Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 26 June 2001, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Mr SPEAKER: I welcome to the gallery a group of students from Robert Townson Primary School. I hope they enjoy their visit to the New South Wales Parliament.

Debate resumed from 20 June.

Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater) [10.00 a.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the Heritage Amendment Bill. We appreciate that it deals with a number of reasonable administrative matters and provides a sensible approach to construction and development issues at heritage sites. The bill amends the Heritage Act 1977 to protect historic shipwrecks situated within the limits of New South Wales. The bill allows demolition of non-heritage buildings within a heritage precinct that will not affect heritage buildings. The bill provides for modification of development approvals, and provides for exemption from the requirement for an excavation permit where an archaeological assessment indicates no relics. The bill also extends the time within which proceedings may be commenced for offences from six months to 12 months.

The Opposition supports the general principle that where a development is completed a period of longer than six months may ensue before the Heritage Office or the relevant development authority issues offence notices. We support extending the period to allow for that. We also support the compilation of a register of historic shipwrecks situated within the limits of New South Wales. This State has a rich and colourful maritime history, much of it probably not known to boys and girls at school and residents of the State. It will be of great long-term benefit to the State if we put more effort into understanding our heritage and have a register of historic shipwrecks within our limits. Up and down our coastline—from the Victorian border to the Queensland border—there are a number of shipwrecks and it would be useful to provide a better understanding of their location, status and history.

A significant amendment contained in the bill relates to allowing non-heritage buildings to be demolished in a heritage precinct. We understand that for many people the owning of a heritage building is as much a burden as a benefit. In many cases heritage sites have non-heritage buildings included with the heritage buildings and it can be difficult to deal with the redevelopment of the site building by building. The Coalition supports the provisions of the bill to allow for a development application to go ahead that would include the demolition of a non-heritage building while not affecting a nearby heritage building. We realise that future development of the site must be sympathetic to the heritage precinct or site. The mere existence of a heritage building near a non-heritage building should not prohibit the demolition of the non-heritage building.

The bill also provides for the modification of approvals. This is standard practice through the planning approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In the past, it has not applied to heritage buildings. However, the bill allows for some flexibility through the development process and for modification of approvals rather than a rigid, inflexible system that provides almost no capacity for change in the process. Finally, the bill provides for the issuing of an archaeological assessment certificate relating to a site. Presently the law requires that there be excavation of heritage sites to prove there is nothing there. If a qualified archaeological expert issues a certificate stating that no relics are to be found in an excavation the process may be amended and no excavation will be required.

My colleague the shadow Minister for the Environment and a part-time PhD student in archaeology, together with the National Trust, indicated to me that because Australia's built heritage, its European civilisation, is reasonably well known and much of it has been discovered and documented, we have a detailed understanding of what we can expect to find at many of our heritage sites in New South Wales. Rather than impose extra expense on developments by requiring excavation only to find nothing there, we can use the expertise gathered over many years by archaeologists to ensure that time, effort and money are not wasted in excavation with no result. As I indicated at the commencement of my speech, the Coalition does not oppose the bill, and it will not oppose it in the Legislative Council. We have consulted with bodies including the Property Council and the National Trust, which have indicated that they support the legislation. It is significant that the National Trust in particular supports the bill. It does an excellent job in defending the built heritage of New South Wales.

Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [10.08 a.m.]: I thank the honourable member for his contribution on this important bill, the Heritage Amendment Bill. The honourable member referred to historic shipwrecks. I come from the Hunter area, which has a very active port and many shipwrecks. Many of them have been discovered only in recent years. The bill is important for their preservation. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 20 June.

Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater) [10.09 a.m.]: Earlier Mr Speaker acknowledged the presence in the gallery of the boys and girls from the Robert Townson Primary School. I point out to them that this debate is a good indication that not everything that happens in Parliament is adversarial. Much of what happens in Parliament is straightforward and the Opposition and the Government may agree on legislation. The Opposition will not oppose the Local Government and Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Transfer of Functions) Bill. In consultation with my colleague in another place the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Minister for Local Government, the Coalition will not oppose this bill. It is a reasonably straightforward bill. It probably would ordinarily be left to a miscellaneous provisions piece of legislation, which I am aware the Government is bringing forward at the end of the session and it will be dealt with separately.

This bill provides for minor amendments and a transfer of powers from the Local Government Act across to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Many of the bureaucratic functions have already been transferred from the Department of Local Government to the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning [DUAP]. The officers who are responsible for administering the sections of this legislation were transferred in 1999 from the Department of Local Government to the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning and they have been effectively undertaking their roles in DUAP but have been using the Local Government Act.

This legislation cleans up the lines between the officers and the Act for which they are responsible. The Local Government Act will be amended to remove the need for approvals for the use of buildings and temporary structures as places of public entertainment, the installation of temporary structures on land and the installation of oil and solid fuel heating appliances. The Act will also be amended to repeal provisions with respect to the use of places of public entertainment by the Crown, and to repeal the provision that enables a local council to issue orders requiring a place of public entertainment to be upgraded to relevant standards.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will be concurrently amended to allow the use of buildings and temporary structures as places of public entertainment and installation of temporary structures on land, to regulate the carrying out by the Crown of development involving the use of a building as a place of public entertainment, and to enable a local council to issue orders requiring a place of public entertainment to be upgraded to relevant standards. As I indicated earlier, it is a fairly straightforward administrative bill, which is not opposed by the Opposition for good reason. It allows for the legislative catch-up for bureaucratic decisions that were made some two years ago. The Opposition will not oppose the bill.

Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [10.12 a.m.], in reply: I again thank the shadow Minister for his contribution to the Local Government and Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Transfer of Functions) Bill. This bill is of special importance, as the shadow Minister indicated, in areas of public entertainment. Of course that impacts to some degree on my portfolio, especially in regard to licensing. Over the years, it has been difficult to come to terms with a lot of bureaucratic regulation, and the matter has been in the hands of many different people. I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 25 June.

Mr GREENE (Georges River) [10.15 a.m.]: It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the constituents of Georges River in support of the Treasurer's presentation of his seventh budget for the State of New South Wales. At the outset, I must say that this budget is a responsible piece of work by the Treasurer. It has been warmly received throughout not only the Georges River electorate but also throughout the whole of New South Wales. I inform the House that earlier this month I hosted a function for business leaders within the Georges River community. The Treasurer spoke at the function. The support he received at the function is indicative of the way in which the budget has been received throughout New South Wales. The quality of the questions asked and the responses given by the Treasurer, together with the feedback I received from business community leaders who were in attendance, indicate that people are extremely happy with the budget that the Treasurer has presented. This is the Treasurer's seventh budget and his sixth surplus budget during his term. I congratulate the Treasurer.

It is worth reminding the House that throughout the Treasurer's administration, extensive capital works have been undertaken, particularly in relation to the Olympic Games. It should be remembered that the Games were paid for during a period of surplus budgets. It was not only the Olympic Games and the Games facilities that were a huge bonus for the community of New South Wales, but also the considerable public works projects that were associated with the Games and capital improvements that were provided throughout New South Wales. I highlight the example of roadworks that otherwise would have taken much longer to have been constructed than proved to be the case as a result of the Olympic Games.

I reflect on this matter whenever I drive through the inner west of Sydney. I refer to improvements at the junction of the Hume Highway and Roberts Road at Centenary Drive near the Strathfield golf course. I notice the Minister for Gaming and Racing nodding in acknowledgement. That intersection was upgraded significantly and major improvements have taken place, which were part of the whole Olympics budgetary allocation and capital works improvement program. That is just one example that immediately comes to mind when I think of how people have benefited from the Olympic Games and other huge benefits that came with the Olympic Games, over and above the provision of what are obviously outstanding facilities.

The Treasurer has decided to remove the debits tax, which will be a bonus for members of the community. There has also been an announcement that financial institutions duty [FID] will be removed from July this year and, together with the announcement that the debits tax will be removed considerably earlier than anticipated—in January 2002—this provides another benefit for members of the New South Wales community. Whether we like it or not, we all have to use banks or some type of financial institution. People try not to use banks these days, but no matter where their money is put away, they still have to pay taxes. The Treasurer is providing considerable benefit for the people of New South Wales because both the taxes I have mentioned will be removed by January 2002 at the latest.

I turn to a couple of specific matters concerning the Georges River electorate and highlight some of the budgetary allocations that will assist the Georges River community. I mention that, through the Transport portfolio, the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads and the Treasurer have agreed to spend $2.7 million—I repeat, $2.7 million—on improvements and replacement of track on the East Hills line between Turrella and Kingsgrove. That improvement will bring tremendous benefit to the commuters who use that line and it shows the Government's commitment to maintenance and safety standards. The work is currently under way and I thank the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads for initiating the track replacement program.

That program will benefit my community in conjunction with the $11 million that has been allocated to finalisation of the track duplication program that is currently under way between Turrella and Beverly Hills. It is expected that that work will be completed in September this year, resulting in improvements and an increase in services on the East Hills line. When the additional outside tracks are brought on line in September, that will result in fast trains being able to use the line, which will also improve the services for commuters who use the East Hills line. At the end of 2000 the Government announced that the program had been brought forward. As I have said, the $11 million that has been allocated in the budget will ensure the completion of that work, and it is something to which commuters look forward. The budgetary allocation has also provided for the establishment of a turnaround to the west of Kingsgrove station. I note that Minister Iemma, the honourable member for Lakemba, is now in the Chamber. I know he supports me when I say it is great to see these improvements to the East Hills line.

I also note the allocation of $3.6 million as the first allocation of funds towards the installation of a turnback at Bondi Junction station, which ultimately will provide for additional services on the Illawarra line. Honourable members would be aware that both the East Hills line and the Illawarra line go through the Georges River electorate and provide significant transport infrastructure for my constituents. The allocation of the first budgetary funding for the turnback at Bondi Junction station is a significant commitment by the Government to ensure that that project is now well under way. There has been a significant increase in the number of commuters using train services on the Illawarra line. Those commuters look forward to the installation of the turnback because it will allow for many more train services on the Illawarra line, particularly during peak periods. I thank the Minister for that budgetary allocation.

