Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 15 August 2000, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Mr CARR (Maroubra—Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [2.16 p.m.]: Honourable members will be aware that the Hon. Keith Enderbury, a former member of the Legislative Council, is in hospital after receiving severe burns in an incident at Ashfield last night. I am advised that his family are with him in the burns unit of Concord hospital and that the perpetrator is in custody. Keith served in the New South Wales Parliament for 11 years from March 1984 to March 1995. He was Opposition Whip from 1989 to 1995. In a speech Keith gave during his first year in Parliament he reflected on his long journey from the days when he ran messages to Macquarie Street as a first-year apprentice printer.

Keith recalled putting cardboard inside his old army boots to keep out the cold and he recalled the great honour, 30 years later, of walking into Parliament House as a member of the Legislative Council. Many of us here know Keith and have fond recollections of him as a colleague. Words are inadequate to capture the sadness we feel at the news. Keith has a longstanding involvement with my side of politics that goes back to the early 1970s. I know I speak for all members of the House when I say that our thoughts are with Keith Enderbury at this time.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove—Leader of the Opposition) [2.17 p.m.]: I join the Premier in saying that our thoughts are with Keith Enderbury at this time. Along with all members of the House I was shocked this morning when I heard the news about Keith. Although he was on the opposite side of the political fence to me, during the time I spent with him in this place we shared the odd joke and the odd story. Keith is a true gentleman; he was a delight to work with. I know that everyone in this House shares the thoughts and concerns of myself and the Premier and hopes that Keith will get through this terrible time. We send our best wishes to his family. Our thoughts are with them and we hope that he makes a speedy recovery following this terrible incident. All of us need to ensure that Keith is included in our prayers over the next few days.

Mr Speaker announced, pursuant to the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, the receipt of the report entitled "Special Report to Parliament: Project Oracle—A Review of Assault Complaints Involving Officers of the New South Wales Police Service", dated August 2000.

Petition praying that the head lease proposal for North Head Quarantine Station be opposed, received from Mr Barr.

Petition praying that the Legislative Assembly will advocate for the retention of all vacant land in the area historically known as the Willoughby Paddocks and its development as public parkland for the enjoyment of the community, received from Mr Collins.

Petition praying for opposition to the construction of a McDonald's restaurant on Moore Park, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying for increased police presence in the Surry Hills area, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying for increased police presence in the Redfern, Darlington and Chippendale areas, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying for increased police presence in the Kings Cross area, received from Ms Moore

Petition praying for increased police presence in Appin, received from Ms Seaton.

Petition praying that consideration be given to the upgrading of Orange police station from category three to category two, received from Mr R. W. Turner.

Petition praying for opposition to the construction of a stadium at Bondi Pavilion for the volleyball event during the 2000 Olympic Games, received from Ms Moore.

Petition expressing concern at the decision of the Northern Sydney Area Health Service to discontinue paediatric services at Manly Hospital and praying that full services at Manly Hospital be maintained, received from Mr Barr.

Petition praying that the House take action to prohibit the sale and distribution of food containing genetically modified organisms, received from Mrs Chikarovski.

Petition praying for increased funding for health services in the Coffs Harbour area and a reduction in surgery waiting lists, received from Mr Fraser.

Petition praying that assistance be provided to enable the continuation of after hours primary care services to residents of Wallsend and surrounding districts, received from Mr Mills.

Petition praying for opposition to the closure of Seaforth TAFE, received from Mr Barr.

Petition praying for opposition to the implementation of public transport fare increases, received from Mr Barr.

Petition praying that a speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour be introduced on Pittwater Road, Narrabeen, received from Mr Brogden.

Petitions praying that Windsor Road be upgraded and widened within the next two financial years, received from Mr Merton, Mr Richardson and Mr Rozzoli.

Petition praying that an additional signalised pedestrian crossing be installed on Oxford Street, Paddington, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that consideration be given to the construction of a light rail transport system for Moore Park, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that air purification systems be installed on the Eastern Distributor and cross-city tunnel, received from Ms Moore.

Petition calling for the permanent removal of car parking from Moore Park east, and praying that Moore Park be landscaped to meet the increased need of local communities for passive recreation space, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying for an urgent increase in the reliability and adequacy of Surry Hills bus services, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying for an urgent increase in the reliability and adequacy of Redfern bus services, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that consideration be given to the permanent protection of old-growth forests and all other areas of high conservation value, and to the implementation of tree planting strategies, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that the practice of supplying stray animals to universities and research institutions for experimentation be opposed, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that the House will totally and unconditionally abolish animal vivisection on scientific, medical and ethical grounds, and that a new system be introduced whereby veterinary students are apprenticed to practising veterinary surgeons, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that any rezoning of the White City site be opposed, received from Ms Moore.

Mr WHELAN: I advise the House that during the absence of the Minister for Community Services because of illness, I will answer questions on her behalf.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: My question is directed to the Premier. Given the Premier's comments recently that having Sydney on the cover of National Geographic was worth $15 million in unpaid advertising to New South Wales, what is his estimate of the damage to the State's tourism industry of an article in the New York Times which describes his train service as wracked by delays, derailments, errors and incompetence?

Mr CARR: Incompetence, laziness, scatty performance—it is like a description of the Opposition frontbench. Look at them!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Pittwater to order. I call the honourable member for Oxley to order. I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order. I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the second time.

Mr CARR: Last week I invited the Opposition to come down from their bunk beds, to spread out the morning newspapers and to find something to ask the Government about. Last week they asked questions based on what had been in the papers three days earlier. Now they have discovered the New York Times on the Internet. I presume the Leader of the Opposition was trying to get some policy ideas out of the Republican National Convention that was held two weeks back and she stumbled across the article about Sydney. The Government has never said anything other than that the transporting hundreds of thousands of additional people will be by far the biggest challenge presented by the Olympics.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the National Party to order.

Mr CARR: We have said that on the record many times. I have said it, as has the Minister for Transport and the Minister for the Olympics. It can hardly be pretended that this is a revolution. I do not resile from the fact that transport has performed badly. That is why the Government appointed Ron Christie as Co-ordinator General.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Hornsby to order. I call the Deputy Leader of the National Party to order. I place the honourable member for Davidson on two calls to order.

Mr CARR: The Opposition has raised the issue of transport after the lamentable performance by the shadow Minister for Transport last week. We had to put out a special publication "Barry's Week of Blunders".

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Hornsby to order for the second time.

Mr CARR: Last week he accused the Government of bringing back a Labor mate, David Hill, as a highly paid consultant to run the transport system.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for North Shore to order.

Mr CARR: It turns out that David Hill had not been employed in any capacity—and it turns out that the shadow Minister himself had advocated David Hill be brought back! The only alternative transport policy the Opposition has come up with is the return of David Hill.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection from the Opposition and far too much discussion among the members on the Opposition frontbench. I call the honourable member for Gosford to order. I call the Minister for Police to order.

Mr CARR: This question gives me an opportunity to brief the House on the unprecedented transport challenge that the Olympics represent. The Olympic Roads and Transport Authority [ORTA] expects that the CityRail system will move 31.2 million people over 17 days in September.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for North Shore to order for the second time.

Mr CARR: That compares with 12.4 million people in normal circumstances. That is a massive feat that requires extensive interagency planning and a good deal of public co-operation. That is why CityRail is working closely with ORTA. Indeed, that is why the Government established ORTA in the first place: to have overarching responsibility for making the system work.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lismore will resume his seat.

Mr CARR: Nearly two-thirds of the trips during this period will be associated with Olympic Games events. That is a massive additional burden on the transport system. The Government has never resiled from the poor performance of public transport in recent times. That is why we appointed Ron Christie and that is why we are working overtime so that this system works up to expectations during the Olympics.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Hornsby to order for the third time.

Mr CRITTENDEN: My question without notice is to the Attorney General. How is the Government responding to the phenomenon of computer-related crime?

Mr DEBUS: Computer crime is a most serious concern to the Government. We are determined to guard against criminals using computer programs and computer data to commit offences. The Government will soon introduce legislation to update the criminal law in this area. New South Wales has been at the forefront of ensuring that we stay a step ahead of computer criminals, such as hackers and virus spreaders. We have in place laws relating to computer crime resulting from the recommendations of the 1988 Gibbs report. However, the new provisions that will be introduced later in the year will ensure a uniform approach to this type of crime, both nationally and internationally. They will go beyond the focus of the 1988 reforms, which were aimed mainly at protecting the government sector.

Private citizens and businesses have a significant stake in computer security, which must be the subject of detailed laws. The Government proposes to update the Crimes Act to ensure that it covers offences such as interfering with electronic communication and identity theft. The new offences are based on the latest international moves to combat so-called cyber crime. This will ensure that New South Wales criminal laws keep pace with international technology and that appropriate penalties are in place. This update of the laws comes as a result of an in-depth analysis of the scope of current computer offences by officers of the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, a national group, who have examined all Australian jurisdictions and a number of overseas models. New South Wales is working closely with the Federal Government and other State governments to develop a uniform approach to computer crime, and these changes reflect that work. The New South Wales legislation will follow up on proposals outlined in the Model Criminal Code Discussion Paper on Damage and Computer Offences, which was released earlier this year.

Computer crime can have disastrous consequences for business and the wider community. It is clearly inadequate to treat computers as chattels, mere physical objects, when in fact it is the data stored on the computer, the access to the computer and the use of programs that is the conduit for criminal behaviour. To ensure that the law is up to date we will enact legislation that spells out criminal activity such as unauthorised access, modification or impairment to data which commits or intends to commit a serious offence. The changes will build upon the Government's enactment of sabotage and threatened sabotage offences passed in the budget session of Parliament this year.

Mr Hartcher: Point of order: The entire phraseology and tone of language used by the Minister indicates the Government's intention and what it will build upon. As such it is clearly within the framework of a ministerial statement. If it is a ministerial statement, I have the right to reply. I ask you to rule that it is a ministerial statement.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr DEBUS: I referred to the enactment, which has already occurred, of the offences of sabotage and threatened sabotage at the time that the Government criminalised the offence of sabotage. For example, if a person uses a switching system in a power grid and that behaviour has a consequence to the community—such as causing economic loss, disrupting business, traffic and emergencies services—the offence is sabotage. Just as the sabotage offence went beyond criminalising the destruction of a mere switching system in the power grid and recognised the consequences of that action, the new laws will go beyond using a computer in an unauthorised manner and will concentrate on questions of access, modification and impairment of programs and data, and the consequences of those actions.

It is estimated that computer viruses cost the community billions of dollars worldwide. The "I love you" bug is estimated to have cost $6.7 billion worldwide in just five days, and may still incur significant costs as it sits dormant in computer systems around the world in spite of efforts to clear it up and to block it from causing damage. The new provisions will create a new offence of unauthorised impairment of electronic communication to specifically target the spreading of computer viruses. That offence will carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. The new provisions will increase penalties for identity theft offences.

Interfering with credit card information or other data held on computer with the intention to defraud will be a serious indictable offence, carrying a penalty of five years or more imprisonment. The new provisions will clarify the definition of "computer data" and "electronic communication" to ensure that these offences are covered by the Crimes Act, and will ensure that existing indictable offences such as fraud and forgery also apply to computers. Computer crime can have the most damaging and ongoing consequences for the wider community. With these changes we will ensure that New South Wales criminal laws keep pace with technology and the criminal use of that technology.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: My question is directed to the Premier. Now that the Premier's Co-ordinator General of rail, Ron Christie, has told the New York Times that he cannot rule out disruptions to the train system during the Olympic Games, will the Premier support suggestions by SOCOG consultants that families who have paid hundreds of dollars for their tickets should be compensated if they miss out on their sessions at the Games due to rail disruptions?

Mr CARR: I note with interest that the shadow Minister for the Olympics had something to say about Olympic transport—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gosford to order for the second time.

Mr CARR: The shadow Minister for the Olympics had something to say about Olympic transport on the Sally Loane program—which has become a sort of confessional for Opposition spokespersons on transport issues. Honourable members will recall that last week I revealed what the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party said about transport when he confessed to Sally Loane—not in the secrecy of a confessional, but for a listening audience—that he would in fact bring David Hill back.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.

Mr CARR: But that is nothing compared to this sweet little revelation from the shadow Minister for the Olympics, who said to Sally Loane, "Look, there is going to be problems with transport."

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the third time.

Mr CARR: The shadow Minister for the Olympics said to Sally Loane, "I suppose, in a sense, that is moving an enormous"—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the fourth time.

Mr CARR: You are going to hear this, so fasten your seat belts. The member for Gosford, the shadow Minister for the Olympics, settled down into the 2BL studios and said, "Look, there is going to be enormous problems with transport. I suppose in the sense that it is moving an enormous amount of people"—I think he meant an enormous number of people—"to the Games." That is precisely what I said a moment ago. Sally Loane said, "You expect—on SOCOG you expect problems with transport?" The shadow Minister for the Olympics said, "No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that when you've got huge numbers of people"—he got it right that time; the difference between quantity and number—

[Interruption]

This is the position of the Government. Be fair! I am praising him for supporting the position of the Government. He said, "No … what I'm saying is that when you've got huge numbers of people there's always the risk that there will be problems." Thank you, Chris!

Mrs Chikarovski: Point of order: The Premier has already acknowledged that there are going to be problems with transport during the Olympics. What we are asking is: Will he compensate people if they do not get to the Games?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. She has asked a question; she will listen to the answer in silence. I call the honourable member for Gosford to order for the third time.

Mr CARR: I am again indebted, as is the entire House, to the value of these transcription services. The Opposition refers to the people who produced this as Stasi—a derogatory term I have always rejected. But I have not denied that there are former Central Intelligence Agency personnel producing this kind of thing. I think in the post-war climate they ought to be rehabilitated! What does the shadow Minister say? He said, "But as far as SOCOG and I think the Olympic Games are concerned, everything that can be done to organise an efficient, well-organised Games has been done." Good on you, Chris! He went on to say, "In the spirit the Government can only endorse, and the people of Sydney can certainly have confidence in this sense, that they are going to get a wonderful Olympic Games."

That is the spirit with which we approached this, and I applaud the constructive and positive stand of the shadow Minister for the Olympics. As I said in answer to an earlier question, during the Olympic Games there will be enormous pressure on public transport in moving enormous additional numbers of people and the system will be under stress. No-one can offer an assurance that there will not be incidents, congestion or crowding.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bega to order.

Mr CARR: Clearly, there will be additional pressure on the system. An additional 700,000 people are expected in Sydney during the days of the Games, and that creates pressure on public transport. We have always said that. But we are also encouraged by the way the system has coped during great sporting events at Homebush Bay. The system coped well and we believe that, with the co-operation from all in the community—and I place on record my appreciation for the co-operation of the shadow Minister for the Olympics, whose approach is precisely the one we take—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Hornsby that he is on three calls to order.

Mr CARR: Hundreds of thousands of visitors will use public transport. No-one, as Ron Christie conceded, apparently, can say there is an ironclad guarantee that there will not be incidents, delays or congestion. The system will be under pressure, but with the co-operation of all concerned we look forward to handling the challenge of numbers as well as we handled the 1.5 million people around Sydney Harbour for that great celebration that adorns the cover of Time magazine: Sydney, New Year's Eve. We hope to do as well again.

Mr GIBSON: My question without notice is to the Minister for Local Government. How is the Government improving the way in which local council elections are held and encouraging more accountability from councils?

Mr WOODS: Recent elections have illustrated the need for reform of the electoral system. Voters were rightly frustrated with tablecloth-size ballot papers. There is also considerable frustration about candidates being elected solely on preferences. Candidates and political parties have based their electoral strategies on preference deals rather than election on merit. Honourable members of this House will appreciate that, in November 1999, the Government gave an undertaking to amend election procedures for local councils to bring them into line with those made for the Legislative Council. Honourable members will be pleased to hear that shortly I intend to introduce legislation honouring that commitment.

The reforms propose that a local government party must have at least 100 members with no overlapping membership permitted. This will change the existing provisions that enable a single councillor to register a party. Registration of parties must occur at least one year before elections, how-to-vote material used on polling day must be registered, and group voting tickets must be replaced with voting squares to remove the ability of a group to automatically allocate preferences to other groups and candidates. This will give true expression to voters' preferences and not to backroom deals. Honourable members will be aware that some councils had unusually large ballot papers, with one council having more than 100 candidates.

Mr Hartcher: Point of order: This is a ministerial statement. Mr Speaker, if you are going to rule against me I would like you, at some stage, to tell the House what constitutes a ministerial statement and what does not. The Minister is stating what Government policy will be. He is not answering a question designed to give information. He is giving a statement on what Government policy will be for local government elections. It clearly falls within the guidelines of a ministerial statement, as set out by the standing orders and by rulings of previous Speakers and you. I ask you to enforce those judgments and the standing orders, and to classify this as a ministerial statement. If it is not classified as a ministerial statement, please inform the House what constitutes a ministerial statement.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a longstanding tradition in this House that Ministers, when answering questions, are permitted to provide information relating to proposed Government initiatives. That is what the Minister for Local Government is doing.

Mr WOODS: In further response to the question, to inform the House and to provide further information, I would like to say that these changes will give true expression to voters' preferences and not backroom deals. As I said, honourable members will be aware that some councils had unusually large ballot papers, with one council having more than 100 candidates. For example, in Gosford local voters had to grapple with a one-metre wide ballot paper. For the information of honourable members I will place on the table the Gosford City Council ballot paper. These changes strike a balance between the rights of voters and the ability of genuine parties and community-based movements to run candidates in local government elections. Community groups will have two years to register political parties before the September 2003 local government elections. In June last year I tabled a review of the Local Government Act, which indicated that a number of areas needed amending. One finding of the review was the need to focus greater scrutiny on pecuniary interest.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I include the honourable member for Baulkham Hills in that warning.

Mr WOODS: At present the Local Government Act does not require a councillor to disclose the exact nature of his or her pecuniary interest during a council meeting. Currently a councillor is not bound to leave the chamber during a discussion about matters relating to items of personal interest. We intend to change the Act so that a councillor must declare the nature of his or her pecuniary interest and leave the chamber. This change will ensure that all local government decisions are open and accountable in the same manner as State and Federal matters; it will remove any perception of influence a councillor may have by remaining in the chamber; and it will give the Local Government Pecuniary Interest Tribunal more power to deal with complaints. Proposed changes will enable the tribunal to use its discretion to make decisions without a hearing. This will be used in cases only in which no material facts are in dispute and the parties agree to proceed without a hearing. In the interests of public accountability the tribunal will still be required to publish its reasons for ruling a certain way to ensure that the public is well informed.

It is also proposed to allow the tribunal to directly reprimand a council employee. Currently, the tribunal can only recommend to council what action should be taken in the case against an employee. Another matter that arose from the review of the Act relates to fees and expenses paid to councillors. Under the Act fees and expenses must relate to the discharge of civic office. Unfortunately, it has been brought to the attention of the Department of Local Government that some councillors are, amongst other things, claiming the cost of employees to manage their businesses while they are at council meetings; making personal use of frequent flyer points from council-funded trips rather than returning the points to council for its use; and asking council to fund their private legal actions against other parties.

Everyone in this Chamber would agree that these things are not on. Currently, councillors' fees and expenses policies are required to be adopted in open council after public notification. However, a number of councillors are liberally interpreting their council's policy, or modifying them without proper public consultation. I want to bring more accountability to our local elected representatives. Therefore councils will not be allowed to reimburse, or pay councillors for expenses outside the publicly reviewed policy, and any changes to that policy must go through the same public process. These changes will go a long way to improving accountability in local government, and making it more simple to vote.

Mr D. L. PAGE: My question without notice is to the Premier. How can he justify the imposition of full user charges for water for all local councils from 1 July next year when his Minister for Local Government has claimed credit for arranging discounted water charges to Ramsay Abattoir at South Grafton? What is his Government's policy on full user pays for council water charges?

Mr CARR: There is wide support throughout New South Wales for this Government's water reforms, not the least from those valley communities that know this scarce resource must be protected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy leader of the National Party to order for the second time.

Mr CARR: You were in hock to the large irrigators when you were in government. You refused to introduce the sorts of reforms that have been welcomed by other jurisdictions now that they see New South Wales taking—

Mr D. L. Page: Point of order: The question related specifically to council water charges, not to irrigator water charges or general water reform. I would ask you to direct the Premier to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is aware of the question he was asked.

Mr CARR: I understand that most councils in the State with significant water businesses have moved towards adjusting their pricing systems to reflect the requirements that came out of the determination in line with the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] principles. I understand that those councils have appropriate pricing strategies that are being moved into place. I am also advised that a small number of councils still have not developed appropriate pricing policies. All that the Department of Local Government did was issue a reminder/circular to those councils that had not complied, asking for a progress report by 30 August on implementation of what has been Government policy since 1994.

Again the House is reminded of the National Party's legendary research capacities. This question is apparently based on an Australian Financial Review article that appeared on 9 August. The honourable member for Tweed is holding up a copy of the article published on 9 August. The research range of the National Party is phenomenal, is it not, going through back copies? We have to give the National Party credit for that. They are up to 9 August and one cannot deprecate research effort when one sees it in a great political organisation! Tomorrow, right on cue, Government members will face questions based on what appeared in the Australian Financial Review on 10 August—that is the kind of mob they are!

I note that the Queensland Treasurer, David Hamill, told an estimates committee that the Commonwealth had threatened to withhold millions of dollars from Queensland because of local councils' attitudes to water reform and that included a threat from the National Competition Council to dock Townsville City Council 5 per cent of its $86 million financial assistance grant if it does not agree to review its water charging system. In respect of all these matters, I think that the stand that has been taken by this Government on water reform since March 1995 could only be commended. I imagine that is the approach taken by the Opposition.

Mr FRASER: My question is directed to the Premier. What explanation can he offer Mrs Jenni Flynn of Coramba—who is in the public gallery today—who was scheduled in April to undergo a major operation at Coffs Harbour and District Hospital on 28 July but who received a phone call the night before rescheduling the operation to later this month, thus causing her considerable inconvenience, anxiety and loss of pay?

Mr CARR: This Government is very proud of the increased expenditure allocated to Coffs Harbour and District Hospital and the Mid North Coast Area Health Service, which is the single largest beneficiary of the New South Wales Government's $2 billion cash injection into the health system. For more than 20 years, the needs of this growth area were not properly attended by governments. That has been corrected by the package brought down by this Government and by this Minister for Health.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Southern Highlands to order.

Mr CARR: Much of this funding will go to Coffs Harbour, and a decent approach by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour would be to commend and praise this Government in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order.

Mr CARR: The hospital is being rebuilt by this Government at a total cost of no less than $80 million. Already this year an extra $200,000 has been allocated to the Coffs Harbour and District Hospital to assist with its increasing workload during winter.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Baulkham Hills to order.

Mr CARR: The hospital budget will see substantial increases in real spendable money this year and in the following three years. While hospital budgets are still being finalised, it is clear that the Coffs Harbour and District Hospital received a cash increase of more than $2 million this year alone. No-one suggests that the accumulated problems of the past 20 years can be fixed overnight, but there is a plan in place. There is increased funding flowing from this Government's initiative. The plan will see equity of funding delivered to the area which the Government recognises as a growth area about which the previous Coalition Government did nothing.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for North Shore to order for the third time.

Mr CARR: The honourable member for North Shore should tell this House why she is not asking this question. It is a vote of no confidence in her by her party. She is the shadow minister and she is not allowed off the leash.

Mrs Skinner: Point of order—

Mr CARR: One thing this Government is very proud of is the way in which these initiatives come to the attention of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Premier to resume his seat when I give the call to a member who seeks to take a point of order. If he does so there will not be a repetition of what has just occurred.

Mrs Skinner: Mr Speaker, I take great exception at and offence to the leader of this State referring to me as though I am a dog, and a female dog at that.

Mr SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

Mrs Skinner: It is unparliamentary language and offensive.

Mr SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

Mrs Skinner: I ask you to call on the Premier to apologise and withdraw that offensive remark.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on three calls to order. The honourable member for North Shore has asked the Premier to apologise for remarks she found offensive. The Chair has no power to order the Premier to do so. There is no point of order.

Mr E. T. PAGE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. How is the Government working with community groups and business to reduce the incidence of tobacco smoking?

Mr Hartcher: Point of order: The point of order I raise relates to Standing Order 82 concerning the use of offensive language in the House. The offensive language of which I am complaining as a member of this House was the offensive language used by the Premier about the honourable member for North Shore.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Kogarah will remain silent. If the honourable member for Gosford wishes to raise the matter to which he has referred in his point of order he should do so at the conclusion of question time.

Mr KNOWLES: I thank the honourable member for Coogee for his question but before I come to that, I can advise the House why the honourable member for Coffs Harbour asked the question about his electorate instead of the shadow Minister for Health.

Mr Brogden: Because he is the local member.

Mr KNOWLES: No, no. It is because when the honourable member for North Shore rolls out press releases about Coffs Harbour—slamming the Government for increasing waiting lists and waiting times and putting out details she gets under freedom of information applications from the Department of Health, including details about waiting lists and waiting times, telling those in the community at Coffs Harbour who will listen to her—look at the headline she gets, "Hospital waiting lists on the improve". That is wonderful and it is the sort of response that one would expect from a Government press release, but this time it is by courtesy of the Opposition.

Mr O'Doherty: Point of order. My point of order is very clear: It is to do with relevance. The Minister was not asked about Coffs Harbour. He was asked a different question and he is attempting to steal the Premier's answer. There can be nothing clearer than that the Minister has wasted the time of the House for 60 seconds talking about the previous question when standing orders require him to respond relevantly to the question that he was asked.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a tradition of this House that, when answering questions, Ministers may comment on matters within their portfolios. That is what the Minister is doing.

Mr KNOWLES: I am just using the forms of the House to place on record my thanks to the honourable member for North Shore. I am sure the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has already thanked her in the most explicit terms for getting a headline like that—evoking some of the nonsense that passes for his press releases in the mid North Coast area!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order for the second time.

Mr KNOWLES: That is an area, as the Premier indicated earlier, that will receive the biggest amount of funding during the next three years in addition to a one-stage $80 million hospital, which the Coalition could never deliver and would not promise in the last election. Of course, we are undertaking and recognising the growth of the region. We will do that with the co-operation of the health commission, as the Premier said, not seeking to solve every problem in 20 minutes—problems created during 20 years. Instead we have been working systematically and systemically to improve the profile of health services in that area, which is something the Coalition never thought of doing! Of course, with headlines like this and mates like that, I am sure the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is delighted!

I return to the subject at hand. Also during the past 12 months we have seen a dramatic shift in the attack on smoking and tobacco-related illnesses, an attack for which this Government has been recognised by the Thoracic Society, sudden infant death syndrome associations, the Cancer Council, the Australian Hotels Association and Club New South Wales, to name a few. I make this observation: the endorsement I am most gratified by is the recognition this Government has received from the Australian Medical Association [AMA] and the Australian Council on Smoking and Health. In just one year we have moved, on the AMA's national tobacco scorecard, from next to last, that is, behind every State bar one, to now be second, one point behind Western Australia. We have moved from next to last to one point behind the leader for best performance in our attack on tobacco and tobacco-related illnesses.

We now lead the way in the management of passive smoking. Of course, with the recent legislation that received bipartisan support in this Chamber, which will soon go through the upper House, we will see some of the toughest restrictions on passive smoking anywhere in the world. Each year in New South Wales 6,500 people die through tobacco or tobacco-related illnesses, which account for about 54,000 presentations to hospitals each year. Dying from tobacco-related illnesses is the single largest preventable cause of death in our country. Tobacco causes more illness and death than all other drugs. It is also an expensive cost to our community.

The annual direct and indirect economic cost of tobacco-related illnesses and deaths is in excess of $4.3 billion in New South Wales alone. That is why we have introduced proof-of-age cards, tough advertising restrictions, point-of-sale restrictions and tough penalties for the sale of tobacco to minors, and provided extra funding for the Quit line. Now, New South Wales Health, through the Quit campaign, which I am sure honourable members have seen during recent weeks, has become the principal sponsor of the smoke-free finals series of the National Rugby League [NRL], which is a terrific investment in preventive health as it will present that message to several million viewers.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much conversation between members. I remind members that they should leave the Chamber if they wish to conduct private conversations.

Mr KNOWLES: This is a major investment in public health and preventive illness programs, with $600,000 being linked to the smoke-free NRL finals series—and the Coalition is not interested!

Mr Hazzard: Point of order: In the past five minutes most of the chat has been from the Government side.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat.

Mr KNOWLES: I believe members on my side of the House are discussing this extraordinary headline wondering how they can employ the honourable member for North Shore to write their press releases! With headlines like that in the local paper we could not do without her! That $600,000 preventive measure will impact on the $4.3 billion cost to our community for the 54,000 hospital presentations and 6,500 deaths each year through tobacco and tobacco-related illnesses. I can announce today that the next measure in the Government's campaign against tobacco deaths will be an enforcement blitz unprecedented in this State. During the next eight weeks the newly formed tobacco compliance unit will oversee a program to make sure tobacco retailers are educated about their obligations and that they comply with the law.

Particular focus will be on sales to minors and compliance with advertising restrictions at the point of sale. During the next two months the unit will inspect and monitor more than 3,500 tobacco retailers. Whilst the objective is to educate, retailers must be aware that the penalties for non-compliance can be severe. For example, breach of advertising restrictions will result in penalties ranging from $500,000 for an individual's first offence to $11,000 for a second offence and $5,500 per day for continued breaches. For corporate bodies a fine of $22,000 will apply for the first offence, $44,000 for the second offence and $32,000 per day for continuation of the breach.

For sales to minors, retailers risk a fine of up to $5,500 for each sale. Retailers are liable also for a fine of up to $2,200 if they fail to display the necessary signage relating to sales to minors. The tobacco compliance unit will be supported by a legal team to pursue enforcement of these laws. To make sure retailers are aware of the likelihood of their premises being inspected, and so there can be no accusations that we are trying to unfairly trap people, the compliance unit will write to all peak retail and trade organisations, major chains and tobacco companies in advance of the inspection program. I will especially ask tobacco companies, when delivering their products, to notify their retail outlets of the education and compliance program.

