Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 27 February 2001, Corrected Copy)

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Mr SPEAKER: I inform the House that on 12 January 2001 I received a letter from Michael Steven Knight resigning his seat as member for the electoral district of Campbelltown. I also inform the House that I issued a writ on 12 January 2001 for the election of a member to serve in the Legislative Assembly for the electoral district of Campbelltown in the room of Michael Steven Knight, resigned. Particulars of the writ are: nomination date 18 January 2001; polling day 3 February 2001; and return of writ 25 February 2001.

I inform the House that my writ, issued on 12 January 2001 in accordance with section 70 of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 for the election of a member to serve in the Legislative Assembly for the electoral district of Campbelltown in the room of Michael Steven Knight, resigned, has been returned with a certificate endorsed by the returning officer advising of the election of Graham James West to serve as member for the electoral district of Campbelltown.

Mr West took and subscribed the oath of allegiance and signed the roll.

Assent to the following bills reported:

Electricity Supply Amendment Bill
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill
Local Government Amendment Bill
Marine Parks Amendment Bill
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Same Sex Partners) Bill

Mr CARR: I advise honourable members that in the absence of the Minister for Small Business, who went home ill today, the Minister for Local Government will take questions on her behalf.

Mr Speaker announced, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act, 1983, the receipt of the report entitled "Auditor-General's Report 2000—Volume 7", dated December 2000.

Mr Speaker announced, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act, 1983, the receipt of the Performance Audit Report entitled "TAFE NSW—Review of Administration", dated February 2001.

Mr Speaker announced, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, 1988, the receipt of the report entitled "Report on investigation into aspects connected with an alleged indecent assault at Parliament House on 14/15 September 2000", dated December 2000.

Mr Speaker announced, pursuant to the Ombudsman Act 1974, the receipt of the report entitled "Police and Improper Use of E-mail", dated December 2000.

The Clerk announced the receipt of the following reports:

Fourth General Meeting with the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission, dated February 2001
Fifth General Meeting with the Commissioner of the Police Integrity Commission, dated February 2001
Ninth General Meeting with the NSW Ombudsman, dated February 2001

The Clerk announced the receipt of the report entitled "Inquiry into the Funding of Capital Projects by the New South Wales Government—Parramatta Rail Link Pre-Tender Procurement—A Case Study", dated January 2001.

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 opposing the rezoning of the Belmont-Redhead coastal land and praying that the land be brought into public control, received from Mr Orkopoulos.

Petitions praying that the Carr Government establishes a public inquiry into State taxes, with the objective of reducing the tax burden and creating a sustainable environment for employment and investment in New South Wales, received from Mr Debnam and Mr Maguire.

Petition praying that the House restores to Cronulla a fully functioning police patrol and upgrades the police station, received from Mr Kerr.

Petition praying that the House stops the Board of the Police and Community Youth Club New South Wales Ltd from closing and selling the Eastern Suburbs Police and Community Youth Club, 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 East Sydney and Darlinghurst areas, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that the House notes the concern of Malabar residents at the closure of Malabar Police Station and praying that the station be reopened and staffed by locally based and led police, received from Mr Tink.

Petition praying that the House notes the concern of Randwick residents at the major downgrading and possible closure of Randwick Police Station and praying that the station be staffed 24 hours a day by locally based and led police, received from Mr Tink.

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 for the installation of an acceptable system to address health risks associated with the discharge of sewage gases from the northside storage tunnel, received from Mr Collins.

Petition praying that the House suspends the commercial release and trials of genetically engineered crops, supports the implementation of mandatory labelling of food derived from genetic engineering and funds independent scientific research to investigate the potential risks to health and the environment, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that funds be allocated in the next State budget to construct a new hospital to service the needs of residents of the Narooma district, received from Mr R. H. L. Smith.

Petitions praying that the Government reimburse the $5 million in funding that has been withdrawn from non-government schools and reverse its decision to withdraw a further $13.5 million in funding in 2001, received from Mr Collier, Mr E. T. Page and Mr Richardson.
Petition praying that regional roads in the Tumut area be upgraded and that a regional roads summit be conducted, received from Ms Hodgkinson.

Petition praying for an increase in funding to local government authorities to allow them to properly maintain Main Road 241, received from Ms Hodgkinson.

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

Petition praying that the clearway restrictions on Albion, Fitzroy and Foveaux streets, Surry Hills, introduced by the Roads and Traffic Authority, be removed, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that the Roads and Traffic Authority investigates all possible traffic management options and implements measures to restore residential amenity and safety to South Dowling Street between Flinders and Oxford streets, received from Ms Moore.

Petitions praying that the Government review the design of the ventilation system for the M5 East tunnel and immediately install filtration equipment to treat particulate matter and other pollutants, received from Ms Seaton and Mr J. H. Turner.

Petition objecting to the closure of Sapphire Community House, Bega, and praying that interim funding be made available until negotiations between the State Government and local government are finalised, received from Mr R. H. L. Smith.

Petition praying that the House rejects any proposal to legalise the keeping of native wildlife as pets, received from Mr Amery.

Petition praying for the introduction of a code of practice to protect intensively farmed pigs, received from Mr Amery.

Petition praying for opposition to the export of puppies to Asia, received from Mr Amery.

Petition praying that the Government supports the rectification of grass surfaces at John Fisher Park, Curl Curl, and opposes any proposal to hard surface the Crown land portion of the park and Abbott Road Land, received from Mr Barr.

Petition praying for deregulation of the current Ovine Johne's Disease program and its replacement with a fair and workable alternative to facilitate trade and alleviate the social issues crippling the New South Wales sheep industry, received from Ms Hodgkinson.

Petition praying that the Government resources the Fruit Fly Campaign for the years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, upgrades the Wagga Wagga electorate to a fruit fly control zone, and develops and implements a fruit fly strategy to eliminate fruit fly from the electorate within the next five years, received from Mr Maquire.

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.

Petitions praying that the Minister for the Environment discloses to the public all findings, information and submissions relating to the inquiry into the inhumane and barbaric slaughter of brumbies in the Guy Fawkes River National Park by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, ensures that the NPWS is accountable for its actions in this matter and ensures that culling of this nature will not be inflicted on any animal in the future, received from Mr Fraser.

Petitions praying that the proposal to introduce a $5 entry fee per car per day into national parks be rejected, received from Mr George, Mr Oakshott, Mr Slack-Smith, Mr Souris, Mr J. H. Turner, Mr R. W. Turner and Mr Webb.

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

Petition praying that the Government install double boom gates and lights at all level crossings in New South Wales, including at Gerogery, received from Mr Maguire.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Has the Minister's department informed her of the case involving a 13-year-old teenager who is alleged to have abducted a six-year-old girl from a mid North Coast caravan park and sexually assaulted her? Did the notification sit in a helpline in-tray for two days from 22 January before it was sent to the joint investigating team, even though the office was closed for the day? What does the Minister say now that the same youth is alleged to have committed further serious offences?

Mrs LO PO': I know of the case that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. However, because it is before the courts, I have nothing further to say about it.

Mr WEST: My question is directed to the Premier. How is the Government supporting families and businesses in the Campbelltown area?

Mr CARR: The honourable member should not be embarrassed about getting a swing in a by-election, that is normal, except that the swing that he got was towards his side of politics—and it was higher than the approval rating of the Opposition! Last year I heard the Leader of the Opposition say on radio, "We knew we weren't going to win in Campbelltown and I wasn't going to waste time and energy attempting it." Isn't that a great message to the people of Sydney's southwest! One thing that an Opposition has got is time. The Opposition ought to have enough energy to face the voters of Sydney's southwest.

Mrs Chikarovski: You were overseas the whole time.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr CARR: The Leader of the Opposition wants to get political. I am forced to get out nothing less than the Independent Liberal how-to-vote card in the Campbelltown by-election. Two things stand out. First, there is a big message in that Charlie Lynn's picture is right along the top. He is the special adviser to the Leader of the Opposition; he is the policy guru of the Opposition. The second thing that stands out is that the second preferences go from the President of the Campbelltown Liberal Party, running as an Independent Liberal, straight to One Nation.

Mr Hartcher: Point of order: The question asked by the newly inducted member for Campbelltown related to families and small business in the Campbelltown area. The Premier is now referring to how-to-vote cards handed out at the Campbelltown by-election, which is totally irrelevant. The member for Campbelltown must be squirming in his seat. I ask you to draw the Premier's attention to the question and to direct him to answer it.

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

Mr Fraser: Point of order: Standing orders require that a member speaking should resume his seat until a point of order is heard. Twice now the Premier has not done that. I would like you to—

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

Mr CARR: I wanted to put my comments in a proper political context. As the House will appreciate, the by-election provided a thumping endorsement of the dedication of the new local member and of the Government's hard work in Campbelltown. I might add that this is a reflection on the former member, the distinguished Minister for the Olympics, who is with us in the gallery today. The Special Minister of State met local people in Campbelltown to step up the fight against drugs. The Airds-Bradbury community drug action team is one of those responses. The Minister for Transport announced 150 extra parking spaces at Leumeah station. The Minister for Health brought aboutconstruction of the cancer unit and adolescent mental health unit. The Minister for Public Works and Services—

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

Mr CARR: That was just the icing on the cake because at the last election the former member for Campbelltown was able to report on the Government's commitment of $10 million to rebuild the Campbelltown stadium. Stage one of the Campbelltown hospital redevelopment was finished, and indeed I opened the paediatric and adolescent unit on 27 October. Stage two will be completed in 2003.

Mr Hartcher: I wonder why!

Mr CARR: The member for Gosford is very vocal. What's this? I have just received unbelievable advice. In the wake of the Campbelltown result, today's St George and Sutherland Shire Leader reports Ron Phillips as saying that under the member for Lane Cove the Liberals are lurching more to the right and making themselves unelectable. He went on to say that he had no regrets about removing Peter Collins and installing the new leader. He said, "Sometimes high-risk decisions pay off and sometimes they don't." That is hot off the presses in the week after the Campbelltown result. That is directly relevant to what I am saying to the House. It is good that Ron Phillips is continuing to take an interest in State politics in his normal helpful and enlightening way.

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

Mr CARR: Stage two of the Campbelltown hospital redevelopment, which will be completed in 2003, includes a new emergency department, seven new operating theatres, risk services and 80 intensive care beds. The south-west is receiving funds of $15.3 million to support parents with young children. Eight schools have received funding for literacy programs. Campbelltown TAFE has a new arts and media facility. Opposition members are laughing at this but these are the achievements that people in this State are concerned about. As Ron Phillips puts it, while Opposition members have nothing positive to offer—he says this in this article—the voters will turn from them in Campbelltown and elsewhere. I welcome the honourable member for Campbelltown to this House. The people of Campbelltown can be assured that the partnership between the Cabinet and the new member will create more achievements to build on what is a very proud record of Labor Government achievement in Sydney's south-west.

Mr SOURIS: Can the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women explain why on 6 February it took the principal of a school in the central west of the State more than one hour and 20 minutes to get through to the helpline to report the sexual assault of a five-year old student, only to be referred to a local Department Of Community Services [DOCS] office nearly 300 kilometres away?

Mrs LO PO': The DOCS helpline was a recommendation of the Wood royal commission. It commenced operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week on 18 December last year. Before this, calls were taken across 85 local offices around New South Wales. As with any new service, the DOCS helpline has had to make adjustments and refine systems. Teething problems were expected, as they are in any system involving the introduction of new technology, and modifications have been made to improve processes. I am advised that the operation of the helpline has improved dramatically in recent weeks.

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

Mrs LO PO': The helpline receives between 3,400 and 6,800 calls each week, including just over 2,000 calls a week from mandatory reporters. Allegations about problems with the service need to be kept in perspective.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order. I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the second time.

Mrs LO PO': I am advised that the number of complaints averages two per day. DOCS is constantly monitoring all complaints and implements procedures to continually improve the service.

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

Mrs LO PO': I am also informed that all waiting times have now dropped sharply. I am advised that last Friday, 23 February, the average call wait time on the public line was two minutes 29 seconds, while the longest time it took to answer a call was 11 minutes and 23 seconds. The honourable member for Wakehurst laughs. He declared on the Sally Loane show on 2BL that somebody had hung on for five hours. However, his story quickly unravelled. It soon became apparent that he did not know who had made this epic five-hour call, what it had been about, when it was started or anything about it. Sally Loane asked him whether it was a teacher who had waited on the line for 5½ hours. He did not answer that question; he waffled. Sally Loane, not wanting to be fobbed off, repeated the question but got the same answer: waffle. She tried again, asking if it was a teacher, policeman or whoever but the answer or lack of it was the same.

Mr Brogden: Point of order: This is a very important issue. The Minister has been asked directly about an incident. She has not been invited to wander off the topic. I ask that you bring her back to the subject matter of the question, for which she has responsibility.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved.

Mrs LO PO': The honourable member for Wakehurst waffled on; he did not know. Sally Loane asked him, very reasonably—as anyone with half a brain would—"Would you wait on for 5½ hours?" Again the honourable member waffled. Finally, almost in desperation, Sally Loane asked him, "So you don't have any details on this?" Needless to say the honourable member did not but it did not stop him waffling for the next few minutes. It should be noted that the DOCS helpline is not intended to replace emergency services. If people see a child in serious physical danger, they should still call 000.

Ms BEAMER: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. What is the Government's response to community concerns about the Coalition's paper on medical negligence liability?

Mr CARR: Members will recall that I said in the House on 26 November 2000 that the Opposition had better start producing policies. In all the time that has passed since then one document has emerged, and I have it here. It is called "Medical Negligence: Reform or Restructure? Discussion paper prepared by the New South Wales Liberal-National Coalition—Chris Hartcher MP, Shadow Attorney General".

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

Mr CARR: So that is out there. It is the one policy document to have come out in months from the Opposition. Seriously, I think it is a groundbreaking achievement and the House will hear why. On page 5 paragraph 2, for example, the document says:

Defensive medical practices are those practices that are adopted in response to the fear of litigation. While undoubtedly some practices are actually beneficial to patients, others have no therapeutic value for the patient (for example, unnecessary diagnostic tests).

That is very well put; it is quite elegant. It is almost as well put and elegant as the submission made in March 1997, four years ago, to the Interdepartmental Committee on Health Care Litigation by a private insurance company called United Medical Protection [UMP]. Page 13 of that submission says:

Defensive medical practices are those practices that are adopted in response to the fear of litigation.

[Interruption]

Honourable members should wait until they have heard all of the evidence. I want to be fair, the gallery wants to be fair and my colleagues want to be fair. I know the "P" word that honourable members are thinking of. This could be a "P" word other than the one honourable members are thinking of. This could be "paranormal phenomenon." Let us look at another quote. Page 7 paragraph 5 of the Hartcher document says:

A child who is brain damaged as a result of another party's negligence will be entitled to generous compensation. In contrast, a child with a disability that is just as severe who cannot establish fault receives no compensation through the court.

That is well put; it is good. Paragraph 3 on page 17 of the United Medical Protection submission puts it basically the same way. It says:

A child who sustains brain damage as a result of another party's negligence will be entitled to generous compensation. In contrast, a child whose disabilities are just as severe but cannot establish the liability of another party for those disabilities receives no compensation.

Isn't that interesting! I phoned the Australian Museum to talk to the experts there about the sort of phenomenon where something is said four years ago and then comes up again. It has been described apparently as unwitting telepathy. Apparently, it is more likely than not to happen in a condition of electrical storms. Then I turned to paragraph 3 on page 9 of the Hartcher document, which reads:

Discretionary cover was introduced in an era when there were very few law suits by patients against doctors. In the current climate of high litigation and substantial compensation payments, consideration should be given to changing medical indemnity to compulsory insurance rather than permitting a discretionary scheme.

I hate to press the point but it sounds very much like page 32 of the United Medical Protection submission, which reads:

All MDOs in Australia recognise that while discretionary cover might have been appropriate in days gone by when patients rarely claimed against doctors, it should be reviewed in the current climate where the incidence of legitimate claims and the size of awards are substantial.

Paragraph 3 on page 18 of the Hartcher document calls for legislation modelled on the Queensland Voluntary Aid and Emergency Act 1973 as a means of "providing statutory protection". On page 24 paragraph 4 of the medical defence company's submission exactly the same reference appears. Isn't that interesting! Great minds think alike! Page (ii) of the medical defence company's submission advocates structured settlements for "both the future care component and the future economic loss component" and "appropriate tax reforms should be introduced to encourage the use of structured settlements". Mysteriously, page 15 at the Hartcher document states:

The NSW Coalition has strongly supported taxation reform to allow for structured settlements to be tax-free.

On page 28 of the medical defence company's submission the following appears:

The lump sum compensation system is supposed to be able to compensate an injured person for all their future care needs.

Interestingly, on page 14 paragraph 1 of Hartcher's document we find:

Compensation payouts to seriously injured victims are designed to be large enough to provide for a lifetime.

Paragraph 5 on page 14 of the Hartcher document says:

Were structured settlements to be tax-exempt, they could be arranged in such a way that up to one-third of the total compensation would be received as a lump sum. The defendant insurer would then purchase an annuity.

What a coincidence because page 28 paragraph 2 of the medical defence company's submission says, "Structured settlements offer a solution to the shortcomings of lump sum compensation. The defendant insurer would purchase an annuity" and so on. On page 20 the member for Gosford advocates:

A statutory medical expert panel could help eliminate such problems … In Texas, USA, a medical disclosure panel was established.

A footnote then appears under the text "citation number 30". I turned to the table of footnotes in the document on page 24 and found the quote "citation needed". I found the source; let me provide it. Page 4 of the United Medical Protection submission states, "A model worthy of further investigation exists in"—guess where!—"Texas, USA, where parliament has established a medical disclosure panel." The Oxford Concise Dictionary defines plagiarism as "to take and use another's thoughts, writings, inventions or abstracts as one's own".

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

Mr CARR: From now on the member for Gosford will be known as the member for Canon copier. Let's hear it for the gallant honourable member for Gosford, Colonel Xerox! According to a recent report in the Weekend Australian of 20 January United Medical Protection—that is the organisation we are quoting:

Australia's largest medical malpractice insurer, United Medical Protection [UMP]—

That is the mob that wrote the submission to the inquiry four years ago—

has agreed to demands for an independent inquiry into its financial situation.

Let this be noted:

UMP currently have over 90 per cent coverage of the medical profession.

In the words of the Hartcher document:

There is only one insurer in New South Wales, United Medical Protection.

The Coalition has pledged, in its own words, 1 per cent to 2 per cent of the State's annual health budget, or between $70 million and $140 million a year. It has drawn on this body, the beneficiary of its policies, to provide it with its own policy document. The House should bear in mind that that is the only policy the Opposition front bench has produced in two years—and it was plagiarised! The only policy document to come out of the Coalition in two years is an exercise in theft. While primary responsibility for this must reside with the honourable member for Gosford, or old Colonel Xerox, the Leader of the Opposition must take the ultimate responsibility because she took it to shadow Cabinet, she had it endorsed by shadow Cabinet and, when she released it, she said that the Government has done nothing to address this situation and has failed to provide any long-term strategic plan to deal with the problem. She said, "Here is our strategic plan."

Where did the Coalition's strategic plan come from? Who wrote it? Who guided it through? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is fairly happy; he is grinning. He is a happy fellow today. He was lagging behind. Whose credibility suffered most in the last session of Parliament? It was the credibility of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with all those ridiculous allegations about David Hill and the demolished railway station. But right now he is an alternative Leader of the Opposition; he has caught up. When I point out that the Coalition has no policies it inaugurates a pathetic scramble to catch up, but there is no quality control, research, staff work or evaluation.

Mr Tink: Point of order: The private members' list in this House shows bill after bill which contain Opposition policies. This Premier will not let them come on for debate. We have the policies; he has not got the guts to allow them to come on for debate.

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

Mr CARR: To give some help to all who follow the affairs of this House, I am releasing the Hartcher document and I am indicating in green all those parts of it that have been pinched. While I have underlined that for the benefit of the House, not even the slowest member of the National Party feel neglected. This is the one policy document the Coalition has dared to produce in two years and I have established that it is based on theft from a four-year-old submission from a private company with a personal interest in the outcome of the policy work. Any Opposition that does that and any Opposition leader that allows that to happen do not deserve the confidence of the people of this State and deserve a result like the result in Campbelltown every day of the week.

Mr McGRANE: My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Can the Minister advise the House when the $13 million allocated from Treasury to pay outstanding New South Wales Grains Board pools will be made available to growers?

Mr AMERY: It is not easy to say exactly when the money will be made available to pay the pools, but I should give the House an update about what is going on with the Grains Board-Grainco arrangements. I hope the honourable member for Dubbo will glean from my answer at least the fact that by the end of March there should be a clearer clarification of what will happen with the payment of the pools.

Mr Armstrong: With interest?

Mr AMERY: The honourable member for Lachlan should not interject. His solution on behalf of the National Party when the financial affairs of the Grains Board came to light last year was to walk away from the problem and immediately deregulate. I will come back to that point in a moment because it is important, as the evolution of the Grains Board and Grainco situation is assessed, to look at the two options the Government faced last October-November to do something about it. The Government was confronted with the Grains Board having got itself into extreme financial difficulties. There were two options. The first was the National Party option: deregulation, walk away and leave the board to its fate.

The second option, which the Government took up, was to continue the vesting powers and the regulations in order to attract another player. Through Grainco, the Government sought to resolve the problem by a $25 million cash injection and an authorised buyer fee. It is important for any members who are following this debate to consider the two options that the Government faced when confronted with the financial difficulties of the Grains Board. When one considers the option chosen by the National Party, one realises why its traditional supporters—not only in New South Wales but in Queensland and Western Australia—are deserting it in droves. They are doing so because the National Party is deserting its supporters in droves.

Let me go back and, hopefully, satisfy the concerns of the honourable member for Dubbo relating to the pools payments. An administrator, Mr Murray Smith of KPMG, was appointed to the board on 10 November 2000 and the board's financial position has now been assessed in his draft report, which was submitted to me in late January. Recently the administrator issued a press release relating to the board's financial position which stated in part:

The administrator has found the board's losses to be substantially higher than previous estimates, with unaudited losses to August 2000 estimated to be in excess of $90 million.

Mr Armstrong: How much did you tell us it would be last year? Did you say it would be $70 million?

Mr AMERY: Last year there was no final figure. The honourable member for Lachlan has asked whether I said last year that the figure would be $70 million. Today I am saying it is $90 million and that that is not a final figure. This is a process we are going through. The administrator stated that further substantial losses are projected to August 2001 which cannot yet be accurately quantified. He also stated that the losses were a result of the board significantly increasing bank debt in 1999-2000 to fund operating losses, advances to joint venture partners and additional stock purchases. Some of the specific problems encountered by the board are stated to be entry into unprofitable joint venture arrangements; a substantial increase in cash sales activity, much of which turned out to be unprofitable; unfavourable foreign exchange movements leading to exposure on sales denominated in foreign currencies—

Mr Armstrong: Who was the Minister responsible then?

Mr AMERY: I will give the honourable member some details about how the board is structured. I have some good notes about that. So that I cannot be accused of being a plagiarist, my source of information about how the Grains Board is structured is none other than the former Minister for Agriculture, the honourable member for Lachlan. Returning to the specific problems encountered by the board, they included managerial, accounting and control weaknesses resulting in an inability by the board to accurately measure its financial performance and position. Certain financial obligations have been imposed on the board since 30 October, when the agreement was established. The most significant of those relate to certain board contracts which have been unable to be fulfilled.

According to the administrator, these financial developments put the board in the position of either having to enter into a compromise with creditors pursuant to section 80 of the Grain Marketing Act—and the honourable member for Lachlan should know about that; he introduced the bill—or winding up the board. After advising the major stakeholders of these developments, the administrator filed a winding-up application with the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 9 February 2001. If, however, a compromise or other arrangement can be entered into, the winding-up application will be withdrawn.

Any compromise or other arrangement that is pursued will retain arrangements for completing the 1999-2000 pool payments to growers. I think this is getting to the point that the honourable member for Dubbo is concerned about, but the National Party members of this Parliament are not concerned. Although the timing of initial payments to growers remains uncertain, the administrator hopes that they will occur by the end of March 2001. I may be in a position later to make a statement about the contracts. Basically, Grainco has assessed some of the board's sales contracts as materially different from those contracts listed in the deeds of agreement. Consequently, if Grainco is unwilling to meet those loss-making contracts they will either need to be financed by the board and its bankers or dishonoured.

I am pleased to report that Grainco has been able to resolve nearly all of the problems. In relation to the pool payments, grower payments for 1999-2000 remain an ongoing concern to farmers. The delay in payment is due to the difficulties faced by the administrator in finalising those accounts. However, it is expected that they will soon be finalised. Authorised buyer fees will be used to meet the cost of finalising the accounts and outstanding payments to growers will be financed by an advance through the Treasury Corporation loan. It is important that I emphasise that the board, not Grainco, is responsible for past pool payments, and that the Government has ensured that arrangements are in place to enable growers to be paid. I have been told by many farmers that their concerns are being allayed. It is hoped that all matters will soon be resolved.

The Opposition's interjection implied that the Government, the taxpayers, should somehow fund Grains Board losses. I do not think anyone seriously believes that to be an option. It is certainly an option that the Government has ruled out. When the legislation was introduced in 1991 by the then Minister for Agriculture, he clearly spelt out that the board does not in any way represent the Crown and, therefore, legally and morally it would not be an obligation on the Government, or the taxpayers, to fund any of the losses of the Grains Board. Rather than think that is shelving any responsibility, I ask honourable members to give it serious consideration. If, for example—politically, legally or constitutionally—taxpayers were required to pick up the losses of a statute-based organisation such as the Grains Board, it would result in the deregulation in every State of all such orderly marketing arrangements within days of the announcement.

Statutory arrangements exist to give farmers a collective bargaining power. If for some reason governments believed that they were to be held liable for the losses of statutory marketing arrangements we would see a massive deregulation. That is something which many members of this House, particularly rural-based members, would not want to happen. If governments believed that they were under an obligation to meet the losses incurred by the dairy, grain or egg industries—and none of those regulations are left—the benefits of the orderly marketing arrangements would be brought undone almost immediately. I hope my answer satisfied the concerns of the honourable member for Dubbo.

Mr McMANUS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health. How is the Government responding to the spiralling cost of medical indemnity premiums?

Mrs Skinner: He was forced to do it because we put ours out.

Mr KNOWLES: Author! Author! Members might notice that on the day the discussion paper was released the honourable member for North Shore was nowhere to be seen. It was all the work of the Leader of the Opposition, and, of course, the shadow Attorney General—or was it the United Medical Protection [UMP]—who certainly acknowledges that the honourable member for Gosford was the author. Honourable members would remember the Federal campaign advertisement, "The answer is Liberal", and the quick little campaign, "If the answer is Liberal, God knows what the question is." A discussion paper, but no answers, no solutions; just the regurgitated work of other people, produced in a document, to be seen to be trying to produce a policy. Meanwhile, on the side of the room where the work gets done, we have been doing an enormous amount of work. The growth in doctors' premiums is not new, it goes back to at least 1997, as evidenced by the Premier's response a moment ago.

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

Mrs Skinner: Where have you been?

Mr KNOWLES: Where have you been?

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

Mr KNOWLES: As Australia moves down the path of American-style litigation, it is clear that there is a need for new measures. Equally, the recent unravelling of the cross-subsidies between low- and high-risk medical specialties has turned the medical insurance industry on its head. Cherry-picking for low-risk business has become common practice, leaving high-risk specialties such as obstetrics and neurosurgery with the prospect of escalating premiums and ultimately non-viability. Those facts, combined with the recent actions of the doctors' insurance company, United Medical Protection—and bear in mind that it is a mutual company, owned, set up and established by the doctors—have fuelled an environment in which some doctors face the real prospect of either paying big increases in insurance or not practising high-risk specialties at all.

UMP's recent fee increase of 8 per cent and a further 100 per cent call over five years took the medical industry completely by surprise toward the end of last year. Last year the Chairman of United Medical Protection, Richard Tjiong, advised his members, and advised me personally, that there would be no call and any increase in premiums would be minimal. The members of UMP are now asking, rightly, how UMP could have got it so wrong. Of course the AMA is demanding a full inquiry, as referred to by the Premier. Is it any wonder that the Chairman of UMP has announced that he will resign. Together with the AMA, I want more than an audit of the UMP books; I want a full investigation into its policies, practices and management.