It is pleasing to see that this budget has an allocation for the installation of an additional set of covered stairs on the eastern side of Kingsgrove station. This will allow many people, particularly the large number of school students who attend schools in the Kingsgrove area, to reach the opposite side of Kingsgrove Road without walking across it, which will be a huge improvement for safety. Two stations on the East Hills line, Beverly Hills and Riverwood stations, have received budgetary allocations this year. Although Riverwood station is in the electorate of the honourable member for Lakemba, many of my constituents also use that railway station. Both Riverwood and Beverly Hills stations will have lifts installed. In fact, it is my understanding that development applications have already gone to council for the installation of those lifts. I note that the Minister nods in agreement.

The budget has allocated funding of $116 million for the completion of the M5 East project. As Mr Acting-Speaker, the honourable member for Liverpool, would be aware, the improvements to the M5 with the addition of the M5 East are a huge benefit not only for the residents of the Liverpool electorate who use the road but also for thousands of people who travel that route. The allocation of $116 million will ensure the completion of the M5 East, I believe early next year, and this will be of great benefit to the residents of the Georges River electorate. We recognise that the project is well ahead of schedule. I congratulate not only the Minister but also the contractors and workers on ensuring the speedy completion of the project.

One of the benefits of the M5 East for the residents of the Georges River electorate is that when the road is completed traffic that now clogs both King Georges Road and Stoney Creek Road will use the M5 East. One of the other budgetary allocations is the provision of $900,000 for local road improvements. A fair percentage of that funding is being allocated to work on Stoney Creek Road, which runs through my electorate towards the electorates of Kogarah and Rockdale. One of the other benefits not only for the residents of the Georges River electorate but for people throughout New South Wales relates to funding for the police budget. I am pleased to see the allocation of $7 million for the installation of mobile data terminals.

These terminals will be provided for police cars in the Georges River electorate. The mobile data terminals, which will also include a geographic positioning system to allow the tracking of police vehicles, will be a huge benefit not only for police but also for the community they serve. They will allow police officers to spend even more time out in the community in their cars rather than being tied to police stations. Rather than having to go back to the station to put in their reports, police will be able to lodge reports via the mobile data terminals. It will also allow police to access even more information from these terminals.

My constituents are very pleased that the installation of mobile data terminals will ensure an increased police presence in the community, including in shopping centres and on the streets. My discussions with local police indicate that they regard this as a huge benefit to the service they provide. I have had a number of discussions with Superintendent Paul Lowe of the Hurstville local area command, who is very excited about the provision of mobile data terminals. I take this opportunity to congratulate Superintendent Lowe and the officers of the Hurstville local area command on the work they do, and, I am sure, will continue to do, for the benefit of our community. The Government has continued to support quality education in New South Wales. I congratulate the Minister on the funding that is provided for very important programs, particularly the numeracy and literacy focus that we see throughout this budget.

As a former schoolteacher I can assure the House that numeracy and literacy programs should be the key to any work that is undertaken in schools. I believe that literacy should have an across-curriculum focus. It is pleasing that $117 million in additional funding has been allocated from this year's budget for numeracy and literacy programs in New South Wales schools. We see continued increases in funding for the allocation of computers, particularly Internet connections for schools. Certainly the State's schools have not missed out on the age of technology. I congratulate the Minister for Education and Training on the provision of these additional technological services within classrooms, because our students need to be kept up to date with new technology at all times, as do their teachers.

I also congratulate the Minister for Education and Training on improvements that have taken place at Georges River College, which includes the establishment of a new Oatley campus for senior students. I also congratulate the Minister on improvements that have taken place at Peakhurst High School, Penshurst Girls High School and Hurstville Boys High School sites within the Georges River collegiate. I have spoken with the parents, students, school principals and teachers within that college and I have been told that things are going extremely well and that the budget allocations for this year are appreciated. Of particular joy to me, and I know to the honourable member for Lakemba, is the provision of $3.2 million in this year's budget for the rebuilding of the Beverly Hills Public School. In my most recent discussions with the principal, Debbie Sutton, the school community is excited by the work that is already under way and will be completed in the new year. The work will include additional home-base classrooms, renovations to the school hall and canteen facilities—a redevelopment initiated by the honourable member for Lakemba. I thank him for all his preliminary work. I know that the renovations will be of huge benefit to the Beverly Hills community.

I also thank the Minister for Education and Training for the allocation in this year's budget to complete the work. I also hope—the emphasis being on "hope"—that I will be able to entice the Minister for Education and Training to consider more general budget allocations to allow additional work to be carried out at Penshurst Public School. I acknowledge that a considerable amount of money has been spent on the school over the past couple of years, and the Penshurst community is appreciative of that. I hope that the Minister will find money in the budget to provide louvres for the classroom windows in the main block to make the classrooms a little cooler. I have also asked the Minister to provide on a dollar-for-dollar basis a covered outdoor learning area for Peakhurst West Public School. I hope to be able to negotiate with the Minister to provide these two additional education benefits for the Georges River community.

Honourable members would be aware that in its 1999 election campaign the Government committed $6 million over four years towards improvements to the Georges River foreshore. Allocations have been made on two occasions from the fund and I am pleased to inform the House that a number of projects within the Georges River electorate have again been funded. I particularly refer to the $476,300 allocation for the Edith Bay boardwalk project. This project was initiated by the Lugarno Progress Association and I compliment its members and President, Mr Rob Clarson, who has been enthusiastic in promoting this cause. I congratulate also Hurstville City Council on supporting this project, because it is as a result of a submission by the council and the association that funding will be made available. The Lugarno Progress Association is a great community organisation that works specifically within the Lugarno area. It has worked energetically under the leadership of Rob Clarson and it is grateful that funding will now be provided for the project.

The budget also contains an allocation of $282,000 to clean up Poulton Creek in Poulton Park, which borders my electorate. That project will be jointly funded by Kogarah Municipal Council, which is supportive of the program. It will be of benefit not only to the Georges River community but to all communities that front Georges River. I understand that there are 1.2 million people in the Georges River catchment area. Kogarah Municipal Council has also received dollar-for-dollar funding of $98,000 to continue the leachate removal program in the Moore Reserve artificial wetlands. I congratulate both Hurstville City Council and Kogarah Municipal Council on supporting the program. I also congratulate the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Dr Refshauge, on his continuing support for the program, a 1999 election promise that is being delivered by the Government.

I would also like to thank the Minister for Community Services and her department for their continuing support of groups in my electorate. An additional sum of $350,000 has been allocated for Learning Links at Peakhurst, an outstanding organisation that helps children with learning difficulties, under the leadership of the acting executive director, Tracey Webster, and supported by her staff, particularly Kerry Butler. Their strong submissions resulted in extra funding. The Minister for Community Services has also made ongoing grants to Learning Links. I would like to mention a couple of other community groups in my electorate that carry out magnificent work, such as the Georges River Community Service at Mortdale, under the leadership of Sue Smith, and the Pole Depot Neighbourhood Centre at Penshurst, which provides a broad range of services to the community. I also congratulate the Minister on increased allocations for Meals on Wheels, particularly in the Hurstville area. It is pleasing that additional funding has been provided in the budget. It has been a pleasure to speak to this year's budget and I congratulate the Treasurer on it.

Mr BARR (Manly) [10.35 a.m.]: From a statewide perspective the Government has delivered a competent, workmanlike budget. As expected, many of the major funding initiatives have focused on rural and regional New South Wales and western Sydney, and the pickings for my neck of the woods have not been as good. The Government has implemented many worthwhile initiatives but I would like to see more focus on the northern beaches. At present the economy is slowing down—it is not as robust as it was—and the Government will have to be careful in its budgeting processes over the next year because times could well be tougher than they are now.

My electorate is in desperate need of investment in health services, particularly hospitals. There has not been a significant injection of major capital works funding since Mona Vale Hospital was built some 36 years ago. In contrast, many parts of the State and the metropolitan area have had major hospital upgrades, including Sutherland, Bankstown, Liverpool, Nepean and Westmead, which only recently received additional funding. Allocations have also been made in the budget for major upgrades to Gosford and Wyong hospitals. My electorate has become the poor cousin in Sydney health services. The Northern Area Health Service has undertaken community consultation with a view to gaining community support to put a case to the Government for a new level 5 acute facility on the northern beaches. In essence, this facility would combine many of the functions now at Mona Vale and Manly hospitals. I have strongly supported that focus.

There has been a lot of parochial and petty politics on the issue. However, fundamentally, the matter is not one about party politics or whether there is a Labor or Liberal government in office but about whether a government of whatever persuasion is providing adequate hospital services for the people of the northern beaches. We need proper hospital facilities because it is an equity issue for my people. Recently in conjunction with medical staff from Manly hospital and Mona Vale hospital and community representatives, I formed a new organisation called better and equitable access to community and hospital services [BEACHES] to push for better hospital facilities. During next year we will lobby the Government to get better hospital services for the northern beaches area, a critical issue in all of the electorates in the northern beaches and wider area, because Royal North Shore Hospital, which is already under strain, will become the de facto central hospital for the northern beaches. We need new facilities that will benefit us all and will also take some of the workload from Royal North Shore Hospital.

The current budget allocates $500,000 to continue to map out the planning details for that process, and that is the minimum required to move forward. I call on the Government to indicate that in future years it will allocate part of the $480 million annual capital budget for new facilities in the northern beaches. Planning during the next year must be backed up by the release of information about future options for the hospital, the sites, what services will be offered, the size and the number of beds. We also want to be assured that there will be an ongoing role for community health delivery at the existing sites of Mona Vale and Manly hospitals. That is a critical matter and this budget has not provided anything in relation to those desperately needed facilities.

