The President (The Hon. Peter Thomas Primrose) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thank them for their custodianship of this land.

Assent to the following bills reported:

Crimes Amendment Bill 2007
Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill 2007

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor:

Office of the Governor
Sydney 2000
J. J. Spigelman
LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR

The Honourable James Jacob Spigelman, Chief Justice of New South Wales, Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Council that, consequent on the Governor of New South Wales, Professor Marie Bashir, having assumed the administration of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, he has this day assumed the administration of the Government of the State.

29 September 2007

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from Justice Keith Mason, Administrator of the State of New South Wales:

Office of the Governor
Sydney 2000
K. Mason
ADMINISTRATOR

The Honourable Justice Keith Mason, Administrator of the State of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Council that, consequent on the Lieutenant-Governor of New South Wales, the Honourable James Jacob Spigelman, being absent from the State, he has this day assumed the administration of the Government of the State.

6 October 2007

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from Her Excellency the Governor:

Office of the Governor
Sydney 2000
Marie Bashir
GOVERNOR

Professor Marie Bashir, Governor of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Council that she re-assumed the administration of the Government of the State on 12 October 2007.

12 October 2007

The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that, on Thursday 27 September 2007, the Hon. Christine Robertson moved that standing and sessional orders be suspended on contingent notice. I have been advised that the Hon. Christine Robertson had not given a contingent notice. In line with the ruling of the President on 26 September 2006, as the House agreed to the suspension of standing and sessional orders to bring on the motion that the House take note of Report No. 32 of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice at that time, the resolution of the House will stand.

The President tabled, pursuant to the Constitution (Disclosure by Members) Regulation 1983, a copy of the Register of Disclosures by Members of the Legislative Council for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

The Hon. Tony Kelly tabled, pursuant to Standing Order 59, a list of all papers tabled in the previous month and not ordered to be printed.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: I inform the House that in accordance with the resolution of the House relating to the establishment of committees, the Standing Committee on Law and Justice resolved on 16 October 2007 to adopt the following reference from the Attorney General, the Hon. John Hatzistergos:

That the Standing Committee on Law and Justice inquire into and report on the current prohibition on the publication and broadcasting of names under section 11 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (the Act), in particular:

1. The extent to which the policy objectives of the prohibition remain valid, including to:

(a) reduce the community stigma associated with a child’s involvement in a crime, thereby allowing the child to be reintegrated into the community with a view to full rehabilitation,

(b) protect victims from the stigma associated with crimes, and

(c) reduce the stigma for siblings of the offender and victim, allowing them to participate in community life.

2. The extent to which section 11 of the Act is achieving these objectives.

3. Whether the prohibition on the publication and broadcasting of names under section 11 of the Act should cover:

(a) children who have been arrested, but who have not yet been charged,

(b) children, other than the accused, who are reasonably likely to be involved in proceedings, and/or

(c) any other circumstance.

4. Any other relevant matter involving the prohibition on the publication and broadcasting of names, including consideration of prohibitions in the Young Offenders Act 1997 and the Crimes Act 1900.

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to the Legislation Review Act 1987, of the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 3 of 2007", dated 12 October 2007, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 12 October 2007.
Petition requesting that the Government introduce regular and affordable local passenger trains on the Casino to Murwillumbah rail line, commence planning for a rail link from Murwillumbah to the Gold Coast, promote the expansion of rail freight, and develop an integrated transport plan that meets the current and future transport needs of communities in the Northern Rivers region, received from the Hon. Catherine Cusack.
Petition opposing the construction of a desalination plant at Kurnell and new coal-fired electricity generation plants and requesting investment in public transport and rail freight and a commitment to renewable energy projects to counter climate change, received from Dr John Kaye.

Petition requesting the removal of booking fees charged to pensioners on CountryLink services, received from the Hon. John Ajaka.

Petition stating that exploratory mining activities for rubies, sapphires and other gemstones within the Barrington Tops State Forest and conservation areas are likely to cause irreversible damage, stating that the area should be converted to national park status and requesting an environmental impact statement for mining activities to ensure greater scrutiny by the public and relevant authorities, received from Ms Lee Rhiannon.

Petition opposing the construction of a desalination plant at Kurnell and requesting the development of cost-effective, environmentally friendly measures to ensure a sustainable water supply for Sydney, received from Dr John Kaye.

Petition opposing the construction of a desalination plant at Kurnell and requesting implementation of water saving measures, received from Dr John Kaye.

Motion, by leave, by Mr Ian Cohen agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the presentation of an irregular petition from 1,000 citizens of New South Wales concerning the redevelopment of Lismore Base Hospital.

Petition requesting funding for stage 2 of the Lismore Base Hospital redevelopment, received from Mr Ian Cohen.

Private Members' Business item No. 28 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn on motion by Dr John Kaye.
Business of the House Notices of Motions Nos 1 and 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.55 p.m.], by leave: I move:

1. That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the quality of care for patients at the Royal North Shore Hospital, and in particular:

(a) clinical management systems at the hospital,

(b) the clinical staffing and organisation structures at the hospital,

(c) the efficiency, effectiveness and appropriateness of resource allocation and utilisation within the hospital, and in particular the operation of the Emergency Department,

(d) the effectiveness of complaints handling and incident management at the hospital, and

(e) operational management of Royal North Shore Hospital in general but in particular, the interaction between area and hospital management as it relates to hospital efficiency, effectiveness and quality of care.

2. That the committee consider any strategies or measures in place or proposed for improving quality of care for patients at the hospital which may also benefit New South Wales public hospitals.

3. That any individual patient complaints identified in the course of the inquiry be referred by the committee to the Health Care Complaints Commission.

4. That notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders of either House, the committee consist of eight members, as follows:

(a) four members of the Legislative Council, of whom:

(i) two must be Government members,

(ii) one must be an Opposition member, and

(iii) Revd Mr Nile,

(b) four members of the Legislative Assembly, of whom:

(i) two must be Government members,

(ii) one must be an Opposition member, and

(iii) one must be a Crossbench member.

5. That the members be nominated in writing to the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly by the relevant party leaders and the crossbench members respectively within seven days of this resolution being agreed to by both Houses.

6. That Revd Mr Nile be Chair of the committee, and that the committee elect a Deputy Chair at its first meeting.

7. That, notwithstanding anything in the standing orders of either House, at any meeting of the committee, any four members of the committee will constitute a quorum, provided that the committee meets as a joint committee at all times.

8. A member of either House who is not a member of the committee may take part in the public proceedings of the committee and question witnesses but may not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of any quorum or division.

9. That leave be given to members of either House to appear before and give evidence to the committee.

10. That the committee report by Friday 14 December 2007.

11. That this House requests the Legislative Assembly to agree to a similar resolution and name the time and place for this first meeting.

The motion, which is detailed, outlines the terms of reference of the committee. During question time on the last sitting day before the recent recess I raised the tragic case of Ms Horska at Royal North Shore Hospital. After hearing screams coming from a toilet at that hospital into which Ms Horska had gone, Ms Horska's husband rushed into the toilet and found Ms Horska on the floor holding her live 3½ month old baby in her hands. Such a loss of life is a major tragedy. Every life is precious. As members know, I am a strong campaigner for the sanctity of life for both the unborn and the aged.

There is obviously a need for the inquiry. My wife and I had discussions about the need for it. Indeed, my wife was very angry about the treatment of Ms Horska and about other incidents that occurred at the hospital. So I prepared draft terms of reference and discussed them with Government representatives and also the Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mrs Skinner. As a result of those discussions the Government provided input into the terms of reference. A major aspect of the terms of reference, paragraph 1 (e), was provided to me by Mrs Skinner, who advised that senior staff at Royal North Shore Hospital had requested the paragraph be included to ensure that the inquiry would be effective. I readily agreed to that, the Government agreed to it, and obviously the Opposition had proposed it so we had agreement from both sides of the House. I was pleased to include that paragraph.

There is some debate about the date on which the committee should report. The date currently proposed is 14 December 2007. However, I have received a request from the Opposition that the report date should be 15 February 2008. I was prepared to consider that, but after further discussions with the Government I have its agreement that if the committee feels that it needs more time to finalise its report there will be no objection to a vote in this House to seek an extension for the committee to report, to a date such as 15 February 2008.

A great deal could be said about all the incidents that have been occurring at Royal North Shore Hospital in recent weeks, but it has now become clear that events similar to some of the tragic events of recent days have occurred without publicity over the last two years, perhaps even over a longer period. It is clear that Royal North Shore Hospital is in a state of crisis. The inquiry should not be a witch-hunt in trying to simply get involved with the blame game; rather, its purpose should be to find out what has been happening in the hospital. In my view the main value of the inquiry will be to produce recommendations to assist Royal North Shore Hospital to act effectively as a leading public hospital in New South Wales, if not Australia, and to restore the hospital's previous high reputation. But also, the lessons we learn from Royal North Shore Hospital may also be relevant to other public hospitals in New South Wales, and that is why I have included paragraph 1 (e) in the terms of reference. Of course, it would then be up to the Government to consider the committee's recommendations, as to whether they apply to the entire health administration in the State.

Other events have occurred at Royal North Shore Hospital that have caused me concern, and I am sure they have caused other members concern. For example, there was the case of Phil Lindsay, an 87-year-old World War II veteran. According to the media reports, his wife had to hire an agency nurse for four nights to care for him in the hospital because the family did not want him to be left alone. There has been some controversy in the media, as we know, with various people making statements, including the Minister for Health, concerning what is occurring in the hospital. In another tragic event, a patient was placed in a storage room—

The Hon. Henry Tsang: A treatment room.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Other people said it was a treatment room. However, many of us saw footage of the room on television and I am sure none of us would have thought it was a treatment room or a room suitable for a patient—especially a 91-year-old patient, such as Edith King. I understand the hospital regards it as a supply room. Dr Joseph, a senior emergency doctor at Royal North Shore Hospital and New South Wales Chairman of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, said it was common practice to move patients into storage rooms when wards were overcrowded. However, he also said:

These are not rooms that are usually used for patient care.

They are unsafe and it is part of the overcrowding policy—when emergency departments are bursting at the seams they will take them and put them in these side rooms.

Dr Joseph went on to say that patients would not receive adequate treatment in storage rooms, because they were not equipped with standard hospital equipment. He said it was highly unusual for any of the storage rooms to be fitted with an emergency on-call button, and that the policy of using storage rooms risked patient safety as the rooms were not easily visible to on-duty nurses. I am sure members of the House would be concerned about those statements.
There is another underlying issue which I believe makes this inquiry necessary. Of course, it would be a public inquiry, open to the media and obviously conducted under parliamentary privilege. There have been media reports—and, of course, the committee will investigate whether there is any truth in them—claiming that there has been bullying and harassment of the staff at the hospital and that one senior hospital member who did not want to be named said that bullying by management was "rife". The hospital staff member went on to say, "The staff are pretty frightened to speak out because of fear of retaliation. It may not be swift but it's brutal." I believe such comments make this inquiry of vital importance, to clear the air and in the long run to be of benefit to Royal North Shore Hospital and the patients it will care for in the coming days. I ask members to give their support to this motion to establish the inquiry.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [3.06 p.m.]: On behalf of the Liberal-Nationals Coalition I speak to the urgency of this motion presented by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile today. The Coalition believes it is urgent that an inquiry be conducted into Royal North Shore Hospital. For some weeks now we have been raising, both through the media and in the Parliament, issues with regard to Royal North Shore Hospital and some of the enormous problems facing the hospital. The Coalition would have preferred that the Premier commission a full, open and independent judicial inquiry into the hospital. Such an inquiry would be fully resourced and completely independent. That is our first preference.

The Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, and the shadow Minister for Health and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Jillian Skinner, have been calling stridently for the Premier and the Minister for Health to admit that a full, frank and independent inquiry needs to be conducted into Royal North Shore Hospital. It is urgent that the inquiry be conducted. As I said, it is not the Coalition's first option, but it is an option. I remind the House that on 26 September the Premier made the following statement regarding Mark Dreyer, the partner of Jana Horska, also referred to by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile:

I also gave him a personal assurance that if there is any matter that is not in the terms of reference that he wishes to have investigated, it will be investigated.

What Mark Dreyer was wanting was a full public inquiry, and that is what the Premier should have delivered. An independent judicial inquiry could have compelled the health Minister, Reba Meagher, to attend; it could have compelled former health Ministers—notably Morris Iemma and John Hatzistergos—to appear and give evidence under oath. A judicial inquiry would have that power. However, I hope that the Premier and the health Minister will participate in the inquiry to the extent that they are prepared to appear and answer questions. If we are to have a full and open inquiry, the very least the health Minister can do is give evidence under oath and confirm her view. Certainly that is the least that the nurses, clinicians and patients who use Royal North Shore Hospital should expect from the health Minister.

