acceptable to a very large percentage of the population. I do not accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

Bills received.

Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.

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

That these bills be read a first time and printed, that standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages, and that the second reading of the bills be set down as orders of the day for the next sitting day.

Bills read a first time.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.45 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [9.45 p.m.]: I wish to talk about the Eleventh Grand Philippine festival, which was held on the long weekend of 4 October at Bankstown Paceway, 178 Eldridge Road, Bankstown.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: A Labour day weekend.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: Yes indeed, as the Hon. J. R. Johnson said. A grand occasion was organised by the Philippine-Australian Sports Club Inc., with the participation of various Filipino-Australian community organisations. The President of the Philippine-Australian Sports Club is Manny Castillo, who for many years has been a pioneer and played an important role in the social cohesion of our multicultural society. The program on 4 October was very impressive. It started at 9.00 a.m. and finished at 10.00 p.m.

A number of parliamentarians and other dignitaries attended the official opening at midday. They included the Leader of the Opposition, Kerry Chikarovski; Ambassador Delia Dalbert of the Philippine Embassy; the patron of the Philippine-Australian Sports Club, Mr Justice John Dowd; a number of other important dignitaries, and me. Later in the program there were a number of cultural items, including a ballroom and modern dancing exhibition, a cultural presentation of music and dance, and, in the evening, a pageant for Miss Philippines Australia 1999.

I am pleased to say that the Leader of the Opposition in this House, the Hon. M. J. Gallacher, played an important role in the fiesta. The theme of the fiesta related to the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. The Philippine Sports Club was proud to be a part of Sydney’s successful bid for the Games, having responded to the call of the New South Wales Government to help persuade some members
Page 1628
of the International Olympic Committee to vote for this beautiful city.

Such occasions are visible proof of the multicultural nature of the Sydney Basin in particular. The weekends see a host of cultural events, including fiestas and festivals. Yesterday I mentioned the Arabic Carnivale, which is another example of successful community organisation. Like the Arabic Carnivale, the Philippines festival attracted at least 30,000 people on the Labour Day long weekend. We can be proud of the contribution made by ethnic communities to our multicultural society. [Time expired.]

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.50 p.m.]: Recently at the estimates committee hearings on the environment budget I was shocked when the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS] said that the NPWS was still issuing licences to kill grey-headed flying foxes although Environment Australia has issued a report clearly indicating that grey-headed flying foxes are vulnerable and the numbers have dropped considerably. When I asked why the NPWS could not issue licences to scare the flying foxes by using blank cartridges, rather than killing them, the Director-General said that it was not practical to do so.

The people on the North Coast will be aware that in the meantime many fruit growers have used low-interest loans from the Department of Agriculture to net their crops, which is a good way of stopping flying foxes. Last year I received information about the Phoenix wailer system being tested in the Domain by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Further information from Phoenix Deterrent Systems in Victoria shows that the system is working very well. If farmers cannot afford to put up netting, which many have done in the past season with subsidised loans from the Department of Agriculture, they can at least afford to get one of several types of wailer systems.

Four models of the wailer system are now available: the wailer mark III, the squawker, the wailer Mark III airport and the marine wailer. Phoenix Deterrent Systems Australia Pty Ltd has informed me that the Ontario Government pays a subsidy of $Can1,450 per system to farmers and industry for up to three systems. So the Ontario Government, unlike the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service and Department of Agriculture, has taken the lead in ensuring that farmers can protect their crops with a much cheaper system than netting.

The Nova Scotia Government pays sheep farmers a 50 per cent subsidy to purchase units to protect their sheep from coyotes. The unit is fitted with a powerful strobe light and is the same unit as that featured on the Landline program on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation last year. The American Environmental Protection Authority [EPA] fines goldmining companies $US10,000 for each dead bird found by its rangers in mine tailing ponds. I wish that happened in New South Wales because thousands of birds have been found dead in some mine tailing ponds here. Some companies would go broke if they were fined for the number of birds they had killed.

