Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 31 May 2001, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Thursday 31 May 2001
______

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

COMMUNITY SERVICES (COMPLAINTS, REVIEWS AND MONITORING) AMENDMENT (APPLICATION) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 April.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [10.00 a.m.]: I remind honourable members that this bill has been before the House on two previous occasions. I have addressed a number of the significant issues and have provided a background of why the Coalition has introduced the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Amendment (Application) Bill. Since the time this bill was introduced in this place, it has been introduced and debated in the Legislative Council. For the benefit of honourable members, particularly members of the Labor Party, who no doubt have been directed to vote to oppose this bill, as did their colleagues in the upper House, I simply provide this information. This bill was extensively debated in the upper House and it went to a vote, and that vote, excluding Labor members, unanimously supported the bill. What does that tell us? It tells us that members of the crossbench, from the most conservative elements to the other end of the political spectrum, support the Coalition's bill because it is the right thing to do.

The Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Amendment (Application) Bill is simply about giving to the Community Services Commission the powers that we all thought the commission had. In 1992, the Coalition Government created the Community Services Commission. The legislation creating the commission was passed by this place in 1992 and the commission was established in 1993. I remind honourable members that the commission was established because there was a need for it. In many instances people who were seeking the assistance of the Department of Community Services felt aggrieved because the department was not always able to deliver the sorts of services average members of the community were expecting. From time to time issues arose, for example, whether children who were in allegedly abused situations had been protected by the very agency that should have been undertaking that function.

The bill passed in 1992 with the support of the Labor Party. The New South Wales branch of the Labor Party was happy to see the then Coalition Government, through its agency, the Department of Community Services, held to account for breaches that occurred under its domain. It was happy to have public scrutiny and to provide an opportunity for aggrieved people to go to the commission to seek a review of what the Department of Community Services did or did not do. But it is a long way from 1992 to 2001. The Labor Party is now in Government and it does not want public scrutiny of any of its agencies. It does not want to be held accountable for any mistakes its agencies make in relation to any matters.

Mr Maguire: It's no longer honourable.

Mr HAZZARD: As the honourable member for Wagga Wagga says, it is no longer honourable. That is the situation. We have reached the stage at which the Minister for Community Services is more interested in hiding the truth, rather than allowing the Community Services Commission to lift the lid on the problems in the Department of Community Services. Neither side of politics is interested in making the lives of workers in the Department of Community Services more difficult. The people in the Department of Community Services who carry out the functions at the coalface must be respected and should be held in the highest regard. They are doing essential jobs. They are ensuring that children who are in allegedly abusive situations are given the protection they require.

Every now and then, like any large government agency, things go wrong. The only way it can get better is for the Government to allow scrutiny. Premier Carr, ably assisted by Minister Lo Po', is not concerned about scrutiny. Day after day in this Chamber the Premier refuses to answer questions during question time. Yesterday he cavorted up and down this House in some sort of staged fashion, shaking hands with his backbenchers and avoiding answering questions.

Mr Ashton: You don't have to turn up for question time.

Mr HAZZARD: Yesterday we saw the court jester, who is now the Premier of New South Wales. It is a sad indictment of the Government in New South Wales when court jesters such as Minister Lo Po' and Premier Carr do not allow the Opposition to debate issues of great significance to the State. And they move to shut down scrutiny by agencies such as the Community Services Commission. The honourable member for Bankstown is making light of our concerns. I am sure he would not want to be on the record making light of the Community Services Commission.

Mr Ashton: I would like to correct that for Hansard. I am the member for East Hills.

Mr HAZZARD: The honourable member for East Hills would not want to be on the record making light of issues as serious as trying to protect children from child abuse.

Mr Ashton: That's correct.

Mr HAZZARD: Most members in this place would want to be proactive about protecting children. The problem is that the Labor Party has a dud of a Minister. Helpline has been a disaster. For members who may have forgotten, Helpline is the new telecentre through which we report child abuse in New South Wales. On 18 December last year the Minister introduced the new telecentre, which is supposed to be a help centre. During the first five months of this year during question time in this place we heard that the Minister had no idea of the debacle at the Helpline office. She had no idea that reports of child abuse were delayed and that, in some cases, people had waited on the line for hours on end to make a report. Then we had the sorry state of the Minister introducing alternative measures for people who could not get through to the Helpline. What did the Carr Government do? It introduced a fax line. But it did not tell the private schools and it did not tell the Catholic schools. It kept it quiet.

Mr Maguire: Women's refuges.

Mr HAZZARD: As the honourable member for Wagga Wagga says, it did not tell the women's refuge movement. The Government did not tell those at the coalface who are looking after children that it had introduced a fax line.

Mr Maguire: Preschools.

Mr HAZZARD: The honourable member for Wagga Wagga reminds me that the Carr Government did not inform preschools about the fax line. Opposition members are genuinely concerned, as are many Labor Party members, about the care and protection of children in New South Wales. The difference is that members of the Labor Party will not speak up and admit that it has a dud of a Minister. Honourable members on the Labor benches, Mr Carr's colleagues, support the Minister in her endeavours to shut down scrutiny by the very commission that would have investigated failures in the Helpline telecentre.

The number of reports of child abuse in New South Wales on an annual basis is of great concern to all. The Minister acknowledged on the record that last year approximately 74,000 cases of child abuse were reported. Early this year during the heat of debate about Helpline, she also acknowledged on the record that reports of child abuse have reached 6,800 calls per week since the introduction of this new, anonymous, centralised telephone service, which enables people to ring up from all parts of the State. That equates to the number of anticipated calls to Helpline reaching between 300,000 and 350,000 this year. Even allowing for calls not requiring substantive urgent intervention because they may not be child abuse reports but calls for other types of assistance, the best advice I have is that we can anticipate more than 100,000 reports of child abuse through Helpline, if Helpline survives this year.

The Minister is more interested in her reputation than providing sound policy. If we are stuck with Helpline because the Minister stakes her reputation on maintaining this new, anonymous, telecentre, then we can anticipate an enormous number of cases of child abuse, which an agency such as the Community Services Commission may need to oversight. The Community Services Commission was set up to oversight what goes wrong when the Department of Community Services [DOCS] is doing its job. When DOCS is investigating cases and trying to protect children the commission should be able to oversee cases in which assertions have been made that things have gone wrong. In the past couple of years we have become aware of horrific cases that have caused great sadness in families.

When this bill was first introduced, I reported to the House a couple of cases that honourable members will recollect. Jessica Gallacher is one such case. Until the Australia Day weekend last year she lived on the Central Coast. Late last year the case of Jessica Gallacher was one that the Community Services Commission had to stop investigating because of the appalling failure of Minister Lo Po' to ensure that the Community Services Commission had the necessary powers to investigate. Jessica Gallacher was a six-year-old little girl whose mum had suffered for a couple of years watching her husband die of cancer.

In November 1999 Jessica's mother took up with a fellow who provided her with a relationship that she was missing. Within a short time Jessica's mum, a young woman of Italian background who had strong family ties and who would regularly, almost daily, ring her mum and her sister to say "Hi", stopped ringing. When Jessica's mum and sister, that is, the grandmother and aunt of Jessica, reported to DOCS at Corrimal, the recipient of the first notification that they were concerned about things that were going on in the house with this new fellow living there, DOCS at Corrimal lost the notification. It had no record of it. When Jessica's aunt and grandmother travelled from Corrimal in Wollongong to the Central Coast to visit the house they found that all of Jessica's toys had been taken away. On the wall they found photographs indicative of a person with a troubled mind. They saw on the wall what they described as death masks. They then went to DOCS at Gosford, but again there was no intervention.

Last year members of the Coalition sought to raise this issue in the House with the Premier, the Hon. Bob Carr, and with Minister Lo Po' to ask for help and intervention. What we got was the standard rubbish about the matter currently being investigated by the Coroner and that charges were before the court against a person who had been found to have allegedly killed Jessica Gallacher. On the Australia Day weekend in 2000, this madman cut Jessica so badly with a sword that her aunt said they could not even dress her in her special dress for her funeral. That little child died in circumstances that clearly require someone to take a very close look at the incident.

In the end, the situation may be found to have been unavoidable. But the people of New South Wales—the mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, grandparents of children and friends of children—want to know that someone will investigate these matters. They want to know that because unfortunately this venue, the oldest Parliament in Australia, does not have a Premier and a Minister who are prepared to answer questions about it. In those circumstances, there really is only one other avenue, namely, an independent investigation. As a result of the Opposition raising the issue in the Parliament and then raising it with the Coroner, the Coroner has undertaken to investigate Jessica's case. But the Coroner's Office is limited. Two weeks ago, I received information from the Coroner's Office that it may be closer to the end of the year before the matter can be investigated.

Alternatively, if this Parliament had allowed the reinstatement of the Community Services Commission's powers, the Community Services Commission could have been doing its job by investigating statutory breaches that may have occurred. But Premier Carr and Minister Lo Po' are more than happy for that not to happen. That is an indictment upon every member of the Labor benches. Every one of them would bear some guilt and some responsibility if they have not raised this issue with Minister Lo Po' in caucus. It is not as though they have not had the opportunity to hear the arguments; they have heard them in this Chamber and there was a full debate in the upper House. Members of the Labor Government should be ashamed of the fact that they sent the B team—the Minister for Juvenile Justice—into the upper House to allege that the Opposition was making spurious assertions about reinstatement of the commission. Whereas in fact the proponent of spurious assertions, lies and dishonesty was none other than the Minister for Juvenile Justice, the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt in actions that mirrored exactly the position adopted by Minister Lo Po'.

What was the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt saying? What she was saying were just plain lies, but that was seen through by every member of the crossbench in the upper House—every crossbench member. The bill was passed in the upper House and it is listed on today's business paper. Debate continues on this bill and the matter has come back as an order of the day from the Legislative Council. The matter has been listed twice on the business paper, yet members of the Labor Government do not have the decency or the honesty to have challenged that dud of a Minister, Minister Lo Po'. She is a Minister more interested in protecting herself from public scrutiny than in actually protecting children. Members opposite have not challenged her because, if they had, the Opposition would know by now about their support for this bill.

I remind members of the Labor Government that the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt alleged in the upper House that the Opposition was trying to give more powers to the Community Services Commission than the commission needed. The essence of her allegation was that the Opposition was attempting to create new powers for the commission. That is rubbish and she should know that it is rubbish. But, presumably, all she did was read notes that had been prepared in the office of Minister Lo Po'. If those notes have not been scrutinised by members of the Labor Government, then each Labor member bears the responsibility and the absolute shame for what is happening. What Minister Tebbutt asserted is simply not true. The Opposition is not trying to give the commission new powers.

The Community Services Commission was established in 1992 through bipartisan legislation. The commission was always thought to have the powers to investigate statutory breaches of duty by the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. The commission was always thought to have the necessary powers to carry out an investigation when DOCS may have made a mistake. Members of this Parliament need to work through that so that we can make matters better and safer for children in future. It was always thought that those powers existed and the commission operated under that belief. Roger West who is a former commissioner and Robert Fitzgerald who is the current commissioner worked that way. Then in 1999 along came the Law Reform Commission, which advised the Government after a review of the legislation—a review was required by the legislation that set up the commission—that a few anomalies had been found.

The Law Reform Commission said, "We recommend that you address these. We recommend the Carr Government should actually fix up the anomalies." What has Premier Bob Carr done? What has Minister Faye Lo Po' done? They have done nothing. My advice is that the latest excuse is, "It's with the Cabinet Office." If Minister Lo Po' has any guts or courage, if she is really interested in protecting children and if she has one iota of decency in her soul or in her body, she will actually require her Government to amend this legislation. She will require that to be done urgently, immediately and without hesitation but instead she has been more than happy to delay it. Why has Minister Lo Po' been happy to delay this matter? Why has the Minister done nothing? Why has the Minister not pushed this matter through the Cabinet Office? Why has the Minister not shaken up a few bodies and shaken a few cupboards to have this matter addressed? Why has the Minister not done any of that? It is because she does not want to be scrutinised.

The Minister for Community Services knows, particularly because of the current debacle over the Helpline—a debacle that she caused through the creation of the Helpline—that the Government is not managing the Department of Community Services appropriately. She also knows that it is better from her point of view and from Premier Bob Carr's point of view to allow the Premier to continue to act as the court jester in this House during question time. She knows that it is better not to have any independent scrutiny of the failures of DOCS. That means that Minister Lo Po' is happy for there to be no scrutiny, in any independent or appropriate sense, of the reasons why children are dying in New South Wales from child abuse and why children are being hurt badly from child abuse. She knows that it is best for her to hide behind the sham of saying that the matter has been referred to the Ombudsman.

The Opposition acknowledges that the Ombudsman has some powers to address this issue, but the Ombudsman does not have the expertise. The Ombudsman does not have seven years of experience and does not have a specialised staff that is working solely, wholly and completely on the task of trying to ensure that child abuse and the manner in which DOCS deals with child abuse is under the most intense scrutiny. The fact is the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt told lies in the upper House. The Minister for Community Services has hidden behind those lies. Moreover, in a semblance of honesty while acting far from honestly, the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt told the upper House that the Opposition was seeking to extend the powers of the Children's Guardian and to review the actions of the Children's Guardian. She alleged that this was a wholly new grab for power.

That is just dishonest. The powers exercised by the Children's Guardian prior to the creation of the office of Children's Guardian only a short time ago, were vested in the Director-General of the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. In that capacity, the Director-General of DOCS has always been, and certainly should be, subject to the scrutiny of the Community Services Commission. The fact that the Children's Guardian has now taken over those powers is only logical. It is a simple step to say that the powers bestowed on the Children's Guardian should also be reviewable by the Commission, if there is an assumption that she has not complied with her obligations. Every member of the crossbench in the upper House saw through those arguments—every member—yet we have not heard an honest Labor voice say, "You are right. We do need to fix this for the sake of New South Wales children."

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the Helpline has experienced a vast increase in the number of reports of child abuse. On 1 July, when the remainder of the children's care and protection legislation from 1998 will come into force, many more cases will need to be reviewed by the Community Services Commission. The Opposition urges each and every member of the Labor Party who sincerely wants children in New South Wales to be protected, not to let a dud Minister, the Minister for Community Services, protect her own position. The protection of children is the responsibility of every member of Parliament; it is our job. If honourable members opposite were to protect a dud Minister instead of the children they are supposed to protect, I am sure their constituents would be disappointed and that disappointment will undoubtedly be reflected at the appropriate time. Labor members will also have to live with the fact that they have been party to a conspiracy by this Minister to protect her position. This legislation should be passed by the House because it is urgent.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

WILDERNESS AMENDMENT (PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 April 2000.

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [10.30 a.m.]: I lead for the Government on the Wilderness Amendment (Private Property Rights) Bill and I indicate at the outset that the Government opposes the legislation. The first thing I should do is point to the inconsistencies in the position of the honourable member for Monaro. In the opening few lines of his second reading speech, he said, "These amendments to the Wilderness Act 1987 will not diminish at all the concept of wilderness. They will make a minor amendment to the nomination process." That, to put it very charitably, is highly disingenuous. The amendments proposed in this bill would substantially undermine not just the concept of wilderness but also the practical operation of the current scheme.

Moreover, when one looks at other public comments of the member, his real view becomes very clear. He is, in fact, opposed to the concept of wilderness. His opposition to the concept of wilderness, that is, his real belief, is what finds its way into this proposed legislation, and not the reassuring opening words in his second reading speech. The honourable member's other public comments are contained in a media release that he issued last year. In that release he made some comments about a rally that was held at Braidwood on 1 April. As that media release made clear, he was one of the speakers at that rally. It was his media release, so of course he was a speaker there.

The media release quoted the honourable member as saying that all the speakers at the rally, including himself—with the exception of someone from the National Parks and Wildlife Service—voiced their strong concerns about the concept, methods and dubious outcomes of the wilderness process. That expression by the honourable member for Monaro of his great concern about the concept of wilderness seems to me to be his real view. It is that real view that finds expression in this proposed legislation, not his reassuring words that it really does not affect the concept of wilderness.

The other interesting inconsistency in his position is that he claims that the object of this bill is to protect property rights. That is simply wrong. That is not what this legislation will do at all. The bill provides no extra protection for property rights. Indeed, the process of identifying property as wilderness does not affect property rights. That is the current legislative scheme. Identification does not equal declaration. Under the current legislation the declaration of property as wilderness cannot possibly be made unilaterally. Identification does not automatically or inevitably lead to declaration. In fact, to date, only one declared wilderness area has private freehold included in it, and that was only after a voluntary conservation agreement. Notwithstanding the cackles from the National Party, I hasten to point out that the Liberal Party is not objecting, it is National Party members who are interjecting. Despite that, they really need to look at precise legislation that currently exists.

There are a number of significant problems with the proposed scheme set out in the bill. One is the provision that a proposal for identification is regarded as being rejected if the whole process is not completed within two years. It is certainly true that at the moment a majority of the processes have indeed been completed within two years. However, in some cases, for perfectly proper reasons, that period may be exceeded. The need, perhaps at the behest of a Minister, for further research on a proposal may well be denied by the two-year rule in the proposed bill. That then essentially institutionalises inadequate research as part of the decision making process. It clearly has the potential to lead to inadequate quality of decision making. A two-year limit quite simply will lead to bad decisions. It also can be characterised as unduly fettering a Minister's discretion.