So far the Premier and the health Minister have refused to take responsibility for public hospitals. However, I hope that they will not refuse to appear before the parliamentary inquiry, which is urgent. Certainly if the Hon. Reba Meagher is prepared to be the health Minister, she should be prepared to attend the inquiry and answer questions put to her by the committee, and to do so honestly, accepting that there are problems with the hospital. Indeed, I believe the Minister must commit to appearing before the inquiry when it is established.

The inquiry, as a second-best option, at least will give the public an opportunity to have their say about what is going on at Royal North Shore Hospital. I note that the terms of reference presented by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile today are similar to the terms of reference for an inquiry to be conducted by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2, presented as recently as yesterday afternoon, which that committee was to consider.

The committee has decided to further consider this issue pending the outcome of the joint standing committee Inquiry. I will not pre-empt that decision but I assume General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 would be prepared to undertake a further inquiry. It would be a shame if that needed to happen. The committee, which has a record of investigating public health issues, conducted the inquiries into complaints handling at Camden and Campbelltown hospitals. Those inquiries, and the way the committee conducted them, made me proud both as the deputy chair at the time and now as chair. I have deep admiration for the people on that committee, who work for the public good and achieve great outcomes. The terms of reference moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile are similar to those proposed for General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2. If the inquiry does not fully investigate the issue, that committee could always revisit it.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has had discussions with the Premier and members of the Government about the terms of reference, and also with Jillian Skinner and Barry O'Farrell about the content of the inquiry. I am surprised that we find today—and this is different from his press release of yesterday—the 15 February 2008 reporting date has been changed to 14 December 2007. This starts to make it all seem a bit silly: two months to advertise an inquiry, call for submissions, hear from the people who want to make submissions, and prepare and present a report to Parliament! One has to wonder why the terms of reference have been changed? Referring to the breadth of the inquiry, I think 15 February 2008 is a sensible reporting date yet it has been brought back to 14 December 2007, with a clause providing for a possible extension. I foreshadow that I propose to move an amendment to shift the terms of reference reporting date back to 15 February 2008, with the possibility of an extension.

This inquiry is urgent but it needs time to review the issues. I speak about urgency because of the terrible experience suffered by Jana Horska, who on 25 September waited for more than two hours in the emergency department of Royal North Shore Hospital, bleeding and in pain, before having a miscarriage. Other issues have been raised in recent months, and indeed years, about Royal North Shore Hospital. We want to ensure that an inquiry finds answers and is not a witch-hunt. We want doctors, clinicians, nurses and patients to feel they can come forward under parliamentary privilege and be part of the solution. The inquiry will look at systemic problems, rather than indulge in finger-pointing and blaming individuals, and will consider budgetary issues, responsibility and management. Having looked at those issues, it will then take time to come up with solutions for what is going on. The Minister, Ms Reba Meagher, ought to have been saying there would be an investigation, rather than being forced to come kicking and screaming and second-best to an inquiry.

People need to feel that they will not be bullied or face reprisals when coming forward, as they are doing in droves, to tell us about what is going on. For example, on 5 October 2007 a secret report into Royal North Shore Hospital revealed an entrenched culture of bullying. In 2003 a similar report was ignored by Morris Iemma when he was Minister for Health. On 4 October 2007 the Tague family said they were forced to care for their 85-year-old mother while she died in Royal North Shore Hospital. On the same day a nurse described the Royal North Shore Hospital situation as unbearable, with 17-hour shifts, infighting between staff, patients placed on top of desks in storerooms and staff forced to share basic equipment. On 30 September 2007 a report stated that patient care was compromised by cuts to nursing shifts, rendering staff unable to hand over patients from one shift to the next. That could possibly cause a dangerous breakdown in communication. On 29 September 2007, the family of a dying Second World War digger claimed they had to hire a private nurse to care for him at the Royal North Shore Hospital. On 28 September 2007, Andrew Singer, president of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, said that there was certain inevitability about the Royal North Shore Hospital and added, "When you do not have enough available beds to see patients, this is what happens." On 28 September 2007, Linda Dayan, a former Royal North Shore Hospital sexual health specialist, was told that funds to Royal North Shore Hospital would be cut because Iemma Government policy was that people on the North Shore have money and could pay to go to private health care.

These are but some of the comments being made and they should be investigated. We need to find out what is really going on at Royal North Shore Hospital. Who is responsible? Are the claims accurate or not? What recommendations by the inquiry will both fix problems at Royal North Shore Hospital and translate to other hospitals? General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 investigated Camden and Campbelltown hospitals complaints handling and made recommendations across the board. We hope the inquiry provides a similar outcome, for it is what we need. We need more time to address these issues. I have pages and pages of comments from people about their problems. These cases are unacceptable and an inquiry must provide an opportunity for people to come forward and tell the real story.

The Premier and the Minister for Health are ducking and weaving and trying to avoid having the story told. We need to know what funding and resources the State Government has allocated to Royal North Shore Hospital since it came to power. The examples I have referred to show that patients and staff are suffering. In 1996-97 the hospital had 736 beds. Over the last decade the State Labor Government has cut the number of beds by 20 per cent to just 593 beds in 2006-07. This inquiry is urgently needed because members of staff are telling us that they are not able to cope with the current situation. They are rushed off their feet and are extremely stressed, which is no wonder. Let us find out whether that is the reality. Let us find out about the budget cuts to Royal North Shore Hospital.

The budget was cut by $13 million this year. Clinicians, nursing staff and allied health staff have made complaints to the Health Care Complaints Commission describing the hospital as "decrepit, dirty and dysfunctional". Staff want an "in-depth, thorough and independent review by non-NSW Health staff." They deserve that inquiry urgently and the committee must be provided with enough time to undertake its task properly. On the ABC AM program the Assistant General Secretary of the New South Wales Nurses Association had this to say about Royal North Shore Hospital, "We have some shifts on the wards that are run without registered nurses—that's illegal." We need to find out whether that is so. It has been revealed that the money put aside for buildings and equipment is being used instead to keep the hospital running. Minutes of a meeting of the Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service reveal:

The budget should be met at the end of June 2007 but only by shifting funds notionally allocated to capital expenditure to operating budget.

This inquiry should be held urgently because the public has a right to know what the real story is, not what the spin doctors say. We want to know what is going on. We need to support the nurses and clinicians, who are doing a fantastic job under enormous pressure. We need to find out what the issues are and see whether there are lessons to be learnt from this, not only in relation to Royal North Shore Hospital but also translated across the health system. The Minister for Health must present herself to the inquiry and we need an undertaking from the Premier that that will happen. We certainly need time to conduct this inquiry properly, otherwise it will be a pretend inquiry with only eight weeks within which to examine all the issues, and that is totally ridiculous. The Liberal-Nationals Coalition will support the urgency of this inquiry and the motion but, as I said, I will move an amendment to extend the date as per the original press release of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, who will chair the inquiry, with a reporting date in February.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.22 p.m.]: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile approached the Government with a proposal for an independent joint select committee to fully review the management and operations of Royal North Shore Hospital. The Government will support the inquiry proposed by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. The even numbers on the committee will ensure that neither side of Parliament will dominate the inquiry. There will be an independent casting vote from the chairperson. The inquiry will be an open, transparent process, not a crass political witch-hunt as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. The inquiry will receive the full support of Government members and the full cooperation of the Department of Health and Royal North Shore Hospital management. As Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile said in relation to the reporting date, the Government has advised the honourable member that if the committee decides it needs additional time such a request will be granted.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.23 p.m.]: This inquiry is a stitch-up between the Government and Reverend Fred Nile. We need an inquiry, but we need an independent inquiry. Premier Iemma came on board for this inquiry but only when it became evident that an upper House inquiry with broad terms of reference would go ahead. Yesterday negotiations on this matter took place between members of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2, which is responsible for health issues. By lunchtime we had clear agreement on the terms of reference.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Not all members.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am going through the process. I acknowledge the interjection by the Minister for Lands. It shows agitation on the Government's part, which is understandable when it has been caught out yet again.

[Interruption]

I acknowledge all the interjections. Yesterday four members of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 agreed to the terms of reference. That process was about to move forward and we were to hold a deliberative meeting to get this important inquiry going. The Government's manoeuvring has jeopardised the opportunity for an independent, broad-ranging inquiry to improve the care of patients and the standards and working conditions of health professionals in all New South Wales hospitals.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Says who?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: If, Mr Greg Donnelly, you followed through on your stated commitment to the working people, that could have been achieved. What do we see? The Government's saviour, Reverend Fred Nile, once again comes forward to save it from an embarrassing situation. When the Government needs numbers to pass legislation or to avoid a potentially embarrassing inquiry, in rides Reverend Fred Nile. Although we need the inquiry, there has been undue haste. Yesterday there was a press release from Reverend Fred Nile. I did not see the terms of reference of this inquiry until I came into Parliament. We can already see the long hand of the Government reaching over to Reverend Fred Nile and getting its way.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: That is not true.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is most definitely true, Ms Fazio.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: The Hon. Amanda Fazio to you.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Ms Amanda Fazio, it is true because paragraph 5 of yesterday's media release, which the Government and Reverend Fred Nile signed off on, states that the committee was to report by 15 February 2008. It was then realised that would be embarrassing for the Government. When the Government is faced with an embarrassing inquiry, it does everything to stop it going ahead. If the inquiry goes ahead, the Government calls on Reverend Fred Nile and makes the inquiry a short, fast one—in and out and it is all over. The Government could not wear a reporting date of 15 February 2008, so it tapped Reverend Fred Nile on the shoulder and got its way. That is extremely regrettable. We can already see the problem in Reverend Fred Nile chairing this inquiry. When the Minister for Lands spoke to this motion, I wish I had taken notes on how many times he used the word "independent". He wanted to emphasise that this was all hunky-dory and that Reverend Fred Nile was out there on his own fighting the good fight.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Hear! Hear!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Reverend Fred Nile is speaking up for himself, as nobody-else will. The other aspect of this story is that one of the members of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 who yesterday negotiated and came to an agreement on the terms of reference was Christian Democratic Party member Reverend Gordon Moyes. He signed off on the terms of reference that would have given us an independent inquiry.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Who signed off?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It was signed off by four of us. It was part of the process to get the general purpose standing committee inquiry going. Reverend Gordon Moyes was one of the signatories to those terms of reference.

The Hon. Eddie Obeid: You do not want Jillian Skinner on that committee.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is interesting that the Government sends in Mr Eddie Obeid to save its skin by making a few interjections. I really wonder what the Government is trying to do. We can see the collusion between the Government and Reverend Fred Nile and then the long hand reaching out to make sure that the Government gets everything it wants with a change in the reporting date. Clearly, there is a need to amend the terms of this inquiry. I move:

1. That paragraph 1 of the motion be amended by:

(a) omitting the words "a joint select committee be appointed" and inserting instead "General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2", and

(b) inserting the following after 1 (e):

"(f) any other related matters.—

The Hon. Christine Robertson: Why don't you come to our meeting before you do this?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Government complains about my amendment. I did not believe the Government would shut down the Parliament to such a degree. I continue to move my amendment:

2. That a new paragraph 2 be inserted as follows:

"The inquiry shall take evidence from witnesses including health professionals, patients and the community, relating to operations at Royal North Shore Hospital and other New South Wales public hospitals."

3. That paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 be omitted.

4. That paragraph 10 be amended by omitting the words "14 December 2007" and inserting instead "15 February 2008."

I urge members to support those amendments to show that we have a clear commitment to an independent inquiry into Royal North Shore Hospital. Under the terms of reference we will achieve the same outcome but we will have a longer time in which to carry out such a complicated and challenging inquiry. If the Government is concerned about people saying the inquiry is a stitch-up, the easy way to avoid that embarrassment is by voting for these amendments.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [3.31 p.m.]: I fully support the motion moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and I congratulate him on bringing this issue forward. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 has been proactive in this area and I believe the Greens amendments have considerable merit, particularly in relation to the time frame. The Opposition has been calling for a full and open independent inquiry into the operations of the Royal North Shore Hospital for quite some time, and we have been very vocal as to why. Our communities are scared by what is happening in New South Wales' hospitals and they know they are not being told the truth.

The public is given small insights after tragedies occur, such as Jana Horska's miscarriage in a toilet at Royal North Shore Hospital. Since then many serious complaints have been made public as patients, nurses and doctors come forward with their concerns about our health system. Predictably, this Government has gone into damage control with the usual political spin and bureaucratic statements in answer to serious questions. The urgency of the situation, in part, is because the Government has reduced beds at Royal North Shore Hospital by 20 per cent. That is hugely significant because if a hospital does not have the beds, does not have the emergency specialists and does not have the nurses it cannot triage the patients who wind up in emergency and shift them to beds. The situation is farcical.