For example, a mine in Montana was fined around $US350,000 last year. That mine has placed a number of units on its ponds after being advised by the American EPA to do so, and US Steel has done the same. Normandy Mines in the Northern Territory, which has a connection to the Montana mine, placed a unit on one of its tailing ponds. The mines environmental division of Normandy Mines told Phoenix Deterrent Systems that the unit has been working at the site for more than a year and the number of bird killed in its ponds had been cut by two-thirds or more, although the unit is not set up correctly. In a letter to the Phoenix company in Canada the township of Woolwich in Ontario stated:

I just wanted to let you know that the Township of Woolwich has purchased the Phoenix Wailer MkIIIa from RedTrac International in Ontario. We have had a nuisance bird problem in a residential subdivision (aptly named the Birdland subdivision) for the last 5-6 years. We have tried a number of solutions including distress call tapes, and a falconer, with limited success. We finally agreed to rent the Phoenix wailer on a trial basis and are pleased to report the unit has been very successful . . . the birds have stopped roosting in this area.

So there are alternatives to netting, although netting is cheap enough. But the Phoenix wailer system is even cheaper. The National Parks and Wildlife Service should not be issuing licences to kill what is now a threatened species and the endangered black flying fox. What they should be doing is either subsidising people to get the Phoenix systems or subsidising the Department of Agriculture to obtain more netting. They certainly should not be doing that this year when the grey-headed flying foxes are on their way out.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON [9.55 p.m.]: Madam President, I thank you and your fellow Presiding Officer, the Hon. John Murray, for accepting the suggestion that we honour one of the greatest statesmen of the twentieth century by naming the rooftop garden of this noble
Page 1629
establishment, the Parliament of New South Wales, as the Nelson Mandela Gardens. Nelson Mandela was the authentic voice of the vast majority of the people of South Africa. His integrity shone forth as clear as the noonday sun. Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, the son of Chief Henry Mandela of the Tembu tribe, is without doubt one of the greatest, if not the greatest, leaders of our time.

He is an individual who overcame enormous adversity to guide South Africa from a path of enormous bloodshed towards one hopefully of long-lasting peace and racial harmony. Without his wise council and judgment, majority rule would have come from rivers and lakes of blood. Nelson Mandela has always enjoyed a unique relationship with the people of South Africa. He knew his people and he led his people; more importantly, he loved them and they loved him in return.

This relationship remains after all that he and his people have been through and stands testament to his remarkable leadership; leadership measured often by his sheer presence and for many years gauged by the great vacuum apparent by his absence. Speaker Rozzoli and I as Presiding Officers of this Parliament were privileged some years ago to welcome this noble man. Intrinsic to the story of Mandela is the struggle for peace, the fight for racial equality, and the basic demands for equality of opportunity, upholding of human rights and delivery of social justice. For all these things Nelson Mandela and his people have only recently been able to toil through the parliamentary process.

For many years his life story and his struggle was against an evil but deeply entrenched system of apartheid; a system Mandela fought as a young lawyer and as leader of the African National Congress [ANC] in the 1940s; a system that saw him jailed for the first time in the 1950s and then for five years after the massacre at Sharpeville of unarmed Africans by police in 1960 and the subsequent banning of the ANC. So great a threat to the amoral policies of the ruling National Party was Mandela that in 1964 he was jailed for life on charges of sabotage, treason and violent conspiracy following a flawed and farcical process then labelled the Rivonia trial.

Though incarcerated and isolated, Mandela maintained and indeed built upon his widely held and deeply rooted support in the black population. Indeed, his imprisonment became the great rallying point of the people fighting against apartheid the world over. Through all of this we can see his guiding hand and leadership, even if it is measured against the gulf in leadership his country suffered while ever a minority sought to silence him. Most remarkably, despite incarceration for over 26 years, Nelson Mandela has shown no malice to his captors - resentment maybe, but no malice.