Education is also an important issue in my electorate, as it is everywhere else, and in that respect this budget contains good and bad news. The good news is an allocation of money during the next couple of years for the construction of the Northern Beaches Secondary College, which is based at Freshwater High and is due for completion in 2003. I have strongly supported that initiative, which is a significant shot in the arm for public education in our area. It will combine a senior high school that will be linked to other high schools, and will include a TAFE and a University of Technology campus. Given other possibilities, that is a good outcome for the community that I welcome and will do everything I can to support it. I am also pleased that Harbord Public School will be significantly upgraded, which is long overdue and something for which I have lobbied since I have been a member of Parliament. An amount of $2.5 million is budgeted for this refit to this terrific local primary school.

The bad news is that the Minister has announced that Seaforth TAFE site will be sold. I have always pointed out that that is a most sensible site for an educational facility. Seaforth TAFE was closed before the review of local area schools, which included the northern beaches secondary college to which I have just referred. It was closed before a proper review had taken place on how to integrate local high schools with a university and TAFE presence. In essence, what will happen is that some of the facilities removed from Seaforth TAFE to Brookvale will now move back to Freshwater, so that move was unnecessary. I suggest to the Government that Seaforth TAFE should have remained open and that it was a bad decision to close it. I pushed for it to become a community education facility with the Manly Warringah community educational college but that was basically ignored by the Minister and his staff. There was not a serious examination of the possibility of using the Seaforth site for a community education facility.

The Government wants to make savings in TAFE and, as I have said before in this House, it should look at the structure of the 11 TAFE institutions across the State. TAFE once had a centralised head office but now it has various institutes, each with its own bureaucracies and each replicating what the others are doing. Each institute has its own directors of finance, human resources, information technology, quality control and so on. The bureaucracy of the Sydney Institute of Technology is not much smaller than the old centralised TAFE bureaucracy when it was at 323 Castlereagh Street Sydney and was the centralised head office for the entire State. The Auditor-General released a report on TAFE a couple of months ago. The report quoted from the Council on the Cost of Government, which pointed out the scope for rationalisation in TAFE. It said that the TAFE New South Wales decentralised organisation structure has been a factor in its high costs in comparison with those in Queensland and Victoria.

The thread that runs through the Auditor-General's report is that there is a need for rationalisation. In other words, the various institutes should get together and combine their resources, especially administrative resources, in a better way to avoid duplication, which inevitably adds to costs. A high administrative cost is why TAFE New South Wales has a higher per unit cost rate than TAFE in other States, particular Queensland and Victoria. It has so many institutes and senior executive service officers, receiving bonuses. You do not save money in TAFE by closing down a college. Rather, you look at the organisation of the structure to ensure that it is not top-heavy with management and does not have too much administration and not enough at the front line, which is what is happening now and why TAFE is more expensive.

There were other startling comments in the report of the Auditor-General. He said that the available figures indicate that international work is a net cost to TAFE New South Wales. If ever there was an example of a large-scale organisation not doing things properly, it is TAFE's international work. On a superficial level all institutes that compete for overseas students say they bring in X-number of students, who bring in so much money without costing the entire process. In other words, they do not say how much it costs; they just talk in terms of the fee revenue coming in. In fact, when the costing is properly done it shows a net loss to TAFE, yet there have been empires built in the various institutes with international marketing bringing in overseas students through overseas agents and the like. There is also the very questionable proposition of overseas students getting into courses and thereby reducing the number of places for our local citizens, which is a matter I have always objected to.

The Auditor-General said that on the limited information available, the Audit Office has not been able to determine whether the number of TAFE administration staff has increased or decreased. That is because some of the middle management type positions, heads of studies and the like, are classified as educational but do not teach. An examination of the cost of administration and the overwhelming number of bureaucrats not involved in actual teaching would enable cost savings to be made in many areas of TAFE. My ongoing disappointment with this Government is that it has not addressed the problems in TAFE. In many areas TAFE is in serious trouble and someone with vision needs to take control and do something to make it once again the great local institution that it was in the past. TAFE is a wonderful facility that gives many people a second opportunity. We have mucked it up during the past 10 years and it is time to rectify it.

I said that Seaforth TAFE is about to be sold. I will continue to oppose that sale, which I think is an absolute outrage. However, a good outcome for education in my area is the fact that Balgowlah Boys High School, which is part of the new Northern Beaches Secondary College, is to remain open. It faced a real risk of closure, but I believe that two things saved it. First, the local community expended considerable effort to ensure that Balgowlah Boys High School, which has a long and great tradition, remained open; and, second, I think the idea of selling two educational facilities that are within one kilometre of each other caused such outrage that even this Government could not do it. The integration of various schools into the Northern Beaches Secondary College is a very important step forward for education in our area.

A recent toxic chemical spill in Manly lagoon poisoned about 10,000 fish—four tonnes of fish were removed from the lagoon—and we are still waiting for the Environment Protection Authority to take action against the culprit or culprits. In conjunction with Manly Council I have sent documents to various Ministers and I have met the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, who confirmed that he is committed to funding the necessary lagoon remediation work. I welcome that commitment from the Minister, who is to visit the lagoon in a month and half. Manly lagoon is one of the most polluted waterways along the coast. The lagoons in the northern beaches area are unique—they are the only lagoons in the metropolitan area—but they are severely polluted. The council and the State Government have been working co-operatively on remediation projects for some time, but there is still a long way to go if people are ever to be able to swim in those waterways again. It is a good sign that so many fish were in the lagoon, as it is obviously able to sustain life. We hope that it will be able to do so again.

Another issue of concern in my electorate is the privatisation of North Head Quarantine Station. The Government is contemplating allowing a 45-year head lease on the quarantine station, which I oppose totally. If funding is the issue, I believe we should establish a foundation or trust similar to the Ellis Island Foundation in New York. That foundation has not received a single cent from the United States Federal or State governments. It raises its own funds and uses it all to benefit Ellis Island. That is vastly different from what this Government proposes for the quarantine station: to allow the 45-year head lease to be managed by a hotel developer with a profit motive.

The Government is earning peanuts from this incredible site and I despair that the Government is prepared to sacrifice our heritage by handing it over to a private hotel developer when there are other ways of handling any budgetary shortfall incurred by the National Parks and Wildlife Service in relation to the quarantine station. The environmental impact statement is about to be released, and I am sure that the issue will be hotly contested. North Head sewage treatment plant is to receive $130 million over six years, with a $4 million allocation this year. The further centralisation of sewerage facilities and the intensification of activities at North Head sewage treatment plant is the wrong way to go. At present the plant takes sewage from the northern suburbs ocean outfall sewer, which begins at Blacktown and ends at Manly. It handles 40 per cent of Sydney's sewage, but only about 36 per cent of solids—the organic matter—is removed and the rest flows two kilometres out to sea. It is not much more than an open sewer. Some people think "out of sight, out of mind", but that is not acceptable. It is no way to treat our oceans.

An upper House inquiry is to examine Sydney Water's sewage strategy. Sydney Water engaged in a consultation process, during which I believe the public was severely misled about the options available. One option was to pipe sludge to Camellia or to Bunnerong, but neither of those sites was a real possibility. I look forward to the establishment of that upper House inquiry, which can examine this matter in detail. We should consider more imaginative proposals for dealing with our sewage, such as devoluming and decentralisation locally. Another possibility is pumping a combination of both sewage and waste to be treated on site inland, which would involve the development of new industries.

We are still suffering transport hold-ups in my area and I have asked the Minister to consider the ultralight rail option, which I believe is an exciting prospect. There have been problems with the SuperCats, and I am awaiting the report of the Waterways Authority on them. There may have to be a rethink of that operation. The upgrading of the Collaroy has been successful, apart from the fact that it was beached on Manly Point not so long ago. Problems with the ferries must also be resolved. The culture of Sydney Ferries is rooted in the 1950s and it must be improved.

Mr IEMMA (Lakemba—Minister for Public Works and Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [10.55 a.m.]: This budget—

Mr R. H. L. Smith: Point of order: The debate cannot continue as there is no Minister at the table.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): Order! I am advised by the Clerk that the requirement for a Minister to be present at the table is a convention rather a rule. As there is a Minister in the House the point of order is spurious.

Mr IEMMA: This budget funds the biggest public works and capital investment program in the State's history. It funds substantial improvements for our schools, hospitals, transport and other public infrastructure and services. It delivers substantial tax cuts for the fourth year in a row—an outcome unprecedented in the State's history—and, for the sixth year in a row, the budget is in surplus. Public works and capital investment have increased by $577 million, or by 11.5 per cent, to nearly $5.6 billion. This investment will sustain approximately 85,000 direct jobs in 2001-02. Of this record $5.6 billion, more than $1 billion has been allocated to new works whose total estimated cost is $3.3 billion. This investment in public works clearly demonstrates the Government's priority to build vital social infrastructure this year and in the years ahead. This capital investment is particularly important given the slowdown in construction activity. Investment has slowed in the post-Olympic period from its record level of $24 billion in 1999-2000 to an estimated $20 billion this year.

Our record expenditure on public works and capital investment includes $2.6 billion for new schools, new hospitals, new roads and non-commercial public transport improvements. Expenditure on this vital social capital component compares with Victoria's public works program of just $1.8 million and the Commonwealth's gross fixed capital works expenditure of only $231 million. The budget delivers this massive increase in public works while at the same time reducing the Government's liabilities and providing a surplus.

I will now touch on some of the matters from this record capital works allocation that affect my electorate. I wish to point out that this year's budget builds on the very considerable successes of past budgets when it comes to my current electorate of Lakemba and my previous electorate of Hurstville, which includes a large slab of the current electorate of Lakemba. I reiterate that some of those successes include, in the health area, the complete redevelopment of Bankstown Hospital, at $75 million, and the complete redevelopment of Canterbury Hospital, also at $75 million, which actually keeps the hospital at Canterbury. None of the people of my electorate, and indeed the neighbouring electorates of Bankstown, Georges River and Canterbury, will ever forget the proposal of the previous Coalition Government to close Canterbury Hospital and thus withdraw very important local public health facilities from the people of the inner south and inner south-west. Those are considerable successes of previous health budgets of this Government.