Since it came to power the Labor Government has been cutting funding and resources to Royal North Shore Hospital. As recent incidents demonstrate, the patients and staff are now suffering. Emergency doctors consistently say they need more beds to deliver better care to their patients, yet the only solution the Government has is to cut funding and resources. The Government has an obsession with budgets and bureaucracy that is driving staff into the ground, creating an atmosphere of bullying and compromising patient care. Let us be clear: parliamentary inquiries are always a second-best option. It would be preferable to have a full and independent inquiry with the time and resources to look into our failing public hospital system in a comprehensive manner. People are always suspicious about coming forward to give evidence and are concerned about whether there will be recriminations down the line. The Greens amendment to have General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 look at the issue is useful.

Dr Tony Joseph is head of Emergency and Trauma at Royal North Shore Hospital and is also the chairman of the College of Emergency Physicians. He is no lightweight. He has shown us that the health Minister has tried to mislead the public about the true state of hospital services throughout the State. Dr Joseph spoke primarily about Royal North Shore Hospital but he represents his fellow colleagues in the college when he speaks about the situation in emergency medicine throughout New South Wales. Dr Joseph is a respected accident and emergency specialist. He was forced to contradict the Minister's claims regarding patient care and closed surgical theatres at Westmead Hospital.

Westmead Hospital is the biggest public hospital in Sydney's west. In New South Wales 56,000 patients are waiting for elective surgery and almost 1,500 of them are waiting for surgery at Westmead Hospital. New South Wales' residents continually face long waits for operations, including three months for neurosurgery and five months for ophthalmology and orthopaedic surgery. That is just not acceptable. The Government needs to provide an efficient working environment in our hospitals to induce medical specialists to work in them and eliminate the backlogs. That includes providing specialist training and delivering the resources to support continued specialist involvement in our public hospital system.

We now know that bullying at Royal North Shore Hospital has resulted in the quitting of five staff, and this is four years after the Premier—the then health Minister—was handed a secret report on bullying at the hospital. Nothing was ever done and the staff are still suffering. A freeze on recruitment in emergency departments across Sydney—approved by the current health Minister—is one of the most significant signs of this Government's mismanagement of health.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: We are having an inquiry. We will get some facts on the table.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: It needs to be recorded because people are very upset about this. I am glad we are debating this issue todayit is the right thing to do on the first sitting day of the week. Hardworking doctors, nurses and other health professionals in our emergency departments are doing their best, but we need more of them and we need to equip them with the resources they need to cope with the public's health problems. The Minister's freeze on hiring more front-line staff sends an appalling message to those emergency professionals who are left to pick up the pieces. In June alone 8,661 patients had been waiting for triage for more than eight hours in emergency departments before they were admitted. That is just unacceptable.

This situation is not happening just at Royal North Shore Hospital; it is happening across the State. It is sad that this Government can always find more money for bureaucrats and middle management but it can never find more funding to improve front-line services. Doctors claim that the carrying out of maintenance is a common excuse for closing operating theatres, but they say that in reality it is a money-saving strategy. The Labor Government has used all kinds of excuses to restrict elective surgery, including shutting operating theatres for the whole of January, claiming it to be Christmas, and for two weeks in the autumn school holidays, claiming it to be Easter. That should not happen. If people are waiting to have operations and doctors are available to perform them let us resource the hospitals and let us clear the backlog.

Doctors want to do more to help their patients but they are frustrated because mindless bureaucrats are stopping them from doing their job. We need a health Minister and a Government that puts patients first and works with hospital staff to improve the conditions and the quality of care in our hospitals. It is significant that this month the Australian Medical Association's magazine, New South Wales Doctors, reported that New South Wales is going to lose a group of emergency trainees to interstate hospitals because the conditions they have to work under in New South Wales are atrocious and the award payments are inadequate. Emergency medicine specialists are earning approximately $100,000 less a year in New South Wales than their interstate counterparts. Why should they stay here and work if we do not pay them enough? They are going interstate because they can earn more and the conditions are better. They do not necessarily want to leave, but what would honourable members do if they were confronted with these working conditions? The article states:

Poor working conditions and morale have gradually led to a severe shortage of emergency staff specialists and registrars in NSW, and their recent dispute with NSW Health is likely to exacerbate this further.

That is what the doctors are saying. It continues:

We are very concerned at the future implications for our patients. Emergency physicians are in demand across Australasia and internationally, and most of our senior colleagues are seriously considering leaving. If this happens, emergency departments in this state will be unable to meet the accreditation criteria set by the college for our training, and so we will also be forced to leave.

Even if this were not the case, with no viable career pathway open to us and a clear lack of appreciation of our role by NSW Health, many will transfer training to other specialities or just leave the state. NSW emergency departments will once again be staffed by unsupervised, inexperienced doctors, and it is inevitable that serious, avoidable errors will happen as a direct consequence.

We do not understand how NSW Health could see this as beneficial to patients. Emergency physicians are dedicated, hardworking specialist doctors whom we admire and respect as our role models and mentors. We urge NSW Health to think clearly about what it is trying to achieve, and whether it is genuinely acting in the best interests of patients.

That says it all. These guys are desperate for someone to listen to them. We heard about storerooms being used for emergency overflows. The Minister claims that it was not a storeroom and that it had an emergency button, but it did not and Dr Joseph confirmed that. Blind Freddy knows that a storeroom is not a treatment room—it is a storeroom. The Minister should stop denying it and get on with fixing it. The Minister responded that the move did not compromise patient care and that it was not a question of resources. That is denial and it must stop. This issue should be addressed. We heard about the case of Edith King, the 91-year-old woman with deep vein thrombosis, and the male patient suffering a brain tumour being moved into a storeroom. Are we living in a Third World country? Most people read newspapers and say that the situation is getting worse every day. They are afraid that they will get sick and that this will happen to them.

The Minister admitted that there are 100 nursing vacancies at Royal North Shore Hospital. If the hospital had enough nurses these patients could have been safely monitored in wards instead of being put in a storeroom. The schedule of nursing shifts must also be examined. The use of agency and casual nurses at that hospital potentially puts patients at risk. We should be alarmed about allegations that patient care is being compromised because nurses going off duty cannot personally hand over patients to the nurses relieving them. The nurses are claiming that this gap in nursing shifts can lead to a very dangerous breakdown in communication. Adequate time must be allowed for nurses going off duty to brief the nurses coming on duty so that they are competent to take over and do not have to play catch-up during emergencies or critical care procedures.

Nurses and doctors are speaking out about the lack of resources, the pressures on them to cut services and costs, and nurse vacancies. Nurses are run off their feet; they are stressed and tired, which creates the potential to make errors. There are too few senior doctors in critical areas such as the emergency department and there are too few beds. Empty wards are padlocked because there is no money to resource them and patients are waiting longer for treatment. The list of complaints goes on and on; we have all heard the saga.

This inquiry should be adequately resourced and it should have a proper time frame. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is proposing to examine clinical management systems, clinical staffing and organisational structures, efficiency and effectiveness of resource allocation, and effectiveness of the complaint handling. It will take the committee longer than the middle of December to complete its task. The honourable member said that he would consider extending the time frame, and I hope he does, because the public and doctors and nurses—the front-line staff—all deserve to be heard. I only hope that everyone gets behind this inquiry and that plenty of people come forward. The inquiry must be well resourced and the recommendations must be implemented.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [3.45 p.m.]: I wish to disassociate myself from the rather rabid comments made by the Greens, which referred to me personally as being part of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 yesterday and actively involved in drawing up a list of inquiry conditions. I would like the House to know that I was not aware yesterday of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's intentions nor any agreements being entered into with the Government. Therefore, my intentions with regard to the committee were entirely honourable, and I believe it would be good to have such an inquiry.

However, I congratulate Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for moving this motion to set up the joint select committee with himself as chair as he has requested me to do so. There is no question that the State hospital system is absolutely deplorable. We read about elderly, frail and dying people being kept in a storeroom, in the secure environment of a wheelie bin and so on, and that must be thoroughly examined. I congratulate the Premier, the Hon. Morris Iemma, for his announcement about the establishment of the joint select committee with the Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile as chair. I believe that is an absolutely impeccable response.

I could imagine the Premier seeking advice on such an issue from Sir Humphrey Appleby of Yes, Minister. As a matter of fact, only an hour or so ago I consulted him myself. He advises that when the Government is on the front page of newspapers for three weeks or more with editorials calling for a Minister to resign, whether the issue involves transport, health, education, hospitals or any other department, it should do four things: First, it should call for an inquiry, describing it as "open", "transparent", "impartial" and "wide-ranging". However, the likely findings should generally be known before such an inquiry or commission is established. Secondly, the Government should ensure that the most vocal members are included so that they will be silenced for three or four months until the report is discussed, by which time the public will be distracted from the issues at hand.

Thirdly, Sir Humphrey advises that the Government appoint an independent chair who is regarded as sound. He reports on several occasions that by "sound" he means one who can be utterly relied upon to support the Government's initiatives. He suggests that the Government ensure the proposed chair has adequate allowances and travel expenses to keep him sound. Finally, the Government should always refer to the inquiry as "open", "transparent" and "impartial", with its findings ensuring that there will be no witch-hunt but that the blame is laid on low-level bureaucrats and staff who have had inadequate training. The recommendations should include a call for further staff training, better communication via memos and the reorganisation of budget priorities.

I applaud the Premier for following Sir Humphrey's advice and I support the proposed chair as a very sound appointment. The problem with a judicial inquiry or an inquiry conducted by a general purposes standing committee is that we cannot be sure that it will be impartial, wide-ranging, transparent and open. I support the establishment of the inquiry and the recommendation.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [3.49 p.m.]: I speak in support of the motion moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. I note that some amendments have been moved regarding the length of the inquiry. I note also the Hon. Tony Kelly's commitment that if the inquiry were to require extra time it would be granted. I believe that the people of New South Wales would rather have an inquiry that had a reporting date sooner rather than later, probably because of the perceptions Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes pointed to: the New South Wales public sees inquiries as things that just quietly disappear into the distance. If the committee inquiry has a conclusion date in December it might come up with some interim recommendations that might fix the problem. Is that not what we are here for? We are here to fix the problem. If we cannot fix the problem we are here to find solutions to the problem so the Government can fix it, whether it is with money, resources or whatever.
The president of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Medical Association, Mr Andrew Keegan, was quoted in an ABC story as saying that he hopes the inquiry will get to the source of any problem and does not turn into a talkfest. He also stated that if we do not put in place the proper systematic improvements we will not see any real changes. When the joint committeewhich includes the shadow Minister for Health, Jillian Skinner, who has a vast knowledge of the Royal North Shore Hospitalmakes recommendations quickly, is that not in the best interests of the people of New South Wales, supposing, of course, that the Government will do something about the recommendations? The Shooters Party supports the motion moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and we do not support the amendments moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [3.52 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and oppose the amendments moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon. I am a member of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 and have been since I came to this place about 4½ years ago. A lot of good work has come out of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 and will in the future. The terms of reference proposed by three members of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 were given to the committee yesterday in line with the 24 hours notice for us to consider them today. I read them and saw some incredibly interesting issues for us to inquire into. In the meantime, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile proposed a joint select committee.

I realise that we in the upper House perceive what we do as incredibly importantI believe that. However, I know that recommendations receive better long-term outcomes under the joint select committee process than by working through one House. That in no way devalues the work we have done. I know from the work I have done here that the Government has taken action and changed policy as a result of the recommendations we have put forward. In no way do the terms of reference of either of the proposals that have been discussed in the past two days contradict each other. It is a good idea to have a joint committee process. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 had a meeting at 2.15 this afternoon to discuss Ms Lee Rhiannon's proposed amendments to refer the inquiry to the committee. As I am not the chair of the committee it is not my place to say what the decision was, but it was a wise decision, shared by the entire committee. I am disturbed that Ms Lee Rhiannon did not turn up to that meeting to work through the issue with the committee.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.55 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate on an important inquiry. Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes referred to Sir Humphrey from Yes, Minister. I assure him that I am an expert on Yes, Minister. I have the entire series. I have studied it carefully. I assure him that no-one in the Government or the Opposition will ever put anything over me. They may do it to other members, but they will never do it to Fred Nile. I give that guarantee.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Pride goes before a fall.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I am answering his criticism that I am not "sound"someone to be manipulated. My original reporting date has always been 14 December 2007. The Opposition raised with me the possibility of changing it to 15 February 2008. I was anxious to have the Opposition's support for the establishment of the committee so the motion could go through the House as a bipartisan one, so I changed the reporting date to 15 February.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Would you consider varying the reporting date?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I am explaining my policy on it.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is different to the one you announced originally.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Yes, I know. The original date was 14 December, but after I spoke to the Opposition leaders I changed it to 15 February. In retrospect, I believe 14 December is the best date for the committee to have as a target date for the inquiry so it is not seen that we are delaying the inquiry—we have Christmas, and so on, so let us get down to business next year. The committee should commence its business now and conduct the inquiry because the people of the North Shore, who use the Royal North Shore Hospital, want an inquiry and a report. My reluctance to accepting a reporting date of 15 February is that it is almost as though we are putting it out of sight, into the distance. I believe that would cause further frustration to the doctors, the nursing staff and the patients, to whom it would appear we are delaying coming to any conclusions.