Despite 18 years of hard labour at the notorious Robben Island Prison of Cape Town, despite witnessing at close quarters other leaders of the ANC physically break down in gaol, despite spending another six years at the maximum security Pollsmoor Prison before contracting tuberculosis and still not being released from an institution built for society’s hardened criminals, despite all this Nelson Mandela has not shown malice; rather he has shown a profound desire for his people to progress in peace. I conclude with a message of hope delivered by Nelson Mandela. I seek leave to have that message incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.
______

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.

Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.

It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.

We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented,
fabulous?

Actually, who are you NOT to be?

You are a child of God.

Your playing small does not serve the world.

There is nothing enlightened about shrinking

so that other people will not feel insecure around you.

We were born to manifest the glory of God that is within us.

It is not just in some of us; it is within everyone.

And as we let our light shine, we unconsciously

give other people permission to do the same.

As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence
automatically liberates others.

______

Nelson Mandela, ad multos annos.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [10.00 p.m.]: Yesterday I had the opportunity, with the good grace of the Government Whip, who granted me leave of absence, to attend the annual general meeting of the
Page 1630
Alzheimer’s association. It was a particularly significant meeting. The raw statistics show that there are some 135,000 sufferers throughout the Commonwealth of Australia, two-thirds of whom live in New South Wales. It is estimated that perhaps as many again suffer the symptoms without as yet having been diagnosed. So about 200,000 people in New South Wales are victims of Alzheimer’s disease.

Two great scourges have emerged in recent decades. One is the increasing incidence of painful and ultimately fatal cancer. The other is loss of memory and dementia in aged persons. Advances in medical science have enabled people to live to a much greater age. They are residents of aged care facilities, as we call them now. Nursing home facilities once would have had a large number of people simply suffering from some restriction in their mobility or requiring other medical care. Now well over 60 per cent of residents are dementia patients who cannot be cared for other than in such institutions, which is a very sad thing.

This very worthy organisation promotes, firstly, awareness. It provides support and counselling for those involved in the early stages of diagnosis and for their family supporters as the disease progresses. It also provides professional development for carers and others involved. The organisation receives government support, both State and Federal, of about $800,000 a year. However, it requires well over $1 million for its annual operations. This shortfall presents a very daunting task in a community which is called on for philanthropic contributions for a very wide range of causes.

The activities of the organisation are not restricted to those who are clinically diagnosed with Alzheimer’s; they cover people with much milder symptoms such as memory loss which may not develop into Alzheimer’s. When some of us are standing here at the rostrum occasionally we realise that our memory is not as sharp as it once was. But there are many people - even young people - who suffer from a chronic condition of memory lapse. It destroys their personality. They lose confidence. They are in great need of help. They may not go on to develop Alzheimer’s or develop an acute form of disease but their lives are very restricted. The only source of support and counselling for them is this very worthy organisation.

I was received very graciously by the chief executive officer, Louis Kaplan, who is known to many people here, and also by Dr Yeoh. I pointed out to them - this was evidenced by the large number of apologies from my colleagues from both sides of the House - that had it not been a sitting day a large number of members representing all parties would have attended.

They had support from everybody. I was the one who was privileged to represent the whole Parliament and wish them well on behalf of us all. I am sure honourable members would join with me in expressing very best wishes in their activities and the hope that somewhere around the corner there will be a dramatic breakthrough in mitigating the symptoms of this condition and perhaps arriving one day at a cure if the diagnosis can be effected early enough. I commend the organisation for its work.

The Hon. M. I. JONES [10.05 p.m.]: This summer our State may once again stand at the precipice of a natural disaster. As the temperature begins to rise our public estate may become a time bomb that has the potential to produce a wall of fire that can engulf not only our forests, parks and reserves but the communities that surround these areas. Bushfires are virtually an uncontrollable force of nature. However, the ferocity and intensity of the fire is determined by planning and careful management of our parks, forests, wilderness areas and, indeed, all of our public land.