Previous successes in education include the complete redevelopment of the Beverley Hills North school, at $3.5 million; the complete redevelopment of McCallums Hill Primary School, at $3.5 million; the complete redevelopment, as the honourable member for Georges River pointed out, of Penshurst Primary School, at some $2 million; the rebuilding, following a destructive fire, of Lakemba Primary School, at a cost of $5 million; and additions to high schools such as Beverley Hills Girls High School, with Government funding to assist the performing arts centre. Those are the very considerable successes of past budget allocations, and those are the considerable successes on which this budget builds for the people of the inner south-west and the inner south in and around Lakemba.

This budget continues on the past budget successes in the area of rail. As my friend and colleague the honourable member for Georges River eloquently outlined in his address, $10 million is allocated in this budget for the East Hills duplication, out of a $62 million allocation for that project, which has now been proceeding for a couple of years. For the people of East Hills who use the East Hills line, that will mean additional services as well as quicker services. The East Hills rail duplication is a most welcome project, and stage one has received additional funding as a result of this budget.

Continuing on from that fine achievement with the East Hills duplication, this budget funds the very worthwhile renovations of some of our railway stations. In particular I mention the Riverwood railway station easy access project, at $2.5 million, and the Beverly Hills easy access project, at $1 million. The honourable member for Georges River outlined the access project for the Kingsgrove railway station, providing access for those who live on the Rockdale and Canterbury local government side of Kingsgrove, providing them with access to Kingsgrove railway station. That is a significant boost not just for the constituents of the honourable member for Kogarah and the honourable member for Canterbury but for my constituents and those of the honourable member for Georges River.

It is not to be forgotten that the budget finalises the funding details of the last of the installations of the security program for our railway stations. I am pleased to report that, as far as railway stations in my electorate are concerned, it has been a case of promise delivered in the area of Belmore, as the 17 cameras promised have been delivered; in Lakemba, the promised 18 cameras have been installed as promised; in Wiley Park the 17 promised cameras are delivered and in place; at Punchbowl the promised 20 cameras are installed as promised; at Narwee the promised 10 cameras are in, as promised; and, finally, at Riverwood the promised 14 cameras are in and delivered. When it comes to that security program, announced by the Minister for Transport a couple of years ago, for the railway stations at Lakemba, Belmore, Wiley Park, Punchbowl, Narwee and Riverwood within my electorate, it is a case of promise kept and project delivered, and a very welcome one at that too.
In roads, this budget contains the final instalment for the completion, and opening, of the $750-plus million toll-free M5 East. This budget allocates the final instalment of some $23 million to complete the south-western motorway, the linking of the M5 East with the M5 West, providing the residents of outer-western and south-western Sydney and those in my electorate with that very important road link to Sydney airport, to the port, to the southern Sydney industrial area and to the central business district of Sydney.

The budget also funds the final lot of money for the very important project running parallel to the M5 East, and that is the underpass at King Georges Road, Beverley Hills, and the reconstruction of what will be the interchange at King Georges Road at Beverley Hills. This is a very important local project, and it is one that created a great deal of interest locally in my former seat of Hurstville. After a considerable amount of work on the part of the Minister, Mr Scully, and his officers, a very sympathetic response was made to the local community, which wanted an underpass rather than an overpass at King Georges Road as part of the M5 East project. I am pleased to say that the final touches to the underpasses are provided for by the funding allocated in this budget. As I say, this is part of the M5 East project, and it is a great boost to the local area. The M5 East will provide a significant amount of relief to residents affected by noise pollution in some of the streets around Riverwood, Narwee, Beverly Hills, Kingsgrove and McCallums Hill.

I am pleased also that, as part of the roads budget, there has been a continuing commitment on the part of the Government to funding the very worthwhile main street improvement programs for Riverwood and Narwee. In past years Riverwood has received funding to improve its main street and pedestrian amenity. This year, I am pleased to say, Narwee also will benefit. Narwee is of particular importance for me because it is a very small suburb. It shares the same postcode as Beverley Hills, and it is often not thought of as a suburb. Narwee has a very small, strip shopping centre that is dying. On the Canterbury local government side of that shopping strip, the shops are categorised by poor pedestrian amenity and are afflicted by quite grotesque graffiti. A significant number of shops are either closed or boarded up, and are decaying through lack of attention and use.

We increasingly look to the amenity of our local suburbs, local development control plans, and the design of buildings constructed in our local suburbs, and one suburb in desperate need of attention is Narwee. I am pleased to say that this money will help both Hurstville and Canterbury councils, because the Narwee shopping centre is divided by the boundaries of those two local government areas. This money will assist those two councils to come together and work in partnership with the local community and the State Government to devise an improvement plan for Narwee. I hope that plan will take into account the future development of Narwee, with a development control plan that will allow increased residential development above the current commercial shops in Narwee, to breathe life into that small strip shopping centre. Improved footpaths and landscaping, lighting, security and other options need to be considered to try to enhance not just the physical look of Narwee but to lift its profile and the way people feel about the suburb, so that it will not continue to be a neglected, forgotten part of both Hurstville and Canterbury local government areas, but indeed will become a place that people will recognise as having been brought back to life. Parts of that shopping strip, particularly in Fisher Lane, resemble some of the worst aspects of urban decay, and the rear surfaces of commercial premises are afflicted with appalling graffiti and other acts of vandalism.

Funds have been allocated in the budget to continue a program of improvement to the main Riverwood strip. Stage one is complete and feedback from the Chamber of Commerce is that the improvements have been successful. No direct correlation can be claimed but prior to the completion of stage one a substantial number of commercial premises in Riverwood's main street were vacant and unable to be leased. Since stage one has been completed Chamber of Commerce members have commented to me that vacant commercial premises in the main street cannot be found. Certainly Chamber of Commerce members are pleased with the result.

The budget has set aside another substantial boost of $100,000 to Hurstville Council, which will match that contribution dollar for dollar, but it is hoped the council will provide further funds as the main street is its direct responsibility. The State Government has provided that $100,000 as assistance, and I trust it will be accepted in the spirit with which it is offered and is not considered as a rigid fifty-fifty funding arrangement. At the end of the day the appearance of main street shopping centres are the direct responsibility of local government.

My colleague the honourable member for Georges River outlined what I guess would be most pleasing for all local members: Funds have been allocated for the redevelopment of Beverly Hills primary school, a long-awaited project in the Georges River and Lakemba areas. This long-overdue project will be completed well before 2003. I pay tribute to the honourable member for Georges River for his efforts in bringing that project to fruition. This project builds also on the establishment of the $14 million Oatley campus. Honourable members do not need reminding that the Oatley campus is a revamped public education facility and remains as such through direct action by this Government to save the facilities and land for public ownership and use in education.

So successful has that college been in its first year that a substantial waiting list now exists with the names of children whose parents want to send them to the Oatley campus of the Georges River College. That is testament to how important the local community considers that facility. It is a vote of confidence in public education in the Georges River electorate and in my electorate. It would not have come to fruition but for direct action in this Parliament to retain those facilities in public ownership for public use. Those facilities were retained at considerable cost for the education of students in south and inner south-western Sydney.

Parents and students voted with their feet. This puts to bed the disgraceful and ill-informed campaign that was attempted by some members of one of the adjoining councils, Kogarah council, to oppose it. Some councillors attempted to kill off the project by whipping up a campaign of misinformation among residents and parents. Local members received various deputations attempting to build a case against the establishment of the Georges River College. As I have said, after its first year of operation parents have displayed an overwhelming vote of confidence in public education. Full marks must go to the Minister for Education and Training and his officers for sticking to the original plan that was devised and put together after an exhaustive consultation process with all stakeholders. All primary and high schools that were affected by the proposal were consulted, along with local members and other community groups. It was a good and worthwhile community consultation process. The Georges River College is the result of those efforts and is now an outstanding success.

I am pleased that the roads budget also allocates funds for construction of the important bus bay on King Georges Road for students attending Beverly Hills Girls High School. King Georges Road is a six-lane State highway and that high school has an entrance located on King Georges Road and Broad Arrow Road, which presents serious safety issues. I am pleased that in the budget the Minister for Roads provides for the construction of a facility to give protection to students arriving at school in the morning and departing in the afternoon. The bus bay will be an important additional facility for the school and an important safety measure.

The budget again has proved successful in bringing to fruition the widening of Kingsgrove Road, which involves the Kingsgrove Road bridge at the railway station, thus removing a significant traffic bottleneck at Kingsgrove shopping centre over the railway bridge. I am pleased to report that the funding arrangement between the Government and the three local councils—Canterbury, Rockdale and Hurstville—together with the Roads and Traffic Authority was on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Along with the installation of security cameras at the railway station, this budget has delivered a promise and a project. I am pleased to say also that the local councils are meeting their obligations under that funding arrangement with work already being started on the project. By the end of this year and early next year the duplication of Kingsgrove Road at Kingsgrove Road bridge will be complete and the bottleneck at the shopping centre finally will have been removed.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr R. H. L. Smith.

Debate resumed from 20 June.

Ms SEATON (Southern Highlands) [11.17 p.m.]: The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Bill is an admission by the Carr Government of its monumental failure in relation to all aspects of its waste policy and the failure of the taxpayer-owned Waste Service of New South Wales to achieve its stated outcomes—all of which has come, yet again, at a huge cost to the community. The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Bill will not be opposed by the Opposition. However Opposition members will be seeking to move some amendments to the bill, which we think are necessary and vital to improve its performance. I hope that the Government will support those amendments when they are debated in due course.

In 1995 the Australian Labor Party introduced the Waste Minimisation and Management Act and with it created eight metropolitan waste boards. At that time it made a commitment to reduce waste to landfill by 60 per cent. That was to be funded by the waste levy, which has increased considerably since that time. Forty-five per cent of that levy goes to consolidated revenue and 55 per cent of it goes to fund waste boards and other community and industry projects, which aim to provide communities and industry sectors with funding to undertake necessary projects and schemes to reduce waste, avoid waste and use waste as a secondary resource. Over the last five years waste boards have consumed $87 million of taxpayers' funding.