Another problem is that the bill expands the scope and scale of recreational use in wilderness areas. At one level this misses the whole point of wilderness. The whole point is that recreational use must be low impact. The proposed expansion of uses contained in the proposed bill is also inconsistent with the approach of other jurisdictions. In Victoria, for example, there is an exclusion of any non-indigenous animal from the area. That, of course, is inconsistent with the bill introduced by the honourable member for Monaro. There is an assumption in the rhetoric behind the bill that there is currently no access to protected areas. In fact, currently there are 3,900 kilometres of public roads through protected areas.

Indeed, after public consultation, a significant number of trails have been excluded from declaration. They include Racecourse and Spokes trails between Werrikimbe, Kunderang and Willi Willi wilderness; Kowmung trail, next to Kanangra-Boyd wilderness; Riverside trail on the edge of Macleay Gorges; Broken Cart track between Bimberi and Goobarragandra wilderness; Barrington trail on the edge of Barrington wilderness; Twelve Mile Road and Tian Jara fire trail next to Bundawang wilderness; Razorback trail between Brogo and Yowrie wilderness; and Mintbush and Monkey Gum fire trails beside Ettremea wilderness.

The key assumption in the proposed legislation is that the current legislation affects property rights, and the proposed legislation will increase protection for property rights. Both assumptions are incorrect. The current legislation in fact provides great safeguards for private property holders. For example, under the current legislation there are no provisions for the management of privately held land as wilderness if the land is not legally recognised as wilderness with the owner's consent. Section 8 (1) (b) of the Wilderness Act prevents declaration of a wilderness area over privately held land unless a voluntary conservation agreement is in place—I place emphasis upon the word "voluntary". There are no provisions at all in the current legislation for the resumption of privately held land if the land is identified as wilderness or if a proposal to so identify it is made.

There are no provisions in the current legislation to compel a private land-holder to enter into a voluntary conservation agreement. There are no provisions presently to constrain the uses of privately held lands while they are subject to proposals under section 7 of the Act. Under section 6 (2) (c) of the Act the director-general may already consider written representations from any person as to whether land should be identified as wilderness. Under section 7 (3) of the current legislation the director-general is already required to notify land-holders of proposals affecting their land. There is great social utility in identifying wilderness. Because of that, this bill ought to be rejected. To put it slightly more colourfully, I quote Keith Muir, Director of the Colong Foundation for Wilderness. He said:

Interestingly, the original legislation—which the National Party now proposes should be altered—had bipartisan support. I would be delighted to hear what the Liberal Party has to say about this. I notice that members of the Liberal Party do not seem to be particularly prominent here in the Chamber. I would also be delighted to hear what the honourable member for Southern Highlands has to say about her National Party colleagues' proposal. I have already referred to the comments of the honourable member for Monaro relating to his strong concerns about the concept of wilderness—which were quite inconsistent with what he originally told the House in the second reading debate. Of course, his position opposing the concept of wilderness—which is contrary to the Liberal Party position—has a long tradition within the National Party.

In 1994 the present Leader of the National Party described wilderness as something "philosophically repugnant" to him. The National Party clearly opposes the entire concept of wilderness. As I have said, however, that is not the position of the Liberal Party. I would be fascinated to hear what the National Party's Coalition colleagues have to say about this. None of them are present in the Chamber to support their position. I suspect that very few of them will vote for the legislation. It seems that, apart from the wonderful inconsistency in the various positions put by the honourable member for Monaro, there is extraordinary inconsistency within the ranks of the Coalition. The proposed legislation is bad and should be rejected.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [10.42 a.m.]: It is a disgrace that the Government should choose the honourable member for Liverpool to lead for the Government on this bill. Why is the Minister, or at least the Parliamentary Secretary, not here to speak on such important legislation? The contribution of the honourable member for Liverpool shows that he has no idea about the impact of the current legislation on private property rights. He argued that it has no impact. I advise the Government and the honourable member for Liverpool that the legislation impacts upon private property rights once the assessment process has commenced, because that private property is then blighted by the fact that it has a wilderness nomination on it. A person who owns private property that has a wilderness nomination on it is not able to sell that land, as he or she would be entitled to do if an assessment process were not attached to it. The pathetic contribution of the honourable member for Liverpool can be dismissed entirely on the basis that the fundamental premise for it is incorrect.

I am pleased to support the legislation and I commend the honourable member for Monaro for introducing it. It is very good and commonsense legislation. However, like the honourable member for Monaro, I emphasise that this legislation is in no way an attack on the concept of wilderness. It is all about the appropriate process for the nomination of private land for possible wilderness. When the now Premier introduced the Wilderness Act in 1987 he allowed a situation where any privately owned land could be nominated by anyone for wilderness without the prior consent of the land-holder. Under his legislation, once that nomination has been made it automatically triggers an assessment process that must be carried out by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, irrespective of how suitable the land is for wilderness.

Under the current legislation, after the assessment has been carried out—often at great expense to the taxpayer and after using up the very valuable time and resources of the National Parks and Wildlife Service—the landowner can then refuse the nomination. Under the Premier's legislation it can take up to two years for such assessments to be done. In the meantime, the nomination has created a blight on that privately owned land, making it unsaleable and reducing its value, not to mention the personal anxiety suffered by the landowner throughout that period.

The bill provides that privately owned land will no longer be included in a wilderness nomination without the prior consent of the affected land-holder. Instead of the land-holder having a right of refusal at the end of the assessment process, as he now has, he will have the right of refusal at the commencement of the process. This will save the National Parks and Wildlife Service valuable time and resources and will be a saving for taxpayers. It will also remove a blight on the land-holder's land and reduce the amount of anxiety that land-holder suffers during the assessment of that land.

The effect of the legislation will be to protect the resources of the National Parks and Wildlife Service from being wasted by making an assessment of private land that may later be rejected by the landowner. This is an important point. The National Parks and Wildlife Service budget, as the recent budget papers show, is only about $260 million. Since it came to office the Carr Government has declared almost 200 new national parks. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has a lot of work to do with managing those new national parks. It is totally inappropriate that the service should have its scarce resources wasted by being required to do assessments for wilderness on privately owned land when it is obvious that the landowners will reject the nomination. Landowners should have the right to reject nominations at the commencement of the assessment process.

It is better that a landowner have the right to object up front, thereby saving National Parks and Wildlife Service resources and taxpayers' money and saving the landowner from an unnecessary blight. Of course, this legislation will not prevent a landowner from agreeing to have the land subject to a nomination and assessment process if that is the landowner's desire. If the landowner is quite happy about the assessment process taking place, the nomination and assessment process can be allowed to occur. However, if the landowner chooses to reject the nomination, it is better that that is done up front instead of at the end of the assessment process.

The National Party has, as part of its central platform, the protection of private property rights. Indeed, it was former National Party Leader Wal Murray who sponsored the Just Terms legislation. Similarly, this legislation will prevent a third party from placing an unwanted blight upon land owned by private land-holders. This is good legislation because it puts the right of refusal to have private property nominated for wilderness at the commencement of the process rather than at the end, thereby saving taxpayers' money on unnecessary assessments and saving private land-holders from the anxiety and uncertainty coming from a blight caused by an unwanted wilderness nomination. It is commonsense legislation. I commend the honourable member for Monaro for introducing it and I implore members of the House to support it.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.46 a.m.]: The Labor Party has produced another metropolitan member, and I oppose the bill. My colleague the honourable member for Liverpool was criticised for commenting on legislation of this nature, and no doubt I will also be criticised. But I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to this matter, because very recently a constituent of mine approached me on this very issue. The constituent owns property in an area that is about to the declared a wilderness area and is very concerned that his land might be swamped by the wilderness. I was pleased to advise the constituent that there was no way his property could be declared wilderness unless he wanted it to be so declared. Indeed, he has already received an indication from his council that he can proceed with the development of the land, and he is now very happy with the advice I gave him.

Mr D. L. Page: So why waste money doing an assessment?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Ballina has contributed to the debate. He will listen to the Parliamentary Secretary in silence.

Mr MOSS: There is a misconception that land-holders' private property rights are in some way compromised by the current Wilderness Act. It is suggested that somehow their land may become protected wilderness without their consent. Nothing could be further from the truth. The statistics alone demonstrate the absurdity of that notion. Declared wilderness currently represents 1.9 per cent of the total land area of New South Wales, or 30.6 per cent of the National Parks and Wildlife Service estate. Since 1995, 899,069 hectares of land have been declared wilderness, the vast majority within existing national parks. Currently only one declared wilderness area in New South Wales contains a section of private freehold land. I refer to 36 hectares of land within Budawang wilderness in southern New South Wales. That land was only included within the Budawang wilderness after a voluntary conservation agreement was initiated by the landowner.

In the 13 years since the implementation of the Wilderness Act in 1987 the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service has received 38 wilderness proposals. As at July 2000, 14 of those 38 proposals contain areas of freehold and leasehold land, and seven are entirely within the National Parks and Wildlife Service estate. Of the remaining 17 proposals, three were assessed as not being capable of identification and 14 are currently under consideration. A total of 21 of these proposals have resulted in wilderness identifications, which in no way affect land-holders' rights to manage their land as they see fit.

On the subject of statutory time limits for consideration of wilderness proposals, the honourable member for Monaro's bill would introduce new provisions under which a wilderness proposal or an investigation is taken to be rejected if the whole process has not been completed within two years. But section 7 of the Wilderness Act 1987 already requires the director-general to consider all wilderness proposals and advise the Minister in relation to them within two years of receiving the proposal. This statutory period for wilderness assessments is adhered to in the majority of cases. Where the statutory period has not been met, the extended time frame for completion has usually stemmed from the need to provide additional information to Ministers on the natural and cultural heritage values of nominated areas, and to incorporate wider government processes such as regional comprehensive assessments.

Clearly, the proposal of the honourable member for Monaro would effectively sterilise the discretion of the Minister for the Environment under the Wilderness Act, restrict legitimate scientific assessment and erode the quality of decision making. I emphasise that if, for example, an area of private land is identified as wilderness but the owner refuses a conservation agreement, that land cannot be reconsidered for wilderness protection. However, it is possible that a change in ownership or circumstances may make a conservation agreement an option. Under the proposed amendments, if this occurs outside the two-year limit it cannot be considered, significantly reducing the flexibility of the legislation. For those reasons we believe that the proposal of the honourable member for Monaro would sterilise the Minister's discretion, and the Government is totally opposed to the bill.

Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [10.53 a.m.]: I support the Wilderness Amendment (Private Property Rights) Bill. The bill has two basic claims, although it has many other implications. First, it seeks to change the legislated process of nomination, assessment and declaration of lands deemed to have sufficient wilderness value. It would require the consent of the owner of the land to the process and possible declaration prior to the costly assessment stage. In the event, which is most likely, that the landowner does not grant consent, the process lapses. Apart from the costs saved, there is then no body of information supporting wilderness filed on that land. This information can be used later by third parties to stop any development or activities on the land that have enjoyed previous consent.

The second object of the bill is to give greater access to parks and wilderness areas, which are owned by us all. This would be achieved by altering the definition of "self-reliant activities" to enable access to more areas by means other than only on foot. This would allow, with obvious conditional approval, access to more of our public land by the elderly and infirm, parents with small children, schools, community groups and most other people. The heritage, tourism, education, promotional and recreational potential would be maximised. This would benefit many people, including small communities, small business and land-holders, help to educate our young and help to protect and maintain the park areas. This would largely be in contrast to the situation today, where people are excluded, and sustainable agricultural production and other potential passive uses of the land are lost, at taxpayers' expense. At the same time feral animals, weeds and the ravages of uncontrolled bushfires destroy the very values we all cherish. A constituent of mine, Mr W. G. Hamilton, better known as Geoff, wrote:

Mr Moss: Wonderful.

Mr GEORGE: The honourable member might laugh about that. I continue the quote:

He said you could see for miles—

you cannot today—

I have no hesitation in supporting the Wilderness Amendment (Private Property Rights) Bill.

Ms HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [10.57 a.m.]: I appreciate the opportunity that the honourable member for Monaro has granted us all by introducing his bill. National Party members support the Wilderness Amendment (Private Property Rights) Bill. At present the Wilderness Act 1987 says that anyone can put up a proposal to the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife that an area of land be identified as wilderness, declared a wilderness area or added to an existing wilderness area. Assessment of the area is then funded, to whatever extent, by the public purse. This funding comes directly out of the budget or purse of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. This compromises other expenditure obligations such as weed and feral animal control and assessment of flora and fauna values within existing park areas. I speak as a person who has a genuine concern about the present situation. There are several national parks, including Kosciuszko and Brindabella, within my electorate and several wilderness proposals are currently under consideration there.

The director is obliged only to notify the owner of the land of any proposal received in relation to that land, but there is no such obligation on the director also to notify the adjoining land-holders, irrespective of their tenure, even though the subsequent declaration of wilderness values consistent with the declaration might have significant financial and management impacts on the neighbouring land. The director must consider the proposal and advise the Minister within two years. The costs are then paid for by the community, even though the land parcel might not have sufficient value to be declared wilderness. This cost of assessment is in no way contributed to or subsidised by the proponents of the declaration.

The proposed Act would modify the procedure that the director must follow when considering privately owned or leased land, and by this very definition any Crown land, vacant or otherwise, including those lands under the control of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, public reserves, easements over public land and other areas and other areas defined by the existing Act except for those lands where substantial or legitimate private interests are affected. I have received representations from many constituents in my electorate, one of whom is John Parka, in relation to feral animal control. His land backs onto a national park area and in a short time he lost 33 sheep which were attacked by wild dogs. This is about wilderness but it also affects national parks.

Our national park is in a crisis at the moment because of a fundamental lack of resources to control feral animals. At any one time there might be only one trapper going through the Brindabella—an enormous mass of land—looking for feral animals, in particular, wild dogs which continue to be a massive problem. Wild dogs attack sheep when they go onto private property. When wilderness areas are locked up people are prevented from going in and exercising further control. Noxious weeds and feral animals are out of control. There is a loss of fire control management and severe problems, particularly in national parks which are going into the proposed wilderness areas. Janice, Lindsay and Noelene Franklin from Brindabella have made many representations to me and are large contributors to this issue. They raised some valid points in their latest submission in relation to the proposal for additional wilderness areas in the Brindabella and Bimbery areas. They said:

The submission referred to noxious animals and weeds. They said:

I have received representations from Aboriginal people within my electorate, particularly in the vicinity of Brungle. They are concerned about future access of four-wheel-drive vehicles into the proposed wilderness area and by people who want to take their children into those areas, or people who may be disabled or elderly and feel that they cannot cross on foot into some of these more precarious areas and who would like to take four-wheel-drive vehicles into the areas. They look after the land. They want to preserve the land for future generations. They do not intend to beat up the bush or to go rally driving through it. These are sincere people who make up the majority of the population: people who are sensible when it comes to protecting our environment. They do not want to see a lock-up. I support the bill.

Debate interrupted by leave.

APPROPRIATION BILL

APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL

APPROPRIATION (SPECIAL OFFICES) BILL

INSURANCE PROTECTION TAX BILL

STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 May.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove—Leader of the Opposition) [11.00 a.m.]: The Treasurer came into this Parliament on Tuesday and presented us with a riddle—the same riddle he has presented to the people of New South Wales for the past six years. It is this: How can you get so much money coming into your coffers and yet deliver so few benefits to the people who elected you to serve? No Treasurer in the history of this State has had as much money coming in as Mr Egan and yet basic services continue to decline. The unassailable fact is that since coming to office in 1995 Labor has squeezed money from New South Wales taxpayers like no government before it.

In 1995-96 Labor collected $21,365 million in revenue. Next financial year, we are told by the Treasurer, Labor will collect $28,487 million in revenue. That is an increase of 33 per cent, or an additional $1,095 a year for every man, woman and child in New South Wales. This is money that comes out of the family budget, out of money for groceries, bills, recreation. This is the money no longer available for family outings. This is the money that limits family spending on all fronts. It is money squeezed from higher taxes, higher levels of stamp duty, and a higher intake from payroll tax; it is money squeezed from pet owners, squeezed from hard-working men and women, and squeezed nowadays even from recreational anglers.

And let us get this absolutely clear—every single cent collected under the GST is coming back to the States. The GST may be collected by the Commonwealth, but it is spent by the States—and what a bonanza it is, according to Mr Egan’s own figures! No wonder the Premier could not wait to sign up for the GST! When the GST take is added up, and all the increases in taxes, charges and other revenues this year, Michael Egan is taking an extra $1,095 a year out of everyone's pocket since he became Treasurer.