Let us have the inquiry. The Opposition and the Government want to participate in the inquiry. If there is clear evidence that the inquiry should be extended, I have no opposition to that extension. As the Hon. Robert Brown statedand I raised this with the Oppositionit may be necessary to produce an interim report, even if the reporting date is 15 February. Perhaps we can produce a report by 14 December covering the major issues at the Royal North Shore Hospital. I give the House an assurance that I will not be obstructive if the committee wants to extend the date. I have asked the Government whether it would agree to an extension if the committee wishes it and it has given me that assurance. Therefore, I do not believe it is necessary to adopt the amendments at this stage.

Under my chairmanship the committee inquiry will be independent. I give the House that guarantee. I will do all I can to ensure that it is an independent inquiry. Ms Lee Rhiannon from the Greens was very critical. I know they are frustrated because they have lost their influence in this House. They know they are sidelined and this is upsetting her. I am sorry about that, but that is the reality of politics.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I do not think you are sorry.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I am sorry she is hurt about it. I do not like to see people suffer. I can understand her vehemence and criticism, but I will do what I can to be positive. I was not elected as a member of the Opposition. I am here to promote godly government in this State and to do it to the best of my ability. I shall do so through chairing the inquiry. The committee will not be a cover-up but will be an independent committee. Therefore, the Government will take notice of its recommendations and the committee can achieve some good in this State for the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: Under Standing Order 102 (4) I request that questions be put on each amendment sequentially.

Amendment No. 1 of Ms Lee Rhiannon negatived.

Amendment No. 2 of Ms Lee Rhiannon negatived.

Amendment No. 3 of Ms Lee Rhiannon negatived.

Question—That amendment No. 4 of Ms Lee Rhiannon be agreed to—put.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment No. 4 of Ms Lee Rhiannon negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.

Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly advising it of the resolution and requesting that it agree to a similar resolution.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Does the Minister recall his June 2005 announcement of the statutory review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the appointment months later of the Hon. Paul Stein, QC, to head an inquiry, with its report due on 30 April 2007? Does the Minister recall the Premier's commitment, published in the Australian on 4 August, that "There will be reform and in my view it will be a balanced package"? Does the Minister recall the Premier's further commitment: "The process is before Cabinet and will be legislated when the Parliament returns in September"? Does the Minister also recall the June release of the Australian Council of Trade Unions' Occupational Health and Safety Charter and subsequent calls by business groups for the Federal Labor Party to reject the charter? Given all of these events, and that there are four New South Wales Parliament sitting weeks to go before the Federal election, can the Minister provide the House with a guarantee that we will see his proposed reforms to occupational health and safety laws well before 24 November?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Leader of the Opposition is, unfortunately, again artificially fabricating various events that have nothing to do with one another. The timetable for the Federal election has nothing to do with the timely introduction of legislation to review the Occupational Health and Safety Act in New South Wales. Honourable members will be aware that the statutory review of the State's workplace safety laws has been a major focus of the Government over the last year. To this end, the Government asked, as the Leader of the Opposition referred to, a former judge of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, the Hon. Paul Stein, AM, QC, to examine the existing laws and the proposed changes, with particular attention to elements where no consensus had emerged in the original review. I can advise the House that I have received Mr Stein's report and I am currently reviewing his findings and recommendations, as are my Cabinet colleagues.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: The Premier said you were going to have the legislation by September.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Premier is a man of his word, and there will be legislation in this Parliament before the end of this session. Meanwhile, it should be remembered that the elements most in contention were originally adopted in workplace safety legislation in 1983. They have survived the Wran, Unsworth, Greiner, Fahey and Carr governments, so there must be good reasons if we are to change them. None of these facts is reason, in itself, to make changes. However, the Act has been carefully reviewed—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: We'll wait until after the Federal election.

The Hon. Michael Costa: You won't be in government anywhere after the Federal election.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: That is right. The Treasurer makes a very important comment. If the Coalition were really interested in occupational health and safety, it would be focusing on the biggest news in occupational health and safety over the last couple of months: New South Wales currently has its lowest rates of workplace injuries and fatalities in 18 years. That is what the Coalition needs to focus on. It needs to focus on the fact that this Government is presiding over the best occupational health and safety results in the State's history—a framework we can be very proud of and that we can be absolutely assured will continue to support workplace safety laws and the outstanding achievements we have seen in this area in the last decade. The Government wants to ensure that any changes it makes to workplace safety laws strengthen this record while reducing red tape, upholding safety standards, and maintaining a culture of workplace cooperation that has been a key to our outstanding success in occupational health and safety.
The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. Can the Minister update the House on the Technology for Learning Program computer rollout to government schools?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The New South Wales Government is committed to keeping our schools and TAFE colleges at the forefront of information and communications technologies for education and training. The State budget has allocated $693 million in recurrent funding over four years to provide technology in our schools and colleges. More than $105 million is included for the Technology for Learning Program, delivering new, high-speed computers to schools. Earlier today the Premier and I visited Hurstville Public School, where 32 computers are being unloaded and installed as we speak. It is a very successful school, attracting strong local enrolments: just over 1,000 students this year. Ninety-four per cent are from a non-English speaking background. Hurstville Public School and its enthusiastic staff are among the first to receive the new desktop computers.

As part of a new purchasing agreement with Lenovo Australia and New Zealand, schools are receiving the upgraded ThinkCentre desktop computers with the upgraded dual core processor at no additional cost. The powerful Pentium E21-40 Dual Core processors are 30 per cent faster than last year's model and will operate with a broader range of software for much longer. This is a win for students, who receive the latest generation machines, and for taxpayers, who get a higher specification computer at no extra cost. Giving our children access to state-of-the-art technology at school helps make classes more interesting, helps ensure the curriculum is more engaging, and ensures that our children's information technology skills are world-class.

This New South Wales Government investment will reap dividends for the entire community, as our school students make their way into secondary school careers, further training and eventually into the workplace. The Government recognised the need to be a leader in school information and technology early on. Over the last decade we have delivered a quarter of a million computers to New South Wales public schools, and now the New South Wales Department of Education and Training is conducting the largest-ever delivery of computers in its history. As part of the Technology for Learning Program, more than 100,000 state-of-the-art machines are being delivered to our schools. The program has already provided 129 additional support staff, to enhance technical help in classrooms. The enhancement of information and communications technologies infrastructure is critical to the achievement of the New South Wales Government's State Plan priorities.

Alongside the delivery of new computers, the New South Wales Government is also making a $158 million investment over four years to create connected classrooms across New South Wales public schools. This initiative is expanding subject choices for all students, enhancing teaching, and giving parents more opportunities to be involved in the education of their children. The package includes $66 million to connect classrooms around New South Wales by providing every public school with interactive whiteboards and videoconferencing facilities by 2011; $29 million to give all students their own online workspace; and $63 million to further increase bandwidth as well as the speed, security and reliability of services.

The investment of $66 million to connect classrooms around the State will create direct video links to allow online field trips to places such as the State Library, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the National Museum of Australia; allow university and industry experts to be beamed into classrooms to deliver lectures and take questions; allow country students to attend their own online class with a specialist teacher in Sydney, and provide gifted primary students with the chance to attend high school classes without leaving their school; and allow an expansion of the number of subjects able to be offered for Higher School Certificate students.

In 2007-08 the New South Wales Government is initially purchasing approximately 200 interactive whiteboard and videoconferencing installations and putting in place a centralised infrastructure for the program. The Government is committed to equipping New South Wales Government schoolteachers and students with the best possible means to compete successfully in the constantly evolving world of information technology.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I direct my question to the Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware that hundreds of cars in Lismore have been written off as a result of hail damage caused by a 1-in-100 year storm that ripped through the city last week? Is the Minister aware that many of these cars have been automatically deregistered by the Roads and Traffic Authority as a result of a so-called "economic write-off", even though the vehicles are mechanically sound enough to continue to be driven? Minister, given the sudden demand for replacement cars, what is the Government doing to allow the storm victims use of their vehicles until alternative vehicles can be sourced?

Mr Michael Costa: That is the dumbest question of all time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Do you want to put that on the record?

Mr Michael Costa: That is so silly.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: You tell that to the people who cannot get a vehicle in Lismore at the moment.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: This issue has generated community concern and has appeared in the local media. I have asked the Roads and Traffic Authority to investigate it and get back to me as soon as possible. I am happy to take that question on notice and report back to the House with more information.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask a supplementary question: Is it the Minister's role to make a decision to overrule this? Does the Minister have that power, or is it the Minister for Emergency Services?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I have agreed to take the question on notice and I will report back to the House.

The Hon. ROY SMITH: My question is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Planning. Is the Treasurer aware that Kuring-gai Council is seeking approval from the Minister for Planning for a local environmental plan that would restrict the location of firearm outlets and prevent legitimate firearms dealers operating within a 500 metre exclusion zone around schools, preschools and day care centres? Is the Treasurer also aware that Kogarah Council is looking at, "Banning the establishment of premises selling firearms near residential areas, schools, churches, places of worship, child-care centres, premises selling alcohol, premises selling food and other similar places?"

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that legitimate firearm dealers pose any threat whatsoever to the local community. However, if the Minister for Planning does determine to approve, in the interests of safety, that new gun shops cannot be established near an existing school, preschool, church, place of worship, child-care centres, premises selling alcohol, premises selling food or any other similar place, will the Minister ensure that, in the interests of safety, no new school, no new preschool, no new church, no new place of worship, no new child-care centre, no new premises selling alcohol or food or any other similar place can be established in any area near an existing gun shop?

MR MICHAEL COSTA: I was asked a similar question by one of the members of the Shooters Party, not the Greens, and I made the point at that time that this was a matter for the Minister for Planning. However, whilst existing zonings apply, one would expect that those zonings would be the basis of any determination of local communities and local government. I will take the question on notice and see what the Minister for Planning has to say.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Can the Minister please update the House on the equine influenza outbreak in New South Wales and what is the Government doing to assist?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for her question and interest in this vital issue for the people of New South Wales. While the Howard Government continues to try to discover just how equine influenza breached its own quarantine barriers, the Iemma Government has been working day-in day-out to stop this disease spreading and ultimately eradicate it. While the head of the Federal Government's inquiry is overseas, instead of getting to the bottom of the matter before the election here in New South Wales, hundreds of people are working overtime, along with our horse industries, to ensure this highly contagious disease is stopped in its tracks. I am happy today to inform the House that a glimmer of light is at the end of the tunnel. Frankly, there is a long way to go, but there have been major developments for people who own horses that were first hit by equine influenza.

All too often the media reports only focus on the racing industry but there are many more people affected than that. On Sunday, for example, the lockdown gates at the Parkes Showground swung open at dawn. After 51 days the final 26 horses were granted Department of Primary Industries permits, released from quarantine and given the all clear to travel back to their properties of origin. There were scenes of jubilation and a sense of relief and excitement as the horse owners finally headed home. There is no doubt it had been a long wait to confirm all the Parkes Showground horses had recovered from the horse flu. The last thing we wanted was horses leaving Parkes and infecting other parts of the State. We are confident there is no chance of this occurring. I thank those owners who stayed by their animals' side at Parkes for their co-operation and support for the equine influenza eradication campaign.

In other good news for the horse industry, earlier this month, I was pleased to announce that riding could resume within the boundaries of Sydney's Centennial Park, the first area quarantined for horse flu on 24 August. More than 100 horses stabled at Centennial Park were given a clean bill of health after six weeks in quarantine, and recreational riding resumed within the boundaries of the park. In another positive development, most of the 700 racehorses stabled at Royal Randwick Racecourse were moved to "spelling" properties in the red and purple zones of New South Wales after more than a month in quarantine.

While these positive stories give people hope that the end is in sight, I want to make it very clear that equine influenza is still a serious disease to fight with almost 38,500 horses infected on more than 4,600 properties. The Iemma Government continues to identify the best way of managing the disease, with a clear focus on returning the lives of all New South Wales horse owners to normality. Our goal is to contain the outbreak and to limit the financial impact on the many thousands of people affected by this crisis in the recreational and racing sectors. To this aim, I recently announced changes to the State Government's four-colour equine influenza zoning system, expanding the purple zone to incorporate Camden, Maitland and Tamworth. This common-sense decision frees up movements for thousands more horse owners and breeders in the heavily infected expanded purple zone.