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of UMP's actions—and I flag now that the Government is always prepared to work with it—some doctors are asking taxpayers to pay for public and private practice insurance premiums, essentially using public funds to pay the business costs of private contractors, or they will withdraw services from the public health system. It would seem from media reports that the Opposition supports that view. That is, let us get out the taxpayers' big cheque book and write cheques for up to $140 million to pay for the doctors' insurance premiums. The Leader of the Opposition was quoted in the Western Advocate on 15 February as saying that 1 or 2 per cent of the State's health budget was a reasonable amount to pay to stop obstetricians and other specialists leaving public hospitals in droves. That $140 million is roughly 60 multipurpose services in country locations—a hell of a lot of hip replacements. That taxpayers' money would pay for a lot of surgery.

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

Mr KNOWLES: A lot of money to keep obstetricians, neurosurgeons and high-risk specialists in the system. As one might expect, there is no analysis of the underlying problems: the issues associated with the courts, the dysfunction in the insurance industry, and the change in claims profile and medical risk. Just that the problem will respond to more money. Many people very close to this debate have told me that money is not the simple answer. One such example is Professor Geoff Duggin, Chairman of the New South Wales Medical Services Committee. What he says is worth noting. Professor Duggin, talking about whether writing out insurance premium cheques fixes the problem, states:

The injection of expenditure of even very large sums of money by Government to subsidise indemnity insurance for medical practitioners, either directly or indirectly, would, at best, only have very short term benefit and in the medium and long term such an injection of funds would escalate costs and the consequence of those rising costs.

Mrs Skinner: We know.

Mr KNOWLES: If you know, why are you out there touting that you will use up to 2 per cent of the health budget to pay for doctors' insurance premiums? There is absolutely no evidence that paying the premiums will do anything other than continue the spiralling costs of medical indemnity insurance for high-risk premiums. The Government has taken a much more constructive approach to this problem. There are compelling public interest issues involved. If doctors withdraw services, particularly in the high-risk specialties, they run the risk of jeopardising patient care. Increased premiums represent only the symptoms of this problem. The court system, inadequate regulation of the insurance industry and the need for stronger quality and risk management by the doctors themselves are other causes of the problem.

Mr O'Doherty: What are you doing about it?

Mr KNOWLES: His timing is perfect. He gives the cue. Over the past couple of months countless meetings have taken place with an extraordinarily large number of professional groups, colleges, the Australian Medical Association [AMA], individual surgeons, rural medical groups and medical defence organisations, who are united in their view that the only way forward is to deal with the underlying causes of this problem once and for all. With that in mind, the Government has prepared a package of reforms which will focus on tort law reform, regulation of the medical insurance industry, and a renewed focus on clinical quality to reduce medical errors leading to claims of malpractice and to better protect consumers.

The reforms will include sustainable premiums through the reform of damages claims, including the alteration of a discount rate, and capping future loss of earnings to a weekly maximum and general damages for most serious cases at the current level. These changes will generally be in line with the Motor Accidents Scheme. Further, the reforms will include the establishment of compulsory mediation and specialist lists for medical negligence cases to be handled by judges with relevant expertise. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has already established such a list and the Attorney General will consult with the Chief Judge of the District Court with a view to establishing a similar specialist list. The Government will legislate to protect the actions of good samaritans.

Medical defence organisations will need to maintain published data relating to all areas of claims risk, including incidents that have been incurred but are at present not recorded. Risk management programs will be required to be put in place. There will be a compulsory indemnity requirement for doctors and the Government will legislate to regulate the indemnity industry to clamp down on the current explosion of "cherry picking". The reforms will also include an opportunity to examine the private practice arrangements for salaried medical practitioners. The reform of damages and case management by the courts will contain costs, promote orderly and sustainable growth of the compensation pool and provide greater certainty and efficiency in claims assessment and handling.

In addition, the Premier and I have written to the Prime Minister and the Federal Minister for Health and Aged Care respectively urging them to vigorously pursue changes to the tax Act to facilitate structured settlements to better deal with long-term future care costs. I can advise that this approach has the considered and strong support of the various professional groups. Advice to date is that the Government's measures will stabilise premiums and realise a reduction in the future. Based on advice from UMP, who "believe this proposal is an excellent initiative towards the control of medical litigation costs and therefore future medical indemnity premiums", future premiums will reduce by approximately 12 per cent. UMP also said:

The measures go a long way to alleviating the need for any future subscription based calls … providing a renewed confidence in the medical community with respect to their indemnity costs.

Others have also welcomed the news of our solution. I refer to a letter from Mr Michael Hollands, Chairman of the Committee of Chairmen of the New South Wales State Committees of Medical Colleges. Opposition members laugh at Michael Hollands. He is the most senior chairman of all the learned colleges and he represents their approach to our negotiations with them over the past two to three months. He is the Chairman of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. The Committee of Chairmen represents the Australasian College of Physicians, the Australasian Faculty of Occupational Medicine, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, the Australasian College of Sexual Health Physicians, the Australasian Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, the Faculty of Intensive Care, the RACP Division of Paediatrics, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Australasian College of Dermatologists, the Royal College of Pathologists of Australia, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, the Royal Australian College of Medical Administrators, the Australasian Faculty of Public Health Medicine and the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists. All those organisations are represented by this letter, addressed to Mick Reid, who has done a magnificent job in the past couple of months working through the issues with all the stakeholders.

Mr O'Doherty: If the Opposition had not done anything you would still be stuffing around.

Mr KNOWLES: The Opposition does not like to hear this. All it issues is a little plagiarised document. When the Government provides a solution the Opposition does not want to know about it. The letter states:

On behalf of the Committee of Chairmen of the New South Wales State Committee of Medical Colleges I wish to thank you for addressing the committee concerning the State Government's package of reforms for professional indemnity in New South Wales. We have considered the package proposed. It shows a very positive contribution and hopefully will lead to reduced premiums.

Based on the advice of UMP, their hopes will be realised. The next letter I refer to is the one I appreciate the most because it says it all. That letter states:

Thank you very much for briefing us on the proposed tort law reform package and making senior staff available for ongoing discussion. As you know, we have been lobbying for tort reform in relation to medical indemnity for some years. We are very encouraged that the New South Wales Government is now actively pursuing this goal.

Mr Souris: That is an indictment of Andrew.

Mr O'Doherty: After six years of doing nothing.

Mr KNOWLES: They are upset; they do not like this. The letter continues:

We do not consider the tort law reform on its own will solve the problem of sharply increasing medical indemnity costs. But the New South Wales proposal is a major step in the right direction and if coupled with the reforms being developed through the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council, a national body, will comprise a very effective policy package

That reference relates to the Premier's letter to the Prime Minister about structured settlements and making sure that they are an integral part of the package. The letter continues:

Our only major reservation about the package is in relation to medical indemnity insurance becoming compulsory. We would seek further discussions on that issue.

Compulsory medical insurance is part of an overall package to protect consumer interests. It is not appropriate in this day and age for doctors to go bare and run the risk. The letter concludes:

In that context we strongly support the New South Wales proposal.

Who do you think signed that letter? It was Kerryn Phelps, Federal President of the AMA. In the letter she states that the AMA strongly supports the New South Wales proposal. I will frame it. Because of the urgency of this matter, the Attorney General and I have agreed to establish a small and focused work group, which will include the Australian Medical Association, the New South Wales Law Society and consumer advocacy lobbies, to oversee the preparation of the draft bill. They will assist the Government to finetune these proposals over the next year. Legislation will be introduced this session to effect the necessary changes and return stability to the medical profession.

The public litmus test is a simple one: the ability of mothers and babies to be safely cared for by obstetricians and for road accident victims to have access to a neurosurgeon; and the ability to ensure adequate protection over the longer term in such high-risk specialties to attract undergraduates to the profession. I thank the profession for working with the Government to find workable solutions. The Opposition and, indeed, the crossbenchers will have a very real choice in the near future to either vote up the Government's legislation and establish a stable and lasting reform or vote it down and wear the consequences of denying people the medical care they might need. While they are plagiarising and posing questions with no answers, we are fixing the problem.

Mr HAZZARD: Can the Minister for Community Services explain why she has allowed the department to fail to carry out full probity checks on all Department of Community Services [DOCS] officers, not only newly employed officers, who deal with children, as recommended by the Wood royal commission, particularly as at least one DOCS officer was caught recently distributing pornography on the email system?

Mrs LO PO': I congratulate the honourable member for Wakehurst. This is the first question he has ever asked me. This is eight months of intensive preparation.

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

Mrs LO PO': The use of emails in large organisations reveals, sadly, that it is accessed inappropriately by some workers. Such behaviour is totally unacceptable to DOCS. Four employees have been suspended in relation to the transmission of sexually explicit material on the department's email system last July. Since July independent experts have conducted two separate investigations into the incident. DOCS is not able to comment further while investigations are continuing. However, DOCS expects the highest standard of ethical behaviour from its employees, given the sensitive nature of their work. The use of email and the Internet to access inappropriate material is totally unacceptable. The placement of such material on the department's network is a breach of guidelines and the department's code of ethics. Our computer management policy and procedures provide clear guidelines to staff on acceptable use of the Internet and email.

In response to the findings of the police royal commission concerning paedophilia in New South Wales, the Government introduced a range of measures to protect children, including employment screening for child-related employment. The Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 established the responsibilities of the commission, which include employment screening for child-related employment. The legislation created an obligation for the screening of those employed in child-related employment, volunteers, ministers of religion or other members of religious organisations, foster carers and others as prescribed by legislation. It included a mandate for organisations to screen all employees and volunteers in accordance with established procedures and standards.

The new employment screening provisions apply to many organisations that are funded and/or licensed through the Department of Community Services to provide services that include child protection, child care, family support, out-of-home care, accommodation and youth services. Employment screening guidelines have been developed by the Commission for Children and Young People with government and non-government organisations. These guidelines have been circulated to employers. DOCS is an approved screening agency for the community services sector under the legislation. The department has established and trained a team of nine staff to assist community services sector employers with inquiries, registration and screening requests. If the honourable member for Wakehurst has any concerns, he should bring them to me and I will sort them out.

Mr Hazzard: Point of order: The question related to why the Minister had failed to get the department to carry out probity checks on all existing DOCS officers, not new officers. She has just answered the question in a standard form, and she has not addressed the issue. Why were existing staff not checked? Answer it! Answer one question.

Mrs LO PO': As the honourable member's first question, it was a good try.

Mrs LO PO': In response to an earlier question asked by the Leader of the Opposition about an alleged sexual assault on the mid North Coast, the same day that a call was received from the Child Protection Investigation Team at Port Macquarie it was transferred to the joint investigation team [JIT] at Hornsby. The JIT is a special investigation team made up of police and DOCS officers. It did not sit in a tray for two days. Aspects of this case are currently before the courts.

Mr BARTLETT: What is the Government doing to help people take part in protecting our marine heritage?

Dr REFSHAUGE: There are 1,800 shipwrecks that we currently know of on the seabed off the coast of New South Wales. The New South Wales Heritage Office recently issued new guidelines to explain to boaters and divers what to do if they find shipwrecks or anchors. The guidelines cover the recommended practice for anchoring when visiting an historic shipwreck site, what to do if equipment is snagged on a shipwreck, and how to conserve anchors. Shipwrecks not only provide us with a fascinating insight into our past, they are also a valuable tourism resource for many of our coastal towns. Shipwrecks attract colourful and interesting marine life, which is an added bonus for recreational divers.

Often, the first evidence we get of the existence of a shipwreck is from recreational or professional boaters who accidentally snag their fishing nets or equipment on a wreck. Recovering, replacing and repairing snared equipment is costly, and the shipwreck can suffer extensive damage. The new guidelines explain to boat owners how to notify the New South Wales Heritage Office so that the position can be marked on navigational charts, thus stopping other fishing boats from suffering the same fate. Following this and other initiatives of the New South Wales Heritage Office, many more people are now aware of the amazing history we have on our seabed.

An important part of this awareness is what boaters should do with anchors if they find them. Previously anchors would have been dragged out of the water. Not only does this lead to the rapid deterioration of the anchor, but it also removes the only marker to the location of a shipwreck. An anchor is far more valuable left on the seabed rather than rusting in a park with no recorded information as to where it came from. If anchors cannot be returned, they need to be kept in the shade and kept moist with fresh water. Careful treatment needs to be given to ship timbers, which are attacked by marine worms as soon as they are lifted out of the sand. Such objects found on our seabed or beaches are part of the puzzle that make up the fascinating story of a ship and its journey.

In the early nineteenth century very few records were kept about where, when and why a ship was built. If a shipwreck or anything such as timber or anchors are destroyed we lose that vital link. In many cases shipwrecks are the only tombstones that exist for seafarers. Very important shipwrecks have been found because an anchor was found or a net was caught in wreckage. An example is the discovery of the Lady Darling, the location of which remained a mystery for 116 years until a Bermagui fisherman caught his trawling net on the sandy bottom of Mystery Bay. He called a local dive operator, who immediately knew that he had found something special when fragments of riveted iron plating were pulled up with the damaged net. They recorded their position and prepared to dive. It must have been quite exciting when they caught sight of the unmistakable silhouette of a ship's bow.

Examining further, they detected the impressive stern section of the wreck, including the engine and the boiler. They promptly notified the New South Wales Heritage Office, and the mystery of the wreck was quickly unravelled. The Lady Darling sank in 1880, but the incident was not covered in the media on the day because there was a slightly more important story to report. On the same day Ned Kelly was hanged at the Old Melbourne Gaol. The lack of media reports about the Lady Darling and about the sinking added to its mystery. Its early life remains a mystery and will require further research. We know that the Lady Darling was originally a steamer operating around Liverpool, England, and that it came to Australia on 17 January carrying coal.

A little before midnight on 10 November 1880 the ship was travelling to Melbourne when disaster struck. Captain Roberts recorded that the ship struck "something dark" four miles south of Montague Island. Within an hour, she had sunk within sight of Montague Island, where the crew sought refuge. They were rescued the next day by the steamer Kiama. The location of the wreck remained a mystery for 116 years, despite concerted efforts by divers until—as I described earlier—Bermagui fisherman, Don Puglise, caught his trawling net on the sandy bottom of Mystery Bay. The following actions of a local diving operator, Bert Elswyk, and a team from the New South Wales Heritage Office ensured that the Lady Darling became one of the most interesting and visited wrecks in New South Wales. Marine heritage is an important feature of New South Wales tourism, and it is certainly vital to our coastal towns. We need to protect that heritage.

Mr KERR: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women. Is it a fact that the Commissioner for Community Services has been forced to drop at least six investigations into the most serious child abuse cases, including those involving deaths, because the Minister has failed to provide the necessary legislative powers to enable him to carry out his job?

Mrs LO PO': The Commissioner for Community Services has proposed an amendment to the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 seeking to clarify the commission's jurisdiction. Advice on this proposal was sought from the Crown Solicitor, who raised legal questions about the proposals. The Cabinet Office is currently co-ordinating these matters. I am advised that interim arrangements agreed to by the commissioner have been put in place to enable the Ombudsman to handle the matters in question. It is most important to ensure that Department of Community Services clients continue to have access to avenues of review while their jurisdictional matters are settled. I am assured that this is the case. I am further advised that the types of matters affected constitute only about 15 per cent of the commission's caseload, with the remainder of the commissioner's work unaffected. It is acknowledged that the commission plays a role that is central to the scrutiny of welfare agencies in this State, and we are working to resolve these issues as quickly as possible. The Government is committed to the effective monitoring of public sector agencies.

Mr KERR: I ask a supplementary question. In view of that answer, what inquiries has the Minister made as to what expertise and training officers of the Office of the Ombudsman will have to have, and how many children will be at risk during this period?

Mrs LO PO': The fact that the commissioner has agreed to these arrangements suffices.

Questions without notice concluded.

Mr KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Health) [3.44 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the consideration forthwith of a motion of censure of the member for Gosford.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Hornsby) [3.44 p.m.]: It is the first day back and what a spectacle! There they are: Bib and Bub; good cop and bad cop. During question time the Premier held up an important policy document produced by the New South Wales Opposition. Was it not the Premier who last year invited further policy documents and who adopted many of the good ideas in the paper on the environment produced by the honourable member for Southern Highlands, for example?

Mr O'Farrell: And private sector financing and infrastructure.

Mr O'DOHERTY: Yes. They were Opposition ideas that were completely plagiarised and adopted by the New South Wales Government. Last year the Premier told us that when the Opposition produced good ideas the Government was happy to steal them. Look at what the Government did in relation to water reform—that is another area where the Government has stolen Coalition initiatives. Government members should check Hansard to see what the Premier said. When we produce good ideas, members opposite are happy to steal them—which is what the Premier told the Parliament last year. Today the Premier referred to a policy document—a discussion paper— produced by the Opposition about rural hospitals.

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

Mr O'DOHERTY: People in hospitals in country towns have been complaining to us that, for six years, Government members have sat on their backsides doing nothing about health provision in country areas. Six years later, the best the Premier can do is criticise the Opposition paper that discusses the initiatives and responses required from this House in order to provide specialist services in country areas. That was the Premier's big submission to the House today. He said, "Look, isn't it terrible; the Opposition has produced a discussion paper" and claimed that all the things being done in the name of research are some kind of plagiarism.

That was the Premier's big submission: by taking ideas from the community, which is alarmed at the inaction of this Government, the Opposition is somehow guilty of plagiarism. Two questions later, the Minister for Health got to his feet and systematically, one by one, went through all the issues that the Opposition put on the public record for debate in the excellent paper produced by the honourable member for Gosford and the shadow Minister for Health. The Minister stole those ideas.

Mr Hazzard: If we had not put out the paper, you'd have done nothing.

Mr O'DOHERTY: The honourable member is right: if we had not put out the paper, the Government would still be doing nothing about it. I urge members opposite to check Hansard to see what the Minister for Health said. He said vaguely that the Government had been working on it for "a couple of months". That corresponds exactly with the time that the Opposition has been in country electorates talking to doctors on the public record and hearing their concerns about the lack of action by this Government. We said that we would produce a paper and do something about the situation: we will force the Government to take some serious steps on this issue. Today the Minister said that the Government had been working on the matter for the same time frame—for a "couple of months". He then produced so-called endorsements from organisations that he has heavied to support the Government's so-called initiative. He wants to start the year on a new footing with Kerryn Phelps—he spent two years denigrating her, but now she is his great mate. The Minister has entered into a new friendship pact because the Government wants to start the year on a better footing.

The fact is that the Government has taken action only because the Opposition forced it to. If we had not released our discussion paper, the Government would still have no policies. The Minister would have no initiatives and no ideas and there would be no specialist services in country hospitals. The Government would not have acted if we had not forced it to by releasing our discussion paper. This is another great victory for the New South Wales Coalition. We have begun 2001 by forcing a reluctant and arrogant Government to finally do something to provide specialist medical services where they are needed—in country New South Wales. The Opposition opposes the motion.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Gibson Mr Greene Mrs Grusovin Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Mr Iemma Mr Knowles Mrs Lo Po' Mr Lynch Mr McManus Mr Markham Mr Martin Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Mr Moss Mr Newell

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

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

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

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Mr KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Health) [3.56 p.m.]: I move:

That this House censures the member for Gosford for:

(1) claiming to be the author of the first substantial piece of health policy released by the coalition in six years, a document called Medical Negligence: Reform or Restructure?;

(2) making heavy use of material throughout the document, without acknowledgment, which is taken from Medical Negligence in NSW, a 1997 submission to the Interdepartmental Committee on Health Care Litigation; and

(3) setting a disgraceful example to our young people that condones cheating, theft of intellectual property, fakery and plagiarism.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "plagiarise" as to "take or use another person's thoughts, writings, inventions as one's own". Only the honourable member for Gosford will ever really know whether this case involves an extraordinary coincidence or nothing more than rank old-fashioned plagiarism.

Mr Hazzard: Are you being mendacious?

Mr KNOWLES: Where I come from we do not use big words such as "mendacious" because we want to communicate effectively with our constituents. Where we come from we say that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is usually a duck. You have only to compare these two documents to hear the quacking loud and clear.

Mr Hazzard: Point of order. The Minister responded to my interjection by indicating that he might have been mendacious and said that it had something to do with ducks. It has to do with the Minister being a liar, and he is telling lies in the course of this debate. There is a bibliography in the back of that paper and it sets out the references.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst should use more temperate language. He will resume his seat.

Mr KNOWLES: The once great Liberal Party of New South Wales has been forced into defensive mode with the member for Wakehurst raising spurious points of order. The only positive thing that can be said about this is that the member for Gosford will no longer be referred to as Toot Toot—in reference to the Thomas the tank engine episode when he was Minister for the Environment. He will be referred to as the Demidenko of the New South Wales Parliament; or perhaps every time he walks into the Chamber we will all yell out "Author, author".

Let us look at a couple of the quotes. Members can make up their own minds. When I read this document I was, in the first place, surprised to see an Opposition policy document. I thought that a policy document might be useful. The first thing I noticed was that it was a discussion paper giving no direction as to what the Opposition might do, just raising all the questions that have been floating around for a long time. As one of my staff members said to me, the document does not quite hang together. It jars. It looks as though it is a pastiche, a cut and paste job with bits and pieces from here and there. It has sentences without verbs, different tenses, different syntax. When we went through it a little more carefully—we had been working on this area for some time—we saw that in March 1997 there was a submission to the interdepartmental committee on health care litigation by a group of organisations most commonly known as United Medical Protection [UMP]. On page 5 the Hartcher document states:

Defensive medical practices are those practices that are adopted in response to the fear of litigation. While undoubtedly some practices are actually beneficial to patients, others have no therapeutic value for the patient (for example, unnecessary diagnostic tests).

On pages 13 and 14 of the UMP document the same material appears virtually word for word:

Defensive medical practices are those practices that are adopted in response to the fear of litigation. While some defensive practices may be to the benefit of patients . . . other defensive practices may have little . . . therapeutic benefit for the patient (eg extra diagnostic tests).

Even the brackets are in the right position! As I said, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it usually is a duck. If honourable members go back to the Hartcher document they will see a whole lot of end notes and attributes, a learned effort to produce a discussion paper. We tried to match the end notes with the plagiarised parts of the UMP document but could find no matches. There are many references in the end notes but none of them relate to the plagiarised quotes. It is either telepathy, plagiarism, coincidence or, as the honourable member for Willoughby indicated during question time, perhaps the honourable member for Gosford wrote this four years ago, UMP plagiarised his document and he just forgot to release it. They are the sorts of explanations that pop into mind when one tries to think logically and rationally about how this could have occurred.

Only the honourable member for Gosford will ever really know whether he simply lifted this holus-bolus from a four-year-old document and shoved it into a discussion paper, which he calls his own—and boy does he call it his own! Every single page has his name at the top of it like class 2B spelling—"Chris Hartcher MP" as if to say, "This is my document and I am proud of it." It even has on the front in big letters "Chris Hartcher MP, Shadow Attorney General: Discussion paper prepared by the New South Wales Liberal-National Coalition: Chris Hartcher MP". On the first page it says this: "The author, Chris Hartcher MP"—there is his name again—"would like to acknowledge the assistance of Jillian Skinner, MP, Brian Pezzutti, MLC, specialist anaesthetist", who, I might add, has recently announced his retirement and good luck to him—

Mr Fraser: Not true.

Mr KNOWLES: Not true? I am very pleased to hear it because he is a good man. He should be the shadow Minister for Health. He knows that and so do all those in the Liberal Party. The honourable member for Gosford also thanks Jenny Gardiner MLC, the assistant shadow Minister for rural health, Greg Pearce, MLC, and Lucy Wicks, a research assistant to the honourable member. Talk about implicating his mates and wanting to spread the blame! In the end this document is nothing more than a fake. It is nothing more than a lift from a four-year-old submission by an insurance company to a government inquiry into medical indemnity.

Considerable discussion is going on at the moment about plagiarism in universities. One need only go to any university web site to see discussion by academics on how badly plagiarism is regarded. We all know that at the moment the Sydney Morning Herald is regularly running accusations exposing plagiarism in universities where students essentially are buying their essays and answers via the Internet and lifting large slabs of work from other people. We know that university students would be either censured or drummed out of university if caught. I wonder what the former University of Sydney law school, where the honourable member for Gosford did his degree, would think about this. If a student or a young person plagiarised we would all regard it as offensive, cheating, a fake and not worthy of the institution. If, for example, a medical researcher did the same thing, took other people's work, claiming it to be his or her own, that person would be booted out of the research institution and would never work again.

Here in this institution of the New South Wales Parliament, the best that the institution once known as a great political party, the New South Wales Liberal Party—now down on its uppers, with a failed set of frontbenchers—can do is put a plagiarised document before the Parliament and claim the work as its own. It has no policies and with no effort has just lifted other people's work, recognising, as we all do, that its members could not have an original idea if their lives depended upon it. This is the only policy document we have seen in months.

On 16 January, on the first day of the Terry Willessee show, the Leader of the Opposition promised to produce a health policy within one month. When questioned seven times by Willessee about what she would do about issues such as waiting lists, she was like that fellow in the Vicar of Dibley, saying, "No, no, no, no. I am not going to tell you what my policy is now because we will be producing it in a month." Today is 27 February, a month has been and gone, and there is still no policy. We only have this document, which does not provide answers, just questions, and which we now discover was in large part authored by someone other than the supposed author attributed in this document, the member for Gosford.

In his remarks during question time the Premier made it absolutely clear what this issue is about. The member for Gosford denigrates this place and the role of a member of Parliament by stealing someone's work and passing it off as his own. Each of us is elected to this place to represent the views of the community openly and fairly, not to secretly represent the views of an insurance company that, as this document says, is the monopoly provider of health insurance for doctors in this State. Whose views are these? Are they the views of the member for Gosford? Are they UMP's? Are they coincidentally the same? Were they formed in meetings between the organisations? Does he have the authority to use this information without attribution?

I met Richard Tjiong and I am sure he is a very proud man and would want to make sure that any work taken from this document was properly attributed. In the end this will be a test of the integrity of the member for Gosford: is he willing to admit that he has made a very grave error and apologise to the people of this State and to this House or will he continue the sham of suggesting that this is all his own work. This is the work of no-one other than UMP, put together by the honourable member for Gosford as a pastiche in as a rushed attempt to get some policy out because honourable members opposite were feeling the pressure. They had no policy and nothing to say so they put out something that they hobbled together. However, they have been sprung, caught red-handed, and all the backbenchers know that.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is chuckling away; he is happy about it. One of their pretend leaders has been caught out red-handed. Anyone who seeks to write policy documents and pass them off as his own should always do what the honourable member for Gosford tried to do, that is, annotate and footnote. But he has not done that in this case. He has lifted large chunks, all of them referred to by the Premier in question time. The member for Gosford should apologise. Whose work is it? Is it yours? Is it UMP's? Did you write it, or did you not? Why does the honourable member not tell us whether he put the pen on the paper? Is he the Helen Demidenko, the hand that signed the paper, or is it someone else's work? Helen, come on down and tell us all about it!

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.10 p.m.]: I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after the word “That” with a view to inserting instead the following:

"this House congratulates the Coalition on raising the issue of medical negligence and forcing the Government to act on this important issue after six years of inaction."

The discussion paper is 21 pages long and contains 36 footnotes. It refers to Richard Tjiong. It refers to the United Medical defence fund, its annual review and its web site. It refers to the British Medical Journal, the Lancet and the Sunday Telegraph. It refers to the UMP annual review. It refers to the Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health review of professional indemnity arrangements for health care professionals. It refers again to UMP. It refers to the seminar presented by UMP, "Increasing Health Care Litigation—Can Australia afford it." It refers also to a letter to United members from Richard Tjiong dated November 2000. It goes again into their web site. It refers to the Sydney Morning Herald. It refers to Australian Medicine.