During the Ash Wednesday fires, while flying between Melbourne and Adelaide I crossed over the area through which the maelstrom had passed. In 1994 I walked through the Wollemi National Park after the horrific fires and saw the devastation they caused. Nothing escaped, no animals, not even insects. Only a charred wasteland remained. The blackened earth was littered with the charred corpses of animals. These fires were the product of poor planning and the build-up of high fuel levels on public land.

The Government has learned little from the experience of these fires, despite a commission of inquiry. It has continued an unchanged and bankrupt policy of no burning, and locking up public land and roads. The Government has become a slave to extreme green propaganda, and has centralised rural fire prevention policy to the point where it is formulated in Sydney. Local communities and rural fire groups are not consulted.

The leadership of the Rural Fire Service has capitulated to this extremist policy direction. Instead of seeking to overturn these policies it has become little more than a collaborationist to the extreme green cause, with scant regard for the people whom
Page 1631
they administer and whom they protect. How quickly the leaders, the heroes of the 1994 bushfires, have become little more than the Minister’s yes-men. This direction in policy has resulted in the closing of access roads and fire trails. Their neglect through lack of maintenance leaves our Rural Fire Service unprepared and vulnerable.

Extreme weather conditions will continue to combine with the existing fuel loads, which are the build-up of native flora and litter in our parks and forests. Fuel loads in most of these areas are now in excess of 80 tonnes per hectare. At Nudgee, Crowdy Bay, Bungonia and eventually everywhere across this State public land is being locked up and the fuel load is growing unchecked. Even with the best fire fighting practices, fire behaviour can be moderated only with a fuel burden of 20 tonnes per hectare or less. Control burns are needed with the consultation of local communities, not pseudo-scientific technocrats stuck in their airconditioned towers. In 1996 the now retired State Senior Deputy Coroner John Hiatt found:

There was evidence that the Fuel Management Policy of the National Parks and Wildlife Service has lead to heavier fuel loads in National Parks and so, emphasis should be placed on strategic hazard reduction.

Despite the passing of the Rural Fire Act the Government has not addressed this problem adequately. It has ignored these recommendations as the fuel loads continue to grow in our natural estate. It will be the men and women of the Rural Fire Service who put their lives on the line, not the Minister, not the leader of the bush fire brigade and certainly not the extreme greens. Mr Hiatt also found that the views of voluntary bush fire brigade officers were:

. . . less reflected in the decision making relating to fuel management and the operation of fire services.

Despite this the Government continues to ignore the experience and knowledge of local communities and the veterans of so many bushfire campaigns. The courage that these volunteers possess is extraordinary, yet they are placed in unnecessary danger each bushfire season through poor planning and a lack of strong leadership. When will the Government act to protect those who protect us? Will the Government wait until the next wave of fire sweeps away our forests, houses and lives?

The Government has again proved that it has no interest in regional concerns because it is too busy pandering to minority extremist interests. Yet what must be most galling to regional New South Wales is that the Government, acting on the recommendations of the inquiry, has legislated its responsibility to fire protection. However, it has reduced the legislation to little more than a slick marketing gimmick like, say, Country Labor. Under the Rural Fire Act of 1997 the responsibility for the prevention of bushfires is very clear for government authorities. [Time expired.]

I seek leave to have the remainder of my contribution incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Part 4 Division 1 of the Rural Fire Act reads:

It is the duty of the owner or occupier of the land to take the notified steps (if any) and any other practicable steps to prevent the occurrence of bush fires on, and to minimise the danger of the spread of bush fires on or from, that land.

Yet the Minister and his agents make only token gestures towards prevention. As the leader of the Rural Bush Fire Brigade Service has stated in committee that he is more willing to respect the charter of other Government agencies, rather than ensuring that vehicular access to these areas are maintained, and therefore ensure the necessary fire management of government administered lands.