Expanding the zone will greatly reduce the economic impact this contagious disease is having on our horse industries and allow the multimillion dollar horse breeding industry to resume. It means activities such as showjumping, dressage, pony carnivals, and three-day events can go ahead as long as the horses are fit and healthy and stay within the purple zone. It also means drought-affected horse owners, who were previously forced to buy in feed for their horses, will now have the opportunity to agist them elsewhere in the purple zone. Another component in this detailed strategy to contain the disease is vaccination in buffer zones around the State. Horses in Dubbo, Armidale, Parkes-Forbes, Wellington, Mudgee and Barmedman buffer zones are now receiving vaccinations. At Wellington alone, 48 miniature horses, more than half a dozen donkeys, Percherons, endurance horses, paint horses and Arabian horses have been vaccinated. More than half the horses that have been vaccinated in New South Wales were non-racing industry animals. The vaccinations are being used to create buffer zones that will contain the disease for the benefit of the entire horse population to this point. [Time expired.]
.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Is the Minister aware of reports from England that a High Court judge has decided that before schoolchildren are shown Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth they should be warned that it promotes "partisan political views"? Further, is the Minister aware that a Colorado State University professor, Dr William Gray, who pioneered the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, has called the theory that helped Mr Gore share the Nobel Piece Prize at the weekend "ridiculous" and the "product of people who do not understand how the atmosphere works." Will New South Wales schools show the Gore film to students and will students be warned that there are other opinions on global warming other than the Gore "anthropogenic" theory and that they should not necessarily accept the views expressed in the film?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is a very good question. I do not propose to engage in a discussion about the details of film of the former Vice President of the United States, Al Gore, but rather to make a couple of points. Any materials used by students in New South Wales schools, at any level of subject, are clearly for appropriate critical thinking within the curriculum and there is obviously always an understanding that any particular set of views represent one particular perspective and may be up for some sort of debate, whether it be scientific or otherwise. I am only able to answer the Hon. Robert Brown's question in general. I am not certain of any particular instance where schools, secondary or primary, propose to use the film as supplementary curriculum material or some sort of extracurricula activity. I am happy to make inquiries and come back to the member with an appropriate and detailed answer.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for Infrastructure. Can the Minister inform the House of the total amount that is expected to be raised, and over what period, via the Government's new developer levies on brownfield and infill sites, as announced last week in his response on infrastructure development levies, which have brought the new housing industry in New South Wales to a halt?

[Interruption]

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I love it!

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You have already said enough silly things today.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said something silly—that he wanted unregistered vehicles on the road. He is a silly man.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I would take counsel on that if I were you. That was a very silly thing to say.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: If that is not what he said, he should clarify it. I am surprised that the Hon. Greg Pearce raised this question, given the number of industry comments that have been made in recent days. Given his track record in researching questions, he must have had this question available and decided not to change it. The Government has no new brownfield levy. The Opposition knows that. I heard what the Leader of the Opposition said on the Alan Jones radio program this morning. I managed to get on the program afterwards and correct a number of mistakes he made, including the very proposition the Hon. Greg Pearce has put. The Government has no proposal for any new brownfield levies.

The Hon. Don Harwin: That is not what the Minister said last night in the estimates.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is not right. I know exactly what the position is. However, the Government has slashed developer levies for greenfield areas. Over the next 25 years $2 billion will be taken into the State budget. We have done this to ensure that there is movement in those areas in the face of ever-increasing rates and interest pressure from the Federal Government.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Is it 6.25 per cent or is it 6.5 per cent? I do not think John Howard knows.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It does not matter what the government fund rate is. It is extraordinary that the Federal Government, which purports to be interested in dealing with housing affordability, waits till the eve of an election to make an announcement about a range of tax cuts. It has been stunned into action as a result of two matters: rising interest rates and the effect of increasing petrol prices on family budgets. It is extraordinary that Alan Wood, who is not known to be a left-wing commentator by any stretch of the imagination, was almost forced to write today:

WONDERFUL what an imminent political hanging will do.

But given the enormous revenue streams that have flowed into the Howard Government's coffers, Australia should have had this tax reform, and more, starting five years ago.

These have been the wasted years, where huge budget surpluses have been squandered on spending programs of dubious economic merit, when we could have had a world-beating tax system.

Even Alan Wood has condemned the Federal Government as a disaster.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: My point of order is the usual one of relevance. Mr President, I ask that you rule, as you usually do, that the Minister should at least be generally relevant in answering the question and that he not carry on with all this other nonsense.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I appreciate the Hon. Greg Pearce's guidance. The Treasurer should be generally relevant.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Federal Government has created a very hostile environment for investment in this State and throughout the nation generally. That is why it is facing defeat in the imminent election. The Federal Government is in difficulty because the public has woken up to its incompetence. This Government's position is quite clear. We are not seeking any new powers to impose levies on brownfield areas. The principles outlined last week are clear: there will be no cross-subsidies between regions or developments.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I ask a supplementary question. Given that the Treasurer has answered there will be no new brownfield levies, will he elucidate by explaining the following statement in the Treasury document that was handed out last week when the Treasurer made his announcement: "In the first instance focus will be on setting levies in greenfield areas, but applications to brownfield and infill sites will follow"?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Hon. Greg Pearce alleges to be one of the finance spokespersons for the Opposition, but he does not understand that existing arrangements are in place for brownfield areas.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Your Treasury document states that new levies will follow.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The document the Hon. Greg Pearce refers to states the principles that have applied in relation to transparency and accountability, and I have been through those. The principles were welcomed by the development community and the State Chamber of Commerce. As the Hon. Greg Pearce should know, these levies have been around for a long, long time. For example, a levy has been applied to the brownfield development on the Channel 7 site at Epping as a result of voluntary agreement by the developers. The Opposition has tried to create a scare campaign. Today the Urban Taskforce has welcomed the Government's assurances that these levies will be put in place through consultation with the industry. The fact is we already have levies. The Hon. Greg Pearce should know that. The Opposition does not know that. That shows how ignorant the Opposition is about developments. It is trying to cover up for an incompetent Federal Government. Our Government has sought to reduce levies and we have achieved that aim. Our reforms have been welcomed by the development community and, more generally, the public of New South Wales.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads. Can the Minister update the House on the safety of road tunnels in Sydney?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Honourable members may be aware of a terrible crash that occurred in a road tunnel in the United States of America at the weekend. Media reports from Los Angeles state that at least five trucks were involved in the crash in the Interstate 5 tunnel and, sadly, three people lost their lives. The tunnel was just 170 metres long and two lanes wide and had a speed limit of around 85 kilometres an hour. It is a tragic reminder of the possible catastrophic effect of an accident in a road tunnel because of the enclosed environment. The Burnley tunnel accident in Melbourne earlier this year was another reminder of the need to slow down in our tunnels. Sadly, three people were incinerated in the accident, which involved a truck in a tunnel.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Charlie Lynn will cease interjecting.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I can advise the House that Sydney's road tunnels are among the safest in the world, but we need to remain vigilant. All of our tunnels contain sophisticated safety systems, including dedicated control rooms with 24-hour monitoring and incident response teams on standby around the clock. Exercises are conducted regularly to ensure that emergency services, the Roads and Traffic Authority and tunnel operators are all well prepared in the event of an incident. Tunnels are confined environments and places where motorists need to stick to the speed limit for their own safety. It deeply concerns me that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants to remove speed cameras from our road tunnels. He told the Daily Telegraph on 8 October that these roads "are the least needing of speed cameras". When John Laws asked him on the same day if we need any speed cameras on tollways and in tunnels, his response was "I'm pretty doubtful." He shows a reckless attitude to road safety, and that is appalling for the shadow Minister for Roads.

The recent crashes are a tragic reminder of the need for motorists to drive safely in tunnels. That is why most speed cameras on New South Wales toll roads are in tunnels, with the aim to slow down drivers. It is even more important for motorists, especially truck drivers, to stick to the speed limit in high-speed environments, such as tunnels, motorways and freeways. During the same interview the Deputy Leader of the Opposition changed his mind on the Lane Cove tunnel. He now thinks it is a wonderful piece of wide infrastructure. The Coalition has repeatedly and hysterically criticised this $1.1 billion infrastructure project as too narrow. But because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition now thinks it is wide enough does not mean we should let people travel through it at reckless speeds.

Speeding is the biggest killer on New South Wales roads, accounting for 40 per cent of all fatalities. Before a speed camera was installed in the Sydney Harbour Tunnel it was renowned as a stretch of roadway on which motorists drove at speed, with 30 per cent of motor vehicles being driven at speeds exceeding the speed limit by 20 kilometres per hour or more. The highest speed recorded in the tunnel was 199 kilometres per hour. After the camera was installed the number of vehicles travelling at more than 10 kilometres over the speed limit dropped from 63 per cent to less than 1 per cent. Independent research shows a 90 per cent drop in fatalities where speed cameras have been installed and a 20 per cent reduction in crashes causing injury. I ask New South Wales motorists to ignore the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and to slow down on our roads, especially in our tunnels.

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that a Japanese delegation representing more than 2.9 million consumers, including more than 80 consumer groups, farmer groups and individuals, is in Sydney today requesting ascension to the moratorium on genetically modified commercial crops? In 2006 Australia exported 312,000 tonnes of canola to Japan.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: They ought to have a moratorium on whales.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Yes, tell them to stop eating whales.

Mr IAN COHEN: The delegation is in the public gallery; perhaps it would be appropriate for members to listen to the question. In 2006 Australia exported 312,000 tonnes of canola to Japan. This accounted for 41 per cent of Australia's canola export market. However, Japan typically accounts for 50 per cent of Australia's export market of canola. Will the Minister meet with the members of that delegation, who are in the public gallery today and among whom are representatives of the Policy Research Institute for the Civil Sector, the Citizens' Biotechnology Information Centre, and Green Co-op Communications, for a short period after question time to hear their concerns—as a market for our Australian farmers—about the exportation of Australian canola should the moratorium be lifted?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Yes, I am aware of the delegation, which is visiting Sydney and other capitals. The backdrop to this matter is that the Hon. Ian Armstrong is conducting a review of our moratorium legislation. I have discussed the matter with him and he has presented me with his report, which I will deal with shortly. In relation to the Japanese market, I point out that 95 per cent of canola purchased by Japan is from Canada and Australia, and generally it is in the form of canola oil. Once the process of cold pressing is complete and the oil is created, the DNA in the oil is destroyed so that it is impossible to distinguish whether what remains is genetically modified oil or non-genetically modified oil.

I believe the Canadians trade each year in the order of 2 million tonnes of canola to Japan, and that is almost certainly entirely genetically modified oil. Consequently, I cannot see how the question is pertinent, given that Japan already imports vast amounts of genetically modified canola oil. I note that the delegation, or people associated with the delegation, sent a number of similarly framed emails to the inquiry. I believe the vast majority of the submissions received were in a very similar format. I will take the Hon. Ian Armstrong's report through the appropriate processes.

I remind Mr Ian Cohen that South Australia also is undertaking a similar inquiry into its moratorium approach, as is Victoria. Gustav Nossal, the chief scientist in Victoria, will report very shortly on this issue to the Victorian Government. I anticipate that we will consider this issue in this Parliament in November.

Mr IAN COHEN: I ask the Minister a supplementary question. Quite apart from the merits or otherwise of the arguments, given that the delegation represents some 2.9 million consumers supplied by our Australian farmers, would the Minister consider meeting the delegation for a few moments after question time?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Unfortunately, I will not be able to meet them at 5.00 p.m. because I have a meeting with the equine industry response group and that meeting will not conclude until about 6.30 p.m. However, I will have a senior member of my staff meet the delegation.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Health. Will the Minister explain why the New South Wales Department of Health refused to fund six new anaesthetic machines at Sutherland Hospital, when the hospital anticipates carrying out more than 7,000 operations in 2007 that will require the use of these machines? Is it the Minister's view that the responsibility for the purchase of such vital medical equipment should fall solely on community fundraising groups rather than the New South Wales Government?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the question to the Minister for Health.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. What is the Government doing to stop graffiti vandalism?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Graffiti-tagged public transport and public facilities are not only costly nuisances; they can also lead to further crime problems, discomfort for users and serious safety concerns. That is why the Iemma Government takes graffiti vandalism seriously and has developed a comprehensive strategy to fight it. Last year we established the Anti-Graffiti Action Team, which brings together representatives from major government agencies, public utilities and industry representatives to lead the development and implementation of the Government's anti-graffiti policies. We also passed new legislation to require retailers of spray paint cans to keep their stocks in locked display cabinets.

These important initiatives were designed to complement the raft of laws that were already in place for punishing and deterring graffiti vandals. Under these provisions, vandals continue to face a range of tough penalties, including serious fines and up to five years imprisonment. Using these laws, our police are catching more and more graffiti vandals. For example, under Operation Chalk, which involves covert operations on railway stations and around the rail corridor, police have arrested 281 people for more than 700 offences.