I am sure we all agree that if tobacco companies are fair dinkum about not wanting to sell to minors they will have no problems with my request to advise their retail outlets of the compliance procedures and new restrictions. As winter grinds on, more and more people present to hospitals and a disproportionately high number of them suffer with chronic illnesses relating to respiratory and heart conditions. Many of those people are in hospital because they are either smokers or they have been exposed directly or indirectly to nicotine and other tobacco products. Of course, our responsibility always is to assist those people in their time of need, but equally we have a responsibility to do what we can to prevent others in our community causing themselves harm and at least 6,500 cases each year of people suffering a horrible, preventable and untimely death.

Ms MEGARRITY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Fair Trading. What is the Government's response to the growth of so-called interest-free and balloon payment credit offers?

Mr WATKINS: The latest figures reveal that credit levels in Australia have blown out to a staggering $15 billion, that is, an increase of 60 per cent during the past two years. With figures like this we need to look closely at the inducement being offered by retailers to encourage consumers to buy on credit. Two common types of credit arrangement are the interest-free period and balloon payments. This sort of credit can be a great bonus for families wanting a new television, washing machine or motor vehicle, but if it goes wrong the consequences can be dire. Under an interest-free arrangement the contract states that provided full payment is made by a certain date, which can be up to two years, no interest will be charged. On the face of it this seems like an exceedingly generous offer, but for unwary consumers there can be an expensive sting in the tail. If a consumer fails to pay off the debt in the allotted time, say, 12 months, he or she is then hit by the total interest due from day one. That means interest, sometimes hundreds if not thousands of dollars, can be added to the cost of the credit arrangement.

An example of this may assist honourable members. With a 27 per cent interest rate, which is not uncommon for finance company loans, interest on a $2,000 refrigerator bought on a 12-month interest-free deal could be $540 if the consumer does not pay on time. That represents more than one-quarter of the initial cost of the fridge. The great deal a consumer thought he or she was getting can quickly turn into a consumer's nightmare. The balloon payment system is another method traders often use. Goods are advertised as what appear to be very reasonable weekly or monthly repayments—repayments many consumers believe they can afford. However, many consumers signing up for these deals fail to fully appreciate why the repayments are relatively small. The repayments during the term of the loans are small because the final payment under these arrangements is substantial indeed—the balloon at the end.

This sort of deal is most common in the motor vehicle trade. For example, an advertiser heavily promotes a low weekly or monthly payment of, say, $70 a week, but only reveals the last balloon payment in small obscure type. Too often consumers are faced with an enormous final repayment of several thousand dollars, which causes them real problems. While there is nothing inherently illegal about interest-free periods or balloon payments, it is essential that consumers enter these credit arrangements with their eyes open. They need to know all the conditions and implications should they not be able to pay on time. That is why my Department of Fair Trading has produced "Best Practice Principles" as a guide for businesses on both those issues. These new guides are being distributed throughout New South Wales to traders and finance companies during the next few weeks. I also want to make sure that consumers know their rights, how to exercise them and where to go for help if they need it. If someone needs advice about a credit offer or is in trouble with credit they should call Fair Trading who can help with advice and educational material.

Mr WINDSOR: My question without notice is to the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Will the Minister assure country New South Wales that he will support the current caged hen system for egg production in New South Wales at the forthcoming Agricultural Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand [ARMCANZ] meeting of State and Federal Ministers?

Mr AMERY: I thank the honourable member for Tamworth for his question It is good that the crossbenchers are asking questions on relevant matters the subject of current debate particularly at ARMCANZ. In relation to caged egg production, I can probably answer the question of the honourable member for Tamworth in the affirmative. The ARMCANZ meeting will be held later this week. It will discuss a number of matters, one of which is the subject of an urgency motion this afternoon. The second is whether Australia will agree to a phase-out of the caged egg production system in accordance with or similar to a system already announced in Europe. In Europe it is claimed that the European Union will phase out caged egg production by about 2012. An agenda item of the ARMCANZ meeting is being put up by the Minister for Agriculture in Tasmania proposing that caged egg production be phased out along a similar timetable as that being proposed by the European Union.

That has been deferred on two occasions by Ministers from various States, including myself, for the reason that we are yet to see a firm indication that the European Union will be phasing out the caged egg system and that nobody in Australia appears to be able to show either by way of example or a video presentation the proposal of the European Union. Therefore, I suppose the quick answer to the question of the honourable member for Tamworth is that on behalf of the New South Wales community and Government we will not agree to phase out the caged egg system at this week's ARMCANZ meeting. It should be pointed out that the New South Wales Government does have a very pro-animal welfare position on systems of egg production in this State.

The Government's position has consistently been that egg production and consumer choice should be left up to consumers. The Government has supported on many occasions the proposition that when consumers go to a store, egg farm or wherever to buy eggs, in whatever size package, written on the side of the package is the type of system from which those eggs came. For example, as in many other countries, consumers can go into a store to buy eggs clearly marked "free range eggs", eggs endorsed by the RSPCA as barn-laid eggs, or eggs identified as from caged egg production. Therefore, a consumer has the choice to boycott caged egg production. The choice is left to the consumer.

Two years ago the industry agreed to the system but because of some competition policy arrangement we were not able to label the caged egg system along those lines. However, at the last ARMCANZ meeting held earlier this year there was agreement by all governments that that system would be put into place. Quite frankly, the Government wants consumers to make the choice. If there is overwhelming support for free-range eggs or barn-laid eggs, consumers will buy those eggs. The New South Wales Government and all other governments in Australia believe that producers should mark eggs that come from the caged system. I can assure the egg industry in Australia and in New South Wales that we will not be phasing out the current system of arrangements at the ARMCANZ meeting to be held this Friday.

Mr NEWELL: My question is to the Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism. What is the latest information on the Government's import replacement strategy?

Ms NORI: I take this moment to convey to the House my congratulations to the community of Albury on the way it welcomed the Olympic flame into New South Wales, for the first time in history. Today I am pleased to report the Government's success in making New South Wales businesses aware that they can improve their bottom line by sourcing quality goods locally at a competitive price. I am talking about the important role that import replacement plays in job creation. I have spoken on this matter a number of times in this House, but it is worth repeating some of the basic facts. I remind honourable members that for every $1 million of manufacturing business created or retained in this country, 22 full-time jobs are created or retained; $1.2 million is added to the economy; $210,000 is saved in welfare benefits, and significant tax revenue is generated.

As honourable members know, the Government contracts the Industrial Supplies Office Ltd [ISO] to deliver import replacement services. I am pleased to report that ISO once again achieved excellent results for our $3 million, three-year investment. In the year ending June 2000, the import replacement value to New South Wales firms from the activities of the New South Wales ISO was $138 million—and that translates to a total of 3,036 direct and indirect jobs for this State. Last year it was $126 million, an increase of $12 million in 12 months. We have also moved from a target of $50 million as recently as 1997-98 to this excellent figure of $138 million in 1999-2000. But the story gets even better in regional New South Wales. Of that $138 million total, nearly $54 million benefited regional New South Wales firms. That translates into almost 1,200 direct and indirect jobs generated in our regional areas. That was made possible by the establishment of ISO's regional office network in the last couple of years.

As country members would know, there are regional offices in Newcastle, Wollongong, Orange and Albury and consultants have been appointed to Grafton, Armidale, Goulburn, Dubbo and Wagga Wagga. Those regional consultants are working hard to identify competitive regional companies with a view to enhancing their access to major projects. Nearly 1,300 company visits have been undertaken in the regions, and the results are already clear. We are also working with the private sector to implement a visionary post-2000 jobs plan, with more than 70 major job creation projects worth a total of $24.6 billion planned and featured in our Beyond 2000 publication. Almost 130,000 jobs will be created across the State, one-third of them in regional New South Wales. So not only are we putting in place these major projects, we are applying lateral thinking to make sure that the projects deliver the best possible economic benefits for this State. That means using locally sourced products where possible.

As part of this process the Government is working with the ISO for the development of local industry throughout the State. This involves not only import replacement but also identifying local industry capability, particularly among small to medium-size businesses. This capability service is provided to companies at absolutely no cost. Over the last two months the Department of State and Regional Development has organised two major initiatives. The first of these was to give a group of CEOs of the companies involved in the major projects I have just referred to, as well as the CEOs of other major companies involved in the provision of infrastructure and construction in this State, an opportunity to meet with the ISO to understand the role that it plays. We were able to use the opportunity to enthuse those company CEOs to make the phone call and ring the ISO to see whether they could begin to source products from locally manufactured producers.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much conversation between members.

Mr Brogden: It is all on your side.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I include the honourable member for Pittwater in that warning.

Ms NORI: The other function that was held recently was an IT showcase in which some 20 small and medium-size IT companies keen to do business with the large end of town, if you like, and indeed with government agencies, the opportunity to present their wares. I am pleased to say that this event also received an enthusiastic response. It gave the big end of town a chance to realise that it can buy from smaller, cutting-edge companies. Large companies do not always need to buy from large corporates and they do not always have to import. It gives the smaller companies a chance to find a lead customer in a large corporate. Smaller companies need a lead customer. They need to get the credibility and cash flow that supplying to a large corporate can give to them. I acknowledge the excellent work of the Department of State and Regional Development in organising these two events. The ISO now has 36,000 companies and their capabilities registered, and this number continues to grow. This means that the ISO is an authority, probably the authority, on local industry capability. I congratulate the ISO because it is through the efforts of an organisation such as the ISO that this State can maintain its pre-eminent place in the Australian economy.

Questions without notice concluded.

Mr Hartcher: Point of order: I refer to standing orders 80, 81 and 82. I will not read them out because you are well versed in them. They relate to the conduct of members and the respect they must show one another. Repeatedly at question time, and instanced again today, which is the reason for my raising the point of order, the Premier in his conduct towards the honourable member for North Shore especially, but to other female members of this House—

Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Mr Hartcher: The point of order is that the Premier's conduct is offensive under the standing orders and should be withdrawn. I am about to explain why because it is a very relevant point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will enunciate his point of order.

Mr Hartcher: The point of order is that the Premier is in breach of standing orders 80, 81 and 82.

Mr SPEAKER: In what respect?

Mr Hartcher: That is what I am trying to explain. The honourable member for North Shore has made remarks. The Premier has engaged in offensive gestures towards her trying to indicate that she is a dog and the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The member for Gosford will resume his seat.

Mr Hartcher: The member for North Shore—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

Mr Hartcher: Has the Premier acted in this way or has he not?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

Mr Hartcher: Mr Speaker, this is an important issue in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

Mr Hartcher: I will resume my seat but I make the point that the Premier's conduct expresses—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He is well aware that the Chair has always extended a degree of latitude to Ministers in relation to responding to interjections when they are answering questions. As the honourable member for Gosford has said, the Premier was responding to an interjection from the honourable member for North Shore. I suggest there will be no difficulty if the honourable member for North Shore ceases interjecting.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Wakehurst that he is on four calls to order.

Mrs SKINNER: I seek leave to move a motion to suspend standing and sessional orders to permit the following motion to be debated forthwith:

That this House requires the Premier to formally apologise to the House for his continued demeaning attacks on the member for North Shore and the women of New South Wales.

Leave not granted.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: I seek leave to move a motion to suspend standing and sessional orders to permit the passage through all stages of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentence Confirmation) Bill.

Leave not granted.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt—Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [3.36 p.m.]: I ask the House to give priority to the motion that I gave notice of before question time today. The recent death of 1,250 cattle at a feedlot need Griffith earlier this year, which has been the subject of a number of reviews, will be discussed at the Agricultural Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand meeting to be held later this week. In light of the implications of what occurred near Griffith I ask that the House give priority to my motion rather than the motion given notice of by the Opposition earlier today.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [3.37 p.m.]: Whilst the Opposition acknowledges that the death of 1,250 cattle is an important issue, we put to the House that it cannot be anywhere near as urgent an issue as the fact that there are 77,000-odd notifications for child abuse and neglect in this State currently, that there are 7,757 children currently in foster care or substitute care in New South Wales, and that there have been three reports in less than six weeks that have condemned this Government in regard to the lack of planning, lack of resourcing, lack of policy, lack of care and lack of interest in those children. This issue is urgent because this House needs to give some directions to the Government, which is totally directionless in relation to foster care and substitute care for children. There have been three reports.

Mr O'Doherty: One was only last week.

Mr HAZZARD: Yes, that report was entitled "Australian Children and Young People in Care: A Report Card Mid Year 2000" and was by the Create Foundation. There were two previous reports by the Community Services Commission. This is the Government's own commission criticising the Government. The commissioner has been scathing about the Minister's lack of activity and the Government's lack of policy. The first report was titled "Forwards, Backwards and Standing Still". Does that not tell us a lot? This Government is going absolutely nowhere in regard to child policy and making a safe environment for children in substitute care.

The second report by the Community Services Commission was called "Voices of Children and Young People in Foster Care". In it children had their say. When one reads what those children said about what they feel about being in substitute care or foster care under this Government's policies, one realises that many of those 7,757 children are lost souls because of the failure of this Government to have any worthwhile policies. This motion is urgent because the House should address the scathing criticisms in the reports. One of those scathing criticisms, contained in the first report to which I referred, relates to a statement by the community services commissioner, who said in regard to Aboriginal children and young people in care:

Most concerningly, a real commitment to tackling these entrenched problems and improving outcomes for children, young people and their families and communities has not been evident. This is despite numerous inquiries and reports, public apologies and promises, continuing evidence of pressing need and the current focus on community consultation with indigenous people.

The Community Services Commissioner is saying that this Government simply does not have any real commitment—the words used by the commissioner—to these children or to improving the outcomes for them. It is urgent that this House have the opportunity to consider what is contained in the three reports and to review what has happened. The Minister for Community Services is absent from the Chamber today. I understand she is sick, and I am sorry about that. However, the debate must proceed today. The Minister for Police is prepared to stand in for the Minister for Community Services. I want to hear, as I am sure the House wants to hear, what the Government will do to turn around the circumstances for the 7,757 children in substitute care. This matter is urgent because even today children are suffering as a result of a lack of effective policies. The reports go on to state that children with disabilities in need of substitute care also are in dire need of appropriate policies and directions from this Government. I quote from one report:

As a group, they have received little attention from the growing focus on the needs and rights of vulnerable children.

The time has come for the House to debate this issue. The Minister for Community Services has avoided making a ministerial statement. She hoped that the reports would not be noticed by the House or by the public. Well, the reports have been noticed, and they are being debated in the public forum. It is time that this House, exercising its leadership role in this State, examined where the Government has failed. It is time this House tried to give the Government some direction, otherwise, it will have no direction. The Minister is incapable of giving policy directions in relation to children in substitute care. She has no idea. She is bereft of policy ideas. Now is the time for the debate to take place.

Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Mount Druitt be proceeded with—agreed to.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt—Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [3.42 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes with concern the recent deaths of 1,250 cattle within 12 hours at a feedlot at Tabbita, near Griffith;

(2) notes that two reviews have been conducted into the causes of those deaths;

(3) notes that the feedlot company, Prime City Feedlot, has not been found to be negligent in relation to cattle deaths; and

(4) calls on ARMCANZ, the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, to conduct an immediate review into the national feedlot guidelines with a view to preventing such a large amount of feedlot deaths from occurring again.

It is with urgency that I speak in relation to this call for a national review of the guidelines relating to feedlots. This is a very important issue, and one that I believe deserves the urgent attention of the House. The review I am seeking follows an incident that occurred in February this year at a cattle feedlot in the Riverina. This was the Prime City feedlot in Tabbita, near Griffith—a feedlot that annually produces around 35,000 head of cattle. On 25 and 26 February a tragic incident occurred. About 1,250 previously healthy cattle suddenly died, within the space of just 12 hours. This is a significant number of cattle to die suddenly. The issue concerned me greatly. At the time I heard the deaths were related to extreme heat stress. The environment at the time was of high humidity, high day and night temperatures, and no wind. The vast majority of the cattle were not in shaded areas. But, rather than just accept this as a reasonable explanation, I wanted to take the matter further—1,250 cattle dying on one weekend is not, after all, an insignificant event.

The feedlot industry in New South Wales is a major cattle enterprise that generally operates in a highly professional manner, with quality assurance programs underpinning accreditation. The nature of feedlotting requires intensive stocking of usually large numbers of cattle. It is an important industry and is a significant factor in the overall New South Wales beef industry, which is valued at about $850 million per year at the farm level. About one-quarter of the cattle sent to abattoirs in New South Wales are from feedlots, and half the feedlot cattle end up as table meat for Australian consumers, as opposed to processed foods. The rest are exported as meat to overseas markets, with the majority being shipped to Japan.

There are 88 accredited feedlots in New South Wales and together they generate thousands of jobs. It was, therefore, all the more important in my view to ensure that the industry adheres to the highest management standards possible. Soon after the deaths I set up an independent expert committee to review the circumstances of the incident and to provide me with recommendations. The committee comprised the following members: Professor Keith Entwistle, Professor of Animal Sciences and dean of his faculty at the University of New England, and also known as a longstanding cattle expert; Margaret Rose, Associate Professor at the University of New South Wales, who is also chairperson of the Animal Research Review Panel; and executive officer Bill McKiernan, who is New South Wales Agriculture's technical specialist on beef products.

The feedlot industry, to its credit, also set up its own review of the incident. This was initiated by the industry peak body, the Australian Lot Feeders Association. The aim was to recommend ways to reduce the chances of a repetition of an incident such as this. Both reviews have now been completed, although I have yet to see a finalised copy of the industry report. The key recommendations of both reports, I understand, have been to conduct a review of the national feedlot guidelines in relation to the design and extent of shade provided at feedlots. The expert committee report specifically looks at the provision of water—for example, the water trough space needed per animal, the number of troughs per yard, and the location of troughs in the yard. Stocking densities, and the management of long-fed cattle, should also be considered.

Importantly, there is no indication from the review conducted by the expert committee that the industry failed to comply with any of the existing feedlot guidelines. In fact, I have been told by my department that the industry is keen to move forward and implement any changes that might be deemed necessary. Other aspects of the feedlot industry which the committee recommended for review include feeding regimes. These include the levels of roughage in feed, and energy levels and times offeeding, particularly for long-fed cattle. Long-fed cattle are those that are fed on grain for longer than 150 days. Consequently they are much fatter and heavier and are generally slaughtered for the Japanese market. Also subject to review should be environmental management such as the use of water sprays and mists, wind generation and the interaction of cattle with shade.

The review further recommends that the industry also undertakes research into the relationship between meteorological data and microclimate conditions with a view to developing models for better predicting climatic threats to livestock performance. Those models would need to include the influence of the physical characteristics of the pen and the topography of the site. A further recommendation is to develop specific guidelines for cattle in relation to the amount of time they have been in the feedlot. Another is that each feedlot develop a risk assessment and management plan to help in predicting and minimising the impact of environmental concerns.

The industry review has, I understand, made similar recommendations. Those include the need for an industry-wide risk assessment process to evaluate climatic factors and to provide contingency planning for extreme events. It also recommends the promotion of temperature or humidity analysis to facilitate decision making at those feedlots. It recommends the review of feedlot management practices in relation to water spray, wind generation and other issues; the identification of further research needs in weather station technology; and the need to develop a definitive reporting process to industry and the authorities for significant mortality events.

In March this year I informed the Agricultural Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand [ARMCANZ] meeting in Melbourne of the deaths of the 1,250 feedlot cattle at Tabbita. I indicated to the Ministers present that I would prepare a paper on the issue for consideration at the August meeting of ARMCANZ, which is this Friday in Brisbane. I remind the House that I have managed to put that report on the agenda of this Friday's meeting of the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. The recommendations contained in the ARMCANZ agenda reflect the recommendations of both the industry review and the independent expert committee review. It is recommended that industry provides to the ARMCANZ meeting in March 2001 a detailed plan on how it will meet those recommendations. This is an important step forward in the management of feedlots in this State. I understand that industry is equally willing to embrace any necessary improvements to management practices.

I thank the House for allowing this matter priority today. The company concerned has been thoroughly investigated and was found to have committed no breach of any law or breach of the code of practice. However, it would generally be agreed that even if the code of practice has been adhered to, the deaths of 1,250 cattle within the space of 12 hours would surely indicate that the code of practice must be deficient. Despite the existence of a code of practice and quality assurance programs, this event occurred towards the end of the week and it is not known how many persons were employed in the feedlot or the extent of their knowledge of the code of practice and other management practices. Reviews conducted at both government and industry levels demonstrate the need for an improved code of practice and greater awareness of the guidelines by those in charge of feedlots, particularly a feedlot of this size with so many valuable animals. I commend the motion to the House and reiterate that the matter will be dealt with at the ARMCANZ meeting in Brisbane on Friday.

Mr SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [3.51 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the motion for urgent consideration that this House notes with concern the recent deaths of 1,250 cattle from the Prime City Feedlot at Tabbita near Griffith. No-one likes to see animals die of extreme heat, which is what happened in February, nor would Prime City Feedlot wish to lose $1.25 million, which was the result of the deaths of those cattle. The approximately 90 feedlots in New South Wales generate about $1,000 million per year through the production of prime quality beef for domestic and overseas consumers. The Minister referred to the very valuable Japanese market.

Feedlots not only generate considerable income for New South Wales; they also play other roles. The feedlot industry protects the store cattle industry and introduced a floor price for the cattle trade. The cattle industry is a boost to our domestic grain market because cattle are large consumers of grain. Some producers cannot value add because their grazing properties in certain seasons are either too dry or too wet. Feedlots create a buffer and are a source of valuable income for producers all over New South Wales, not merely for feedlots. Feedlots value add and produce premium quality meat that is sought after by most countries in the world. Australia has the reputation of being clean and green and that reputation must be preserved to enable consumers both overseas and in Australia to have confidence in beef purchased from feedlots.

What happened in Griffith in February was a tragedy because Prime City followed the requisite guidelines. The Agricultural Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand [ARMCANZ] meeting will now consider how those guidelines might be improved, which is a step in the right direction. As the Minister pointed out, after about 100 days grain-fed cattle carry considerable weight and generate significant heat. The detrimental effect on the cattle resulted not only from the hot and humid conditions which occurred in February but also from the heat generated by the grain they ate. This tragedy does not require a knee-jerk reaction but guidelines that are scientifically based in an endeavour to protect the welfare of cattle. A number of smaller feedlots would undoubtedly go broke if they experienced the loss of 1,000 head of cattle. Such a disaster would also have a detrimental effect on the local economy, grain producers, meat processors or our domestic and international markets.

We should be thankful that the situation was not worse, and future losses must be avoided. Expert investigators have come up with recommendations that must be embraced. The Prime City Feedlot comprises 35,000 head of cattle, which equates to $35 million, and the removal of $35 million from the Griffith economy would certainly have a detrimental effect. The Opposition supports the call for ARMCANZ to immediately review the national feedlot guidelines in an effort to prevent the recurrence of feedlot deaths. This valuable industry has a far-reaching effect on all rural communities and we must take all necessary steps to ensure that the industry remains viable.

Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [3.58 p.m.]: I support this motion for urgent consideration. The beef industry in New South Wales is approaching $1 billion and the feedlot industry is an important part of it, particularly as it is almost exclusively export driven. What has come out of the Tabbita incident is that we must be very aware of the way we operate this important export industry, particularly as countries such as Japan keep a vigilant eye on the production aspect and take a dim view of any problems that might arise. As the honourable member for Barwon said earlier, the evidence to date indicates that this was an unfortunate and isolated accident. However, the sheer size of this incident I think is reason enough to conduct a review. The Minister should be commended for moving quickly to take some action. Feedlots in New South Wales have a controversial history. Few of the feedlots that have been approved in local government areas have not had some sort of argument or controversy about them. In the main, industry has developed and it has acted responsibly.

There have been some major changes in the cattle industry. In the last fortnight Lithgow City Council approved a unique feedlot at the Westholme property at Tarana—a property located between Lithgow and Bathurst—where Braford cattle will be bred for the Japanese market. That feedlot will comprise 2,000 cattle—many more cattle than we are talking about today. All the animals will be housed in special covered pens and there will be a limit of 10 cattle per pen. Today we are talking about a specialised feedlot and about cattle that would have weighed about 750 kilograms each. Exporters of beef to Japan are getting $200 for a kilogram of beef. If that earning potential is available companies will have to adopt higher standards.

Obviously an operation such as the one at Tabbita could not meet the conditions that are being met by the Westholme company at Tarana. The Government should not interfere too much in matters of this nature, but it should take a more than passing interest in what is happening in the industry and, where necessary, refer such matters to the Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand and other bodies if there is a need for a review. As I said earlier, the Minister acted promptly in relation to this matter. I am sure that in discussions in Brisbane next week he will put forward a forceful case.

As a result of those discussions individual feedlots should do risk assessments as part of their accreditation requirements and they should make use of weather station data and temperature index calculation tools to help manage excessive heat loads. An endless number of things could be done. One thing may or may not have been a problem at Tarana. We must ensure that all those employed in these organisations are fully briefed and trained not only in quality assurance but also in methodology. Industry must also have in place a system which enables the timely reporting of such incidents to the Government. That will ensure that people know what is happening.

There is no evidence to suggest that industry does not want to comply with existing guidelines. I believe that industry is able to comply with more stringent guidelines, particularly in the reporting of such incidents. The implementation of a system of timely reporting would enable the bringing together of suitably qualified people in the district to help with diagnosing, sample collecting, management and so on. That would certainly assist the feedlot industry and promote its image in overseas markets. I commend this motion to the House and commend the Minister for bringing the matter so quickly to the attention of the House.

Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [4.03 p.m.]: I support the motion for urgent consideration moved by the Minister for Agriculture. I know from past experience that it would have been devastating not only to the owners of the feedlot but also to the workers in and around the feedlot to lose 1,250 cattle in a matter of 12 hours. I cannot imagine what those people or the cattle went through. Those cattle might have been worth around $1.2 million. I am concerned about the fact that not much shade was provided. The feedlot industry in Australia and in particular in New South Wales plays an important and vital part in our cattle industry. As the Minister said earlier, it has supplied both domestic markets and export markets in Japan. The Australian Lot Feeders Association, the Federal body that represents feedlots in New South Wales and Australia, also conducted a review of national feedlot guidelines. I am sure that members of the Australian Lot Feeders Association will try to resolve and iron out any problems in the industry.

We must keep abreast with feed rations in feedlots but as members of Parliament we are not in a position where we can tell people how to feed cattle. Unfortunately, as long as cattle are locked up in a controlled area and they are fed on grain there will be a heat problem. Naturally, the managers of these feedlots are conscious of the problems with which they are faced every day. Feedlots in New South Wales and Australia are responding to market requirements. They are responding to both consumers in the domestic market and to export countries that want Australian grain-fed products. In some instances cattle in these feedlots have been fed for up to 380 days. That has been a tradition in some countries over the past century; it is not something new. Naturally, we must keep abreast with planning, feeding and pen arrangements for cattle, and we must be aware of the times that cattle are in these feedlots.

We must not overlook the achievements of our feedlot industry in Australia. It has, in a professional manner, responded to requirements for growth potential and humane requirements and it has achieved excellent results in this country. Feedlots have certainly become an important part of the cattle industry in this country. I hope that industry will learn something as a result of this tragic loss. I hope that rules are not forced onto the industry that will make it more difficult to operate. Feedlot staff, who virtually live with these cattle 24 hours a day, have responded to both health and hygiene requirements. I congratulate industry on its attitude and on its response to these continual changes. It is sad and unfortunate that 1,250 cattle were lost at Tabbita near Griffith. However, that is an exception rather than the rule. I support the motion for urgent consideration and in particular paragraph 4, which reads:
(4) calls on ARMCANZ, the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, to conduct an immediate review into the national feedlot guidelines with a view to preventing such a large amount of feedlot deaths from occurring again.

[Debate interrupted.]

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [4.08 p.m.], by leave: It is with great regret that I inform the House that the Hon. Keith Enderbury, a former member of the Legislative Council, passed away at 3.20 this afternoon at Concord hospital. At the time of his death members of his family were at his bedside. His death followed injuries that he received in an incident that occurred in Ashfield last night. On behalf of all members of this Parliament I offer my condolences to Keith's family and his friends, including his many friends in the Australian Labor Party. Keith served the New South Parliament for 11 years, from March 1984 to March 1995. He was Opposition Whip from 1989 to 1995. He was also a member of the Standing Committee on Social Issues. Keith's longstanding involvement with the Labor Party goes back to the early 1970s. He is a former branch president, ALP organiser, State Electorate Council secretary and campaign director for many by-elections including, I might add with great sadness, many elections I had in Ashfield. I know that I speak for all honourable members when I say that our thoughts are with Keith's family.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [4.09 p.m.]: On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party and Opposition members, I join the Leader of the House in expressing deepest sympathy at the death of the Hon. Keith Enderbury. Life deals many cruel blows: who would have thought 48 hours ago that Keith Enderbury would be killed in an horrific incident? Our hearts go out to his family. We recognise the contribution that Keith Enderbury made in this Parliament. As I often say on such occasions, everyone who comes to this place contributes to the process of democracy. They come to Parliament with the best intentions of representing the people who put them here, and they do that in their own way. Keith Enderbury fulfilled that role with honesty and integrity at all times. He was respected not only by honourable members on both sides of the House but by the parliamentary staff and vast parliamentary infrastructure. He was also respected by the press. I think the greatest accolade one can earn in this world is the respect of one's peers during one's lifetime. Keith Enderbury earned that respect. It is very sad that, on the eve of the Olympic Games, we should lose someone who contributed significantly and dramatically to the good governance of this State.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places.

[Debate resumed.]

Mr BLACK (Murray-Darling) [4.12 p.m.]: I speak at a difficult time as many honourable members feel deeply for the person who has left us in tragic circumstances. I support my coalition colleague the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation in this matter, and I welcome the support of Opposition members. I note the presence in the Chamber of the honourable member for Pittwater. The future leader of the Liberal Party informs me that there is one feedlot, McDonald's, in his electorate. There are many feedlots in western New South Wales. Tabbita, the one we are discussing, is situated just outside the electorate of Murray-Darling on the road from Goolgowi to Griffith. There is a significant feedlot at Ravensworth in my electorate.