Since 1995 revenue from poker machines in clubs and hotels has leapt from $448 million to $748 million—an increase of 67 per cent; land tax has increased from $580 million to $965 million—an increase of 66 per cent; payroll tax has increased from $2,881 million to $4,125 million—an increase of 43 per cent; and stamp duty has increased from $2,661 million to $3,514 million—an increase of 32 per cent. The Treasurer's basic economic policy is to rake in as much cash as absolutely possible. He obviously figures that if he can keep the income column climbing then he does not need to worry about economic plans or visions; he can simply throw cash at problems as they arise.

We all know that the Premier increased the tax burden despite promising not to do so. In the first four years of the Carr Government, the Auditor General confirmed what many people in New South Wales already knew: that the tax burden, that taxation per capita, had jumped in New South Wales by 24.3 per cent. Now, on budget day, Mr Egan and the Premier made a big deal about their net tax cuts of $168 million in the next financial year, but just ask yourself: How much extra did the Government rake in from taxes? The revised budget estimates reveal that Michael Egan collected an additional $577 million in taxes above and beyond what Labor was budgeting for this financial year. So in the Egan book you take in an extra $577 million in revenue then you hand back $168 million. As the editorial in the Daily Telegraph stated on Wednesday:

The highest taxing State in Australia, with record levels of revenue from land tax, stamp duty and gambling, has given little back to its constituents.

The reality is that Labor is collecting more and more, but basic services across the State continue to decline. Now one would think that if an extra $7 billion was collected in revenue there would be plenty of money to fund the urgent upgrade of our hospitals, the construction of new schools, or to recruit additional police on the beat where they belong. Yet this is clearly not the case. Since 1995 more than $3 billion has been spent on additional public sector expenses, and the balance of the money has been wasted, mismanaged and ineffectively utilised. As Alan Mitchell comments in the Australian Financial Review:

Today key NSW government services are more expensive and, on some important measures, less effectively delivered than their Victorian equivalents.

No-one in New South Wales believes that the Premier and Michael Egan have used the extra revenue to actually improve services in health, education, policing, roads or child protection. In fact, under this Government, living conditions in New South Wales are on a steady decline, a decline that started in 1995 and is on a consistent downward trend. Assaults, burglaries, drugs and vandalism are a bigger problem today than they were six years ago. Parents have lost confidence in our once-great public education system. Hospital waiting lists have reached record levels and New South Wales is now the highest taxed State in the country.

For many in the community, budget time is confusing, but it is especially so for those who do not have the time or the inclination to sit and study the avalanche of figures and tables that are pumped out by the Treasurer and Treasury. So let us get down to tintacks, let us look at the social impacts that we expect from the Government. Let us look at what people need from government and from the State budget in their day-to-day lives. Firstly, the essential social impact assessment we need to make of this budget is: How will it foster a better society—how will it improve the way people are living in New South Wales? Secondly, we need to consider whether individuals and families, in all their permutations in society today, will benefit from this budget. Thirdly, we need to measure the improvements that will flow for those within the community who, for whatever circumstances, cannot currently care for themselves. How is the Government to look after people with special needs in the allocation of money for the next 12 months? And, fourthly, we need to look at how this budget will contribute to providing equal opportunity for development and growth throughout the community.

Sadly, on all four counts the Treasurer has failed. A close examination of the budget reveals precious little that will translate into a better lifestyle for individuals in New South Wales. So again I ask the question: Where has the money gone? There can be only one answer: The Carr Labor Government has grossly mismanaged the taxes of the people of New South Wales, as well as opportunities for the past six years, and it is set to repeat the same pattern again this year. Mr Carr and his Ministers have simply paid little attention to the real hard work of State government—the provision of education, health, roads, transport and child protection services to individuals, families and local communities. Bob Carr is good at the circus productions and the carnival style of public relations—he is pretty hopeless at providing the services that people really need.

Under Labor, confidence in the public education system has reached record lows. This is not because of the many excellent teachers we have in our school system but, rather, because of the nonchalant attitude of the current Minister for Education and Training. Parents and teachers are feeling increasingly frustrated with this Minister. Thousands of families voted with their feet last year and left the public education system. The education budget, despite the usual doses of Egan polish—for want of a better word—lacks a firm direction to re-establish the New South Wales public education system to its once great position.

Since coming to office the Carr Government has reduced the amount spent on education from 25.5 per cent of the total State budget to just 22 per cent in 2001-02. No wonder that, on the Government's own figures, more than 3,000 students are set to leave the system this coming year. Mr Egan has talked much about education and information technology, yet he has allocated only a paltry $1.6 million extra in training teachers with new technology—that is, only an extra 50� per teacher per week for teacher training in New South Wales. How much training does Mr Egan really think he is going to get for an extra 50� per teacher per week?

But I am not really surprised about Mr Egan's lack of understanding on educational issues. I urge everyone in the House to read Jennifer Hewett's article in the Sydney Morning Herald about the Egan press conference on his e-learning announcement of a $21 million four-year program. She was very surprised to learn just how little idea the Treasurer has about e-learning. Indeed, the Treasurer may wish to look at an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald concerning the current use of computers by students at Hay War Memorial High School. Honourable members will recall that it was the Hay high school that the Treasurer spoke of in his press conference. The article states that the students of Hay enjoy one of the best computer-to-student ratios, with 288 students using 80 computers—50 of which the school has had to rent because the education department has only provided 30!

The Treasurer's lack of understanding of the current position in New South Wales schools is demonstrated with his claim that each school student will have access to a private email account, ignoring many of the current opportunities available to students, such as those at Hay. Belatedly, the Government has finally recognised what the community and the Opposition have been saying all along about Mr Egan's cuts over the years to the education capital works budget. Hopefully, this year's budget will begin the remediation efforts so that our State's children can study, and play, in a school environment befitting our next generation. Let us hope that the Government can manage these new capital works projects better than it has the redevelopment of the Conservatorium of Music, where the original cost has blown out by $75 million—a sum of money that could have built seven new high schools or paid the salaries of 1,000 teachers for one year.

And what about health? Today more than 55,000 people are waiting for elective surgery in New South Wales—up from 11,000 when Mr Carr came to office—and more than 8,500 people on those lists have been waiting more than 12 months. Despite all this, Labor has closed nearly 2,000 hospital beds in the past two years alone. Since coming to office Labor has reduced the share of the budget spent on health, from 24.4 per cent in 1995-96 to just 22 per cent this coming year. And what has this budget delivered for those people unfortunate enough to be on the waiting lists—or for those who are forced to go to an emergency department in their local hospital? The Carr Government has simply not provided enough money to maintain the existing, and insufficient, level of expenditure in health. The Government has provided only $350 million in additional recurrent funds for next year's budget, which is $129 million less than the increase of $479 million it provided last year and $171 million short of the $521 million needed just to maintain services at current levels.

Mr O'Doherty: They are going backwards.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: They certainly are going backwards. Let me make this clear to the House. We hear a lot of complaints and criticism of the Commonwealth Government. However, the Commonwealth Government provided $127.45 million of the additional funding, so that the New South Wales Government's contribution is only $222.55 million of the additional funding. If there is one area where Labor has fundamentally failed, it is in the area of crime and public safety. Since Labor was elected—I urge members to listen to these figures because they are quite startling—assaults have risen by 56.7 per cent and the rate of assault in New South Wales is roughly three times the rate in Victoria. The member for Swansea thinks it is hysterically funny that assault rates are increasing in New South Wales. Perhaps the member for Swansea would like to have a public meeting on law and order, particularly on this issue. Members on this side have been having meetings in their areas. Let us see how funny his electorate thinks it is that rates of assault have risen by 56.7 per cent!

Will he laugh at this next figure? Sexual assaults are up by 54 per cent. Laugh now! Let him tell the women of his electorate that he thinks that is hysterically funny. Break and enter into a dwelling is up by 31 per cent. What is the Government doing about it? What is its response? It is closing police stations. Its plan is to close up to seven police stations in Sydney, including those in Malabar, Mascot, Randwick and Redfern. I presume the member for Coogee is delighted about that as well. Secondly, this year the Government has slashed the budget for specialists' activities to target organised criminal activities and groups by $21 million. I find it very strange that everywhere Coalition members visit and everyone they talk to expresses concern about law and order. The Government is represented in the House at the moment by two members, the member for Coogee and the member for Swansea, who are sitting there laughing at these figures, laughing at these community concerns. They represent part of the community.

The member for Epping has been out there doing a better job of representing the concerns of the electorate than has the member for Coogee, because the member for Epping has been going to public meetings to find out what the people think about the closure of police stations. I am reminded by the member for Vaucluse that the member for Coogee has retired already, that he has given up. We understand why. I repeat that this year the Government has slashed the budget for specialists' activities to target organised criminal activity and groups by $21 million—that is, $21 million less to target organised crime and internationally active gangs such as the triads and the mafia.

Thirdly, the Government has failed to even come close to meeting its 1999 election promise to boost front-line police numbers by 2,100. This week's budget confirms that the total police strength is scheduled to rise—and I ask honourable members to listen to this—by only 65 by this time next year. It gets worse. Despite budget promises over the last two years, the strength statement for 31 March 2001 showed that there were 13,509 sworn police in the Police Service. That is 12 fewer than at the time of the election. No wonder crime is out of control. In the capital works area we saw last year 92 per cent of the entire capital works budget being spent in Labor electorates. How farcical! That was in spite of the clear need for police capital works outside Labor seats. We have only to think of Chatswood police station where police officers are forced to work in cramped and completely unsatisfactory conditions to realise that there is no equity in the distribution of capital in the police budget. This year it has been revealed that the Carr Government underspent the police capital works budget by 12 per cent, or by almost $8 million. How many police stations could have been upgraded with that money?

I turn now to one of the most serious social problems we face today in our community: the explosion in gambling. Since Labor was elected in 1995 the number of poker machines in New South Wales has skyrocketed by a massive 76 per cent—from 62,332 machines in 1995 to over 100,000 machines today. Revenue from poker machines has leapt from $448 million in 1995-96 to $748 million in 2000-01—an increase of over 67 per cent. Gambling and betting revenue now stands at more than $1.2 billion and is set to reach $1.4 billion in three years time. What is the Government's response? According to the Sydney Morning Herald a Government spokesman said that the increase was expected to come from higher amounts of disposable household income being pumped into gaming machines. What sort of attitude is that? The Government is simply greedily accepting the revenue and never mind the social cost.

This is especially concerning given the fact that, according to the latest research from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the share of gambling spent on disposable income increased from 2.8 per cent to 3.5 per cent in the last 12 months. Each person in New South Wales now loses $1,139 a year on gambling. As has become apparent to everyone on this side of the House, the explosion in gambling has resulted in many people in the community suffering a range of problems, including financial hardship, bankruptcy, social and family struggles, and depression. Mr Egan, despite collecting record revenues from gambling, has allocated only $12.5 million through the Casino Community Benefit Fund for problem gambling and related research—a miserly 1 per cent of the total amount of revenue that the Government received from gambling.

Coalition members are regularly out in the country talking to real people about the issues facing them. We talk to them and listen to them. Unlike Labor, we do not simply ensconce ourselves in Governor Macquarie Tower surrounded by bureaucrats—we go out and hear the message first-hand. I do not need to tell honourable members on this side of the House what is happening in rural New South Wales. But to members opposite and, in particular, Ministers, the message from rural New South Wales is clear: The Labor Government has left them behind. After six years of Labor so many issues remain unresolved. Country roads are falling into disrepair. Last year the Carr Labor Government cut $111 million from the roads budget. This included a cut of $39 million to the Rebuilding Country Roads Fund and further reductions in funding for the black spots program.

This year the roads budget has had its funding cut in real terms by almost $70 million. Black spot road funding was again cut from $19 million to $13 million. Before being elected in 1995 the Premier made all sorts of promises on rural health. He promised to cut hospital waiting lists to ensure that country people have enough doctors and he promised to restore services to small and isolated communities, yet these promises simply are not being met. Despite the clear need and despite the fact that approximately one-third of the population lives outside the Sydney Basin, only 21 per cent of major health capital works is directed to upgrading our country hospitals. My colleague the Leader of the National Party will expand on these issues later.

For some time now the Premier and his senior Ministers have waxed lyrically about their post-Olympics job plan. We have all heard before about the post-Olympics job plan. We were told about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be created. The Government's plan for using capital works expenditure was to cushion any downfall after the Olympics and maintain that jobs growth. Budget figures now reveal that, instead of spending more money on capital works in the 2000-01 financial year, capital works expenditure was cut by 8 per cent in that financial year. The Premier cut capital works expenditure by 3 per cent in May last year and then he underspent the capital works budget by another 5 per cent or $280 million.

So when the Treasurer dances his little jig about the record level of capital works expenditure, keep this in mind: Labor never delivers to a timetable. Its capital works budget has always been delayed and pushed out to unbelievable completion dates. Honourable members will recall one project in particular which reminds us of that—that is, the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link, the now Epping to Chatswood rail link, or the line to nowhere at the moment. I think 2008 is now the expected completion date. If we believe that pigs might fly! As Louise Joslin, President of the New South Wales Property Council, put it:

Projects have either been wound back or abandoned over the year. That's the disappointment for us, it was going to provide the impetus for capital growth.

The reality is that the Carr Government delivered an 8 per cent cut to the capital works budget just as the economy needed the stimulus. Just when we needed a post-September push along came the Premier's cutbacks. Given the 8 per cent, who is surprised that in the December quarter economic growth in New South Wales was a negative 6.3 per cent—by far the worst performance of any State in our nation? No wonder Chris Richardson, Director of the respected Access Economics group, warned only six weeks ago that New South Wales risked playing the same role as Victoria did in 1991, when severe economic problems locally were enough to tip the rest of Australia into recession. This is especially worrying given the fact that, since the last State budget, New South Wales has lost 37,600 full-time jobs.

Now the Treasurer has predicted unemployment in New South Wales will rise to 6.25 per cent. That figure is unfortunate and concerning at the same time. I hope that this is one of the Treasurer's predictions that truly does not come true. On this side of the House we have learned that when we compare what Mr Egan says with the figures he produces we find that they are suspect and rubbery. We have all learned to take what he says with a grain of salt. Do all honourable members remember what Mr Egan said in his last Budget Speech? He came into this House and said with great firmness and assurance:

With this budget all of the Olympic and Paralympic costs are covered—every single last cent. The Games are now paid for.

Do honourable members remember that? Less than a month later he walked into Parliament and announced that he was going to give an extra $140 million to the Olympics. What will he report in a month's time? Last year Standard and Poor's also questioned the credibility of the Treasurer's numbers. It noted that New South Wales Treasury had a "perennial problem" correctly forecasting education and health expenditure. Comparing last year's figures and this year's figures we note that Egan got it wrong again. He predicts low taxes and high expenditure every budget, but when it is revised we find higher taxes and lower expenditure in areas where it is needed most. For example, we now know that Mr Egan's revenue projections were wrong. He collected an extra $577 million from State taxes. He got his total revenue intake wrong. He collected an extra $1.7 billion and his projections on expenditure were also wrong. Expenses blew out by more than $4 billion and the budget result was reduced by $438 million.

The Treasurer assures us that this time he has got the numbers right. He might have monumentally erred on his forecast and tax take predictions previously, but he has got it right now. Like a snake oil salesman he says, "Believe me. I have the magic cure." I do not think so. In this year's budget Mr Egan is claiming that he will reduce his tax take by $905 million. He is claiming that total revenue will be reduced by almost $3 billion and that he will cut his operating costs by $329 million. This year, like every year for the past six years, we look forward to the report by the Auditor-General on the budget. It makes for interesting and, shall I say, independent and accountable reading.

On Tuesday the Treasurer missed an ideal opportunity to set the direction of New South Wales for the next five, 10 and 25 years, but instead of direction we got spin. Instead of clear forward planning, we got self-congratulation. No wonder Alan Mitchell summed up the Government's budget in the Australian Financial Review by saying, "It just could have done better." The Opposition acknowledges that the economic wellbeing of New South Wales is not entirely within the power of the State Government. Equally, if the State Government has not got its act together, it is impossible for the private sector to operate as it should. The power of the Government is to influence, stimulate and direct—and that power is significant. The Opposition's parameters for economic management are clear: they are the policy structure it has been outlining now for more than 12 months. Any sensible approach to improving financial management must include a rationalisation of the State's tax system. We see little recognition of this from the Treasurer, who is happy to just cruise along.

That is why I am giving a commitment today that a future Coalition Government will, as its first economic priority, establish a wide-ranging and independent public review of State taxation and charges. We will ensure that such a review considers how to make our taxation structure more transparent, simpler and more equitable. We will ensure that such a review considers ways of reducing taxation rates for small businesses and for families. That review will be set up in a way that ensures every section of the community has the opportunity to contribute to the deliberations. The review will pay particular attention to payroll tax and land tax—two matters in relation to which Labor has promised big but failed to deliver.

The Opposition is committed to reducing the burden of payroll tax on business and to making New South Wales rates competitive with those in other States. We believe the impact of the unfair land tax is one that is borne not by the investors, but indirectly by those who rely on investors to provide rental accommodation. Land tax is a tax on renters. Our review will look at ways of ensuring that this burden is reduced and made fairer, and we restate our commitment that under a Coalition government, there will be no land tax on the family home—full stop! We believe that by fixing those economic fundamentals, we will ensure we deliver where it matters: basic services will be delivered more efficiently.