In light of this success we are committed to doing even more to make our laws as effective as possible in deterring and punishing graffiti crime and in making sure that our police have the necessary powers available to them to catch graffiti vandals. That is why during the election campaign the Premier made a series of commitments to continue the fight against graffiti. The first of these was to give police the power to confiscate spray cans from juveniles if they do not have a lawful excuse for having a spray can. In keeping with this commitment, I have announced that this week we will introduce legislation to give police this important new power. This will ensure that police have the ability to confiscate a juvenile graffiti vandal's tools of trade and thereby prevent graffiti offences from occurring in the first place.

The Premier also committed to having the Anti-Graffiti Action Team undertake a thorough review of all legislation relating to graffiti, including consideration of a complete ban on the sale of spray paint. In keeping with this commitment, recently I asked the team to commence this review and report back to me before the end of the year. The team will look at a variety of relevant offences relating to graffiti, including those under the Crimes Act, the Summary Offences Act and the Local Government Act. As per the Premier's commitment, the team will also examine the possibility of a complete ban on the sale of spray paint. I realise that this would be a radical measure, so I have asked the review to carefully consider all the possible implications, including its usage, point of purchase and potential impact on business and employment.

In developing its recommendations I have also asked the team to undertake several tasks, including analysing recorded crime statistics and criminal courts and youth justice conferencing statistics; considering legislation used in other Australian States and Territories and New Zealand to control graffiti vandalism; considering relevant research, reviews or evaluations relating to graffiti vandalism and abatement; consulting with relevant stakeholders, including paint and retail industries; and providing for public submissions. Interested individuals and organisations are invited to make a submission to the review before 31 October. For more information about how to contribute to this important review I invite anyone who is interested to visit the Government's graffiti website on www.graffiti.nsw.gov.au.

The undertaking of this review by the Anti-Graffiti Action Team demonstrates that the Government listens to what people have to say and it listens to their ideas for improving safety in their communities. It also shows that we make decisions and develop plans for reducing crime that are based on facts and evidence. We are committed to doing what we can to drive down graffiti vandalism in this State. The Young Offenders Act, which gives police officers on the ground a range of options for dealing with juvenile offenders, has proved to be an effective tool in reducing rates of reoffending.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development. When will the first five-year review of the Snowy Water Licence be publicly advertised? When will submissions from the public in relation to the licence review be called? Will data collected by the Snowy River Benchmarking and Environmental Flow Response Monitoring Project be assessed by the Snowy Scientific Committee as part of the review?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: This is well and truly under discussion at the moment. As the member is aware, the Snowy Scientific Committee is jointly framed with Victoria and we are finalising arrangements at the moment. The final composition has not yet been determined, but it will be completed soon. Of course, it will look at all relevant material relating to environmental flows in the river. I anticipate an announcement in this regard in the next month.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. As the Minister is no doubt aware, Mental Health Week was observed recently. Given the gravity of the ongoing drought and the importance of the mental health role performed by rural counsellors, will the Minister commit to extending their term to at least 18 months beyond the end of this dreadful drought?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I presume that the honourable member is talking about rural financial counsellors.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Yes.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have given an answer about this subject previously in the House. I am concerned that without any consultation with the State the Commonwealth Government effectively changed tack on rural financial counsellors and abolished the advisory boards. I still hold the view I held at the time and I see no reason to change it. The Commonwealth has run roughshod over this program in its approach to the advisory boards. We were well down the track in the appointment process when the Commonwealth decided to abandon it. It then set up the scheme the way it saw fit. That was not very cooperative.

The State Government agreed to the Commonwealth Government's conducting a review and making all sorts of changes, and I met with Federal Ministers about this issue. However, in the end it all came to nought. The Commonwealth Government simply abolished the local advisory boards, which have played a magnificent role in ensuring that the rural financial service is grounded in local communities. I met members of several boards throughout the State and I thought they were working effectively.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Is that a yes or a no?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I think the honourable member can work out the answer.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What are you going to do? You are not going to do anything, are you?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: If the honourable member wants to inflame the situation, he should throw in a hand grenade!

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: My question is directed to the Minister for Regional Development. Can the Minister outline the Government's commitment to promoting the values of country New South Wales, in particular, its initiatives to attract people to the bush?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for this very important question. Once again, it has taken a member of Country Labor to raise country issues in this Parliament.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What would they do without you?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Honourable members opposite will be very interested in this. While we are busy representing rural and regional New South Wales, The Nationals continue to confirm their slide into irrelevance. We expect the Liberal Party not to stand up for rural and regional Australia—after all the Prime Minister did not bother to mention rural and regional Australia in his campaign launch!

The Nationals never miss an opportunity to remind us of their country credentials. Last night they sought special leave to attend the Premier's estimates committee hearing. But special leave for what purpose? Special leave to ask important questions about the future of country New South Wales? Did they ask special questions about the effect of the Howard Government's incompetent rollout of broadband? Did they ask special questions about the ongoing effects of the drought? Did they ask special questions about the biofuel industry? Did they ask special questions about the effect of WorkChoices on country workers? No! The special questions that they thought were relevant to country people related to the Star City Casino!

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Point of order: It is important that the Minister also clarify—

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: In contrast, the Iemma Government is working hard for country towns. Its commitment to the country is rock solid. Our support for Country Week is just one tangible example of our continuing commitment to rural and regional New South Wales. Country Week is an important opportunity for local communities to showcase the benefits of country living and to help country towns to expand and grow. This year Country Week events were held at Rosehill Gardens Racecourse on 10, 11 and 12 August, and I am advised that about 9,000 people attended. That is, 9,000 people shopping for a tree change or a sea change and who are very interested in seeing what opportunities are available for lifestyle and work in regional New South Wales.

It is an opportunity for country people to let Sydneysiders in on some of the great secrets of living in rural and regional New South Wales. It is an opportunity to punch through the negative perceptions created by the ongoing drought, to showcase the values of country New South Wales and to invite city dwellers to come and join us. This year's Country Week included the successful initiative of a jobs board—that is, a listing of vacant jobs in regional New South Wales. More than 400 jobs were listed on the jobs board, providing valuable employment information and incentives for those considering relocation to regional New South Wales.

The exhibitors in 2007 used innovative methods to encourage interested families to visit their towns, including providing fuel vouchers and arranging cheap airfares. Some rural communities are already experiencing the benefits of participating in Country Week. Boorowa's attendance led to a family relocating and opening a cafe in the town, creating employment opportunities. Two blocks of land were sold in Forbes as a result of the exhibition and two families have already relocated to Muswellbrook. Cootamundra in the Riverina region recently held an open day as a follow up, and 50 families attended. Two families have relocated to Armidale and another six recently took advantage of cheap airfares to visit the town. I could provide many more examples. Last year the New South Wales Government provided $100,000 for the exhibition and I am pleased to confirm that it will support the event in 2008 with another $100,000 in funding.

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Is the Minister aware of which private schools in New South Wales teach intelligent design in science classes? In particular, is the Minister aware that Christian Schools Australia, Christian Parent Controlled Schools, Seventh-day Adventist Conference Schools and some Muslim schools teach either intelligent design or creationism in their science courses? Has the Minister taken any steps to stop the teaching of intelligent design or creationism as science in New South Wales private schools?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am somewhat taken aback by the tone of the member's question. It seems that he wants to impose censorship in the education system. That is a curious thing. I am unable to give him a list of the schools that he claims are teaching so-called intelligent design or creationist theories in science classes. He might be confusing the fact that some schools choose to advocate philosophical views about creationism or intelligent design as part of their scripture or religious studies. The New South Wales science curriculum is clear and, to the best of my knowledge—and I have examined it in some detail—it does not include the theories of intelligent design or creationism. I think the member would be well aware, and most honourable members would understand, that it deals with what otherwise might be described as the orthodox or contemporary scientific theories about such matters.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It is called evolution.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Hon. Catherine Cusack shows us that she has had an education after all. I think the Chamber could benefit from applying a sense of reasonableness and fairness. A specific allegation has been made about a group of schools. I will look into that allegation. I will be very surprised if it has any basis in fact, but if it has I will come back to the House with a response to the honourable member's question.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. What additional loads and productivity gains is the Treasurer expecting hardworking nurses to make to justify the 8 per cent increase sought by the New South Wales Nurses Association, given his promise of a 2.5 per cent cap on wages growth?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: What an extraordinary question from an Opposition that supported the WorkChoices legislation. Report after report has shown it has put downward pressure on living standards and on employment opportunities for people across the board. The only government that needs to answer questions about conditions for workers is the Federal Government. In six weeks it will have to face the ultimate test, the ballot box, where it will be rejected for its anti-worker, anti-family, anti-economic growth WorkChoices legislation.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister advise the House about the impact of the fairness test on New South Wales families?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It has been more than five months since the Howard Government introduced its so-called fairness test to counter perceptions that WorkChoices is unfair. Claims by the Howard Government that the test is working are completely baseless and border on the delusional.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: Mr President, I am looking for direction from you. It is my understanding that the Minister's spouse is a candidate at the Federal election. This is a statement to do with Federal matters and with the election. I draw your attention to the code of conduct for members, your own code, Mr President, dated July 2007. Under "Disclosure of conflict of interest" it says:

(a) Members of Parliament must take all reasonable steps to declare any conflict of interest between their private financial interests and the decisions in which they participate in the execution of their office.

(b) This may be done through declaring their interests on the Register of Disclosures of the relevant House or through declaring their interest when speaking on the matter in the House or a Committee, or in any other public and appropriate manner.

I request that you ask the Minister, whenever he is moving into this area, to disclose his pecuniary interest.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Standing Order 65 states that when answering a question a member must not debate the question and that answers to questions must be generally relevant. Accordingly, the Minister is in order and may continue.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: According to statistics released earlier this month by the Commonwealth's own Workplace Authority, the agency has completed assessments only on a quarter of the agreements lodged with it and, alarmingly, less than 10 per cent of these have passed the test to date. No matter how the Federal workplace relations Minister, Joe Hockey, tries to spin those figures, that is an abject failure in anyone's language. Of course, many of the businesses that have failed cannot be blamed. The Howard Government keeps moving the WorkChoices goal posts and they are struggling to keep pace with the new levels of red tape. A study by the Australian Human Resources Institute involving human resources professionals revealed it has become much harder for businesses to manage their employees under WorkChoices, with 40 per cent finding it more complex to manage employment generally, around 55 per cent requiring an increased level of legal advice, and 15 per cent seeking help from the Australian Human Resources Institute in understanding and implementing the new industrial relations laws.

WorkChoices is a massive burden on business, with employers increasingly required to resort to lawyers and external advisers. It is destroying their productivity. According to the Workplace Authority it still has well over 100,000 assessments to complete so thousands of workers continue to be underpaid or cheated out of appropriate entitlements because of the inadequacies of WorkChoices. Eighteen months since it was introduced WorkChoices still remains a mystery to many employers who are confused by its complexity and hamstrung by its red tape. According to Sensis data released last month— [Time expired.]

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: I ask the Minister a supplementary question. Will the Minister please elucidate his answer?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: According to Sensis data a staggering 45 per cent were unaware of the so-called fairness test. It is laughable that the head of the Workplace Authority says that all employers have to do to pass the test is simply to pay employees the right amount. Even major businesses like Spotlight—which was involved in an earlier WorkChoices controversy—have rejected WorkChoices after attempting to use Australian workplace agreements. They were overwhelmed by the red tape and complexity and have decided to pursue an alternative workplace agreement. Australian families will not be fooled by the fairness test. WorkChoices is achieving precisely what it was designed to do—cut the wages and entitlements of hardworking families. This was not an accident. When John Howard and the former Federal workplace relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, put WorkChoices together the aim was to cut family living standards by $70 a week. They have exceeded their goals and reduced them by more than $100 a week.

Despite the massive weight of evidence of how bad WorkChoices is, the current Federal workplace relations Minister, Joe Hockey, continues to live in a fantasy realm, and the Prime Minister remains steadfast in his support of WorkChoices. This is because they are planning further extreme reforms that will disadvantage families if they win the 24 November election. The House may recall that these further reforms were telegraphed by Federal finance Minister Nick Minchin at a meeting last year of the secretive and somewhat conspiratorial H. R. Nicholls Society—an extreme right-wing think tank that some members opposite are members of—when he told guests:

I think we do need to seek a mandate from the Australian people at the next election for another wave of industrial relations reform. This is evolution, not revolution, and there is still a long way to go.