The discussion paper refers again to the Sydney Morning Herald. It refers to the Health Care Professions Review of 1995. It refers again to the Sydney Morning Herald. It refers to the Victorian Law Reform Committee's final report of 1997, "Legal Liability of Health Service Providers". It refers again to the Sydney Morning Herald. It refers to the Australian Medical Association's press release on the matter, "Specialists Leaving in Droves …". It refers to the professional indemnity review. It refers to the Victorian Law Reform Committee report of 1997. It refers again to the professional indemnity review. It refers to the Sydney Morning Herald. It refers again to the Sydney Morning Herald. It refers to the Times of 28 May 2000.

It refers against to the Victorian Law Reform Committee, "Legal Liability Health Services Providers". It refers to the High Court case of Rogers v Whitaker. It refers again to the Weekly Law Reports case of Bolam. It refers to the High Court case of Chappel v Hart. It refers to the Australian Torts Reports. It refers to Richard Tjiong's medical indemnity reform position paper. It refers again to Richard Tjiong's medical indemnity reform position paper. It refers to the Lancet. It refers to Gina Hughes' article in The Australian Health Law Bulletin. It is 21 pages and 36 citations.

The discussion paper is a detailed work. It acknowledges freely that many people have contributed to the discussion on this issue and that this reform paper is a presentation of many views in our society. The paper does not claim to be a Chris Hartcher original, that Chris Hartcher sat down and wrote it. Chris Hartcher acknowledges in 36 separate citations that he has looked at the works of other people in newspapers and magazines and on web sites on the Internet. It acknowledges that contributions were made to the paper by a list of people including the shadow Minister for Health, the specialist and anaesthetist the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti; the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, the assistant shadow Minister for Health; the Hon. G. S. Pearce, a member of the Legislative Council, and Lucy Wicks, a research assistant. In no way does the Coalition pretend that the paper is totally Chris Hartcher's original work. It is a discussion paper that poses questions in relation to medical negligence.

The Government is worried because it has been caught out on this issue. That is the reason why this debate is taking place today, after six years of inaction; after specialists have been leaving in droves—as the AMA said in its press release; after doctors resigned in Nowra last month; after doctors resigned in Tamworth last month; after doctors resigned in my electorate of Gosford in the last three weeks; and after obstetricians have refused to perform operations in public hospitals. This Government faces a bushfire across New South Wales which it cannot put out. What has been the Government's response to the problem? After six years it has announced its own policies, many of which are set out in this discussion paper.

I hold up for everyone to see a page of footnotes, 36 end notes—all cited, all detailed, all relating to magazines, newspapers and web sites. The Coalition is announcing a discussion paper. We announced it and released it publicly. We have nothing to be ashamed of. The Government has failed the country people of New South Wales, who are suffering because doctors are not prepared to provide obstetrics services in country New South Wales for fear of being sued and because of the $70,000 per year premium. The Government is facing a threatened revolt by obstetricians and neurosurgeons across the State. What has been the Government's response? Its response has been to try to blame the Opposition.

Mr Knowles: Point of order: The motion of censure is specific in its content, that is, the issue of plagiarism. I ask you to acknowledge that that is the motion that was moved.

Mr Fraser: If you had been in the House you would have known that an amendment has been moved.

Mr Knowles: If an amendment has been moved, I apologise.

[Interruption]

I will say sorry if the honourable member for Gosford says sorry for his plagiarism.

Mr HARTCHER: The Minister for Health has not been paying attention. He merely reads out words given to him by his advisers.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. An amendment has been moved which is sufficiently wide to allow the honourable member for Gosford to continue with the remarks he was making at the time the Minister took the point of order.

Mr HARTCHER: The future leader of the Labor Party cannot even pay attention to what is happening in the House! This is the man who would be leader but who reads out speeches prepared for him by others and does not even know what is happening in this House. He has been a member of this House for 10 years and has been forced to apologise. He has an apologised, but he owes a bigger apology to the people of country and regional New South Wales because of his failure to guarantee to them medical services. A range of medical services is now under threat because, after seven years in office, he has done nothing to arrest the spiralling cost of medical negligence insurance premiums.

The Coalition has taken the only initiative that has ever been taken on this issue. It has produced a discussion paper which is drawing forth submissions from interested parties across the State. They are concerned about this issue. They want their local hospitals saved; they want their local doctors to be able to practise without the ongoing fear of litigation. The Government is running scared; it is trying to get revenge. It is concerned about the Opposition announcing discussion papers; it wants to try to prevent such papers seeing the light of day. The Government is trying to scare the Opposition because the Government itself is running scared.

In relation to the alleged plagiarism, I reject the claim. I stand by a document which contains endless footnotes. I acknowledge the fact that the document came together from many sources. I never pretended at any stage that it was an original work coming out of my head. I assigned it, I acknowledged it, but also acknowledged the fact that it represented contributions by many people. That is the Coalition's position. The Coalition is prepared to look at what other people are saying. It is prepared to consult with the community and to heed the results of those consultations. We are prepared to crystallise the many views that are put to us, put them out in a discussion paper, ask for further submissions and release a final policy. We are proud of what we do. The Government, after seven years of inaction, is ashamed of what it has failed to do.

Let us look at the issue of plagiarism, if that is to be raised. During his maiden speech in another place the Hon. John Della Bosca was caught out plagiarising from the book A Distant Mirror. He spoke about the Black Death, but he was caught out brilliantly by the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, who read out the quotation from the book. The Hon. John Della Bosca said:

The pervasiveness of this problem throughout society reminds me of previous history and concern about government leaders trying to come to grips with previous plagues.

He went on and on and solidly quoted three paragraphs from the book, A Distant Mirror, written by Barbara Tuchman some 20 years before.

Mr Ashton: Did he attribute it?

Mr HARTCHER: Did he attribute it? No. He said nothing about it and when he was caught out he did not even answer the allegation against him. He simply quoted from another book by Barbara Tuchman. The Hon. John Della Bosca was soundly caught out by the Hon. Michael Gallacher but there was no apology, nothing at all.

Mr Ashton: Point of order: That issue was canvassed some time ago. When the Hon. John Della Bosca made that comment he referred to three paragraphs. This debate is about 15 pages of plagiarising. The standing orders allow some degree of latitude in an augural speech to this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr HARTCHER: The Hon. John Della Bosca made no apology and was caught out, fair and square. When he was caught out his only defence was to simply send for another book by Barbara Tuchman, The March of Folly, and to quote from that. More significant is the fact that the Premier, when Leader of the Opposition, gave a speech after the death of the former Governor of New South Wales, Sir David Martin. In that speech he used a Sydney Morning Herald article about David Martin, when he was a naval rating during the Korean War, being subjected to asbestos falling upon him as he lay huddled in the ship when planes took off. That fact was brought to the attention of the Parliament by the then Premier, the Hon. Nick Greiner.

The real plagiarists have been exposed, they are the Premier and John Della Bosca. There were no footnotes to the Premier's eulogy; there were no footnotes to John Della Bosca's maiden speech. John Della Bosca read liberally from A Distant Mirror. There were no footnotes when the Premier read out, as his own work, an article from the Sydney Morning Herald concerning Sir David Martin. The Australian Labor Party has been caught out again and again in this Chamber. Members of the Australian Labor Party have short memories. Again and again they try to accuse others of what they do themselves. They deny democracy; they trample over it in this House. They use the forms of this House simply to advance their own cause rather than the cause of the people of the State.

When they are caught out, they simply use the forms again to try to trample over the Opposition. They complain that the Opposition is not producing policies. When the Opposition does produce a policy, the members of the Government are frightened, because they have been caught out. No-one has been more plainly caught out than the Minister for Health, the mover of the motion. The Coalition is not concerned with using the forms of the House for their own sake; they are concerned about using the House as a forum in which to advance the cause of the people of New South Wales. We will continue to do that; we will not be intimidated by attempts to stifle us using the forms of this House to put us down or to make false allegations against us.

The Premier was caught out plagiarising. John Della Bosca was caught out plagiarising. I have not been caught out plagiarising. If I had plagiarised, I would not have a page of end notes which refers to every web site, every magazine and every newspaper that has something to say about this issue. Again and again I have been it clear that what the Coalition is trying to do is to present the issue to the people. We have now presented it in a way that the Government has found so embarrassing that some two weeks after the release of our paper it has been forced to release its own paper.

The Government has had two weeks in which to dissect our paper and to get ideas from it. And it certainly got ideas! Virtually every policy the Government announced today is set out as a discussion point in the paper. Again and again the Government has been forced to address the issues that we have raised. The real issue is whether the people of country New South Wales are being looked after by the Government. The answer is no. General practitioners and specialists are worried, pregnant women are worried and people with serious medical conditions are worried because of a raft of litigation that the Government has not seen fit to address. The Government's only response is to attack the Opposition. The Opposition is proud to have forced the Government into this position. We are pleased that the Government's embarrassment and inaction have forced it to misuse the forms of the House for its own purposes. I reject the allegation. I deny the charge.

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [4.25 p.m.]: I support the motion. It is clear from this debate that we will never hear a new idea from the member for Gosford. It is absolutely clear that every time we hear him we know we are listening to something that someone else has said. The sharing and discussing of ideas and theories that have been built upon the foundation work of other people is certainly a useful way of developing policy generally and has been a useful and critical part of the way that the human race has developed over thousands of years. But the critical element is having the honesty and integrity to acknowledge the work that other people have done. It is in that regard that the honourable member for Gosford fails so absolutely and comprehensively in the present circumstances.

This so-called policy document, which was released on 13 February, was simply an exhibition of utter and complete intellectual dishonesty. There is absolutely no doubt that the member for Gosford claimed ownership of the document; his name is on every page. He could not resist rubbing in how proud he was of his document. The difficulty is that a large part of that document was being passed off as his own, without footnotes. However, it came from another document dating from 1997 and produced by an organisation known as the UMP. That intellectual dishonesty to which I referred reveals a number of other things. It reveals a monumental political dishonesty. It is a pretence at formulating a policy, and the policy comes from a body that has an incredible financial interest in the outcome of it.

When one looks through the document produced by the member for Gosford it is interesting to note that there is absolutely nothing in it that deals with stopping doctors making mistakes. That is exactly the position that the UMP and the Medical Defence Union had been pushing for some time: there is nothing wrong with doctors, the problem is the nasty people who are trying to get money out of them. The document produced by the member for Gosford has pursued that absurd position simply because he has not been able to critically analyse the material given to him. He has simply taken it holus-bolus and rammed it into the document. The document also reveals his monumental arrogance. He thinks he is clever enough to get away with it. He thinks that no-one is going to bother to check. It is extraordinarily stupid to think that people would not check or look at the material that is put out.

Another aspect of his stupidity, which he highlighted in his contribution, is his going through all the footnotes that he included. As has been said by other members, he was clear about making some acknowledgements at the beginning of this document, but nowhere in the footnotes, nowhere in the acknowledgements, is there any reference to the document we have been talking about. There is no reference to the 1997 UMP document that went to the interdepartmental committee. One would have thought that is the height of stupidity. It is a reflection of sloppiness, laziness and contempt, not only for the people of New South Wales and those interested in policy but also for this institution, this House.

What is the response? To give the honourable member for Gosford his due, he denied that he plagiarised the UMP submission. But it is worth noting that he was 10 minutes into his speech before he got around to saying that, and that strikes me as an interesting form of defence. The majority of his speech consisted of him reading out footnote after footnote from the page containing 30-odd footnotes. That is fine, but the problem is that he is now hoist with his own petard. If he has done so well at putting in so many footnotes—and he read them out to us—what about the footnote for the 1997 document? There is not one reference to that document in the footnotes. His footnotes included many things, but not the document he plagiarised.

The honourable member for Gosford is delighted to read all those footnotes, but he has not acknowledged the one document that he has taken holus-bolus and passed off as his own. That document is, in fact, someone else's document. Reading the footnotes took up the first 10 minutes of his speech, and he eventually got around to denying the allegation. The vast bulk of his defence avoids the allegation and instead makes an hysterical and partisan attack on Labor Party policy. He does not have a real and substantive answer to the serious and regrettable claims that have had to be made against him. I pass on to the honourable member for Gosford a reference to an article by famous English historian A. J. P. Taylor. The article appears in the September 1961 edition of the journal Encounter. I hasten to add that Encounter is not a journal I generally quote from. The title of the article is "How to Quote: Exercises for Beginners". The honourable member for Gosford could learn a great deal from that article.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [4.30 p.m.]: I speak against the Government's motion and support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gosford. This is the most hypocritical and desperate response by a government that I have ever seen during the time I have been a member of this House. The Government has had years to address this issue. People have talked about recent incidents of specialists tendering their resignations from public hospitals. In fact, such incidents have been going on for a lot longer. A situation concerning neurosurgeons in western Sydney arose some time ago, but the Government did not take any action. Only now has the Government taken action, and it was forced to do so by the distribution of the paper by the honourable member for Gosford on behalf of the Coalition.

I have just completed a five-day driving tour of country New South Wales from Tamworth to the Tweed. I took 50 copies of the discussion paper and I asked for 50 more to be sent. I handed them personally to doctors, who thanked me for copies of the paper and said they looked forward to making a contribution to the discussion on the issue. Not one of those people out in the field has been asked by the Government for his or her views on this issue. This is a discussion paper. The Coalition is interested in hearing from members of the public about their views. As the honourable member for Gosford said, we make no apology for the fact that we have drawn on 36 different points of view on this issue that have been expressed over many years by many organisations. During question time the Premier could easily have read from any one of those sources. The honourable member for Gosford made no apology for the fact that this is a discussion paper and that we would call upon much earlier documentation on this issue.

The Minister for Health has the gall to pontificate about the package he intends to produce. He read various letters from various people on to the record, which he has done in the past in a fraudulent way. I refer to an Australian Medical Association [AMA] press release dated 27 February, which is today. The press release, which has just been received in my office, states that the AMA welcomes aspects of the State Government's tort reform package but it does not like the whole lot. It mentions many different aspects in the package. The AMA states:

The full economic implications in this package for all doctors remain uncertain … The AMA believes all doctors should have their indemnity covered by the State Government for their public hospital work.

The Minister for Health did not read those parts of the AMA press release. The AMA has a copy of the Coalition discussion paper and has already provided some additional comments which are very favourable. After the Coalition has received comment from many members of the general public, general practitioners and specialists with visiting medical officer [VMO] status, particularly in rural New South Wales, a policy will be developed. As I said to the doctors I met on my recent trip, this issue has been around for a long time. The Coalition has tried to address the issue in a bipartisan way. The former Attorney General, former shadow Attorney General and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti held meetings about the issue but the Government would not act. It sat on its hands for seven years. The Minister now has a crisis on his hands with the potential for babies to be delivered without expert assistance, thus putting their lives and the lives of their mothers at risk, because doctors cannot afford the $70,000 premium.

That premium has a tail attached to it. Under the current system those doctors will pay $350,000 at the point of their retirement and if the premiums continue to rise they will pay a lot more. Is it any wonder that doctors are thinking about not treating public patients in public hospitals? In addition, there are anaesthetists. The Government should try taking anaesthetists out of public hospitals and see what the community says. The community says, "Well done, Coalition, for at last getting this issue onto the table, for forcing the Government to take some action. It has sat on its hands and done absolutely nothing for six years. Despite the fact that this was a major issue, particularly for country health services, the Government has done nothing." Rather than being critical of this discussion paper and the honourable member for Gosford, the Government should hang its head in shame and support the amendment, which congratulates the Coalition.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.35 p.m.]: I support the motion. I am saddened to have to speak in this debate. The forms of this House established by that great former Liberal Speaker the honourable member for Hawkesbury provided that in a debate in this Chamber members cannot read from a speech. Not long after I became a member of this place the honourable member for Hawkesbury advised me and other new members that he insisted on that approach so that when members spoke in this place the words they uttered were their own. I note that the incumbent Speaker has followed that approach. There are exceptions, such as private members' statements. Members are allowed to read their speeches in private members' statements because they are not debate, they are statements. This is a sad day. When speaking in debate in this Chamber, honourable members may refer to sources other than their memories but they should not read someone else's words.

That is the nub of the problem. The honourable member for Gosford has issued a document, flashed the last page and read out a large number of references. The sad reality is that at best he was sloppy and at worst he was fraudulent in omitting seven references where there is a clear correspondence between the document from the medical defence group and what purports to be Coalition policy. The approach taken by the honourable member for Gosford is part of the problem. I doubt whether he has read in a long time an annual report of the Attorney General's Department. Central Coast residents are used to the honourable member changing what he is pleased to call his mind on frequent occasions. He has been under a great deal of pressure. This document was released on or about 13 February this year.

The dynamic duo—the honourable member for Gosford and his fellow traveller, the honourable member for Davidson, whom I note is present—and the Leader of the Opposition in the upper House have been under a great deal of pressure on the Central Coast. They were hoping for all sorts of problems in the Australian Labor Party preselection for the Federal seat of Robertson. Those problems did not eventuate. I appreciate the fact that the honourable member for Gosford has had a lot on his mind in trying to work out how he will survive with the Liberal member for Robertson as his colleague when the Australian Labor Party is united and progressing well on the Central Coast.

One of the first things a first year history student at university is told—and, I presume, a first year law student—is how to make appropriate references in essays. That is what this is about. It is not a big deal. There is a clear correlation between the two documents. The answer is quite simple. All you had to do was say that it was in the same place, by using the term "ibid", and give a page reference to the medical defence document. If it were from the same document, but elsewhere in the body of the report, all you had to do was refer to the author of the document and say "op. cit." and give a page reference. But that is not what happened. The sloppiness at best is not good enough for someone who aspires to be the first law officer of this State. I suggest that he goes back and has a very close look at how he researches and prepares documents and, most importantly, how he presents them to the general public.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [4.40 p.m.]: Today is an absolute nonsense and a fraud. This Parliament has not sat for the best part of three months. For three months members have been out in the community, going about their own electorates when issues have needed to be addressed. Until today there has not been the opportunity for three months for community representatives to come together in this Chamber to address the problems that face the people of New South Wales. But what we have is a nonsense and a fraud brought forward by the Government when many other problems need to be addressed. Members of the public sitting in the gallery may wonder what this is all about. They may have sat through some of this debate in question time. They might ask themselves how serious the Government is about this motion.

We have not heard the Premier speak to the motion. Sure, he put on a little tirade in question time, but if the Government were serious about pursuing this matter the Premier would have prosecuted a case, if there were a case to prosecute. However, he did not. He handed it over to his endorsed successor, the Minister for Health. I note that the alternate challenger for the leadership of the Labor Party, the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads, is nowhere to be seen. He is absent. The Minister for Health is here to carry the can. It is a disgrace!

During the last three months the Department of Community Services had young children in its care who were injured and dying, yet the Minister has failed to accept any responsibility. The Opposition wanted to pursue that issue today. There are problems in the health system. The Minister for Health is supposed to be responsible for the Ambulance Service and medical services throughout the State. But he is not interested in that; he is interested only in pursuing that trumped up charge. We have problems with education and transport, as well as rural issues. But the Government is not interested in those problems. It is more concerned about pursuing one member on this side of the House.

The priorities of the Government are not with the real issues that concern the people of New South Wales. But we are listening to their concerns. The Government referred to medical negligence and claimed that there has been no attribution or source of reference in this document. What the Premier failed to point out in question time—the honourable member for Gosford had to point it out, and Hansard now has a record of it—was that there are 36 attributions and references at the back of this 20-page document, which contains a range of suggestions and ideas to deal with medical negligence. The Opposition was happy to listen to the 36 organisations and groups who contributed to the document and engage in public debate, yet the Government alleges that the document contains no attribution.

The Government alleges that the honourable member for Gosford claims the entire document and its contents as his ideas. Wrong! The evidence is in black and white, and the Government has not been able to deal with it. The Government makes such allegations to cause a distraction, to clear out this Chamber after question time because the Opposition wants to pursue other matters on the first sitting day in three months. The Government is a fake and a hypocrite. The Government has had six years to deal with medical negligence, but nothing has happened until today. What prompted the Minister for Health to announce today in question time that he would set up a working party? It was sheer coincidence! It had nothing to do with this document, published earlier this month by the Opposition.

The Opposition, the shadow Minister for Health and the shadow Attorney General have been listening, responding, consulting and discussing the problems with stakeholders during their time in Opposition. They devised a paper and they circulated it. The Government has acknowledged that we have done something—which is funny, because that is our role in Opposition. However, the Government does not want to give us any credit; rather it wants to claim the ideas as its own and plagiarise the initiative of the Opposition.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.45 p.m.], in response: For three months this Parliament has been in adjournment. During that time the Government has come up with one bill: the Cattle Compensation Bill. That is the only thing the Government has introduced for debate today. We have a parliamentary sitting, but the Government has nothing with which to fill up the time, so it tries to fill up the time with a spurious motion of censure upon me because, according to the Government, this document does not have enough footnotes. Computer sites, web sites, newspapers, magazine articles, government reports from Victoria, government reports from the Commonwealth, annual reports from the United Medical Defence Fund or the United Medical Protection Organisation are all set out in the document, yet the Government says that we should have cited this and we should have cited that.

At the very most all the Government has is a very academic argument that it has tried to build up into a censure motion, and which it will carry on the numbers. At the end of the day the Government will get the numbers. The numbers will stay with the Government, but morality will stay with us. I challenge the Minister for Health. This press release was issued under his hand. Did he write it? Did the Minister write this document? Did the Minister write this two-page press release, which was issued today, "Knowles announces medical indemnity rescue package"? Did the Minister for Health write this document? No! But it his press release. It does not say anybody else wrote it. There are no footnotes. It quotes throughout and in inverted commas states, "Today we can announce…". It is all there. Two pages of the Minister for Health, but not a single acknowledgment that it was written for him by somebody else.

Again and again, as the honourable member for Wyong said, Ministers in this House are asked Dorothy Dixers and they read out the answer that is prepared for them by their department. There is no acknowledgement of and no reference to the fact that anyone else has prepared the answer. There is nothing at all. Our document contains 36 footnotes. Five people are acknowledged at the front of the document as having contributed to it. This is a spurious censure motion by the Government that, most importantly, has a Premier who was caught out plagiarising an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, which he quoted in the eulogy for Sir David Martin. He used it as his own, but he never acknowledged it. Nick Greiner tore him to pieces.

The Hon. John Della Bosca read great stuff into Hansard about the conjunction of the planets and about how the Black Death was caused in the thirteenth or fourteenth century. Nobody could understand what he said. It was all his own work. But the Hon. Michael Gallacher nailed him to the cross! That was John Della Bosca, the mate of the honourable member for Wyong. If ever there were a group of plagiarists in this Parliament, if ever there were a group of people who use press releases as their own, who use prepared Dorothy Dixers as their own, who read out speeches as their own, it is the Australian Labor Party.

The Opposition came into this place with a 21-page document containing 36 footnotes. There is a big difference. The Government is so desperate it has moved this motion this afternoon. After three months, the Government has only one piece of legislation: the Cattle Compensation Repeal Bill. Parliament has nothing else to do. The Government plans to move a couple of condolence motions that have been held over from last year. Mr Healey died in December and we are to have his condolence motion in February. That is all the Government has on its parliamentary program, yet it has the extraordinary hide simply to use its numbers to waste everyone's time and have a go at the member for Gosford.

The member for Gosford is quite proud of his work; Government members can have a go at me as much as they like. I will simply come to this Chamber and stand up for the people of the Central Coast and of New South Wales as a whole. I am prepared to back my eight obstetricians in Gosford who are so concerned about the medical negligence premiums they are paying that they are threatening to withdraw their medical services from Gosford Hospital. I will back the doctors at Nowra and Tamworth; the Opposition will back every one of those doctors. It has initiated community consultation to discuss ideas and reach resolutions. Let us talk about what was said of the Premier. The Sun Herald wrote:

Perhaps we are just more attuned to this sort of thing after Alan Jones was caught red-handed unintentionally nicking bits from Freddy Forsyth novels for his newspaper column, but what can be said about Opposition Leader Bob Carr's condolence speech on Tuesday for the late Governor, Sir David Martin?

Mr Carr, who fancies himself as a dab hand at a speech, referred to Sir David's naval career. "In 1951 aged 18 years and straight from naval college, David Martin and a group of seamen cringed in the belly of the aircraft carrier, Sydney, as fighter bombers returned from a mission over Korea," he said at one point.

Strangely, Herald journalist Ben Hills had had a similar train of thought in an article he wrote which appeared in the Herald on August 11 this year.

Let us do what the Premier did at question time: let us read this quote and say, "How elegant, how clever, how wonderful!" How extraordinary that The Premier's speech should contain words that the Sun Herald had written only two weeks before. Perhaps The Premier and the Sun Herald are in synchronicity. The Sun Herald said:

'It is 1951 and a group of young seamen cringes in the belly of the aircraft carrier Sydney as, with a succession of mighty thumps, a flight of a dozen Sea Fury fighter-bombers comes home to roost after a mission over Korea.

That is how the article began. The Premier and the Sun Herald must think alike. Why would we accuse The Premier of plagiarism? He is the world's greatest speaker and intellect; he does not plagiarise. However, in 1989 he was caught red-handed. The Premier came into this Chamber and tried to have a go at the member for Gosford, whose medical reform paper contains 36 citations. There is a big difference: The Premier made no acknowledgment but I made stacks of them. John Della Bosca made no acknowledgment; he did not refer to a distant Telegraph Mirror article. But there was one, and John Della Bosca was caught red-handed. The Australian Labor Party is an extraordinary organisation: little minds do little things and its members try to put down any attempts at policy or reform.

Mrs Skinner: We put people first.

Mr HARTCHER: As the honourable member says, the Coalition puts people first. We are not concerned about this motion; we are concerned about trying to improve conditions for the people of New South Wales. We want them to receive proper medical services. That is why my amendment to the motion does not censure the Premier or John Della Bosca—although I could have done that. It congratulates the Coalition on raising the medical negligence issue and forcing the Carr Government to act on this important matter after six years of inaction. This situation has been building for years. The Minister for Health has held his portfolio position for 2½ years; he has seen what happened at Nowra, Tamworth and right across the State. How has he responded? He has issued a press release that he passes off as his own work. Let us hear what the AMA had to say about the package. It said:

Many of these initiatives were first proposed by the AMA in 1992.

That is strange; the Minister's press release makes no acknowledgment of the AMA. The Minister does not acknowledge that in 1992—10 years ago—the AMA put up this package. Yet he has taken freely from the AMA's initiatives. What a total, unabashed hypocrite the Minister is. His little colleague the honourable member for Wyong is a total failure as a representative of the Central Coast—in fact, he is referred to by people in that area as the "failed member for Wyong".

We are determined to ensure that this Government is held accountable for what it has failed to provide for people in every area. Crime rules in Cabramatta and in many other places and the Minister for Police has been caught out. We will fight for people in the education area. Many parents are so dissatisfied with the State school system and this Government's poor administration that they are removing their children from those schools. We will fight for the hospitals; many people are now concerned about the level and standard of public health. We will fight for the railways; the trains arrive consistently late. We will fight on behalf of people in the areas of planning and the environment. The State environment report revealed many deficiencies and nothing was said when the report was tabled today. I reject and deny the Government's allegations and I defy those opposite to try again.

Mr KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Health) [4.55 p.m.], in reply: The paper contains 21 pages and 36 footnotes. There are lots of web site citations and many letters are quoted. However, there is not one citation or notation of the plagiarised document, big slabs of which have been lifted out and put into the authored Hartcher paper. It is not attributed. That is either a gross oversight or deliberate plagiarism. The honourable member for Gosford has been very diligent in making 36 footnotes and citing everything from a letter to a web site address, so why does he not cite a document as voluminous and as detailed as this one? He has simply lifted big chunks from it.

The honourable member cannot have it both ways: he cannot claim to be diligent and focused on ensuring that he attributes all material in his big page of footnotes and then say that this document does not matter—especially when it consists of big chunks of information from UMP, the monopoly provider, which seems to back in Liberal Party policy. It was interesting to watch the honourable member for Gosford hang himself with his own words. In his opening remarks at 4.20 p.m. today—we have it on tape—the honourable member said, "I never pretended at any time that it was an original work coming out of my head". If that is the case, why did the honourable member call himself the author of this paper? Why does every page carry the words, "Chris Hartcher, author"? Why, as author, does the honourable member acknowledge the help that he has received when he—to use his words—"never pretended at any time that it was an original work" coming out of his head? It sounds like pretence to me.