From there we move to a genuinely integrated infrastructure plan and not the silo-style activity of the Government. The Government needs to predictably and sensibly lay down a plan for infrastructure development for this State over many years and not accept the present ad hoc and inadequate arrangements. We do not believe the Government should cut the capital works budget by 8 per cent one year, then try to make up for it the following year. We will also ensure that we work with the private sector in the delivery of infrastructure, something that the Government has been unable or unwilling to do. Within a reformed taxation system and with an integrated infrastructure program we will have the opportunity for a more entrepreneurial approach within the bureaucracy.

Evidence worldwide is that when the public service is given more freedom and encouragement it acts less bureaucratically and is more innovative and creative in its delivery of services. Our emphasis on innovation will underpin our approach to government. It will be driven by a financial commitment to the development of an innovation centre directly under the auspices of the Premier's Department. Our budget would have included funding to establish such a centre and provision for seed funding for innovative concepts. This initiative will be the link between the public and private sectors in developing innovative approaches to public services including education, health, transport and a whole range of other services. Some of those services can be provided through the private sector and those properly delivered through the public sector can only benefit from innovative ideas and input from private operators. In this day and age, all governments have a duty to use all available technologies to improve access to information and services.

There is no commitment in this budget to the development of a truly e-government network and approach in New South Wales. Despite all the rhetoric—and my understanding is that the Premier went overseas to talk about the outstanding e-government network in New South Wales—people in New South Wales still cannot pay their taxes, duties and levies on line. Nor can they pay water and electricity bills on-line. That is e-government at its simplest, and the Government does not have that sorted. Governments can do much more using new technologies to deliver services to communities across the State. A future Coalition government would transform the archaic nature of government web sites and their interaction to make them truly deliver those services to people in all parts of New South Wales.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the most serious and rapidly growing social problems we encounter today is the explosion in gambling and its effect on families. That problem occurs when what should be no more than the occasional flutter becomes an addiction. Yet there is no recognition of that problem in the budget, none at all. That is why I announce today that a future Coalition government will establish as a matter of priority an independent gaming authority which will regulate the industry at arm's-length from government, as recommended by the Productivity Commission and the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. Only by doing that can we take the decisions about gaming out of the hands of the real person who is running gaming policy in this State—the Treasurer—and ensure that the community is allowed to have its say and that the most vulnerable are protected. The independent gaming authority will finally break the nexus between State revenue and the social impact of gambling.

Earlier in my speech I spoke about the state of our education system, a once great system that is now increasingly becoming a system of last resort. The Government estimates that secondary enrolments in public schools will drop next year by over 3,000 while overall enrolments in the private sector will rise by over 9,400. Parents are voting with their feet. Labor is planning to close schools and, to add insult to injury, the Premier plans to sell off these valuable inner-city sites to developers. Those sites have been chosen not because they are educationally unsound but because they are real estate rich. While the Opposition acknowledges that the provision of education is a dynamic and flexible process, it completely rejects Labor's proposition that small schools are somehow bad schools. Apparently they are only bad schools if they are on prime, waterfront real estate.

The charade of undertaking a consultation process unveiled by the Minister for Education and Training has caused much anger, dismay and anxiety in communities across the metropolitan area. Parents, students and teachers from Hunters Hill to Maroubra to Erskineville are alarmed and outraged by the Minister's action. Today I announce that we on the Coalition side will do what Labor has consistently refused to do: we will have a genuine consultation and evaluation process. The Coalition will establish immediately our own public education committee to examine the options available and to give parents and teachers and, importantly, students an opportunity to have a say and to have their opinions aired publicly. Labor has denied them that opportunity, preferring instead in typical style to make announcements about school closures via press releases or, indeed, on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald.

Even as late as today the Minister has again refused to meet with the schools affected, preferring to hide behind anonymous bureaucrats. He is not prepared to meet with the thousands of concerned parents, teachers, students and community members who are unable to express their anger and disappointment to him first hand. The Minister is taking a cowardly approach and is not prepared to confront those who wish to put their opinions to him first hand. Our approach, through the proposed Coalition committee, will be transparent and inclusive. In the next few days we will send out to those communities the first of 100 questions we want the teachers, the parents and citizens associations, the student bodies, and the community to put to the Minister for Education and Training.

These are the types of questions: What were the particular circumstances in Maroubra that caused such a chronic fall in support for its high school that the school must close and be sold? Is there such a sharp demographic decline in the catchment areas to cause this serious failure? What are the residential trends? Are the non-government schools in the Maroubra catchment declining? Has there been a trend towards the non-government sector? Specifically in the past five years to what high schools have primary students in the Maroubra catchment chosen to go, and why? All that information needs to be available to the community. They are the sorts of questions that the Minister for Education and Training and his department have been unwilling or unable to answer. We will make sure that the community gets its opportunity to put those questions.

Over the next few months, the Opposition will continue to develop and release detailed policies and programs to improve and restore confidence in basic services. Our commitments to the people of New South Wales will be to make our neighbourhoods safer, to rebuild the sense of community at the local level, to encourage and protect young people, to protect the character of our local areas, to provide accessible services fairly, to revitalise rural and regional New South Wales and to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit that will take our economy to the next level. The announcements I have made today will underpin those commitments. In office we will institute a thorough review of our State taxation system, we will establish an innovation centre and promote a truly integrated infrastructure program that takes into account new technologies, we will establish an independent gaming authority and, from today, we will establish a Coalition education committee to investigate Labor's plans to close schools. On Tuesday the Treasurer said his budget was a Labor budget through and through.

Mr Orkopoulos: Hear! Hear!

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: He was right. It is a traditional Labor budget of high taxation which provides poor services and displays a total ignorance of the needs of small businesses. Now the honourable member for Swansea can say, "Hear! Hear!"

Mr Orkopoulos: Hear! Hear!

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: The honourable member agrees. This budget promises much, it glosses brightly, but in the end, sadly, fails to deliver for New South Wales. Our hospital system remains ramshackle, crime is out of control, our regions remain ignored, and our once-great education system continues to lose students to the private sector, as thousands of families vote with their feet. Mark my words, Mr Speaker, the Treasurer and, indeed, the Government have only one more budget left in them, and that is all the people of New South Wales can afford.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Gaudry.

STUDENT VIOLENCE MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [11.39 a.m.]: I move:

That this House:

I used the words "this sorry incident" when I gave notice of my motion but I note that they are not included in the motion. It is a sorry incident. It is one of the sorriest incidents to happen in this State, and the role of Mr Walter Secord needs to be properly explained and understood. Mr Secord, the communications director, is employed not by the Minister for Education and Training but by the Premier of New South Wales.

Mr O'Farrell: He's a personal friend, a movie-going friend.

Mr HARTCHER: As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, Mr Secord is a movie-going friend. He is such a good friend that they went to the movies together to celebrate Mr Secord's birthday. The Premier has consistently refused to say in this House what he knew about the plot to make Cecil Hills High School the Columbine High School of New South Wales. That was the Government's whole strategy, and that is why Cecil Hills High School was deliberately introduced by the Minister in his ministerial statement. Of course, a misfortune has befallen this State when a schoolboy has been used for political purposes in the most blatant way by the Minister and by the Government.

But there is another story behind this incident, and the story is not about the incompetence of the Minister for Education and Training. Everybody knows the Minister is incompetent. The story is about the role played by the Premier through his hatchet boy, Mr Secord, who was described in the Australian of 19 April as one of Mr Carr's closest advisers. The Daily Telegraph of the same day said that Mr Secord is a senior member of Mr Carr's media unit. Most significant, the Daily Telegraph went on to say that Mr Secord is the senior adviser to Mr Carr responsible for relaying information about the gun's existence to the media. When the story was failing on the day the Minister made his statement, Mr Secord went down to the press gallery and told the journalists, "This is a good story because the boy had access to a gun." How did Mr Secord know that? On what basis did he put that information? We have never been told. The Daily Telegraph of 13 April stated:

he was the media adviser to the Minister, not to the Premier—

But it was Mr Secord who confirmed the existence of the gun to journalists. What happened afterwards? Mr Secord went on leave. The communications director was not available to the media. He turned tail and ran. The man who lives in the press gallery, the man who wanders around the press gallery in the upper apartment of this Chamber day after day, was suddenly not available to journalists. Mr Secord still has a job; he is still employed by the Premier. However, Mr Low does not have a job. One man was made a sacrificial victim; the other man gets to go to the movies. Three weeks after that sad, sorry story the Premier was still defending Mr Secord.

On 1 May the Premier said, "The blunder was not his fault." If it was not Mr Secord's fault, who authorised him to release the information and who committed the blunder? Mr Secord is accountable to the Premier, not to the education Minister. If he was sent down to the press gallery, he was sent to do the bidding of his boss, the Premier. Yet the Premier said that the blunder was not Mr Secord's fault. Was it the Premier who told Mr Secord to go down to the gallery and tell the journalists about the gun? It certainly was not the education Minister. The Australian, commenting on this matter, put it succinctly when it stated:

Mr Secord is to this sorry incident what the tapes were to Richard Nixon: living proof that the chain goes higher than the person involved. He has the evidence and he can answer the vital question: What did the Premier know and when did he know it? On Tuesday last when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier whether he was at the tactics meeting which decided on the ministerial statement, the Premier did not say "Yes" and he did not say "No." He carefully avoided answering the question by saying, "I don't know what meeting the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to." The Premier knew exactly what it was but he was careful not to be accused of misleading the House, as the Minister for Education and Training misled the House. Everyone in the community is now conscious of that issue.

Mr Whelan: No, that is not right. You know that is not right.

Mr HARTCHER: If it is not right, the Minister for Police can reply on behalf of the Minister for Education and Training. The education Minister does not have the guts to be here so he sent the Walter Secord of the Legislative Assembly into the Chamber. The motion calls on the Clerk to issue a summons to direct Mr Secord to appear at the bar of this House. We want Mr Secord to answer a couple of simple questions. We do not intend to detain him long during his busy day. We want him to wander up and down the sixth floor, because his credibility on the sixth floor of this building is now sadly diminished. We want him to talk; we want him to say who sent him down to the press gallery.

We want to know whether the Premier knew what Mr Secord was going to tell the press gallery. If the Premier is not involved, we want to know who gave the directions to Mr Secord. Mr Secord is the communications director for the Premier, yet the Premier did not send him down to the press gallery. The whole sorry incident is going further and further past the Minister for Education and Training and up the chain to the one person who runs the Government of this State, the one person who believes that Parliament should be turned into a farce, the one person who loves the excitement and the thrill of playing games during question time: the Premier.

Mr Greene: You wouldn't know what happened, you walked out.

Mr HARTCHER: Mr Acting-Speaker, can we have some order in the House?

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): You insist on baiting them.

Mr HARTCHER: No. I am asking you to exercise your statutory duty under the standing orders. When the Premier declined to answer the question the other day he left open the whole issue of his involvement in this incident. He is not prepared to come clean. Mr Secord should be asked the questions. Who gave Mr Secord the gun story? Who sent him down to the press gallery? An article in the Daily Telegraph under the title "No happy ending in a twisted tale" stated:

Why will Mr Secord not be disciplined over his role in the incident?

[Interruption]

Mr Secord will not be disciplined because, as the honourable member for North Shore said, he was simply carrying out the instructions he had been given. The point is not Mr Secord; the point is the person behind him—and we all know that the person behind Mr Secord is not the education Minister, incompetent though he is. Another person is behind Mr Secord and that is the Premier of New South Wales.

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [11.49 a.m.]: What a cheap and nasty stunt this is! The first part of the motion expresses concern about the alleged failure by the Minister for Education and Training to provide a satisfactory explanation for his ministerial statement. Anyone who was in the Chamber on Tuesday—and I note that, except for a short period, the Opposition was not in the Chamber on Wednesday for question time—would know that a personal explanation was given by the Minister for Education and Training. On that occasion he said:

I wish to apologise to the student and his family … for any distress caused by the release … I have made a written apology to the student's family …

He also said:

Clearly everyone knows that the Minister is genuinely sorry. It is important that all members understand that for several weeks the Minister has been trying to meet the family to convey his apology and the apology of the Government but he has been blocked by the lawyers for the family. I repeat what the Minister said in his personal explanation in the Parliament. The Minister for Education and Training wants to apologise to the family—to the father, the mother and the boy—on his behalf personally and on behalf of the Government, but has been blocked from doing so by the family's lawyers. That has been going on for several weeks. I make no comment other than to ask simply: Why are the lawyers blocking the Minister's attempts to convey the apology?

The motion is in two parts. I note that for one minute, and one minute only, the honourable member for Gosford spoke about the Minister for Education and Training but he spent nine minutes talking about an employee, the Premier's communications director. The real thrust of this motion is in the second part of it. While I am asking questions, I will ask members to consider this matter. On Tuesday last when Parliament met, this matter was of great public moment. Was a motion of no confidence in the Minister for Education and Training moved?

Mr Stewart: No.

Mr Campbell: No.

Mr Orkopoulos: No.

Mr WHELAN: Was a motion of censure of the Minister for Education and Training moved?

Mr Stewart: No.

Mr Campbell: No.

Mr Orkopoulos: No.

Mr WHELAN: This House is currently considering a motion of no confidence in the Minister for Land and Water Conservation because of action he has taken in relation to the Hawkesbury-Nepean trust. Yet the issue concerning the Minister for Education and Training is considered by the Opposition to be so important that they do not think it warrants to a motion of no confidence or a motion for censure in the Minister, who came into this House, offered a contrite apology and explained fully the circumstances of a matter that has been in the public arena every day since 10 April. I do not know where members of the Opposition have been but this matter has been forensically detailed, day in and day out. What the Minister for Education and Training did on Tuesday was very proper. He came into this Chamber and he apologised on his own behalf and on behalf of the Government. He did so with personal conviction and I know that John Aquilina is genuinely sorry for what has transpired.

I turn now to the second issue, which is an attack on the Premier through one of his employees. The real issue is whether the Parliament should agree under Standing Order 364 to any witnesses coming before this House to be cross-examined. I would have thought that rather than invoking that standing order in relation to this issue, perhaps the Parliament should be seriously thinking about whether it should be invoked to bring before this House the directors and beneficiaries of HIH or the directors and beneficiaries of One.Tel. Members of the Opposition will know from the way I have pronounced it what school I went to. The honourable member for Gosford knows what school I went to, but I can tell the House why he and the rest of the Opposition will not have the directors of HIH before this House. I also know why John Howard is very nervous about that matter. It is because there has been a $500,000 donation given to the Liberal Party. The directors of HIH have said, "Please provide us with political protection. Bang! Here is $500,000!" This motion sets an exceptionally dangerous precedent and I know that the honourable member for Gosford does not have his heart in it.

Mr Hazzard: It is in the standing orders.

Mr WHELAN: It may well be in there, but it probably relates to committee witnesses. It does not relate to the ability of the Parliament to summon witnesses such as Browne and Fitzpatrick. In the end, any fair-minded person would have to say that this House is not a court; it does not constitute a judge and jury. Ministers and other members are the ones who are examined—about behaviour, conduct and similar matters. Members opposite are not going to go out onto the highways and byways to summon people for their political convenience. Government members would not do so for our purposes as a Government because that would be an abuse of authority.

Mr Oakeshott: You have done that before.

Mr WHELAN: No, that is not right. I am accountable in this Parliament, as is the honourable member for Port Macquarie and every other member of this Parliament.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): Order! The Leader of the House will be heard in silence.

Mr WHELAN: Members opposite had their chance.

Mr Hazzard: Hartcher asked for silence.

Mr WHELAN: Well, he got it.

Mr Hazzard: He did not get it.

Mr WHELAN: I heard him say, "I ask you to exercise your statutory right under the standing orders." The honourable member for Gosford wants Mr Walt Secord to appear before this Chamber and provide a statement about his involvement in giving media advice to the Government. He is doing that every day. He has been doing that since Labor was in Opposition. If the Opposition wants a history of Walt, we will give them a history of Walt. The Opposition wants to know his personal involvement in conveying information to the media in relation to the statement made by the Minister for Education and Training. Members opposite have obviously been talking to people, but that evidence is obtainable in ways other than by summoning a witness to this Chamber.

The Opposition also wants Walt Secord to advise the House of the role of the Premier. The Premier is in this Chamber at question time every day but members opposite are not. The Premier is here every day on which this House sits. He is here on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Every sitting week when the House has question time, the Premier is here. He gets here early just in case some of the members opposite have also come here early to ask a question. The Opposition has asked one question about the issue and I hope that the Premier will be asked another question today because this matter has been raised in the Parliament.

Members of the Opposition did not move a motion of no confidence in the Minister for Education and Training, so one can only assume that the Opposition has confidence in the Minister. They did not take the opportunity to do anything else about their concerns. No censure motion was moved against the Minister for Education and Training, so obviously the Opposition agrees with the conduct of the Minister. This motion is a grab for publicity on the issue of whether witnesses should become part and parcel of the daily proceedings of this Parliament.

Mr R. H. L. Smith: What did you do when you were in Opposition?