Australian families will not be fooled—they know there will be a further stripping away of their entitlements and further reductions in their living standards if the Howard Government is given the opportunity.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Hon. Tony Kelly, representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the following question without notice. Is the Minister aware of the removal of the New South Wales Aboriginal Youth Advisory Group, established by the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. Reba Meagher, and its replacement with regional advisory boards? In particular, can the Minister indicate if he consulted members of the New South Wales Aboriginal Youth Advisory Group before making his decision to abolish the group in the seven months he has been Minister for Aboriginal Affairs? Can the Minister indicate if the proposed regional advisory boards will provide opportunities for young Aboriginal people in New South Wales to have a say on the issues affecting them, particularly the issues concerning suicide, mental illness, alcohol-related crime, physical abuse and the like?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I undertake to pass on the honourable member's question and get a detailed answer from the Minister.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware that the Federal Government last week committed $11 million to upgrade the Gocup Road between Tumut and Gundagai? Given that the State Government approved an expansion of the Visy Pulp and Paper Mill at Tumut, which will dramatically increase the number of heavy vehicles on this already busy road, when will the State Government step up to the plate and join with the Federal Government in committing funds to upgrade this vital road?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The New South Wales Government recognises that an increasing amount of freight is carried on the Gocup Road, and it supports the development of transport infrastructure in line with the growth of the timber industry in the Tumut area. I am advised that since 2001 the State Government has committed over $15 million to works in the area to support the timber industry. This includes $7.3 million for the Visy access road, $3.96 million for the upgrade of log-haul routes, and $4 million over the last four years to Tumut and Gundagai shires to upgrade Gocup Road, including 4.3 kilometres of widening, pavement reconstruction, and the replacement of the bridge over Stoney Creek.

We welcome the Federal Government's announcement of $11 million in funding to continue the upgrade of Gocup Road. Both the State and Federal governments have acknowledged that there will be an increase in the transport task due to stage two development of the Visy pulp and paper plant, and we would ask that Visy makes an appropriate contribution also. It is part of the ongoing challenge we have in New South Wales to continue to upgrade our roads to meet the growing freight and transport tasks around the State.

I am pleased to see that before we have the political hanging of the Howard-Costello Government it is finally doing the right thing by New South Wales by releasing the purse strings and putting some funding back into this State. As we know, over the years the Howard-Costello Government has sucked New South Wales dry, given the amount of money it has generated in fuel taxes from this State, but it has barely returned any of that money. It has been an extremely unfair deal for the people of New South Wales. I welcome the opportunity presented by the Federal election—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Jim Lloyd must carve you up.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Yes. Jim Lloyd really has us all quivering in our boots. I think Jim Lloyd had better start getting his own area right. Have a look on Centrebet and see where Jim Lloyd is. They have already voted on Centrebet where he is. We welcome additional funding from the Federal Government. We wish there was more. I must say that Mark Vaile has been quite receptive. He has responded to the New South Wales Government's lobbying and my personal request to find extra funding for the Pacific Highway. He has done the right thing there and found some additional funding. There should be more. I look forward to working cooperatively with either the Howard or Rudd government to ensure that we continue to get better funding for the people of New South Wales and the State's roads.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I suggest that if members have further questions, they place them on notice.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Earlier in question time today the Hon. Robert Brown asked me a question about the Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth and New South Wales schools. I can advise the House that it is not a prescribed text, confirming what I said in response to the Hon. Robert Brown, and nor has it been distributed to schools. The Department of Education and Training recently purchased some copies of the film to show to teachers as part of the Government's climate change initiative. If individual schools wish to use the film to assist their teaching, they are of course able to do so. As I said, teachers are always urged to present a range of views to students and to encourage them to consider the information, to think critically, and to make up their own minds. Teachers are best placed to decide which teaching resources will be most effective in their classroom for the benefit of their students.

Questions without notice concluded.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.13 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [5.13 p.m.]: Irrespective of when I drive to the Parliament or when I drive back home, by the end of either leg of the trip I can be sure I have been informed about the price of a barrel of West Texas crude, the level of the ASX All Ordinaries index, how many basis points interest rates are likely to move following the next Reserve Bank board meeting, details about personal credit card debt, the size of the current account deficit, insights into the Consumer Price Index and what it is likely to do in the next quarter, predictions about how low unemployment can really go, and of course the price of the Australian dollar. All this and I have either just turned into or out of Hospital Road, depending on whether I am coming to or going from Parliament!

Having some basic understanding about economics is important, but one can say the same about mathematics, science, philosophy, music, languages, art, religion, and a whole range of human endeavours that make us the unique beings we are. The forthcoming Federal election will put before every Australian who will vote a mirror that they will peer into and reflect upon what they see. And it is not one of those crazy mirrors we stared into at Luna Park when we were kids, which made us look short or tall, or fat or thin. It is a true mirror that reflects back to us exactly who we are: no distortion, no Photoshop, no make-up. We will stare at ourselves and see ourselves for what and who we are. And each one of us, even if we are not conscious of it, will stare into the eyes that are reflected back to us and say, "Is this it, or is there more?"

What about the relationships with those who are most dear to us? How much do we really care about those relationships? What are we doing every day to demonstrate that those relationships are important to us? What about our neighbour? That's right, the little old lady down the street who, hunched over with her string bag, shuffles down to the shops on her own in the rain or in the sun to do her shopping. What about our community? Is such involvement reserved for those who do less important things than ourselves and who therefore have the spare time because they do not have to pay off that wall-size plasma television? What about the people I work with? Do we have a common interest in looking out for each other when it comes to the wages we are paid and the conditions we work under?

What about those in need—our Indigenous brothers and sisters, the poor, the lonely, the infirm, the addicted, the disabled, the mentally ill? Do we personally have a responsibility or should we simply use some of that $17 billion surplus to help sort these people out. What about our obligation towards those from other lands? Is this a land of plenty, or do we just have plenty of dry, uninhabitable land? And what about the world? Is it just a place where we live for around three score and twenty years, if we are lucky? Or is it our home for all to share—yesterday, today and tomorrow? As we consider all these matters our mind will have cause to wonder if there is a moral calculus that provides these and all the affairs of man with some order, some peace.

Are there truths that exist that we are all looking for, with the hope of sharing them together with others, or is everything just a temporary settlement, a short-term convenience that has a shelf life or product cycle that seems to be getting shorter and shorter? In the cut and thrust and claim and counter-claim of the next six weeks, we should look not to the politicians who seek to frame our world to the third decimal point; rather, we should look and listen to the politicians who have gazed into that mirror and are prepared to tell us what they really have seen.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [5.18 p.m.]: Tonight I speak about the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and its community in Australia. On Saturday 6 October I had the pleasure of attending the annual dinner of the Melkite Catholic Eparchy of Australia and New Zealand at the invitation of His Grace Bishop Issam Darwish, Eparch of the Melkite Catholic Church since 1996. The guest of honour and speaker at the dinner was His Eminence Cardinal Pell. Also present were the Hon. Phillip Ruddock, representing the Prime Minister, Mr. John Murphy, representing the Leader of the Federal Opposition, the Hon. Barbara Perry, representing the Premier, and my colleague the Hon. David Clarke, as well as many other distinguished guests.

During the evening I was presented with a newly published book on the Melkite Church and its community in Australia, written by His Grace Bishop Darwish. After reading this book I again came to realise the long and rich history of the Melkite community within Australia. The Melkite Church first emerged some time in the fifth century, after the split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches in 451 AD. It was mainly the Greek city dwellers in Lebanon, Palestine, Syria and Egypt who became viewed as Melkites. The word "Melkite" means "the kings men", and it comes from the word "Malik", which means ''the king".
In 1724 Pope Benedict XIII welcomed Cyril VI, a pro-Western Melkite bishop, and his followers into communion with Rome. Since the 1930s the Me1kite Church has increasingly come to focus upon its Eastern Christian heritage. The liturgy used in the church service is celebrated in Arabic and Greek, as well as in the language of the country where it is celebrated, for example, in English here in Australia. Communion service uses revene bread and wine. Baptism involves complete immersion, and confirmation and the Eucharist are given at the same time as baptism. The sign of the cross is made with three fingers in honour of the trinity, and from right to left.

The first Melkites migrated to Australia at the end of the 1800s. They wanted a better life for themselves and to assist their families back home. By the 1890s the Melkite population had become so well established that it was necessary to build a church. With the financial support of the Malouf, Bracks, Scarf and Gazal families, and many others, St. Michael's Melkite Catholic Church, situated at Waterloo, was built in 1897. The Melkites seem to have been the first non-Anglo-Celtic Christian community to establish a church in Australia. There the church remained until 1977, when a new site at Darlington was located. The new St. Michael's at Darlington retains many of the old features of the old St. Michaels, including an old baptismal font.

It is an honour for me that I was baptised at the old St Michael's in 1956. Indeed, my children were also baptised in the same font. I was an alter boy at the old St Michael's from the age of 10 years until the age of 16 years. In 1987 His Holiness Pope John Paul II established the Eparchy of Australia and New Zealand, and we welcomed our first bishop. I then had the honour of being appointed one of the 12 committee members of the new diocese and was given the task of creating the first constitution for the diocese. There are about 45,000 Melkites associated with the Eparchy of St Michael, one of the largest Melkite populations outside Lebanon.

I also take this opportunity to recognise a few Melkite families who have contributed to the community. Take the Chahoud family from Syria, who first arrived in the late 1800s. Today Issa and Frank Chahoud have created one of the most successful clothing manufacturing companies in Australia. Father Chahoud, as Parish Priest of St Michael's between 1934 and 1967, was the priest who officiated at my christening in 1956. Issa and Frank Chahoud sponsored my father, as well as many others, to obtain their visa to Australia in the early 1950s.

The David family, who first arrived in Australia in 1882, are one of the largest wholesalers of groceries, wines and spirits in Australia. The Gazal family, who first arrived in Australia in 1896 where Mr Joe Gazal founded Gazal Industries, which today is the largest single rag trade company in Australia. The Scarf family first arrived in Australia in 1897 and the late Reuben F. Scarf became well known as a retailer in Sydney. He created the Frank and Nahida Scarf Memorial Foundation, as a tribute to the memory of his late parents, which provides enormous and generous financial support to a number of charities all over Australia and the world.

There are, of course, many other distinguished families such as the Malouf family, the Mansour family, the Herro family, the Shad family, the Haddad family, the Lahoud family, the Bishara family, the Kalouche family and, of course, the Ajaka family, to name a few. Time does not permit me to expand on the many achievements of the members of these families. The descendants of these Melkite families are well-known doctors, lawyers, engineers, developers, financial advisers, manufacturers, businessmen and women, who continue to make substantial contributions to the community. They typify the values that have made this country unique, namely their unflagging effort, their commitment and their integrity.

I am proud of our bishop, His Grace Issam John Darwish, for all his love, guidance and support to his entire Melkite flock and to the whole community of Australia. His continued message of peace and understanding between all brothers and sisters within the Australian community, irrespective of their ethnic background or religious belief, is most inspiring.

Dr JOHN KAYE [5.22 p.m.]: I speak in anger and disappointment with the Federal leadership of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Kevin Rudd and Stephen Smith, in particular at their announcement on 9 October 2007 that they would continue with the Howard Government's unfair, damaging and dangerous socioeconomic status-based funding of private schools through the 2009-12 quadrennium, including indexation arrangements that mean that every new dollar that goes into public education automatically flows on to private schools. In effect Kevin Rudd and Stephen Smith have locked in the Howard Government's funding for the next four years and beyond. They have removed school education funding from the election education debate. In an act of cowardly me-tooism they have turned away from their commitment to public education.
This is a disaster for public education. It has locked in a private school funding system that is unfair and wasteful, that undermines public education, creates a less coherent and just society and discriminates against low and no income families. In effect what Kevin Rudd and Stephen Smith have agreed to do is lock in a privatisation of public education agenda. Significantly, it also takes away from the Iemma Government any excuse they might have for inaction on adjusting private school funding to try to remove some of the massive inequality created by the Federal Government's funding.

The Howard Government's socioeconomic funding system, soon possibly to become the Rudd Government socioeconomic funding system, funds recurrent subsidies to private schools on the basis of the average socioeconomic status of the census code district in which families live. Each school is assessed with a socioeconomic funding system rating, which gives it a percentage. That percentage is multiplied by the average government school recurrent cost to obtain the per student funding amount for children in each of those private schools, unless, of course, a formula would lead to a reduction in the per student funding amount compared to the old education resource index based system, in which case the school continues to receive education resource index based funding—that is called funding guaranteed—or a reassessment of the socio-economic status of the school would result in a lower per student funding of that school and would result in funding maintenance.

This has appalling consequences for public education and for the education budget. Kevin Rudd's announcement pours dollars into private schools, compared to the old education resource index system. Our calculations show that between 2005 and 2008 the socioeconomic funding system boosted the funding of private schools around Australia by $1.8 billion and that between 2009 and 2012, the quadrennium for which Mr Rudd and Mr Smith have locked in socioeconomic funding, it will increase total funding by $2.36 billion. That is a total of $4.1 billion over the eight-year period. That includes indexation under AGSRC of the old education resource index system.