Waste boards share a budgetary allocation of approximately $17 million per year. It has been estimated that $6 million of that amount was chewed up in administrative costs and in costs relating to about 121 staff and 80 paid directors. There has always been debate as to whether those who were appointed to directorships of waste boards had the qualifications that were required to find the best possible projects, to recognise good projects and to implement important waste strategies developed through considerable effort by each waste board. I take this opportunity to compliment some of those waste boards on the development of those strategies—a good number of which I have read. Obviously, they are the product of a lot of genuinely good work, a lot of thought and a lot of interaction with other councils and waste boards.

This bill will result in throwing out those waste boards and with them all the good work that has been done in relation to their strategic plans. Taxpayers, having written out a $87 million cheque, have nothing to show for it. In addition, this bill highlights the failure of the State Waste Advisory Council [SWAC], which was designed to be the key policy adviser to government. It lacked the critical expertise to effect the necessary development of waste management strategies in this State. It lacked the expertise to identify and select good and innovative projects, and it lacked the expertise to work effectively with Waste Service New South Wales. This bill also highlights the fact that the Government recognises that SWAC has been a failure.

One of the other pieces of evidence that points to its failure is the fact that the Government commissioned endless reports to avoid making decisions about new private sector proposals that had been circulated in the community. In addition, Waste Service, which is a taxpayer-owned waste management organisation, operated as a de facto regulator in blocking innovative private projects. Waste Service might deny that it is a regulator, but many of its roles and the fact that it has a monopoly highlight the fact that it is a de facto regulator. Few, if any, innovative projects have been implemented in New South Wales. Waste Service has not been a leader or an innovator, which is testimony to the fact that it has this de facto regulatory role.

Due to government and council reliance on revenue from government-owned city landfill there has been no pressure on Waste Service to invest in innovation. It continues simply to extend those landfills and it has made no attempt to implement all those things that will reduce waste or increase the avoidance of waste. It is fair to say that industry has been dissatisfied for some time with the actions of this Government. It has been difficult for industry to arrange direct meetings with the Minister. Industry groups often tell me that it is difficult for them to meet with the Minister and to put to him their concerns about the ongoing handling of waste policy in this State.

The fact that this bill is now before the House is an admission by the Government that five years of waste policy have been an abject and costly failure—a failure funded by the taxpayers of New South Wales. This Government has been forced to act. The features of this Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Bill include the abolition of nine waste boards and SWAC and the creation of Resource New South Wales—a body that will initiate and co-ordinate policies. As I understand it, Resource New South Wales, which will have offices in Sydney, western Sydney the Hunter and the Illawarra, will have a nine-member board.

The bill will replace some industry waste reduction plans with the principles of extended producer responsibility. In those cases where there are existing schemes, which the Minister decides are not working adequately, the Minister will be able unilaterally to implement an extended producer responsibility scheme somewhere in that sector. Having outlined to the House the fundamental failures of the Government's waste management policy over the past five years, it is fair to say that this bill leads us to believe that there might be some improvement in this area. Anything is better than the policies we have had for the past five years. However, I doubt whether the provisions in this bill will result in an effective improvement.

So much of the content of this bill is subject to interpretation. Many of the provisions in this bill are subject to the whim of the Minister. If we have a continuation of the so-called leadership of the past five years in the implementation of this new structure, the people of New South Wales have little hope for improvement in this area in the future. Taking into account the track record of this Government, I have no confidence that this new structure will work or deliver any effective outcomes. The success of Resource New South Wales will depend on the make-up of the board, which is very fluid.

The bill states that each board member must have experience in: resource conservation and environmental protection; local government; the waste management industry; industry; rural affairs; regional affairs; urban affairs and infrastructure; and financial and risk management—all worthy and relevant characteristics which one would expect to see on a board. However, there is no direction as to what characteristics are to be found in each potential director of the board, or what groupings of characteristics will be chosen by the Minister. If Resource New South Wales board members are not selected for their relevant expertise and they do not have the credentials and experience that are necessary to make good decisions and develop good policy, there will be no improvement in this area.

We will simply see a duplication of all the failures that the Government admitted were fundamental in SWAC. There is capacity also for ministerial intervention into and interpretation of the term "extended producer responsibility scheme". When will such a scheme be applied? This Government has failed to ensure that waste boards do the job that they were meant to do. Anyone who is aware of what waste boards were meant to achieve would probably have thought that they were a good thing. They would have thought: Here is a vehicle through which local communities and groups of councils can come together to identify their strengths and weaknesses and local preferences and interests.

Through such a vehicle they could have developed a strategy from the ground up, which included a capacity to educate people in the local community and get them interested in participating in waste reduction and avoidance schemes. Through SWAC and these government policy structures, effective waste avoidance and waste reduction strategies could have been implemented. In theory that looked pretty good. However, waste boards then started to tell the Government the truth, which was that they had been set up to fail and that they would not be able to achieve the targets that the Government promised during the 1995 election that they would achieve. What was the Carr Government's reaction when the management of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust was critical of its environmental record in catchment management in greater Sydney? This Government became sensitive to the truth that was coming from those waste boards. When the Government abolished the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust it also shot the messenger.

One of the failures of, one of the gaps in, the new bill is that it contains no reference to community level. Local government has been sidelined, and all the potential we had to garner the goodwill and support in the community for waste avoidance and waste reduction has been lost. One of the most effective community-driven projects in New South Wales—in fact, in Australia—has been kerbside recycling. The degree with which the community has embraced kerbside recycling is enormous. It is one of the great success stories of the past decade. But it depended on effective local community education and effective local ownership of these sorts of ideas, and understanding the outcomes, the environmental gains and how behaviour in one's household could positively effect environmental outcomes.

The Government, by destroying waste boards and not replacing them with any community-based structure, has completely denied local communities, families and individuals any participation or role in waste avoidance. Much like the abolition of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust, the Government has taken offence at the truth in the annual reports of waste boards, and decided to shoot the messenger. In a moment I will talk more about the abuse the Government intends to perpetrate, by an Act of Parliament, on some of the managers and staff of waste boards. Industry is concerned that the Government has had no effective consultation on the new extended producer responsibility [EPR] provisions. I have received some fairly shocked and surprised responses from certain industry groups that have had no detail.

Mr Debus: Tell us which ones. I would like to know which ones.

Ms SEATON: I will talk about them when I refer to the amendments. Some industry groups are very concerned about the way in which the Government has come up with these provisions in the bill, and they are very concerned that they have not been consulted about their meaning. There is also concern that the list of functions in the bill for Resource New South Wales does not require it to develop a strategic plan. I cannot understand how any government can create a new organisation without requiring it to develop and implement a strategic plan. Potential amendments are being discussed, which might be moved in another place, to require Resource New South Wales to develop a strategic plan. This is an opportunity for the Government to make a commitment to adopt some of the extremely positive recommendations from the development of waste boards strategic plans, and to pick up some of the recommendations in the reports of the past 12 months, such as the one by consultant Tony Wright.

The Government should pull together all of the extremely costly work it has commissioned, and use those documents as the starting point for the development of a strategic plan. There is no need for Resource New South Wales to spend two years hiring more consultants and putting together a strategic plan. The material already exists. It was produced at large cost to the taxpayer. I would like to hear the Minister's views. I want to know whether he will make use of that extremely costly information and advice, and require Resource New South Wales to produce a strategic plan. Such a plan should be able to be developed before the end of the year. However, part 2 of the legislation does not require Resource New South Wales to implement such a plan. The Government is becoming famous for producing reports then sticking them on a shelf or in a filing cabinet, and ignoring them.

The legislation does not require Resource New South Wales to produce a detailed annual report on a range of benchmarks and activities. The indicators against which the Government measures its success or failure in a standard annual report of a waste service are often very general. I would like the Minister to tell us what he considers is an adequate reporting criterion for Resource New South Wales. Industry is also concerned that part 3 of the bill does not stipulate a specific time to allow the legislation to work before the Minister can mandate an EPR scheme. Does that mean that the day after proclamation of the legislation the Minister could decide that an existing scheme is not adequate and, therefore, immediately mandate an EPR scheme? I would like the Minister to consider that point and provide a minimum of, perhaps, 12 months before he makes any decisions based on those provisions.

The Local Government Association has raised a number of concerns. It is particularly worried that the bill does not explain the interrelationships between Resource New South Wales, the Environment Protection Authority, the Minister, waste services and local government. I would be very grateful if the Minister could address that question in his reply. Local government has not been briefed on that aspect of the bill, and it would like to develop an understanding of it. Some of the concerns raised by the Local Government Association would probably be addressed by the development of a strategic plan. One thing that has concerned me in recent weeks is that the Government's much-publicised $17 million television and media advertising campaign, which claims to be an investment in environmental education, does not devote any of its 60 seconds to any reference to litter and waste issues, nor does it devote any time to sewerage and a range of other negative environmental issues.

Why is it, with an investment of $17 million for this very costly environmental advertising campaign, that the flagship advertisement would tend to give the impression to a visitor to New South Wales that all is well with our environment? The Government stands open to accusations that the $17 million has been expended in such a way that would lead people to believe that the Carr Government has done a good job on environmental management. I know the Government is keen to self-style its credentials as a green and responsible Government, but on the evidence it is anything but that. Another key issue that has been raised with me is what constitutes the Minister's judgment that a national scheme is adequate.

Part 3, clause 14, of the bill sets out the circumstances in which schemes may be implemented, and states that the Minister is to give consideration as to whether the national scheme in place adequately addresses waste issues in New South Wales. The word "adequately" is subject to great interpretation. The Minister, according to the bill, has enormous power to decide on a personal view, on a whim or on advice from a group of people that a particular national scheme is not adequate. I will move an amendment whereby an industry group, if subject to a determination by the Minister that whatever the scheme is it does not adequately address whatever targets he chooses to apply to it, is able to implement some appeal mechanism. I will talk more about these amendments in Committee. I have forwarded the amendments to the Minister's office and I look forward to hearing his comments on them.