Mr WHELAN: Never ever in Opposition would Labor members have gone to the extent of asking or summoning witnesses to come before the House. This is not a court. What rights do honourable members have to—

Mrs Skinner: Are you saying that the Parliament does not have the right to do this?

Mr WHELAN: No, I am not saying that. This issue is as silly as it could possibly be. Even in the hung Parliament during the term of the Greiner Government when there were three Independents, no-one in the Labor Opposition would ever have permitted a situation similar to this to have occurred. We have had visitors to this Parliament—visitors, not witnesses—including the President of Ireland and others who have stood in this Chamber and made speeches. We invited to this Chamber the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, Michael Egan, who is the Leader of the Government in the upper House. He has no rights in this Chamber. He can make a speech and then leave the Chamber. Members are not entitled to question him and he is not entitled to depart from his speech. He is not entitled to do anything else but make a speech. Members opposite want to walk out into the middle of Macquarie Street and bring people into this Chamber to cross-examine them, despite the fact that they are without rights and without legal representation.

The Magna Carta was written a few hundred years ago because people had lost their rights owing to the abuse of the then Parliament. That is exactly what the New South Wales Opposition is trying to do. The Magna Carta was written to defy the rights of the Parliament to imprison people without trial, and the Opposition is attempting to achieve the reverse of that. The Opposition's stunt has backfired. Despite having had ample opportunities, the Opposition has chosen the weakest way out. If members of the Opposition had turned up for question time yesterday, they could have asked the Minister for Education and Training, the Premier and anyone else a series of questions. Over the past two days members of the Opposition have had ample opportunity to ask 10 questions of the Minister for Education and Training, but they have not done so. They asked one question. They lost the opportunity and now they have taken the least line of resistance by attacking someone who is not a member of this Chamber. [Time expired.]

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.59 a.m.]: That was the most half-hearted defence I have ever heard from the Labor benches. The reason that it was half-hearted is that members opposite know that the Minister for Education and Training has been involved in one of the most shameful and grubby episodes in the history of the New South Wales Parliament. The Minister for Education and Training is the Minister responsible for all the children in every school in the State. He has a fiduciary duty, a trustee duty and a duty as Minister to look after those children.

If the Minister were a teacher and he made this sort of allegation about a child and caused the psychological stress that has obviously been caused to this child, under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Bill, which was introduced by both sides of the House in 1998, he would be liable for massive penalties. Because he is the Minister he is protected by the buffoons who sit on the Labor benches, but he is not protected by any other statutory authority. The Minister had no right whatsoever to make the assertions he made about that child. The Minister for Education and Training has apologised in a half-hearted fashion. He has also misled this House in many ways yet to be made public. He has told this House on a number of occasions that the principal of Cecil Hills High School actually agreed with the actions.

As I understand it, the Minister personally telephoned the principal at approximately 1.30 p.m. on 10 April, the day on which he made his statement to this House. At 1.30 p.m. the phone rang in the principal's office, and the principal picked up the phone to find he had the Minister for Education and Training on the line. What would any principal do when told by the Minister for Education and Training, his boss, "I am going to have to make this public in just over an hour, because if I don't the media are going to make it public"? That was part of the Government's dissembling, lies and deception that were carried through by the Minister. The Minister wears that responsibility. They were his words, solely, wholly and completely.

The Minister for Education and Training then made further statements to the House. While he was doing so, the Premier's personal adviser—the man who goes to the movies with Bob Carr, the man who gets up and walks out of the theatre if he and the Premier do not like the movie—was downstairs blatantly lying, saying there was a gun involved. This is a conspiracy between the Premier, the Minister and Walt Secord. They acted in unison; they acted as one. The Minister should be held accountable, as should the Premier and Walt Secord. The media know they were deceived and lied to. The Government has made it very clear that the Minister is a person who is not worthy of any trust. Nor is Walt Secord a person worthy of trust.

This is not a one-off event. Last year Walt Secord was plugging a video relating to the honourable member for Port Macquarie downstairs to members of the gallery. As the honourable member for Port Macquarie reminded me this morning, it was asserted that the honourable member had been racist in certain comments he was alleged to have made, and that they were total fabrications and lies. The Premier's personal adviser was down there plugging the video. In other words, he was prepared to play the race card. The Premier of New South Wales, through Walt Secord, was prepared to do that.

What we have here is a despicable example of a press officer who is prepared to partake in the lies and thuggery of a government that is out of control. There is not a school in the State that the Minister for Education and Training can visit and be welcome. I have visited schools throughout the State, and they are totally ashamed of John Aquilina as the Minister. Government members should move in their caucus meetings to have the Premier brought to task and the Minister removed from office, because New South Wales schoolchildren and their parents no longer have faith in them.

Mr STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.04 p.m.]: I strongly oppose the motion. Having heard the contribution of the honourable member for Wakehurst it is clear who is out of control in this House. I have been following this issue as it has developed and I firmly believe that the Minister for Education and Training has taken all reasonable steps to explain his actions and make amends for any consequences of the statement he made to this House on 10 April. On 20 April the Minister held a press conference in London at which he made a public apology for any distress caused to the student and his family. As soon as the Minister returned to Sydney on 3 May he held a further press conference.

At that press conference the Minister noted and corrected two small aspects of his statement to the Parliament that were based on incorrect advice, on behalf of the Government he publicly apologised, for a second time, to the student and his family, he undertook to provide a private apology in person at the earliest opportunity, and he referred to additional assistance to be provided to the student and the school. The Minister then sought to set up a meeting to personally apologise to the student.

As honourable members are now no doubt well aware, considerable legal obstacles and conditions were placed in the way of the Minister providing that personal apology. Consequently, on 7 May the Minister provided a written apology—which was additional to but was not in place of a personal apology—to the father of the student. I understand from media reports that the Minister offered assistance from the Department of Education and Training to help with the student's education, which is a very important initiative. Earlier this week the Minister provided this House with a parliamentary apology and a full explanation of this matter.

Furthermore, I understand that two investigations are currently under way—one by the Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation and the other by the Privacy Commission—to explain the matter further. This motion does nothing to assist the student, divert the media attention from his family, or provide a clearer understanding of what happened. It is frivolous, farcical and pathetic. I therefore cannot support it, and I continue to stand by my colleague the Minister for Education and Training.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [12.07 p.m.]: I am surprised at the half-hearted contribution of the honourable member for Bankstown. The arguments he raised are laughable, particularly his suggestion that the Minister took all reasonable steps. The fact is that the Minister did only what he had to do when his own lies and deception unravelled and he was obviously shown up for what he was. This motion is about getting to the truth of the matter. In this debate we have heard no acknowledgement whatsoever from the opposite side of the Chamber that there is a need to reveal the facts and the truth of this matter.

This motion is about expressing concern and getting to the truth of the matter by bringing Walt Secord to the bar of this House so we can hear the facts. Let us find out what role he played with the media and precisely what role the Premier played—in the presence of the Minister for Police, no doubt—in proceeding with the ministerial statement. Let us look at the judgments of the Minister. A Minister of the Crown who has been in office for in excess of six years decided to make a ministerial statement despite having had no confirmation that there was a gun. In fact, he asked whether there was a gun. He had no confirmation that there was a gun, yet he still elected to proceed with the statement, knowing what a bombshell it would be that he was drawing an analogy between that incident and the Columbine High massacre in the United States.

The Minister's judgment on that aspect alone is sufficient for there to be grave concern about his remaining as a Minister. Furthermore, the Minister lied to the House—which he did not refute last Tuesday. On following days members on this side of the House asked the Minister whether he had referred to a gun. He said unequivocally that he had not referred to a gun. Yet in a radio interview he clearly referred to the word "gun" and the fact that he believed there was a gun. However, he did not tell this House that he had referred to a gun. The Minister was clearly caught out. He deliberately lied, and then seven weeks later came back and said that he momentarily forgot.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Beamer): Order! Members of the Government will cease interjecting.

Mr HUMPHERSON: The Minister deliberately lied to this House, and on that ground alone he does not deserve to retain his role.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Government will cease interjecting.

Mr HUMPHERSON: Throughout that period, having made the judgment to proceed, and maintaining his defence thereafter—and having run away—the Minister showed nothing but contempt for the school, the victim and his family. Quite simply, he showed no regret or remorse until it all unravelled and he was caught out. The Opposition only wants the truth. We do not believe that the fall guy, Patrick Low, was responsible. We all know that Walt Secord played a substantial role. He is the Premier's confidante and friend. Who sat in on that meeting with Walt and the Premier that day to decide to proceed with a ministerial statement? It is almost certain that the Minister for Police was involved in some way. It is almost certain that Walt Secord was involved in proceeding with this strategy because strategy is only ever implemented with the concurrence and agreement of the Premier.

The Premier must have signed off because no government would proceed with that sort of strategy without its Premier's concurrence—especially with this Premier, who loves the media and takes great pride in the role he plays with the media. No Premier would have allowed that sort of strategy to progress without giving it the green light. The Premier knew all about it and allowed Walt Secord to go out and progress the story that afternoon in the press gallery and, once it started to unravel, to proceed with a lie about a gun.

The Opposition wants to know the facts. Walt Secord should be brought to the bar of this House so we can ask him some questions and get some answers, because we cannot get them from the Government. Let us have Walt Secord, who floats around the press gallery, explain to the public and this House exactly the role he played, because nobody believes we can get the truth from the Government. Members of the Government come together when there is a lie to be covered up. They know that if the facts were to come out it would leave the Minister with no option but to resign.

Mr GREENE (Georges River) [12.12 p.m.]: The Leader of the House referred to the famous—perhaps I should say infamous—case of Browne and Fitzpatrick. It took the Commonwealth Parliament four years from its creation to test the use of its powers in summoning a witness to testify at the bar of the House. The political commentator C. J. Lloyd branded the actions of the Commonwealth Parliament in 1955 as:

The media reaction to that trial before the kangaroo court of the House of Representatives was hostile. There were no specific charges brought against Browne and Fitzpatrick. The media commented that those men, no matter what one's personal opinion of their actions might be, were committed without a set trial. They were only brought to the bar of the House after the Menzies Government had already effectively decided their fate: guilty until proven innocent. Mr Browne said to the House of Representatives:

The standing of the House of Representatives was so bruised by that debacle that it has never again summoned any person to its bar. It is true that the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales possesses roughly the same powers, privileges and immunities as the House of Commons and the House of Representatives.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.

Mr GREENE: Those powers should be used wisely and sparingly. Yet, for cheap political gain, members of the Opposition are trying to turn the Legislative Assembly into yet another kangaroo court. They already know what their verdict will be.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Members will desist from talking loudly and interjecting.

Mr GREENE: I will not stand by and let the House of which I am a member be turned into a star chamber by a wanton political use of Standing Order 364. I join the Leader of the House in opposing this motion.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [12.15 p.m.], in reply: Truth is what this debate is all about and it is the first casualty in law and the first casualty of the Australian Labor Party. I thank the honourable member for Davidson and the honourable member for Wakehurst for their contributions to this debate. I acknowledge the contribution of the Leader of the House in his attempt to defend the Minister for Education and Training, who has not been able to satisfactorily defend himself. The Leader of the House has not advanced the Minister's cause, but he tried. The Minister for Education and Training stands accused of using the sad case of a depressed 15-year-old boy in a western Sydney high school for his own personal political use. He has still not apologised to that boy or his family, and he hides behind legal argument to protect himself.

Mr Whelan: Point of order: That is a deliberate misrepresentation and cannot go untested.

Mr HARTCHER: That is not a point of order. Speaker Murray does not allow that.

Mr Whelan: It is a point of order. He cannot deliberately misrepresent a person in a personal explanation. The Minister said:

The honourable member for Gosford talked about the truth. He must tell the truth!

Mr HARTCHER: The Minister should understand the standing orders—he of all people, who seeks to manipulate them every question time.

Mr Whelan: I do understand the standing orders.

Mr HARTCHER: The truth is that the Minister for Education and Training has not apologised to the boy and remains accused in this House of manipulating a 15-year-old boy's illness for his own personal political gain. The role of Mr Walt Secord follows because he has avoided the media, refused to answer media inquiries, and conveniently went on leave. Yet his job is Communications Director for the Premier.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Swansea will cease interjecting.

Mr HARTCHER: The Opposition is not interested in Mr Walt Secord per se, but it is interested in finding out who sent Walt Secord to the press gallery on that fateful afternoon to embellish the story about the boy having access to a gun? Walt was sent on somebody's direction and the Opposition wants to know whom that somebody was. I point out that Walt does not work for the Minister for Education and Training; he is the Premier's Communications Director. Until the evidence is before the House, the implication and inference will be that the Premier knew what Walt Second was doing that day and that the Premier was fully cognisant of what Mr Secord was telling the press gallery. The Premier must share the responsibility for advising the media and the people of this State a false story that the boy from the high school had access to a gun. Walt Secord did not act on his own, but under direction. Members of the Parliament need to know from whom. We will find out who sent Mr Secord when he appears at the bar of this House. What were his riding instructions on that day?

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! Members on the Government benches will cease interjecting.

Mr HARTCHER: As I said, just as the tapes were there to entangle Mr Nixon, so Walt Secord is there to entangle Mr Carr. We are interested to know whether the Premier is prepared to come to this House and answer questions about his role, whether the Premier will actually give a detailed answer as to what he knew of the tactics meeting, where he was when the tactics meeting was taking place, what was discussed at the tactics meeting, and whether he knew that the story set out in the ministerial statement was going to be embellished upon by Mr Secord when he went down to the press gallery that afternoon. Did the Premier know that? Did the Premier authorise that? That is what we want to find out. Not only the Opposition but everyone in New South Wales wants to know that. We want to know whether the Premier of New South Wales is the Richard Nixon of New South Wales, the man behind the feeding of false information, a man who is not prepared to stand up in this Parliament and tell the truth. [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 36

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

Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Webb
Mr Windsor

Tellers,
Mr Fraser
Mr R. H. L. Smith

Noes, 47

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

Mr Greene
Ms Harrison
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch
Mr Markham
Mr Martin
Mr McBride
Mr McGrane
Mr McManus
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Mr Moss

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

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Routine of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the resumption forthwith of the debate on the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills; and for consideration of committee reports not to be called on at this sitting.

APPROPRIATION BILL

APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL

APPROPRIATION (SPECIAL OFFICES) BILL

INSURANCE PROTECTION TAX BILL

STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [12.30 p.m.]: On behalf of the National Party I have pleasure in delivering my speech in reply to the 2001 Budget Speech. Another year and another Carr Labor Government budget devoid of measures that will enhance the lives and fortunes of individuals, families and businesses in rural and regional New South Wales. In fact, this is the Government's seventh budget and, frankly, it reflects a tired, arrogant and lazy administration. The 2001-02 budget fell flat in country New South Wales. It is a bland document and it lacks vision. The Government raked in record taxes from country New South Wales residents, yet hospitals, education facilities and crime rates in country areas continued their slide since Labor came to power. Put simply, it is a case of rising taxes and falling standards. Basic services in country New South Wales are not being tended to by this Government. Just ask a victim of crime; someone stuck on record hospital waiting lists; someone whose child's school textbooks are falling apart; or someone who drives on a country road.

The Premier is wrong to claim that 34 per cent of capital works projects in this budget are going to country New South Wales. He has mischievously included capital expenditure on roads, which has been a 60 to 40 split in favour of country areas because most of the road infrastructure is in the country and there is little public transport. A closer look at the budget papers reveals that, despite one-third of the population living outside metropolitan New South Wales, the amount of capital expenditure allocated for 2001-02 to country New South Wales falls well short of the one-third benchmark. In health, overall capital expenditure on major works totals $430 million, of which $92 million is designated for country New South Wales. That amounts to just 21 per cent. The education and training capital expenditure on major works totals $157 million, $34 million of which has been allocated to rural and regional New South Wales. That amounts to 22 per cent for that one-third of population.

TAFE capital expenditure on new major works in country New South Wales totals just 13 per cent, excluding $3 million of new works on Cessnock TAFE. There are no new police stations in country New South Wales. Any increase in spending will go only part of the way towards making up for the Premier's gutting of government departments in country areas when he came to power in 1995. Country people will not forget the major job losses from the education, agriculture, land and water departments, and the electricity county council amalgamations. Also, the Government is still playing catch-up with vital capital works not done due to the Olympics. The budget papers show that last year the Government underspent its capital works budget by $380 million. That means a failure to meet its commitments and honour its promises on projects across the State. Altogether, capital works last year went backwards 8 per cent.

This year's claimed increase of 11 per cent is mostly catch-up from the cuts of the previous year and only if the Government meets all its commitments this year. This budget has confirmed New South Wales as the highest taxed State in Australia and it again demonstrates the Carr Government's Sydney-centric obsession. New South Wales remains the hardest State in Australia in which to do business. Despite record revenue, this Government has rejected the opportunity to stimulate the regions through targeting country payroll tax and stamp duty rates. Once again the Treasurer baulked at making good his promise to cut payroll tax to 5 per cent in 1999 and to 4 per cent in the year 2000. The best that he could do was to announce a reduction from 6.2 per cent to 6 per cent to take effect from July 2002. Make no mistake: this cut does not take effect next financial year but the following one.