Despite the legal requirements of the Act, their policy of "no-burn" and their neglect of our national estate threatens not only to wreak untold damage upon our precious natural resource. It also undermines the thin red line that stands between us and the firestorm which threatens.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.10 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the plight of women in Afghanistan. The situation in that country is becoming so bad that in a recent editorial in the Times newspaper the treatment of women in that country was compared to the treatment of Jews in pre-Holocaust Poland. Since the Taliban took power in 1996 Afghanistan women have been forced to wear a very heavy veil. The word "veil" does not adequately describe it. It is a huge cloth that totally covers the woman, leaving only a small opening for the eyes so that she is able to find her way around.

At present women in Afghanistan are regularly beaten and stoned in public for not having the proper attire, even for simply not having the mesh covering in front of their eyes. One woman was beaten to death for accidentally exposing her arm while she was driving. Another was stoned to death for trying to leave the country with a man who was not her relative. Women are not allowed to work or
Page 1632
even go out in public without male relatives. Professional women such as professors, translators, doctors, lawyers, artists and writers have been forced to leave their jobs and now have to spend all their time at home. Depression is a big factor that is causing incredible hardship. In some cases, when the women are able to get to a hospital they fill up the emergency wards.

There is no way of knowing with certainty the suicide rate in such an extreme Islamic society. However, many relief workers have estimated that the suicide rate among women in Afghanistan has increased significantly. Women cannot gain medication and treatment for the severe depression that they are suffering because of the extreme circumstances in which they are forced to live.

That is a serious situation for women who are forced to stay at home. The windows of their homes must be painted so that they can never be seen by outsiders. They must wear silent shoes so that they are never heard. Women live in fear of their lives for the slightest misbehaviour. Because they cannot work, those without male relatives or husbands are either starving to death or begging on the streets. There are not enough medical facilities available for the number of women who have suffered because of the beatings and the mental torture they are going through.

A reporter who visited one of the rare hospitals for women described how she found lifeless bodies lying motionless on the tops of beds, wrapped in their heavy veils, unwilling to speak, eat, or do anything but slowly waste away. Others had gone mad and were seen crouched in corners, perpetually rocking or crying, most of them in fear. When what little medication is left finally runs out, one doctor is considering leaving these women in front of the President’s residence as a form of peaceful protest. The situation has reached the point where the term "human rights violations" has become an understatement. Husbands have the power of life and death over their women relatives, especially their wives.

This state of affairs is totally unacceptable and needs to be put before the world community. Action must be taken in support of the women and, indeed, all the people of Afghanistan, because the men also suffer in these circumstances. Although men are not subject to the same oppression as the women, their lives are compromised by seeing their sisters, daughters and loved ones put in this horrendous situation. The rights of women are not a small issue anywhere and it is unacceptable for women in 1999 to be treated as subhuman and as property.

Equality and human decency is a right, not a freedom, whether one lives in Afghanistan or anywhere else. These comments are just a little insight into what is happening in Afghanistan at the present time. It is horrendous, and because the media are not present in that country we do not get the same degree of coverage we fortunately got in relation to East Timor. I urge all honourable members to acquaint themselves with the situation because we need to give attention to this matter and hopefully change the current situation.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [10.15 p.m.], in reply: I would like to take this opportunity to make a few brief comments, given the remarks of the Hon. J. R. Johnson about Nelson Mandela and South Africa. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that Australia is currently commemorating the centenary of the Anglo-Boer War. It is worth noting that 17 to 20 October marks the centenary of the debate in the New South Wales colonial Parliament as to whether this colony would send its part-time soldiers to the war. The motion that was moved was as follows:

That this House is of the opinion that New South Wales should equip and despatch a military force for service with the Imperial Army in South Africa.