The first definition of the word "author" in the Oxford English Dictionary is "originator". The honourable member is the originator of this document, yet he has confessed that he "never pretended at any time that it was an original work". If the honourable member had called himself an editor rather than an author he may have been closer to the mark. If the statement he made at 4.20 this afternoon is correct—that the information never came out of his own head and it was not an original work—the description of "editor" would have been closer to the mark. An editor is defined as one who prepares the work of others for publication or broadcasting. If the honourable member were the editor—most organisations have public policy documents these days—it would have been acknowledged that all the footnotes were edited by Chris Hartcher, shadow Attorney General. The honourable member has tried to pass himself off as the author—the originator—of this document, but he said on the public record at 4:20 p.m. today, "I never pretended at any time that it was an original work coming out of my head".

I say: Nonsense! This was passed off as an author's work by the honourable member for Gosford. On the first page following the name of Chris Hartcher MP it states, "the author would like to acknowledge". It does not say that the editor would like to acknowledge. Why does the honourable member not today acknowledge that he was not the author but the editor? If he does not do that he is neither an author nor an editor; he is a plagiarist. In 36 footnotes and 21 pages there is no attribution to the UMP document. Very large chunks were lifted to support an alleged Opposition discussion paper, an alleged Opposition policy. The people of New South Wales have the right to know whose policy it is. Is it the policy of an insurance company, a monopoly provider of medical indemnity to doctors, for and on behalf of the New South Wales Liberal Party, or is it the work of, the authorship of, the honourable member for Gosford?

He cannot have it both ways. At 4.20 this afternoon he said, "I never said at any time that it was an original work coming out of my head", yet he declared himself in the document as the author. That is the beginning, the middle and the end of the debate. Opposition members can congratulate themselves all they like on how great they are when they do their road shows, talk to doctors and do those sorts of things. This debate is about the integrity and presentation to the Parliament of an alleged policy position paper by an Opposition. We have waited six years for a policy from the Opposition. We now know that the first one did not come out of the head of the honourable member for Gosford as an original work. That quote will haunt him for the rest of his life in this place. Is he the author or is he the editor? Is he the originator or the compiler? The difference is stark. If he is the originator he can claim credit for the work as his own. That is what he has done. Yet without attribution he lifted large slabs from a 1997 submission to a government inquiry.

If he is the compiler he does not tell us. He did not make it clear. He did not even give us a whisper of that being the case. Had he done that there would have been the thirty-seventh footnote to indicate that large slabs had been taken from the submission to the Interdepartmental Committee on Health Care Litigation. If the honourable member for Gosford is able to be so precise and cautious about the authorship and the nature of the compilation of the document that he can refer to Sydney Morning Herald articles, web sites, legal precedents, articles from the Lancet, the Victorian Law Reform Commission—I have not touched on some of the similarities with Victorian Law Reform Commission papers but we may be able to deal with them at a later time—why would the submission not be acknowledged? Is the honourable member for Gosford saying that he forgot? It is a big, heavy document. It hits the ground with a thud. The honourable member for Gosford knew that he was quoting from it and he said that he did not pretend that it was an original work coming out of his head. The contradiction makes him look like a bit of a mug.

All the huffing and puffing about what everyone else did does not let the honourable member for Gosford escape from the fact that he had a chance today to put his hand up and say that he should have used the word "editor" and acknowledged the document, but he did not. So he stands condemned as a plagiarist, and he will always stand condemned for his confession that he did not have an original work coming out of his head. In the end that will be his epitaph. The Premier concluded his remarks by making the point that the honourable member for Gosford does not warrant the dignity or confidence of this House. He cannot pass off other people's work as his own, particularly when he tries to erect the facade of having done hard and learned work by including many footnotes. But in the end we all know that the big source document was the only document not referred to. Editor or compiler, author-originator or plagiarist? As I said at the outset, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is usually a duck. Stop quacking, Christopher, you are sunk.

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Greene Mrs Grusovin Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Mr Iemma Mr Knowles Mrs Lo Po' Mr Lynch Mr McGrane Mr McManus Mr Markham Mr Martin Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Mr Moss Mr Newell Mr Orkopoulos

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

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

Dr Kernohan Mr Kerr Mr Maguire Mr Merton Mr Oakeshott Mr O'Doherty Mr O'Farrell Mr D. L. Page Mr Piccoli Mr Richardson Ms Seaton

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Gibson Mr Greene Mrs Grusovin Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Mr Iemma Mr Knowles Mrs Lo Po' Mr Lynch Mr McManus Mr Markham Mr Martin Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Mr Moss Mr Newell

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

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

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

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to postpone private members’ statements to allow consideration forthwith of the motion given notice of this day by the Premier concerning the death of Sir Donald Bradman with the following time limits to apply:

Premier - 10 minutes
Leader of the Opposition - 10 minutes
Deputy Premier - 10 minutes
Leader of the National Party - 10 minutes

after which the motion will be adjourned.

Mr CARR (Maroubra—Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [5.23 p.m.]: I move:

That this House places on record its sense of loss on the death of Sir Donald Bradman, the best cricketer to have ever played the game and a hero to millions of people in Australia and around the world.

Don Bradman was the ordinary Australian writ large, who came from an ordinary house in a small provincial town, with a certain gift for music and salesmanship, golf and tennis; who, had he missed his calling, might have gone unremarked, in the way of many ordinary country town men and women who live and work, and pass on into local respect and slowly out of memory. But he found his calling and practised it, and with it he electrified a nation and startled an empire. He became a hero when heroes were sorely needed, when World Depression had splintered the hope of innocent lives and put through pointless torment families and communities deserving of better.

Don Bradman showed what persistence, courage, concentration and a certain focused cleverness can do, however hard the situation and however great the forces massed against you. He showed that valour, dignity, grace under pressure and the poetry of personal effort are qualities that all of us can reach for, whatever our street of origin or family advantage. His life had suffering in it—the terrible sickness of a child, and furious discontents in his years as a sports administrator—but the love that was always at his back, of the woman he had loved from his boyhood and swore he would not survive very long, sustained, nourished and cheered him in the darkest of his years.

A new medium, radio, made him famous. An international scandal, bodyline, nearly broke him. A world war took from his batting eight irreplaceable years. His final test deprived him of the 100 average that seemed his birthright. He fought off with vigour those who would offend his privacy or exploit his name, but with every year of silence his legend grew. Yet in the end, and at his end, he was an ordinary man, suspicious of his worshippers, deprecatory of the talent that raised and burdened him, certain of his heritage, his nation, his duty and his dignity. An ordinary man in whom the extraordinary lurked, as it does, I suspect, in us all.

His extraordinary talent, unsoiled by ego or self-delusion, or hunger for personal wealth, brought joy to the lives of millions. He will be sorely missed by millions. He is the symbol of Australia in a simpler time, a poorer Australia but a very decent Australia; an Australia of community, an Australia of people doing well in adversity, in inner cities and suburbs, country towns and hamlets and on farms. He will be sorely missed, as I said, by millions. There is none like him. We shall not see his like again. We will never forget him.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove—Leader of the Opposition) [5.24 p.m.]: It is with great sadness that I speak in this condolence debate tonight to pay tribute to Sir Donald Bradman. Although I am not old enough to have ever seen the Don play, I, like many other Australians of my generation, have looked at the photos and read the contemporary reports that described his masterly control of the bat. I suspect I am the only member of this House who can claim to be a collector of Bradman memorabilia—to the extent that one of the walls of my office is covered with artefacts and mementos I have bought over the last few years because I believe that this was a man who was not only a great sportsman but a great Australian. My way of paying tribute to him has been to collect that memorabilia.

Sir Donald Bradman died at his Adelaide home aged 92 on 25 February 2001. He died peacefully after a short illness with pneumonia, but after a number of years of failing health. He is survived by his son, John, and daughter, Shirley. Without a doubt Sir Donald Bradman was a great Australian. He was a great cricketer but he was more than just someone who could wield a cricket bat. He was someone who lifted the very spirit of our nation. He was Australia's greatest sportsperson in any field and his prowess was known and celebrated around the world. In 52 test matches from 1928 to 1948 he scored 6,996 runs at an average of 99.94. But Don Bradman was also very successful off the cricketing field. He was a devoted husband, a successful businessman and a keen supporter of charity. He also had a great love of music and, I understand, was a very entertaining public speaker. The Don was a man of enormous modesty, talent, humility and integrity.

Don Bradman was born in Cootamundra in August 1908. Two years later the Bradman family moved to Bowral. From an early age Don Bradman was a sporting and active youngster. In his backyard he developed a game involving throwing a golf ball at the round brick base of a water tank and then hitting the ball with a cricket stump. In this way he developed his precise co-ordination and skill which carried him through so many years of cricket. At the age of 12 he was invited to play for the senior school cricket team and in his second game he scored 115 not out from a team total of 150. On weekends Don acted as scorer for the Bowral team, which included his father. But as a teenager he continued to be busy with all sport. He played rugby, tennis and cricket as well as competition athletics. In February 1921 Don watched his first test match with his father, a clash between England and Australia at the very revered Sydney Cricket Ground. He vowed, like so many teenagers before him and so many after him, that he would never be satisfied until he played cricket on that ground.

At the end of 1922, aged 14, Don left school and took a position with Mr Percy Westbrook as a clerk in a Bowral real estate agency. For eight years his employer was very considerate, giving Don time off to pursue his cricketing career. In 1926 after a successful period with Bowral, Don agreed to play for the St George Cricket Club if they paid his train fare from Bowral. Each Saturday Don had to get out of bed before 5.00 a.m. to catch the train from Bowral to Sydney, often not getting home until midnight. Now, that is what I call commitment! At only 19 years of age Don was selected to play for the New South Wales cricket team in the Sheffield Shield competition. In his first match, against South Australia, he became only the twentieth Australian to score a century in his first first-class match. In New South Wales Don was referred to as "the boy from Bowral" but to the Bowral community he became known affectionately as our Don.

In the summer of 1928 he was selected to play for Australia in the first test match. However, he did not bat well. For this reason he was selected as twelfth man for the second test. That was the only time during the next 20 years that Bradman was not included in the Australian cricket team. Don returned in the third test, scoring a test century with 112 in the second innings and becoming the youngest player to do so. During this time, and despite his enormous work commitments and cricket engagements, he still found time to coach hundreds of young school boys from all over New South Wales.

In 1930 Don broke the world's batting record for the highest score in first-class cricket; he scored 452 not out. Who knows how much more he could have scored if the innings had not been declared! In Bradman's first-ever match in England he scored 236, making him the youngest overseas player to score a double century in England. In this series he scored an average of 139.14—and he was just 21 years old. On 30 April 1932 Don Bradman married Jessie Menzies. The two met many years earlier when Jessie came to stay with the Bradman family while they both attended the Bowral school. She was to be the love of his life. [Extension of time agreed to.]

If one asks about cricket in the 1930s the two things one is most likely to hear are the feats of our Don and the infamous bodyline series. The bodyline series of 1932 in which English bowlers targeted the bodies of the Australian batsmen was to prove a very challenging time for the Australian team, indeed for the entire Australian public. It was the mark of the man that the challenge was met and he kept at the task. It is important to note that at this time Australia was facing one of its great social and economic challenges—the Great Depression. Donald Bradman provided some much-needed hope and inspiration for thousands of Australians across our nation.

In 1936 he became captain of the Australian team. In cricketing grounds across Australia, at train stations and in living rooms listening to the wireless, Don's exploits were celebrated by a grateful public. To his enduring credit the Don never let his success get ahead of him. If one looks at early newsreels one will notice that when he was dismissed, which was quite rare, he would always immediately turn on his heel and return to the dressing room. He did not tarry: when he was out, he was out. He was, after all, still the boy from Bowral. For a nation that has a well-earned reputation for cutting down the tall poppy, Don remained ever modest. When the famous song Our Don Bradman was sung over and over again at the cricket ground Don's constant reaction was one of incredulous embarrassment.

The Second World War interrupted Don's cricketing careers. While he volunteered for service, his physical state precluded him from active service. Despite not having played cricket for five years he accepted the Australian captaincy in 1946 against an English team in an effort to help post-war recovery. In 1948 Don Bradman captained his last test tour to England. Throughout an eight-month tour the team did not lose a single match. The team was dubbed the Invincibles—the greatest Australian side in history to leave our shores. When he retired in 1948 his test average was 99.94, missing out on 100 by being bowled out for zero—out for a duck—on the second ball by Eric Hollies at The Oval in his final test match. He needed only four runs in his last test at The Oval in England to average 100, but the English spinner Eric Hollies bowled our Don out for a duck. In his own style and reflecting his modesty Sir Donald said:

I knew it would be my last test match after a career spanning 20-years but to suggest I got out as some people did because I had tears in my eyes is to belittle the bowler and is quite untrue. Eric Hollies deceived me and deserves full credit.

Sir Donald retired from first-class cricket in 1949—but he would continue to make a wonderful contribution. He served as chairman, administrator and selector for more than 35 years for Australia and South Australia and was earnestly applauded for his administrative skills. In 1949 he was deservedly knighted and remains the only Australian ever knighted for services to the game of cricket. And did he love the game! But he was also ever conscious of his obligations to the spectators—those who loved and supported the game, for without them there would be no game. In the Bradman Albums he wrote:

In a long career there are many outstanding memories but I suppose the opening day of the Third Test at Leeds must rank as the greatest in my cricketing life.

To break the world's record Test score was exciting. To do so against Australia's oldest and strongest rival was satisfying. More than anything else, however, was the knowledge that I had scored the runs at such a fast rate and therefore provided entertainment for the spectators.

In his later years Sir Don earned a formidable reputation as an avid correspondent. For several hours each day he replied to everyone who wrote to him. When one considers the many thousands of letters that were sent to him, that was an impressive accomplishment. Letters poured in, and not just from Australia but from right around the world. I was intrigued to discover that many Indian teenagers wrote to the Don, and were delighted to receive a response. In 1988 he was voted by the Australian Confederation of Sport as the greatest male athlete of the past 200 years. The love of his life, Lady Bradman, died in September 1997 after 65 years of loving marriage—a record which not many will ever be able to emulate, certainly not me. In Don's words the "best partnership of my life" was over. There are many tributes to Don Bradman: The Prime Minister, John Howard, said:

Don Bradman is the world's greatest cricketer and according to many people who compare these things perhaps the greatest sportsman in 100 years.

Alan Jones said:

The Bradman story is above all else the ultimate Australian dream where a young boy from the bush makes it against the odds; and with every execution of his skill rewrites history.

Richie Benaud, a former great Australian cricketer, said:

I saw quite a bit of him but never actually played against him, which was a pity from my point of view. He was the best batsman there has ever been. I don't think there is any doubt about that. You don't just take statistics in that sort of thing. You talk to people who have played with him and against him.

Umpire Dickie Bird said:

No-one will get near that average. The Bodyline series will always be remembered but you also have to say that he skippered the Australian side in 1948 and that was possibly the best Test side which has ever played the game. He was a wonderful player who seemed to caress the ball. He was a genius.

Sir Donald's biographer, Roland Perry, wrote:

He transformed cricket. For most I think until the late 20s it was equivalent to watching the grass grow. He turned it into a mass entertainment."

Bill O'Reilly said:

I am quite certain he was the best cricketer ever to walk onto a cricket ground in any part of the whole wide world.

Undoubtedly, Sir Don's magnificent career as a cricketer left an indelible mark on the nation, and his memory will live on in future generations. He was kind, charitable and above all else a modest gentleman. And perhaps a final word from the man himself: in his advice for budding sportsmen or women, which could be applied in so many fields as a way to live one's life, he said:

They don't need wealth. They don't need power. They don’t need anything else except the love of their friends and some natural ability.

Vale Sir Donald Bradman.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville—Deputy Premier, Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for Housing) [5.37 p.m.]: With the death of Sir Donald Bradman on Sunday we lost an Australian icon, without doubt the greatest batsmen of all time. His achievements made him an international figure and he will never be forgotten. No other cricketer has come close to, or is ever likely to threaten, his test average of 99.94. Sir Donald's cricketing genius was evident early in his life: he made his first 100 at the tender age of 12.

In January 1930 in the second innings of a Sheffield Shield match between Queensland and New South Wales Bradman scored 452 not out—71 years later that remains the third-highest score in first-class cricket. He achieved that when still aged only 21. For the rest of his career it was a case of when Bradman batted cricket ovals were filled to capacity. Just after that innings Bradman was selected for his first tour of England. During that tour he scored 334 in the third test, then a world record. So at just 21 he had already shattered the record books: the highest score in test cricket, the youngest batsmen to make 2,000 runs in an English season, the highest number of runs in a day's play in a test match, the fastest first 100 in a test match and double-centuries in consecutive tests. The 1932-33 season was the time of the infamous bodyline series. Despite the cramping of his style Bradman was still able to score 396 runs in four tests, at an average of 56.57.

As we reflect on the life of Sir Donald Bradman, it is difficult to comprehend the true extent of his fame and celebrity in the 1930s. He was Australia's national hero. He found the constant attention and demands on him so overwhelming that his health suffered. There can be no doubt, however, that the emergence of Bradman and his great feats against England were the good news Australians desperately needed in the 1930s. The rise of Bradman as the greatest cricketer the world had seen coincided with the Great Depression, a time in our history of immense suffering with over 30 per cent of the Australian work force unemployed and no proper system of support other than rations. One of the best biographies of Sir Donald Bradman is by Charles Williams, Lord Williams of Elvel, a Labour life peer in the British House of Lords. Referring to the years of the Depression, he says:

Bradman was without doubt the brightest star—almost the only bright star—in what was a particularly gloomy firmament.

In the period when day after day went by without hope for a large section of Australia's manhood and in unremitting drudgery for Australian women, Bradman was the one hero with whom it was possible to identify and who stood for the pride of a young nation.

"Susso" might be degrading, but as long as "Our Don" was savaging the English bowling attack, whether in Melbourne or Leeds, there was at least something to cheer.

Those who lived through the period say, with the ring of absolute truth, that they will never forget the sense of hope and confidence that Bradman symbolised.

Things slowly improved and it was with great anticipation that Australians looked forward to the 1938 tour of England. But this tour was played at a time when the relationship between England and Australia was about to change and at a time of dramatically rising tensions in Europe. Again, Bradman symbolised hope, optimism and great batting form. In the opening match he made 258 against Worcestershire. It was the third time Bradman had opened an English tour with a double century. After the 1938 tour of England Bradman enjoyed a magnificent season of domestic competition in 1938-1939. His average was 160.2. During World War II Bradman hardly picked up a cricket bat, and experienced considerable ill health. The Ashes contest resumed after the war and Bradman made an astonishing comeback to the game to lead his country in the post-war era. As Charles Williams states:

It was a courageous decision. Now aged 38 he could easily have decided to rest on the laurels of the 1930s, he could have made himself a great deal of money by writing instead of playing and … it was most unlikely he would be able to sustain his career average of 95.82.

Despite the complete lack of cricket during the war years, Bradman scored 421 runs in his first two post-war test innings. We all know about the 1948 tour of England. Australia, under Bradman's leadership, did not lose a match. The Headingley test match resulted in Australia chasing 404 on the last day to win by seven wickets. Bradman and Arthur Morris shared a partnership of 301 runs, with Bradman scoring 173 not out. He showed his generosity in this match when he allowed Neil Harvey, the 19-year-old baby of the team, to hit the winning run. The only thing that seemed to change about Bradman's batting after the war was that he scored fewer double centuries. Bradman ended his career with an average in first-class cricket of 95.14. He remains in the record books as the scorer of the most triple hundreds—six—and the most double hundreds—37—in first-class cricket.

In the 1950s cricket went into the doldrums without the great Sir Donald Bradman. Test matches were slow and unexciting and teams played defensively. Attendances at first-class matches slumped. Many of us saw the recent ABC documentary about the West Indies tour of Australia in 1960-61. At this time Bradman was Chairman of the Australian Cricket Board and desperate to see the Australian side play exciting cricket. At the start of the tour Bradman spoke to the Australian team, which was captained by Richie Benaud. He told them they were there to play attractive cricket which would bring back the spectators. He made it clear to the side that the selectors would favour those who took this simple piece of advice.

As we know, Bradman's words were heeded and this was one of the all-time great test series—a tied test, a world record crowd of 90,000 at the Melbourne test and Frank Worrell and his West Indies team feted in a way Bradman had once been. When we look back over Bradman's illustrious career as a player and administrator it allows us to put cricket's present problems into context. The game survived the bodyline series, it survived World War II and it survived the 1950s. This great sport will survive the current scandals, and the legacy of Sir Donald will ensure this happens.

Last April during Heritage Week, which had as its theme "Australia's Sporting Heritage", I was delighted to announce in Parliament the Government's intention to add the Bradman Museum and the Bradman Oval at Bowral to the State Heritage Register. There was strong community support for that listing and the museum and oval were formally added to the State Heritage Register in June 2000. I would like to acknowledge that the idea for listing on the State Heritage Register came from Carmel McKeogh, my policy adviser on heritage matters and a great cricket fan. The Bradman Museum spans not only one man's great career but the history of the game. The museum contains an oak bat dating from the 1750s, Sir Donald's first cricket bat and the bat he used at Headingley in 1934 to score his second highest test innings of 304. Other items include helmets and coloured one day uniforms of the modern era. The museum is one of the best examples of moveable heritage in the country.

Sir Donald's greatest partnership was far removed from the cricket oval. Although a very private person, he was open about the happiness his 65 years of marriage to Lady Jessie Bradman had given him. He suffered profound grief when she died in 1997. Like so many in our community, family life brought Bradman the greatest happiness and the greatest sadness. His first child lived only a few hours, his son had polio as a child and his daughter was born with cerebral palsy. We learned yesterday of Sir Donald's kindness to the Beazley family at a that time that they, too, were experiencing the pain of a child suffering the illness of polio. Sir Donald's 92 years spanned a time of great challenge in our society.

From his debut in first-class cricket in 1927 Bradman's cricketing feats were part of a decisive period in the history of modern Australia. He will always be revered throughout the cricket world and his memory and great achievements will live on in the museum at Bowral, in the Bradman display at the South Australian Museum in his adopted State and in the Bradman Memorial Fund, which will be directed towards disadvantaged groups to encourage their participation in cricket. I am delighted to learn that Aboriginal communities will benefit from this fund. In 484 BC the poet Pindar wrote of Xenophon of Corinth, who won the Olympic Games short sprint and pentathlon on the same day: "He achieved things no mortal man had achieved before." Two and a half thousand years later we can say the same of Bradman in the modern sporting era. We mark Sir Donald's death with great sadness, but also with gratitude and thanks for his life and his wonderful achievements.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [5.45 p.m.]: Sir Donald Bradman stopped playing cricket in the year I was born. I make that observation merely as an indication that, therefore, a significant proportion of the Australian population would never have seen or heard Don Bradman play. Yet he is an Australian icon without peer. The country is mourning the loss of Australia's greatest sporting hero and I join all Australians in expressing condolences to Sir Donald's family and friends. Donald Bradman dominated his chosen sport of cricket like no other has dominated any other sport. He was clearly the best batsman to have played the modern game. He was a relentless accumulator of runs at an astonishing scoring rate and he holds or held almost too many records to tabulate.

Sir Donald was a born and bred country boy. His story has inspired many country kids for nearly a century. His talent was evident at an early age when, aged 11, he scored 55 not out in his first cricket match. He made the first of 115 centuries for Bowral school against Mittagong school at the age of 12. He made a century in his first-grade debut with Sydney club St George and matched the feat by scoring a century in his first-class debut for New South Wales against South Australia. He was selected for his first test in November 1928, two months after his twentieth birthday, but failed with scores of 18 and one and was subsequently dropped for the next test. He was subsequently reinstated to the side and hit two centuries before the series was over. He finished his first series with an average of 66.8.

Donald Bradman became a hero to Australians as the nation suffered through the Great Depression of the late 1920s and early 1930s. His extraordinary cricketing skills gave ordinary Australians something to admire in a depressed world, somebody to look up to and to lift their spirits. He stamped his greatness beyond doubt in 1930 when he set the world record for first-class cricket with a score of 452 not out against Queensland and the world record for test cricket by scoring 334 against England at Leeds, including 309 in just under a day.

Don Bradman slaughtered the English in the 1930 Ashes series in England by scoring 974 runs at an average of 139, including a triple century, two double centuries and one century. He once scored exactly 100 runs from 22 balls in a minor match at Blackheath. In the 1932-33 infamous bodyline series the English demonstrated their desperation to control Bradman. The tactic was partly successful, as Bradman averaged only 56 runs in the series. He was selected as captain of the Australian team in 1936. He served Australia and the Commonwealth in the Royal Australian Air Force and the Army during the Second World War.

In December 1946, aged 38, he scored 187 against England in his first innings after World War II. He agreed to lead Australia to England in 1948 to help the game get back on its feet—he had his fortieth birthday on the tour—and led the team through the first unbeaten tour of England. The 1948 team became known as the Invincibles, and it was regarded as one of the best Australian cricket teams ever. He scored zero in his last innings in August 1948, even after the English team sang For He's a Jolly Good Fellow and gave him three cheers upon his arrival at the crease. In March 1949 he retired after his last first-class match.

Don Bradman played 52 matches and scored 6,996 runs at an average of 99.54. He played 234 first-class matches, and scored 28,067 at an average of 95.14. He was knighted in January 1949 by King George VI, the only Australian knighted for services to cricket. He was a very talented all-round sportsman. He played tennis with the Australian Davis Cup Team, he played golf off scratch, and he won the Australian squash championship. He was an accomplished self-taught pianist, and was regarded as having the potential to become a concert pianist. Sir Donald's influence on the lives of people throughout the world can be demonstrated by the fact that Nelson Mandela, very soon after his release from prison in 1990, asked whether Sir Donald was still alive.

Sir Donald's wish was to be remembered as a man of integrity, one with the traditional values of country people. His wish will, without doubt, be granted. As a final gesture of the generosity exemplified by his years of tirelessly responding to his fan mail, Sir Donald was instrumental in the establishment of the Bradman Memorial Fund, which will help promote cricket among disadvantaged groups, including indigenous Australians. Sir Donald Bradman was a boy from the bush who learned his cricket in the local country competition and became a twentieth century phenomenon. He is the most well-known and respected Australian, and a man who will be missed and mourned by millions around the world.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Gibson.

Pursuant to resolution private members' statements taken forthwith.

Mr GIBSON (Blacktown) [5.52 p.m.]: Blacktown is a fast-growing area. It is the second- largest municipality in Australia after Brisbane. The area is quickly becoming a business hub of New South Wales, contrary to what Councillor Ho from Strathfield might think. I am certain that the people of Blacktown will not let him forget his slur on them. I refer to the proposal to build a tavern at 45 Main Street Blacktown. Within a one kilometre square of the business centre of Blacktown are 1,000 poker machines. A tavern that may house up to another 30 poker machines is not needed in the centre of Blacktown. Last year Blacktown City Council appeared before the Land and Environment Court and lost an appeal against the building of a tavern at 45 Main Street. The court delivered an extempore judgment that upheld the appeal by Millane Planning Consultants, and granted conditional approval for a tavern-bistro with a maximum of 30 gaming machines. The premises in question were, at one stage, a medical centre.

The Licensing Court will make a decision in April on whether the proposal will be given the go-ahead. The Catholic Church, represented by a good friend of mine Father Arthur Bridge, the police, Blacktown City Council, retail groups, and community groups are up in arms about the approval of the licence for another tavern in Blacktown. Blacktown Patrol Commander, Superintendent Les Wales, said that the police had busted their butts in the last two years to clean up Main Street. Superintendent Wales said:

We have made inroads.

Another establishment will add fuel to the fire. We don't need it and we don't want it.

Superintendent Wales said that the proposed tavern, which is close to a train station and a taxi rank, was a honey pot for trouble. I totally agree with him. Licensing Sergeant Mick Gorman also opposes the tavern. He said:

In other words, are there enough licensed establishments in the CBD to cover the needs of the community.

He made the point that there are more than 1,000 poker machines within a confined area in that part of Blacktown. The Mayor of Blacktown said:

We want to keep a socially interactive central business district.

Independent Councillor Russ Dickens said:

I agree that taverns are necessary but I believe it's inappropriate for them to be in the main street of the city.

I have a great deal of regard for the retailers in the Main Street and their concerns. They have some valid concerns and I support them.