The Treasurer has estimated that he will earn $4.1 billion in payroll tax in 2001-02. The Premier would do well to support the National Party's Payroll Tax Amendment (Country Youth Employment) Bill, which is currently before the Parliament. Additionally, the Treasurer did not deliver on his commitment to review stamp duty rates. Vision is something to which this Government has an aversion. Again, this budget miserably failed to deliver a plan for rural and regional development. No major infrastructure project will facilitate regional development, particularly after the Carr Government allowed the Lithgow aluminium smelter project and its associated works to slip completely through its fingers. Then we have the so-called Beyond 2000 jobs plan, heavily promoted by the Premier as being the saviour of rural and regional New South Wales. In his message on the web site for the program he states:

The policies are in place.

The investments and jobs are secured.

The Government, on its web site, goes on to claim that major public and private sector projects, worth more than $25 billion and creating 135,000 jobs, are now on the way, with $10 billion worth of projects promised in regional New South Wales. Unfortunately, the Premier's rhetoric in relation to his post-Olympics jobs plan is ringing hollow. Many of the projects are funded and operated by the private sector or the Federal Government, with the State having little or no involvement other than seeking credit. The Government's lack of commitment to regional development and job creation is evident in the budget papers. In 1998-99 the Government spent $939,000 on facilitating or financially assisting regional projects; yet the budget for 2001-02 has fallen to just $600,000.

Employment growth generated by providing help to small and medium-size enterprises was 2,255 in 1998-99. In 2001-02 it will fall to just 2,000. The Carr Government has continued its slash and burn approach to the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, with the department's funding being cut from $232 million to $224 million. It is now obvious that the Minister for Agriculture is so lame after the Grains Board fiasco that he is unable to even keep funding for his department at the previous year's level. The cuts to the department mean significant decreases in funding for essential research and development initiatives. Many of these programs are essential to ensure the continued high quality of food production in New South Wales.

It is worthwhile contrasting the State Labor Government's efforts with those of the Federal Coalition Government, which is spending $600 million on improving quarantine protection to ensure disease does not enter the country. Also, the Carr Government has again failed to provide any assistance to dairy farmers despite deregulating the industry last year. The Rural Assistance Authority, which provides assistance to producers and small businesses suffering from natural disasters, has also had its budget reduced from $28 million to $26 million this year.

Despite much rhetoric about salinity, the New South Wales Government has failed to make provision in this budget for its contribution to the national action plan for salinity. The Government has allocated only $13 million in this budget towards salinity, and it announced that last year. The Premier's contribution is minuscule compared to the Commonwealth's plan, which involves a contribution of $700 million over seven years. This is despite the Premier telling the New South Wales Salinity Summit last year that, "This is about saving Australia, saving the agricultural future of Australia." Action speaks louder than words.

Similarly, the Carr Government has again underfunded the country towns water supply and sewerage scheme. The Government is at least $170 million behind in its funding of the program. The $66.8 million allocated in the latest budget only repeats the Premier's announcement in March of an extra $15 million a year over four years—barely noticeable. This $15 million will disappear into a few large projects, which means that most unfunded projects will remain that way in the coming year. Underfunding this program poses a major risk to public health, while also making it hard for local government to meet the standards imposed by the Environment Protection Authority. It should be noted that the former Coalition Government funded the scheme to the tune of $85 million per annum.

Country roads have again not fared any better under Labor. The roads budget has suffered an actual cut of $2 million, but when a modest inflation figure of 3 per cent is used, the budget has been cut in real terms by $70 million. The deception this Government employs was obvious in press releases issued by the so-called Country Labor faction, claiming millions of dollars in Federal funding for Federal highways as State spending. The lifesaving State black spot program has again been cut from a paltry $19 million to $13 million. It is also disappointing that the Government has only maintained its commitment to spending an average of $100 million on the rebuilding country roads program. This program includes the replacement of timber bridges in country areas.

Another major concern is police numbers. The total Police Service strength for the whole of 2000-01 is projected to rise only by 65. Despite the Government promising to increase police numbers in each budget since the 1999 election to meet a promise of an additional 1,000 police over four years, police numbers regularly fall below where they were at the time of the March 1999 election. At the same time crime continues to be a major problem in many rural and regional areas. The latest national figures by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that there were 1,063 victims of assault per 100,000 people in New South Wales in 2000 compared to an Australia-wide average of 736 assault victims per 100,000. For robbery, there were 206 victims per 100,000 people in New South Wales in 2000 compared to the Australia-wide average of 121.7. In other areas—including homicide, driving causing death, sexual assault, kidnapping/abduction and car theft—the number of victims of each of these types of crime per 100,000 people in New South Wales for 2000 was significantly above the national average.

Health is another basic service that has been sadly neglected by this Government. This budget further demonstrates its lack of commitment to a decent health system for country areas. The Government has provided only $350 million in additional recurrent funds in this budget, which is $171 million short of the $521 million needed just to maintain services at the current level. The Commonwealth Government provided $127 million of the additional funding, so the New South Wales Government provided only $222 million of the additional funding. This is at a time of record waiting lists and deep concern by the medical profession at how the Carr Government has run down the health system. Country residents are faced with major waits in emergency departments, closed hospital beds, reduced operating theatre sessions, cancellation of operations and growing waiting times. The number of people waiting for elective surgery in rural hospitals has grown from 9,000 in March 1995 to 19,311 in March this year.

Similarly, public housing waiting times in country areas will worsen after the Carr Government cut capital works funding for public housing. Capital works spending on public and community housing has been cut by $11.3 million in real terms to $193.7 million, which means further hardship for hundreds of country families stuck on public housing waiting lists. The waiting list has grown by 10,138 families since the Premier was elected in 1995. A few more low lights in this 2001 Labor budget include: the Department of Community Services' funding will fall $8 million in real terms in 2001-02, despite a major increase in reports of child abuse to the department and more families requiring assistance. The fisheries tax take jumps to $8.5 million in the next financial year, largely due to the Carr Government's recently imposed saltwater fishing licence fee tax. Commercial fishers are to suffer a 17 per cent jump in fishery management charges in the coming year.

The Carr Government will increase its reliance on gaming revenue to the tune of $1.2 billion in 2001-02. At the same time the Government is determined to wipe out monitoring and compliance within the Department of Gaming and Racing, with a further $3.5 million cut in the department's budget. There are no cuts to petrol excise from the equivalent of 8.3 cents per litre the Carr Government pockets from the Federal Government. There is an additional $30 million allocation to prop up the viability of Olympic Park due to a lack of proper pre-Olympics planning, and a paltry $13 million to implement the second phase of the Government's water reforms, one of the major initiatives the Government is claiming, yet it is allocating only a paltry $13 million to this very important area.

This budget is clearly a product of a tired Government—a Government that has had seven years to provide a strategy and results for country areas but just cannot get it right. It is a Government that squanders opportunities. New South Wales Labor has become a government of spin—plenty of public relations hype from glass office towers in Sydney but very little substance for rural and regional areas. It is an administration that has never been in touch with country areas and shows no signs of or interest in understanding the needs and aspirations of those living outside metropolitan areas in New South Wales.

The glaring imbalance in the composition of the Carr Cabinet should not be forgotten. As it stands, true country representation in Cabinet amounts to a miserable 5 per cent or just one of the 19 Ministers. What hope in the decision making board room of this State Government do country and regional people have with a buying power of less than 5 per cent? If this Government was any way serious about country and regional areas, if this so-called faction that it has been fashioning had any clout, it might have at least one more Minister than the lame duck one sitting opposite. It does not have enough to run a relief relay. There he is—the hopes and aspirations of country areas of New South Wales rest totally on this one failed voice. It is no surprise. Anyway, he is coastal—not that I am decrying that.

Mr Woods: You don't like the coast, George!

Mr SOURIS: I love the coast. The Minister for Local Government represents a coastal area so the entire inland of New South Wales is unrepresented in Cabinet. The Minister should not tell me that he thinks he is covering the whole of the State. It is no surprise that the Carr Government's decision-making processes and budgets are Sydney-centric. Once again, country New South Wales has missed out on vital funding, vital resources and vital commitments from a tired, clapped-out Sydney-centric Government that is represented on the floor of the House by the Minister for Local Government, the sole Minister in the Cabinet from a country area. What hope have they got? The Government has one more year and then we will be shed of it. Country areas have one more year of suffering until we can restore a decent balance for all people: reasonable, equitable access to the services, resources and capital funds of this mighty State.

Mr GIBSON (Blacktown) [12.50 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Appropriation Bill. I listened with great interest to the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition. Honourable members must remember that they represent a Coalition that ran this State for seven years without once returning a budget surplus. Not only that, when we came to Government in 1995 we were faced with a dramatic deficit of $12 billion. Members opposite talk about good management. To see good management they need look only at their record during the seven years they ran this State, which, as I said, resulted in a deficit of $12 billion. That is the only thing they left this State. I believe this year's budget is a budget for this time and this moment in Government. It represents what the Government has done over the past seven years. The people of New South Wales will be the beneficiaries of this budget. The budget has been fiscally responsible and, as I have said in many speeches on budgets over the years, it is in the spirit of the McKell Government and all other Labor Governments because it is a fiscally responsible document.

New South Wales' triple-A credit rating today can be attributed to the performance of the Government which, in my opinion—and I am proud to be part of this Government—is a very good Government. Last year the budget provided a surplus of $393 million, and in 1999 the budget produced a surplus of $214 million. This year the budget has come in with another surplus of $386 million. That is a magnificent record by any means. We have managed to pay back $7.5 billion of State debt in that time. We paid our way as far as the Olympics were concerned. And the Government has managed to spend more than $1 billion more than any other government in history on the two portfolios of health and education alone. With the crash of HIH, the Government has made a commitment of $600 million over the next few years. Yet, as I said, we still have a budget surplus.

One realises what a fantastic effort it has been, particularly after the deal we have had from the Federal Government. New South Wales is $110 million out of pocket for the 2001-02 financial year, compared to its position at the same time last year. This has happened because of the bungling calculations by the Grants Commission, which will cost New South Wales another $17 million, adding to the $93 million shortfall that the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, refused to address at the Treasurer's' conference in March. The people of New South Wales pay 36 per cent of Australia's total GST, but only 30 per cent of the GST revenue comes back from Canberra. The budget strengthens the State's balance sheet and maintains the New South Wales triple-A credit rating. It also continues and expands the Government's tax reduction program, and it improves service delivery in key priority areas.

The 2001-02 budget has been framed to deliver on each of these objectives, and, as I mentioned, provides a budget surplus of $368 million. There is a budget surplus in each of the forward years, a reduction in the net financial liabilities of $537 million in 2001-02 and a reduction in net financial liabilities over the forward estimates period. This is a magnificent budget for Western Sydney, which has 14 local council areas, nearly two million people and more than 75,000 firms. And it is growing on a daily basis. Blacktown is the largest municipality in New South Wales and the third largest in Australia behind Brisbane and the Gold Coast. The Blacktown municipality has a population of 262,000. It is a magnificent area that is growing all the time, and it is starting to gain prominence as one of the leading cities in this nation today.

In the past five years the average price of homes in the Blacktown area has jumped a staggering $70,000-odd. There is a real estate boom predicted for the area, and large businesses are moving into the area in great numbers, which is a great telling factor for the future of Blacktown. One out of every 76 people living in Australia today lives in the Blacktown municipality. This is a staggering but true figure. Blacktown city has the largest Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population in the State, with a total population of 5,500. More than 57,000 residents, or 27.2 per cent of the population of Blacktown, speak a language other than English. There are more than 30 nationalities in my electorate which speak more than 40 different languages.

Blacktown wins a healthy share of the record $5,581 million being spent on new and upgraded schools, hospitals, roads and other public facilities across the State next year. Local people and businesses also benefit from new tax cuts worth $1,215 million over the next four years. This budget comes up trumps with more spending on community improvements and more tax cuts to help families and small businesses in Blacktown. I welcome the Government's total capital works and services allocation for Blacktown of some $27.3 million for 2001-02, which will provide an extra 400 jobs in the area.

Key areas of local expenditure this year are $4.5 million on roads, $4.76 million on education and $4.4 million on public housing. This includes $1.2 million towards building Acacia Gardens Public School; $1.3 million for stage two of the upgrading of Marayong South Public School; $425,000 on replacing firefighting equipment; a massive $2.1 million for a business, manufacturing and student services facility at Blacktown; $5.4 million for improvements to the train stabling yard at Blacktown; $4 million for 32 public housing units at Blacktown; $1.2 million for planning transitways from Blacktown to Castle Hill and Wetherill Park; and $400,000 towards planning the Western Sydney Orbital from Camden Valley Way to the M2.

Families and businesses will no longer pay State taxes on their bank accounts when the debits tax is abolished from 1 January 2002, saving at least $20 for pensioners and an average of $60 for families. This budget also helps small businesses by cutting other taxes that regularly niggle traders and contractors. Specifically, the Government will abolish stamp duties connected to superannuation and franchise agreements from 1 July 2001, and lift thresholds for stamp duties on leases between $3,000 and $20,000 and hiring arrangements between $6,000 and $14,000 from 1 July 2001. The budget suspends the $100 million a year electricity distributors levy from 1 July 2001 and makes allowance for a further cut to payroll tax from 6.2 per cent to 6 per cent from 1 July 2002. The Government continues to fund the largest capital works program ever undertaken in New South Wales or in any other State.

This year an additional $577 million will be spent, which is nearly 12 per cent more than the last year's total expenditure of $5.004 billion. The New South Wales State Labor Government continues to attack State debt and continues its efforts to reduce the annual interest bill. The Government expects to reduce the State's total debt to less than $5 billion by the year 2005, making a saving of approximately $1,000 million a year in interest payments compared to the amount paid in interest in 1998. As a result of the retirement of debt, additional funding can be redirected to hospitals, schools and policing.

Vehicle theft is a problem not only in Blacktown but also in other parts of this State. Over a 12-month period in Blacktown alone 3,594 vehicles were stolen. I made representations to the Minister for Police for the provision of an additional 16 police officers. At this stage an additional five police officers have been assigned to the Blacktown area to combat motor vehicle crime. The Government will provide the community with a highly mobile and revitalised police front line. Once again, the Labor State Government has delivered a budget that will provide for an additional 200 police officers. That means the Government is on track to meet its commitment to provide an additional 1,000 additional police officers, making a total of 2,110 police officers who will be available for front-line duty by December 2003. That represents a massive increase of 48 per cent or $520 million over the former Coalition Government's last budget.

This year the Government has added $26.6 million to allocate a record $354.5 million to target repairs and improvements to public, community and Aboriginal housing in New South Wales. The Blacktown electorate forms part of the Western Sydney region of the Department of Housing. This year $36.680 million will be spent in the region to improve public housing and renew communities. Work has begun on 36 new homes for people who live in the Blacktown area and that represents a massive $4.25 million investment.

To meet a problem of pressing importance, the needs of young people who live in Blacktown, the Department of Community Services allocation for the next financial year for child and family services in an area which includes Parramatta, Blacktown and Mount Druitt will be at least $66.1 million. After taking account of the transfer of the Pensioner Electricity Subsidy Scheme to the Ministry of Energy and Utilities, funding across the portfolio of the Minister for Community Service for community services has increased by $45.9 million, or 8.4 per cent, to a massive $595 million. That is another record amount. Funding for child and family support services has been increased by $389.3 million to $424.9 million, which represents a 9.1 per cent increase. Funding for the provision of children's services has been increased from $100.3 million to $105.3 million, an increase of 4.8 per cent.

There has also been record spending in the Health portfolio. The Carr Government will plough a massive $1.28 billion into greater western Sydney health services over the next financial year. That represents an increase of $98 million or 8.3 per cent in recurrent funding. Of that total amount, $13.5 million will pay for the high cost of drugs in hospitals. Features of this year's recurrent budget for the greater western districts of Sydney, particularly the Blacktown electorate, include funding for acute stroke units at both the Westmead hospital and Blacktown Hospital which will greatly increase the co-ordination of care for stroke patients. The intensive care unit and emergency department facilities at both hospitals will be enhanced. The highlight of this year's capital works budget for western Sydney is the approval of $178.5 million over the next six years to implement the Western Sydney Strategy. This project will facilitate a major upgrade of the New Children's Hospital at Westmead and the Auburn District Hospital.

Funding for the total capital and maintenance program on roads for Blacktown is a massive $4.49 million. That is a considerable increase on the amount of $2.3 million allocated last year—in fact it is almost double. A massive $1,675,000 has been allocated for major works, which include planning work for the Western Sydney Orbital from the Camden Valley Way to Prestons, planning work for a transitway between Blacktown and Castle Hill and planning for a transitway between Blacktown and Wetherill Park. Funding of $120,000 has been allocated for road network infrastructure for the Blacktown electorate. Most of that funding will be spent on the concept, development and investigation of the loud zone program. The allocation for the infrastructure maintenance program is $835,690. The allocation for the road safety program is $91,610.