I note the comments of the honourable member for Bathurst about getting approval for feedlots across the State, council objections and so on. I assure the honourable member that that was not the case in the Hay shire. Although it is not working today as it should, Ravensworth was established in response to the efforts of former mayor Mick Beckwith and the current mayor, Mick Rutledge, who is endeavouring to ensure that the operation recovers. I also speak today with some sorrow. A 5,000-head milking herd is to be established at Balranald in response to the complete abrogation by the Federal National Party, which has deserted so many dairy farmers in New South Wales. At least it will create significant employment in Balranald.

I must cite some interesting statistics about the importance of feedlots. In the 1998 calendar year Australia exported 108,581 tonnes of grain-fed beef to Japan, which was an increase of 4 per cent over 1997. Last year that figure rose to 116,381 tonnes of grain-fed beef, which was an increase of 8 per cent over 1998. I noted the remarks of the honourable member for Bathurst, who spoke about the need for feedlots, and my mind returned to the argument that has continued over the years about who controls the price of beef. Beef is a major industry in western New South Wales. It is very important to the people of Murray-Darling and to members of the New South Wales Farmers Association and West Darling graziers, who support the objectives of Country Labor in so many ways.

The honourable member for Barwon said that we have a great reputation overseas for being clean and green. He was right about that, but he was wrong about the floor price. Unfortunately, the United States of America, which is a major player in world trade, offers its farmers approximately $28 billion in subsidies. Australia has a major problem because we cannot compete with the subsidies offered by other countries, but feedlots offer us the opportunity to have at least some say. We would not be discussing feedlots today if it were not for the fact that the Federal National Party is divorced from reality. John Anderson and Warren Truss have failed to address the world trade imbalance. We would have much more grass-fed beef in western New South Wales if the Federal National Party had not failed to address the inherent distortion of world markets caused by the American farm bill. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt—Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [4.17 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Barwon, who led for the Opposition, the honourable member for Bathurst, the honourable member for Lismore and the honourable member for Murray-Darling for their contributions to this debate and for supporting the motion. They all referred to the value of the feedlot industry not only to the economy of New South Wales and Australia but to the beef industry, and therefore the farming sector. The Government will continue to support the feedlot system. However, incidents such as the one to which honourable members have referred in this debate involving the loss of 1,250 cattle in a feedlot near Griffith dents the reputation and standing of both feedlots and intensive farming systems.

As parliamentarians, we are continually lobbied by various groups—particularly animal welfare organisations—that would like to see an end to intensive farming, be it in the pig industry, the egg industry, the rabbit meat industry or cattle feedlots. There is constant pressure on those organisations to win the public debate and on producers to make intensive farming as humane as possible while meeting required production levels and addressing real animal welfare concerns. It is an international debate and the pressure is on those industries—and on cattle feedlots—to continue to improve and address real animal welfare concerns. Incidents such as this dent their case somewhat.

In a debate such as this there is often a clash between our strong belief in animal welfare considerations and our general role of producing clean, green food, which several honourable members mentioned, for an ever-increasing population. We would all like to see animals grazing in green pastures and producing food as they did in years gone by. However, we must accept the fact that, as recently as 1960, there were only three billion people on the planet yet some 40 years later the world population is six billion. Therefore, there is pressure on all nations around the world to produce far more successfully than they did in years gone by. Hence, we will always have these clashes and these debates about intensive farming systems and their role in the broader animal welfare debate.

It is very important for the image of the feedlot industry that the code of practice that has been in operation for some time—and which did not prevent the loss of 1,250 cattle in one feedlot—should be reviewed. I welcome the recommendations of not only my appointed review committee but also the industry committee, that changes must be made. Draft recommendations will be made at the meeting this week of the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand [ARMCANZ] which will result in improved provisions of the code of practice, and it is hoped that those improvements will result in the elimination of circumstances leading to the death of such a large number of cattle in a short period of time.

The honourable member for Murray-Darling pointed out the importance of the intensive farming systems to rural New South Wales. He referred to both the present and past mayors of Hay and their role in attracting industry and jobs to their part of the State. He referred to the application for a 5,000-head dairy farm, which would operate under an intensive system. I do not know whether that application has been approved. The proposal is that the cattle would be grain fed, and that the farm would be a substantial milk producer not only for New South Wales but possibly other States as well. More requests for intensive farming systems are being made right across the board. It is imperative that the proponents of these systems ensure that animal welfare is addressed, or they will risk losing the debate and putting pressure on the existence of those systems in the years and decades ahead. I thank all honourable members on both sides of the House for their support of this motion. I will certainly report later this week or next week on the outcome of the ARMCANZ meeting on this subject.

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 10 August.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [4.24 p.m.]: As I said last week, it is not with any delight that I bring this motion before the House, but it is incumbent on me to draw your attention to a number of factors. Standing Order 104 states:

A Member may at any time raise a point of order relating to a breach of the standing orders or the practice of the House which shall, until disposed of, suspend the consideration and decision of every other question.

Standing Order 105 states:

When a Member rises on a point of order:

(1) The Member who was speaking shall be seated.
(2) The question only of order shall be stated to the Speaker.
(3) The Speaker shall give a decision or hear further argument.

I ask that you acknowledge that the reason I rose on a point of order was twofold. The first was a breach of Standing Order 104, that is, that a member may have a point of order taken and you must rule on it. The point of order prior to the point of order taken by the honourable member for Hornsby was not ruled on by you. Therefore, this House was in breach of Standing Order 104, because the business of the House had not been suspended. After that, when the honourable member for Hornsby rose to take a point of order, you then presumed what he was going to say. I suggest to you that under Standing Order 105 (2) you cannot presume that a point of order being taken by a member is going to cover a certain subject. By doing that you are denying the member's right under Standing Order 105 (2).

I also draw your attention to debate in this Chamber today, when the Premier refused to acknowledge the standing orders. He refused to acknowledge that Standing Order 105 (1) states, "The Member who was speaking shall be seated," and you ignored that for some considerable time. We see this going on the whole time. Often you berate members of the Opposition for their attitude within the Chamber. I suggest if your rulings in this regard were more even-handed the cacophony that comes from this side of the House at times would not arise, because they would know they were being dealt with fairly in the House. As I said last week, there are often times when members of the Government make a racket. Today is an example. Year 11 students from a school in my electorate were present today, and they thought that if they acted at school the way Government members were acting they would be disciplined. With the televising of proceedings in this Chamber there is video evidence at all times to show your bias within the Chamber.

Mr O'Farrell: If you can get it.

Mr FRASER: As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, "If you can get it." The bias shown by you on simple rulings on a daily basis in this House is unacceptable. As I said before, I have not spoken in a censure or dissent debate in this House before. I recognise that sometimes the Government has an absolute majority but I believe equity and fairness come into the equation. When I, as the National Party Whip and as a member of the Opposition, see the bias that is displayed by you on a regular basis, it is unacceptable to me. It is unacceptable to members of the Opposition and I believe it is unacceptable to the democratic processes within the Parliament of this State. I draw your attention to a document entitled "Parliament in New South Wales HOW DOES IT WORK?" This document is issued under your hand, and that of the former President of the upper House, Max Willis. It states:

The Speaker and President also represent their Houses outside the Chamber. Their jobs are very important and they need to be very tactful and impartial. That means that they must not favour a Member of one Party over another …

That document, which is issued under your hand to educate schoolchildren in years 5 and 6 about this Parliament, refers to impartiality—no partial conduct. I suggest that if you compare the number of calls to order of members of the Opposition with that of members of the Government over the past five years, you will see that the numbers are heavily weighted against Opposition members. I suggest that the videotapes of this Chamber would clearly show that your conduct in the Chamber is partial. Although the booklet states that it is not expected that Speakers not attend party meetings, while Speaker Rozzoli was in the chair he never attended party meetings.

It is becoming obvious to us that you are under instruction from the Leader of the House or the Premier. I do not like saying that, but sometimes when a member of the Opposition is called to order or is directed to leave the Chamber under the oversight of the Serjeant-at-Arms, it is normally after a nod, a wink or a nudge, or following a comment from the Leader of the House or the Premier. That is partiality. That is not what Parliament is all about. That is not what democracy in New South Wales is all about. It is not equity, it is not fairness and it is not something that I can be proud of as a member of this Chamber. I have spoken also to a number of members on the other side of the House who said that they thought my objection last Wednesday was, in their terms, bizarre. I was trying to take a point of order—the one and only right that every member has in this Chamber. Mr Speaker, a point of order should be ruled upon by you impartially and fairly, and I do not believe you are doing that. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [4.31 p.m.]: Whenever there is a policy vacuum in the Opposition, one can guarantee that it will try to fill that void by an attack on the procedures or the highly regarded institution of the office of Speaker of this House. The Opposition will stoop as low as it possibly can to try to waste the time of the Parliament, and this is a classic example by a member of Parliament who has had more convictions in this Chamber than Ned Kelly had in the courts. I know of no member in the history of this Parliament who has been more disruptive, rude, belligerent and arrogant. The member for Coffs Harbour is more arrogant and rude than the late Leon Punch, a member of the National Party, ever was.

Mr O'Farrell: That is a badge of honour.

Mr Fraser: That is a compliment.

Mr WHELAN: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition might regard it as a badge of honour, or, as the member for Coffs Harbour said, a compliment. The behaviour of the member for Coffs Harbour in this House is nothing short of scandalous. It is his arrogance that enables him to move a motion that seeks to reduce the reputation of the Speaker. This is indeed a needless and scurrilous motion. But let us look at what occurred. One has only to read Hansard, as I have done, to know what occurred on that day. In less than two minutes, five members of the Opposition deliberately attempted to disrupt question time, knowing full well that they had no point of order. They all stood to take a point of order because they were so embarrassed at the flogging they were getting during question time.

It started with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is present in the Chamber, taking a point of order on the basis of relevance. That point of order was ruled out of order by you, Mr Speaker, for the frivolous point that it was. I want to remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that if he had taken that point of order under Speaker Rozzoli he would have been placed on three calls to order; and had he looked sideways he would have been sent out to count the flowers in the park at the rear of Parliament House. One minute later the honourable member for Hornsby rose on the same point of order that had already been ruled on. Then 10 seconds later, not wanting to be left out, the member for Coffs Harbour attempted to disrupt question time by rising to take a point of order.

Mr Fraser: What was the point of order about then?

Mr WHELAN: The Speaker asked the member for Coffs Harbour to resume his seat, but he defied the ruling.

Mr Fraser: Without taking the point of order, which is outside the standing orders.

Mr WHELAN: The member was asked by the Speaker to resume his seat, but he defied the Speaker's ruling. He defied the ruling on several occasions. He stood up twice, and, on the third occasion, notwithstanding the Speaker's ruling, he walked to the lectern and again tried to raise a point of order and was again asked by the Speaker to resume his seat. Members should know that there are standard and formalised procedures in this House. Members may not speak to a point of order that has already been ruled on. Learned Speaker Kelly ruled in 1976 that members may not speak on a point of order that has already been ruled on. In 1975-76 Speaker Cameron, at page 2771 of Hansard, ruled that it is extremely disorderly to continue to canvass a matter on which the Speaker has ruled.

Notwithstanding that, the member for Coffs Harbour, showing the arrogance that has become his trademark, continued to defy the Speaker's rulings, continued to disrupt question time, and he was justifiably removed from the Chamber. There was not a whimper from members of the Opposition about his departure, because they all recognised that he was guilty of failing to abide by the Speaker's ruling. It would not have mattered to him, because he thinks he is above us all, he thinks he is far more important than the procedures of this House. The member for Coffs Harbour shows the same rogue attitudes in this House that he shows with his own party. The public record is littered with examples. When the Leader of the Opposition was elected, the member for Coffs Harbour wrote to her telling her to resign, telling her that she was no good, telling her that he did not want to attend Coalition meetings. On 30 April he wrote—

Mr Souris: He is getting to the relevant part.

Mr WHELAN: No, I am not, I am telling the House that this member has absolutely no respect for authority.

[Interruption]

I would suggest that the member for Coffs Harbour has absolutely no respect for the Leader of the National Party or for his party. The member for Coffs Harbour wrote to the Leader of the Opposition telling her that he did not want to attend Coalition meetings. Is that the sort of loyalty that the Leader of the National Party would expect from members of his party? I suppose the Leader of the National Party did not admonish him.

Mr Souris: I think you are in a different debate.

Mr WHELAN: No, I am not in a different debate. He even criticised his own party. He wrote that the National Party is living in the odium of the Liberal Party. I repeat, if anything, the member for Coffs Harbour is the very embodiment of unparliamentary behaviour. The member for Coffs Harbour has been called to order by the Speaker for unruly behaviour 33 times. During this Parliament he has been called to order more than 50 times. That must be some kind of record, of which he must be proud; but he should not be proud. He holds the dubious record of having been removed most often from this Chamber. He has been escorted out of the Chamber three times in this Parliament—the worst record for a member of this House since the last election. I will provide the dates: 23 June 1999, 13 April 2000, and 9 August 2000. In the last Parliament he was called to order more than 90 times. He makes the delinquent Photios pale into insignificance with the lack of respect that he shows to everybody, including the Parliament, its procedures, the Speaker, and his Coalition partners.

Mr Fraser: You are a grub and a liar, Whelan.

Mr WHELAN: That is typical of the member for Coffs Harbour; he interjected "You are a grub and a liar, Whelan." He can give it, but he cannot take it. He treats this Parliament like a joke; he treats it with contempt. He treats Parliament like he treated Ian Sinclair during the Drug Summit. He had to be called back to the lectern for a good dressing down by a man who was chairing that debate, a former member of the Federal National Party, and he attempted to storm out of the room and disrupt the proceedings.

[Interruption]

Do you think that that is good behaviour? Let us look at the first two points raised by the member for Coffs Harbour in this frivolous motion that is wasting the time of this Chamber. He accused the Speaker of adopting the practice of prejudging the subject point of order under Standing Order 105 (2), and failing to uphold the right of a member, under Standing Order 104, to take a point of order. He spends most of his time trying to split the Coalition on procedural precedents, so I will take this opportunity to enlighten him. Time and again a series of Speakers have ruled that the abuse of Standing Orders 104 and 105 will not be tolerated. In 1975-76 Speaker Cameron ruled that it is extremely disorderly to continue to canvass a matter on which the Speaker has ruled.

Mr Fraser: You don't know them.

Mr WHELAN: Of course I do. These precedents are very valuable. Speaker Cameron was the Liberal member for Northcott. It was his edict, his ruling. Following on from Speaker Cameron's ruling, Speaker Murray ruled that a member is not allowed to take a point of order as another opportunity to interrupt after previously making several interjections. Speaker Kelly ruled that a member may not speak on a point of order that has already been ruled on. In 1997 Speaker Murray anticipated a point of order and did not uphold it. The list goes on of established precedents from both Liberal Party and Labor Party Speakers that state that, under the standing orders and in accordance with Speakers' rulings, when a member gets up to continue to interject, the Speaker has the right—since Speaker Cameron ruled in 1975—to rule a member out of order.

It is clear that the member for Coffs Harbour was attempting to do what he does time and time again in this House: simply disrupt business. Let us look at his record, which is crystal clear. He has been called to order more than 50 times in the current Parliament; that is 50 times since the last election. He was called to order more than 90 times during the previous Parliament. As I said, he is the most misbehaved, most badly behaved, most arrogant member of this House. Paragraph (3) of his motion states:

(3) failing to assert the Chair's authority, under Standing Order 105, by not requiring the Premier's concurrence with that standing order.

I do not know what the Minister for Education and Training would do if a schoolchild was behaving in a disorderly way.

Mr Aquilina: I'd suspend him.

Mr WHELAN: The motion of the member for Coffs Harbour further states:

(4) deliberately provoking the circumstances under which he then used Standing Order 288 against the member for Coffs Harbour.

(5) ignoring a member rising on a point of order until the Premier had finished his answer.

Honourable members know that Mr Speaker did not ignore the member for Coffs Harbour. I repeat—and this is the kernel of the issue—Mr Speaker did not ignore the member for Coffs Harbour. He told the member to sit down. The standing orders are very explicit: members must abide by the rulings and directions of the Speaker. Mr Speaker told the member to stop disrupting question time; he had ruled on the point of order and would not tolerate further interjection. The member for Coffs Harbour ignored Mr Speaker, refused to sit down, refused to be silent and refused to show proper respect for the Chair. After constant interjections and constant warnings, Mr Speaker had no alternative but to have the member for Coffs Harbour removed. That was the only remedy available to Mr Speaker to stop members opposite, particularly the member for Coffs Harbour, from disrupting question time.

Mr Fraser: Hansard proves you are a liar. And the video evidence, which I have!

Mr WHELAN: The member's continued interjections, notwithstanding that he spoke uninterrupted for 10 minutes making his point, show that he is nothing more than an arrogant thug, and he is trying to thug his way through the Parliament. And I can tell him that he will not succeed. I was here when Speaker Rozzoli was in the chair. I do not know whether Speaker Rozzoli attended Liberal Party meetings, but I can tell honourable members that when he came into the Chamber to vote he came in the door skulking and not knowing whether he was wearing his hat. He did it all the time, and he was the preselected candidate for the Hawkesbury electorate. What a surprise! Do members opposite think that just because they attend party meetings, that makes them more biased than Speaker Rozzoli?

The record shows that 82 points of order were taken by the Labor Opposition during the last Coalition Government, and Speaker Rozzoli ruled against us 80 per cent of the time. How often has Speaker Murray ruled against the Opposition? Eighty per cent of the time. So the bias referred to by the member for Coffs Harbour is a perceived bias. The member cannot possibly justify his behaviour. Clearly, Speaker Murray has shown no more bias than any previous Speaker. Mr Speaker, you are proudly upholding the traditions and standing orders of this House by refusing to allow unwarranted disruptions during question time. That is in stark contrast to the member for Coffs Harbour, who has absolutely no respect for the traditions of this House. He continually and belligerently defies the standing orders, and he continues to treat the House as his own private playpen. In conclusion, the House does not believe the member. Frankly, I do not know why the House should put up with him; or why the people of Coffs Harbour should put up with him. [Time expired.]

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [4.46 p.m.]: We have not seen such an extraordinary performance in raising spurious claims and argument for a long time. We have just witnessed a character assassination of the member for Coffs Harbour which has absolutely nothing to do with the case in hand. The case in hand refers to the standing orders as they relate to an incident reported in Hansard, and I shall refer to the standing orders and Hansard in a moment. It has nothing to do with the number of points of order raised four years ago, performances elsewhere, trying to create a story about a policy vacuum or anything like that. The Opposition did not create any of this. It has arisen from actions taken by the Chair under instructions from the Government front bench. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. Standing Order 104 clearly states:

A Member may at any time raise a point of order relating to a breach of the standing orders or the practice of the House which shall, until disposed of, suspend the consideration and decision of every other question.

Standing Order 105 states:

When a Member rises on a point of order:

(1) The Member who was speaking shall be seated.

That is the first breach that Mr Speaker allowed to continue unabated. The Premier was answering a question, and he continued to answer the question unabated in the most flagrant, arrogant style we have ever seen. It is no wonder the discipline of this House is in question when Mr Speaker allowed the Premier to continue his answer, flagrantly disregarding the point of order rightly raised by the member for Coffs Harbour. Let us examine exactly what happened on that fateful day. I cannot see anything in Hansard that day that the member for Coffs Harbour could be accused of, other than saying, "Mr Speaker, point of order", or words to that effect. That is all the member for Coffs Harbour did. Hansard states:

Mr Fraser: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to resume his seat.

Mr McManus: Aha! And he did not.

Mr SOURIS: The member for Coffs Harbour sought to take a point of order, which he has every right to do, and was sat down immediately. As members can see from Hansard, the Premier went on and on. The member for Coffs Harbour again sought to take a point of order and Mr Speaker said:

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I don't care what you have.

What kind of Speakership allows the Premier to completely ignore the standing orders, the member for Coffs Harbour to be dealt with arrogantly, and a most unspeakerlike reply, "I don't care what you have." What kind of discipline or standards does that style of parliamentary democracy engender? The member for Coffs Harbour went to his seat, sat and then stood again to take a point of order; the member assumed that he had wrongly come to the lectern to raise his point of order. He went back to his seat, sat and rose again in his seat, correcting what he thought was the essence of his wrongdoing.

The honourable member rose in his seat on the back bench and said "Point of order." There was no flowery language, no additional information at all. The immediate reply was "Order! Serjeant-at-Arms, remove the member for Coffs Harbour." The honourable member for Coffs Harbour was removed for a whole day. It has been a long time since a member has been removed on such spurious grounds and on direct instructions from an arrogant Government and an arrogant Premier who refuses to abide by the standing orders. Usually suspension is for a number of hours or to the conclusion of question time. To remove a member for such a length of time is clear orchestration. I am not surprised at all that the Premier uncharacteristically issued a specific press release attacking the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. I cannot remember the Premier, the mighty office of Premier, ever issuing a personal press release attacking a member for being suspended. When was the last time a Premier demeaned himself to stoop to that type of activity?

The removal of the honourable member was an orchestrated retaliation for the great wound being felt by Government members on behalf of the honourable member for Murray-Darling. The Leader of the House has bolted already. If Government members want to talk about misbehaviour over a sustained period, they should talk about the behaviour of the honourable member for Murray-Darling. That is what the Government has been up to and the Speaker has participated in. He was complicit in a gross breach of the standing orders to retaliate for the wound that was being suffered by the Government benches. The Government orchestrated the creation of misbehaviour of some sort so that it could say "Look at the misbehaviour of the Opposition." How hallucinatory of it to think that a member taking a point of order from the lectern and going back to his seat somehow cancelled out the gross unparliamentary behaviour that we have endured for months from the honourable member for Murray-Darling. That is what this orchestration was all about.

Mr McManus: Point of order: The Leader of the National Party has made spurious points of attack on another member of this House. There are other ways to do it. His remarks are not relevant to the debate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Heathcote is correct. The Leader of the National Party should confine his remarks to the substance of the motion, which is of a serious nature. If he wishes to launch an attack upon another member of the House he should do so by way of substantive motion.

Mr SOURIS: We have endured a completely spurious debate orchestrated by the Leader of the House on an issue which itself has been orchestrated by the Government, with a compliant and complicit Speaker. It demeans the office of the Speaker and the whole Parliament. A member, exercising his right under the standing orders to take a point of order civilly and without disruption, was ignored in the most arrogant and flagrant style by the Premier and then ordered to pay a price as part of the orchestration. The honourable member for Heathcote talked about spurious points. We have just endured from the Leader of the House all of the spurious arguments that could possibly be made. He referred to years of so-called practice and misbehaviour and tried to imply that the member was ejected as final punishment for his behaviour, rather than that it was concocted by the Government in relation to this almost non-breach of the standing orders.

The Government talks about the spurious line of argument and a spurious sequence of logic. This is retaliation and over-the-top behaviour in the extreme. It was orchestrated by the Government, with compliance by the Speaker, which is unbecoming and uncharacteristic. All Speakers are partisan to a small and varying degree, but the Speaker ejected the honourable member for Coffs Harbour for what has turned out to be a non-event. Honourable members should read Hansard and see what a non-event it was. They should view the tape and see what provoked disorder in the House. What normally provokes indiscipline in this House? It is the same thing every time: a bloated Government and a totally arrogant Premier who disregards the Speaker, the calls to order and the standing orders. It makes a mockery of this House and debases and demeans the office of Premier, the office of member of Parliament and the office of Speaker. [Time expired.]

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [4.56 p.m.]: I hope that my contribution to this debate will be on a less emotional note than the contributions of some previous speakers. I wish to say at the outset that the display of behaviour from Government members during the course of this debate does not enhance the quality of the debate or the seriousness of the issue we are considering or in any way defend the case they seek to mount in support of you, Mr Speaker. The censure motion is unusual in that it deals totally with the standing orders. Most motions of censure of the Speaker deal either with matters of discretionary elements which come under the decisions that are made periodically by the Chair on a variety of issues or, at the most, a combination of those decisions as they apply to the standing orders.

In this case, unusually, the motion deals only with the standing orders. Therefore, there is no discretion or latitude offered the Chair in relation to the matters that are the subject of this censure motion. That makes the motion very serious because it goes to the heart of the functions and process of this House. The standing orders are a set of instructions that are determined not by the Speaker but, in fact, by the House assembled as an entity in its own right. They are considered at some length prior to their presentation to the House and then adopted by the whole House as the orders under which this House is to operate.

The particular standing orders that we are talking about go to the most fundamental issue that should be of concern to members, that is, the protection of the rights of individual members. Government members should bear in mind that the time will come—whether they think it will be in the near future or the distant future—when the situation will be reversed. I am sure that they would like to think when it is their turn to sit on this side of the House that they will be dealt with fairly, impartially and, most importantly, in accordance with the standing orders.

There are five elements to this motion, and all of them indicate a degree of bias emanating from the Chair. The least that one should be able to expect if the Speaker does not get it right on a particular day is that the Government, in particular, the Leader of the House, should advise the Speaker that the Government needs no protection, that it is satisfied with the protection afforded by the standing orders and that the Speaker should adhere to the proper process and decorum of the House and abide by the standing orders. In the absence of such an action by the Leader of the House—and to date we have no evidence that there has been any such action on the part of the Leader of the House—we can only assume that you, Mr Speaker, are acting under the instructions of the Government, because that can be the only other explanation.

The five elements of the motion are, first, your practice, which is a common one, of prejudging the subject of a point of order contrary to Standing Order 105 (2). With no amount of wisdom and perception can you, or any other Speaker, be absolutely certain that you know the point of order that is to be raised. It may well be that you have a very good idea what the point of order may be, and it may well be that that is confirmed when the point of order is made. However, you cannot be absolutely certain. No power is vested in the Speaker to prevent a member of the House from taking a point of order. If a point of order, once made, is determined to be spurious or repetitious—that is, it relates to a matter that the Speaker has already determined with regard to the matter that is before the Chair at the time—plenty of options are available to the Speaker to discipline the member for wasting the House's time. However, there is no power or authority to deny that member being heard on a point of order in the first instance.

The second element that is of grave concern is your failure under Standing Order 104 to uphold the right of a member to take a point of order. You do not have the authority, nor does any other Speaker, to say, "I will not hear a point of order." Standing Order 104 specifically states that a member may at any time raise a point of order relating to a breach of the standing orders or the practice of the House which shall, until disposed of, suspend the consideration and decision of every other question. There is no discretionary right on your part to say to a member, "I will not hear your point of order." You must hear the point of order in the first instance and you must uphold that right. As well as being an upholder of the general process of the Parliament, you have the vested authority to uphold the rights of members to free debate in this House, and that includes their right to take a point of order.

The third element to this motion is your failure to assert your authority under Standing Order 105 by not requiring the Premier's concurrence with that standing order. Standing Order 105 clearly states that when a member rises on a point of order the member speaking shall be seated. To allow the proper process of the House it is important that the member who was speaking at the time resumes his or her seat immediately, and that the point of order is heard and disposed of as quickly as possible. The Premier has the most unfortunate practice of continuing to ignore you, Mr Speaker, in what I consider is the most disgraceful, arrogant, improper and disrespectful manner, by simply turning his back on you, ignoring you, and talking on and on when he knows full well that a member has risen on a point of order and that you are no doubt trying to draw his attention to that fact and asking him to resume his seat. Your failure to uphold your authority by not requiring the Premier to resume his seat immediately is a dereliction of your duty as the Speaker of this House to maintain proper process and order.

Fourthly, I believe, as do all members on this side of the House, that you deliberately provoked the circumstances under which you then used Standing Order 288 against the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. Hansard clearly indicates, as does the video record of the proceedings of that day, that, in the particular instance we are talking about—we are not talking about the honourable member's behaviour at any other time, which has no relevance whatsoever—there was nothing in the behaviour of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour that warranted the action you took. Indeed, since that time there have been repetitions of exactly the same circumstances but you have not taken the same action. Therefore, at the very least your attitude to members on either side of the House, and indeed as between members on the Opposition side, is inconsistent—probably because you realise that the step you took on that day was beyond what was a reasonable assertion of your authority.

The fifth element is that on that same day, on a subsequent point of order, you chose to refuse to listen to or take notice of the point of order until the Premier had rambled on for probably another 90 seconds and finished his answer before calling the member to state his point of order. By the time the member was given the opportunity to state his point of order, the point of order was largely irrelevant because the Premier had answered the question and ceased to speak. Your failure to assert the provisions of Standing Order 104, which require you to immediately call upon the member to state his point of order and to require the member speaking to cease what he was saying and resume his seat, is a dereliction of your duty as the Speaker and your duty to members of Parliament to uphold the rights and privileges of the members of this House to free speech, which is absolutely fundamental to the proper conduct of this Parliament.

For all those reasons, and with great sadness and regret on my part, I strongly support this motion and urge you in future—because this motion will obviously be defeated on party lines—to take notice of the matters raised here and endeavour to ensure that there is no further repetition of such behaviour. [Time expired.]

Mr O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.06 p.m.]: In strongly supporting this motion I make it clear that I have never been under any illusion that you, Mr Speaker, assumed this office other than as a partisan member of the Labor Party. No member of the last Parliament or of this Parliament could mistake you for an independent or a non-partisan operative in this arena. As a member of another political party I do not deny you that right. Speaker Rozzoli, a member of the Liberal Party, demonstrated that you can occupy that chair as a partisan member. But you should do so fairly; you should at least create the appearance of impartiality. After all, that is essentially your role. Your role is to defend ordinary members, private members, against the excesses of the Government and the Executive. You do not do that because you like each and every one of us individually. You are supposed to do that because of the people we represent, those 44,000 voters who send each one of us to this place. When you remove honourable members unfairly—as you removed the honourable member for Coffs Harbour unfairly—you do not do the members in the eye, you do their electors in the eye. On a partisan point, it does the Labor Party in Coffs Harbour no good because the residents of Coffs Harbour clearly see through it.

Mr Speaker, I do not expect you to act impartially, but I do expect you to create the impression of impartiality. You would have to be blind Freddy to come into this House day after day, whenever it sits, and not realise that the weight of numbers on the Government side is behind you. Your Leader of the House can vote us down on anything he likes, as he repeatedly does. But you can at least give the appearance of impartiality; you can afford to at least try to treat all of us with a degree of fairness, which I believe each and every member of Parliament in this place deserves. I have viewed the videotape of proceedings of the day in question—the videotape that you would not permit the Parliamentary Library to make available to the honourable member for Coffs Harbour; something that, I believe, in itself should be the subject of a censure motion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Normally I do not involve myself in these debates. However, I interrupt the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to inform him that there was certainly no direction from the Chair in relation to any action of the Parliamentary Library. I have not spoken to anyone from the library.