The whole of the community is totally opposed to another tavern at Blacktown. I do not know how much notice the Licensing Court will take of the concerns of the local community when the matter goes before that court. If a licence for a tavern is granted against the wishes of the community one would have to ask whether the magistrate in the Licensing Court, or whatever magistrate it might be, is making a decision that will be advantageous to Blacktown and its future, or whether the magistrate is making a decision based on one businessman in the area. Some judges make funny decisions from time to time. If judges go against the grain, should they have to answer to the community? Should they be approved or elected by the community if they are going to make decisions that affect that community? An extra tavern is not needed at Blacktown. I hope that the Licensing Court realises that when the case is before it in April.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Hornsby) [5.57 p.m.]: The electorate of Hornsby has recently realised, with the rest of northern Sydney, that a secret plan has been put in place by the Government to reduce by half the number of ambulances available in northern Sydney after midnight. The plan will operate from 3 March, despite the fact that there has been no public consultation, the Minister for Health has revealed none of the information behind the planning to the people of northern Sydney, and the ambulance officers union has argued against the plan in the Industrial Commission. The matter will not be finalised before the plan comes into effect on 3 March. Currently two ambulances are on roster at Naremburn, Ryde and Wahroonga. The Wahroonga station has a major impact on my electorate and the neighbouring electorate of Ku-ring-gai. After 3 March the two ambulances that are currently on call after midnight will be reduced to one per station, which is a reduction from six to three across that broad area of northern Sydney for people who have medical emergencies after midnight.

The decision will have two immediate impacts. First, half the present number of ambulances will be available for any responses required after midnight and, second, because the number of available ambulances will be halved, those that are called out will probably be required to travel greater distances. Those two factors will combine to increase the time that it will take for ambulances to respond to medical emergencies after midnight across a wide area of northern Sydney. For argument's sake, if the ambulance from Wahroonga is out on call after 3 March, there will not be a second Wahroonga ambulance to respond to an emergency in the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai areas. Therefore, I presume that the ambulance from Ryde or Naremburn will have to be dispatched to attend emergencies. It will have to travel a considerable additional distance and drive from either of those areas to somewhere in the Ku-ring-gai or Hornsby shires, which will take extra time and could easily prove life threatening. That is the real impact of the Carr Government's plan to halve from 3 March the number of ambulances that are available to respond to emergencies in northern Sydney after midnight.

Furthermore, as is well known to honourable members, emergency departments must frequently close their doors to emergency ambulances during times of high workloads. Hornsby hospital's emergency department is closed from time to time for that reason, as is the Sanitarium, our nearest private hospital: It must also redirect ambulances when it has full capacity. Ambulances must then travel from the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai areas to the Royal North Shore Hospital, thereby increasing the time that ambulances are on the road and decreasing their ability to attend any new calls. Taken together, these factors mean that the people of northern Sydney will get a rough deal from the Minister for Health after 3 March.

I wrote yesterday to the Minister asking him about the plan that has only just been revealed, not by the Minister or through any public discussion but by concerned ambulance officers who have risked their jobs to call Opposition members and tell us what is going on. I called on the Minister to delay the plan until there has been a proper discussion of the issues. In my correspondence with the Minister I asked him to reveal the call-out rates for ambulances across northern Sydney after midnight. The Minister could simply call up the computer-aided dispatch call sheets and pull out those numbers very quickly. They will demonstrate whether two ambulances from those stations are ever on the road at the same time attending to medical emergencies. If the Minister is so sure that there is surplus capacity in his system after midnight, he should have no worries about releasing those figures. I call upon the Minister to do so immediately and to halt the plan so that we might scrutinise the figures and have a proper public debate about the provision of ambulance services across northern Sydney. Until the Minister provides that information, we can have no confidence that this is not simply a cost-cutting measure by the Carr Government that will disadvantage the area.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.02 p.m.]: The suburb of Carrington lies at the heart of the Port of Newcastle. Its people have always been involved in the maritime industry, whether as seamen, wharf labourers, shipbuilders, ship repairers or provedores. They understand the need for the port to grow and to diversify its operations, including a range that is broader than today's predominantly bulk cargoes. They also understand the need for the port to operate for 24 hours, but they do not accept that that should occur at the cost of the residential amenity of the suburb. Two current proposals have highlighted the conflict between port industry and the amenity of residents—particularly those residents of Elizabeth, Bourke and Denison streets and of other streets in the suburb.

I refer to the current proposal by Grainco Australia Ltd, which operates as Globex International, to construct a multi-commodity grain and agricultural product shipping facility at 106 Bourke Street, Carrington and at Dyke Berth No 3—which will be based on 24-hour, seven-days-a-week grain receival—and the proposal by GrainCorp to expand the operation of its grain receival and shipping terminal at the southern end of Carrington also to a 24-hour-a-day, seven-days-a-week operation. Both of those facilities receive their grain by road and rail transport and both transport modes currently impact on the amenity of the suburb. For several years the people of Carrington have used a range of forums—including the Carrington branch of the Australian Labor Party, the Carrington Residents Action Group, the Newcastle City Council and particularly the Newcastle Port Corporation.

The people of Carrington have also made personal representations through me as their local member of Parliament to advocate that a heavy vehicle route be built that enables access to and from the working areas of the port, thus alleviating the noise, vibration and disruption of the current road receival route. Local residents also want the authorities to deal with the issue of train noise and operation in the area, particularly the use of the balloon loop. Mr Deputy-Speaker, I know you have problems with train noise in your electorate so you will be well aware of the significant disturbance to amenities caused by train noise. It creates a real problem in the suburb of Carrington because the balloon loop is close to residences—particularly those in Bourke Street—and there is a view that the geometry of the track causes train wheels to squeal. In the case of the Grainco proposal, it is clear from the environmental impact statement that train noise will continue.

The company proposes to run an extra two trains a day and it points out that, while the balloon loop is outside its proposal, it will utilise it. It foresees a need either to construct a barrier between the balloon loop and the residential suburbs or to change the geometry of the track. I ask that that matter be examined carefully and dealt with at the same time that the Government considers this proposal. Following past representations by Carrington residents, the port corporation began Phase 1 of a port development road. Phase 2—the Parker-Booth streets section—was changed after some issues to do with contamination in Parker-Darling streets—involves the purchase of land from Brambles to enable Darling Street to be extended to Parker Street, thereby allowing the heavy vehicle route to bypass the residential area of Elizabeth Street.

The Roads and Traffic Authority, the port corporation and the Newcastle City Council have set aside some $1.8 million for that project, and I understand that the council is currently involved in a compulsory acquisition under just terms compensation legislation. I believe that must be concluded before any 24-hour, seven-days-a-week receival is opened in the port and that a solution must be found to the entry and exit of vehicles servicing the grain terminal in the southern end of Carrington. Until that solution is found, I do not believe that 24-hour operation should be approved in the area.

Ms HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [6.07 p.m.]: I speak about an issue that greatly affects sheep breeders in my electorate. Indeed, this is the third time in less than two years that I have made a private member's statement about the New South Wales Government's handling of ovine Johne's disease [OJD]. My electorate office is currently being inundated by angry constituents who have received letters from the Director-General of New South Wales Agriculture threatening legal action because they have not paid the voluntary/compulsory OJD levy. After destroying the livelihood and lives of many sheep farmers with its ill-considered policies, the New South Wales Government is now rubbing salt into the wound by demanding that these farmers pay, with interest, for the privilege of having this destruction visited upon them.

New South Wales Agriculture cannot get right even this rapacious grab for more money. I have received many complaints about the blatant unfairness and maladministration of this levy. A businessman who runs an airconditioning company in Yass has received a letter of demand—and he has no sheep. Many people have received three different demands although they should have received only one. The worst example I have seen of this rapacious behaviour by New South Wales Agriculture is the case of Mervyn Waters of Rosewood at Jerrawa. Mervyn is 80 years old and his wife, Florence, is 83 and in failing health.

Having been in the wool industry for his entire life, Mervyn Woods maintains his interest in life by running 96 sheep on 40 acres. After the expenses of shearing, drenching, et cetera—which cost him $625 each year—he is lucky to receive $100 in profit from his sheep. Mervyn and Florence receive the full age pension. Like all recipients of the pension, they are scratching to make ends meet. They are most distressed that they have received the threatening letter. For a person such as Mervyn the sum of $127.34 will be very difficult to find. I trust that the Minister will take Mervyn to court with a great degree of satisfaction! When I made my first private member's statement on OJD on 15 August 1999 the Minister said in reply:

Although it may be true that farmers affected by OJD are hurting, our program is co-ordinated and endorsed every step of the way by the national sheep industry. The views put by the honourable member for Burrinjuck in this House this afternoon are not supported by the general sheep and wool industry.

This is just not the case. I have on file comments criticising the handling by New South Wales Agriculture of OJD by the Australian Society of Breeders of British Sheep, the Australian Poll Dorset Association, the Australian White Suffolk Association, the New South Wales Stud Merino Breeders Association, the Southern Tablelands Stock Care Group, the New South Wales OJD Action Group, the New South Wales Farmers Wool Committee, the New South Wales Farmers OJD Task Force, the Mudgee OJD Committee, the Yass and District OJD Action Group, the Wool Council of Australia, Gunning Shire Council and the rural lands protection boards of Forbes, Goulburn, Young and Yass.

In addition, so many veterinarians involved in the OJD program were critical of New South Wales Agriculture that the Minister sought to muzzle them. Even executive board members of the Australian Wool Growers Association have spoken out against the Minister's program. Clearly, this is the Minister who does not have the support of the general sheep and wool industry. After my last statement in Parliament on 16 November 2000 the Minister wrote to me criticising my "cynical comment that it now appears that Government jobs are reliant on not finding solutions".

On 5 December last year I wrote to the Minister asking him for very specific answers to very specific questions regarding the transmission of OJD and the accuracy of the testing regime. I also asked him to provide me with the scientific basis for these answers. Now, almost three months later, I am still waiting for a reply. The fact that this information is apparently not readily available raises the appalling spectre that the harmful and hurtful actions of New South Wales Agriculture are not based upon scientific fact and are in fact intended to secure jobs within New South Wales Agriculture. This is borne out by the recent testimony of Mr Steve Phillips to the Senate inquiry into the incidence and management of ovine Johne's disease in the Australian sheep flock. He said:

It is time for the government bodies in charge to make some solid decisions and not let it be left to the so-called middle management of the ovine Johne's disease administration section of the Department of Agriculture, where career self-preservation has become more important than commonsense and, as a result, our industry is suffering greatly.

Who can blame a farmer for not paying the levy when he sees his hard-earned money being put towards more government jobs, more committees, more bureaucrats, more studies and more discussions of the problem while families are losing their livelihood. With only a 30 per cent uptake in the voluntary levy, people in the sheep industry in New South Wales have voted with their wallets. This is a massive vote of no confidence in the Minister's policies.

Talk to a sheep farmer and he will tell you he has lost confidence in New South Wales Agriculture. Farmers have seen first-hand examples of how other farmers have fared at the hands of New South Wales Agriculture, and the last thing they want to do is to submit themselves to the tender mercies of the department. I conclude by quoting from the transcript of the Senate OJD inquiry. After hearing of New South Wales Agriculture's treatment of Graham Privett, Australian Democrats chair Senator Woodley said "it seems a total travesty of justice". Senator Ferris said she was "speechless" and even Labor Senator O'Brien said "frankly this raises some matters which ought to be raised with the New South Wales department". The compulsory levy must go. It does not have the support of the industry. The Minister could better spend taxpayers' money on more OJD research than on forcing sheep farmers to pay the department that is destroying them. [Time expired.]

Mr BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [6.12 p.m.]: On 2 June 2000 I raised the matter of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol. I pleaded for Federal fuel excise relief to apply to volunteer organisations such as New South Wales coastal patrols. The patrols operate 28 divisions along the New South Wales coastline from Eden to Cape Byron. Of those divisional bases, 16 operate on a 24-hour basis. Port Stephens has a 24-hour volunteer coastal patrol. From October to June last year the rescue boats were used 67 times in providing assistance to 104 vessels and 236 people. To effect those rescues 1,809 litres of petrol and 7,980 litres of diesel were used, at a cost of more than $9,000. A fishing boat that needs to be rescued can get a fuel rebate. However, the organisation making the rescue, the volunteer coastal patrol, has to sell raffle tickets and doilies and run a store at the markets to raise the funds to purchase the fuel.

Subsequent to my speech of 2 June I wrote to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer pointing out that these people needed help: they were doing an amazingly good job but they needed help with fuel costs. I also wrote to the other 27 divisions along the coastline asking them to raise the matter with their local Federal member as I thought we had a good case to help the local volunteers. I never received a reply. I am certainly not claiming sole success as a lowly backbencher. But through the mail to the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol in Port Stephens late last year came a fuel rebate form. No letter came with the rebate form. The patrol sent the completed form off. The form was returned with a note stating that it had not been filled in correctly. The form was filled in again and over the last three months the patrol received three cheques refunding about a third of the fuel costs. If the yearly cost of fuel is $9,000 the fuel rebate accounts for roughly $3,000. That is money that the coastal patrol does not have to find through the selling of raffle tickets and doilies.

But the message did not seem to go anywhere else. No-one else seemed to get to know about it. There are volunteers all around New South Wales and the rest of the coastline of Australia. It seems that there has been a major policy change. The coastal patrols are wonderful organisations. I am not claiming success. I do not know that anything I did resulted in the change. No-one said, "Well done, John. You have achieved a major change in this area." It seems that there has been a policy change from the Federal Government. In my view it was handled far less than graciously by the Federal Government. It seems that no other coastal patrol is getting to know except through me. The return to the volunteer coastal patrols seems to be leaking out by osmosis. It seems that the volunteer coastal patrols have been very shabbily treated. Parliamentary democracy has been in action. The local member made a speech and action was taken. We won a decision on the fuel rebate for Port Stephens but other coastal patrols were not informed. I am hoping that my private member's speech this evening will gain publicity and the other coastal patrols will know that because of the fuel rebate they will not need to sell as many doilies and raffle tickets.

Mr MARKHAM (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.17 p.m.]: The honourable member for Port Stephens has raised a very important issue. This is the International Year of Volunteers. Probably one of the more hard-working volunteer organisations is the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol. The honourable member pointed out that they work around the entire Australian coast. He should be congratulated on gaining a fuel rebate for the patrol in his area. But it seems that the Federal Government has not notified every other coastal patrol in Australia that it is entitled to a fuel rebate to assist it in ensuring that the dollars it raises go as far as possible. As the honourable member mentioned, volunteer coastal patrols raise their funds through such things as chook raffles. The Federal Government should act to ensure that every volunteer coastal patrol in Australia is granted a fuel rebate in line with that outlined by the honourable member for Port Stephens. I congratulate him on raising the matter.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [6.20 p.m.]: I wish to speak about law and order in Cronulla because it has implications for the entire Sutherland shire. I would like to read from a recent letter by a constituent of mine, who said:

I write to add my voice to what I expect are numerous complaints you would be receiving concerning the inadequacy of the Cronulla Police Station and ask your help in pursuing the Carr Government to rectify the position.

The situation at present is little more than a sign on a building—in fact I attended on one occasion when only a junior female officer was present and was obviously unable to leave the station which would become unattended. It is quite useless asserting that there is a "super" station at Miranda which could give a quick response but several events recently have proved that to be a myth. Contending that some other emergency or event arose to be given higher priority proves the deficiency in the present system and only goes to emphasise the inadequate staffing overall in that area and in particular the ridiculously low number stationed permanently in Cronulla.

It is obvious that there are organised gangs or even some smaller groups intent on causing major trouble in and around Cronulla who know they can do so in the full knowledge that by the time they have created mayhem they have ample time to disperse before there is any likelihood of a Police response coming from Miranda.

What is essential is a permanently fully staffed or equipped station at Cronulla instead of the present "Mickey Mouse" affair. This cannot hope to cope with unfavourable circumstances regularly arising in Cronulla with its increasing population and unfortunately undesirable element—some permanent, some visitors—but overall producing an explosive situation beyond the measures of the present skeleton staff at Cronulla. Equally Miranda cannot provide the necessary immediate response to these dangerous events.

That letter accurately summarises the situation at Cronulla. It is an outpost, an area where the population increases dramatically during the summer. As my correspondent has said, there is gang activity. On Thursday 15 February the Commissioner of Police was interviewed on radio by John Stanley. The transcript of that interview reads, in part:

John Stanley: And your problem is, if you sent more police to Cabramatta, they would be taken from areas like Cronulla, where we had all those calls last week about that gang problem, that I think you are aware of. These people are coming in from other parts of Sydney, into Cronulla and are causing big problems there.

Commissioner Ryan: They are causing huge problems there.

One of those huge problems occurred two days after Christmas. Following a dispute at a Sutherland nightclub, a gang of 30 Lebanese Australian males arrived at Cronulla railway station with baseball bats, iron bars, knives and guns. They open fired on a rival gang, spraying more than 20 bullets over a 50-metre area. Such behaviour and activity are totally foreign. The Premier would be aware of the writings of a former New York senator, Patrick Daniel Moynihan. Back in the 1960s he wrote an essay entitled "Defining Deviancy Down". That summarises these appalling standards of behaviour. Previously, this incident would have made headlines all over Sydney—

Mr George: Throughout New South Wales.

Mr KERR: Indeed, throughout New South Wales, but it did not because it is so commonplace. The mayor of Sutherland shire wants surveillance cameras, and there is no reason why the council cannot put surveillance cameras in the places sought by the mayor, although the problem exists throughout the Sutherland shire. The Carr Government has failed in its basic responsibility to maintain an orderly society and should therefore make a financial contribution towards the cost of the cameras. On behalf of the people of the Sutherland shire I ask the mayor to indicate when those cameras will be installed in Cronulla.

Mr PRICE (Maitland) [6.25 p.m.]: I inform the House of a magnificent photography exhibition known as the Maitland International Salon of Photography, which is held annually in Maitland as part of the Maitland Show. This year the exhibition was opened by the mayor of Maitland, and three international prizes were awarded to exhibitors. One such exhibitor was Mr Jim Thomson, chairman of the exhibition in Maitland. Mr Thomson is a gentleman with many years experience in recreational photography. I was previously unaware of the exhibition, which comprises the best of more than 2,800 entries from 43 countries around the world. However, Sydney and Maitland are the only two places in Australia where the exhibition is held annually, and Adelaide is the only place where it is held every second year.

This is a significant international and well-recognised display of amateur photography. It should be on the tourist program of the city of Maitland so that it receives the recognition it deserves. The exhibition is held in the showground and displayed for a week during show time. The exhibition area is misleading; the external area is clad in galvanised iron. Yet inside, the show society and the photography exhibition team worked to put together an incredible display that is visible and well attended, not only by many locals but by many others throughout New South Wales. The efforts of the local committee are formidable. The exhibition has been held in the Maitland area for 65 years, but it has not received proper recognition. International displays of this nature are extraordinarily hard to obtain yet access to the exhibition in Maitland is extremely easy. I should like to quote from a letter by Mrs Joy Kelly, secretary, who stated:

Jim Thomson our new President has approached a contact in Photography in Orange with the proposition we take the accepted entries from the Maitland 2001 Salon all done as Slides to Orange on 3rd February 2001 to allow the people there and the Photographers who support us with their entries to view this Salon. The Orange contact Helmut Berndt approached Orange Council with this proposal. Result was Orange Council wants 2 Matinees on Saturday the 3rd February and 1 night showing of the Salon acceptances. The Orange Council has given us as the venue for this event The Orange Regional Library. Jim Thomson has also arranged a night viewing of this event at Belmont Sailing Club for 7th February 2001. As usual we have Opening Night here in Maitland on 12th February and then operate each night until Maitland Show closes on the 17th February 2001.

It was an extraordinary exhibition. It covered everything imaginable—the environment, wildlife, human form and landscape studies. The quality was obviously of the best. It is a world-class international salon exhibition and one that I would commend to all my colleagues in this House. I hope that the Maitland salon group are able to increase the coverage of the exhibition and its advertising in future years. And I hope that the local tourism organisation picks up this exhibition and runs with it. It is too valuable an exhibition to treat as an offhand, part-time arrangement. I give full credit to the committee and look forward to the committee being able to spread its wings in the near future and gain the recognition that it rightly deserves.

Mr MARKHAM (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.30 p.m.]: The honourable member for Maitland has brought to the attention of the House a very important photographic exhibition—which apparently not too many people know about even though it has been held in Maitland for 60 years. It seems extraordinary that the honourable member for Maitland has only recently become aware of it, but I congratulate him on having raised the issue. I am something of a keen photographer myself and I know how much joy people get from experimenting with cameras and being able to display their talents where people can look at them. As a matter of fact over the past two years I have had a couple of feature articles in the Illawarra Mercury. There is no better recognition that one can get than to be able to see one's work displayed either publicly or in a newspaper. Once again I congratulate the honourable member for Maitland.

Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [6.31 p.m.]: On Thursday 23 February a special night was held in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lismore. For the first time in more than three decades in the Northern Rivers area a bishop coadjutor of the Lismore diocese was ordained at St Carthage's Cathedral in Lismore—the headquarters for the diocese, which stretches from Laurieton in the south to Tweed Heads in the north. I was honoured to have the National Party members for the electorates of Oxley, Coffs Harbour and Ballina present on that special occasion. This significant religious event took place when Father Geoffrey Hylton Jarrett was ordained as bishop coadjutor-assistant of the Lismore diocese.

The event brought a host of visitors to the region, including 50 Catholic bishops and 100 priests, as well as the special guest, Archbishop Canalini, who is the Pope's personal representative in Australia, and His Eminence Cardinal Clancy, the Archbishop of Sydney. An ordination had not taken place since Bishop John Satterthwaite was ordained bishop coadjutor in 1969. He was installed as the fourth bishop of Lismore in 1971. The importance of the ordination is in the fact that the Pope has chosen Father Geoffrey Jarrett as the bishop to succeed the present bishop, John Satterthwaite. Cardinal Edward Clancy, Archbishop of Sydney, told the packed cathedral and the congregation in a marquee outside that the new bishop stood in an unbroken 2000-year succession to the 12 Apostles, who themselves had sent others into the world to preach, sanctify and govern the people of God.

Before the ordination ceremony began and the cathedral's great organ pealed its welcome to the Bishop-elect, the Bundjalung, Gumbaynggirr and Dhunghutti people from many parts of the Lismore diocese gave him their own Aboriginal welcome outside the cathedral's front door. The Commissioner of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, [ATSIC] Des Williams of Tweed Heads, and his mother, Mrs. Jessie Williams, carried out a traditional smoking and water ceremony for Father Jarrett, Cardinal Clancy, Archbishop Francesco Canalini and the 50 bishops, 100 priests and two deacons who attended the ordination. Bundjalung elder, Yvonne Del-Signore of Ballina, welcomed the bishop-elect to what had been her people's traditional land; and artist Janelle Marshall of Macksville presented Father Jarrett with a woven stole bearing Aboriginal symbols from his new diocese as well as from Tasmania. That "welcome to country" ceremony is believed to have been the first carried out in Australia at the ordination of a Catholic bishop, with the hard, dry sound of Aboriginal click sticks borne by Neville Buchanan of Macksville accompanying the procession into the cathedral.

The Catholic Church's full ceremonial and theatrical majesty prevailed for the ordination of the man who will be assistant to the present Bishop of Lismore, the Most Reverend John Satterthwaite. The newly-ordained Bishop Geoffrey Hylton Jarrett described himself as Tasmania's latest value-added export. One of his first tasks was to give communion to his mother, Mrs Beatrice Jarrett—who was so proud and who came all the way from Tasmania—his niece, Elisabeth Shanks, and his nephew, Christopher Jarrett, both of Melbourne. The newly-ordained bishop was invested with a ring, mitre and crozier, or pastoral staff. He told the congregation that he appreciated the significance of that staff, used by the first bishop of Lismore, Bishop Doyle. It was a magnificent night enjoyed by all, the ordination of this bishop to carry on the tradition of the Lismore diocese. I know that my colleagues, together with the other guests who were present, were honoured to be there on this very special occasion.

Mr MARKHAM (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.35 p.m.]: The honourable member for Lismore has brought to the attention of the House a very important event. As Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Deputy Premier on Aboriginal Affairs in this State I have been privileged to attend a number of ceremonies involving different religious groups throughout the State. It has become more and more the case that local Aboriginal people have been invited along to perform their customary ceremonies prior to the conduct of religious events.

I regard that as a small symbol that people in this country are beginning to realise that Aboriginal culture has a very important spiritual part to play in their daily lives. For religious organisations in this State and in this country to recognise that, by asking them to welcome the guests to country and to conduct smoking ceremonies before these events take place, is very significant. The honourable member might pass on the good wishes of the New South Wales Parliament to the Bundjalung, Gumbaynggirr and Dainggatti peoples who performed that ceremony.

Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.37 p.m.]: I wish to raise this evening my concerns about the conduct of the upper House General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 inquiry into policing in Cabramatta. On 23 November last year I told the House that I was concerned that the committee's process of inquiry was piecemeal and erratic. Rather than working to lift the integrity of the committee, the chairperson ensured that the process degenerated into a farce—as we have seen during the past couple of days. Not only is it unprofessional, it is irresponsible and damaging to the long-term viability of police effectiveness in Cabramatta. One example of this is the failure of the committee to follow ethical or procedural guidelines in the rescheduling of Tim Priest as a witness. First, there was no apparent reason for Tim Priest to reappear before the committee. He was certainly not invited back by the committee to clarify earlier evidence that he gave.

I have been advised by committee members that Mr Priest sought to expand upon his evidence at the insistance of the Cabramatta Chamber of Commerce president, Ross Treyvaud. Second, the Police Service was not notified that additional testimony was being given by a serving officer. Third, committee members received little more than 24 hours notice of Friday's scheduled hearing. Furthermore, the Chair of the committee allowed Tim Priest to make his startling accusations publicly rather than at an in-camera session and only today gave Commander Clive Small a right of reply, at the insistence of the Minister for Police.

The parliamentary inquiry into policing in Cabramatta is doing real and long-term damage to the local communities. Instead of looking for constructive ways of helping the people of Cabramatta get more from their police, it has merely provided a platform to make public a bitter internal dispute. By allowing a disgruntled detective to make all kinds of unproven and demonstrably false allegations about the state of policing in Cabramatta, this committee is totally undermining the community's confidence in its police. These allegations, including claims of police ignoring important crime intelligence and going soft on drug dealers and gang violence, have been given the status of fact by this committee and have been widely reported.

But the submission today by the Greater Hume Area Commander, Clive Small, has shown them to be totally baseless and malicious falsehoods made by a disgruntled officer. But the damage has been done and public confidence in the police in Cabramatta has been further undermined. The committee should be ashamed of allowing such gross slanders to stand unchallenged for even a day, let alone four days. The committee's continuing antics are making the situation in Cabramatta worse, not better, and it should seriously reconsider what role, if any, it has on this critical issue.

I therefore call upon the Chair of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3, Mrs Helen Sham-Ho, to apologise to the Cabramatta community, particularly the Cabramatta High School, for allowing those malicious allegations to be made public. Crime, particularly drug-related crime, is of vital concern to the people of Cabramatta and has to be tackled head on. To that end I support Commander Small's commitment to working with the local committee to make Cabramatta safer and his determination to target drug-related crime.

I also address the ridiculous assertion propagated by Councillor Thang Ngo from Fairfield City Council that police are containing drug-related crime in Cabramatta because of its predominantly migrant population. That assertion is nonsense and not supported by the facts. Strike force Portville was established on 1 February 2000 and resulted in 36 offenders being charged, 25 firearms being seized and 83 charges being laid. Furthermore, strike force Scotsville was established on 8 October 2000 and focused on targeting drug trafficking in Cabramatta. Thirty-nine offenders have been charged and 59 charges have been laid, 28 of which were for supply of heroin.