The traffic and transport management program has received a massive allocation of $1,763,030 for the Prospect to Blacktown cycleway; the Seven Hills to Blacktown link cycleway, which incorporates the link from Breakfast Creek to Blacktown station; traffic island and kerb adjustments at Sunnyholt Road and Main Street, Blacktown; the pedestrian access and mobility plan for Blacktown; red bus lanes; and regional roads block grant and traffic facilities in Blacktown. The budget presented by the New South Wales State Labor Government shows it looks after western Sydney, particularly the Blacktown electorate. I thank the Government very much for the funding that has been allocated to the Blacktown electorate.

If the Opposition wants to criticise this budget, let their criticism be based on the expenditure I have listed and let them try to win over the voters of New South Wales with their arguments. This budget will result in the abolition of the tax on 403,000,000 bank withdrawal transactions. Everybody has been complaining about that tax for a long time. As a result of this budget, 630,000 pensioners will save up to $30 on energy bills. Rebates for New South Wales pensioners will range from $76 to $96 for electricity and from $12 to $14 for gas. As I stated at the outset, this is a good budget. It suggests continued prosperity and security for our children and for the State of New South Wales. I commend the bills to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr W. D. Smith.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Bill: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by Mr Watkins 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 on the Home Building Legislation Amendment Bill.

HOME BUILDING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time

Second Reading

Mr WATKINS (Ryde—Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Sport and Recreation) [1.08 p.m.]: I move:

I am extremely pleased to be able to introduce this important consumer protection legislation into the House today. It is the culmination of more than 18 months of work to improve the regulation of home building in New South Wales. Over the first 12 months, specific problems were identified and a range of proposals were put together. We talked to everyone from home owners, to builders to building industry associations to insurers. Then, at the end of last year, I released a draft set of reforms to promote further consultation and discussion. In March, I released a draft bill based on those reforms, and I am delighted to say that the bill I introduce today has been modified and improved as a result of this exhaustive process.

This has been a mammoth task and I would like to start this speech, rather than finish it, by expressing my profound thanks to all of those people and organisations who have participated to date. In this regard I acknowledge the outstanding assistance from the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Association, the Master Painters Association, the Master Plumbers and Electrical Contractors Association, the National Electrical and Communications Association, the Swimming Pool and Spa Association, the Landscape Contractors Association and the Building Industry Skills Centre.

I also thank all the members of the Home Building Advisory Council, who have actively and enthusiastically participated in the debates that have helped shape this bill. The council includes everyone from small business people to unions. It is more than ably chaired by Mr Phil Marchionni, whom I especially thank. I extend special thanks to the Building Action Review Group [BARG] and its tireless leader, Mrs Irene Onorati. Although debates with Irene are always vigorous, I take this opportunity to assure her and the other members of BARG that their input is most valued and has assisted me in bringing the bill this far.

In addition to face-to-face discussions, a total of 47 written submissions have been received since the draft bill was released. I thank all of those people and organisations who took the time and effort to make a contribution to the development of this legislation. Before I leave this aspect of my speech I should stress that I am not claiming that every organisation or person I have mentioned will endorse every clause or every part of this bill. For example, there will certainly be aspects of the bill that some builders or the insurers may see as too tough. I cannot stress enough that the object of this bill is to better protect consumers, in other words, to protect families.

Despite this very necessary consumer focus, the simple fact is that there is something for everyone in this bill. Everyone has some wins. But home owners are the big winners, and rightly so. I am confident that the bill will improve no end the delicate balance between better regulation of the building industry, a better deal for consumers and a fair go for builders. I make it clear at the outset that the introduction of this bill is not in my mind the end of the consultation and improvement process. I am more than willing to adopt any sensible suggestions that further improve the bill as it passes through this Parliament.

The current system of consumer protection for the home building industry was established in May 1997. The reforms introduced at the time represented a new era for the industry with major changes to the system that had previously operated for 25 years. While the fundamental components of the regulatory framework—namely, licensing, insurance, dispute resolution and discipline—are still seen as essential and have widespread support, it has become patently clear, as I said earlier, that the system needs to operate more fairly and effectively. Consumers and builders alike have expressed dissatisfaction with aspects of the current legislative regime. Complaints received range from delays in having matters heard in the tribunal, delays in having insurance claims finalised, the lack of a clear path for consumers with building problems, and the absence of expert guidance and assistance.

One of my major concerns has been the apparent ability of shonks to continue to operate in the industry or, if they are disqualified, their ability to reappear with another licence as another entity. The Government acknowledges these shortcomings and is committed to overcoming them. The reforms in the bill are intended to significantly improve the level of protection for consumers by strengthening licensing requirements by enabling the exclusion of bankrupt traders and persons with unsatisfied insurance claims against them; speeding up the disciplinary process to allow for the removal of incompetent or otherwise unfit persons from the licensing system, and allowing the director-general to make orders for completion of work where an authority is suspended or cancelled; increasing penalties for non-compliance with the Act in order to crack down on unlicensed and uninsured work and for other offences; making the insurance scheme fairer and more accountable; establishing an early intervention dispute resolution system—experience shows that many building disputes can be resolved if the parties are able to sit down and discuss the problems with the assistance of an independent expert—and raising consumer awareness of remedies that are available when things go wrong.

While the bill focuses on consumer protection, members of the building industry will also benefit through these reforms, especially those relating to dispute resolution and continuing education. The approved insurers will benefit through an expected reduction in insurance claims, while the Fair Trading Tribunal should see a considerable drop in the number of disputes that are required to be dealt with by way of hearing. I will now outline in more detail the main provisions of bill. As foreshadowed, the bill contains a number of reforms aimed at enhancing the licensing scheme and removing unscrupulous or insolvent contractors from the industry. The requirements for renewal or restoration of a contractor licence will be strengthened.

The director-general will be able to reject an application for renewal or restoration of a licence in certain additional circumstances. These will include whether the applicant has in the last five years been bankrupt; is or has been a director or person concerned in the management of a company that is subject to a winding up order or has had a controller or administrator appointed; has any unsatisfied Fair Trading Tribunal orders; or has an unreasonable number of formal cautions, penalty notices or insurance claims. It will also be a condition of licence renewal that a licensee must undertake a minimum amount of continuing professional development each year. In recent years there have been repeated calls from consumer groups and industry associations for the introduction of some form of continuing professional development as a condition of licence renewal. This will raise the level of knowledge and expertise within the industry.

The Home Building Advisory Council is already working on the development of this further education requirement. Consultation with industry and training providers will also be undertaken as part of putting the "meat on the bones", as outlined in the bill. At present a contractor licence is automatically cancelled if one of a number of circumstances set out in the Act occurs. However, automatic cancellation creates uncertainty in the licensing scheme as the director-general may not become aware of the relevant event until some time after it occurs. In other words, a licence might by operation of the Act be cancelled but will remain on the licence register as a current licence until the director-general becomes aware of the event. This could have serious consequences for consumers who may unknowingly deal with an unlicensed contractor.

Schedule 1 to the bill provides instead for the director-general to serve a notice on the licensee setting out the reasons for the cancellation, and for the cancellation to take effect on the date specified in the notice. The bill also adds to the list of circumstances in which a contractor licence may be cancelled, including where the contractor becomes bankrupt or becomes the subject of a winding up order. This will prevent insolvent contractors from trading and give consumers greater confidence in the licensing system. As an additional measure to protect consumers from insolvent traders, the bill provides for the suspension of a corporation licence if a controller or administrator of the corporation is appointed under the Corporations Law. The imposition of a suspension would be discretionary based on the director-general's assessment of the risk to the public. The suspension will be able to be lifted by the director-general if the administration is finalised and the company is otherwise able to trade. The decision of the director-general to suspend a licence will also be reviewable by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

The position of consumers where a licence has been suspended, cancelled or surrendered has not been overlooked. In such cases existing clients of the licensee may be affected because the licensee is not able to complete the work in progress. To overcome this problem the director-general will be able to make orders to assist the continuation of projects. This might include allowing the suspended licensee to complete work under the supervision of the insurer or allowing another contractor, with the approval of the owners, to complete the job. To better protect consumers it is also proposed to give them more information about licensees when they are deciding whether to engage them. In this respect, it is proposed to include on the Register of Licences details of a contractor's non-compliance with orders of the Fair Trading Tribunal.

The register will also include details of disciplinary action taken, results of any prosecutions, the number of penalty notices issued, the number of insurance claims paid, formal cautions issued to the licensee, and details of any public warnings and cancellation or suspension imposed under the Home Building Act or any other Act. So that consumers can be further protected the bill provides that the director-general may give a warning to the public without having to give the contractor 48 hours notice as currently applies. Such urgent warnings will be able to be made where in the opinion of the director-general there is an immediate risk to the public.

The building licensing scheme will also be rationalised by reducing the number of existing licence categories. There are currently around 420 categories of licences under the Act. This encourages a too narrow specialisation of skills and is confusing for consumers. For example, in the roofing area, subcategories of licences include roof carpentry, roof construction and roof strengthening. There will be further consultation with industry bodies and other relevant groups to determine the final list of categories to be covered by regulation.

The bill also ensures that refrigeration and airconditioning work will continue to be regulated. The Regulatory Reduction Act 1996 contained provisions which removed from the definition of "specialist work" in the Home Building Act refrigeration and airconditioning work. The effect of these amendments was to remove the need for people to have a contractor licence to do refrigeration work or airconditioning work. However, these provisions were not commenced. Following representations by the industry and having regard to health and safety issues involved, the Government has decided that the licensing of contractors who do such work should be retained. A further initiative contained in the bill is the introduction of a new requirement for owner-builders to include a notice in the contract for sale indicating that an owner-builder permit was issued in relation to the dwelling and the work done under the contract was required to be insured.

This amendment is in response to concerns raised by purchasers of owner-built dwellings which contained defective work not covered by insurance. These purchasers said they were not aware that insurance should have been taken out. These complaints showed the need for a mechanism to alert purchasers that owner-builder work has been done to the dwelling and to inform them of the insurance requirement. Furthermore, the bill makes it a requirement for the grant of an owner permit that the applicant has completed an approved course of education. This will ensure that owner-builders are fully informed of their legal obligations relating to the work and assist them to better understand the building process.

An important licensing reform initiative is the proposal to include within the licensing framework persons who do building consultancy work. In recent years there has been an increase in the use of building consultants by consumers in the home building industry. Such persons are usually retained to carry out pre-purchase inspections for consumers buying property. And, increasingly, since the introduction of the current Home Warranty Insurance Scheme, building consultants are engaged by consumers in dispute with their builder or preparing to lodge an insurance claim. While many of the persons operating in this field are professionals, for example architects and building certifiers, or are accredited through industry associations, many others are not. This has caused a rise in the level of complaint from consumers who believe they are getting reports from qualified persons.

Persons required to hold a building consultant's licence will be those who, for fee or reward, undertake inspections of dwellings or specialist work, such as electrical, plumbing or airconditioning work, and provide reports to their clients. Building consultants will be subject to similar requirements relating to contracts, discipline, and licence application and renewal as apply to other licensees under the Act. These requirements are set out in schedule 3 to the bill. As with the case of existing licence-holders the director-general will set the qualifications and level of experience. Building consultants will also be required to hold professional indemnity insurance. The bill also provides for a new system of photo licences for builders. The director-general will be able to require an applicant for a licence to have his or her photograph taken or to provide a photograph.

Schedule 5 to the bill reforms the manner in which disciplinary action can be taken against contractors who have been guilty of improper conduct or other unsatisfactory behaviour. Currently disciplinary action for improper conduct is initiated by the director-general by serving notice to show cause on the contractor. The allegations contained in the notice are heard before the Fair Trading Tribunal. This process has been criticised for not facilitating the speedy consideration of disciplinary matters. These criticisms are valid. Show cause actions may take months to complete. Such proceedings also tie up valuable tribunal resources. It is instead proposed that disciplinary action be the responsibility of the director-general. The proposed model is consistent with that which applies to a number of other occupations licensed by the Department of Fair Trading. Where, at any time, the director-general is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that certain events have occurred the director-general may, by notice in writing, call upon the licensee to show cause within such period, being not less than 14 days, why the licensee should not be dealt with under the Act.

The licence-holder may within the specified time make submissions orally or in writing and adduce evidence with respect to matters in the notice to show cause. The director-general may conduct such inquiry and investigation into the matters covered by the notice as the director-general thinks fit. However, the director-general will be able to take immediate action if the director-general believes that it is in the public interest. The range of determinations which might be made include no further action, caution or reprimand, a penalty of up to $11,000, suspension or cancellation of the licence. The director-general will also be able to impose a condition on the licence requiring the holder to undertake a course of training relating to particular work or business practice. There will be a right of review to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal against the determination of the director-general. These reforms will provide greater protection to the public by enabling a quicker, more flexible and cost effective response to misconduct on the part of licensees.

To support the enhancements to the disciplinary regime and to crack down on those attempting to operate outside the regulatory system, the bill doubles the maximum monetary penalty for all offences under the Act. For example, the maximum penalty for unlicensed or uninsured contracting will rise from $11,000 to $22,000 while the penalty for taking excessive deposits or non-compliance with the contractual requirements will rise from $2,200 to $4,400. These rises will send a clear message about the seriousness of these breaches. Since the introduction of the Home Warranty Insurance Scheme four years ago a number of concerns have been raised about the scheme's operation. I hasten to add that these issues arose prior to the HIH Insurance collapse, which was in no way linked to the company's provision of home warranty insurance in New South Wales.

A number of reforms are proposed to address the problems arising out of the scheme. Firstly, some consumers have suffered difficulties as a result of the activities of a licensed contractor who was licensed in his or her own right as an individual and who was also a director of a company which was licensed. The difficulties arose because the contract for the building work was in the name of the company whereas the certificate of insurance was issued in the individual builder's name. In some cases where this has occurred the insurer declined cover on the basis that it had not issued insurance to the company. The most infamous of these instances related to a former builder, Gary Cohen. He left a trail of consumers in his wake after setting his contracts up in this way. I am pleased to say, by the way, that last year Fair Trading was successful in having Mr Cohen banned for 10 years.

To address this issue it is proposed that the Act be amended to require the contractor to inform the insurer of the identity of the parties to the contract, the address of the premises where the work is to be done and such other matters as may be prescribed. If the insurer issues a certificate of insurance covering the work the consumer will be covered whether or not the contractor's name shown in the building contract is different to that shown in the certificate of insurance. If a claim is paid the insurer will be entitled to recover from the contractor shown in the building contract or the person nominated to the insurer as the builder. Consumers will also receive protection in circumstances where the builder's annual insurance policy commenced after the date of the building contract, provided the building work has not commenced.

The bill also extends insurance cover to building work where the reasonable market cost of the labour and materials involved exceeds $5,000, whether or not part of the work or materials is to be provided by the other party to the contract. This proposal is to overcome avoidance by contractors of the insurance requirements by structuring the cost of the work to be done to fall below the $5,000 threshold. For example, in a case where the contract amount is less than $5,000 but the owner is supplying materials or some work bringing the total project cost to over $5,000 no insurance is required. In this situation the consumer is disadvantaged compared to a consumer under a building contract where the contractor supplies the materials.

The bill also contains various provisions to improve the monitoring of the Home Warranty Insurance Scheme and to stop fraudulent traders. Firstly, the director-general will be given the power to require an insurer to provide information to the Department of Fair Trading relating to the insurance scheme, including information about claims handling, the settlement of claims as well as particular claimants and licensees. It is further proposed that director-general may, with the consent of the insurer, pass some of this information to other insurers, particularly in relation to the misconduct of licensees. This will help reduce fraudulent conduct by licensees.

The bill also contains mechanisms to improve compliance by insurers with the conditions of their approval. In this respect, the bill includes a range of penalties which could be imposed on insurers who fail to comply with their conditions of approval for the home warranty scheme. The Minister for Fair Trading will be able to suspend or cancel the approval, impose a civil penalty on the insurer of up to $50,000 or issue a letter of censure. Notice of claim forms may also be required to be in a form approved by the director-general.

Another reform will allow the Minister to approve a reduction in insurance cover for certain work, such as landscaping and painting, where the Minister is satisfied that the general seven-year cover under the insurance scheme is inappropriate. Obviously, such reductions will only be approved in a very limited class of case. The bill also makes clear that purchasers buying dwellings in development projects are able to rescind the contract for sale if the required insurance is not taken out. This will particularly help purchasers buying "off the plan". To ensure the Act does not operate unjustly, courts will be given discretion to enable a contractor who has failed to take out insurance to recover money for work done. When the home warranty scheme was first established it was a requirement to take out insurance at the date of the contract. To deter uninsured work the Act provided that a licensee who entered into a building contract without having insurance in force at that time was not entitled to any payment.