Mr O'FARRELL: The Opposition has a copy of the videotape, which is very clear. The Premier's defamatory press release, issued in Coffs Harbour, says that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour was laughing and interrupting proceedings. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, on that day the National Party Whip was behaving better than the honourable member for Blacktown behaves on most days in this Chamber. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour simply stood in his place, he approached the table, he then resumed his seat, and you then put him out. In fact, as one of the previous speakers in this debate noted, Hansard once again, I regret to say, does not record what took place on that day. The videotape makes it clear that you did not instruct the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the honourable member for Coffs Harbour; in fact you instructed the Premier to remove him. One day when you have the time to make some rulings in this House, I would like to know at what stage Hansard will stop misinterpreting your clumsy attempts to impose some degree of Labor Party domination in this Chamber and start reporting what you actually say in the heat of the moment. The videotape of that day could not be clearer: you ordered the Premier—the very man who gave you the wink and the nod to put this man out—to remove the honourable member for Coffs Harbour.

The honourable member for Hawkesbury has given a calm and rational explanation of why this motion deserves to succeed. On each and every one of those points you stand condemned, not just in the eyes of those on this side of the House but in the eyes of those on the other side of the House who, in the last week, have expressed concern about your actions. But, more importantly, in the wider purview of public opinion you stand condemned once again for your lack of impartiality in this Chamber. For the good of Parliament, for the sanctity of this institution, and for the benefit of all of us who may one day be in government or in opposition, at some stage you should start to live up to that great tradition of fairness represented by those gold letters around this Chamber.

As a student of New South Wales politics, I heard the stories about Speaker Kelly, I read the decisions of Speaker Kelly, but you have taken the Speakership in this Chamber to a new low. It reached that new low when you put the honourable member for Coffs Harbour out without even having the dignity or the decency to hear his point of order. The Leader of the House has used this debate to attack the integrity of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. That is a typical exercise by the Leader of the House, who, from 1988 to 1995—as the honourable member for Hawkesbury, the former Speaker, knows—used every device to undermine parliamentary proceedings in this House. In certain circumstances he was encouraged and accompanied by the honourable member for Drummoyne, who was equally unruly and equally subject to ejection from this House.

Mr SPEAKER: Once.

Mr O'FARRELL: Once is enough.

Mr SPEAKER: Once in 18 years!

Mr O'FARRELL: You would not have put yourself out in the last five years. That would be impartiality! But the Leader of the House claims that you have every right to put out the honourable member for Coffs Harbour because you knew somehow or other what his point of order was. I credit you with many talents: mind-reading is not one of them. I certainly credit the Leader of the House with many talents—not a richer man sits in this Chamber—but I do not credit him with mind-reading either. I firmly believe—and this is a personal view; it is not a party view—that during the last Parliament you colluded with the Government to ensure that Michael Photios, the honourable member for Ermington as he then was, was defeated in the last election. Michael Photios did not have to do anything before being thrown out by you on a weekly basis—all, I believe, under the orders and directions of those opposite. That is the level to which you have undermined confidence of those on this side of the House in your actions.

On behalf of the public, at some stage you need to start to redeem your position. At some stage you will step down from the chair and be forced to spend your winters in Drummoyne, not around the world. At some stage you will want to look back upon your five or 10 years in Parliament as the Speaker with a degree of distinction, the sort of distinction with which the honourable member for Hawkesbury can look back on his years as Speaker. The way you are behaving now, you will not be able to do so. This motion makes the reason clear: you refuse constantly to provide to private members in this House the basic rights that they deserve and that they have always enjoyed under our parliamentary system.

As I say, I do not expect you to renounce the Labor Party; I do not expect you to disown all those things you have represented during your 18 years in Parliament. But my constituents, the school kids from my electorate who visit this place every other week and I expect the Speaker to act with a degree of fairness to all members. If you want to be a Minister, if you want to join Executive Government, get a job—ask Bob to make you the twenty-second Minister—but do not sit in the Speaker's chair and exercise the same sort of partiality that every Minister opposite endeavours to bring to this Chamber. I accept the overwhelming weight of numbers in this Chamber and that we will be voted down on any issue.

Mr Gibson: That is very gracious of you.

Mr O'FARRELL: But it is for that reason that the honourable member for Blacktown has every right and opportunity to act with a degree of fairness, distinction and impartiality in this job. Because at the end of the day he knows that, whatever he does, he will continue to enjoy your support. The honourable member for Blacktown, a former footballer, knows that the fairest fight is a fight that is one on one. It is not very fair when you have 55 behind you who are ready to line up and deck the hell out of you as well, and that is exactly what you do to us, Mr Speaker, when, particularly during question time each day, you seek to back up their tactics. You take the wink and the nod from the Leader of the House or the Premier and you do not apply the standing orders with a degree of fairness.

I have expressed my concern about your actions in concert with the Government in relation to Michael Photios in the previous Parliament. I express my concern that the action we saw here last week, your action of putting out the honourable member for Coffs Harbour—without warning, without reason, without any degree of fairness—indicated that you are about to embark on that strategy again. First, I have to say that it is not going to work in Coffs Harbour. The people in Coffs Harbour know just how well their member represents them. They know that he will stand up for them in here every other day—whether it is in relation to Coffs Harbour Hospital, the lousy rail services, or the lousy policing in that electorate. But there is only so much that the Opposition, the public in Coffs Harbour or the public generally will stand. They will not stand by and ignore the repeated bias that you exercise from the chair. They will not stand by and watch you take the wink and the nod from people like the Leader—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member's speaking time has not expired. However, pursuant to sessional orders debate is interrupted for the taking of private members' statements.

Mr BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [5.15 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House problems that relate to the small group in our society who are intellectually able, yet physically disabled. The number of deaths from vehicular accidents in New South Wales and Australia have declined enormously as result of modern rescue equipment, ambulance and helicopter rescue and high-technology medical procedures. The skill and dedication of all involved in that chain should not be skipped over lightly: they do a difficult and emotionally demanding job with an enormous degree of dedication. Advances in maternity health have resulted in more children with disabilities being saved, children who once may not have survived their disabilities. Many survivors of motor vehicle and general accidents and those who are born with birth defects have severe ongoing disabilities.

Recently the Minister for Disability Services noted that rather than the number of people with high-need disabilities having declined, the advent of more modern techniques has meant that the reverse is the case. Each year nearly 500 people are added to those who already have long-term disabilities. The needs of those with disabilities are growing, not declining. The relatively small group of those who are intellectually able but physically disabled is the focus of this statement. Many are young and in the care of their parents, relatives or friends with the help of programs such as Community Options. I speak from the first-hand experience of a workmate. In Port Stephens, some $40,000 from Community Options is spread among 40 people to try to assist those who need care. An enormous part of that budget can be used in trying to keep one person with extremely high needs out of an institution.

I presume that the other 174 council areas in New South Wales have the same problem with funding from Community Options. Young intellectually able but physically disabled people in the care of ageing parents and relatives face difficult choices as time goes by and carers are no longer able to look after them. Current options include in-home support, respite care, institutional care and perhaps group homes. I understand that no group homes are available for young intellectually able persons. Their only option, if the ageing carer and in-home support can no longer cope, is placement in a nursing home with the elderly where their physical needs can be met. The placement of young people with elderly patients who have dementia, Alzheimer's disease or high-care needs is not appropriate. Yet that is all that is available for many of them. In the Hunter some 104 young disabled people are in nursing homes because of a lack of options.

I believe that over the next 10 years approximately 2,000 people in New South Wales will require this type of assistance. For those who have received no insurance payment for their injuries, institutional care would appear to be the only viable option at present. I am endeavouring to source land in the Port Stephens electorate to commence construction of a group home in which the recurrent cost of full-time care may be distributed over a number of people who are intellectually able but physically disabled. In that way, the funding required for long-term care can be spread among a number of individuals.

I am considering community land at Salamander Bay that can be used for such a group home. The land is flat, it is situated adjacent to a brand new $2.2 million library and it is next to the shopping centre. I hope to obtain funding from the Federal Government's $15 million package which was announced recently to meet the needs of those to whom I have referred. I am endeavouring to create more options for them, to meet their needs and to provide a model for the care of others in New South Wales. Many people are willing to help, but they need direction. I need direction to enable me to work through the labyrinth of group homes, licences and Federal and State organisations associated with the care of the group to whom I have referred.

Mr R. H. L. SMITH (Bega) [5.20 p.m.]: I focus attention once again on the lack of funding by the Carr Labor Government for the public dental health service. The lack of adequate funds for health services in my electorate is a matter that I have constantly had to bring to the attention of the Government since 1995. The most consistent complaint that I receive in my electorate office in relation to health issues is dental health. Numerous times I have written to the Minister on behalf of individuals in my electorate who are in pain and who are suffering. Each time the reply I receive is that it is all the fault of the Federal Government, and I am sick to death of hearing that. As the Minister for Health knows very well, the creation of the Commonwealth Dental Health Scheme was part of Paul Keating's re-election campaign and was only ever designed to run for four years to allow the States to address their backlogs. At that time, the Federal Minister for Health, Senator Richardson, clearly stated in press release number GR23/93 of 17 August 1993:

Long waiting lists for dental care will be reduced under a new, $278 million Commonwealth Dental Health program in fulfilment of a key election commitment.

There was no mention of ongoing funding. In 1995, Dr Carmen Lawrence was the Minister for Health. In press release number CL310/1995, she also referred to a $278 million, four-year dental health program. Again there was no mention of any ongoing commitment. In the same press release, she went on to state:

Public dental services are the responsibility of the States. It is their responsibility to provide a full range of dental services to public clients.

At least the Federal Labor Party seemed to understand the respective roles of the Federal and State governments in relation to dental health. All the States, including New South Wales, were able to reduce their waiting lists but this State did not take the initiative to ensure that one-year or two-year waiting lists would not reappear. I believe that in some areas the lists are even longer, but two years seems to be the average in the electorate of Bega. In a recent letter to the local newspaper, even the President of the Bega State Electorate Council of the Australian Labor Party [ALP] referred to the problems of pensioners having to wait for dentures. Dental treatment is a basic health need and should be available to everyone who is in pain and who is suffering. I remind honourable members opposite that, prior to the most recent State election, the Coalition gave a commitment that it would provide sufficient funds to enable those on low incomes to receive free dental care. I cite one or two extracts from the latest letters I have received from a constituent:

Are you aware that anything more than cleaning teeth which costs upwards of $80.00 would force a pensioner to pay $200.00 to $500.00, with $1,000.00 not uncommon? Pensioners on $386.20 a fortnight with a broken tooth or a tooth in danger of breaking have only one choice, and that is to live on bread and butter and Weetbix, and listen to the moans about the hospital beds we are taking up when our aging health fails.

Sore or bothersome teeth lead to very bad eating which in turn leads to health problems and overcrowding of public hospitals. I'm 77 and can't eat ...

Surely with this Government's own representative pointing out its shortcomings, now is the time to act. Now is the time to put money into the public dental health scheme to put an end to pensioners having to endure pain and discomfort for months on end or simply being unable to eat anything but mush. It is degrading, demoralising and downright disgusting that the Government can find $140 million to bail out the Olympics budget shortfall with no questions asked, but allows people to suffer in the way I have described.

Ms NORI (Port Jackson—Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism) [5.25 p.m.]: I have noted the honourable member's comments. It is my usual practice to refer matters raised during private members' statements to the relevant Minister. As the honourable member for Bega has informed the House that he has already done so, there is little point in my doing that unless the honourable member specifically wants me to , in which case I would be happy to comply. However, I point out that the honourable member referred to the public dental health scheme originally being a four-year program instituted by the then Federal Minister for Health, Senator Graham Richardson.

I point out the obvious to the honourable member: that nothing is stopping the current Federal Government from reinstituting the program. In my view, the Minister for Health is entitled to argue that the very real problems to which the honourable member has referred are caused by a lack of Federal funding. I also should point out that at a recent ministerial council meeting of Australian health Ministers, a proposition was put forward to develop an options paper on financing dental health care in Australia. I would have thought that that would be a useful process, but, unfortunately, only the Federal Liberal Government failed to support the proposal.

Ms HARRISON (Parramatta) [5.27 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to the Andrew Ziolkowski memorial dinner, which was held last Thursday, 10 August, at Parliament House. The late Andrew Ziolkowski was my husband and the honourable member for Parramatta. He died on 12 April 1994, which is a little more than six years ago. Last Thursday I held a memorial dinner in his honour to raise money for cancer research at the Millennium Institute at Westmead Hospital. The fundraising arm of the institute is the Millennium Foundation. The institute was opened recently by the Prime Minister, John Howard, and the New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr. Following that example of bipartisanship, I held a fundraising dinner.

I take this opportunity to thank members of Parliament for their support. More than 300 people attended and a large proportion were Ministers and members from both sides of the House. Labor, Liberal, Independent and One Nation groups were all represented at the dinner, so I thank honourable members who took the time on a Thursday night to remain in the parliamentary complex and make the effort to attend the dinner rather than go to their homes. Obviously, by Thursday all members are a little tired after three straight days of parliamentary sittings. A number of Ministers attended. They included the Minister for Education and Training, John Aquilina; the Minister for Agriculture, Richard Amery; the Minister for Health, Craig Knowles; the Minister for Gaming and Racing, Richard Face; and the Minister for Small Business, Sandra Nori, to name only a few.

The Deputy Premier, Andrew Refshauge, led for the Government and the Leader of the Opposition, Kerry Chikarovski, led for the Opposition, and I especially thank both of them for their attendance. The Opposition was represented by members of the shadow ministry, including the honourable member for Hornsby, Stephen O'Doherty, and the honourable member for Wakehurst, Brad Hazzard. I apologise if I have forgotten anybody. I mention those members, Ministers and shadow Ministers from memory. I thank everybody who attended. Others who attended were the honourable member for Baulkham Hills, Wayne Merton; the Federal member for Reid, Laurie Ferguson; and the Lord Mayor of Parramatta, David Borger.

A number of former members of Parliament who were in this place when my husband was a member made a big effort to attend the dinner. They included Brian Langton, Garry McIlwaine and Michael Photios. I thank each of them for their attendance. I was grateful that a number of sports stars I had met during my time in the sports ministry willingly gave their time to attend the dinner. I contacted them and they were more than willing to give their time freely to help such a good cause. I particularly mention Dawn Fraser, Susie Moroney, Steve Mortimer and Liz Ellis, as well as members of the Parramatta Eels and Canterbury Bulldogs, who helped out on the evening.

We all love our sports stars and we know they are very busy people. But if sports stars are present at a function it certainly helps because everybody wants to meet them. Unfortunately, everybody in the State wants to meet them and they are in high demand. It was extremely kind of them to make time to attend the function here at Parliament House and I appreciate that very much. Alan Jones was the master of ceremonies [MC]. He is a brilliant compere: he is professional and amusing. Many people as famous as Alan cannot be bothered to donate their services the way he does. He chooses the causes he would like to help, whether they be sporting organisations or charities, and donates his time enthusiastically and energetically.

As I said on the night of the function, as a Minister I often felt tired from attending functions late at night. However, I felt guilty because Alan was the MC and he has to wake up in the middle of the night to go to work, never complaining, and I had been able to sleep until dawn. I thank him very much for his attention to detail on the night and for his enthusiasm. A number of other people were also helpful: Father John, who was present when my husband died and who buried him; Professor Tony Cunningham from the institute, who flew in for the evening; my sister who also flew in especially for the evening; Johno Johnson, who ran the raffle—there is never a raffle without Johno; entertainer Liz Taylor, who took $1,000 off her fee as the function was held to raise funds for cancer research; Chris Todd, the auctioneer, who was very professional and provided his services free of charge; the parliamentary staff from printing and the dining room, who were helpful throughout; and my staff, Jill Raines and Trevor Johns, who both know how important they are to me.

The sponsors were listed on the reverse of the menu, and I thank them personally. The foundation does terrific work. It has made enormous breakthroughs with melanoma, breast cancer and leukemia research, to name three of its areas of study. I thank those members of Parliament who could not attend the evening. Many members expressed to me their disappointment at not being able to attend due to prior commitments. Many of them gave donations, which was extraordinarily generous. It appears we raised more than $30,000—perhaps as much as $40,000 when it is finalised—through the generosity of the many members of Parliament who supported a good cause and paid tribute to my husband. I thank them for that, as the result is extraordinary.

I thank also my family. All of my cousins attended the dinner. One of my cousins, Rod Higgins, bought the Wallabies jersey for $5,000. He has many dealings with New Zealanders and he bought it is so he could display it on his wall just to be difficult. I appreciate very much Rod buying that jersey. I thank also my mum and dad, who came down from Swansea; my son, who was as emotional as I was on the night but managed to work hard all evening; and Andrew's family, who drove down from Little Hartley for the night. Their boys are at St Joseph's. They had to get special leave to attend and had to be back by curfew, yet they managed to sell raffle tickets, escort people to their seats and still make it back before they got into trouble. I also say thank you to them. [Time expired].

Ms NORI (Port Jackson—Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism) [5.32 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the honourable member for Parramatta for giving us the opportunity to support an important cancer research organisation at Westmead Hospital and also, as former colleagues of Andrew Ziolkowski, giving us the chance to commemorate his contribution to the Parliament. It was a professional and well-executed evening that raised a great deal of money and was a lot of fun. It was a great opportunity to remember Andrew.

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes—Deputy Leader of the National Party) [5.33 p.m.]: Although I was not present, I heard about the success of the function organised by the honourable member for Parramatta and I congratulate her. Indeed, I raise a similar matter. I seek support for cancer research, particularly for the Australian Cord Blood Bank. Quota clubs within my electorate, and perhaps further afield, support the Australian Cord Blood Bank, which presently relies on voluntary funding to undertake its vital work. We would like contributions from both Federal and State governments to enable this work to continue. The collection and storage of blood from umbilical cords of newborn babies is an important procedure, particularly in the treatment of leukaemia, which affects children and adults.

Cord blood transplants are becoming a substitute process for bone marrow transplants, which was the traditional way of attempting to cure some of these problems. However, there have been drawbacks with bone marrow transplants relating to the long time needed to arrange therapy; the fact that the donor needs to undergo general anaesthetic; that matching donors are needed, which is very difficult; and that life-threatening complications can follow the transplant. The first cord blood transplant of a child with marrow failure took place in Paris in 1988. The transplant was a success, confirming that sufficient cells for transplantation could be obtained by collecting blood from the placenta and umbilical cord after childbirth. Since that time there have been approximately 500 cord blood transplants performed worldwide.

Experimental work now suggests it is likely that a good cord blood collection would contain sufficient blood stem cells for transplants in adult patients, vastly extending the possible applications of this type of transplant. The advantages of using cord blood is that it is a valuable resource that presently is routinely discarded. Large-scale optimal collection, and freezing and storage of cord blood from unrelated donors is already in progress in the United States of America, Europe and now in Australia. Samples can be tissue typed at the time of collection and then matched with patients needing transplants. Having transplantable tissue in a ready-to-use form eliminates the often considerable delay in contacting adult donors from bone marrow registries, retesting and arranging for a marrow harvest.

In a nutshell, that is what happens at present. In Australia the Australian Cord Blood Advisory Committee to the Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry has established already a target of 20,000 cord blood units to be banked over a three-year to five-year period. It is hoped there will be collaboration between hospitals in Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney to ensure these 20,000 units are collected, co-ordinated and made available. It is most important that funding is provided for this process. As I said, funding has been voluntary and it is wonderful that the Quota clubs have decided to put their funds behind this project, but a co-ordinated approach from both Federal and State governments is needed to provide funding. The Australian Cord Blood Advisory Committee's submission is under consideration by the Federal Government. One would hope that submission is successful.

The observation of that committee is that a joint Federal-State approach is needed to ensure these vital and new procedures are allowed to go forward to help bring life to many who would otherwise not experience it. I certainly congratulate Quota International and all those involved with this project. Next week a briefing by one of the professors associated with the project will be held in my electorate. I am sure it will be well attended and we will obtain funding at our local level. However, some form of advanced planning in State budget estimates for funding is needed to enable this important work to continue and to increase so that people suffering the type of cancer that can be treated by cord blood will have sufficient supplies and expertise to receive treatments.

Mr GREENE (Georges River) [5.38 p.m.]: Last Thursday evening, 10 August, I attended a tribute to Father Paul Jacobs, the retiring parish priest of the parishes of Our Lady of Fatima, Peakhurst, and St Declan's, Penshurst. The function was held at Club Menai, which is part of the Illawarra Catholic Club, and was attended by 480 parishioners of Penshurst and Peakhurst who wished to pay their respects to the magnificent contribution of Father Paul to those parishes in his 19 years in the district. Father Paul moved to the parish of St Declan's at Penshurst in 1981 and he was involved in building the new magnificent parish church which replaced the former structure. His leadership at the time saw its completion. In 1989 Father Paul was given the additional responsibility of looking after the neighbouring parish of Our Lady of Fatima, Peakhurst, where he did a fantastic job taking on a new position in the Catholic Church—that is, a resident non-parish priest. The tribute to Father Paul last Thursday night recognised his contribution to both those parishes in that time.

In recent years Father Paul has had the additional responsibility of being the chaplain of the Illawarra Catholic Club. I take this opportunity to congratulate the staff of that club on its magnificent effort to ensure that the 480 guests at the function were well catered for. In particular I thank the catering manager, David Brown, and the operations manager, Mike Walker, for organising the staff and the function. In his time at Penshurst and Peakhurst Father Paul Jacobs was a quiet, humble priest who was extremely well respected. The large gathering last Thursday evening showed that Father Paul has the respect of schoolchildren at St Declan's, family groups and seniors within the parish. Father Paul is a highly principled man—though naturally shy—who always stuck by his strong Catholic faith and beliefs. He supported organisations within the parish from that very principled position.

Father Paul has also demonstrated enormous leadership qualities, and has agreed to guide those parishes. At Peakhurst, where he was the non-resident parish priest, he relied very much on the support of the laity. He has given enormous encouragement and support to the leadership team within that parish. He was always prepared to delegate—while not abrogating—his responsibilities. He was always keen to listen to parishioners and involve them in the running of the parish, including his own parish of St Declan's. Father Paul also accepted the changes that have taken place in the administration of the Catholic Church and he has been a leader in his role in both Penshurst and Peakhurst parishes.

I congratulate three people who spoke at the function last Thursday evening. Mr Bernard Harley, President of the Illawarra Catholic Club, spoke of Father Paul's contribution as chaplain, which he will continue although having retired from his parish responsibilities. Mr Kevin Isacson, parish of St Declan's, spoke about Father Paul's 19½ years in that parish and the changes he has seen in that time. Mr Bernie Holdsworth, a good friend of mine, spoke passionately on behalf of Peakhurst parish about the great friend that Father Paul has been to parishioners and himself. He referred to Father Paul's significant contribution within the changed leadership structure at Our Lady of Fatima, Peakhurst. I congratulate Father Chris Toohey whose prime responsibility in the Catholic Church these days is as head of adult education. In his role as master of ceremonies Father Toohey made sure that the evening was enjoyed by everyone. Finally, it would be remiss of me if I did not congratulate the organising committee from both Peakhurst and Penshurst parishes on their enormous amount of hard work which ensured the success of this fitting tribute to Father Paul Jacobs.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [5.43 p.m.]: I draw the attention of honourable members to the tragic death of Sunny Dryden from a heroin overdose on 16 July 1998. In the two years prior to her death Sunny struggled with her addiction. Two months before her death she admitted herself into Brighton Private Hospital, Victoria, where she underwent a 24-hour rapid detoxification program with naltrexone. Shortly afterward she was admitted to Odyssey House, where both her partner and her father were assured they would be immediately advised of any problems. They were contacted three days later when Sunny ran away from Odyssey House with her friend Vanessa. Less than a week later Sunny readmitted herself, where her medical history of unstable diabetes and her recent naltrexone treatment were recorded.

Odyssey House was aware of the dangers associated with rapid detoxification, and the fact that it makes patients susceptible to overdose if heroin is used again. Despite Sunny's father asking that she be allowed to continue with regular naltrexone medication, Odyssey House refused, stating that naltrexone was against Odyssey House policy. Had she continued with that treatment, her father believes, it would have rendered any further use of heroin ineffective. Odyssey House was also made aware that Sunny was taking depression medication, and that she was required to see a diabetic specialist within six weeks of her admittance. That visit never took place, partly because the medical supervisor assigned to Sunny was often on sick leave and therefore was unable to attend to her medical requirements. Sunny Dryden's father rang every second day to check on her progress. Every time he rang he was told that she was doing fine.

On 16 July 1998 Terrigal police knocked on Mr Dryden's door to inform him that his daughter had died from a heroin overdose the previous evening. He had not been notified by Odyssey House that only the previous day his daughter had been asked to leave for smoking with a friend on the roof. Her friend Vanessa, who was also expelled, told Mr Dryden that despite protests they were given only 20 minutes to pack their bags and leave. She said that she and Sunny pleaded to be given a second chance, but they were refused on the ground that they already had had too many chances. Twenty minutes later Sunny and Vanessa were at Minto station, with $7 for train fares in their pockets. At 10.45 the following morning Mr Dryden received the knock on his door that every parent dreads.

Two years later Mr Dryden is still seeking answers. Despite writing to Odyssey House, its lawyers, insurers and the Minister for Health he has been unable to access any of his daughter's records. He asks two questions: Why was Sunny expelled? Why will a Government that funds such a program not intervene in such a case? In a recent letter to me Mr Dryden wrote that involuntary removal of patients must be a group decision, according to Odyssey House protocol. This, he states, did not occur in his daughter's instance: one person made the decision and enacted it within 20 minutes, with tragic consequences. Mr Dryden wrote: if Odyssey House has nothing to hide, why can he not see his daughter's records? Mr Dryden wrote:

I rang Odyssey House at 11am [on the day he was informed of Sunny's death] to find out what happened. I spoke to nurse Barbara Anderson who told me of events of the previous day. Barbara then confirmed, over the phone, that 'Odyssey had fallen down badly in not notifying me when Sunny was evicted.' Though I had a meeting with Odyssey's General Manager … Barbara Anderson's phone comment above has been the only admission of guilt I have received from Odyssey to date.

If I had been called I would have driven straight to Odyssey House to pick Sunny up.

Odyssey House receives $750,000 every year from the Government. It needs to be accountable for the way that funding is spent. Mr Dryden is entitled to know why his daughter died. He has been searching for answers to which he is entitled for two years. He wrote:

This is the first time I have contacted a Member of Parliament about this because, honestly, it just hurts so much to think or talk about it. It is now … the anniversary of [my daughter's] death and I am no closer to finding out just what happened to … [her] whilst she was under the care of Odyssey House. I … [thank you for] your assistance in this matter. You have my permission to make whatever inquiries you deem necessary.

Large recurrent funding by the Government to a private body must be accountable. This matter needs to be investigated with a view to establishing whether Odyssey House, by its failure to follow established policy, contributed in any way to the young woman's death. If so, surely its entitlement to funding should be reviewed. This is a human tragedy which calls out for intervention and advice.

Mr TRIPODI (Fairfield) [5.48 p.m.]: I speak on an issue of utmost importance: that is, the necessity to secure urgent funding for a paid worker attached to the Fairfield Community Aid and Information Service Inc. Should funding not be secured for a paid worker to manage Commonwealth emergency relief grant funding, expected to be in excess of $230,000, the agency is at risk of not meeting a new set of criteria imposed by a Federal Government that is attempting to increase its popularity by punishing the least privileged in the community. I am sure honourable members can appreciate that taking responsibility for such a large sum of money, together with financial administration, welfare administration and training of voluntary staff, is a huge task, even for an extremely dedicated voluntary worker.

Fairfield community aid services the Fairfield local government area, which covers four State electoral districts and which has a high-density of multicultural settlement, high unemployment levels, a large degree of poverty and a large itinerant population. The charity would not exist if not for the hard work and dedication of Cheryl Willmot and her wonderful team of volunteers. This woman is truly a saint and her team is a grand group of people who manage under the most difficult of circumstances. Community aid staff provide same-day assistance and see a larger number of clients than any other provider. They also distribute energy accounts payments assistance, EAPA, and water accounts payments assistance, WAPA, vouchers from State government funds. If Fairfield community aid loses this grant it will affect the most vulnerable and needy and lead to an unprecedented explosion of crime in the area.

Past ongoing efforts to secure a permanent paid worker have resulted in time-limited grants for specific projects. The service has in the past secured a limited Western Sydney Area Assistance Scheme [WSAAS] grant for a worker and it is therefore ineligible to seek assistance from this source again. Similarly, approaches to the Department of Community Services to pick up the paid worker grant from WSAAS have been unsuccessful. The State Government takes a justifiable position that it cannot be expected to carry the financial burden of all the cost-shifting activities of the Federal Government. The funding and new criteria for the administration of the grant are examples of the Federal Government trying to shift the costs of its activities onto the State's shoulders. In order to secure a full-time paid worker to Fairfield community aid changes are required to either WSAAS or DOCS funding criteria as follows: the guidelines for WSAAS funding need to be altered to specifically enable permanent funding of a full-time paid worker for the administration of essential emergency relief or DOCS must receive a budgetary allocation to employ one paid full-time worker to administer the grant.

My representations to Ministers of the State Government have been numerous and the situation is under active consideration in many quarters of the Government. Having found it difficult to attain assistance for this organisation through government means, I was presented with an opportunity by the private sector—utilising the good corporate citizenry that John Howard would have us build our welfare system around. The reason I bring this matter to the attention of the House is the activity of Westpac Banking Corporation as it relates to this charity. As the House would be aware, substantial bank closures have been occurring across the nation. Just before the closure of the Fairfield Heights branch of Westpac earlier this year two personnel from Westpac came to see me in my electorate office on 14 February and offered to share with the local community the largess of their organisation. They asked me whether there was a charity or needy cause in the area worthy of corporate assistance. I was not aware that this unusual offer of charity preceded the closure of a branch the following week even though there was general discussion about branch closures.