A major issue that has arisen out of this bill and which I think is fundamental to workers, to employees of the Government, is the security of employment contracts that people enter into with government agencies. A disturbing precedent is set out in proposed clause 4 of part 2 of schedule 4 to the bill, which deals with provisions for general managers and other declared officers of waste boards. I do not know how the Minister decides who is a declared officer and who is not. The provision simply says that employees of waste boards or contract holders of waste boards—and that applies to a good number of the general managers and other senior and middle level staff, who, for whatever reason, do not move into new positions with Resource New South Wales—are to be compensated either under the Public Sector Management Act, which I understand would give them two weeks compensatory pay for every year of service—for most people, who have two or three years of service, that would be four to six weeks pay—or according to their contracts. However, the bill says "whichever is the lesser".

This Government claims to represent working people but is prepared by an Act of Parliament to invalidate the contract that somebody has entered into in good faith and legally, simply to save a few dollars. It is an appalling precedent. For the Minister to even contemplate trying to shortchange hard-working employees who have gone into a contract in good faith is absolutely terrible. I will be moving an amendment that seeks to restore the rights of people who have contracts to nominate under which of those mechanisms they would like to have their employment terminated. I am also concerned for people who are currently working in waste boards in my area, in the Macarthur area and perhaps in other areas, and who might find it impossible to take a job in one of the proposed Resource New South Wales office locations. Anyone who lives in the Southern Highlands or the Macarthur area knows how difficult it is to rely on public transport to get to western Sydney. Not everyone has access to a car. Not every family can afford a second car.

I would like the Minister's assurance that Resource New South Wales will not force people to have to make unreasonable choices about the location of the new jobs. Many people are alarmed that their place of work, which now takes only a brief drive to get to—perhaps half an hour or less—will become impossible to get to. Even though they would like to continue their professional role in waste management in New South Wales, if they are under contract they might be forced to forgo their contract rights simply through logistics and geographical impossibility. That is untenable, and the Government should be ashamed it is even contemplating invalidating by an Act of Parliament contracts that workers entered into with it legally and in good faith. I will speak further to the amendments in Committee. I have circulated those amendments to the Clerk and to the Minister.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that waste management in this State is in crisis. Leadership is needed. There is a huge danger that Resource New South Wales and its new board will simply replicate the paralysis, costs and blow-outs that we have seen in waste boards and in the State Waste Advisory Council [SWAC] in recent years. The reason for that is lack of government direction and leadership, both to waste boards and to SWAC. A lot of good people in waste boards have been doing their best, trying to deliver the outcomes the Government has set for them but they simply have been unable to do that. That is the responsibility of the Minister and the Government. The missing link is how Waste Service in its corporatised form will act and be directed. Many questions on that issue remain unanswered by the bill. Unless Waste Service is truly reformed and opened up to full contestability and gives up its monopoly functions and its de facto regulatory characteristics, any sensible policy settings that might come out of the Resource New South Wales board will be doomed and useless. The Opposition will not oppose the bill, but it will move amendments in Committee.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [11.46 a.m.]: I want to contribute briefly to this debate because I remember when the original Waste Minimisation and Management Bill was introduced. I participated in debate at that time. We raised some genuine concerns about the legislation, not the least of which was lack of consultation with stakeholders, and that seems to have been an ongoing problem. Industry certainly has been very concerned about industry waste plans and the very high reduction that was required of everybody in waste going to landfill. To give honourable members some idea of how ill-conceived that legislation was, how rushed it was, the Government moved some 40 amendments to the bill in 1995. I am sure that what the honourable member for Wentworthville, who was the Minister for the Environment at that time, had to say will strike some sort of an emotional chord. She said:

Today we bring forward the most comprehensive overhaul of waste management systems in this State in 25 years and arguably since the concept of recycling was first raised in New South Wales.

She could not resist having a shot at the previous Government, and the current Minister for the Environment has taken some time out to do the same. They are not focused on doing the job for the people in New South Wales, they are focused on scoring cheap political points. The former Minister said:

The previous Government had seven years to do something about the waste crisis facing the State and did nothing. It was unwilling to do what was necessary to implement effective waste minimisation and management strategies. The previous Government's "No Time to Waste" policy was quite rightly seen as a waste of time.

She then sounded very reasonable when she said:

A modern system demands a shift towards waste minimisation, reuse and recycling with a continuing imperative for environmentally sound disposal of residual waste. The bill embraces these new challenges in three ways. It establishes unambiguous principles and goals in waste management.

It is breathtaking stuff, is it not? She continued:

It clearly outlines the roles and responsibilities of State and local government, the manufacturing industry and the waste industry to ensure the more comprehensive and equitable management of all waste streams. The bill then underpins these new roles and responsibilities with a modern, flexible and environmentally focused system of regulation and economic incentives. The hallmarks of the scheme are: a 60 per cent waste reduction target by the year 2000; a new body to advise on statewide policies and priorities; a regional system of waste planning and management drawing from international trends; dedicated funds to resource regional and statewide waste reduction programs …

The former Minister then went on to describe the 60 per cent target as "unashamedly ambitious". In my contribution to the debate I described it as "unashamedly unachievable". What we have seen since then certainly indicates that those were prescient words. By 1993 the amount of waste going to landfill was reduced by 25 per cent on 1990 levels. But in 1998 the amount of waste going to landfill was being reduced by only 18 per cent on 1990 levels. In other words, it had gone up by 7 per cent. That was despite the fact that this Government had mandated in the legislation a target of 60 per cent reduction in waste levels, when the previous Government had a 50 per cent target in place. It was an absolute nonsense for the former Minister for the Environment to come into this House and damn the previous Government for the program it had put in place, and to subject industry, householders and councils to this unashamedly unachievable waste reduction target of 60 per cent. Let us to hear what the current Minister for the Environment had to say in his contribution to the debate. He took some time to have another shot at the Coalition. He said of the Waste Minimisation and Management Act:

We introduced this reforming legislation little more than six months after taking office.

Rushed through, you will note. He continued:

This is in stark contrast to the 5 ½ years it took the Coalition to produce its somewhat ironically titled policy, No Time to Waste. This is a policy that the Coalition did little to implement in the two years between its release and the 1995 election, despite the urgency suggested by the title.

Honourable members will note that the amount of waste going to landfill was actually reduced by a greater percentage under the previous Government than under this Government. The Minister went on to state that there had been an independent inquiry into alternative waste management technologies and practices, the Wright inquiry, and a review as required under the Waste Minimisation and Management Act. The Minister claimed, of course, that the bill before the House is based on the recommendations of those inquiries. The Government should have done the job properly in the first place. It should have got it right in the first instance and not set an unashamedly unachievable target. I had some pretty strong words to say about this issue five years ago. I pointed out that setting an unattainable goal may be unproductive. I said that if a pass for Higher School Certificate mathematics was set at 90 per cent, a large number of children would simply not attempt the subject as they would regard the pass mark as beyond them. The same situation would apply to industry and local councils in New South Wales because the target is too high.

The Government took no notice of those words whatsoever. Indeed, the Government set up these regional waste boards. As might be expected, the achievements of those regional waste boards were very varied, very patchy. The two waste boards in my electorate are the Western Sydney Waste Board and the Northern Sydney Waste Board. Representatives of the Western Sydney Waste Board came to see me recently. They were not only trumpeting their quite significant achievements in reducing the amount of waste going to landfill, but they were also intending—before this legislation came before Parliament—to set up a network of drive-through recycling centres. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the proposal is going to be adopted by the new single-State agency, Resource New South Wales. One concern I have had right the way through with this whole issue of waste disposal is that the Minister seems to think that if we call waste a resource—honourable members will note we do not have waste boards any more; we have Resource New South Wales—it ceases to be waste. That is simply not true. A market has to be found for that waste in order for it to become a resource.

When one looks at some of the figures contained in the Wright report relating to the amount of waste that went to landfill—is going to landfill—there are some fairly disturbing trends. In respect of municipal waste, 390,000 tonnes of paper and cardboard went to landfill and only 195,000 tonnes were recycled. Honourable members should bear in mind that paper has some economic worth. In respect of plastics—this should be a major consideration for the Government—100,000 tonnes went to landfill and only 10,000 tonnes were recycled. One very good reason for that is that plastics have a very low economic worth. They are bulky, costly to transport around the countryside and food-grade plastics cannot be recycled as food packaging. An alternative use has to be found for those plastics. Those uses might include such things as mulching film, for example, but there are only so many uses to which you can put those products.

Garden waste and green waste is a very substantial proportion of the waste stream, as I am sure honourable members are aware. Of that, 240, 000 tonnes went to landfill from councils and only 150,000 tonnes were recycled. In respect of plastics from industry—and this figure is quite alarming—150,000 tonnes went to landfill and only 20,000 tonnes were recycled. Looking at those figures, the question really has to be: What is new about the Government's proposal? What is Resource New South Wales going to do in the way of creating exciting new markets for these products that is going to mean a significant reduction in the amount of waste going to landfill? At the time of the earlier debate on this issue, the then shadow Minister for the Environment, Jim Longley, made mention of the fact that, of course, there are a number of alternative landfill sites in the Sydney area, let alone throughout New South Wales.

Jim Longley queried whether it was in the best interests of the environment for the Government to maintain this artificial hierarchy of waste disposal. If you are putting waste in trucks or on trains, or taking it down to Woodlawn outside Goulburn in the electorate of Burrinjuck, for example, you may be using up more of the earth's resources and creating more environmental harm than if you simply put that waste in a hole in the ground. I have heard nothing about that. One of the continuing concerns I have had about this whole issue of recycling is that if you do not place some sort of economic value on the material to be recycled, ultimately it will end up in a hole in the ground—albeit by a more circuitous route.

That does not make any sense to me. Other than replacing the regional waste boards with this single-State agency, Resource New South Wales, I do not know what the Government proposes to do to prevent that material being buried in a hole in the ground. Simply calling waste a "resource" does not mean that it ceases to be waste. That is something that the Minister for the Environment needs to get a grip on. I do not believe he understands that issue. If he did understand it, the Government's record in recycling and reducing the amount of waste going to landfill would have been significantly better than it has been.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [11.59 a.m.], in reply: I welcome the opportunity again to place on record the Government's achievements in encouraging waste reduction, and to respond briefly to the views advanced by the honourable member for Southern Highlands. Her allegation that the Government has wasted public money on establishing waste boards is wrong in fact and a convenient method for misrepresenting Coalition policy. I remind members opposite of what I think is still Coalition policy on this matter. A document published by the Coalition called "No Time to Waste", states, at page 6:

Local councils will group into Regional Waste Authorities and produce Regional Waste Management Plans for all normal domestic, commercial and industrial waste generated in their regions.