The issue was debated at length in the other place. It involved 24 hours of speeches spread over four days and it became acrimonious at times. On 19 October 1899 in this Chamber the debate on the Boer War took less than an hour and was carried without a dissenting voice. This House took the unusual step of debating the issue whilst it was still being debated in the other place. Of the six Australian colonies in 1899, New South Wales had the most serious and conscientious debate on equipping an expedition to South Africa. It was also the last colony to debate the issue and this took place after the war had commenced.

Taking part in the debate in the other place were no fewer than four future Prime Ministers, namely, Edmund Barton, George Reid, Joseph Cook and William Morris Hughes; and one Premier and five future Premiers namely, Premiers William Lyne, John See, Thomas Waddell, Joseph Carruthers, James McGowen and William Holman. Four of the most vocal critics of the war were Labor members Hughes, Holman, Arthur Griffith and Alfred Edden. In an ironic twist of history all four would leave the Labor Party over their support for conscription in 1916. The Australian colonies were under pressure from the British Government, the
Page 1633
media and local military to support the British war effort in South Africa.

Debate in the other colonial parliaments was almost a travesty of democracy, with little knowledge of the issues in Africa displayed. But here in New South Wales politicians spoke their minds at great length and with considerable knowledge of the events in Africa. New South Wales Premier Lyne had expected the debate in the other place to be over in one night. Instead, there were 24 hours of debate spread over four days. This was often heated and unruly, and it did not followed the loose party lines of the day.

Two Labor members, Arthur Griffith, then member for Waratah, and Richard Sleath, then member for Wilcannia - Country Labor - offered to settle their differences outside the Chamber. Future Labor and later Nationalist leaders Hughes and Holman courageously attacked the imperialist nature of the war, calling it unjust. At the height of Holman’s speech about an unjust war, Edmund Barton interjected, asking Holman who he hoped would win. Holman stated that he hoped England would be defeated. Total uproar ensued and the Speaker had to rush into the Chamber to take over from the Deputy-Speaker and restore order.

Many members expressed a belief in loyalty to the empire as the driving reason to support the motion. As the debate wore on there was lengthy argument over the perceived rights and wrongs of the complex issues in South Africa. Finally, at 7.00 a.m. on Friday 20 October 1899, after an all-night sitting, the motion was carried by 78 votes to 10. The vote was greeted with three cheers for the Queen and the singing of God Save the Queen.

Eventually some 8,000 New South Welshmen would serve in South Africa. All experts, as often became the case, predicted the war would be over in months. Instead, it lasted almost three years, at enormous economic and personal cost. It was a terrible conflict for soldiers and civilians alike. It left a legacy of hatred. It was the last war of the nineteenth century, and it bequeathed to the twentieth century two of the greatest horrors of our time - the concentration camp and the apartheid system of government.

The treaty that concluded the war sadly played a role in the emergence of what we now know as the apartheid society of the twentieth century. But the involvement of the colony of New South Wales did not come without a serious and passionate debate involving many members of this House and the other place, many of whom became great and significant political leaders of the first decades of the twentieth century, both in this State and subsequently in Federal politics.

Modern South Africa is now a very different place. It is worth noting that although New South Wales was the last colony to decide to go to the war, it was the first of all British empire colonies to arrive. That occurred because a party of 100 New South Wales Lancers, the colony’s elite cavalry unit, was training in England at its own expense. With war brewing in Africa, the Lancers offered to disembark at Table Bay, Cape Colony, on their way home and serve as part of General French’s British cavalry force. Their offer was accepted, and the New South Wales Lancers were the first troops from outside Britain to arrive at the African front.

On a wet Saturday afternoon on 28 October 1899 more than 250,000 citizens of Sydney turned out to farewell the New South Wales contingent. Bear in mind the population of Sydney at the time. Despite the authorities forgetting to cancel tram services along part of the route of the march, the contingent boarded the S.S.Kent to the strains of "The Girl I Left Behind Me" and "Soldiers of the Queen". Followed up the harbour by a boat carrying the Premier and members of his government, the S.S.Kent, streaming flags and bunting, began its 5,000-mile voyage to Cape Town.