I brought to the attention of those Westpac personnel the needs of Fairfield community aid. They offered to assist that body. After they visited Cheryl Willmot it was identified and agreed that Westpac would assist the charity by providing a much-needed photocopier. The matter was left at that. On 5 July I was contacted by Cheryl advising that she had not heard from Westpac since that initial meeting where the commitment of assistance was made. I went to the local Westpac branch and expressed my concern about the failure to honour the commitment. This was met with a promise that something would be done immediately. Last week I was again contacted by Cheryl, who advised that still nothing had been done. Not only am I concerned about the fact that Westpac's generosity happened to coincide with the closure of a branch, I am also concerned that these people do not even honour their commitments, not even to charities. Westpac offered hush money, played the role of Howard's good corporate citizen, but once the possible media focus passed on the closure of the branch it could not make the effort to make good on a promise to help a charity.

Ms NORI (Port Jackson—Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism) [5.53 p.m.]: I congratulate and thank the honourable member for Fairfield for drawing the attention of the House to the difficulties faced by the Fairfield community aid organisation. I congratulate him on his vigilance and his terrier-like performance in securing a result for this important organisation within his electorate. He is known as a can-do local member and I am sure that with his assistance Fairfield community aid will be able to sustain its activity.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [5.54 p.m.]: I am pleased that the Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism is at the table tonight. I ask that she take on board the problem that I have with a road that is a significant contributor to tourism. The road is from Harden in south-west New South Wales to Jugiong. It comes within the province of Harden shire. Because of electoral boundaries both the honourable member for Burrinjuck and I share the road. In a recent response from the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads to the honourable member for Burrinjuck the Minister rightly made the point that the road is a regional road for which the council is responsible. He referred to a block grant of $344,000 to Harden council in 1999-2000. For 2000-01 council received a block grant of $418,000, including the 3 x 3 component.

The shire is a very small one. It does not have the funds even to maintain the road or to keep the bitumen on the surface. The road has been bitumen for many years but in the past couple of years the council has had to remove the bitumen from about three kilometres of the road and let the surface go back to gravel. In addition, the edges of the road are crumbling dramatically and dangerous. Recently there was a fatal accident on the road, although I do not believe that the condition of the road was a contributing factor. Nevertheless, the accident did occur on the road. The condition of the road is deterring people from using the road to travel through the area. The locals are incensed that they do not have reasonable access to the community town of Harden-Murrumburrah and their southern link to the Hume Highway to get to Sydney or Melbourne.

For the benefit of the Minister I make the point in regard to tourism that the road is the shortest link between the Hume Highway and the Lachlan Valley Way to access the southern areas of New South Wales and northern Victoria to Melbourne. The link is frequently used by tourists coming up the Hume Highway from Melbourne to go into the Central West, to Young and then to Cowra and Mudgee and the wine areas or to Dubbo zoo. People going to Dubbo zoo from the south frequently use the Jugiong to Harden road. The road is often used by sportspeople. Recently the Speaker welcomed to this Parliament the heritage horse ride on the completion of the journey from Broome to Sydney. The riders used the road to travel from the dog on the tuckerbox at Gundagai to the very famous old hotel at Jugiong. The village at Jugiong is the home of the Sheahan family, well known in Labor Party politics in the State.

The road also gives access to the area where the Australian light horse was born, Harden-Murrumburrah. The first stage of a major memorial to the regiment was opened a week or so ago. Next year there will be national and international recognition of the Australian light horse and the mounted rifles at Harden-Murrumburrah. Many people came from Melbourne and Canberra. Tourists will use the road on an ongoing basis as the history and symbolism of Murrumburrah-Harden are better known to national and international tourists. The road is well beyond the capacity of the local shire to maintain. It simply does not have the money. The road is fundamentally unsafe. It has deteriorated to the point that three to four kilometres of the bitumen surface has been removed by the shire. The locals are incensed about that.

The state of the road is inhibiting the expansion of tourism. It is inhibiting growth in New South Wales. The many interstate visitors who use the road say that if this is an example of New South Wales they do not want to be tourists in this State. They go straight up the Hume Highway or the Newell Highway and they forget about going through beautiful country with a very rich history. The money from tourism could provide much to the local economies by maintaining rural infrastructure that is so necessary for New South Wales. I know that on both sides of the Chamber there is a great desire to make sure that population distribution throughout the State in the future is maintained. Tourism is a way of achieving this. I thank the Minister for her interest in this matter and I hope that she will take it up with her colleague the Minister for Roads.

Ms MEGARRITY (Menai) [5.59 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House the plight of the Bangor Caring Service. The slogan of the company is "People helping people". I first met the Managing Director, Lyn Cecil, at a Rotary meeting at Club Menai in April this year. Ms Cecil addressed the meeting to outline her relatively new “wheelchair shuttle” service and to canvas for funding support. Ms Cecil immediately impressed me as a competent person with a genuine dedication to live up to her stated intention: that is, to help people—in this case, the frail aged and people with disabilities. Ms Cecil related to the meeting certain aspects of her personal history that also demonstrated her compassionate nature and her down-to-earth approach to her business.

Importantly, as the recipients of the service are some of the most vulnerable in our community, Ms Cecil remains determined to provide this service at an affordable rate. To that end, she has continued to leave no stone unturned in her quest for sponsorship for the business. To its credit, Cronulla Sutherland Leagues Club Ltd—a very community-minded organisation—has agreed to contribute a weekly sponsorship amount for a period of 12 months, with the first right of renewal. The club, I understand, gave very serious consideration to Ms Cecil's proposal for a larger amount of sponsorship, but regretfully it was not in a position to commit to that extent. I note that the club already, and generously, assists a large number of community organisations. I recently received a letter from Ms Cecil giving me the good news about the sponsorship by the Cronulla Sutherland Leagues Club, but it also contained some bad news. It seems that the GST has delivered a serious blow to the affordability of the Bangor Caring Service wheelchair shuttle for the frail aged and people with disabilities in our community. In her letter to me Ms Cecil stated:

The recipients of this service are the most vulnerable in our community and can least afford the additional tax. The Bangor Caring Service charges a standard rate of $25.00 per hour, 7 days a week, with the GST currently being absorbed by the Bangor Caring Service for nursing home residents.

This is another tragic example of the impact of this insidious tax on goods and services for those members of our community on limited and fixed incomes. Ms Cecil, typical of her determination to maintain the affordability of the service for those in need of it, approached the Federal member about this issue. Ms Cecil explained that if government funding was allocated to this service, the GST impost would not apply. The Federal member, also a member of the Howard Government, made representations to the Hon. Larry Anthony, the Federal Minister for Community Services, on her behalf. The Minister later replied:

The Commonwealth is committed to providing assistance to people with disabilities.

However, he went on to point out that there were no funds available to assist the Bangor Caring Service. He concluded:

You may, however, be able to obtain some assistance ... from the State Government.

He referred the request to the New South Wales Ageing and Disability Department. Some people may, unkindly, consider this to be a flick-pass of the highest order. For my part, I see a fair degree of irony in the fact that the very Government that has imposed this tax on this important service has now suggested that the State Government should subsidise its impact. I have made representations to the Hon. Faye Lo Po’, Minister for Community Services, in support of the Bangor Caring Service. As I know, and as I am sure the Minister knows, there are already many worthy demands on the Minister's budget. The fact that New South Wales will not see any real flow of funds until 2007, and that this State effectively will be losing income relative to other States as a result of the GST arrangements, will make it even more difficult to assist organisations such as the Bangor Caring Service. That organisation is providing a valuable and affordable service but its viability is threatened by John Howard's goods and services tax.

It upsets me that the Bangor Caring Service and other community-minded organisations in the electorate of Menai have been treated this way. For people on limited and fixed incomes, the impost of the GST, without compensation, sometimes makes the difference between their ability to afford the service and not being able to afford it. I certainly hope that organisations such as the Bangor Caring Service can obtain funding and support from some sources so that those in most need of their services will be able to afford them.

Mr MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [6.04 p.m.]: I wish to speak about an issue that is of serious concern to me: roads and bridges. Firstly, I want to speak about the Kapooka bridge, which is on the road from Wagga Wagga to Albury and is directly outside the 1RBT military base. The bridge, which crosses the main railway line from Wagga Wagga to Albury, has been in place for many years. It is on a section of road that has a dreadful S-bend and is totally unsatisfactory. The Roads and Traffic Authority, to its credit, has recognised the work that needs to be done on the bridge: that is, pull down the antiquated bridge and build a new bridge, and realign the road and get rid of the S-bends. The people of Uranquinty and all who are situated to the south of the bridge towards Albury tend to use a shortcut called Dunns Road to obviate the need to negotiate the S-bends and cross Kapooka bridge on their trip to Wagga Wagga.

Recently, Wagga Wagga was saddened by the loss of one of our leading young people who used Dunns Road. If I were to describe Dunns Road I would have to say that the word "treacherous" would be apt. The road, an old fire trail about five kilometres long, has been maintained by the council to give access to fires, et cetera, but more and more it is being used as an access to the city. Following the unfortunate death of this young woman, a leading citizen in the school community and well respected by her peers, consideration is being given to improving this section of road. But that is not the obvious solution. It is to speed up redevelopment of Kapooka bridge, to raise funding for the building of a new bridge and to take out the S-bends. I know that in the most recent budget $300,000 was provided for planning works. I have written to the Minister asking about those planning works and inquiring what stage the project has reached. I have written to the Wagga Wagga City Council—which sympathetically acknowledges the problem—asking how we can all work together to bring about a quick resolution in respect of the Kapooka bridge.

A development known as Glenfield Park is just two kilometres from the Kapooka bridge, and reconstruction of the bridge and roadway would enable the building of roads to connect to Red Hill Road, which circumnavigates Wagga Wagga. That would speed up the journey for those travelling from places in the south like Albury, Uranquinty and The Rock, and give improved access to the centre of Wagga Wagga. That work would negate the need for people to use what I will call the Dunns Road fire track, because that is exactly what it is. It is undulating road that cannot be seen over the top of the inclines, making it a very dangerous roadway by night. The road is corrugated, rutted and studded with old trees that are no more than a metre from the side of the road. I sympathise with the council trying to find a way to solve the problem by perhaps investing money in improvement of that road. However, the real solution is to allocate funds to build a new bridge and to take out the S-bends that have been the scene of many accidents. Many a semitrailer has lost braking power and gone over the edge. These works would be the catalyst for the construction of the Red Hill Road link to the highway to Albury, and that would give people to the south of the bridge better access to the centre of Wagga Wagga, and make it safer for our youth and others in the area who use that road and bridge.

Mr McGRANE (Dubbo) [6.09 p.m.]: I, too, draw to the attention of the House a matter related to roads. I put on record the hard work of the Main Road 354 Action Group, which comprises representatives of Tullamore and Narromine. Recently, the Minister for Roads, Carl Scully, announced a grant of $250,000 for upgrading trouble spots along the road between Tullamore and Narromine. For many years users of this road have been lobbying various governments and Ministers but to no avail. As a result, the road has steadily deteriorated to the stage where it now threatens the safety of road users. In 1998 the road was totally impassable for 28 days. Main Road 354 is a school bus route and is traversed by many people, including the wives of farmers who have had to take on full-time employment to help maintain the viability of their farms. In wet weather the road is inaccessible and this presents difficulties for schoolchildren and those living on and off farms going about their everyday business.

Members of the action group contacted me shortly after I was elected as the honourable member for Dubbo and I was impressed by their dedication. On many occasions they have approached governments and both the Narromine and Parkes councils for extra funding but have been unsuccessful. I helped the action group compile a submission and, as a result of the vigour and support they demonstrated, arrangements were made for the Parliamentary Secretary for Roads, Reba Meagher, to inspect Main Road 354. Following that a delegation comprising representatives from the action group and the mayors of Parkes and Narromine met with the Minister. The action group was a little disappointed that the budget did not make a special allocation for Main Road 354. Nevertheless, it pursued the matter and following pressure from me an allocation of $250,000 was made over and above that of council. Therefore, this year approximately $1 million will be spent on that road. Although much more funds are needed, this is certainly a start.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Roads can testify as to the extent of community spirit behind this project. It was fortunate that it was a rainy day when the Parliamentary Secretary visited my electorate and the road was seen at its worst. Approximately 50 residents were in attendance and were able to personally convey to the Parliamentary Secretary their horror at the condition of the road. On behalf of Main Road 354 Action Group I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for listening and for reporting back to the Minister what she saw and heard about this road. Parliamentary secretaries are the eyes and the ears of Ministers.

The community is pleased that the Government has acknowledged that this road needs extra funding. Also, the proposed Black Range mining development—a $740 million development at Fifield in the Condobolin shire on the border of my electorate and the electorates of the honourable member for Lachlan and the honourable member for Murray-Darling—is expected to employ 500 workers if it comes to fruition, and Main Road 354 will be a major feeder road for that development. I acknowledge the foresight and faith shown by the Minister in allowing the action group and council to have a say in how the $250,000 will be spent. I congratulate the Minister on that.

[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 6.15 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [7.30 p.m.]: I regret that the Speaker is not in the chair. The Opposition's contention this evening is the same as its contention this afternoon—the Speaker infringed the rights of a member of Parliament by not allowing that member to take a point of order. As I said earlier, that is not an insult to the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, who was ejected from this House; it is an insult to every member of this House. It is an insult in particular to those people whom we are sent here to represent. If the Speaker does not desist from that course of action he will bring this institution into further disrepute and he will be responsible, once again, for a rise of cynicism and discontent about the operations of this place.

Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [7.30 p.m.]: I speak briefly and with a degree of sadness in debate on this motion. I support this censure motion. The Leader of the House and others in the Chamber would be aware that in my time as a member in this place I have never pretended to be an expert in or a student of the standing orders of this Parliament. Some honourable members might pretend to be students and some honourable members might know what they are talking about in relation to those standing orders. However, some honourable members will always remain students of the standing orders. They will go no further.

I might be incorrect on this issue but I do not believe that I have ever been called to order in this Parliament. However, that might have occurred on one or two occasions. I am proud of the fact that I have not abused the parliamentary process in the games that are played in this Chamber. I do not make a habit of taking points of order and I do not believe that I have been called to order in this Chamber. Because of the behaviour of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour from time to time I have a degree of sympathy for the Speaker. If there were any advice that I could give to the honourable member for Coffs Harbour—a person whom I regard highly—it would be that he does not need to play games in this place. His capacity to research issues and to make a contribution in this place is probably above the game playing, the cat calls, the calls to order and the points of order that he takes on occasions.

I listened intently to the contribution today of the Leader of the House and I was intrigued with what he had to say. I listened a little more attentively to what he had to say every time he folded his arms as that gave an indication of his defence of the Speaker, for whom I have high regard. I do not support a censure motion lightly. I do not think I have ever supported a no confidence motion in this House, and I have rarely supported a censure motion. However, I support this censure motion for the simple reason that I do not think the honourable member for Coffs Harbour contravened the standing orders of this House. Perhaps those Government members who will obviously defend the Speaker will enlighten me about the activity in which the honourable member for Coffs Harbour engaged that forced the Speaker to eject him from this House in the way in which he did.

I paid attention at the time that this incident occurred, but one's memory in this place is always overshadowed by events. My memory of the occasion is that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour did not contravene standing orders. It would be difficult to be a Speaker in this Parliament and I do not aspire to becoming one. My memory of events is that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour took a point of order. My understanding of the standing orders is that a member of Parliament is entitled by right to raise a point of order. It is not the prerogative of the Speaker to prejudge a point of order or to determine whether or not some sort of tactical advantage is to be gained from a political game that is being played.

A member of Parliament has a right to raise a point of order and to be heard by the Speaker. The Speaker should adjudicate accordingly and make a decision as to whether a member should be further heard or whether a decision should be made on the point of order. I would be interested to hear any members of the Government explaining to me what the honourable member for Coffs Harbour did that was wrong. I know that there is a lot of game playing and there are machinations within the body politic in this Chamber. Given the issue on that day and the fact that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour did not create some sort of furore before the Speaker decided to eject him from this place, unless new information is introduced into this debate I have no alternative other than to support the censure motion moved by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour.

Ms Moore: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to speak in debate on this matter.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The standing orders provide that only four speakers may speak in debate on a motion of censure of the Speaker.

Ms Moore: I understand that I can seek leave.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member would be aware that I would never prevent a member from speaking in debate. However, I do not think the honourable member is able to seek leave to suspend standing orders. The standing orders governing the conduct of a motion of censure are fairly precise.

Ms Moore: I seek leave to suspend standing orders so that I can contribute to this debate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a mindset that motions of this sort should be conducted within the parameters of the standing orders. Whether leave should be granted is a matter for the House. Is leave granted?

Mr Whelan: Leave is not granted. If leave were granted to the honourable member for Bligh 80 or 90 other speakers could also seek leave to speak in debate on this matter. The most important, vital and interesting issue is that other than the honourable member for Tamworth no-one defended the actions of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai, who spent his time berating the Speaker about a miscellany of non-relevant issues, said that the Speaker, the honourable member for Drummoyne, was responsible for the demise of the former member for Ermington, Michael Photios.

Mr Souris: "In collusion" were the words.

Mr Whelan: "In collusion" were the words. A lot of allegations were made about me. The former member was defeated, first, because of his ineptitude; secondly, because of his arrogance in this place; thirdly, because the Labor Party had a better candidate; and, fourthly, because he was not worthy of the electorate and suffered one of the most humiliating defeats of any member in any election. So much for Michael Photios and so much for the alleged conspiracy between Mr Speaker as the member for Drummoyne and the Premier about the demise of Michael Photios. The fact is that no-one except the honourable member for Tamworth has defended the actions of the member for Coffs Harbour.

I have already told the House that the member for Coffs Harbour is a rogue not only in the Parliament but in the National Party and in the Coalition. The House should pay him absolutely no respect for what he has done. I ask the honourable member for Tamworth to give me a second while I explain why the member for Coffs Harbour was out of order. Standing Order 54 or 55 says that Speakers shall maintain order. The Speaker can maintain order only if members abide by what the Speaker says. If the Speaker said—as he did to the member for Coffs Harbour on three separate occasions—"Resume your seat", and on three separate occasions the member for Coffs Harbour defied what the Speaker said—

Mr O'Farrell: That's not true. Look at the video.

Mr Whelan: I watched the video. The member for Coffs Harbour defied the Speaker. He stood up twice in his seat and, notwithstanding the ruling, walked to the lectern and sought to raise the same point of order. That is the simple reason why this motion has no validity: the honourable member knows that he acted in defiance of the Chair.

Mr Windsor: That's not what I saw.

Mr Whelan: That is exactly what happened. The honourable member did not do what he was told; he did not abide by what the Speaker had said and he did not resume his seat. The Speaker has the right to maintain order, and the only way that he can maintain order with a rogue and a vagabond such as the member for Coffs Harbour is to force him to sit down. The member for Coffs Harbour refused to do that so the Speaker had no choice: the member for Coffs Harbour had to go. He was called to order by the Speaker; he has a record for that.

I understand why honourable members do not get up and defend the member for Coffs Harbour. The Leader of the National Party did not praise the member for Coffs Harbour; he did not say anything in the member's favour. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke about everybody—he went through the formal list dating back to 1960. The honourable member for Hawkesbury said, "You know what? We are all bound by the standing orders because they are most important; they are our bible that everyone should relate to". I will give him a copy of Erskine May to read. He can read various pages that will tell him that it is the precedents of this House that matter. The standing orders are only our guide. They are also the Opposition's standing orders. When I protested my outrage as a victim of former Speaker Rozzoli—which I did on many occasions—I copped it. I will give the honourable member some advice: he is wrong; he is very wrong. Instead of dissenting, he should be apologising to the Speaker.

Mr Fraser: Point of order: I draw the attention of the House to the Macquarie Dictionary, which defines "rogue" as:

1. A dishonest person.

I ask the Minister to apologise and to withdraw his earlier remark about me.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will the member repeat his point of order?

Mr Fraser: The Minister and Leader of Government Business in the House referred to me earlier this evening as a "rogue". The Macquarie Dictionary defines "rogue" as "a dishonest person".

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat. He will have ten minutes in which to reply to the debate. He has taken an unnecessary point of order and, under previous Speakers, he would have been placed on three calls to order.

Mr Whelan: Listening to the Opposition, one would think this is a one-way street. Mr Speaker, I looked at the rulings of former Speaker Rozzoli and there are roughly the same percentages for and against by you and by former Speaker Rozzoli. During the past six months—I have not yet taken out these figures but I will do so; I know the empirical detail from being in the Chamber—you have sat down Government members and called them to order much more frequently than occurred under any other Speaker that I can recall.

Mr O'Farrell: That's not true.

Mr Whelan: It is a fact.

Mr O'Farrell: Speaker Rozzoli put a Minister out.

Mr Whelan: Because he hated him; not because he had breached the standing orders. It was a personality clash. It was Bruce Baird. He could hardly wait. I was in the Chamber that day and Baird said hardly anything. Speaker Rozzoli stood up, with his wig going up and down, and said, "The honourable member will go out". I do not know whether Bruce Baird had another arrangement or whether he had concocted it, but he left the Chamber. He did as he was told and abided by the Speaker's ruling. He complied with the standing orders. He did exactly what the Speaker asked and it is about time the honourable member for Coffs Harbour began to do the same.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [7.45 p.m.], in reply: I remind honourable members that this motion is about the right of any private member—whether Independent, Government or Opposition members—to take a point of order under Standing Orders 104 and 105. Mr Speaker, you did not allow me that right. Despite the attempts of the Leader of the House to taint that action, Hansard and the tape of proceedings in the Chamber that day show what really happened. The Minister referred me to Erskine May. I will point you and the Minister and Leader of the House to page 396 of Erskine May, which states—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Ms Beamer: Who wrote this?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members will remain silent.

Mr FRASER: It states:

Right of members to direct the attention of the Chair to supposed breaches of order.

It is the duty of the Speaker to intervene to preserve order, though he may refrain from intervening if he thinks it unnecessary to do so. If he does not intervene, however, whether for the above reason or because he has not perceived that a breach of order has been committed, it is the right of any Member who thinks that such a breach has been committed to rise in his place, interrupting any Member who may be speaking, and direct the attention of the Chair to the matter.

That is what I did. The footnote says that that ruling arose from parliamentary debate in 1872. You, Mr Speaker, ride roughshod over Erskine May and over parliamentary practice. The Minister referred me to this book and I now refer him to it. I object to his implication—it is not, and has never been accurate—in this debate. He lies in this House as he lies elsewhere. I currently—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Coffs Harbour to withdraw.

Mr O'Farrell: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have asked the member for Coffs Harbour to withdraw.

Mr FRASER: I withdraw. The Minister in the chair—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on three calls to order. If he attempts to discuss this matter with the Chair, he will be removed from the Chamber. From now on I will ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the Deputy Leader of the Opposition if he looks sideways. He may think that is funny, but I assure him that from now on he will receive no leniency from the Chair.

Mr FRASER: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I repeat that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will receive no leniency from the Chair. He laughs at that. I will repeat it for the third time: the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will receive no leniency from the Chair.

Mr FRASER: Mr Speaker, you have once again demonstrated your bias in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat. If he wants me to act as he suggests in this debate, I will. If the Speaker gives a direction, members should follow it. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour cannot have it both ways.

Mr FRASER: Mr Speaker, you will notice—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not given the call to the member for Coffs Harbour. He is keen to have all standing orders complied with; he should comply with them also. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour has the call.

Mr FRASER: I draw your attention to the motion. The motion states that you show bias. I think you have shown bias in this debate this evening. You sat there while members on this side of the House were debating the issue and listened to a cacophony of howls from idiots opposite—and they were idiots. You put up with that and you accepted every point of order. When a point of order is taken by a member on this side of the House or a member interjects you rule against us straightaway. Let us look at the record of the Minister for Police. In 1990-91 he was ejected from this House for a total of seven days. Once he was suspended from the service of the House for four days. His record here is an utter disgrace. He stands here and tries to look like a saint.

Mr Ashton: Point of order: The motion before the House is a censure of you, Mr Speaker. It has nothing to do with the Leader of the House or the Leader of the Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour has the call.

Mr FRASER: Are you ruling on the point of order?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member for Coffs Harbour does not wish to speak, I will put the question.

Mr FRASER: Mr Speaker, the point of order I was going to take the other day when I was not allowed to take a point of order was that the business of the House is suspended automatically after a point of order until the Speaker has ruled on the point order. You have not ruled on the point of order taken by the honourable member for East Hills tonight, so once again we are outside the terms and conditions of the standing orders of this House. You tell me that is not bias! You tell me that what you are doing and what the Minister for Police is doing is not bias.

I draw your attention to the fact raised by other honourable members in this debate that the Premier issued a media release. I am taking action against the Premier for defamation, because he inaccurately reflected what occurred in the House that day. Your attitude tonight, Mr Speaker, your total demeanour in this and previous debates, reflects your bias towards Opposition members. Is it because you do not like members using the standing orders to take their rights in this Chamber? Standing orders 104 and 105 are the only real right any member of this Chamber has. You sit there and smile; you think it is funny.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not say it was funny.

Mr FRASER: Well, you are sitting there, smiling. It is marvellous!

Mr SPEAKER: I am enjoying the debate.

Mr FRASER: You do have the numbers on your side, but your ludicrous actions in this place will be noted. The famed Speakers whose names appear around the Chamber will be turning in their graves. Speaker Kelly had one of the most savage reputations. I remember the former member for Dubbo, Gerry Peacocke, saying to me that he once came into this House and had only just put his backside on the seat when he was removed because the Government needed the numbers. At least there was an excuse then.

Mr Speaker, your bias indicates that you are being led by the Leader of the House. He has made personal attacks this evening on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, on me, on the Leader of the National Party and others and no-one objects, and you do not rule. Mention was made of the honourable member for Murray-Darling in this debate and straightaway someone objected and you ruled in their favour. Yet the Leader of the House made a personal attack on me and called me a rogue—and, as I said, a rogue is a dishonest person—and I asked you to have him withdraw it: no. But I call him a liar, and I must withdraw that.

Mr Whelan: Point of order: The honourable member cannot mislead the House. The definition of "rogue" in the same dictionary that he has and that I now have is:

a dishonest person … a playfully mischievous person; rascal; scamp … a vagrant or vagabond …

Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the point of order?

Mr Whelan: That the honourable member should be asked to quote accurately.

Mr FRASER: Here we go! When I tried to take a point of order a moment ago I was made to sit down and told I could not take a point of order. The Leader of the House took a point of order and, once again, bias. I hope the tape of this debate is available to the media as well. In reality, what has happened in this place in the past five years has disappointed me. As I have said when I began my contribution, this is a robust Chamber. It always has been and I hope it always will be. Because of the games being played by those opposite, the name of this place should be changed from the bearpit to the sandpit, because they are all children. The way you act and disregard the standing orders of this place, knowing full well you have the numbers to do what you like, is an absolute disgrace. Your compliance with this, Mr Speaker, saddens me. Personally I like you but your job in ruling this Chamber in a fair and impartial manner is one that should be held up to ridicule by the media, by members on this side of the House and by members on the government side of the House.

The honourable member for Bligh sought to suspend standing orders to enable her to contribute to this debate but was not allowed to do so. Yet, the Leader of the House can suspend standing orders at any time to provide bias and favour to his own members. He does it because of the numbers, and you reflect that, Mr Speaker. You reflect what goes on, you reflect the bias, and it saddens me. You have diminished democracy in this State. By ejecting me from the House for taking a point of order—a basic right—you have diminished my rights and the rights of my constituents, the people of the Coffs Harbour electorate.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr Barr Mr Debnam Mr George Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard Ms Hodgkinson Mr Humpherson Dr Kernohan Mr Kerr Mr Maguire

Mr McGrane Mr Merton Mr O'Doherty Mr O'Farrell Mr Oakeshott Mr D. L. Page Mr Richardson Mr Rozzoli Ms Seaton Mrs Skinner Mr Slack-Smith

Mr Souris Mr Tink Mr Torbay Mr J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Mr Webb Mr Windsor Tellers, Mr Fraser Mr R. H. L. Smith

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

Mrs Grusovin Ms Harrison Mr Hickey Mr Knight Mr Knowles Mr Lynch Mr McManus Mr Martin Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Mr Moss Mr Newell Ms Nori Mr Orkopoulos

Mr E. T. Page Mr Price Ms Saliba Mr Scully Mr W. D. Smith Mr Stewart Mr Tripodi Mr Watkins Mr Whelan Mr Woods Mr Yeadon Tellers, Mr Anderson Mr Thompson

Mr Brogden	Ms Allan
Mrs Chikarovksi	Mr Hunter
Mr Collins	Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Glachan	Mr McBride
Mr Stoner	Mr Nagle

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt—Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [8.07 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Plant Diseases Act is the primary legislation under which New South Wales Agriculture, in co-operation with producers, manages economically significant pests and diseases of plants. This bill has been prompted by changes in the international trade environment for fresh fruits and vegetables. Trade barriers and market access agreements that focus on pest and disease concerns, rather than economic concerns, are now common. These amendments will allow the management of a range of pests and diseases, such as fire blight and papaya fruit fly, which could potentially devastate New South Wales horticultural industries.

Queensland fruit fly is Australia’s worst fruit pest, costing fruit growers $100 million a year in lost income and eradication. The fly lays its eggs in maturing and ripe fruit, destroying the fruit and enabling the fly to spread to new areas with the spread of infected fruit. The amendments will allow New South Wales Agriculture to conduct fruit fly eradication programs, when required, in accordance with the rules laid down in trade agreements, such as the Australian Code of Practice for Management of Queensland fruit fly, and the various bilateral market access agreements for citrus with countries such as the United States of America and New Zealand. The Fruit Fly Exclusion Zone is a zone established in south-eastern Australia, taking in significant irrigated horticultural areas of New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria.

In New South Wales the zone takes in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and the southern Riverina, as well as Broken Hill, Hillston and Menindee Lakes. To export fruit which could potentially host fruit fly to fruit fly free countries, New South Wales must be able to show that the fruit comes from a fruit fly free zone. Importing countries such as the United States of America require the process of ensuring and maintaining fruit fly free zones to be in legislation before they will allow fruits such as navel oranges into their country. The zone is considered free of Queensland fruit fly, except for small introductions of the pest, which must be eradicated.