That document is seven years old, but there has not been any document to replace it in the meantime. On page 18 of the document we are told that:

The regional waste planning scheme will be immediately established under the county council provisions of the (then) new Local Government Act.

It is a little rich to be attacking a system that one was committed to implementing. The difference is that the present Government acted and the Coalition sat on its hands, and that continues to be the situation. The waste management proposals that I informed the House of last week represent the next sensible step in waste reform. They build on the Government's major overhaul of waste policy, regulation and management in 1995. I congratulate my predecessor on the work that was done: an overhaul that required us to rebuild the system from the ground up.

It is fortunate for the New South Wales community that time and again the Coalition's silence has been punctuated by the Government's extensive reform agenda. It is worth reminding the House of our record. It is a record that completely and objectively contradicts the assertions of the honourable member for Southern Highlands. The achievements include the tough Waste Minimisation and Management Act; a 26 per cent reduction in waste to end disposal, compared to 1990, with about 40 per cent in the municipal sector; a diversion rate for recyclables that is 34 per cent higher than the national average; a green waste diversion rate that is double the national average; and unprecedented levels of funding support for waste programs.

The waste boards played an important role in getting to this position, and I hope that many, if not most, waste board staff will transfer their employment and expertise into the new organisation, Resource New South Wales. I again place on record my thanks to the staff of the boards for their valuable contribution to improving the community's and industry's awareness of waste issues, and the need to avoid and reduce waste in general. They will work to secure the Government's objective of seeing a continuous decline in waste generation. We want the recovery of resources from waste to be optimised. We want to manage in the most environmentally responsible manner the ever-shrinking waste left after recovering those resources. Resource New South Wales will be focused on a strategy for waste reduction and the delivery of programs to implement it. The Environment Protection Authority will continue its role in policy and regulation on waste.

As I informed the House last week, Resource New South Wales will have carriage of the State's waste avoidance and resource recovery agenda. It will develop, co-ordinate and implement waste and resource management strategies and programs throughout the State, and give effect to the recommendations of last year's alternative waste inquiry. In short, it will be the waste industry's version of the Sustainable Energy Development Authority. It will have the same relationship to the waste industry as SEDA has to the energy industry. The Government will recoup its investment in the waste boards by transferring their detailed regional waste management plans, together with numerous successful programs, to Resource New South Wales.

For instance, one notable success of the boards has been the Regional Illegal Dumping [RID] Squad. That organisation was established by the Western Sydney Waste Board in collaboration with its member councils. It is a squad of specially trained officers whose sole task is to catch illegal dumpers and to develop better strategies to detect and prevent their activities. Quite often they use highly sophisticated surveillance techniques and they are being very successful. As I mentioned in my second reading speech, Resource New South Wales will be required, as a priority, to extend the so-called RID squad initiative to the rest of Sydney, the Central Coast, the Hunter and the Illawarra, in conjunction with relevant councils.

The simple fact is that the Government will recoup its investment in the waste boards by transferring important and successful programs to Resource New South Wales. A streamlined, co-ordinated approach from Resource New South Wales will allow the results of successful board programs to be applied more widely across the State. The investment in developing critical databases, directories and publications will not be lost to the new organisation. To be more specific, the following programs have already made a valuable contribution to waste reduction. Most of them will continue, subject to auditing, and will also have the potential for results to be expanded to other areas.

They include the Waste Not Development control program; the reuse and recycling databases and directories, including the Buy Recycled guide, which I launched some time ago; the Healthy Gardens program and the Eco Gardens program; the local government waste reduction and purchasing policy; the public place recycling—Waste Wise Public Place and Special Events—program; the Waste Makes No Cents program and waste minimisation programs for industry; the Foodwaste recycling trials; trials of collection of paper from small and medium businesses; and the wood waste collection trial. These strong programs—and there are many more of them—will continue. As to the attitude of the waste board people themselves, the honourable member for Southern Highlands attempted to suggest that there was deep unhappiness amongst the waste boards about the change that is occurring. Of course I do not deny that there is some unhappiness here and there, but I take the opportunity to quote from a press release issued by the Chairperson of Illawarra Waste Management, that is, the Illawarra Waste Board. The press release states:

Vicki King, chairperson of Illawarra Waste Management, welcomes the New South Wales Government's new Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Bill which reinforces the commitment to waste minimisation and creates the State agency, Resource New South Wales, with regional offices in the Illawarra and the Hunter.

Vicki King goes on to describe the work that her board has been doing. The press release further states:

The foundations laid by Illawarra Waste Management in the region will help Resource New South Wales to work with the community to achieve the aim of a waste-free future and improve our environment.

I suggest that that is not a bad endorsement. The honourable member for Southern Highlands has also suggested in various forums that all of the money spent on waste reform by the Carr Government has been spent on waste boards. That is not true. The $87 million or so that has been spent on waste management during the period of this Government has been spent across a great many areas. Something like 65 per cent of the total moneys allocated from the waste fund have gone to the boards, not 100 per cent, which is a point of some modest relevance.

A number of important programs have been undertaken outside the auspices of the waste boards. For instance, nearly $9 million in over several financial years has been committed to the kerbside program support for councils and nearly $4.5 million is being spent on the ChemCollect program, which is the program for gathering leftover chemicals from farms. Other programs include the litter education campaign, the national packaging covenant, the overarching education campaign and community waste grants. The list goes on and on, and spending adds up to something like $58 million during the time of this Government.

I turn now to the question of Waste Board general staff entitlements. The Coalition has been advancing—the honourable member for Southern Highlands has advanced again today—peculiar views on industrial relations concerning Waste Board staff. It is worth reading into the record relevant extracts from my communique to the staff of 20 June. I said this to the staff of the waste boards:

Importantly, the legislation sets out arrangements for the transfer of Waste Board staff who may join the new agency, which will have a head office in Sydney, and regional offices in Newcastle and Wollongong. While I have made separate arrangements for staff to be informed of their rights and entitlements, staff are obviously welcome to seek advice from their trade union or other source.

I continued:

I am confident that Resource NSW will have the structure, powers and resources to do just that. I am also confident that many Waste Board staff will find new challenges in making Resource NSW an import institution.

In making the transition to the new agency, I want to minimise disruption to staff and programs. I have asked [the EPA] to set up a series of briefings for Waste Board staff over the next fortnight to answer your questions.

I do not remember the Coalition ever taking that sort of responsible and sensitive approach to staff who were in an equivalent position in the Greiner and Fahey years. The approach in those times was generally one that suggested that an employee's bags should be packed within the next 10 minutes until security could escort the employee out. I sincerely hope that Waste Board staff are not led to believe that their industrial rights and entitlements would be superior under a Coalition government. The Waste Planning and Management Boards (State) Award 2001 sets out the conditions of employment for board staff. They have been notified of the changes and meetings established to brief employees of each of the boards over the next few working days. Unions have been notified of the schedule of meetings. I have also required each of the boards to provide me with detailed information on all staffing-related matters by the close of business tomorrow.

The intention is to facilitate the transfer of most board staff to the new agency. Inevitably, with only one Sydney office in western Sydney, there are likely to be significant issues for some staff about location, and they will be considered on a case-by-case basis through the establishment of a process to consider hardship. The Government's policy of displaced employees applies to Waste Board staff. For those staff to transfer their employment into the new agency, I foreshadow government support for the staff to move to the Crown Employees Award, which I understand provides employees with superior benefits and protections over those that the employees presently enjoy. That is another move that will be subject to discussions with the relevant unions and others.

It comes as no surprise that the honourable member for Southern Highlands is again leaping to the defence of potentially exorbitant entitlements and redundancy packages for waste industry senior executives. She has some form in this regard. It simply shows how out of step she is with community standards and expectations. The provision in this respect was included in the bill to protect the public interest and the public purse. In recent months my office has become aware that several senior executives of the boards have busied themselves with the task of arranging payouts that, if paid, would rightly cause community concern. Until the Government has the opportunity to closely examine each of the employment contracts of the senior executives the scale of these entitlements will not be fully known. However, I am concerned about the level of rumour that has recently surrounded this issue.

The community has tired of the notion of senior executives having extraordinarily generous packages approved for themselves in anticipation of their removal from office or for another purpose. The Government is not suggesting that the scale of Waste Board packages in any way accords with the sorts of things that have been happening in One.Tel and HIH, but there is a common principle involved. The honourable member for Southern Highlands, in the midst of talking of alleged waste of the Government's resources because of the reforms, nevertheless seems to support the principle of possible runaway payouts for senior executives. One cannot have it both ways. The Government believes that the community would prefer to see whatever funds are saved from the enactment of these provisions spent on innovative programs and service delivery.

It is of some concern, as one senior Waste Board figure put it to me, that the central problem several general managers had with the entire reform package—and it is a substantial package—was how it would affect their pecuniary interests. The Government has become aware that there has been a steady migration of general managers onto the Senior Executive Service salary band. I am told by sources from the boards that some general managers are now receiving generous SES salaries while they manage approximately 10 staff. I know of some senior managers within the boards who certainly do not believe that this migration into the salary stratosphere, as it were, has been justified. The honourable member for Southern Highlands does not appear to have made contact with them.

Unfortunately, the honourable member for Southern Highlands again finds herself championing the rights of senior executives to significant severance packages. She did that last year with the local government recycling co-operative. In that instance she argued the rights of two senior managers to exorbitant payouts totalling, I am told, several hundred thousand dollars. Despite the exorbitant claims lodged by those two former senior executives in the co-operative and the fact that those claims impeded consideration of payment of the ordinary salary and leave entitlements of all other employees—worth about $54,000—the honourable member on that occasion went in to bat for the senior executives. She is doing the same in this case. It calls into question the industrial standards that the Coalition is subscribing to these days. If the Government's comprehensive audit of Waste Board general manager contracts reveals an objective need for greater monetary compensation the Government will closely investigate the prospect of paying such compensation. However, I stress that the provisions of the bill are presently necessary to protect the public interest.