The socioeconomic funding system is grotesquely unfair. Among the big winners in the Rudd-Smith announcement are Trinity Grammar, which from 2009 to 2012 will be $19.2 million wealthier, the Kings College in North Parramatta, which will be $12.1 million wealthier, and Newington in Stanmore, which will be $8.4 million—and all of them will be wealthier than if they had been funded on the old education resource index system. At the other end of the system, Malek Fahd in Greenacre will get an additional $16.5 million and Lindisfame Anglican College in Terranora will be $6 million better off. This demonstrates the big problem with the socioeconomic funding system. It massively advantages the wealthiest private schools because it ignores other resources. It also advantages those private schools that directly compete with public education.

This is a major issue for the New South Wales State Government. Take, for example, the King's School at North Parramatta. It receives fees of $19,593 per Higher School Certificate student, funding from the Federal Government of $3,177 and funding from the State Government of $920. That points to the continued funding by the State Government of some very wealthy private schools. The State is responsible for about 30 per cent of total funding and over the period 1998-07 State funding increased by 67 per cent. In the lead-up to the 24 November 2007 Federal election the New South Wales Government will be under the gun. It will need to respond to this massive increase in private school funding and sooner or later will need to adjust its funding to undo the unfairness imposed on it by the Federal Government.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [5.27 p.m.]: I want to highlight two examples of excellence within publicly funded schools in the New England region of New South Wales. I was recently privileged to officially open the joint New South Wales-Commonwealth funded Barwon Learning Centre in Moree, representing the Hon. John Della Bosca, the Minister for Education. I did this jointly with John Anderson, the Federal member for Gwydir. Mrs Maureen Newman, elder of the Gamilaroi nation, blessed the school. The Gamilaroi are the traditional inhabitants of the broad region encompassing the Gwydir and Namoi river catchments and are strongly represented in the Moree area.
The new learning centre, part of the Moree Secondary College, cost just under $1.8 million to build and fit out. The New South Wales Government contributed an amount of $964,000, more than 50 per cent of the funding. The project was completed and handed over in January this year and classes began in March. The centre has been appointed with excellent facilities, including two classrooms with practical activities areas, toilets and storerooms, administration/staff facilities including a study annexe, staff room, security store, toilets, principal's office, interview room, clerical/duplicating room and sick bay. There are also outdoor facilities that include a games court, covered outdoor learning area, security fencing, car parking and landscaping, which all sounds incredibly boring until we actually get to the school community at the learning centre. The Barwon Learning Centre provides intensive behavioural and educational support for students exhibiting challenging behaviours in the traditional school setting.

A range of specialist programs is provided for students in year 5 to year 10 with the aim of returning the students to their schools or supporting their transition to other education or employment opportunities. Students attending the centre have an individual education and behaviour support plan developed in collaboration with the centre's learning support team. The centre caters for small numbers of students who have difficulty settling in a traditional school setting, and who benefit from the individual attention of teachers. Currently there are eight teachers and eight students with room to expand to 21 students. Many of the students are Aboriginal and benefit from teaching programs that include the Young Elders program, providing students with the skills and opportunity to become active leaders within the school setting and eventually in the wider community.

Complementing the Young Elders program is the Circle of Trust, which encourages frank and open discussion of personal and educational issues that affect students' schooling and lives. These programs are underpinned by the values of respect, responsibility, care, compassion, honesty, integrity, understanding and tolerance. These values will go a long way to providing students with resilience for life. The centre's motto is "Shield of Strength". At a more hands-on, practical level, the students are involved in a community environmental project, which is supported by the Moree Plains Shire Council in partnership with the Border Rivers Gwydir Catchment Management Authority.

Through these social competence programs, the centre also places a strong emphasis on preparing the students for a successful return to their home school. One of the most exciting parts of the celebration of the learning centre's opening was the participation by so many of the community, including local government, the catchment management authority, the education community, aunts and uncles, cousins, parents and siblings—all wanting the students to have access to the same life chances and all understanding that the learning centre offers troubled students an equal chance for the future. I congratulate the principal, Mr Rod Lang, and staff of the Barwon Learning Centre for their novel, yet practical, approach to developing strong and productive relationships with the students. It was clear that Mr Lang was very proud of the 90 per cent attendance rate by this group of students.

The second example of exciting and encouraging learning programs in New England I witnessed was a performance of Little Red Rocking Hood, a musical staged by Westdale Public School in Tamworth. I must declare an interest: my grandson was part of the production. The production was received by all as a great show, involving every one of the 375 students at Westdale school dancing to musical numbers based on the themes of the Three Little Pigs, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Cinderella and Snow White and the Seven Punk Rockers—which involved a few adaptations to the original script. These well-known tales were sung as 1960s and 1970s rock songs. We were told that the parents could sing along, and I assure the House that the grandparents sang the loudest.

The musical was the culmination of the Creative Arts syllabus for the year, bringing dance, drama and music into one production. It was great to see the teachers involved too. In fact, the principal informs me that every staff member—teachers, teachers' aides, office staff and general assistants—was involved in the production. Also, retired persons who worked at the school assisted with the costumes. The school staged two sold-out performances and the town hall was packed to the rafters. I congratulate the principal, Karen Doyle, and all the students and staff at Westdale Public School for putting on a fantastic show and for developing creative and valuable ways to teach the syllabus, involving the whole school and entertaining the community at the same time.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [5.32 p.m.]: I wish to bring to the attention of the House the latest round of Carrick Awards for Australian University Teaching. The awards and citations—which were named in honour of the distinguished and former Federal Minister for Education the Hon. Sir John Carrick, who was present at the awards presentation this year—celebrate excellence in teaching in Australia's higher education institutions. The awards are presented to individual teachers and teams of outstanding teachers and their aim is to promote and advance learning and teaching in our universities. They are given to inspirational teachers who change the world for their students.
The Carrick Institute presents up to 27 awards for teaching excellence. The awards are open to both individuals and teaching teams and the winners each receive $25,000. There are eight categories for nominees: Biological Sciences, Health and related studies, including Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Medicine and Nursing; Early Career; Humanities and the Arts; Indigenous Education; Law, Economics, Business and related studies; Physical Sciences and related studies, including Architecture, Building and Planning, Engineering, Computing and Information Science; Social Sciences, including Education; and a priority area. This year the priority area was team teaching.

Up to 26 individuals and teams across the eight designated categories are selected to attend the annual awards ceremony where they are presented with a Carrick Award for Teaching Excellence. One of those receives the Prime Minister's Award. These awards celebrate a group of the nation's most outstanding university teachers in their fields. They give recognition to university teachers who are renowned for the excellence of their teaching, have superb presentation skills and have made a broad and deep contribution to enhancing the quality of learning and teaching in higher education. The awards for Programs that Enhance Learning recognise learning and teaching support programs and services that make an outstanding contribution to the quality of student learning and the quality of student experience of higher education. The Carrick program awards are given to exemplary programs and services whose effectiveness has been demonstrated through strenuous evaluation. The programs and services that receive these awards set benchmarks for similar activities in other institutions.

Citations for Outstanding Contribution to Student Learning recognise and reward the diverse contributions that individuals and teams make to the quality of student learning. The Carrick citations are granted to people who have made a significant contribution to the quality of student learning in a specific area of responsibility over a sustained period, whether they are academic staff, general staff, sessional staff or institutional associates. The selection process for the citations and awards is rigorous. Each nomination has to be strongly supported by the particular university and is assessed on five criteria: approaches to learning that influence, motivate and inspire students to learn; the development of curricula and resources that reflect a command of the field; approaches to assessment and feedback that foster independent learning; respect and support for the development of students as individuals; and scholarly activities that have influenced and enhance learning and teaching.

It was terrific to see in this year's awards very strong representation from the State's regional universities. For example, the awards recognised the leading nurse practitioner course at the University of Newcastle and the University of New England's longstanding expertise in remote learning and special care for Indigenous education. Other academics showed a wonderful capacity to enliven the teaching of statistics, teach in the fields of the environmental sciences, equine studies and the creative arts and provide professional development of university teachers. They also excelled in curriculum development, research skills and the application of them, the development of leadership in the institution, classroom management, mentoring, the provision of short courses, teacher-student communications, transitioning to the world of work, marketing and science in its social context and many other areas. The awards this year covered practically every aspect of professional university life. Professor Richard Johnston of the University of New South Wales said:

There is no one clear path to contributing to student learning. The awardees have, however, contributed in their own unique way and collectively have made a huge impact for the better upon their students and the university communities to which they belong.

The citations fit with a re-evaluation of the value of excellence in teaching that is occurring throughout the world at universities such as Cambridge and Harvard—a rebalancing, if you like, between the importance of teaching and the still important emphasis on research. I congratulate all of the recipients of this year's Carrick awards and the Howard-Vaile Government for auspicing these important and worthwhile awards.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.37 p.m.]: Two stories appeared in a recent edition of the Liverpool City Champion that indicate the failure of the State Government both to support our most vulnerable citizens and to protect our heritage. One story was that of Damien, a 22-year-old man who was diagnosed as a child with moderate autism and global developmental delay but who has overcome enormous odds to create for himself a better life, to successfully undertake secondary and tertiary studies and to qualify as a library assistant. Damien's condition is not an isolated one. It is a fact that increasing numbers of our children are experiencing neurological disorders, such as attention deficit disorder, Asperger's syndrome and autism. As in Damien's case, appropriate treatment can help lead to recovery for thousands but equally important is how we deal with this issue socially as well as medically.

We live in a society that nominally does not discriminate against those with disabilities, yet there is a notable absence of any real social assistance from State authorities for people with autism or assistance for their carers. We are not dealing with an insignificant issue here. A report for the Autism Early Intervention Outcomes Unit notes that a preliminary estimate of the total annual cost to Australia of autism spectrum disorder is between $4.5 billion and $7.2 billion. It is a sad comment on our society that the burden of dealing with these disorders has fallen heavily onto the shoulders of parents and friends. Groups, such as the Autism Advisory and Support Service, which are parent-founded, parent-funded and parent-led, are pioneering the way in the absence of any leadership from the State. The Autism Advisory and Support Service covers families living in the Fairfield, Liverpool and Bankstown areas. Parents of autistic children run the service, which holds workshops and provides support and information.

In other States, governments are taking the lead in either providing services or giving support to organisations that provide services. Indeed, in Victoria the Labor Government, in its 2006 pre-election policy Addressing Disadvantage, committed to developing an autism State plan in partnership with the community group Autism Victoria. This is a significant project and work commenced in February this year. New South Wales clearly needs measures such as early intervention programs, parent skills programs, programs that facilitate preparation for the transition to preschool and school, and the provision of respite services.

Another issue from Liverpool is more disturbing. This is the story of Collingwood House, possibly the fifth-oldest surviving house in Australia. It is listed on the State Heritage Register, having met seven out of the seven values necessary for heritage listing. According to the Heritage Council report, Collingwood was a significant agricultural estate and was instrumental in the industrial development of Liverpool. The parkland in front of Collingwood House effectively provides its setting, a visual curtilage, with views both onto the homestead and to the east across the Georges River. Not only does Collingwood House have significance for our white history, its location on the ridge top is also relevant for indigenous peoples. As local elder Aunty Norma Shelley pointed out:

The grounds surrounding Collingwood House were the traditional meeting point for Sydney's Aboriginal nations—the Eora, Dharug, Tharawal, and Gundungurra … The site looks out in all directions over each nation's territory, and corroborees were held here.

Indeed, the site represents, in microcosm, the history of the whole area. The Liverpool City Council administrator, Gabrielle Kibble, now proposes to vandalise this historic artefact. She has announced plans to sell off to developers an important part of the land surrounding the house. She justifies this on the grounds that funds are needed for the restoration of the house, yet the reason the house is in such dire need of repair is because Liverpool City Council neglected to maintain this important piece of our heritage for so long. The Heritage Council's preferred option is to keep the house and all its land intact, with no developmentthat is, to maintain the remnant cultural landscape. It notes:

The remnant precinct demonstrates the layers of Indigenous and European occupation and use, and the transition of the place from an agricultural estate to an industrial estate during the nineteenth century.

I understand that the proposed local environmental plan dealing with Collingwood House has gone to the Minister for Planning for his approval. I sincerely hope that the Minister shows greater understanding and interest in the heritage of the Liverpool area, particularly Collingwood House, and refuses council's proposal.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH [5.42 p.m.]: Last weekend I attended the Murrumbateman field day. The member for Monaro, Steve Whan, the Labor candidate for the Federal seat of Hume, David Grant, and I manned the Country Labor tent. We had a number of petitions for people to sign but the one that seemed of most interest to the passers-bywith the exception of the WorkChoices petitionwas the one about dental health care. Many people took the time to express their concerns about the Federal Government's withdrawal of significant revenue from the dental care program across Australia. People are seriously unhappy that they have to wait so long to receive dental treatment. Those concerns have resonated across the electorate.

[Time for debate expired.]
Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.