Since Clive Small took up the position as Greater Hume Area Commander, the Tactical Action Group has been established, resulting in 100 offenders being charged and 150 charges being laid, with 28 charges relating to the supply of heroin. Furthermore, during December 2000 and January 2001—the period in which Fairfield Councillor Thang Ngo alleged that nothing was done by police—there were at least 11 strike forces targeting Asian crime. The irresponsible assertions made by the councillor are not supported by the facts. They serve only to instill fear in Cabramatta residents, frighten away potential tourists and visitors to Cabramatta, and strengthen the wall of silence that surrounds Cabramatta's Asian communities, making it even harder for police to do an already difficult job.It is time for an end to the political grandstanding around policing in Cabramatta. It is time for an end to the sensational and baseless accusations that undermined the community's confidence in its Police Service. If local spokespeople, such as Councillor Thang Ngo and the president of the chamber of commerce, are serious about doing something about crime in Cabramatta, they should be working with the police to achieve a result.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby) [6.42 p.m.]: Mr Deputy-Speaker, I address a matter with which you would be personally familiar involving a former senior public servant, Dr Owen James. On 2 August 1991 the newly appointed Minister for Health in New South Wales, Ron Phillips, dismissed the Hunter Area Health Service Board, citing a litany of maladministration, including a $5.7 million overrun of its budget. Also highlighted was a diversion of $2.9 million interest on subsidies that the Minister said was due for return to Treasury. Associated with the dismissal was the closure of the 200-bed Wallsend hospital, the removal of the long-promised additional $25 million of annual subsidy from the Hunter health budget and the making redundant of 1,100 health workers in the Hunter.

Claims are made that unless the Minister had not acted in dismissing the board and the chief executive officer [CEO], an overbudget in excess of $20 million would have been reached in the 1990-91 financial year. Under the freedom of information legislation, and other means, the following facts have been revealed. The then Hunter Area Health Service Board was removed from responsibility for commissioning the John Hunter Hospital. That responsibility was taken over by the then Acting Director-General, Ross Wraight, who chaired the steering committee established by him to oversee the commissioning of the hospital from mid-1990.

Six months before the opening of the hospital, Wraight advised, or directed, the commissioning team to proceed with equipping and staffing as if "an additional $11.45 million would be forthcoming from Treasury", according to the steering committee minutes of July 1990. The board and the CEO, who had overseen the construction and fit-out of the hospital in such an effective manner, were countermanded in their attempt to prohibit overspending. The board and the CEO had brought the $250 million John Hunter Hospital to construction completion and fit-out on budget and nine months ahead of schedule, despite earthquake damage of more than $6 million.

At a meeting with Minister Phillips in July 1991 the board was told that the long-promised additional funding would not be forthcoming and that the hospital must be closed. Mr Deputy-Speaker would remember the resistance to that idea. As a result, the board was dismissed and that dismissal was gazetted shortly thereafter. A promise was made to Dr James that if he had been able to deliver an acceptable hospital closure at that time he would be looked after by a security of tenure. That did not happen. Dr James lost his job as CEO of the area health service.

For the next six years the Department of Health refused to release documents giving the reasons why the board was dismissed that were requested under freedom of information legislation. A five-page document was released, but it contained very little data, it was subjective and contained assumptions and errors. The current Director-General of Health admits that there was no basis on which the dismissal could be justified. Documentation stating that the retention of interest on subsidy was approved in writing in 1988 also became available. Five of six area health services audited at the time engaged in that practice.

Dr Owen James was unjustly dismissed. I have raised this grave matter with the Minister for Health in an attempt to have the matter resolved. This is another longstanding saga, as was the case of Philip Arantz and the police department. Dr James cannot afford to engage in long and costly litigation against the Health Department in the hope that he will finally obtain justice. I have raised this matter with the Minister, who I know has taken some action. I acknowledge that a meeting has been set down for me to meet with the Director-General of Health on 12 March to try to progress this case.

I make this plea to the Minister: This is an injustice for which the Minister for Health is not responsible, and the Government is not responsible, because it happened virtually a decade ago, shortly after I ceased to be the Minister for Health. The time has come to square things with Dr Owen James. He had his heart in the right place, and was given certain assurances that were not delivered. He has been unjustly treated. We now have a chance to set the record right. This man's reputation should be fully restored and he should be entitled to some compensation for what he suffered a decade ago.

Mr KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Health) [6.47 p.m.]: When nothing is left other than one's reputation that is always the most valuable thing that one can seek to maintain. I extend my thanks to the honourable member for Willoughby for his ongoing interest in this matter. He has taken the opportunity to raise it with me on several occasions. I met with Dr James when I was in the Tweed some months ago. I repeat the undertaking I gave him and the honourable member for Willoughby that I will, as best I possibly can, seek to resolve this matter without the need for lawyers, who would seek to prey on this type of issue.

A meeting has been scheduled between the honourable member for Willoughby and the Director-General of Health on 12 March. My intention is that that meeting will seek to find a non-legal pathway to assist Dr James. This old matter is clearly in need of resolution. To maintain his dignity, his self-esteem, his self-worth and, more importantly, his reputation as a professional, it is only fair that we seek to assist him wherever possible. I maintain my commitment to find a solution without the need for lawyers. We need to establish how best to assist in that regard. The goodwill is there and I assure Dr James and the honourable member for Willoughby that departmental officers wish to resolve this matter amicably and sensibly. They recognise that this alleged wrong needs to be put right to allow Dr James to have peace of mind about his professional capacity and skills in his retirement years.

Private members' statements noted.

[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 6.49 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove—Leader of the Opposition) [7.30 p.m.]: I move:

That this House extends to the family the deepest sympathy of members of the Legislative Assembly in the loss sustained by the death on 10 December 2000 of Richard Owen Healy, a former Minister of the Crown.

In speaking to this condolence motion I offer on behalf of the Coalition our deepest sympathy to the family of the late Dick Healey. Dick Healey served the people of his local area and the State of New South Wales as a member of this House from 1962 until 1981. He represented the seats of Wakehurst and Davidson. Dick Healey was born in 1923 in Broken Hill, where his father Allan was teaching. He was educated at Parramatta High School and served in the Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] between 1942 and 1945. Dick married Winifred Jeffreys in Brighton, England, in 1945 and together they had three children—Richard, David and Margaret. Dick married Doreen Robins in 1963 and they had a long and loving relationship until his recent sudden death after a period of declining health.

Dick Healey was encouraged to come into the Parliament by former Liberal Leader and Premier Sir Robert Askin and he was first elected as member for Wakehurst in March 1962. He was a key member of the Coalition team, led for the Liberal Party by Sir Robert Askin and for the Country Party by Sir Charles Cutler, which swept into Government in 1965 after almost 25 years of Labor governments. Prior to coming to the Parliament, Dick Healey had a successful career as a sports commentator and broadcasting executive with the Australian Broadcasting Commission [ABC]. He was sports editor for ABC radio from 1951 to 1962, sports editor of ABC television from 1956 until 1962 and Vice-President of the ABC Staff Association from 1958 until he came into Parliament in 1962.

Dick had already established his reputation and ensured his future when he decided to switch careers and come into this Parliament. Many people were surprised, but those who expressed surprise had obviously underestimated Dick's desire to serve and, equally, the persuasiveness of Sir Robert Askin. Sir Robert Askin was keen to have Dick in his team. He recognised in Dick Healey a man who was intelligent and in touch with those described in rather endearing terms back in the 1950s and 1960s as "the average Australian".

In many ways Dick Healey had the almost classical profile for politics for that time. He came from a middleclass background, he had extensive community involvement, he had a war service record and he had a sporting profile. Most of all, Sir Robert Askin saw Dick Healey as someone with the potential to serve in a future Liberal-Country Party Cabinet and a person who would make a positive contribution to the parliamentary process. Dick Healey's community contribution outside the Parliament had a very wide base and included involvement at the local, regional and State levels.

His areas of community service included stints as Chairman of the Davidson Park Trust, Vice-President of the New South Wales Division of the Air Force Association, Chairman of the Wentworth Park Trust, Founder of the New South Wales Water Safety Council, Vice-President of the Royal Life Saving Society, Vice-President of the Manly-Warringah Scouting Association and State President of the New South Wales Little Athletics Association. Dick was an active member and worker for the RSL and served the Forestville branch up until his death, including a long term as vice-president

As a member of the Askin-Cutler Government Dick was prominent as Chair of the Select Committee into the Building Industry in 1969 and 1970. In November 1973 Dick Healey was appointed to Cabinet as Minister for Youth and Community Services. In 1975 he took over one of the most difficult portfolios, Minister for Health, a position he held until the defeat of the Willis-Punch Government in 1976. Dick stayed on in Opposition and served as shadow Minister for Health until 1978 under Liberal leaders Max Willis and Peter Coleman and then as shadow Minister for Police and Services under Liberal leader John Mason. It is with deep feeling and a great deal of sympathy that I express the regret of my Liberal Party colleagues, and in fact all members of the Opposition, at the death of Dick Healey. In particular, I offer our sympathy to his wife, Doreen, his children, Richard, David and Margaret, and his surviving sisters, Alison and Lurline. He will be remembered with great fondness by those in this House.

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [7.38 p.m.]: I join the Leader of the Opposition in this motion of condolence and thank her for moving it on behalf of the House. I was elected in 1976 and for four years I had the privilege—and I choose the word "privilege" carefully—of being in the Parliament with Dick Healey. Dick was a hardworking member of Parliament and a hardworking Minister of the Crown. He was also very well recognised in the Parliament for his ultimate recommendations as chairman of a parliamentary committee that led to the licensing system in the building industry. He made that committee work.

I was aware of the great work being done by Dick Healey prior to my coming into Parliament. I also speak from the viewpoint of my wife, Colleen, who was a Healey. Her father and Richard Healey were cousins. My father-in-law was a very proud member of the Epping branch of the Australian Labor Party. It was a great source of consternation in the Healey family that Richard represented the Liberal Party with a high profile and that my father-in-law, the late Jack Healey, a wonderful man, represented the views of the Labor Party at Healey functions. As a member of Parliament Dick was always hard working. He was very popular in his electorate. He was very successful as the local member and as a Minister. I send to the Healey family the deep condolences of my wife and myself. I express every best wish to the Healey family on behalf of the other side of the Healey family. They remember Richard Healey—they often referred to him as Richard rather than Dick—with great affection. Regardless of politics, they all acknowledge that he performed a great service to the community.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [7.41 p.m.]: I pass on my condolences to the family of Richard Healey and record my appreciation on behalf of the people of the electorate of Davidson for the contribution that he made to this place. Dick represented Davidson from 1971 to 1981. From 1962 to 1971 he represented what was then the electorate of Wakehurst. I became aware of his genuine involvement in the community in the early 1980s when I was a member of the Warringah Youth Council. Bob Askin who was instrumental in getting Dick into Parliament. When the State seat of Wakehurst was created prior to the 1962 election it was believed that John Fisher, the Labor candidate and President of the Warringah Shire Council, would win the seat. Bob Askin sought the advice of Dick, who was then a well-known sports commentator, about prominent personalities who might be persuaded to become the Liberal Party candidate.

For this information I express my appreciation to Allan Viney, who was a colleague of Dick's and who has been a friend of mine for many years. Dick Healey, according to Bob Askin, said that he would give the proposal some thought. Later he said to Askin, "What about me?" Askin was delighted. Dick Healey was subsequently endorsed as the Liberal candidate, and narrowly won the seat. He left what was then the ABC, where he was vice-president of the staff association, and moved into State politics. Dick came from Broken Hill, where his father was a schoolteacher. Later his father became principal of a school in the Mosman area. Dick finished his education at Parramatta High School, and then worked at the ABC.

When he turned 18 he joined the Australian Air Force and became a signals officer. He saw service in Europe, the Atlantic and the Middle East. When he returned after the Second World War he rejoined the ABC and became a sports editor of ABC radio through the 1950s and early 1960s, and sports editor of ABC TV in 1956. He is also well known for his substantial commentaries on the Anzac Day march in Sydney. After entering State politics he maintained his deep involvement with the northern beaches community through a wide range of organisations, particularly the boy scouts; local schools; the RSL, predominantly the Forestville RSL; the Forest Rugby Club; Lindfield Probus and the Volunteer Coastal Patrol. For a number of years he was also a member of the New South Wales Fitness Council and the Youth Advisory Council.

Dick was the founder of the New South Wales Water Safety Council, President of the Little Athletics Association for 28 years until his death and Chairman of the Wentworth Park Trust. He was also President of the Diabetics Association of New South Wales, and he served on the federal council of that association. He became a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management in 1976. His involvement with such associations demonstrates his depth of involvement in all aspects of the community, not simply the northern beaches but beyond. He was a person who gave very generously of his time.

Dick was significantly involved in the early stages of the creation of what is now Garigal National Park. He was concerned with the upper reaches of what became Davidson State Recreation Area, those areas around the Roseville Bridge area. He was instrumental in having the recreation area established as a community-based trust. He had hands-on involvement in turning what was then a dredged area on the northern side of Middle Harbour on the eastern and western side of Roseville Bridge into a park that is enjoyed by many hundreds of people every weekend. He became Chairman of the Davidson Park Trust, the park being a precursor to the area integrated into Garigal National Park. That is a permanent reminder to the community of his commitment and interest.

Dick was busy as a parliamentarian. He chaired a select committee into the building industry which was instrumental in establishing a licensing system in this State for that industry. In 1973 he was appointed Minister for Youth and Community Services, and in 1975 he was appointed Minister for Health. He retained that portfolio after Sir Robert Askin was succeeded by Tom Lewis, and then Sir Eric Willis. In Opposition Dick Healey was the spokesman on Health, and later police and services until he left the Parliament in 1981. Dick was a keen golfer, lawn bowler and a member and patron of the Lindfield Bowling Club. He took part in many interparliamentary bowls competitions.

In 1963 Dick married his second wife, Doreen, who was very supportive of him in all his years in parliamentary life. His three children in England from his first marriage—Richard, David and Margaret—have survived him. But it is Doreen who was his companion in the latter stages of his life. They lived most of their time in Killarney Heights, where Doreen remains. Dick was a stalwart at the Forestville RSL Club, where he was vice-president and patron for many years. Dick would inevitably be there for Anzac Day and Remembrance Day services. It was always an opportunity to catch up and have a chat. In his later years he suffered from poor health, but despite that he was always interesting to talk to. He certainly had colourful recollections of his time in State politics.

This may not be well known, but Dick Healey was instrumental in giving us Norman May, the broadcaster. Norman May originally had no involvement in broadcasting. In an interview a year or so back, he said that in late 1956 or early 1957 he was travelling on a bus from Curl Curl to Manly Wharf to catch the ferry to Sydney. On the bus was Dick Healy, who lived in the Curl Curl area. Norman was a keen surf lifesaving competitor. He asked Norman, "What are you doing on Saturday fortnight?" Norman said, "Nothing." Dick said, "We're televising the surf carnival. What about coming along as an expert commentator?" That was the beginning of a long career in broadcasting for Norman May. I think he has covered 10 Olympic Games, and he has become known as the champion of "Gold! Gold! Gold!" He is an passionate supporter of Australian sport.

Dick was an active parliamentary representative of the electorates of Wakehurst and Davidson. His wife, Doreen, was extremely supportive of his work and, as I recall from my school days, often represented him. I would frequently see one of them attending a school function or event. On the Sunday before Dick's death, I recall sitting with him and Doreen at a Christmas function at Forestville RSL. Even though his health had not been the best, Dick clearly still held strong views on a variety of political subjects and we had a robust and interesting discussion. Dick elaborated on many of his recollections of politics, including his interest in education and health. He was alert, talkative and in very good spirits. It was his birthday the following Thursday and he took ill on Friday evening after attending a birthday lunch with friends. He was admitted to hospital and, as Doreen told me, passed away extremely peacefully on Saturday. He felt no pain, which is as good a departure as any of us could hope for.

Dick has left a number of legacies, including the creation of the precursor to Garigal National Park. He fought actively to preserve Beacon Hill, a significant geographic feature on the northern beaches, and in its natural state. I believe there was an early plan to divert Warringah Road, which circles Beacon Hill, through the area and Dick was active in the campaign to ensure that that did not happen. I also recall clearly that Dick was instrumental in developing the forest area in the early days when there was a lot of growth in the 1960s and early 1970s. The Roseville Bridge, Dick's pride and joy, was built in the mid-1960s. It was then the only bridge in the world—it may still be—that curved in different directions through two planes, which is a fairly unique characteristic. Many may not be aware of the Roseville Bridge's claim to fame. I pay tribute to Dick and pass on to Doreen my condolences and the appreciation of all those who live, or have lived, in the Davidson electorate for the contribution that Dick Healey made to public life both in my area and in New South Wales as a whole.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [7.52 p.m.]: Together with my colleagues, I offer my condolences to Doreen Healey and to the family of Dick Healey upon his passing. I grew up on the northern beaches and, for as long as I can remember—certainly ever since I was very young—Dick Healey's name was extremely well known and well respected. It was synonymous with the concept of a member of Parliament being a good bloke and a good person. Richard Owen Healey was born in Broken Hill in 1923 to Alban and Lurline Healey. As the honourable member for Davidson observed, Dick was educated at St Patrick's, Strathfield and at Parramatta High School. He had three sisters: Maureen, Lurline and Alison. Maureen has passed away, but Lurline and Alison survive and I know were a special part of Dick's life. I think the following comments encapsulate the relationship between Dick and Doreen Healey.

I spoke to Doreen only a few weeks ago and asked her how she was going. She talked about her life with Dick and said, "You know, Brad, Dick and I were just as much in love the day he died as the day we married". That is an unusual bond in this day and age, and Dick and Doreen clearly had a very special relationship over many years. They married in 1963 when Doreen was then Doreen Robins and they had many years of happy marriage. Doreen also told me that Dick used to say, "We're soppy, aren't we?" I think that sums up very simply and personally Dick's love for Doreen, and we should respect their relationship and the type of man that Dick was. Doreen told me that Dick had all the attributes of a good local member of Parliament. She said, "He would go to a meeting of just a few people". That is a quality that people want to have in their member of Parliament: they want to know that their local member is prepared to attend meetings, no matter how small or how insignificant the issue. Dick Healey was a member of Parliament who was happy to do that.

As has already been said, Dick Healey entered Parliament in 1962. On the peninsula at the time there was apparently a very popular Labor president of Warringah Shire, John Fisher. I do not know Mr Fisher, but I understand that he was considered to be the likely winner of the election for the new seat of Wakehurst in 1962. Allan Viney, who later entered Parliament and became the member for Wakehurst in 1971, told me that a great campaign was launched by the local Liberal Party. Nick Wilson, who has since passed away, was a stalwart of the Liberal Party on the peninsula and a wonderful campaign was conducted to defeat John Fisher in that election. As a result, Dick Healey entered the New South Wales Parliament in 1962 as the member for Wakehurst. I asked Allan Viney to sum up Dick's life as a member of Parliament. Allan said that when he became the new member for Wakehurst in 1971 following a redistribution, "I was very happy to follow in the footsteps of a man of the people. Dick had no delusions of grandeur; he was truly a representative of the people. He worked for the good of the community till the very day he died".

I do not think any greater statement can be made about a member of Parliament than those words that Allan Viney used to express his respect for his predecessor in the seat of Wakehurst and later his parliamentary colleague. I also contacted Robyn Young, another person who has long been involved in the Liberal Party at a voluntary level—in fact, she has served as president of my conference—and who respects the political process. Even though she may not agree with the philosophy of the Labor Party, she respects all members of Parliament who devote their lives to serving their communities, as she has done in so many voluntary capacities.

I asked Robyn what she thought of Dick Healey and she said, "I think of the best way you could describe him that was that he was just a really good local member. He was a man of the people. He was involved in many local groups. He was very friendly. You would often see him and his wife, Doreen, out shopping. Everybody knew him and everybody liked him." Those various comments from a number of people indicate that indeed Dick was not just a man of the people and not just a wonderful parliamentarian but also somebody who people respected.

Earlier a little was said about Dick's involvements. His obituary, with which Allan Viney had a great deal of involvement, appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 December. It referred to Dick as a broadcaster and politician and noted that he lived between the years 1923 and 2000. First and foremost I would say that Dick Healey was a man of the people; he was also a returned servicemen, a broadcaster and a politician. But he was always a wonderful person and he was wonderfully involved contributor to his local community.

It was briefly recounted tonight that Dick enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force in 1941. He did that as soon as he could—when he turned 18—and he trained as a signals officer in Canada. Later he served in England and in the Middle East with RAAF 458 Squadron during World War II. On his return to Australia after the war, Dick went back to the ABC and worked first as a radio announcer and later as a sports commentator. In recounting Dick's history in the earlier part of his life, I am relying on the words of Milton Noble who was a friend of Dick's during the last 25 years of Dick's life. Milton formed a particularly close association through Diabetes Australia. Milton is the chief executive officer of Diabetes Australia—New South Wales.

For the record, I note that when I was talking to Doreen she told me that Dick had contracted diabetes when he was aged 39 or 40. She said that he did not make a big thing of it. He never made a big thing of any issues that confronted him and went on in life the best he could. He became involved in the diabetes association in the way he became involved in so many other community groups. He did excellent work with Diabetes Australia. He served as President of Diabetes Australia—New South Wales for eight years. It appears that diabetes was in his family because Doreen told me that Dick's father died when Dick was about 73 or 75, just a few years before Dick passed away. Just three years before Dick passed away, his mother also passed away. Dick's father had suffered from diabetes as well, so diabetes was in the family. Despite problems with his health and despite the adversities that can occur in politics, Dick always maintained his sense of humour. Milton Noble recounted a story at Dick's funeral which I thought was rather interesting. He recalled a period when Dick was the ABC's sports reporter:

One story I remember was the time ... well before t.v. ... when he [Dick] and a colleague talked the General Manager of the ABC into letting them do a Sydney Studio Broadcast of a Rugby Union match between Australia and South Africa being held in South Africa.

For the benefit of my colleagues in the Chamber, I point out that the period to which Milton refers is a long while ago. People did not always have television or the ready communications that currently exist and the story is set during a time when communication was difficult. Dick was sitting in the ABC studio doing a broadcast of a game in South Africa.

To do that they received cables from South Africa every minute and converted into commentary.

I find it a bit hard to believe that that would be possible—to receive written words and then quickly convert them to a running commentary of the South Africa-Australia Rugby Union match. That would have been very challenging.

Everything went well up until early in the second half when the score was 6 nil and then the cables stopped coming.

Apparently that did not stop Dick. He must have been already in training for his parliamentary career.

They adlibbed the commentary for the next 20 minutes or so and when the cables started coming in again, the score was something like 38 to 26. Dick said they got through the match o.k. but vowed and declared it was the first and last time.

One can imagine that Dick would not have had very many problems dealing with those sorts of issues. There is another story about Dick when he was Minister for Health. A conference was undertaken and, unbeknown to Milton Noble, the conference chairman had asked all the delegates not to smoke while the Minister was in the room as it was most inappropriate. In those days, as Milton noted, it was common practice for people to smoke during conferences. I believe this story may appeal particularly to the Acting-Speaker, the honourable member for Wallsend, as he has a particular interest in pipes. The assembled gathering was waiting for the Minister for Health to walk in. They had all put out their cigarettes and made sure that there was no tobacco being used in the room. Apparently Dick entered the room and proceeded to the stage, whereupon the delegates burst into laughter. Dick, the Health Minister, had lit up his pipe!

Dick was nothing if not his own man. It was the fact that he was his own man that allowed him to be such a man of the people. I do not propose to go into more of his history but will simply say that with the passing of Dick Healey we have lost a great human being, a great man, a great parliamentarian and a great politician. Once again I express my personal condolences to Doreen and to her family members. I hope that Doreen finds peace in her new life and that Dick's memory lives on with her.

Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater) [8.07 p.m.]: It is an honour for me to join my northern beaches colleagues, the honourable member for Wakehurst and the honourable member for Davidson, to pay a tribute to the late Dick Healey. It is obviously somewhat poignant for me to join them because Dick Healey was both the honourable member for Wakehurst and the honourable member for Davidson at one stage. It is worthwhile considering the fact that to my knowledge he was the first honourable member for Wakehurst when the electorate was created in 1962 and that he served three terms before the creation of the electorate of Davidson in 1971, which he served for four terms until the 1981 election.

Dick was also appointed to the last Askin Cabinet in 1973 as the then Minister for Youth and Community Services and was appointed by Sir Robert Askin's successor, Tom Lewis, as the Minister for Health—a position he held under Premier Lewis's successor, Sir Eric Willis, until the defeat of that Government in 1976. Dick was one of the few Ministers who held a portfolio continuously through a period which was one of some turmoil for the Liberal Party. It should therefore be a credit to Dick, and it should be remembered in this House today, that at a time of turmoil and leadership changes in the Liberal Party, Dick Healey was able to continue as a Cabinet Minister in a very important role as the Minister for Health in the last Liberal Government prior to the election of the Wran Government.

Dick was a long-time resident of the Forest and northern beaches areas. My principal reason for speaking to this motion is that although I did not know Dick Healey, I knew him by reputation. As a student of political history I know the history of the electorates of Wakehurst and Davidson and I became aware of a gentleman named Richard Owen Healey who had been the parliamentary representative for those electorates and a Minister in Liberal Governments in the 1970s.

About 10 days before Mr Healey passed away he rang me out of the blue. He left a message and I rang back immediately wondering what he may have wanted—whether he had read something in the Manly Daily that may have offended him as a former member of Parliament and he wanted to raise it with me, or whether he had a piece of political advice for me as a younger member of Parliament. I was interested to hear on the end of the phone his very old and crackly voice. At that stage he clearly was in the sunset of his life. He said that he had heard that I went to St Patrick's College, Strathfield. I said, "Yes, I did, Mr Healey." He said, "So did I". I had known that. He would have been a relatively early student of the school, which started in 1928. He rang me only to tell me that, like me, he had attended the school and that he held strong and emotional memories of that college. He was keen to pass on to me his thoughts about what we old boys called SPC. We had a brief chat and I wished him well and indicated that at some stage I would love to catch up with him. Within 10 days he had passed away.

The article in the Manly Daily that followed his passing was dominated by comments from his very good friend Allan Viney, his successor in the seat of Wakehurst. There was a very emotional comment from Allan Viney saying that there would be great mourning across the northern beaches with the announcement of the passing of Dick Healey. As my colleagues from Davidson and Wakehurst have indicated today, the tribute at his funeral was very fitting. As a newer and younger member of Parliament—the most junior member of the Liberal team on the northern beaches—it was very heartening to me to see his old mate Allan Viney speaking so kindly of him and with such genuine friendship. It is an honour to join my colleagues here today to pay tribute to Richard Owen Healey.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [8.13 p.m.]: On behalf of the National Party I join with previous speakers in paying tribute to the late Dick Healey, who represented the Liberal Party in this House, first as the member for Wakehurst from 1962 until 1971 and then as the member for Davidson until 1981. In the course of six Parliaments Dick Healey was Minister for Youth and Community Services and Minister for Health besides being Chairman of the Select Committee on the Building Industry and Chairman of the Davidson Park Trust. Born in 1923, the son of a Broken Hill schoolteacher, Dick Healey was educated at Parramatta High and at the age of 19 enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force in 1942. He was assigned to 458 Squadron, serving as a signals officer.

Prior to his political career Dick Healey was widely known in the media as sports editor of the ABC from 1951 to 1962. His radio career spanned employment as an announcer and sporting commentator. He also featured on national television with his sporting commentaries. Sport featured prominently in Dick Healey's life. He was a member of the New South Wales National Fitness Council from 1967 to 1976 and of the Youth Advisory Council from 1967 to 1973. He was founder of the New South Wales Water Safety Council and President of the Little Athletics Association. On behalf of members of the National Party I extend our sympathies to Dick Healey's wife Doreen and other family members on their loss.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places.

Motion agreed to.

Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [8.15 p.m.]: The motion I wish to move tonight is urgent for the following reasons: The recent No Jets for Bankstown rally at Bankstown Paceway, which was attended by thousands of residents opposing any expansion of Bankstown Airport, means that the matter is clearly urgent to the community. It is urgent because of the continued refusal of the Federal Government and in particular the Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Leader of the National Party, Mr John Anderson, to once and for all rule out any plan that results in regional airlines being diverted to Bankstown. It is urgent because the bids by Qantas and Ansett to buy Hazelton Airlines should take away its slots at Kingsford Smith airport, forcing planes to land at Bankstown. Finally, the matter is urgent because the member for Murrumbidgee, Mr Adrian Piccoli, has said that he will reconsider his membership of the National Party should regional airlines lose their access to Bankstown. I believe that this matter is very urgent and should be dealt with in this House now.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [8.17 p.m.]: There is little doubt that the issue of providing rural specialists in obstetrics, neurosurgery and anaesthetics and surgical proceduralists in country hospitals is the most urgent issue that could confront the New South Wales Parliament as of today. As of today there are doctors who have resigned in Griffith, Tamworth, Lismore, Cowra, Inverell and Orange and there are doctors in Gosford, Mudgee, Young and Wagga Wagga—the last two towns have already had public meetings—who are considering resignation as proceduralist visiting medical officers, including in obstetrics, from country hospitals. The urgency of this crisis cannot be understated. The Carr Government has remained completely mute on this topic while knowing that it was coming for at least five years. Professional indemnity insurance for doctors has been an issue coming like an out of control steam train upon the Carr Government, which has chosen to completely ignore the issue until it has reached the present crisis.

My motion is certainly more urgent than the Government's motion and is of such importance to country people that the motion should be debated and the Government should take remedial action. It is vitally necessary on an emergency basis to restore order. Otherwise, hundreds of women will have to travel hundreds of kilometres to deliver their babies when previously they would have been able to do so with expert care and attention from GP obstetricians in their own country town. This is the sort of crisis that the health system has reached in country New South Wales. There is a crisis over professional indemnity. It relates to doctors performing procedures in public hospitals on public patients. So there is no issue about privately insured patients. The doctors involved are performing work in public hospitals on public patients. The Carr Government cannot go along in the way it has been, ignoring the immediate urgency of the issue.

The subject matter of the Government's motion has been debated previously. It contains a smart alec component to try to ensure that the Opposition does not vote against it. The Government's motion does not deserve urgent consideration. It is not in any way as urgent as the crisis that the Carr Government has deliberately allowed to develop over the provision of rural medical proceduralists in public hospitals in country New South Wales. There is no greater crisis. Members of the Government bury their heads in the sand and allow this crisis to get out of control. The health outcomes that they deliberately allow will be on their heads alone, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

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

Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [8.20 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the overwhelming community response to the recent "No Jets for Bankstown" rally held at Bankstown paceway;

(2) supports the Premier's statement that the New South Wales Government does not support any proposal by the Federal Government that increases the capacity or diverts regional airlines to Bankstown; and

(3) supports the stand by the State member for Murrumbidgee, Mr Adrian Piccoli, to resign from the National Party if regional airlines lose their access to Kingsford-Smith and are forced to land at Bankstown.

[Interruption]

The Leader of the National Party says "Shame! Shame! Shame!" The people who will have to catch a regional aeroplane from his electorate are the same ill people about whom he spoke; those people who will have to catch a plane to Bankstown and who will spend more time on the ground trying to get to the hospital than they will in the plane. I appreciate his good token effort with his motion. The anti-expansion of Bankstown Labor team and Country Labor have been more outspoken on the Bankstown Airport issue than on any other issue. There has not been a more obvious case of the spinelessness and gormlessness of the New South Wales Opposition—the National Party and the Liberal Party in this place. This issue will not go away, for the simple reason that to this day the Federal Government has not ruled out diverting regional airlines to Bankstown.

On the other hand, the New South Wales Government and the Premier have been clear ever since the issue was first raised, via the back door, when John Fahey leaked this plan but never once told the people of Bankstown or Sydney's south west what he had in store for them. Under no circumstances will the New South Wales Government support the expansion of Bankstown Airport or force regional airlines to land at Bankstown—clear to the point and the exact opposite of the bleak response of the gormless Opposition in this Parliament and the spineless Federal Government. Two weeks ago the Bankstown community held a No-Jets-for-Bankstown rally at the Bankstown paceway. The meeting, which was organised just after Christmas, in the school holidays, was attended by about 5,000 people. The honourable member for Bankstown, the honourable member for Menai, the honourable member for Liverpool attended and I spoke, and the Minister for Health stood in the crowd with his family.

Also in attendance were mayors and councillors from Bankstown, Liverpool and Canterbury councils. North Coast mayors are well aware of this issue and support our opposition. Fairfield, Holroyd and Parramatta councils are also actively involved in opposing the expansion of Bankstown Airport. The Premier was unable to attend the meeting for the simple reason that he was opening another fine achievement of the Carr Government, namely the new Woronora Bridge. However, the Premier wrote a statement to the families of Bankstown which was read out at the rally by the honourable member for Menai—and there is a story about that. What Premier Carr said to the crowd at Bankstown should be included in Hansard. He said:

The New South Wales Government 's position on the future of Bankstown airport is clear:

1. The NSW Government opposes any move to expand or increase the capacity of Bankstown.

2. The NSW Government remains firmly opposed to any Federal Government proposal to transfer regional airlines away from Kingsford-Smith.

On March 28, 2000 I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr John Anderson, regarding regional airline access to Kingsford-Smith airport.

I strongly urged Mr Anderson to reject any plans to forcibly transfer regional airlines away from Kingsford-Smith and called on the Federal Government to guarantee continued access to Kingsford-Smith for regional airlines.

Forcing regional flights to land at Bankstown or another location away from Kingsford-Smith would add up to an hour to travel times for country passengers, disadvantage rural businesses relative to Sydney firms and discriminate against NSW rural and regional families.

Before the Olympics and Paralympics I wrote to the Prime Minister raising the concerns of the NSW Country Mayors Association and made it clear that the NSW Government didn't support any plans to formally require regional airlines to transfer to Bankstown airport during the Olympic Games.

Plans to cut regional access to Kingsford Smith Airport are strongly opposed by regional airline operators, Country Labor, the Country Mayors Association, Regional Chambers of Commerce, and [Independent] State members for the Northern Tablelands, Dubbo and Tamworth.

They have spoken on this issue several times in this House and will do so again tonight. They were elected to this Parliament because they represent the interests of those people in the country who want to catch a plane to Kingsford Smith airport but not to Bankstown. The Premier continued:

Any plans to upgrade the role of Bankstown airport are also opposed by the families of country NSW and the people at Bankstown.

Local Labor MPs have made representations to my office and moved numerous joint motions in Parliament with Country Labor on this issue.

They are convinced that any increase in air traffic at Bankstown would mean more noise and disruption for local families, communities and schools. It could even result in the closure of Condell Park Public School.

That includes both the primary and high school. The Premier continued:

Any move to relocate regional airlines away from Kingsford-Smith Airport would have a detrimental effect on country families, businesses and tourism opportunities. It will also greatly impact on the quality of life that the communities around Bankstown presently experience—possibly closing a school in the process.

The Muslim private college and Bankstown Grammar School, which is on airport land, could also be closed. The Premier concluded:

This is why under no circumstances will the New South Wales Government support any proposal that increases the capacity of or diverts regional airlines to Bankstown.

I first spoke against this ludicrous plan to upgrade Bankstown Airport to take regional aircraft and jets in September 1999—nearly 18 months ago. Since that time the New South Wales Labor Government has consistently carried motions which condemn the Bankstown Airport upgrade plan and has placed on record its commitment to do nothing to assist this plan. This urgency motion will reinforce this Government's opposition to the recent plan announced by the Federal Government. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, told everyone that regional airlines would be transferred from Kingsford Smith airport to Bankstown "over my dead body".

So much for the leadership powers of the Australian National Party Leader and his National Party colleagues. That is the man who said he did not know that the department had lost $2.9 billion in taxpayers' money which was legislated to be spent only on our national roads. The Prime Minister, John Howard, said he did not know anything about it either and that when he did find out about it he was going to tick off the bloke—the Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Leader of the National Party—who was supposed to have told him about it. I guess he has now had his serious word with him and everything is okay.

If both those leaders in the Coalition Government in Canberra cannot account for $2.9 billion how can they be trusted to have any idea about the impact of last year's Christmas present to south-west Sydney: to upgrade Bankstown Airport to take regional planes and jets? John Anderson has repeated his promise that regional aircraft will not be forced to leave Kingsford Smith airport and use Bankstown Airport. They may not be forced literally. But whoever buys Kingsford Smith—presumably it will not be Hazelton but a multinational big player—will buy those slots and will make a lot more money bringing in a plane with 500 people than Hazelton would make flying in a half-full plane carrying 20 people from Coffs Harbour. The slots for the regional airlines will be replaced by the major airlines. Gunnedah is a tricky electorate, which I do not think they will hold.

People of that region are most welcome in Bankstown but, put simply, we do not want regional aircraft flying in there. We certainly do not want 737 and 767 jets flying in there. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour should look at a map to see where Bankstown is located. It does not have water on one side or a bay on another. It is not like Tullamarine, which is 50 miles from Melbourne. It is right in the heart of Sydney, nine or 10 kilometres from Kingsford Smith airport. The people of this region will not tolerate it. Why would anyone want to fly from Dubbo, Tamworth, Albury or Coffs Harbour for the purpose of business, tourism or medical services and spend more time on Sydney trains and roads than in the air? The Leader of the National Party talked about obstetricians and women not being able to receive proper care. Imagine if they have to fly to Sydney for special medical services and have to land at Bankstown, spend 20 minutes getting onto a highway which might be blocked, and then maybe catch a train! Landing at Bankstown is not as good as landing at Kingsford Smith.

Mr Fraser: So you admit that the services are not as good as they should be.

Mr ASHTON: You obviously agree with me. Regional and rural people deserve better access. They are best represented in this Parliament by Country Labor and the Independents, who will probably speak later. In the past two months airline safety in Australia has been very shaky. Ansett jets were grounded over Christmas because the company forgot to carry out compulsory maintenance. Cracks have been detected in the wings and tails of commercial jets, yet we have been told by media spokespeople that these cracks were of no real concern. I will have more to say when I reply to the drivel of the Opposition.

Mr PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [8.30 p.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion, particularly as I am named in it. Certainly, the people of western New South Wales are very concerned about their access to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and I am confident that the actions taken by the Federal Coalition have secured access for regional airlines. I have stated in the local media in Griffith that I would be prepared to resign from the National Party if a regional airline from Griffith were forced—by political processes, not mechanical failure or the weather—to land at Bankstown. I am very happy with that undertaking and I have no problem in restating it in this House, because I believe I will never have to act on it.

I am a proud member of the National Party and I intend to remain a member of the National Party. What the Federal Coalition has done will ensure that regional airlines retain access to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. It was interesting to hear the comments of the honourable member for East Hills about his State colleagues attending a large rally. I sympathise with those who live at either end of Bankstown Airport and the effect that jets landing at Bankstown may have on them. The people in my electorate and those electorates have a very common purpose, for different reasons.

It is interesting to note that a Federal election will be held this year and it is possible that with elections these days we could have the worst case scenario—a Federal Labor government. I do not recall the honourable member for East Hills saying that any Federal Labor members gave undertakings similar to those I made. What will happen in the unfortunate event that Labor is elected to government federally in nine months time? I am sure that the honourable member for Mulgoa, who is in the chair, would sympathise with me in that regard. We did not hear that any Federal Labor members of Parliament turned up, but their State counterparts did because they know they have no influence on what might happen about access to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. It is easy to make hollow promises and speak rubbish. I would like Government speakers or the honourable member for East Hills in reply to undertake to resign from the Labor Party if, under a Federal Labor government, regional airlines are forced to land at Bankstown. If they did so they would have some integrity. However, my wish will go unheeded because many Government members are spineless.

It is interesting that a member of the left faction should move this motion, because in the past couple of years, and since Labor has been in government in New South Wales, the Australian Labor Party has done many things contrary to the core responsibilities of the left faction. Although I am not a member of the left faction of the Labor Party I would imagine that the privatisation of FreightCorp would be a serious consideration, yet none of them stood by their principles and offered to resign. The same applies to the honourable member for Bathurst and other honourable members whose electorates will be seriously affected. Members of the left faction have lay down in front of the Treasurer and Premier and allowed themselves to be completely steamrolled on this subject. They are without credibility and did not have the intestinal fortitude to offer to resign if that were to happen. On the other hand, I have made an undertaking, and members opposite should stand by the principles for which they were elected and do the same. Members of the left faction have done nothing because they are in the minority.

Mr Lynch: Point of order: The motion deals with Bankstown Airport. The honourable member has been speaking for six minutes, yet the last four minutes have had nothing to do with Bankstown Airport. Therefore, only one-third of his speaking time has been relevant. I ask you to bring him back to the topic at hand.

Mr Fraser: To the point of order: I draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that paragraph 3 of the motion states, "supports the stand by the State MP for Murrumbidgee, Mr Adrian Piccoli, to resign from the National Party if regional airlines lose their access to Kingsford Smith and are forced to land at Bankstown." I put it to you that is well and truly within the leave of the motion.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Beamer): Order! No point of order is involved. As the honourable member's remarks are within the scope of the motion I will allow him to continue.

Mr PICCOLI: That was a very interesting point of order, because irrelevance has never been a bar to any member from the Labor Party. Government speakers and the honourable member for East Hills in reply should give a similar undertaking, to be recorded in Hansard, that if regional airlines are forced, under a Federal Labor Government, to land at Bankstown they will resign from the Labor Party. If they have any credibility and intestinal fortitude they will take the same principled action that I took.

[Debate interrupted.]

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit up to 10 additional members to speak to the motion for five minutes each.

[Debate resumed.]

Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [8.38 p.m.]: The National Party is all over the place when it comes to expanding Bankstown Airport and restricting regional access to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. When one sees how weak the National Party has been on this issue it is not hard to work out why voters around Australia are deserting the National Party in droves. National Party members no longer have the will to stand up to their Liberal colleagues. They are simply unwilling or unable to represent the interests of regional and rural families. On Bankstown Airport the best National Party members have been able to do is to wheel out that master of mishaps, the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Transport and Leader of the Federal National Party, Mr John Anderson, who said rather cagily that "the Federal Government will not force regional airlines to land at Bankstown". We all know that after his performances over the last month any promises, especially those fragile ones, made by Mr Anderson should be taken with more than a grain of salt. The key word in Mr Anderson's so-called promise is "force". Compare this to the statement by the Premier, which concluded by saying:

This is why under no circumstances will the New South Wales government support any proposal that increases the capacity of or diverts regional airlines to Bankstown.

There it is in black and white! The Federal Government still has to give such a commitment. The honourable member for Tamworth, Mr Tony Windsor, for one, saw straight through Mr Anderson's pledge. This was reported in the Namoi Valley Independent on Thursday 26 October 2000:

Mr Windsor said today that he had no doubt that the Federal Government would use pricing policy and other incentives to remove regional airlines from the congested flight paths over Kingsford-Smith.

The Namoi Valley Independent went on to quote the honourable member for Tamworth directly. Mr Windsor said:

The choice of words is clever.

That is a bit hard to imagine as the words come from a member of the National Party. He continued:

They are not forcing them but making it hard so they will go quietly.

What Mr Windsor was getting at is right on the money. He was spot on in that regard. If the Federal Government increased Kingsford Smith airport access prices—that is, prices for landing slots and takeoffs—that would make it impossible for regional airlines to land at Mascot. Quite simply, it would be too expensive for them to land there. Regional carriers would have no option but to land at Bankstown, otherwise they would be out of business. But by landing at Bankstown, they would put their businesses at risk because of adverse reaction by customers who now use their services. The Federal Government knows this. It will not force regional airlines; it will simply send them broke.

Mr Fraser: Point of order: This debate is wide ranging, and I believe the honourable member for Tamworth will contribute to it shortly, but I wonder whether the honourable member for Bathurst is speaking on his own behalf or on behalf of the honourable member for Tamworth.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Beamer): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr MARTIN: I thought it appropriate to quote the remarks of the nemesis of the National Party. He has them frightened witless. They do not know whether he will be the next Federal member for Gwydir or New England. I can understand why National Party members would not want to hear statements made by Mr Windsor. One of the main reasons that John Howard and John Anderson do not want to do anything about this issue is their interest in privatisation and the dollars of the big end of town. They want the little regional operators out of Mascot because they know that will mean more money on the bottom line of privatisation. The Coalition is dominated by the top end of town. Apart from depriving country travellers of equal access to Mascot, treating them like second-class citizens and having a massive impact on the community of Bankstown—possibly even closing a local school—forcing regional airlines to land at Bankstown will have one other unexpected consequence. The impact of that should send a shiver down the spine of the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, who has been quoted in the local press as saying:

To have to play second place to a German tourist in the way we are treated by the Government—it's wrong.

I suggest he not go to Germany for a holiday! He has pledged—call him silly or whatever you like—that if country travellers are deprived of access to Mascot airport, he is on his way out. Many people think he will not have to make that decision. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr R. W. TURNER (Orange) [8.43 p.m.]: I speak to the motion in full confidence that the honourable member for Murrumbidgee will not have to resign because regional airlines will not be moving from Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. Much has been said about Bankstown Airport being upgraded. The Prime Minister has said time and again that Bankstown Airport may be upgraded to take jets. He has not referred to regional aircraft, turboprop aircraft or the other smaller aircraft that now land at Kingsford Smith airport; he has only spoken about upgrading Bankstown Airport for jets. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Federal Leader of the National Party, John Anderson, has said time and again that Kingsford Smith airport will be available for regional aircraft and that regional operators will have equitable and affordable landing rights. I understand that further legislation will be introduced in the Federal Parliament very soon to cement that position. I do not know what else we must say.

The Federal Government has assured regional operators that they will be able to land at Kingsford Smith airport and that they will continue to have for many years to come the affordable and equitable rights that they have had for many years. What happens at Bankstown really has nothing to do with regional air services, because they will not be landing at Bankstown. A National Party delegation met with the Bankstown authorities last year. Those authorities are virtually the allies of regional airline operators because they do not want regional aircraft landing at Bankstown. The regional services will continue to operate into Kingsford Smith airport.

Hazelton Airlines, a company which was founded just out of Orange and has services operating all over New South Wales, has another concern. I call on the State Government to support Hazelton against the consumer watchdog that is thwarting Hazelton’s takeover by Ansett. While indecision about the takeover exists, and to some extent because of higher fuel prices that are beyond the control of Hazelton, that airline is being crippled. The Central Western Daily of Saturday 24 February carried an article noting that this year, for the first time in many years, Hazelton reported a loss, in the order of $1.7 million, compared with a $561,000 profit the year before.

The State Government would be far more positive if it supported that takeover of Hazelton, because Hazelton acknowledges that it will not be able to survive in the more competitive market with other airlines. We all know that Hazelton is a family country airline. The days of such operators are gone. Hazelton, to survive, needs whatever support the State Government can give in respect of that takeover. It has been seen on television and printed in all the print media, and is to be strengthened in legislation by John Anderson this year, that regional airlines will continue to have affordable and equitable access to Kingsford Smith airport. Therefore, I do not know why we are debating this matter tonight, and the honourable member for Murrumbidgee will not have to resign.

Ms MEGARRITY (Menai) [8.47 p.m.]: I wholeheartedly support the motion before the House because my community and I are very angry about many policies and practices of the Howard Government, but particularly those to do with airports. The Federal Coalition has delivered to us a double whammy in the time it has been in government. The first was between May 1996 and September 1997, when we had the Holsworthy environmental impact statement [EIS] and the anguish that went with that 16-month debacle—an initiative that was abandoned before it was even completed. Then we had the announcement about Bankstown—another unacceptable impact on the Menai electorate, which includes the Sutherland, Bankstown and Liverpool areas.

I should inform the House that my electorate will be subjected to noise levels ranging from a jackhammer in the suburbs nearest to the airport—that is, the Chipping Norton and Moorebank area—through to noise equal to a semitrailer under full acceleration—such as Padstow and Alfords Point—and reducing to the noise level of a lawnmower at the other end of the electorate, for example Bangor. Indeed, as my colleague the honourable member for Miranda has pointed out tonight, the jet aircraft will fly as low as 2,600 feet over Sylvania and Kangaroo Point on their descent into Bankstown. I know how important it is to quote sources accurately, so I would like to quote exactly what the honourable member for Miranda said to me:

737’s at 2 600 feet won't just interfere with the TV reception.

Aircraft noise, the smell of aviation fuel and the increased fears of accident over homes will force stress levels up and property values down—threatening the quality of life for those living in suburbs right across the Miranda electorate.

Like its Kurnell decision, the Federal Government's decision to expand Bankstown is ill-considered and irresponsible.

Perhaps the House would like to hear what has been said by Bankstown Mayor Kevin Hill:

We are looking at having jet aircraft coming directly over Bankstown Hospital at 1400 feet. There is no curfew at Bankstown, so we're looking at planes roaring over schools, homes and hospitals 24 hours.

What about property values? Certainly, the experience of the Holsworthy EIS showed the effects that such proposals have on property values. They plunged in the suburbs near Holsworthy. With the stroke of a pen, the Federal Government successfully slashed thousands of dollars from the value of family homes. I am aware of home auctions that were cancelled due to lack of interest on the first weekend after the announcement. It is little wonder that people are angry. They are also angry that, for several years, the Howard Government has been denying that it has any plans at all to upgrade Bankstown Airport. In September 1999 I moved a motion for urgent consideration in this House to consider the tourism task force proposal. There were cries from across the Chamber, "It is not going to happen. It is just scaremongering. There is no truth in it whatsoever." Rumours persisted and physical indications of improvement on the site—expansion by stealth, if you like—kept occurring. The Premier wrote to the Federal Minister for Transport in March 2000 stating, amongst other issues, in his letter:

On behalf of the NSW Government, I strongly urge you to reject any plans to forcibly transfer regional airlines away from Kingsford-Smith Airport.

Then, of course, on that fateful day, 13 December 2000—it was a Wednesday not a Friday, even though it was the thirteenth—our worst fears were realised. The Federal Government announced—not merely proposed but announced—the expansion of Bankstown Airport. No details have been forthcoming and, unlike my honourable colleagues across the Chamber, in order to get some details have actually had to read the words and do something I thought I would never do, that is, quote the Prime Minister in this House. In a transcript of his interview on his own web site on 13 December 2000 he said:

We have a very planned, logical approach to Sydney's airport needs.

Well, I could not think of one community in Sydney or New South Wales that would agree with him on that. The journalist talked about the issue of compensation, whether or not there would be glazing. The Prime Minister responded:

Well that's something that we would along the way look at. I am not going to say yes or no to that. It's something we would look at and we would naturally try and treat the people surrounding that airport as fairly as we have treated other people in the past. We have no desire to treat them badly but I am not in a position to say yes or no to that, it's something that we would obviously consider.

Save us from the Federal Government's fair treatment. The journalist then asked about the overflow to Bankstown being mostly regional airlines. This is very important. Pay attention to this one, you have got it wrong. The journalist asked:

Do you expect the overflow to Bankstown to be mostly regional airlines—

The Prime Minister replied:

Well you're going to have a less regulated pricing environment there. You're going to have separate ownership. It would be open for example to one of the more recent discount fare operators to consider it. I am not saying they will, I've not had any discussions, I don't know. But it's not just to be seen in terms of overflow of regionals, it could be more than that.

The conversation went on and again the Prime Minister reiterated that it was a very logical thing to do. The other thing that he pointed out to the journalist was that on every criteria it could be justified. Here he is saying he has not had these discussions but then actually argued that on its merits, on every criteria, it could be justified. I will be happy to provide this document to members of the Opposition who do not seem to have read it in detail. The local Federal member, Danna Vale, has been less than helpful and is trying to get us to accept regional airlines but not jets. We will not accept that compromise. It is not acceptable to my community and we will not stand for it.

Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [8.52 p.m.]: I am probably unique in this debate. I come from the only area in New South Wales that is fighting to get airports and keep them.

Ms Megarrity: Oh, you can have them!

Mr GEORGE: If you would like to transfer it up to the Lismore electorate we can accommodate you quite readily. I am not surprised that the Government sought to bring this matter on today because it knows, and so does the Minister for Local Government, that the transport infrastructure from Bankstown and western Sydney into the Sydney central business district is atrocious. There is no way in the world that it can accommodate any more traffic. Indeed, the western suburbs of Sydney are currently revolting against the Government because of what it has done by way of tolls, et cetera.

Mr Stewart: It really showed in Campbelltown.

Mr GEORGE: Yes, it certainly did. Wait until the next one! Clearly there is more than one reason why the option, if there were an option, of regional airlines relocating to Bankstown Airport it is not acceptable. It is clearly a non-negotiable right of country people to have equal access to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. So far as the New South Wales National Party is concerned, this is a heartland issue on which there is no room to compromise and we have made that quite clear in previous debates in this House. I agree with the honourable member for Orange that the honourable member for Murrumbidgee will not be resigning. He will not have to resign. The National Party, at both Federal and State level, has fought tooth and nail to ensure that regional airlines are not diverted to Bankstown Airport or to anywhere else.

Mrs Lo Po': Well done—or to Badgerys Creek.

Mr GEORGE: Or to Badgerys Creek, for that matter. Honourable members on both sides of the House should remember that this is an equity of access issue. Regional passengers have the same right to Kingsford Smith airport as international visitors and other interstate travellers. Access to the Sydney central business district is essential to rural and regional New South Wales for business.

Mr Greene: Are you going to vote with us?

Mr GEORGE: One thing about it, we have debated these issues so many times you can just use the same speech over and over.

Mr Greene: You and Chris Hartcher.

Mr GEORGE: I plagiarised, too—using my own notes. Diverting these airlines would also act as a major disincentive to decentralisation and the establishment of industries in country areas. The collective time that would be wasted if rural and regional flights were diverted is enormous. Rural and regional businesses would be slugged with extra costs, not to mention inconvenience. It is my fear that many journeys would be abandoned, leading to a stunting of economic development in country areas. The 30 per cent of travellers who make connecting flights would be severely disadvantaged.

If the number of aircraft that passed through Sydney airport during the Olympics can be accommodated, together with regional airline access, there should be no question of moving regional airlines for decades beyond the Olympic Games. That has been proved. Before we consider moving regional airlines, we should consider moving corporate jets, freight-only aircraft and helicopters. I am confident that regional airlines will certainly stay at Kingsford Smith airport. I have no fear that the National Party and Mr Anderson will deliver on the promise to keep regional airlines at Kingsford Smith airport.

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [8.57 p.m.]: The decision announced by the Federal Government, and in particular by the Prime Minister, in December to expand dramatically the operations of Bankstown Airport is an absolute disgrace. It will have an unacceptable impact upon suburbs within the electorate of Liverpool. The suburbs that are closest to the Bankstown site will, of course, be the worst affected. In particular that includes the suburbs of Lansvale, Warwick Farm and the suburb of Liverpool. My opposition to the development of Bankstown Airport is very clear. My opposition to it and the opposition of those who have at heart the best interests of south-west Sydney extends not only to the landing of jets but to the landing of regional airlines of any sort at Bankstown Airport. There is in fact an appalling campaign being waged by a number of people to only oppose landing jets at Bankstown Airport, and not to oppose the landing of regional airlines.

I would particularly direct the attention of honourable members to the antics of the Federal member for Hughes, Danna Vale, who is a member of the Federal Government. Danna Vale has adopted the fascinating position of saying, "We are happy to have regionals in Bankstown, we just do not want 737s." She is even happy to have the smaller jets. The only aircraft she is opposed to is the 737. She is delighted and in correspondence she has encouraged regional airlines to start landing at Bankstown Airport. It seems to me that members of the National Party in this Chamber have a little bit of accounting to do with their Liberal colleagues. That is clearly the position that Danna Vale is pursuing.

If honourable members doubt my presentation of what she said, I refer them to the direct mail letter she sent everyone in her electorate dated 17 January and headed, "Objection to 737s using Bankstown Airport". Her letter goes on at great length about the horror of 737s using Bankstown Airport, but then goes on to note that regional airlines in some cases already use Bankstown and that that is not going to be a problem. The argument that one can oppose jets but let regional airlines in is a dishonest argument. Once you let regional airlines in Bankstown Airport you will inevitably have jets coming there. That flows inevitably from the way that regional airlines work, because if someone wants to use a regional airline to get into Bankstown, they will want to jump into a jet to go somewhere else.