Extended producer responsibility simply means that companies have some level of responsibility for the waste that they produce after they sell their products. I said "some level". How much will be the subject of inquiry and analysis that interested parties will be extensively consulted about? What the Government is removing is the threat of capricious or perhaps unjustified action against an industry in this respect. Extended producer responsibility can apply to a type of material, for example, aluminium; a product—say, computers; or classes of products, for instance, all packaging waste.

International examples of these schemes include companies being required to recover batteries that they produce, import or sell; chemical and paint companies being required to recover unused household chemicals and paints and their containers, which are recognised as a domestic health hazard; and computer industries being required to take responsibility for recycling of used computers, particularly home computers. The best Australian example is the voluntary newsprint recycling program through which over 70 per cent of all newsprint is now collected and recycled. The Government would not dream of imposing a standard on that group. It is a stunning achievement. I take this opportunity to congratulate the people involved in that story, especially the Publishers International Environment Bureau. Dick Parrott, Walter Kommer and Tony Wilkins have established a model for industry at large. There is now an obvious trend towards extended producer responsibility in most jurisdictions, most particularly in California and Washington State in the United States of America, and in Canada, Japan, Scandinavia and other parts of northern Europe.

The proposed approach to extended producer liability in New South Wales is based on both commonsense and sound international practice. It allows industries that are dealing effectively with waste to be subject to Government control. As I have said, the newsprint recycling industry comes within that category. To this end, the Government will consider requiring extended producer responsibility schemes only if: a waste product has a high volume or a level of toxicity requiring action; there is no effective national scheme already doing the job; the industry has no adequate voluntary scheme; the compulsory economic analysis supports the proposed scheme; and the Government or the scheme is not faced with constitutional or legal impediments.

To assist with developing proposals on waste reduction, I should add that I have sought independent comment on the question of extended producer responsibility from bodies including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] and the Institute of Sustainable Futures of the University of Technology, Sydney. The institute commented that extended producer responsibility provides for an economic incentive to producers to prevent waste generation, reduce the use of toxic materials, increase recycling, and enhance markets for secondary materials. That is a matter that the honourable member for The Hills referred to in a rather confused fashion a short time ago. Extended producer responsibility is one methodology that will greatly assist in the enhancement of markets for secondary materials.

The institute concluded that legislation encapsulating extended producer responsibility does not represent an extra burden to industry. There are numerous examples that show that a proactive and preventive approach to product improvement can offer companies substantial cost savings. Those savings and consequential profit gains result from sources such as reduced resource use, reduced energy consumption, lower pollution control costs, lower costs of raw materials, less waste production and better product design. The Institute for Sustainable Futures also observed that criteria are needed for determining when an extended produce responsibility scheme is appropriate. Those criteria include: ease of implementation; volume, quantity or mass of the product; potential environmental benefits; residual value of the product after its use; and local political acceptability of the scheme.

The scheme proposed by the Government details the criteria that will be used to determine the need for mandatory approaches. If a material, product or industry meets those criteria, a regulation will require the appropriate party to act. In summary, the system encourages companies that are doing the right thing; it introduces regulation only when the market fails. The existing industry waste reduction plans actually require the Government to intervene on what are said to be in principle voluntary industry plans to reduce waste and to punish industry through regulation if those plans fail. The new system is much more transparent.

The bill as it is provides for a robust process before a mandatory scheme is introduced. It is important to point that out because existence of those provisions in the bill has been denied by some honourable members who participated in the debate earlier. First the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] must prepare a statement of priorities for industry waste reduction and that involves considering industry submissions; second, the criteria established by the bill provide that mandatory schemes are introduced in limited circumstances only; last, any such scheme is the subject of very rigorous processes established by the Subordinate Legislation Act. I wish to address only one other issue, that is, the question of community involvement in waste policy.

I was somewhat puzzled to hear the honourable member for Southern Highlands claim that the Government was in some way reducing community involvement in determining waste policy by these provisions. She has seemingly ignored the fact that under the Waste Minimisation and Management Act, that is to say, the Act that this legislation replaces, it is local government, not the Minister and not the community, that virtually has carte blanche in the selection of council and community representatives. People who are referred to as community representatives, a minority on each board, are chosen by local government but the great majority of the boards actually have been comprised of local government councillors.

The bill presently before the House ensures that community representation exists on the board of Resource New South Wales. The bill also provides for the board to establish committees to assist in the exercise of its function. Those committees do not need to be comprised of board members, so they can include representatives of the broader community and representatives who are expert in any particular issue that is being addressed by a committee. This second wave of the Government's waste reforms will deliver very strong results. It is worth emphasising that under these provisions local government will actually receive significant increases in direct funding to assist with waste management. Industry and other commercial enterprises will receive unprecedented funding and unprecedented support in this Government's drive to reduce waste, especially in the industrial and commercial sectors. Secondary markets for the recovery of resources from waste will be boosted. New technologies to reduce waste and to recover materials will be encouraged by these reforms. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14

Ms SEATON (Southern Highlands) [12.34 p.m.]: I move:

No. 1 Page 7, clause 14, line 31. Omit "national".

The amendment is based on the test of adequacy under which the Minister might decide to mandate an extended producer responsibility instrument. I propose that the word "national" be omitted from part 3, clause 14 (1) (b) on the grounds that many schemes are in place to address waste issues in New South Wales. Some schemes are national, some are local, some are community-based and some are regional. For the purposes of proposed amendment No. 2 it makes sense to remove the word "national", because that word unnecessarily and irrelevantly narrows the schemes to a small group. Many schemes go beyond being a national scheme or are at a local level. Removing the word "national" from clause 14 makes sense and will provide a much better basis on which the Minister can make a decision about whether a scheme has been adequately formed. Removing the word will mean that industry—whether it is involved in a national, regional or local scheme—will have an opportunity to appeal against a ministerial decision and have the decision reviewed. That is covered in proposed amendment No. 2.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [12.35 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendment. Many industries are beginning to participate in national schemes for industry waste reduction. The bill as it stands clearly allows the Minister of the day to take the presence of such a scheme into consideration when determining whether to adopt a mandatory scheme. Voluntary schemes, including national schemes, are dealt with separately in the bill. The provision that the Opposition is seeking to amend deals with national schemes that are not purely voluntary. I find it hard to believe that industry in general would not want to participate in such a scheme, or to consider it.

Question—That the word stand—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Aquilina Mr Ashton Mr Barr Mr Bartlett Ms Beamer Mr Black Mr Brown Miss Burton Mr Campbell Mr Collier Mr Crittenden Mr Debus Mr Face Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mr Greene

Mrs Grusovin Ms Harrison Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Mr Iemma Mr Knowles Mrs Lo Po' Mr Markham Mr Martin Mr McBride Mr McGrane Mr McManus Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Ms Moore Mr Moss Mr Newell

Ms Nori Mr Orkopoulos Mr E. T. Page Dr Refshauge Ms Saliba Mr Scully Mr W. D. Smith Mr Stewart Mr Torbay Mr Tripodi Mr West Mr Whelan Mr Windsor Mr Woods Tellers, Mr Anderson Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr Brogden Mrs Chikarovski Mr Collins Mr Debnam Mr George Mr Glachan Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard Ms Hodgkinson Mr Humpherson Dr Kernohan

Mr Kerr Mr Maguire Mr Merton Mr O'Doherty Mr O'Farrell Mr Oakeshott Mr D. L. Page Mr Piccoli Mr Richardson Mr Rozzoli Ms Seaton Mrs Skinner

Mr Slack-Smith Mr Souris Mr Stoner Mr Tink Mr J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Mr Webb Tellers, Mr Fraser Mr R. H. L. Smith

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Ms SEATON (Southern Highlands) [12.42 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 8, clause 14. Insert after line 9:

(2) If, for the purposes of subsection (1) (b), the Minister is of the opinion that:

(a) the scheme addressing waste issues that is in place is not adequate, and

(b) a regulation in connection with the matter should be made,

the Minister is required to advise the industry sector to which the proposed regulation would relate of the Minister's decision.

(3) If that industry sector (including any producer who is a member of the industry sector) requests an independent review of the Minister's assessment of the adequacy of the scheme, the Minister is required to establish an independent committee:

(a) to review the adequacy of the scheme, and

(b) to report to the Minister on the results of the review.

(4) The review committee is to consist of such persons as may be appointed by the Minister, including the following:

(a) persons representing the industry sector requesting the review,

(b) persons representing environmental interests,

(c) persons having appropriate tertiary or scientific qualifications.

(5) The Minister must ensure that the results of the review are made publicly available before recommending the making of a regulation in connection with the matter.

Some industry groups might find themselves subject to a determination by the Minister that a national or other scheme has not adequately addressed waste issues in New South Wales. The amendment seeks to give those groups an appeal mechanism in the form of access to a review committee that might be able to assess the industry's performance under those criteria, give an independent assessment, and allow the industry to establish that its performance has in fact been adequate, if that is the industry's view. The amendment provides that when a Minister is of the opinion that the scheme addressing waste issues is not adequate and that a regulation should be made, the industry sector can request the Minister to establish an independent committee to review the adequacy of the scheme and report to the Minister on the results of the review.

Such a review committee ought to comprise a representative of the industry sector requesting the review, a representative of the environment movement—that is, a person with environmental interests—and a person who has appropriate tertiary or scientific qualifications. There is no doubt that many industry sectors have achieved great success with regard to industry waste reduction. I single out for particular mention the Publishers National Environment Bureau, whose model is a great success. I have had the opportunity to visit the Albury paper mill to observe first hand the waste-reduction measures carried out at the mill.

Ms Moore: Point of order: It is very difficult to hear what the honourable member for Southern Highlands is saying. I ask you to ask members to remain silent.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): Order! Members will restrain their level of conversatio