Maintenance of the zone will increase economic opportunities in the area for horticultural producers, particularly citrus growers, and through the associated flow-on effects increase social opportunities to the surrounding communities. Opportunities will be enhanced by improved access to a wider range of markets and to some high-priced markets. Producers will be able to send their produce interstate and to export without dipping or fumigating. Last summer and autumn pest area freedom status was lost for trade in all products to all markets as an unprecedented number of fruit fly outbreaks occurred in the zone. A large-scale eradication program was undertaken in the area over the late summer and autumn, and a further program is being planned for the spring. The object is to eradicate all flies which may have remained dormant in the area over winter and to regain area freedom status for trade purposes.

The proposed amendments will provide the Minister with power to make control orders in certain circumstances and with certain restrictions. Presently under the Act inspectors may only enter land to undertake work when an owner or occupier has failed to undertake the work he or she has been ordered to do. Under the proposed control order an inspector could enter a property to carry out prevention or control work, such as bait spraying, for any pest or disease described in the order without first ordering an owner or occupier to undertake the work.

Before making such an order the Minister must be satisfied that the work authorised by the order is necessary to avoid a danger to the health of the public or to consumers of food, produce derived from plants or persons working with plants; an undue hazard to the environment; or an adverse effect on trade in any plant or a product derived from the plant. Presently, inspectors are not authorised to enter, search or inspect that part of any property which is used for residential purposes. This order will permit entry into areas which are used for residential purposes, such as backyards, but will not allow an inspector to enter any part of premises which are used as a dwelling.

Clearly, there must be processes in place to protect the public from any abuse or misuse of any power to enter premises. Therefore, the bill requires the order to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament, and either House will be empowered to disallow it. In the circumstances when an order is made permitting inspectors to enter property to conduct pest or disease control programs, the owner or occupier of those properties must be given notice of the proposed entry. If the order identifies a particular property, the owner or occupier must receive personal notice of the order.

If an order applies to a number of properties within a specified area, notice may be given by publication in at least one newspaper circulating in the area. Before any work is carried out, owners and occupiers will also be given the right to formally object to the carrying out of the work. Each objection is to be considered by the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture or his nominee. In considering an objection, the director-general will be required to take into account both the merits of the objection and the significance of the works to be carried out. The issues that a person might raise in making an objection are not limited. After consideration of these factors the director-general has a number of options, such as exempting that property from treatment or directing alternative treatments to be carried out.

Currently, insect traps are distributed across much of New South Wales as a monitoring device for endemic and exotic fruit flies and for pests such as western flower thrip, with the full co-operation of landowners. However, to avoid any possible gaps in the monitoring process, inspectors will be given power to enter and place a pest or disease monitoring device on land and to enter to inspect a pest or disease monitoring device. It will be an offence to interfere with or destroy a monitoring device. The existing powers of inspectors will be amended so that the power to enter land or premises will now be subject to a requirement to give reasonable notice to the occupier, unless this would defeat the purpose of the entry.

The requirement to give reasonable notice to an occupier will bring the Plant Diseases Act into line with other legislation which permits inspectors to enter premises. It is a valuable protection of the public against any misuse of an inspector's power. While this bill provides powers to eradicate Queensland fruit fly, protecting horticultural industries in the zone, the amendments have a wider application, providing powers required effectively to locate and eradicate any exotic plant disease outbreak in New South Wales, such as fire blight, which is a very serious disease in pome fruit in New Zealand.

In Queensland when an exotic fruit fly—the papaya fruit fly—was detected the Queensland Government used similar powers to enter affected areas and treat the pest. The result was the eradication of what was potentially a very serious pest incursion for all of Australia. I believe the strength of the proposed powers in this amendment bill, subject to the constraints also imposed by this bill, are essential to limit the spread of pests and diseases endemic in Australia and to protect New South Wales in the event of an incursion of a serious exotic plant pest or disease. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Slack-Smith.

Debate resumed from 21 June.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [8.17 p.m.]: This bill provides for the creation of a further jurisdiction in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. The Coalition has always supported the role of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal as a way of ensuring cheaper and speedier resolution of disputes between citizens and government. The tribunal will have five divisions responsible for various areas. This bill provides for the creation of a new division that will review decisions made by the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue pursuant to New South Wales taxation laws. Accordingly, the bill amends the Taxation Administration Act 1996 to confer this jurisdiction on the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

I do not intend to speak at length on the bill. I shall simply raise issues of importance to the Coalition. This bill was not opposed by any of the relevant interest groups consulted by the Coalition, such as the New South Wales Law Society. When legislation of this type is brought before the Parliament we should have not only an explanation of what it is about but also an explanation of how the tribunal is functioning at present. If the Parliament is to carry out and discharge its functions effectively it needs to know the total environment in which legislation is presented to it.

This bill is presented as an amendment to create a new division. We have been told that under this bill revenue matters will be dealt with by that division, the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue will be the principal respondent and various Acts will be amended. However, we should be told the length of time for decisions to be made by the tribunal, how effectively it is operating and its costings—in other words, a general statement of information—so that we are aware of just how effectively it operates. One hopes that the Administrative Decision Tribunal will continue to operate well. The court system in this State is clogged. Every court has a long backlog and litigants complain about delays, which in many cases are harsh and unconscionable. It would be interesting to know what the length of delays and costings are in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

One would hope that we will get to the stage that was envisaged in the standing orders—which the Government always loves to tell me were Coalition standing orders—whereby legislation committees are appointed to look at the genesis of legislation and its surrounding circumstances, and members are provided with a full statement when they participate in debates of this nature, which are essentially about technical items. The tradition that the Government would like to establish is that the legislation is simply rubber-stamped by the Parliament. Having commented on the importance of more thorough information being provided about these tribunals, the Coalition does not oppose this amending legislation.

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [8.20 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Gosford for his support and for allowing the matter to come on so quickly. The bill has been in the Chamber for some time, having originally been the province of the former Attorney General. The honourable member for Gosford has raised a number of questions, and I undertake to ensure that they are answered when the matter is considered in the upper House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 21 June.

Mr McGRANE (Dubbo) [8.22 p.m.]: I support the Rural Assistance Amendment Bill, which continues the fine work carried out under the Rural Assistance Act, which has been in force since about 1930, although it has had a number of name changes. During that period rural New South Wales has seen—and it will see in the future—a great deal of changes. One thing that economic gurus cannot predict is natural disasters and their subsequent effect on rural communities. New South Wales is lucky that, when disaster strikes, this legislation is in place. Other States do not have such legislation. The legislation relates to all levels of primary production and will also provide assistance to people outside rural areas, such as those in urban areas whose properties are affected by hailstorm damage.

The role of the Rural Assistance Authority Board is well-defined. The board will continue to play an important role in advising governments of the issues and assistance needed for various areas of rural New South Wales. The composition of the board should reflect the changing nature of the communities it represents. Some 30 years ago when I was a young shire president I was part of the selection panel for an executive officer of the board, as it was then known. I was pleased that a rural shire president should be involved in the selection of the executive officer. The chairman at the time was Mr Don Barwick, a person of great repute in rural New South Wales. He was a member of the Australian Grain Elevators Board and the Australian Wheat Board, and a past president of New South Wales Farmers.

Throughout the board's history its members have been leaders in their communities and in various aspects of farming. A great attribute of the board is that its membership has included people who knew what was happening in regional New South Wales. Disasters occur which affect all levels of rural communities, from the most successful primary producers to the battlers. At times they are all in need of help. These amendments finetune the board's role and provide for government assistance to be administered through the board. The Government can have faith in this board, knowing that the dollars will be well spent and distributed to those in need who have been affected by various disasters.

Disasters can be natural disasters or the result of business management decisions. When farmers make the wrong decision they can get help through the Rural Assistance Authority Board. This positive legislation is good for the whole of New South Wales, because we know that we have a board that will wisely administer the dollars that are entrusted to it. At times in the past, with the regulations that were in place, people who needed help were turned away from the board because they did not meet the various criteria. The new amendments will alleviate that situation, making it easier for people to make application in the knowledge that they have some chance of success.

Again, I commend the Government for implementing these changes, which are a step in the right direction. The New South Wales Parliament gains because we know that the money will be well spent, and rural New South Wales gains because the board has the elasticity to spend the money in the correct manner. Not only will New South Wales be assisted through the various moneys provided but the board will make sure that government dollars are well spent. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [8.28 p.m.]: I support the Rural Assistance Amendment Bill. Legislation such as this makes one reflect on previous legislation, particularly in relation to rural assistance. I am pleased with the amendment to section 18, which makes the legislation much clearer. As the Minister for Agriculture is well aware, in November 1996 a major natural disaster occurred in Coffs Harbour which insurance companies initially decided to classify as a flood. But eventually they had the good sense to reclassify it as a severe natural disaster, when the weather bureau classified it as near to 100 per cent precipitation. That disaster created havoc within our community, not only in the township of Coffs Harbour but particularly on the banana farms. Public roads leading to farms and roads on farms were washed out. I visited many farms that had lost a large percentage of not only their banana crops but also their banana trees, which, whichwere destroyed in landslips.

Under previous storm damage provisions governments found it very hard to give assistance to farmers that was of any real help to them. I ask the Minister to say in his response whether grants will be provided. New section 18 (1) provides that the authority may establish programs for the grant of assistance. In the past low-interest loans were granted over a period. I ask the Minister to clarify whether, as a result of amendments to the legislation, the Rural Assistance Authority or the board will be able to make cash grants to farmers. As honourable members would be aware, the banana industry on the North Coast survives year to year. Often farmers wait for a cyclone to hit Tully in Queensland so that the market price may increase to a level that allows them to get a better return for their crop. In fact, farmers have told me that after sending their cartons to market they have received bills from the market saying, "You owe us $1.60 a carton for freight" after the fruit did not realise the market price or the cost of picking, packing and freighting it to the market.

When there is a disaster after a poor season or a season when the market price is poor, and roadways and bridges on farming properties are washed out, farmers do not need low-interest loans; rather, they need the Government to show a kinder face and provide roadworks and major infrastructure programs that it would not normally provide, and grant assistance to replace those roads and bridges at no cost to farmers. Most farmers, especially those on the North Coast, have mortgages, which means that they only just eke out an existence from their five or six acres—some have a little more than that—rather than make massive profits from them.

As I said, areas of the North Coast receive periods of very heavy rainfall and crops may be washed out. Whilst there may not be a natural disaster across the board, within a localised area such disasters can have a severe long-term financial effect and, obviously, a short-term financial effect on local farms. If amendments were made to the legislation to address that issue, or if the board were to give consideration under the amendments proposed to section 18 of the Act, it would be great news to the banana growers of Coffs Harbour and, indeed, the whole of the North Coast. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [8.32 p.m.]: I support the Rural Assistance Amendment Bill, which affects many diverse areas of the State, as reflected by the number of members who have spoken in the debate. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour highlighted the fact that banana growers do not ask for low-interest loans. However, when my electorate has experienced floods, cattle producers and rural producers have appreciated low-interest loans. I draw it to the attention of the Minister that when rural assistance has been available in the past, a famer had to be nearly destitute to be eligible for assistance, and often he was told that his farm was not viable enough to receive the assistance. In times of need people on the land certainly need assistance to support them.

Low-interest loans are a great support; they have been a great support in the past in times of drought and flood in our area. I trust that the amendments to the Rural Assistance Act will address that matter. I am pleased that the legislation provides for the Minister to review, every five years, the requirements of the Act relating to the composition of the board, to ensure that the board's decisions continue to reflect community views on rural assistance and disaster relief issues. The legislation consolidates and clarifies the provisions of the Act that relate to programs of assistance, and repeals the provisions of the Act relating to protection orders. I simply ask that assistance be made available to producers.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt—Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [8.35 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members—they are too numerous to mention individually—who have contributed to the debate on the Rural Assistance Amendment Bill over a number of days. Varied contributions have been made involving not only the bill itself but also general comments about the status of agriculture and a few political claims about water reforms and native vegetation. In fact, over a number of days comments have been made on virtually everything to do with rural New South Wales. It would be very difficult to respond to every comment made, but I will address a number of them.

The honourable member for Orange led for the Opposition and made a substantial contribution. The first point the honourable member raised was to acknowledge, in a very positive way, that the Rural Assistance Authority is situated within his constituency of Orange. One might say that that was simply a local member acknowledging a very interesting point. However, it should be borne in mind that before this Government came to office in 1995 the Rural Assistance Authority, an organisation that deals mainly with rural matters, was situated a few hundred yards from where I am standing at the moment. Only a very short distance down the road, the former Coalition Government had the Rural Assistance Authority located in a high-rise building in the central business district [CBD] paying something like $350,000 rent to some private landlord.

Mr Hazzard: They made the plans to move it, and you followed it up.

Mr McGrane: Shame!

Mr AMERY: As the honourable member for Dubbo rightly says, "Shame!" That was a Coalition Government, strongly represented by country New South Wales in the National Party. Right throughout its term the Rural Assistance Authority came under scrutiny by parliamentary inquiries, committees, and so on. There was an entire inquiry into the Rural Assistance Authority. One of the things that came out of that inquiry was that the Rural Assistance Authority should be located in rural New South Wales. One would have thought that after that review this Government would have received universal support from the Coalition when it went into opposition. But again that is not the case.

The honourable member for Dubbo, who was not a member of this place at the time, should note that, despite the former Coalition Government's rhetoric about decentralisation, when I proposed to transfer the Rural Assistance Authority to Orange and I then transferred agricultural research from Rydalmere to nine centres of excellence around country New South Wales, the National Party moved a vote of no confidence in me and the Government for transferring jobs from the city to country areas. Now, five years later, the number one point of the honourable member for Orange on the Rural Assistance Amendment Bill was the fact that the Rural Assistance Authority is now situated in country New South Wales, in his electorate. I warmly welcome his comments and the complete turnaround in the views of the National Party, which did all it could in 1995-96 to stop me transferring Rural Assistance Authority staff from the Sydney CBD to Orange.

Mr J. H. Turner: Who put the department out at Orange?

Mr AMERY: To follow up on the interjection, when I became the Minister in 1995, more than 10 per cent of New South Wales Agriculture was located within 40 kilometres of the Sydney CBD. Now, after about five years of the Labor Government, less than 1 per cent of New South Wales Agriculture is located in that same zone—a significant turnaround in events. Honourable members raised the issue of what brought about the changes to the legislation. The matter was addressed in my second reading speech and also by members of the Opposition, who highlighted the fact that the Farm Debt Mediation Bill, which is now run by the Rural Assistance Authority, is now working well and has taken over many redundant parts of the original legislation.

I welcome the positive comments about the Farm Debt Mediation Bill. When the minority Coalition Government was in office I introduced that bill as shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs. Who did their best to block the introduction of the legislation? What does Hansard say about various members of the National Party who stood where I am standing now and panned the idea of having legislation that would give farmers access to mediation before the banks threw them off their land? Who were those people? They were none other than many current members of the New South Wales Opposition, particularly the National Party, who now represent country electorates in New South Wales. Some years later those same members now talk about the positive aspects of the bill.

I am pleased that credibility has again been highlighted. The other day the Premier referred to the credibility of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Those opposite argue one point at one time, then a few years later come into the House with a complete reversal of their previous arguments. On 9 August the shadow Minister for Agriculture made a speech to the House about the bill. Together with his colleagues, the honourable member for Barwon indicated his support for it. However, his speech demonstrated a misunderstanding on several counts of the operations of the authority. In the first paragraph of his speech he said that the purpose of the original Moratorium Act was to provide farmers with low interest loans to enable them to work their way out of their financial difficulties. Historically, that is not correct.

Hansard of the day, that is 1931 to 1932, indicates to the contrary: the purpose of the original Act, as intended by the Lang Government, was, as its name suggests, to initiate a moratorium through a stay order; in other words, to buy some time for struggling farmers by preventing creditors from foreclosing on them. In the second paragraph of his speech the shadow Minister for Agriculture said, "Unfortunately, since that time the Rural Assistance Act seems to have lost its focus." I reject that comment. It is an odd remark, given that the recent review team that produced the recommendations that gave rise to the bill found the authority to be the most effective rural assistance agency in Australia.

It should be noted that the review team comprised representatives of the following seven organisations: the New South Wales Farmers Association, the Rural Financial Counsellors Association, the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority, New South Wales Agriculture, the Department of Land and Water Conservation, New South Wales Treasury, and the New South Wales Cabinet Office. The review group also undertook wide consultation with the rural community and other interested parties through submissions, a public meeting and meetings with stakeholders. Again in the second paragraph of his speech the shadow Minister referred to the Rural Assistance Authority [RAA] as having lost its way, as the current eligibility criteria were barriers to farmers seeking relief. He went on to use the outbreak of Newcastle disease on Mangrove Mountain as an example. It was an extraordinary example to give.

As the honourable member for Peats pointed out earlier in the debate in response to similar comments from the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, the real defaulter in the case of the Mangrove Mountain outbreak of Newcastle disease was the Commonwealth Coalition Government, which decided not to grant exceptional circumstances assistance to the 70 or so producers affected by what is universally regarded as the most significant exotic disease outbreak in the history of Australian agriculture. As the honourable member for Peats pointed out, farmers in the district were provided with $20,000 low interest loans from the authority to assist with property clean-ups and to help meet urgent carry-on costs until the exceptional circumstances application was prepared. The application was prepared in double-quick time by the growers, financial counsellors and a team from New South Wales Agriculture, and the exceptional circumstances assistance began to flow.

Almost $300,000 was provided to 15 affected producers at an average value of nearly $20,000 per loan. The loans are repayable over 10 years at an interest rate of about 4 per cent. It should be noted that that is only $20,000 less than the vastly inadequate $320,000 that the Commonwealth provided through its ex gratia household support payments, which are at the level of the dole or subsistence level. It must also be remembered that it was the Commonwealth agriculture Minister at the time, Mark Vaile, who encouraged that course of action and, with his colleagues, arranged the subsistence level family income support payments for a very limited and, arguably, inadequate period. Unfortunately, as we now know the Mangrove Mountain poultry producers had to wait for more than one year to find out that their farm family businesses would not be helped by the Commonwealth.

If the honourable member for Barwon wants to do something useful for those farmers he should talk to his Federal National Party and Liberal Party colleagues rather than try to protect them with cheap shots directed at this bill. Furthermore, if the natural disaster criteria do not fit, then the honourable member for Barwon ought to talk to another one of his mates, the Federal Minister for Finance and Administration, John Fahey, who has sole control over natural disaster eligibility criteria. In the third paragraph of his speech the shadow minister asserted that the RAA targets only a small spectrum of farmers and only those with reasonable equity in their properties. Is he suggesting that we return to the bad old days when the Coalition was in office, when it almost sent the authority broke by running up debts of almost $25 million? As I stated previously, we are recouping a great deal of that money.

The authority currently administers a loan portfolio of $78.3 million. Again reflecting the good fiscal performance of the Carr Government, prepayment arrears administered by the authority have decreased from $25 million in 1989 under the Coalition Government to a much more respectable $9 million in the current year. At the end of the day the authority has to manage its capital assistance programs prudently. The authority would probably be shut down if it reverted to being some sort of cheap loan non-repayable loan provider, which is what it was turning into under the Coalition's administration. As I have said, it is this type of bottom-line result that builds a relationship between the authority and both the New South Wales Treasury and the Federal Government, and which ultimately plays a large part in the nature of the programs delivered by the authority.

When the shadow Minister suggests that the authority is in some way being miserly he should bear in mind that it regularly goes out of its way to assist farmers. He should also bear in mind that it must operate within financial limits, as must any bank or financier, and that the authority is far more generous and lenient than most, if not all, private sector finances. As the honourable member for Tweed stated in his contribution to the debate, "Some other rural financial institutions could take notice of the example set by the authority." In the fourth paragraph of his contribution the honourable member for Barwon alleged that following floods in the past few years some farmers did not meet the criteria for rural assistance. He seems to be confusing natural disaster assistance loans with exceptional circumstances assistance, which the Commonwealth steadfastly refused to provide to farmers affected by those floods, particularly those in the north-western part of the State.

I remind members of the House that at the time of the winter 1998 floods the New South Wales Government reduced the rate of interest payable by farmers on natural disaster assistance loans from 6 per cent to 4 per cent following representations to me and to the Government from the President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, John Cobb. In the year following the floods, authority lending to farmers doubled from its usual $10 million to almost $20 million with most of the additional lending being directed to flood-affected farmers. It seems that the honourable member for Barwon has forgotten that flood relief assistance provided earlier this year through the authority for floods in the Western Division of New South Wales was enhanced, thus ensuring that farmers were able to claim 50 per cent of the cost of transporting new stock to their farms rather than the usual 50 per cent of the cost of transporting fodder and stock to and from agistment.

Eligibility for both natural disaster assistance and exceptional circumstances assistance is mainly determined solely by the Commonwealth, so the honourable member for Barwon should direct his concerns to his National Party colleagues in Canberra. I have clarified exceptional circumstances assistance. Although exceptional circumstances ware referred to by many honourable members in the debate, it is not the responsibility of the Rural Assistance Authority to prove or disapprove any of those applications.

In conclusion, I thank all honourable members for what I considered to be general support for the legislation—with the exception of some cheap shots by some members of the Opposition. As was stated in the report of the review, the Rural Assistance Authority provides a reasonable service to the farming community. Its percentage of approval of applications for assistance and recouping of old debts is very high, and the authority has done an extremely good job. Having made those few comments, I commend the bill to the House and thank all honourable members for their contributions to an extensive debate.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 9 August.

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes—Deputy Leader of the National Party) [8.50 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose this legislation. However, the bill contains a number of inadequacies. At the outset it should be stated that this legislation is long overdue. The Opposition notes that for some years this Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee upon Road Safety—Staysafe—has advocated the need for an amendment to legislation relating to the taking of blood samples from drivers. The bill amends the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999.

In November, 1998 the Staysafe committee produced a report entitled "Injury Prevention and Infection Control in the Taking of Blood Samples from Drivers Suspected of Alcohol or other Drug Impairment". The report recommended the introduction of legislation in the first days of the Fifty-second Parliament. It was argued that this legislation was urgently needed to ensure the availability of the latest safety protocols so that medical practitioners and nursing staff would not be exposed to injury or infection while taking blood samples. Far from being introduced in the first few days of the Fifty-second Parliament, we are now in the first few years of the Parliament, which has resulted in unnecessary risk to health workers. The Staysafe report notes:

Under the existing legislation, there is a danger of sharps or needle stick injury during the processes of obtaining the blood sample and its division into "2 approximately equal portions".

A key recommendation of the Staysafe committee report is:

The Department of Health, in consultation with the New South Wales Police Service, ensure that existing policies and protocols are reviewed, and revised where appropriate, to ensure that medical and nursing staff are not exposed to the risk of injury and infection while taking blood samples from drivers suspected of alcohol or other drug impairment.

The report also notes:

The blood sampling provisions need to be amended to include reference to alternatives to the use of the needle and syringe method and, in particular, the use of vacuum container blood collection methods, or vacutainers.

Vacuum container blood collection methods offer a more appropriate method for obtaining blood that minimises the risk of sharps or needle stick injury and of infection.

I will discuss blood collection in a vacuum container later in my speech because it is a key factor of the Staysafe report and is referred to in the second reading speech of the Parliamentary Secretary for Roads, the honourable member for Wyong. But it is not referred to in the bill. The Opposition notes that the terminology used in this legislation indicates that the blood sample, once taken, is placed in the container. If vacuum-sealed containers were being used, that would not be necessary. The Carr Government should ensure that the occupational health and safety practices of medical practitioners and nursing staff who are required to take blood samples incorporate the use of the latest technology.

The latest technology is the use of vacuum-sealed containers to store blood samples. The Carr Government should legislate for the use of both vacuum-sealed containers and the needle and syringe technique. The Carr Government has missed a vital opportunity in this bill to reform legislation that has an adverse impact on the occupational health and safety principles of medical practitioners and nursing staff who are responsible for drawing blood from drivers. Put simply, the Carr Government is amending poor legislation poorly. The most important aspects of this bill have been missed.

This bill proposes that it is no longer a requirement for the sample which is taken from the driver to be divided into two separate containers. This will eliminate the need, at the time of taking the sample, for the medical practitioner to divide it into two containers, with the possible risk of the person taking the sample contracting blood-borne diseases and needle-stick injuries. The Opposition agrees that it is necessary for this process to be eliminated, and welcomes the requirement for the sample, if needed, being divided under laboratory conditions. However, this legislation fails to make any mention of the process by which medical practitioners and nursing staff are required to take the blood sample. The Opposition believes that that should be the most important aspect of the legislation.

The legislation should include an indication of the need to use vacuum-sealed containers to draw the sample, except where needle and syringe are necessary, instead of relying on the current system of needle and syringe. Because only one sample will be drawn from the driver, it is also imperative that the container remain tamper-proof. The Opposition also notes, and objects to, the $50 fee to be imposed on the owner of the sample should he or she require a portion of that sample. This legislation proposes that within 12 months of the sample being taken, the owner of the sample may obtain a portion of it.

There is concern over the stipulation of a time frame. Because a person from whom blood is taken may need to rely on the blood for a court case or to obtain related matter, the court system may not allow for the case to be heard within a 12-month period. The protocols of storage must be unchallengeable in a court of law. The Government should address the manner in which it intends to ensure beyond reasonable doubt that the veracity of the stored sample is maintained. The Opposition poses this question: Will the sample be available to the owner after it has been in storage for 12 months? If so, will a fee be payable?

The Opposition also notes that the $50 fee for the owner of the sample to obtain a portion of that sample will be subject to increase. The words "or other such amount as may be prescribed by the regulations" stated in the bill indicate that the fee for obtaining a blood sample can, and will, be increased. It is indeed curious that a fee needs to be introduced at all. The current legislation requires that two samples be taken. The proposed legislation requires that only one sample be taken. Presumably that would reduce the cost of having two containers and would also reduce the costs of double-handling the sample. This amending bill affects the Marine (Boating Safety—Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1991, the Marine Safety Act 1998 and the Rail Safety Act 1993. The Opposition will not oppose this bill. However, members of the Opposition certainly feel that the Carr Government has missed some vital opportunities to address the shortcomings of the current legislation in terms of occupational health and safety principles affecting medical practitioners and nursing staff who are at the front line, taking blood samples from drivers.

Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [8.57 p.m.]: I welcome this opportunity to speak to the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Amendment (Blood Sampling) Bill. An overview of the bill reveals that presently health care workers, doctors and nurses who take samples for the purpose of testing for alcohol or other drugs are required to divide a sample into two approximately equal portions. One portion is to be sent to a laboratory for testing and the other is to be given to the person from whom the blood was taken, thereby in a sense protecting that person's civil rights by ensuring that that person's sample is securely retained. To remove the risk to health care workers who handle blood, the main object of the bill is to require samples that are taken for the purposes of testing to be sent to a laboratory for division under safer laboratory conditions. Previously one sample was taken and had to be divided on the spot.

A portion of the sample is to be made available to a laboratory or a medical practitioner nominated by the person from whom the blood was taken if the person so requests, and upon payment of a fee of $50—which, in a modern economy, is a pretty small amount—or such other amount that may be prescribed by the regulations. The person can later have the sample divided and tested. The object of the bill is to amend blood collection procedures contained in the provisions of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999. The bill has three key principles. The first is occupational health and safety requirements to protect our health professionals and workers who take these blood samples. Next, we must make sure that we protect the civil rights of those whose blood is being collected. Further, we must ensure security of the blood sample for use in any court and that its evidentiary veracity is unquestioned.

The amendments are necessary for the following reasons. First, the bill allows the introduction of a procedural framework that optimises the occupational health and safety of our health care professionals by allowing the use of new vacuum sealed blood collection equipment for the purposes of the Road Transport Act. This bill brings New South Wales into line with world's best practice. Most of us have undergone blood tests. Recently both of my daughters underwent blood tests under what might be called the hollow syringe system, which is the method that has been used for decades. It is always a frightening experience when the vein is missed and blood ends up everywhere. The health worker keeps sticking in the needle with the possibility of causing injury. During the last blood test I underwent—some people might suggest I produced blue blood or that I did not have any at all—the nurse plunged the needle into the wrong spot and blood went everywhere. It was a little embarrassing, but I was not concerned that she would catch anything from me or vice versa.

Mr Hazzard: How do know she wasn't concerned? She could have been concerned.

Mr ASHTON: The honourable member for Wakehurst is sure she would have caught something!

Mr Hazzard: Then again, you're a teacher. You're not a bad bloke! If you're a teacher we guarantee you're okay.

Mr ASHTON: Well, as a teacher I was a good bloke! The point is that this process can appear to be fairly threatening even if undertaken in a hospital or surgery. With car accidents or other accidents—such as a boating accident or a plane crash—blood samples may be needed from the pilot, the person in charge of the boat or the learner driver under the supervision of a licensed driver. Any situation involving a degree of crisis that requires blood samples to be taken can present a problem for those taking the sample and for the person from whom the sample is taken. The provision for vacuum sealed blood collection is essential and will go a long way towards ensuring the problems I have just outlined do not occur. The bill replaces the current practice of health care workers dividing the blood sample into two equal portions and giving a subsample to the donor.

The provisions in the bill will negate manual handling of hypodermic needles and increase the safety of our valuable health care professionals. Needle-stick injuries, as mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, present problems and occur in a percentage of collections undertaken in the best circumstances. However, accidents will happen and a degree of trauma is placed on those not only involved as the person undergoing the tests but the professional conducting the test. The change in procedure under this legislation will be a bonus. The bill introduces the new practice for the collection of blood samples and provision of blood subsamples to the blood donor. This new practice means that one blood sample will be taken and immediately sealed in an enclosed tube and forwarded on to the laboratory for analysis.

Mr Hazzard: Vacuum sealed.

Mr ASHTON: Vacuum sealed for greater protection. Are we talking about the same thing?

Mr Hazzard: I think we are.

Ms Meagher: We could vacuum seal you forever!

Mr Hazzard: History will record that as a great thing! My wife will actually be pleased about that too!