It is absurd to expect people who want to go overseas in a jet to fly from one part of New South Wales to another via a regional airline and then to another. Those are the sorts of people who will demand that jets land at Bankstown Airport. The Liberal Party member for Hughes and people like her are putting the thin edge of the wedge into this argument by suggesting that regional airlines should be allowed into Bankstown. That will inevitably mean that jets will start to use Bankstown. In addition, the dramatic increase in traffic resulting from regional airlines going into Bankstown—without the inclusion of jets—will have an unacceptable impact on people who live in that area. Much has been said about John Anderson and other people opposing the inclusion of regional airlines at Bankstown. It was interesting to hear those arguments. I direct the attention of those who are interested to a radio interview with John Anderson on 13 December—the day this announcement was made. I place on the record part of what John Anderson said:

The new owner of Bankstown would be encouraged to develop a bit of an overflow airport to take access traffic from Kingsford Smith with an extended runway and new terminal facilities. Bankstown will be able to offer attractive services and pricing arrangements that will encourage airline operators to run services out of western Sydney. The critical point, however, is that current access to Kingsford Smith airport is guaranteed for regional airlines. If they choose to operate services out of Bankstown that is a matter entirely for their commercial judgment.

So John Anderson said, "We will have a commercial environment. We will have privatised airports and we will see what happens with commercial pressures." That is a clear indication that he expects regional airlines to go to Bankstown. Anyone in the National Party who argues against that is arguing against the black and white press statements issued by John Anderson and the comments he made to the press in December. The proposal to expand Bankstown is thoroughly unacceptable. The announcement was made not as a proposal but as a Cabinet decision without an environmental impact statement, without adequate planning and without the provision of appropriate infrastructure.

In addition, it is simply wrong to whack down in the middle of a heavy residential area increased numbers of additional aircraft. People who live in that area now made a decision to live there in the expectation that there would not be a massive expansion of the airport. I have not observed any campaign to shut down Bankstown Airport. Frankly, no-one with any credibility in south-western Sydney would argue that it should be shut down. However, the justifiable and moral position is that people do not want Bankstown Airport dramatically expanded. It would be totally unacceptable if it were dramatically expanded. Howard, Anderson and the rest of them have decided to punish those who are living in south-western Sydney as they do not vote for the Federal Government.

Mr TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [9.02 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for East Hills for introducing this matter for urgent consideration. It is appropriate that we continue to express our views on this issue, given the way in which it has been handled by the Federal Government and, in particular, by the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party. Members of the community have been given only bits and pieces of information on this issue. They do not have a clear blueprint of the Federal Government's agenda. We heard from other honourable members who spoke in debate on this issue about the release of the tourism task force report—a destructive document which placed the community on notice that the Federal Government had prepared agendas in corridors and back rooms that were not being scrutinised. Those are the sorts of agendas that the Federal Government prepared relating to the access of country commuters to Kingsford Smith airport.

We also heard a great deal about the commitment of the Federal Government and, in particular, the commitment of the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to this issue. I was pleased to hear the honourable member for Lismore read out the promises of the Deputy Prime Minister. I note the careful use of language and the appropriate use of the term "not forced". The upgrade to Bankstown Airport will continue to raise concerns because the term "not forced" can mean whatever the Federal Government wants it to mean. Country people have drawn no comfort from the Federal Government's commitments. One point which I would like to touch on which has not been raised in debate tonight is the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister is also the Minister for Regional Services. The announcement that has been made will basically cap the slots.

In other words, under the policy of the Federal Minister for Regional Services, the country is not supposed to grow. That is a disgrace. In effect, that is saying that the slots will be capped and the overflow will go to Bankstown. It is false to suggest that country commuters will not go to Bankstown. The statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister was quite clear: the overflow will go to Bankstown. Clearly, that is what he said. The second thing that the Deputy Prime Minister said is that the number of country commuters will be capped. So the Minister for Regional Services said, "We hope that the number of country commuters does not grow."

Mr Piccoli: What would you do?

Mr TORBAY: The Minister for Regional Services said, "If the number of country commuters grows, we are not supposed to allow them access to Kingsford Smith airport." I am happy to acknowledge one of the points raised by the honourable member for Orange and other honourable members who said that there is capacity at Kingsford Smith airport, which answers in part the loud interjection of the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, who is feeling the pressure in relation to this issue. Many honourable members have referred to the fact that the capacity of Kingsford Smith airport is substantial. The political issue with which we are dealing, however, relates to noise. The honourable member for Lismore said earlier that the capacity of Kingsford Smith airport was clearly demonstrated when the Sydney Olympic Games were staged. That answers the interjection raised by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee. The answer is very clear: there is substantial capacity at Kingsford Smith airport. The main political issue driving debate on this issue relates to noise.

The Federal Government failed to determine the capacity of Kingsford Smith airport and it failed to resolve other issues. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Federal Government have made no decisions. Essentially, the statements that they have made will result in the deferring of any decisions. People in regional New South Wales are not comfortable as they do not really know what the Federal Government's agenda is. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission clearly stated that the increases in prices and other discriminatory practices that will take place in the short, medium or long term will disadvantage country people. One thing that I am prepared to acknowledge is that members of the National Party and members of the Coalition have been supportive of this Government's recommendations and resolutions. I reject completely the assertion that the decisions and the announcements made by the Deputy Prime Minister should cause us all to breathe easily. Country people want to know what the Federal Government is doing in relation to this issue. They do not want the issue deferred until after the next Federal election.

Mr STEWART (Bankstown) [9.07 p.m.]: A year and a half ago the honourable member for Bathurst, the Minister for Regional Development and I met the manager of Hazelton Airlines at Bathurst Airport. We stood in the middle of Bathurst Airport and, thankfully, no aircraft was landing at the time. One of the concerns that was raised related to any possible expansion of Bankstown Airport. It was the view at the time that that would impact on all regional airports, result in a loss of business in country New South Wales and effectively close down regional airports. If such an expansion occurred country folk who went to Bankstown Airport would have to be sent back to Kingsford Smith airport as 85 per cent of those passengers go on to other destinations. The Prime Minister's office said that it was ridiculous for anyone to go to Bathurst and talk about a possible expansion of Bankstown Airport.

In November last year I announced in this House that I had spoken with people who have business interests at Bankstown Airport. They advised me that they had already been shown secret plans for the expansion of Bankstown Airport. They were told that those plans were inevitable and that the plans would force regional airlines to come to Bankstown. Earlier today the honourable member for Murrumbidgee said that he would resign. He should have said that he would resign if there were any expansion of Bankstown Airport. Any expansion of Bankstown Airport would simply mean that regional aircraft would be forced to use that airport. There are no ifs or buts about that. On 13 December—that fateful day—the Prime Minister and the Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, made that announcement. When being interviewed by a journalist, the Prime Minister said:

Does the expression "red herring" apply?

Tonight the Opposition would lead us to believe that it is a red herring, a furphy, that there are no expansion opportunities for Bankstown, and even if there were, who is going to land there? It does not matter, because the planes will still land at Kingsford Smith airport [KSA]. It is garbage, it is not on. The Prime Minister said:

That is not right either. This is a very big decision, and it is a decision that we are going to stay with and make because it is sure to go through.

Bankstown Airport will be expanded and privatised; it will be competitive with KSA and regional airlines will be forced to become competitive. As the honourable member for Orange said, they need to be more competitive with the price of petrol to get their planes into the air. We already know that there are minimal slots available at KSA, and none available in most outs at peak times. It is an inevitable consequence that the big guns will force regional airlines out of KSA.

Mr Piccoli: Offer to resign if the Labor Party does not reverse that.

Mr STEWART: Unfortunately, that is a Coalition decision and you are left with it. In a press release John Anderson said:

The new owner of Bankstown—

that is Bankstown Airport, no-one would buy Bankstown—

would be encouraged to develop it as an overflow airport—

that is a euphemism—

to take in excess traffic from Kingsford Smith with an extended runway and new terminal facilities.

Now here is the catch:

Bankstown will be able to offer attractive services and pricing arrangements that will encourage airline operators to run services out of western Sydney.

What does "encourage" mean? It means that the operators will be forced, because they will not be able to compete with the big guns, they will not be able to keep up with the economies of scale that are required by a competitive airline. They will be forced to go to Bankstown. Country people will be forced to take a packed lunch and compass to find their way back to KSA to travel on to other destinations. That is a ridiculous proposition. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services held this back from the public until the eleventh hour, at Christmas time. The people of Bankstown were given a Christmas present, they were told that Bankstown Airport was to be expanded and privatised, and would cop the overflow, and they would have to put up with it. There was no environmental impact study, no consultation. It is not on.

Mr Piccoli: Offer to resign.

Mr STEWART: The honourable member for Murrumbidgee should offer to resign and be honest about this. The people of Bankstown do not want any expansion, and that is what he should stick to—no expansion at all.

Mr GLACHAN (Albury) [9.12 p.m.]: I have listened to the debate from members on both sides of the House. We all agree that regional airlines should not be forced to go to Bankstown Airport, and no-one in country New South Wales wants them to go to Bankstown. We are totally opposed to that. Not so long ago, businesspeople from country New South Wales visited Sydney on rare occasions. When they did they were prepared to take a long time to get there, they went by train. They did not complain about difficulties or problems in getting to Sydney to carry out their business. But times have changed. Country people need timely and cost-effective access to the Sydney central business district.

The problem is not only whether country people will be able to get into Kingsford Smith or Bankstown but also the cost of the fares, the enormous cost of getting to Sydney. I can fly from Sydney to New Zealand and return cheaper than I can fly from Albury to Sydney. That is a disgraceful state of affairs and no-one on the other side the House seems to be concerned about the burden placed on country people who need to do business in Sydney. I have an enormous fear of country people having to go to Bankstown Airport. I went there during an airline strike to charter an aircraft to my electorate in Albury. It took me a long time to get to Bankstown and then a long time to get to the Bankstown Airport. The facilities were primitive and it took a long time to clear the airport. It was a long journey and most inconvenient.

Many country people, if forced to go to Bankstown Airport, would get lost in the traffic in the western suburbs of Sydney—many would never be seen again. It would be completely unfair to expect them to go to Bankstown. Members on the other side the House seem to be concerned that the Federal Government will force country people to fly to Bankstown Airport instead of Kingsford Smith airport. I am more optimistic; country members of the Federal Government understand the needs of country people. They will not force country people to go to Bankstown Airport. This is a great fuss about nothing, and we will not be forced to do it. Members of the Federal Government have far more concern for country New South Wales, and they will make sure that we are well looked after and will always have access to Kingsford Smith airport.

Mr McGRANE (Dubbo) [9.15 p.m.]: I agree with the sentiments expressed tonight by members on both sides of the House regarding access to Bankstown Airport by regional airlines. No-one has spoken in support of regional airlines being forced to go to Bankstown. The airport that serves my electorate of Dubbo has approximately 120,000 movements per annum; 29 per cent of that traffic goes interstate and 6 per cent goes overseas. That number of movements cannot be accommodated at Bankstown. The honourable member for Albury said he had flown out of Bankstown Airport once. I have flown from there on a number of occasions, and the last time it cost me $61 in cab fare and 50 minutes of my time to travel from the central business district to Bankstown.

That is an extraordinary impost on regional commuters who need to do business in the city. Of course, it is not only country people who do business in the city that need access to KSA; professional people also fly to regional areas from KSA. Most professionals who provide a great service to regional New South Wales, such as legal people, medical people or economists, live in the eastern suburbs or on the north shore. In general they fly in and out of regional areas, such as Dubbo, Wagga Wagga, Albury, Tamworth and Armidale, in a day. A large percentage of professional people would be reluctant to go to Bankstown Airport to take a flight to regional areas. Therefore, regional areas would lose the expert advice that they get from city people who visit their areas. Professional people would not be willing to travel for an extra hour in the morning and in the evening.

That impost has not been emphasised enough. In terms of air movements, Bankstown Airport is the fifth busiest airport in the world—a rather striking figure. Where are all those movements to go if regional airlines, and others, are sent to Bankstown? Where are the aircraft currently using Bankstown to go? I have heard nothing about that from those who believe that Bankstown should be the airport accessed by regional people. Of course, the sale of Bankstown and Kingsford Smith airports are of concern, because of the number of slots available. I hope the Federal Government will tie the same time slots accessed by regional airlines to KSA into the documents at a reasonable price. That price should be tied into the consumer price index. If that happens, regional airlines utilising KSA will have some safety.

If that is the case, the price Kingsford Smith airport [KSA] will bring on the commercial market will be lower. Therefore, it is a catch-22 situation. When the Federal Government sells its assets—and it wants to sell KSA and Bankstown Airport, perhaps the only two airports left in Australia that have not been privatised—and it locks the slots for regional airlines at the present number, keeping any increase in the consumer price index separate, the price it will get for those airports will be lower. That is a great worry. In a sense, with regard to the regional airlines and the upgrading of Bankstown Airport it is a no-go for everyone but the aircraft using it at present. For those reasons I support the motion.

Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [9.20 p.m.]: I have not heard all of this debate. A lot of it has probably gone over old ground so I will not go over the reasons country people should have access to Kingsford Smith airport. Regardless of what side of politics we are on, most of us understand why country people need access to that airport. During the debate several questions have been asked by way of interjection about what should be done. The honourable member for Northern Tablelands was asked by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee what he would do about the problem. We have to recognise that the underlying strategy behind the running of Kingsford Smith airport is not about equity for anyone; it is about dollars. Whatever one does for country people, someone else's dollars will be affected, whether it be the dollars of a major airline or the dollars paid for the sale of the airport.

To take up the challenge, there are two things I would do. If I were the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport, the first thing I would do is examine the way in which the slots are organised and the way in which noise politics have been played out in relation to Kingsford Smith airport. It is an absolute disgrace that the airport has a cap of 80 movements per hour. It is a disgrace that the noise made by the aircraft used by country commuters is compared with the noise made by the aircraft used by major airlines. The noise made by country aircraft does not reach the decibel levels of the noise made by the aircraft used by major airlines and because of the height at which they approach the airport they do not have any impact on the people who live around the airport. It is a joke to cap the airport's movements at 80 per hour in peak times. The airport is able to run at a far greater capacity.

If I were the Deputy Prime Minister and in charge of transport issues, the first thing I would do would be to go to the Prime Minister and say, "This is a joke, we are playing noise politics in relation to this issue. Regardless of the argument coming from Costello and Fahey, the cap of 80 movements an hour is ridiculous and country airlines, which are not making noise, should be allowed to continue to use the airport." The second thing I would do would be to impose by way of legislation a charter of user rights if the airport is privatised. About three or four years ago the former Leader of the National Party in this House and I met with the former Federal Minister for Transport, Mark Vaile, relating to imposing a charter of user rights on the privatisation process, an issue that had arisen at the Country Summit that I had been involved with.

We left that meeting charged up with the idea that we could, as a community service obligation, build into the sale of this airport guaranteed access for country commuters. Nothing has happened. I do not know why that is so. Perhaps it is because Mark Vaile was deposed as Minister for Transport and we now have a do-nothing Minister. So in answer to the honourable member for Murrumbidgee I would first look at the noise politics, because what happens to the airport is a classic case of the Liberal Party telling the National Party what to do. The second thing I would do is put in place a legitimate charter of user rights for country commuters to our capital city if the airport is sold.

Mr R. H. L. SMITH (Bega) [9.25 p.m.]: As the honourable member for Tamworth has said, most of the relevant points have already been made. There is no point in people from my electorate and other country areas flying into Bankstown Airport. That is not what they want to do. Generally, airlines that have recognised the real needs of country people, such as Hazelton, which flies into my area, realise that the early morning and late evening flights are what country people want. Appointments—whether they be medical, business or whatever—can be met in a day and the people can return to their homes within normal business hours. If that is changed and they do not have the early morning and late evening slot, they simply have to stay overnight. Bankstown Airport is too far out of the city or the central business district, where most of them want to do their business or visit their doctors.

Regional airlines can undoubtedly work out the economics, but the air fare from Bega to Sydney is exorbitant. The plane starts at Merimbula, goes to Moruya and then comes to Sydney. The return fare is more than $500—around $520 or $530. That is an exorbitant amount of money for someone to come up to Sydney to do a day's business or visit a doctor. Country people certainly do not want to go to Bankstown Airport and have the added expense of a huge taxi fare to the central business district, and perhaps the cost of an overnight stay as well.

I do not believe that under any government regional airlines will be diverted to Bankstown. Country areas are exerting considerable political pressure. Country people will say to any government that decides to do that, "You're finished, you're out." I do not care if it is a government on my side of politics: the Opposition here or the Government in Canberra. I agree with the honourable member for Tamworth that Kingsford Smith airport is not used to its full capacity by any means. The Government should reconsider some of its options for Kingsford Smith airport—freight, helicopters, executive jets—before any regional airline is excluded. The plan is not feasible. Regional airlines would go bankrupt if it was implemented. Country people would lodge a major protest to the Federal Government. I agree with what has been said by members on both sides of this House. We do not want regional airlines to be relocated to Bankstown. That should be a unanimous decision by this House, and I am sure it will be.

Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [9.29 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members, particularly those on this side of the Chamber, who have contributed to this debate. This is not the first time this matter has been brought to the attention of the State Parliament. Let us remember that this plan is no longer a proposal by the Federal Government. This proposal is now ready for sign-off by John Anderson, the relevant Minister, has the power to sign off on the full privatisation of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport [KSA] and Bankstown Airport. The fees will be so high that little planes from country areas will be flying into my electorate. Millions of dollars were lost recently by the general aviation industry when water was found in the tanks of small aeroplanes. That is the sort of control those people have over the Federal aviation industry. If the Federal Government fully privatises KSA, Bankstown Airport safety standards will be lower than they are at present.

Mr Piccoli: That is a bit of an exaggeration.

Mr ASHTON: I understand that the interjector and former member of the National Party has made the comment that only State members of Parliament were present at the rally. He is only a State member of Parliament. That is a silly thing for him to say. Also present were councillors, deputy mayors and members of the public. The next Minister for Transport of this country and the potential Deputy Prime Minister, Martin Ferguson, was a key speaker at the rally.

Mr Stewart: But not Danna Vale.

Mr ASHTON: But not Danna Vale. In the past few days she has said, "It will be war. There will be no airport at Bankstown." Why? She has to hold the electorate of Hughes. John Howard is trying to save this triumvirate of electorates for his girlfriend, Jackie Kelly, and a couple of other people in Macquarie and Parramatta. He is going to lose Danna Vale, who has done nothing on this issue until the honourable member for Menai and I raised it. Danna Vale is now aggressively talking about fighting against the proposal. The Coalition cannot win every electorate. If it loses those other electorates it might win Hughes. More than likely it will lose the lot of them. Martin Ferguson was present at the rally. We know more about the problems of the honourable member for Murrumbidgee than he knows about who was present at the rally.

Bankstown Airport is 10 kilometres from KSA. One could not think of many parts of the world where two major airports are that close together—certainly not England. At Bankstown there is virtually no latitude for error in the landing or take-off of larger planes. The new flight paths reveal that hundreds of thousands of Sydneysiders will be affected by this dangerous folly. Planes will be flying over the electorate of Bankstown, which comprises 21 suburbs. In addition, the suburbs of Liverpool, Fairfield, Hurstville, Parramatta, Canterbury, Sutherland, Auburn and Holroyd will be affected by the flight paths at Bankstown Airport. When National Party members see the flight paths they will freak out. The intersection with KSA flight paths also presents potentially disastrous results for aviation safety in Australia generally.

At present Bankstown Airport does not have a curfew. As honourable members know, the airport can and does operate 24 hours a day. We often hear the expression "not in my backyard." Some governments criticise people who adopt that attitude and say they are selfish and ignore the community's needs. The Federal Government will be in office for only another six to eight months. The Opposition knows that; we know it and we love it. The Australian Labor Party will make that decision in the end. We say to the present Federal Government "Not in our backyard: We do not want your fuel depots in Bankstown, we do not want your taxi ranks, we do not want extended runways, we do not want jets crashing into our suburbs, we do not want an international terminal with free drinks at the top of the stairs for the rich people who own the airports."

Mr R. H. L. Smith: And members of Parliament.

Mr ASHTON: I have not been on any flight on a parliamentary warrant since I was elected. The National Party members will not drive a car. They want to flit around the countryside.

Mr Piccoli: I live 700 kilometres away, you clown.

Mr ASHTON: You should live further away, considering the value you are in this Parliament. Our backyards are under constant attack. What is it about Sydney south-western suburbs that the Coalition hates so much? Not long ago we fought tirelessly against Holsworthy. A nuclear reactor is being built at Lucas Heights in the middle of Danna Vale's electorate of Hughes. Danna Vale loves that. She wants a nuclear reactor. We would take Johnny Howard on a tour through it. I want to make it clear for the eighth time, in case the Opposition does not understand, that the Government will fight this proposal. We will blow it out of the sky. This is the first time National Party members have sat in the House for a debate about this issue. They should join the country Independents because if they do not resign they will not be members of this House for long. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee is on the verge of being thrown out. There is already a big file on his behaviour. The National Party members should be honest like the honourable member for Northern Tablelands, the honourable member for Tamworth and the honourable member for Dubbo. They should represent country people and leave Bankstown Airport alone.

Motion agreed to.

Motion by Mr Amery agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the introduction and progress up to and including the Minister's second reading speech of the Cattle Compensation Repeal Bill, notice of which was given this day for tomorrow.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt—Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [9.36 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Cattle Compensation Act 1951. The Cattle Compensation Act 1951 established the Cattle Compensation Fund to provide compensation for cattle ordered to be destroyed because they were infected or suspected of being infected with disease. The main disease for which compensation was paid was originally tuberculosis, but the list of diseases changed from time to time. The compensation fund was initially financed by a stamp duty on the sale of cattle, then by a stamp duty on cattle delivered to an abattoir for slaughter. A levy was also placed on cattle rated by pastures protection boards, now known as rural lands protection boards.

After the abolition of the levy and the stamp duty in 1979 and 1987 respectively, the fund was sustained solely by interest earned. By 1993 the fund had a balance of more than $9 million. Under the original Act, money in the fund could only be used for compensation or for the purpose of administering the Act. By that time little of the money in the fund was being used to pay compensation. Therefore, the Act was amended in that year to authorise payment of moneys from the fund for other purposes benefiting the cattle industry. These included the payment of money to fund research, inquiries, investigations, surveys and tests in relation to the cattle industry. The amending Act also established the Cattle Compensation Advisory Committee to provide advice to the Minister on the expenditure of money in the fund. As well, the amendment required ministerial review of the purposes and operation of the fund in five years. This five-year review was completed in August 1998.

The review recommended that the fund should continue until all allocated funds had been expended, authorised research projects had been completed and a competition policy review of the Act had been undertaken. The Cattle Compensation Act is now considered to be defunct. On the advice of the Cattle Compensation Advisory Committee all the money in the compensation fund has been allocated, with no further sources of funds being available. In addition, as part of the Government's continuing process of regulatory review, a competition policy and regulatory best practice review of the Act is being undertaken.

Mr Stoner: Not competition policy again.

Mr AMERY: Yes. This is one of the many provisions of legislation and regulation that has to be reviewed pursuant to our obligations under the competition policy agreement.

Mr R. H. L. Smith: Which you signed off on.

Mr AMERY: Which the Federal Howard Government has not cancelled. Despite all the comments by Deputy Prime Minister Anderson, it seems to be carrying on at full speed.

Mr R. H. L. Smith: Which all States signed off on, including the Carr Government.

Mr AMERY: Do not speak too loudly. The Federal Government deals with competition policy and acts on the recommendations of Graham Samuel. The Federal Government makes the recommendations. It has not backed away from competition policy.

Mr R. H. L. Smith: The State Government has taken the money and run. It has signed off on the competition policy agreement.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bega will have an opportunity to speak in the debate at the appropriate time.

Mr AMERY: Although the competition policy review is not yet complete, the final review group report will almost certainly recommend that the Act be repealed. Members of the review group support the proposal for immediate repeal of the Act. One reason for this is that the Act is the cause of a tax problem for cattle producers whose stock are destroyed or sold for slaughter because of Johne's disease. This problem can be solved simply by repealing the Act immediately.

Under subdivision 385E of the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, primary producers may elect to exclude from assessable income any profit on the forced disposal or death of livestock held as assets of a primary production business carried on in Australia. The election to defer or spread tax profit may be made when a taxpayer's livestock are compulsorily destroyed under an Australian law. The Australian Taxation Office has confirmed that this election is available to New South Wales primary producers who destroy or dispose of stock because of Johne's disease, provided the stock are destroyed or disposed of pursuant to an order for movement to slaughter under the New South Wales Stock Diseases Act 1923.

Following that advice, orders for the destruction of sheep in order to control Johne's disease have been given under the Stock Diseases Act, enabling sheep producers to access benefits of the election under the Income Tax Assessment Act. However, orders for destruction have not been made in respect of cattle infected with Johne's disease as cattle producers would be entitled to compensation under the Cattle Compensation Act 1951 in such circumstances. As a result, no orders for slaughter of cattle infected with Johne's disease are being made; consequently the tax advantages that producers might otherwise obtain have not been available. Cattle producers rightly see this situation as unfair. The recent deregulation of the dairy industry has given greater impetus to their complaints.

Mr R. H. L. Smith: Who deregulated the dairy industry?

Mr AMERY: I think we might have a debate about the dairy industry.

Mr R. H. L. Smith: No. Answer the question: Who deregulated the dairy industry?

Mr AMERY: We all know what caused the deregulation of the dairy industry.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bega should realise that the Minister is not answering questions. He is delivering a second reading speech.

Mr AMERY: The State Government deregulated the dairy industry as required under the Federal Government's assistance package. That is the history of it. As the deregulation legislation went through the State Parliament, does the honourable member for Bega want a discovery award? Has the honourable member just found out that a deregulation bill went through the State Parliament?

Mr R. H. L. Smith: No. Your people are saying, "We didn't deregulate", but you did. You just admitted it.

Mr AMERY: I note that the honourable member for Bega is drawing it to the attention of honourable members that he has just found out that the State Government put through legislation to deregulate the dairy industry.

Mr R. H. L. Smith: You have been denying it.

Mr AMERY: The honourable member gets the Captain Cook award for discovery. Having been stunned by that information from the honourable member for Bega, I shall continue my second reading speech. For the information of the honourable member, I am introducing the Cattle Compensation Repeal Bill. Next month if the honourable member asks who introduced the Cattle Compensation Repeal Bill, let me say in advance that this Government introduced it.

Mr R. H. L. Smith: Why has the Minister referred to deregulation?

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bega will remain silent. He will have an opportunity to participate in the debate later in the session.

Mr AMERY: The inability of dairy farmers whose herds are infected with Johne's disease to access the benefits of the election under subdivision 385E of the Income Tax Assessment Act acts as a disincentive to their electing to slaughter their herds and leave the industry. If the Cattle Compensation Act is repealed, orders for the destruction of cattle infected with Johne's disease may then be made under the Stock Diseases Act without triggering the obligation to pay compensation out of the Cattle Compensation Fund. This will enable affected cattle producers to access the benefits of the election under subdivision 385E.

There is no good reason for retaining the Cattle Compensation Act. As its immediate repeal will assist cattle producers, the Government considers it appropriate to expedite repeal of the Act. The Government understands the reasons behind this legislation. Although the Government could wait until the end of the competition policy review—we have already had an exchange on the competition policy review—which will no doubt recommend the repeal of the Cattle Compensation Act, and repeal of the Act could take up to six months, in the meantime farmers affected by dairy deregulation or bovine Johne's disease cannot access the benefits of subdivision 385E of the Income Tax Assessment Act unless the Cattle Compensation Act is repealed. That is the reason the Government has expedited repeal of the Act by introducing this bill.

Mr George: Does that mean that farmers will get compensation from now on?

Mr AMERY: No. There is no money left in the Cattle Compensation Fund; therefore the fund is redundant. There is no mechanism to raise more funds. Legally speaking, farmers would be eligible for compensation, which is why they cannot access subdivision 385E of the Federal Government's Income Tax Assessment Act, to which I referred. Legally, this Government must remove the Cattle Compensation Act from the system to enable farmers to access the benefits of the taxation legislation. With those prepared comments and other comments added along the way, I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion by Mr Amery agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to postpone consideration of the matter of public importance for today, standing in the name of the member for Oxley, until Wednesday 28 February 2001.

Motion by Mr Amery agreed to:

That the House at its rising today do adjourn until Wednesday 28 February 2001 at 10.00 a.m.