I wish to place on record the significance of the geographical relationship of our continent and that of Africa - it having been, of course, part of the prehistoric continent of Gondwanaland, the reason that we share so much of the African flora and some of its geography. However, I reflected on a more recent association in our history when I contemplated making this speech. In concluding, I would make the personal observation on the Nelson Mandela court and the comments earlier of the Hon. J. R. Johnson.

I was, prior to becoming a member of this House, privileged to be part of an Australian Labor Party delegation that visited Africa in the process of what we might describe as normalisation or democratisation at the end of the apartheid era and during the transitional phase. One of the great privileges of my life was to be involved, in a very small way, in the African National Congress [ANC] campaign for democracy. I thought it worthwhile, in respect of the great movement that we recall the ANC and the great leadership of Nelson Mandela described by the Hon. J. R. Johnson, to reflect on one or two matters.

I might add that the Hon. J. R. Johnson and I, along with many other members of the Australian Labor Party, including Madam President, owe a lot
Page 1634
of our relationship with the new South Africa and the African liberation movement to the great work of a person I might describe as an informal diplomat, then a representative of the ANC and now a senior member of the African National Congress Government, Eddie Fundi. It was an important point that was made - though not necessarily a fashionable one - about the ANC under the leadership of Mandela, despite the fact that it was extraordinarily Broad-Church.

I was privileged to be present at a number of meetings of country branches of the ANC. It might be of interest, because it has parallels, that many of the ANC meetings in much of South Africa in those times, only a few years ago, commenced with a prayer. Some of the more militant branches, in Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth, as the Hon. D. J. Gay joked, displayed portraits of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro and other figures of the world communist movement. That was very much part of the normal regalia, as was the expression "comrade", which was almost universal through the movement.

The important point is that under the leadership of Mandela the ANC adopted the view that the first point of liberation for South Africa would come through true democracy. As I said in my remarks about this House making its decision on the Boer War, democracy comes first in the liberation of the human spirit. Something that marks Nelson Mandela as a great leader is that he established democracy in what was a country racked by a terrible history - one that gave rise to both apartheid and the concentration camp, which are two of the great abominations of our century. Yet through the leadership - albeit not solely - of Nelson Mandela and certainly through the inspiration of his leadership, the movement took the view that in spite of the terrible legacy of bitterness and division, democracy must come first.

South Africa, which shares our British imperial heritage, is undergoing an obviously difficult transition. Although great cultural and economic changes still remain to be made, South Africa
remains a functioning democracy. Indeed, despite the difficulties, its democracy appears to be a healthy one. The other point I wish to make goes beyond any simple explanation of political theory and goes to the heart of the intangibility of leadership.

I was privileged to participate in a number of seminars and meetings of ANC members, some of whom were relatively senior activists. It was remarkable to meet a large number of ANC members from the various races that constitute South Africa - blacks, whites and people of Asian extraction. There were any number of people at these meetings who were disabled through loss of limbs or as a result of other wounds or injuries. In discussions with those people, I found that they could recollect from their personal history the reason why they had these very obvious disabilities.

In some cases the disability was a missing arm, missing fingers, a scarred face or a limp that was severe enough to retard movement. People could recall the loss of family members and wives and children who had been kidnapped and had disappeared. They had been brutalised and beaten, yet when asked whether their desire upon gaining power was to seek revenge against the people who perpetrated those injuries upon them, their answer was, "No." Through the leadership of Mandela, the view emerged that the appropriate course was to go forward in a spirit of reconciliation rather than look back in bitterness.

That is one of the intangible features of the leadership of Nelson Mandela that will hopefully become one of the great aspects of his legacy and one of the residual features of his leadership that will survive during this century and into the next. I thank the House for the courtesy of listening to my response to that adjournment.

Motion agreed to.