Mr ASHTON: So we have heard! Medical practitioners and nurses will end the often unsafe blood collection practice of dividing those samples into two containers through manually handling the hollow bore needles, syringes and containers in busy workplaces. This will mean that the exposure to hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV contaminated blood will be lessened. The use of vacuum sealed blood collection equipment will further enable medical practitioners and nurses to adopt new and improved safer practices. Current blood sample security arrangements will continue. Without that we cannot be sure truthful evidence will be presented to court. It is no good having a new system for the collection of blood samples if as soon as they are presented at court they are easily discredited and lost.

Mr Hazzard: By a good lawyer. I know one of those.

Mr ASHTON: By a good lawyer. You used to be a good lawyer. I was a good teacher! Conditions for blood sample veracity will improve as the portion of the blood sample will no longer be handed to the untrained donor after which it cannot be monitored or effectively secured. This new process will provide equal security for the person providing the sample. Even though the past practice gave them a sample, if at a later time they wanted that sample tested, which was a reasonable request and could be done under the Act, what happened if that sample were smashed, lost, left with someone else or tampered with? By collecting one sample only the donor can request at a later time that it be divided and have it tested after paying a $50 fee; the result would be fair dinkum.

Mr Hazzard: The left wing wouldn't give it to the right wing, would they?

Mr ASHTON: We look after all our colleagues over here. Of course, blood donors' civil rights must be preserved. All those lawyers sitting opposite know only too well—

Mr Hazzard: Only three out of four.

Mr ASHTON: Well, they are all pretending lawyers! Being the second most litigious society in the world after America, if we do not protect the civil rights of those undergoing blood tests we will end up in court not debating whether the person drove the car into a crossing or hurt somebody, but whether the testing was carried out properly or whether the blood sample was tampered with.

Mr Hazzard: What has the Carr Government done for civil rights? Let's get serious.

Mr ASHTON: I will explain it to you in a minute. Although under this new proposal the donor does not receive a sample for the purposes of independent analysis, the donor may still exercise his or her rights and apply to the Division of Analytical Laboratories for independent analysis of that sample. The $50 fee is small especially when considering that potentially, perhaps in a few cases, it provides the chance to prove the results of the blood sample taken were incorrect. I am told that of 18,000 cases last year only 200 people challenged the information provided by the blood sample. I am sure few of that number—probably none—would have found support for their contention.

Finally, these amendments are necessary as they will help to replace an outmoded form of taking necessary blood samples at accident sites or at locations where an incident has occurred and someone may be charged with a criminal offence as a result. The bill will mean our health care workers will be further protected when taking blood samples. Blood samples will no longer be divided into two portions; instead only one sample will be taken but it can be tested at a later time on request and after a $50 payment. Importantly, the rights of individuals will be guaranteed. I commend the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Amendment (Blood Sampling) Bill to the House. I thank Opposition members for their qualified support for the bill.

Miss BURTON (Kogarah) [9.09 p.m.]: The Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Amendment (Blood Sampling) Bill requires medical practitioners and nurses in New South Wales to take blood samples from road users, usually the controllers of the vehicles, for the purpose of determining the concentration of alcohol or any other drug. Medical practitioners and nurses are currently required to take a blood sample and divide the sample into two equal portions. One container is sent to the prescribed laboratory, which is the Western Sydney Area Health Service, Division of Analytical Laboratories [DAL]. DAL analyses the sample and provides the results to the New South Wales Police Service. The other container is provided directly to the donor. The practice of dividing the blood requires manual manipulation of a syringe and hollow-bore needle, increasing people's risk of exposure to hepatitis B and C and HIV contaminated blood through needle-stick injury or blood splash. The current practices described under the Act now conflict with the new Medical Practice (Infection Control Standard) Regulation 1998.

The new procedures, as introduced under this bill, have a twofold safety benefit: the improved occupational health and safety of our health professionals, and the enhanced safety provided to the community in general. The requirement on medical practitioners and nurses to take a blood sample for the purpose of determining the concentration of alcohol or the presence of any drug is as was described under the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999. The requirements of this Act apply after a casualty motor vehicle accident, on request by a police officer as part of a sobriety test or on the request of a person charged with drink driving. The current practice, being the division of the blood sample into two containers, is the main cause of needle-stick injury. As the new practice removes the need to divide the blood sample it effectively reduces the number of tasks involving the use of hollow-bore needles and disposable syringes. This reduces the chance of exposure to hepatitis B and C, HIV or other blood-borne viruses.

Additionally, the proposed practice will allow the use of close vacuum blood collection equipment, the preferred equipment from an occupational health and safety viewpoint. This equipment allows blood to flow directly from the vein into a closed blood tube. It is practical and safe and involves only one needle and one jab. Also at issue is what happens to a container of blood after it is delivered directly to the donor, as is the current practice. In our contemporary society, when blood-borne viruses are a major health issue, this practice is no longer in the best interests of the community. Therefore, we must take the responsible action for our community. Indeed, the community will now be afforded greater protection with the adoption of this proposed blood collection practice. With the donor no longer being given a container of blood, the safety of the community is enhanced in that untested, unsecured containers of blood are not released directly into the public domain.

Under the current legislation a container of blood is handed to the donor, who may then do with it as he or she wishes. The purpose of this practice was to provide the donor with a portion of his or her blood sample for an independent analysis, if the donor so wished. Such a practice is now considered outdated and the potential dangers to the community greatly outweigh the benefits. This bill allows New South Wales to come into line with world's best practice. It simultaneously enhances the safety of our health care professionals, the community and protects the donor's right to have a sample independently analysed by another laboratory. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr STONER (Oxley) [9.13 p.m.]: I speak to the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Amendment (Blood Sampling) Bill as a member of the Joint Standing Committee upon Road Safety. I know that the chairman of the committee, the honourable member for The Entrance, will speak with authority on this topic. This bill amends current legislation relating to blood samples of drivers being tested for drugs and alcohol. This bill proposes that only one blood sample will be taken; in the past two samples were taken. Inherent in that procedure was some risk of infection from blood-borne diseases and so on. The bill proposes the dividing of the sample, consequently, under laboratory conditions. In addition, within a 12-month period the owner of the sample can request a portion of it if he or she pays a $50 application fee. The Opposition does not oppose this bill. It is a step in the right direction. The Opposition agrees with the honourable member for East Hills, who said that the provisions of this bill replace an outmoded form of blood sampling.

Staysafe report No 45, entitled "Injury Prevention and Infection Control in the Taking of Blood Samples from Drivers Suspected of Alcohol or Other Drug Impairment", covered that important issue. Although the inquiry took place prior to me becoming a member of the committee, I have read the report. Health practitioners, police and other professionals raised a number of issues before the Staysafe committee at the time of the inquiry. Today people are still concerned about needle-stick injury and the transmission of blood-borne diseases. The legislation needed to be brought into the twenty-first century, having regard to developments with various diseases that can be transmitted via blood. This bill concurrently amends the Marine (Boating Safety—Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1991, the Marine Safety Act 1998 and the Rail Safety Act 1993.

The Government claims that it is committed to applying world's best practice regarding the potentially dangerous task of collecting and dealing with blood samples, but this bill falls short of world's best practice. In other States of Australia vacutainer technology is being used and tamper-proof containers are being used for the collection and storage of blood. Such practices not only meet occupational health and safety standards but comply with the rules of evidence. This bill does not stipulate any procedures or requirements in relation to the use of vacutainer technology or tamper-proof containers. I appreciate that the honourable member for Cabramatta said that those techniques can be used. She said:

That will allow the use of closed vacuum blood collection equipment, which allows blood to flow directly from the vein into a closed blood tube, thus eliminating potential needle-stick injuries and blood splash.

That is a good thing, but we need to do more than say, "You can do it if you like." The legislation should stipulate that requirement if we are to justify the claim of applying world's best practice in New South Wales. The bill departs from the current practice of the person who supplies the blood having an automatic right to a portion of that blood. This change is good from an occupational health and safety perspective. However, from the perspective of individual rights, the person who wants a sample of his or her blood now has to pay a $50 fee. I believe the blood remains the property of the person from whom it was obtained. Why should that person have to pay $50 to receive a sample of his or her blood? Perhaps there is a presumption of guilt? He or she should not have to jump through a number of hoops to get a blood sample. The current legislation stipulates that people can automatically receive a portion of their own blood. This is a change to the legislation. This matter needs to be raised. If the Opposition does not raise these issues, who will?

Mr Hazzard: They won't.

Mr STONER: Absolutely. The bill will make current sampling procedures more up-to-date and safer for the various professionals who have to apply them. The Opposition does not oppose the bill; however, we believe it could be better in providing a firmer outline of procedures for the vacutainer technology that is being applied in other States. The Opposition also raises concerns about the sudden application of a fee for people to access their own blood.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [9.19 p.m.]: I acknowledge the comments of the honourable member for Oxley, who is a member of Staysafe. The Deputy Leader of the National Party, also a member of Staysafe, referred to the fact that the bill implements recommendations of Staysafe. The former chairman of Staysafe under the Coalition Government, the honourable member for Wakehurst, is present in the Chamber. I am pleased to speak on the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Amendment (Blood Sampling) Bill. Currently, health care workers who take blood samples for the purposes of testing for alcohol or other drugs are required to divide the sample into two approximately equal portions, one to be sent to a laboratory for testing and the other to be given to the person from whom the blood was taken. In order to remove the risk to health care workers in handling blood, the main object of the bill is to require samples taken for the purposes of testing to be sent to a laboratory for division under safer laboratory conditions, with a portion of the sample to be available to a laboratory or medical practitioner nominated by the person from whom the blood was taken, if the person so requests and on payment of a fee of $50, or such other amount as may be prescribed by the regulations.

In essence, the amendment to the Act is about making testing safer. It is about occupational health and safety. It is about protecting both the person from whom the sample is taken and the nurse or doctor who takes the sample. It will protect the general community as well. There are three scenarios in which blood tests may be required. The first is on a request for a blood sample to be taken. Someone may be pulled up by the police and required to have a breath analysis. That person may request that a blood test be taken. In that case the person is taken to a prescribed place and a sample is taken there under the conditions previously explained. Secondly, following an accident in which someone has been injured it is a requirement that a blood sample be taken from each accident patient over the age of 15 years.

Currently, section 23 of the principal Act requires the medical practitioner or nurse who takes a sample of blood to divide the sample into two portions, as I mentioned before. The third case involves a blood analysis being required following an arrest. Under division 5 of part 2 of the principal Act the person who refuses to submit to an assessment of his or her sobriety or whom, after the assessment has been made, a police officer reasonably believes is under the influence of a drug, may be arrested. In such a case the police officer may require the person who has been so arrested to provide samples of the person's blood and urine, whether or not the person consents. The sample taken is again divided in two, one part being given to the person arrested and the other sample being kept by the police.

In recent years new and safer blood collection practices, accepted as world's best practices, have emerged. These practices are being progressively adopted in our State because they significantly reduce the risk of infection transmission from a needle-stick injury or from the splashing of contaminated blood onto exposed surface areas such as the eyes. Other speakers have mentioned the risks associated with these sorts of issues, in particular the great risks of contaminated blood because of the blood-borne diseases associated with modern society. The relevant current provisions of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 do not provide the framework by which these world best occupational health and safety practices can be employed. Consequently, the Roads and Traffic Authority, the Department of Health and the New South Wales Police Service have been working in partnership to develop and implement a blood sample collection procedure that improves occupational health and safety practices without compromising blood sample evidentiary veracity. The bill ensures that the procedure for collecting blood, as required by the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999, emulates other blood sampling collection procedures in the health system.

The current procedure is to place a hollow-bore needle and syringe into the vein of the person whose blood is being sampled. The sample is then decanted or divided into two equal portions on the spot. It is recognised that this procedure presents a major risk of exposure to contaminated blood through needle-stick injury or blood splash resulting from too much pressure being applied to the plunger of a syringe. We are saying that the current process does not meet current standards. More importantly, it does not meet the standards that are required for occupational health and safety. So the bill provides a major improvement in procedure.

The single sealed sample taken under the new procedure will be forwarded for analysis to the Division of Analytical Laboratories in accordance with established security requirements. Positive samples will be stored for 12 months at that establishment. The honourable member for Oxley suggested that there was a presumption of guilt and that people should have immediate access to their blood samples. But only positive samples will be stored. I point out that the provisions do not apply only to road transport. Complementary amendments will be made in relation to people in control of boats and in relation to train drivers: the same procedures will be applied to people involved in marine or train accidents. So the bill is comprehensive in looking after the interests of all people associated with the sampling of blood from people required to provide those samples. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.28 p.m.]: I support the bill and I acknowledge that the honourable member for The Entrance is the current chairman of Staysafe. When the report which gave rise to this bill was being considered by Staysafe Mr Gibson, the then member for Londonderry, now the member for Blacktown, was chairman. The report was the forty-fifth in a series of excellent reports by Staysafe, which is a bipartisan committee of the New South Wales Parliament. That committee has had an outstanding record in making recommendations for substantive change to road safety law. Not all the recommendations were accepted by governments, of both political persuasions, as quickly as they should have been. Probably one of the most worthwhile things that members of Staysafe do in the New South Wales Parliament is spend time on the committee.

I note that the members of the Staysafe committee at the time were Mr Paul Gibson, then the honourable member for Londonderry; Mr Jeff Hunter, the honourable member for Lake Macquarie; the Hon. Andy Manson, a member of the upper House; Mr John Mills, the honourable member for Wallsend; Mr George Thompson, the honourable member for Rockdale; Mr Bob Harrison, formerly the honourable member for Kiama; the Hon. John Jobling of the upper House; Mr Jim Small, then the honourable member for Murray; the Hon. John Tingle of the upper House; Mr Bruce Jeffery, formerly the honourable member for Oxley; and Mr Russell Smith, the honourable member for Bega.

The work of that committee stands as testimony to the excellent bipartisan work that can be undertaken by this Parliament. Long after some of its members have gone from this place, some 18 months since the last election and 3½ years after the report was produced, we now see the product of the work of that committee in its report and recommendations. I acknowledge the Director of the Staysafe committee, Mr Ian Faulks, a specialist in motor traffic law, has been a valuable asset to the committee. I acknowledge also the work of committee officers Mr Paul Adams and Ms Cory de Vega.

This bill, as was pointed out by the honourable member for The Entrance, covers not only road safety but marine and rail safety. We now have in each of those transport areas provisions prohibiting those who drive motor vehicles, boats and trains from consuming alcohol before taking charge of those vehicles. The bill before the House reviews and modifies current procedures to ensure a safer, more accurate process where blood samples are taken for the purposes of analysis to determine whether those persons have alcohol or drugs in their system.

It has been said by those who preceded me in this debate that these procedures will be applied in two main instances. The first is when the driver of a motor vehicle who is required to undertake a breath test may request that a blood sample be taken for analysis. A person who is placed under arrest may, as a consequence, be required to give a blood sample. Staysafe 45 points out that although that provision has been in operation for some time, in recent years there has been a remarkable change in the dangers to which the people taking the samples may be exposed. At page 13 of the report it is said of the Traffic Act 1909:

The legislation was developed at a time when knowledge about blood-borne infection was much less than it is today and when blood-borne infections, such as HIV and the hepatitis virus, were either non-existent or their incidence was at very low levels within the community. The circumstances today are very, very different from before. Because of the incidence and threat of blood-borne diseases a different technology is now more popular: the use of vacuum container blood collection methods, or vacutainers.

The difficulty remains, whether a vacutainer or older containers are used, that under the current system the sample that is taken in either of the two circumstances that I have outlined is required to be split by the health worker, usually a nurse or a doctor—I believe “medical practitioner” is the definition used in the Act. Anyone who has had anything to do with medical procedures would know that that is quite a dangerous time for needle-stick injuries, and that even the best of practitioners can suffer from a slight slip. People may have suffered needle-stick injuries in those sorts of circumstances. Anything that can be done by government to reduce the risk factor is welcome.

The fact is that the present system of providing two samples does not necessarily assist the alleged offender to any great extent. As was said by a number of honourable members, in some ways it can create problems, even dangers, for the person taking the sample. For example, if that person is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, the chances of a small phial of blood being retained for a long period are somewhat remote, and there is the chance of injury just through the carriage of the sample. So it makes sense that the one sample taken be conveyed in circumstances that make it much more likely that the sample will not be contaminated, with the sample then being held at the laboratory.

The Act makes it clear that a person may within 12 months apply for the sample collected from that person. I agree with the honourable member for Oxley, who said he did not know why a person who wanted access to his or her own blood should pay a fee for that service. If one applies the logic of that principle—and it would be crazy to do so—a person breathalysed by the local constabulary could be given a plastic tube by an officer who says, "Breathe into this. That will cost you $10." That would not be acceptable. Only a few weeks ago I was breathalysed twice within 20 minutes, which would of course double the fee under this user-pays principle. The Government has got it wrong in imposing this fee on people who, under our current system, are innocent until proven guilty—despite what the Carr Government has done in various areas. The honourable member for Oxley is quite right: to require innocent persons to pay a fee to gain access to their own blood—blood that is still their property under the terms of this legislation, as I understand it—is rather extraordinary. I did not see any such recommendation in Staysafe 45.

I suspect that Staysafe members of both political persuasions would not have been happy if they had foreseen that the response of the Government nearly four years later would be to impose a fee on innocent persons who require a sample of their blood to try to prove their innocence. To some people, $50 is quite a bit of money. For a young person who is working at his or her first job and is confronted with blood testing, $50 could represent a quite major expense. However, it could be even worse: the regulations could be amended at any stage, with the result that this could become a revenue exercise for the Carr Government, the highest taxing government in the history of New South Wales. The $50 fee could well become $100 or $200. If this Government can impose $1,500 and $2,000 fines on motorists who park on clearways during the Olympics, who knows what it will do once it has its hands on someone else's blood!

I know that the regular goings-on in the Left and the Right result in blood being spilled, but I am telling the Government that it is not reasonable to impose this fee. I raise my concerns and those of the community and say that this fee should not be part of the legislation. Other than that, this is quite a reasonable bill, and it will introduce initiatives to try to ensure the safety of health workers. At the end of the day it does not prejudice drivers of motor vehicles, vessels or trains; in fact, it may benefit them greatly, as was noted in the Staysafe report. For that reason I support the bill.

Mr CAMPBELL (Keira) [9.39 p.m.]: I am amazed at the contributions of honourable members opposite, who have said that the Opposition supports the bill in a bipartisan way and as former members of Staysafe—

Mr Hazzard: Chairman of Staysafe.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will cease interjecting while standing at the table. Such behaviour is disorderly. He will resume his seat.

Mr CAMPBELL: Of course, chairmen are members of a committee. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the former chairman or members of Staysafe said they support this legislation but they then made specific attacks on the bill. The bill amends the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999, which requires medical practitioners and nurses in New South Wales to take blood samples from road users, usually the controllers of vehicles, for the purpose of determining the concentration of alcohol or any other drug.

Medical practitioners and nurses—also referred to as health care workers—are currently required to take a blood sample and divide the sample into two equal portions. One container is sent to the prescribed laboratory for analysis and that sample, once analysed, is provided to the New South Wales Police Service. The other container is provided directly to the donor. The practice of dividing the blood requires manual manipulation of a syringe and hollow-bore needle, increasing the risk of exposure to hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV-contaminated blood through needle-stick injury or blood splash. The current practices described under the Act now conflict with the new Medical Practice (Infection Control Standard) Regulation 1998.

I understand that there have been lengthy negotiations and consultations between the New South Wales Health Department, the New South Wales Police Service and the Roads and Traffic Authority to develop and implement a blood sample collection procedure that improves occupational health and safety practices without compromising blood sample evidentiary veracity. The amendments outlined in the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Amendment (Blood Sampling) Bill reflect agency agreement on these issues following that discussion, consultation and negotiation.

The objective of the bill is to amend blood collection procedures as required by the legislation. Amendment is necessary to allow the introduction of a procedural framework optimal for occupational health and safety practices, such as the use of new vacuum-sealed blood collection equipment and, more important, to retain the evidentiary veracity of the blood sample. I shall comment on that in particular and how it balances with civil rights. Whilst the key reason for this bill is the safety of health care professionals, it is imperative to maintain the integrity of the blood collection system and at the same time preserve individual civil rights. This bill successfully achieves the three key issues of safety, security and civil rights.

The evidentiary veracity of the blood collection system is vital for the subsequent judicial processes. The new proposed procedures actually improve the conditions for blood sample integrity in judicial procedure. Under the new method the blood sample will be handled less frequently and will be more securely managed. Additionally, the sample will be collected in a vacuum-sealed, certified tube. The new system will be a simpler process, less open to fraud and will improve the reliability of blood sampling for evidentiary purposes.

The donor's right to access a portion of his or her blood sample for independent analysis is also protected under the new proposed procedures. The blood sample will be divided only if a donor so chooses and, when the sample is divided, it will be done under controlled laboratory conditions. This subdivision of blood does not occur very often. Based on historical data about 1 per cent of samples will be required to be subdivided in this way. Nonetheless, a subsample of the blood sample is not provided directly to the donor. Instead, it will be sent to another laboratory or medical practitioner nominated by the donor. In this way only trained personnel will handle the blood sample, minimising the risk of alcohol or drug content variance between the subsamples.

If the blood sample proves positive under the proposed practice and the donor chooses to have a subsample independently analysed, the donor can apply to the Division of Analytical Laboratories to have the sample divided and forwarded directly to a laboratory or medical practitioner nominated by that donor. As has been indicated, a $50 fee will apply with the application from the donor to have a sample independently analysed. This is in line with community acceptance of the user-pays system and the amount is not considered onerous. I inform the House, because this has been a bone of contention, that I have been advised that the fee is protected because it has been fixed by legislation. Therefore, it is nonsensical for the honourable member for Wakehurst to dramatically suggest that the Government might suddenly impose a $15,000 fee for this.

To further ensure security and accuracy of blood sample test results, the testing procedures come under rigorous testing protocols as the prescribed laboratory is a National Association of Testing Authorities [NATA] accredited laboratory. Under NATA's testing accreditation scheme, high standards for method and security of testing must be met. As certifiable blood collection and analysis procedures and protocols must be strictly adhered to and NATA's testing standards maintained, the rights of all parties, defence and prosecution, will be protected with the adoption of the amendments under this bill. The occupational health and safety provisions of this proposal are extremely important.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! By interjecting every 10 seconds the honourable member for Wakehurst is committing gross breaches of the rules. He will cease interjecting and behave in an orderly fashion.

Mr CAMPBELL: The occupational health and safety provisions of this bill fit well with the best traditions of a Labor government. They also fit very well with the contemporary expectation and requirement of the community to protect health care workers. Equally, the provisions of this bill are crime enforcement and crime protection tools, again meeting community expectation and contemporary community support. On balance, the bill is an improvement and I support it.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [9.47 p.m.]: This bill has been introduced primarily in the interests of occupational health and safety. I emphasise that under the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act health-care workers, when called upon to do so, are obliged to take blood samples from road users, train drivers and operators of various watercraft. As health-care workers are obliged to carry out this dangerous task, governments are obliged to take every precaution to ensure that the risk of accident to these health-care workers is minimised, and that primarily is why the bill has been introduced.

In the past it has been a problem that blood samples have been taken and at the same time divided. Other speakers have spoken about the high risk of needlestick injuries and blood splash. Under the provisions of this bill, only one sample will be taken and the procedure will allow blood to flow directly from a vein into an enclosed blood tube. That process will be much safer. However, it is important to point out that blood donors may continue to obtain a sample if they wish, but must apply through the Division of Analytical Laboratories of the Western Sydney Area Health Service. However, a donor may only obtain a sample for the purpose of having the sample analysed, not for personal use or possession.

A fair provision in this legislation is geared towards the donor. When a donor is able to obtain a sample he or she can have it analysed by a laboratory or a medical practitioner of his or her choice. When that sample is obtained it has to be divided into two parts. In earlier contributions to debate on this bill a number of honourable members said that samples obtained under controlled laboratory conditions would be a lot safer than the samples as presently obtained. The bill provides that a donor will still have access to a sample, but only when it is to be tested. This legislation protects the donor and those close to the donor from exposure to blood that could be contaminated.

More importantly, in view of the number of infections and fatal viruses that are now being detected in blood, I believe that the law must be changed to prevent blood from being distributed to individuals which, in turn, could be used by criminals to infect someone or threaten someone. That is another reason why samples are made available to donors only for the purpose of analytical tests. As I see it, this legislation will protect a number of bodies. First, it will protect health care workers from possible injury. Second, it will protect donors and those close to them from infections which could be caused from blood which they are able to hold under present law. Third, it will protect the general public from being threatened or infected with any contaminated blood which may be taken from controllers of trains, boats or various vehicles.

At the outset I said that this legislation was designed primarily in the interests of occupational health and safety, but it goes beyond that. It protects other people. I suppose that this legislation is really all about infection control. For that reason, it is little wonder that it has the total support of the health profession. Because it has the support of the health profession I believe that it also deserves the full support of this House.

Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Scully [9.52 p.m.], in reply: I congratulate honourable members representing the electorates of East Hills, Kogarah, Oxley, The Entrance, Wakehurst, Keira and Canterbury on their considered contributions to debate on this bill. One of the most significant issues confronting health care workers in modern times is the management of blood sampling. All honourable members would be aware that we can now be exposed to extensive viruses, in particular, hepatitis B and C and the blood-borne virus HIV. So a number of significant issues must be considered in this debate.

At present the current system requires that blood samples be divided into two, which significantly exposes health care workers to risks, for example, the risk of infection through splashing. As the honourable member for Canterbury pointed out earlier, some blood samples that are given to recipients are not in proper care. This bill will eliminate the need for the separating of blood into two categories. That provides us with a perfect opportunity to introduce new technology—vacuum pack sealing—which will guarantee the health and safety of workers required to take blood samples. It will also guarantee the integrity of the sample taken.

As the honourable member for Keira pointed out extensively in his contribution, it will guarantee the evidentiary veracity of the sample. I congratulate those who contributed to debate on this significantly important bill—legislation that did not come about easily. This legislation required extensive consultation and involved a number of authorities, for example, the State Rail Authority, the technical services branch of the New South Wales Police Service, the police ministry, the Attorney General's Department, New South Wales Health, the Division of Analytical Laboratories and the Marine Authority. In moving to the next level of guaranteeing occupational health and safety standards for those involved in the collection of blood sampling, the Government has certainly put its runs on the board. It has guaranteed a high standard of occupational health and safety. I thank all those honourable members who contributed to debate on this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Motion by Ms Meagher agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow consideration forthwith of General Business Orders of the Day (Committee Reports).

Mr PRICE (Maitland) [9.56 p.m.]: I speak in debate on the ICAC report entitled "The ICAC: Accounting for Extraordinary Powers." I quote from the Fitzgerald report:

If accountability is to be effective, it must relate to the exercise of power in specific cases, not just overall explanations. Accountability in the political sense is different from the necessary every day accountability when investigative powers are being exercised.

When applied to the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC], that observation from the Fitzgerald report succinctly explains the committee's recommendations for an inspector of the ICAC in its recently tabled review report on the accountability of the ICAC. The ICAC's current accountability structure examined in some detail in chapter 1 of the report is found by the committee to be deficient precisely because it fails to provide everyday accountability for the exercise of power in specific cases.

The oversight regime presently applying to the commission, in which the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption is the principal player, involves only overall explanations. No agency or individual is empowered to investigate complaints that ICAC or its officers have misused powers, nor is there an ongoing monitoring of the legality and propriety of the commission's operations. Examination of the commission's use of its covert powers in specific cases and assessment of the commission's investigative decision making cannot be undertaken by the parliamentary committee because of the limitations imposed by the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act.

The committee has not argued for an enhancement of its own powers and jurisdiction to enable it to undertake the necessary level of oversight. The parliamentary committee recognises that it lacks the resources, expertise and structure to officially fulfil such a role. After examining the oversight models applying to investigative agencies in New South Wales, interstate and in Hong Kong, the committee determined that an inspector would be the most effective means of oversighting the ICAC. The functions of the proposed inspector of the ICAC are modelled on those of the inspector of the Police Integrity Commission and include a reactive complaint-investigation role and a proactive monitoring role.

The committee has recommended that the inspector's powers include access to all information held by the commission, the power to obtain information, hold hearings, issue reports and make recommendations. These are powers which are essential for effective oversight. Under the parliamentary committee's proposal, the ICAC's Operations Review Committee would retain its advisory function in relation to the commission's investigative decisions and the parliamentary committee will conduct a review 12 months after the establishment of the inspector. The committee has also recommended that membership of the Operations Review Committee be broadened to include a person with an investigative background who is not necessarily from the Police Service.

It is important to note that the recommendation for the establishment of the inspector of ICAC is not a radical departure. In fact, ICAC's current oversight regime is out of step with modern accountability trends, particularly in its absence of a means of investigating alleged abuses of power. ICAC's accountability regime may have been appropriate at the time it was established. However, since then, the commission has been endowed with a greater number of covert powers including controlled operations, telecommunications intercepts, assumed identities and access to tax records. It is incumbent that there be adequate safeguards against the abuse of these extraordinary powers. I am pleased to note that Commissioner Moss has indicated her in-principle support for an inspector of ICAC.

The inspector model is already in use at the Police Integrity Commission, and Commissioner Urquhart advised the committee of his belief in the effectiveness and advantages of this model. Similarly, the five Commonwealth security and intelligence agencies are monitored by an inspector-general. In Queensland complaints are investigated by the parliamentary commissioner acting at the behest of the parliamentary committee. As to the West Australian Anti-corruption Commission and the National Crime Authority, parliamentary committees have recently recommended oversight by an inspector-type body.

The commission's performance accountability is examined in chapter 4 of the report. In its recent general meeting report, the committee considered the commission's performance indicators and found them to be inadequate in a number of respects. In some instances, the commission's performance indicators were not actually measuring its success in meeting its objectives but were quantifying the output. For example, the data relating to the number of reports was collated but there was no attempt to measure the impact of the reports in identifying or preventing corruption. In that general meeting report the committee recommended the review of the commission's key performance indicators in consultation with the Audit Office and the committee.

In this review the committee has examined the issue of performance reporting in greater detail. The committee has acknowledged that it is not an easy task to develop appropriate performance indicators for an investigative agency such as ICAC. ICAC is trying to detect an activity—corruption—that is difficult to uncover and locate, so it is difficult to determine what impact the commission's activities have had. Commissioner Moss has made some important steps towards enhancing the commission's performance indicators, and the committee has commended her for that.

The committee heard evidence that independent assessment and validation of performance information was essential, and recommended that the commission be subject to a performance audit by the Audit Office. The committee also considered that more frequent reviews of the commission's performance reporting would ensure the continued validity of the performance information, and so promote greater accountability. To this end, the committee recommended regular assessment and verification of the commission's performance indicators and performance information, which is to be carried out by a consultant engaged by the committee. I am confident that the implementation of the committee's recommendations will provide the necessary improvements to the accountability structure of ICAC, and will do so at minimal cost and without damaging the independence and rigour of the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [10.03 p.m.]: The report being debated tonight recommends perhaps the most radical shift in the accountability of the Independent Commission against Corruption since it was formed 12 years ago: the appointment of an inspector to oversight the work of the commission. It is perhaps worth noting that it was the unanimous view of the committee that such an inspector be appointed. In opting for an inspector, the committee examined a number of different alternatives. These included the model used by the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission [CJC], which since 1997 has been oversighted by a parliamentary commissioner, Ms Julie Dick, SC. Ms Dick acts as the executive arm of the parliamentary committee on the CJC and can undertake investigations only at the request of a bipartisan majority of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee [PCJC].

Like the ICAC committee, the PCJC committee does not have access to operational material, and indeed for security reasons does not want to have access to such material. However, in practice, this meant that there was no independent mechanism for investigating complaints against the CJC and its officers, for verifying the accuracy and completeness of reports given to the PCJC, and for verifying the CJC's reasons for withholding information from the PCJC. Ms Dick's office provides that mechanism. She has complete access to the CJC's records but obviously does not reveal everything she discovers to the committee. The Criminal Justice Commission is supportive of the role of the parliamentary commissioner, saying:

… it concentrates one's attention if you know there is someone else looking over your shoulder.

However, the model is not without its drawbacks, which have resulted in litigation between the CJC and Ms Dick over the role of the parliamentary commissioner. This would appear to be counterproductive. CJC Chairman, Brendan Butler, also noted that the parliamentary commissioner has no "ongoing relationship of oversight" over the CJC and that, because of the legislation, she tends to proceed by way of formal hearings at which officers of the CJC then require legal representation. None of this could be described as a very efficient or effective way of oversighting an anti-corruption body.

In Hong Kong the oversight role is performed by the Operations Review Committee, which has access to virtually all the records of ICAC but which also comprises members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council and Executive Council. It has a very high workload, with hundreds of reports being considered at each meeting. There is also a complaints committee, which examines complaints of misconduct against officers of ICAC—usually of a non-serious nature. The complaints committee cannot investigate complaints itself but relies on ICAC officers to carry them out. There is no comparable committee in New South Wales. It was the Police Integrity Commission [PIC] model that ended up as the committee's preferred oversight model. It finds echoes in the office of the Commonwealth Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Mr William Blick, the current inspector-general, told the committee:

… there is great consciousness within the agencies of the existence of my office—

and that it provides a check on the potential for excesses by the intelligence and security agencies. No-one should be under any illusions that those excesses do not occur. There is the same potential for abuse of power at the Police Integrity Commission and at ICAC. Extraordinary powers demand extraordinary levels of accountability. The Parliamentary Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption has an oversight role, but it is specifically excluded by the legislation from investigating individual matters, reconsidering decisions to investigate or reconsidering the commission's findings. Ours is a general monitoring and review role, not an appeals mechanism for complainants who are dissatisfied with the commission's decisions.

Mervyn Finlay, QC, the current Police Integrity Commission inspector, acknowledged that any agency conducting covert investigations and with coercive powers that may infringe the rights of privacy may overstep the mark. That is why his office was set up coincidentally with the PIC. His functions are strictly focused on investigating complaints relating to the legality and propriety of the PIC's activities and, unlike the Queensland parliamentary commissioner, he can initiate an investigation at his own initiative, not just on instruction from the committee. He has full access to all the commission's records, and moreover conducts investigations without the knowledge of the commissioner.

So this is the model we believe should be adopted for ICAC and which has been endorsed by ICAC Commissioner Irene Moss. The biggest percentage of complaints made to the ICAC committee relates to decisions not to investigate a complaint. The committee felt that it might be possible for these complaints to be handed over to the inspector who would then determine whether the decision not to investigate was appropriate. This would be a change from the operation of the PIC inspector. The committee also recommended that the position of the Operations Review Committee be reviewed after the inspector has been operational for 12 months.

The other major issue examined by the committee was the matter of performance indicators—always a difficult matter for an anti-corruption authority. Last month the Chairman of the committee, the Hon. J. Hatzistergos, representing the Government, and I, representing the Opposition, attended the first meeting of a committee that is examining the issue. I can inform the House that genuine progress is being made on this front that will ultimately result in a more effective and focused organisation.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [10.08 p.m.]: I support what previous speakers have said about this report. The comments of the honourable member for Maitland are particularly appropriate having regard to fact that power without responsibility has been the privilege of harlots down the centuries. When any body exercises great power, it must be made accountable; it must justify the existence of those powers. The exercise carried out by this committee is interesting, in particular what the honourable member for Maitland said about performance indicators and how they can be ascertained. One of the mechanisms of accountability is to have the commissioner appear before the committee to answer questions. On 15 September 1995 the commissioner appeared before the committee and was questioned about the visit by members of the commission to California in August 1991 and to France and Italy in September 1992, and a study tour by two senior officers to France, Germany and Italy in June 1992. The commissioner answered:

Commissioner Temby along with the solicitor to the commission visited California and examined inquisitorial procedures of the grand jury agencies dealing with conflicts of interest in local government and the use of prisoner information in prosecutions that had been investigated.

The cost of the study tour was $24,530. An additional visit to France and Italy in September 1992 cost $28,815. A visit by the director of administration and education and the principal lawyer to Germany, France and Italy in June 1992 cost $29,925. A report was prepared by Mr Bron McKillop. At page 72 of the ICAC report it states that a copy of Mr Bron McKillop's report is attached. The question is whether the full works of Mr McKillop were made available to the committee by the commission, and if so, when? The word "initial" would seem to suggest that the complete works were not supplied. It would be interesting to know whether those complete works were available to the committee.

Mr Richardson: No.

Mr KERR: The honourable member for The Hills does not believe they were available. I would suggest that the committee should make some inquiries about the complete works.

Mr Price: I think that might have been the previous committee.

Mr KERR: It is an ongoing matter. I would have thought that any committee—past, present or future—would want that material available to it.

Mr Price: Sure, but it would not normally be put on the table for us; we would have to ask.

Mr KERR: You would have to ask for it, and I would have thought you would want to ask for it, given the amount of public expenditure involved by commission officers, the amount that was spent in obtaining the views of an outside expert in this matter, and the importance of the inquisitorial approach to these matters.

Mr Price: That is why an inspector was recommended.

Mr KERR: Certainly. However, those inquiries were initiated by a committee of this Parliament, and it would be a matter for the present committee to finalise those inquiries, given the public expenditure involved, the amount of time, and the assistance that could be rendered by that material. I am grateful for the interjection of the honourable member for Maitland, because I think it serves a public interest. The committee might also pursue a Sun Herald article in relation to the appointment of judges.

Report noted.

Mr PRICE (Maitland) [10.14 p.m.]: In February this year the committee sent a delegation interstate as part of its ongoing work regarding legislative ethics to examine ethics regimes in Australian jurisdictions. The delegation visited the Queensland, Victorian and Tasmanian parliaments to examine codes of conduct and accountability mechanisms for members of Parliament and their effectiveness, and also to gather information on how members receive advice and education on ethical issues. The delegation met with the Clerks of the various parliaments and senior members of Parliament and had the opportunity to discuss the newly established statutory office of the Queensland Integrity Commissioner with senior officials.

The delegation found that on the whole New South Wales is at the forefront of legislative ethics in Australia, in that a code of conduct has been adopted by the House and a parliamentary ethics adviser has been appointed to assist and advise members of Parliament in resolving ethical issues and problems. The Parliament of Victoria and the Parliament of Tasmania have codes of conduct that apply to members. The Victorian code of conduct is enacted in legislation, and the Tasmanian code of ethical conduct requires members to subscribe to the code of conduct upon election to Parliament. Neither jurisdiction has experienced any breaches of the codes or dealt with any issues relating to them.

In Queensland the Members Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee has tabled a draft code of ethical principles that should be discussed in Parliament this year. That draft code embodies the ethical principles and laws that currently apply to members of the Queensland Parliament. Our delegation met with the committee and there was a fruitful exchange of views about the various aspects of codes and how they should apply. With regard to conflicts of interest, the delegation found that the main accountability mechanism for ensuring that members of Parliament do not have conflicts of interest is a pecuniary interest register. These registers of interest are compiled on an annual basis and the register or a summary of the register is available as a public document.

General principles of registers of interest have been incorporated into many codes of conduct that apply to members of Parliament. In New South Wales the code of conduct adopted by the Legislative Assembly requires members to adhere to the requirements of the pecuniary interest register and, as such, the issue is of concern to the committee. We will examine this issue further in our forthcoming review of the code, as everything we have heard so far stresses the critical importance of strong financial disclosure provisions. The Standing Ethics Committee has a function under the Independent Commission against Corruption Act to educate members of the Legislative Assembly on ethical issues. The committee found that in Australian jurisdictions the Clerks of parliaments are primarily responsible for providing members of Parliament with advice regarding ethics and related matters. Our committee places great importance on this educational role, and already we are working towards providing members with practical and useful information regarding their conduct.

Legislation has recently been passed in Queensland to establish an Integrity Commissioner. The Integrity Commissioner will have the main role of advising designated persons on conflicts of interest matters. However, it is interesting to note that the only members of Parliament who can receive advice are Government members—only the Premier, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries have been defined in the legislation as designated persons. As part of its watching brief the Legislative Assembly has an interest in the role of ethics advisers or any similar body and will examine the role of the New South Wales Parliamentary Ethics Adviser as part of the review of the code of conduct on which the committee will embark in the near future. The committee has already met formally with Mr Dickson, the Ethics Adviser, and together we will focus on providing members with educational information and advice.

I thank my fellow committee members, in particular the three community members, for the interest shown in the issues that the committee discussed. I believe that the community members found the interstate visit particularly valuable in understanding the day-to-day roles of politicians and the types of challenges that arise. To some extent, the challenges facing members of Parliament are universal. On the other hand, every jurisdiction has had different experiences in coming to grips with ethics and this is reflected in the different structures that have been developed in each State governing financial disclosures, ethical advice and education of members.

I thank also the Parliamentary Officer to the Committee, Stephanie Hesford, for her hard work in organising the interstate trips and her efforts in undertaking background research. I take this opportunity to compliment her on her promotion, by competitive interview, to the Public Accounts Committee. The trip was worthwhile and has proved to be valuable for the committee's ongoing task of implementing a continuing educative process for members of the Legislative Assembly and its statutory requirement to review the code of conduct adopted by the House.

Report noted.

Mr TRIPODI (Fairfield) [10.21 p.m.]: Since 1993 the Public Accounts Committee has considered a number of issues surrounding the private provision of public infrastructure. The committee has reported on the need for private sector involvement in the provision of public infrastructure as well as generating national discussion on the economic, financial and accounting implications of financing initiatives. At the same time there has been a general recognition by the accounting profession that there has been an absence of clear accounting guidance for such transactions, resulting in varying accounting practices by public sector organisations in New South Wales and other States.

This lack of accounting standards for the financial disclosure of public infrastructure and the increasing number of audit qualifications such transactions are attracting, has led to the proposed introduction of a new accounting standard by the Australian Accounting Research Foundation. The opportunity to comment on the proposed accounting standard led the committee to enter into a process of consultation with other stakeholders and table a discussion paper in June. Report 122 sets out the analysis commissioned by the committee.

The exposure draft proposes standards for certain disclosures by a public sector reporting entity in relation to arrangements for the provision of public infrastructure to it, or to members of the community on its behalf, private sector entities or other public sector entities. The exposure draft follows a preliminary views paper issued by the Public Sector Accounting Standards Board entitled "Private Sector Provision of Public Infrastructure: Accounting by Public Sector Entities for 'BOO' and 'BOOT' Arrangements", which was published in September 1997. The board commenced its consideration of those accounting issues in response to concerns expressed by several government authorities and commentators about the financial reporting of BOO and BOOT arrangements and other similar arrangements for the provision of public infrastructure by private sector entities. Such arrangements involve, for example, a private sector entity building, owning and operating a facility—BOO arrangement—or building, owning, operating and then transferring a facility to the public sector at the end of an operating period—BOOT arrangement.

Public infrastructure arrangements can also be entered into by a public sector entity to secure the supply of infrastructure facilities and services to it or to members of the community on its behalf, and may comprise arrangements other than BOO and BOOT arrangements. The exposure draft takes all of those various arrangements into account. The exposure draft is largely based on the premise that disclosure should be triggered by the economic substance of the transactions, rather than merely by the legal form of the transaction.

This broad scope is necessary to encompass the full range of arrangements entered into by public sector entities for the provision of public infrastructure by other entities. It is also necessary to ensure that the disclosures proposed in the exposure draft will be triggered by the substance, rather than the form, of the arrangement for the provision of public infrastructure. It should also be noted that this exposure draft applies to arrangements for the provision of public infrastructure by another entity, whether private sector or public sector.

The proposed accounting standard contained within ED100 requires detailed disclosures about the nature and duration of each new arrangement entered into in the first annual financial report after the entity gains control of rights or incurs obligations in respect of that arrangement. It also specifies disclosure of the fair value of assets and liabilities given up and acquired as a result of each new arrangement entered into. This new standard, proposed by ED100, is intended to address the financial disclosure requirements of government agencies rather than the accounting treatment of transactions. The distinction is that disclosure relates to the description of such transactions in the notes to financial statements, while accounting requirements relate to the recognition of liabilities and assets on the balance sheet of agency financial statements.

The proposed standard is not intended to give guidance on issues such as whether such transactions ought to be totally or partially on- or off-balance sheet. Report 122 states that the adoption of ED100 will assist in delivering consistency of financial information in agency accounts by capturing a broad range of arrangements and by providing meaningful disclosure of the major financial consequences of such arrangements. The exposure draft also contains a preface which requires all public sector entities to comply, including those which are constituted outside an Act of Parliament and that are controlled by the public sector.

Therefore, public sector entities that have previously avoided disclosure can no longer do so by directing such transactions through special purpose public sector controlled companies that may not be necessarily subject to such rules. As a preface to the proposed accounting standard the exposure draft outlines a number of specific matters for comment. None of those issues appear to contradict basic or reasonable principles and overall are supported by the committee. Such issues include a definition of public infrastructure and public sector entities and reference to the scope of arrangements, which may include arrangements between one public sector entity and another. While the exposure draft applies to the provision of public infrastructure by other entities, it does not include requirements for disclosures related to the contracting out of functions related to the ongoing performance, administration and management of the day-to-day operations of the entity, such as the contracting out of cleaning, information technology and transport services.

In other words, the contracting out of assets and services that are not related to public infrastructure are not dealt with in the exposure draft. While ED100 focuses on the disclosure requirements for the provision of public infrastructure, a further separate accounting standard will be required to deal with associated accounting issues. The proposed accounting standard set out in ED100 is to apply to public sector entities that prepare general purpose financial statements and also to other entities in the public sector that are not generally required to prepare general purpose financial statements. Such cases include specific types of joint venture arrangement or other unique public sector controlled bodies that may enter into such arrangements.

The proposed accounting standard discusses the scope of public infrastructure and its adequacy in relation to the types of infrastructure presently understood as infrastructure. However, the committee believes that the proposed standard includes limited consideration of the new emerging technologies and the impact they may have on accounting issues. The proposed accounting standard considers the actual disclosure to be made by the public sector entity about the arrangements it enters into for the provision of infrastructure. Only in the initial year of any new infrastructure arrangement is specific disclosure required of that particular arrangement. Subsequent variations to an infrastructure arrangement are to be disclosed only if they fall into the category of items that require disclosure.

The proposed accounting standard also discusses the need to differentiate between public infrastructure arrangements and the contracting out of operating services. It proposes that construction and grant arrangements would be outside the scope of the standard. The committee was of the view that the proposed accounting standard needed to consider the disclosure of any infrastructure policy or planning constraints arising from such arrangements, and any commitments made by another public sector entity in the same jurisdiction to the provider of the infrastructure. The committee believed that standards should also consider any obligations or liabilities incurred for the provision of resources towards public infrastructure arrangements of another public sector entity in the same jurisdiction.

It should be noted that concerns have been raised in the past about financial disclosure and commercial confidentiality. The Public Sector Accounting Standards Board argued that the disclosure proposed in the exposure draft will not compromise any competitive advantage or commercial confidentiality. In fact, the board argued that more transparent reporting of infrastructure arrangements is likely to lead to greater public confidence in private sector participation in the provision of public infrastructure facilities and services, and will enhance the usefulness of the financial reports of public sector entities obtaining public infrastructure under such arrangements.

The committee concluded that the proposed standard was likely to be a useful document for the preparers of financial statements, auditors and users, because it will assist in enhancing and making more consistent financial information relating to infrastructure provision. The committee supports the proposed standard and for looks forward to being able to comment on the introduction of additional standards geared to the accounting treatment of infrastructure projects. Many thanks go to Rahoul Ray from Pricewaterhouse Coopers for his expert comments on the exposure draft. I extend my thanks to the other members of the committee, and the committee secretariat, for their hard work and support in producing this discussion paper—a very challenging task it was.

Report noted.
Motion, by leave, by Mr Stewart agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable consideration of General Business Orders of the Day (Committee Reports) Nos 11, 12 and 13 to be dealt with together.

Mr TRIPODI (Fairfield) [10.30 p.m.]: I refer to matters arising from the Auditor-General's reports to Parliament for 1999. The Auditor-General reports annually to the Parliament on the accounts of State agencies and the State's public accounts. Matters raised in these reports are followed up by the Public Accounts Committee. The committee followed up the financial disclosure of the WorkCover scheme statutory funds, cost control in the Department of Juvenile Justice and the long-term financial viability of the Waste Recycling and Processing Service. The committee conducted its inquiries into these matters over the months of May, June and July, and recently tabled three reports. The committee took evidence from representatives of the WorkCover Authority, Treasury and the Audit Office, and a submission was made to the committee by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I propose to briefly outline the underlying issues and the committee's conclusions and recommendations.

The matter of the financial disclosure of the WorkCover scheme statutory funds was raised in volume three of the Auditor-General's report to Parliament for 1999. A source of concern for Auditors-General since at least 1995-96 has been the substantial net or unfunded liability of the WorkCover scheme statutory funds. The scheme's accounts are not consolidated in the State's accounts, or even recorded in the notes of those accounts. The Auditor-General had expressed concern that no one agency has responsibility for the net liability. Effectively, the net liability is an orphan without a home.

The WorkCover scheme statutory funds function within a unique legal framework created by the Workers Compensation Act which was passed in 1987. Within the framework a number of stakeholders are required to fulfil specific and complementary roles and responsibilities to provide workers compensation protection to employers and employees alike. Unfortunately, the operational structure created by the Act complicates the application of accounting standards, notably, Australian Accounting Standard [AAS] 24, Consolidated Financial Reports. The standard requires consolidation in the parent entity's accounts in circumstances when it is able to exercise dominant control over another entity.

Application of the standard is guided by the accounting disclosure concept that the substance of arrangements should rule over their legal form. If the judgment is that the Government exercises control over the scheme, disclosure should occur in the accounts of the WorkCover Authority or the total State sector. If the judgment is that the legal arrangements effectively disperse control, there should not be a consolidation in the parent entity's accounts as no entity is able to establish control. Recent supplementation of AAS 24, Consolidated Financial Reports, by the urgent issues group in Abstract 28, Consolidation Special Purpose Entities, gets closer to clarifying the issue of the consolidation of the scheme's accounts.

While the committee recognises the progress made by the urgent issues group on Abstract 28, in the view of the committee Abstract 28 does not provide sufficient additional guidance to require consolidation of the scheme's accounts in the whole-of-government accounts. Nevertheless, the committee remains concerned that the net liability is not more appropriately disclosed and that ownership of the scheme cannot be determined under the legislation. The situation conflicts with the practice of accrual accounting which asserts that accumulated liabilities and the associated risks are likely to be better managed if ownership is clear.

Since 1996 the Crown Solicitor's Office has provided three opinions to the Auditor-General on the issue of control. Amendments to the workers compensation legislation and evolving interpretations of accounting standards have extended the Auditor-General's interest in the issue. The three legal opinions have each concluded against the consolidation of the accumulated deficit in either the authority's accounts or the whole-of-government accounts. In failing to identify definitively the owner of this financial deficit, successive governments have left agencies such as the Auditor-General, Treasury and the WorkCover Authority to resolve an accounting recognition of liability problem within a legislative structure that clearly does not define ownership of the accumulated deficit.

The conflict arising from this issue would be most effectively resolved through Government initiative and legislative reform, rather than an agreement about the accounting treatment of the deficit. At present, the Government is considering the introduction of a new workers compensation scheme that will be further underwritten by the private sector. This could result in the current scheme being replaced, but continuing until claims made under the scheme are exhausted. The committee supports measures being taken to improve the efficiency of the scheme's operations, and supports the direction of any proposed new scheme that addresses ownership and cost issues in the future.

The committee recommends that the current review of existing and proposed workers compensation schemes by the Government must clearly determine the ownership of unfunded liabilities and implement remedial measures to control more effectively the existing scheme's deficit. The committee also recommends that once ownership and control are determined the appropriate accounting treatment be applied to facilitate the proper reporting of the unfunded liability; and in the interim an explanatory note be included in the total State sector accounts outlining the accumulated deficit and the reasons for it not being consolidated in the accounts. Such disclosure would be consistent with the inclusion of the scheme's accounts in the notes of the WorkCover Authority's accounts.

I turn now to the Department of juvenile justice. The Auditor-General's report of November 1999 raised concerns about the effectiveness of financial management within the department, as budgetary targets had not been met and there were variations in financial and operational indicators that could not be readily explained and were prima facie evidence of inefficiencies in the department. That committee heard evidence from representatives of the Department of Juvenile Justice and of the Audit Office. That committee also sought a submission from the New South Wales Treasury in relation to matters raised at the hearings.

In evidence to that committee, department representatives advised that a lack of financial discipline in the department could be partly explained by inadequate budgets being provided by Treasury over the past eight years. The committee came to the view that the budget allocations by Treasury had contributed to the lack of financial discipline within the department by creating the expectation of supplementary budgetary relief during the financial year, an expectation that was realised annually for the past eight years. On the other hand, poor financial systems and internal reporting had contributed to the department's limited resource management practices.

Treasury, in its submission to the committee, stated that the department has attributed the bulk of its budget problems to an insufficient funding base from its inception and inflexibility of detention centre budgets because of the high level of fixed costs. Treasury stated that the Minister for Juvenile Justice has agreed to form a finance committee within the department with representation from Treasury, and that it expects reduced funding demands due to progressive reductions in detainees and improved financial management.

The requirement for significant supplementary budgets for the department over the past eight years reflects poorly on both the department and Treasury. Financial management systems currently being implemented by the department should enhance performance monitoring and accountability. However, and improved alliance between the department and Treasury is required to avoid the continuation of significant budget supplementation. The recent introduction of monthly finance committee meetings, inclusive of Treasury representation, should help future budgeting processes. This move is an admission of past misunderstandings between the two agencies and is a welcomed initiative.

Central to an improved working relationship between the department and Treasury is a better understanding of the key budget and service delivery determinants by both agencies. Accountability for this improvement would be assisted by including indicators in the department's program statement that specifically link budget and operational performance. In the case of the Department of Juvenile Justice, budget related performance indicators were not considered relevant and were not applied. Performance indicators can easily become redundant as agency structures and strategic directions change. Their existence may generate an excessive reliance on them and a non-optimal allocation of resources to the task measured by the indicator, and create a disincentive for an organisation to change with the demands of the public.

Any shift of resources away from those measured activities towards new and needed services would actually appear as a deterioration in performance, rather than an improvement. Performance indicators are also unlikely effectively to represent all agency activities. Benchmarks are also difficult for many public sector service delivery agencies. The committee recommends that the effectiveness of the Department of Juvenile Justice's program statement and management should be improved by expanding the number of programs to better reflect its operations and management focus and by updating output and outcome indicators applied within those programs by reference to the indicators outlined in the report of the Council on the Cost of Government into law order and public safety and with reference to its own improved internal reporting.

That committee also believes that Treasury and budget dependent agencies, such as the Department of Juvenile Justice, should sign off each year on an approach to be applied to monitoring and revising annual budgets, in effect compelling more effective communication between them. Budget-related indicators should be included in the agencies' program statements that are in the State's budget papers. I will leave it to other members of the committee to address the Waste Service of New South Wales.

Ms HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [10.39 p.m.]: Recently one of the issues considered by the Public Accounts Committee was cost control in the Department of Juvenile Justice. The matter was raised by the Auditor-General in reports to Parliament on the accounts of State authorities and the State's public accounts. The Auditor-General was concerned that the department's continued failure to meet budget targets was evidence of financial mismanagement and that variation in costs across the department, which could not be readily explained, highlighted a number of inefficiencies. The committee's inquiry considered the issues surrounding the financial management of the Department of Juvenile Justice and a number of recommendations were made to improve financial management and accountability.

The committee's inquiry revealed that inadequate budgets and subsequent supplementary budgets over the past eight consecutive years within the department had resulted in a lack of financial discipline. The expectation of supplementary budgetary relief each year had created a mindset which discouraged the adoption of good financial management techniques. The committee also considered Treasury's position as to the shortfall in budget allocation for the Department of Juvenile Justice. It found that budgets for the department had been reduced because of a reduction in the number of the trainees held in juvenile detention centres. Whilst those detention centres have fixed costs, any reduction in their budget meant they would operate in deficit.

The committee concluded that it would be advantageous for Treasury and budget-dependent agencies such as the Department of Juvenile Justice to devise an approach to monitor and revise annual budgets and thereby compel more effective communication between them. The committee learned that the use of inappropriate indicators to determine the department's performance also contributed to an inadequate budget. The committee recognises that performance indicators are limited and that often agencies cannot agree on the underlying determinants of good indicators. The committee concluded that indicators are required which provide a link between budget and operational performance. We believe this will provide both the department and Treasury with a better understanding of the key budget and service delivery determinants of performance.

The Department of Juvenile Justice and the Audit Office agree that there is a need to review the department's program indicators, and that the development of a services and resources allocation agreement between Treasury and the department should help facilitate this process. The department has embarked on some important initiatives. To improve its financial management it convenes monthly financial committee meetings, with Treasury representation. Internal monthly reporting has been introduced with more extensive benchmarking operations, including cost indicators of operational activities, which should improve performance assessment and in turn financial management. I commend the report to the House.

Mr TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [10.42 p.m.]: As previous speakers have pointed out, the Auditor-General provided a series of reports to the Parliament on the accounts of authorities of the State and the State's public accounts. The Public Accounts Committee has provided a number of follow-up reports. The committee followed up the financial disclosure of the WorkCover scheme statutory funds, cost control in the Department of Juvenile Justice and the long-term financial viability of the waste recycling and processing service, and recently tabled three reports. The WorkCover scheme statutory funds consolidate individual insurance policies taken out by employers to cover workers compensation. Claims for workers compensation are drawn from the funds.

The committee's concerns centred on the limited financial disclosure requirements of the WorkCover scheme statutory funds and the legal framework created by the legislation, which complicate the application of accounting standards. Simply put, there is no clear ownership of the deficit or liability which occurs due to claims being drawn on the workers compensation scheme. We could not find anybody who owned the liability. The current legislative framework disperses control across a number of agencies and, as such, there is no clear requirement for the WorkCover Authority or the total State sector to disclose the net liability of the WorkCover scheme statutory funds. I repeat: there is no disclosure requirement. The committee considers that to be unsatisfactory and is supportive of any measures taken to improve the efficiency of the scheme's operations. The committee also supports the direction of any proposed scheme that addresses ownership issues in the future.

As was pointed out by the honourable member for Burrinjuck, the committee followed up the Auditor-General's report into cost control in the Department of Juvenile Justice and found areas of budgetary concern. The Auditor-General reported that the department failed to meet its budget targets over a number of consecutive years, which raised concerns about financial management of the agency. There were also variations in costs across the department, which highlighted inefficiencies. At the hearing on the matter, the committee learnt that there was a lack of financial discipline within the department because of the expectation of a recurring supplementation of the budget. The department felt that whatever the outcomes, the budget would be topped up. From the committee's perspective, it was clearly unsatisfactory.

A lack of communication between the Treasury and the department over the budget allocation seems to be a major problem. The committee considers that it would be advantageous for the Treasury and budget-dependent agencies such as the Department of Juvenile Justice to devise an approach to monitor and revise annual budgets and thereby compel more effective communication between them. The committee is also concerned about the use of performance indicators, as was pointed out by the chairman. As to the Waste Service of New South Wales, the committee concluded that the legislative arrangements supporting the waste management industry in New South Wales are in particular need of review. Whilst the financial viability of the waste recycling and processing service is not a matter of immediate concern, the committee noted the lack of co-ordination across agencies that form part of the waste service industry and was concerned that this lack of co-ordination is likely to have a significant impact on the medium- to long-term financial viability of the Waste Service.

Currently there is a vast array of stakeholders involved in waste planning and management in New South Wales. At times that has led to a lack of co-operation and a conflict in roles across agencies. Further, a number of agencies have adopted roles which are somewhat contradictory to government policy. For example, the Waste Service of New South Wales was making increasing profits from its operation of solid waste landfill sites which was inconsistent with the requirement under the Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995 to reduce the amount of waste disposed of in New South Wales by 60 per cent by the end of this year. The committee is supportive of proposed reviews of the Waste Minimisation Act and the reappraisal of future directions and future structures. The committee hopes that the need for a more co-ordinated approach to waste management is addressed.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Wednesday 16 August 2000 at 10.00 a.m.