This requirement had an unintended result in that a licence holder was barred from recovering any money even if insurance was taken out after the contract was signed. As a result the Act was amended in 1999 to provide that a licence holder who contracts to do residential building work must take out the insurance prior to commencement of the work. If the contractor starts work without insurance he or she cannot ask for payment. But if insurance is subsequently taken out the contractor is no longer barred from seeking recovery. While these 1999 amendments allow a licence holder to recover moneys once insurance is in place, there may be other cases where insurance simply cannot be obtained. For example, if the licence holder, acting on a mistaken belief that insurance is not necessary, goes ahead and builds the project he or she may be unable to get insurance. This leaves the licence holder in the position of being unable to obtain any payment even though the work may be satisfactory. In such cases the Act could operate unjustly.

Accordingly, a court or the Fair Trading Tribunal will, if it considers it just and equitable, be able to allow a contractor to recover money for the work on a quantum merit basis. In considering this matter the court or tribunal may have regard to the impact on the resale price of the dwelling if there is no contract of insurance. This discretion available to a court or the Fair Trading Tribunal will apply to contracts entered into before 30 July 1999. These new provisions respond to well-founded concerns expressed to me by building industry representatives during the development of this bill.

I now turn to the new dispute resolution scheme. Perhaps the centrepiece of these reforms is a new dispute resolution process which will help everyone in the building game—home owners, builders and insurers. The improvements in dispute resolution the 1997 Act was meant to bring have not eventuated. Instead, it is clear many home building disputes are being referred directly to the Fair Trading Tribunal for adjudication. This has resulted in a sharp increase in the number of building matters before the tribunal. It has also led to consumers being confused as to when they are eligible to lodge an insurance claim and the course of action they should take in attempting to resolve a building dispute. Taking legal action against a builder can be an emotional strain as well as a financial burden for many consumers. Families undertaking building work, particularly larger works, usually have most of their available funds tied up in the project and are often not in a position to pay for lawyers to represent them. The establishment of a new dispute resolution process will operate as an early intervention mechanism and should significantly reduce the number of disputes requiring a hearing and alleviate the cost burden on consumers.

The new dispute resolution scheme will, in effect, be "the front end" of the Fair Trading Tribunal and, in summary, will work as follows. Consumers will be able to contact the Department of Fair Trading for preliminary information in relation to options for dispute resolution; they then may wish to notify the Fair Trading Tribunal of the dispute. The dispute will be assessed by the Fair Trading Tribunal for the purpose of determining whether the matter is appropriate for resolution by an independent expert. An independent expert will be selected from a panel of experts approved by the chairperson of the tribunal. The intention is that the expert will quickly make contact with the parties and if possible attend the site. If the work is covered by home warranty insurance the insurer will be notified of the dispute. This will allow the insurer to participate in the discussions.

Irrespective of whether the insurer becomes involved, it will not be able to claim that the consumer's rights under the policy are prejudiced by any agreement which might be reached with the builder. The independent expert will be required to prepare a written report on the dispute and provide it to the parties within a time limit specified by the tribunal. If the parties reach an agreement during an assessment by the independent expert, that agreement must be put in writing by the expert, signed by the parties and filed with the tribunal. If the dispute cannot be resolved through this early intervention dispute resolution system, a building claim can be lodged with the tribunal in order to have the matter heard and determined.

The bill caps the tribunal's monetary jurisdiction for the hearing of building claims for amounts of up to $500,000 or such other amount specified by the regulations. At present the monetary jurisdiction of the tribunal in respect of building claims is unlimited. The tribunal receives around 4,800 building claims a year. Although the majority of these involve disputed amounts of less than $50,000, there have been cases where the amount in dispute has been several million dollars. Such claims have involved considerable resources of the tribunal to the detriment of smaller consumers. Imposing a monetary limit will ensure that large cases do not consume the tribunal's resources and delay the listing of other cases.

While the monetary jurisdiction for building claims will be capped at $500,000 it is proposed the tribunal be given primary responsibility for hearing building claims. This will ensure that persons are not denied the benefit of having their case heard in the tribunal because the other party has initiated proceedings in a court. I am afraid this has been a too-common tactic in the past, where builder's have tried to avoid the tribunal's jurisdiction. They have done this to try to tie consumers up in the civil courts—often at considerable expense and after a considerable delay. In such cases, if the defendant—who will invariably be the consumer—makes an application to have the proceedings transferred to the tribunal, the proceedings must be transferred and continued in the tribunal.

The tribunal will also be given the power to adjourn proceedings when what is known as an "insurable event" arises and join parties to proceedings. If at any time before or during proceedings the tribunal is of the opinion that a person should be joined as a party, it may give notice or a direction joining that person as a party. Where an order is made against a licensee as a result of tribunal proceedings, the tribunal will be required to warn the licensee that a failure to comply with the order will be recorded on the Register of Licences kept by the director-general of the Department of Fair Trading. Again, this will overcome an all too common problem we have encountered: a consumer wins in the tribunal and then the builder refuses to comply with the tribunal's orders.

The builder will now have two major incentives to comply with the tribunal's orders. Firstly, other potential customers will be told about non-compliance when they ring Fair Trading and, perhaps even more important, the director-general will not reissue or renew licences when tribunal orders have not been satisfied. In this regard, the tribunal must inform the director-general of any order made and the time limit for compliance with the order. It will be incumbent on the licensee to advise the director-general when that order has been complied with. If the director-general is satisfied that an order has been complied with, the director-general must ensure that the register does not record non-compliance with the order. If the director-general has not been informed that an order has been complied with by the time limit for compliance, the order will be taken to have not been complied with and will be recorded on the register as such. A penalty of $22,000 will apply if a licensee knowingly makes a false statement that the order has been complied with. The tribunal will also be given the power to convert a work order into a monetary order where there has been non-compliance with the work order.

I now turn to contracts. The bill contains measures designed to ensure that consumers are better able to make informed decisions before entering into a contract with a builder. Before entering a contract a licensed contractor will be required to provide the consumer with information, in a form approved by the director-general, that explains: the operation of the Home Building Act; the procedure for the resolution of disputes under the contract for work; and the procedure for resolution of disputes relating to insurance. Failure by the contractor to provide the information will be an offence. Lack of information about rights, responsibilities and remedies in the building industry is one of the biggest problems we face. Better information, before a contract is signed, will assist consumers to make sound decisions and will clarify when they can make an insurance claim, how they can proceed in the event of a dispute, who they can contact and how to lodge a claim.

Another major consumer reform will be a new cooling-off period of five business days after a building contract is signed. Where a contract is rescinded during the cooling-off period the contractor will be able to retain the amount of any reasonable out of pocket expenses. The balance of money received from the consumer will have to be refunded. Consumer groups and others have raised the need for a cooling-off period because of the potential for unscrupulous traders to coerce or use misleading statements to induce consumers to sign contracts. The cooling-off period will be able to be waived by the consumer if the consumer provides the contractor with a certificate signed by the consumer's legal representative. The provision is modelled on the existing provisions relating to the sale of land.

To further safeguard consumers' contractual rights the Act will allow the regulations to make provision for matters which should be included in or excluded from home building contracts. I am afraid that another common tactic of unscrupulous contractors has been to include get-out-of-gaol-free clauses in their building contracts. In effect, this has meant that a consumer who has not obtained legal advice prior to signing a building contract has found, when things turn bad, that their rights under the contract are severely curtailed. Under this new provision, the director-general will effectively outlaw such provisions.

As I announced in November last year, these important reforms will be funded by a one-off increase in building licence fees of 10 per cent. This rise will not be implemented until the new processes are ready to go. The fee for owner-builder permits will also be raised. The total additional revenue, estimated at approximately $3 million, will be paid into the Home Building Administration Fund which is provided for in the bill. I need to stress that these funds will be hypothecated in this way and expended on the new scheme.

Money in the fund will be used for meeting the costs of operating the scheme for resolving building disputes, meeting the costs of administering the Home Building Act or any other Act as prescribed in the regulation and the making of any investments approved by the Treasurer. I turn now to additional provisions included as a result of the devastating HIH collapse. The bill contains a savings and transitional provision which places beyond doubt that certificates of insurance issued by contractors on or before the provisional liquidation of HIH on 15 March 2001 are valid. This should address the widespread confusion which has arisen on the part of builders, developers and consumers as to whether they could continue to rely on these certificates and whether they were in breach of the Act.

In the case of consumers who had HIH home warranty insurance in place as at 15 March 2001 they will be covered by the New South Wales Government's rescue package. HIH home warranty insurance holders will be placed in the same position as they would have been if HIH had not collapsed. The various reforms contained in the bill which I have outlined will address many of the complaints about the current system for consumers protection. However, they are only part of the Government's overall reform package. In addition to these legislative changes a number of regulatory and administrative actions are proposed.

Changes to the Home Building Regulation will be made to: provide that the director-general must be satisfied before a licence is issued that the applicant has not been a director or person concerned in the management of a company which has had its licence cancelled or suspended; reduce the period after which an insurance claim is deemed refused from 60 to 45 days; clarify the losses covered under the insurance scheme in order to remove any doubt as to when a claim can be made and therefore reduce costly litigation; clarify when a consumer has reasonable grounds to refuse access to the contractor who did the work without prejudicing his or her insurance claim; and to strengthen the conditions of approval for insurers by making the reporting requirements more relevant to the monitoring of the insurance scheme.

Administrative steps, which either have or will be taken, include: adjusting the $200,000 minimum cover under the insurance scheme to reflect the increase in the "Price Index of Materials Used in House Building, Six Capital Cities", as published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics; playing a central role in the provision of information and guidance to consumers affected by the insolvency of a contractor, including liasing with the insurer and the administrator or liquidator; developing a licence renewal policy which will be linked to the number of complaints and other criteria; cross-referencing the electronic licensing record to disclose builders and contractors licensed as individuals and through a company structure; and establishing a new Special Building Investigations Unit to provide greater focus on taking action against persons who wilfully flout the law.

In closing, there are a few people I would like to mention and thank. Certain officers of the Department of Fair Trading have worked diligently over the past 18 months to bring these reforms to fruition. Among them are John Schmidt, Lyn Baker, Mary Louise Battilana, Peter Smith and Steve Jones. I particularly thank Chris Aird, who has lived with this bill since we started this process. I also thank my caucus colleagues who have made useful suggestions along the way. Finally, I thank—and this one is unusual—the Hon. John Ryan, in another place, who has also significantly contributed to the development of this legislation and has participated—most of the time!—in a non-partisan fashion. I also thank my chief of staff, Jane Fitzgerald, for the tireless work she put into bringing the bill to this stage.

As I said at the beginning, the fundamental components of the regulatory framework for the home building industry are sound and have overall public support, but there are problems which need to be overcome and improvements which need to be made. This package makes more than 50 changes in total and in its entirety comprises a radical overhaul of home building regulation in this State. It means the difficulties which have been encountered will be addressed by the Government's reforms and both consumers and honest competent building contractors will be given a fairer deal in future. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.

[Mr Speaker left the chair at 1.45 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Routine of Business

[During notices of motions]

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the letter that I sent to you last night, a letter to which I have not yet received a reply.

Leave not granted.

PETITIONS

Willoughby Paddocks Rezoning

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.

State Taxes

Petition 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.

Cronulla Police Station Upgrading

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

Malabar Policing

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.

Randwick Police Station Downgrading

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.

Vaucluse Electorate School Closures

Petition requesting funding for public schools and opposing the merging of local schools, received from Mr Debnam.

Queanbeyan Preschool Services

Petition praying that funds be made available to construct a new and permanent preschool in Queanbeyan, received from Mr Webb.

Public High Schools General Operations Grants

Petition praying that the House increase the general operations grants to public high schools, received from Mr O'Farrell.

Public Schools Funding

Petition praying that the House maintain existing public schools and increase funding to such schools, received from Mrs Chikarovski.

Kapooka Bridge

Petition praying that capital works funding be made available for the construction of a new Kapooka bridge, received from Mr Maguire.

Windsor Road Upgrading

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

Kempsey and Macksville Pacific Highway Upgrade

Petition praying that the House improve safety on the Pacific Highway and fast-track the proposed bypassing of Kempsey and Macksville, received from Mr Stoner.

Wagga Wagga Electorate Fruit Fly Campaign

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 Maguire.

Callan Park Trust Legislation

Petition asking the House to support the Callan Trust Park Bill, which seeks to protect the heritage site in perpetuity for the people of New South Wales, received from Ms Nori.

Bega Valley Shire Council

Petition praying that extension of the term of the administrator appointed to oversee the affairs of Bega Valley Shire Council be opposed, received from Mr R. H. L. Smith.

COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Report

Mr Hunter, as Chairman, tabled the report entitled "Study of International Jurisdictions".

COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Report

Mr Campbell, as Chairman, tabled the report entitled "The Global Agenda for Children–What role is there for us?" dated May 2001."

Ordered to be printed.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______

INNER CITY SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. How can he reconcile his statement on radio this morning that he had been working on plans to close inner city schools for the past two years with a letter written in January this year on his behalf by the Port Jackson District Superintendent of Education to parents of Erskineville Public School giving them his guarantee that the school was not under review? Was he lying then or is he lying now?

Mr AQUILINA: The Leader of the Opposition is obviously a little hard of hearing. What I said this morning related to the draft proposal "Building the Future"—the best plan that has ever been put forward that will revitalise inner city schools. The Leader of the Opposition should observe that the document that I have is entitled "Draft Proposal". It is a way of ensuring that we reinvest $110 million to provide new gymnasiums, playing fields, libraries, communication and technology centres, radio broadcast centres—you name it. That will mean top quality education facilities for students in schools in inner Sydney.

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

Mr AQUILINA: The Government will reallocate taxpayers' money and ensure that that money is used for those purposes. In other words, it will be used to ensure that we have the best facilities available for schools in the inner Sydney city area. I note that members of the Opposition have been spruiking a lot about the lack of public consultation and all the rest of it. To date 209 community meetings have been held.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.

Mr AQUILINA: Those meetings were held to ensure that members of the public were able to put forward their point of view and come up with positive proposals about what was required within the inner city area.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.

Mr AQUILINA: Although a vocal minority has been loud in expressing some opposition in relation to schools being proposed for closure, many thousands of people have turned up at these meetings to put forward submissions about what they want to see done.

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

Mr AQUILINA: Opposition members know that that is what should have been done when they were in government.

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

Mr AQUILINA: While I am talking about school closures let me remind members of the Opposition of one relevant fact. Seventy schools were closed during the period between April 1988 and March 1995.

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

Mr AQUILINA: Seventy schools were closed. Thirty-four primary schools, 21 schools for specific purposes, seven secondary schools, seven infant schools and one correspondence school were all closed by the Coalition Government, an average of 10 schools a year.

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

CLEVELAND STREET HIGH SCHOOL CLOSURE

Mr HAZZARD: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. How does he reply to Aboriginal parents and elders who have gone public to describe his not-negotiable plan to close Cleveland Street High School and replace it with an Aboriginal campus that they describe as separatist and nothing more than a mickey-mouse mission? All the relevant information to which I have referred is in the document that I have in the Chamber.

Mr AQUILINA: I have been advised that the Aboriginal community will be putting in a good submission in relation to this draft proposal in the future. I will be happy to look at that proposal.

NEW SOUTH WALES MINING INITIATIVES

Mr BLACK: My question without notice is to the Premier. What is the latest information on the plan to establish a nickel cobalt mine near Condobolin, and other mining initiatives?

Mr CARR: I am pleased to share with the House and with the community of western New South Wales some very good news about mining, some very good news about jobs. This builds on the progress since April 1995 of the Government in this respect, with some $13 billion in mining investment in a range of public sector and private sector projects supporting 40,000 jobs. Since the Olympics alone almost $3 million in major developments have been ticked off by my Government, creating 5,000 jobs. This one is particularly valuable because it means hundreds of jobs for country New South Wales. I am sure all members of this Chamber will welcome this proposal to establish the State's first nickel cobalt mine at Fifield, which has now been approved by my colleague the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning.

The mine is located 45 kilometres from Condobolin in the State's Central West. I am advised by the company Black Range Minerals that construction of the mine and its facilities will involve a capital outlay of at least $650 million. I note the interest from the Independent members from rural New South Wales—the real Opposition. The Independents had a good day yesterday. Is it not interesting that two days after the State budget there has been no question from the Opposition, the Coalition, on the budget? When fully operational, this mine is expected to employ 371 people full time and provide direct permanent work for 100 contractors. In addition, there will be about 1,000 jobs during construction. The $650 million mining project will have major flow-on economic and social benefits for families in the shires of Lachlan, Forbes and Parkes. That means more than 1,400 pay packets.

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

Mr CARR: It will mean 1,400 families spending money in local shops and restaurants, employing local tradespeople and putting money back into the local economy.

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

Mr CARR: The mine has a projected yearly output of up to 3 million tonnes of nickel and cobalt ore. This will happen over 21 years. The ore will be in keen demand as raw material for other industries in Australia and also for exports. Substantial environmental conditions—no fewer than 22 of them—will be attached to the project. Noise and air quality management and monitoring will be close and rigorous. There will be an acquisition of the dwelling if it is shown to be adversely affected by noise or dust. We want to include the local community in assessing these performance indicators.

Honourable members will also be interested to know there have been recent developments in relation to the Lake Cowal goldmine in the Central West. The Government is very keen to see it go ahead. Yesterday in California, Homestake Gold mining company announced that it had reached agreement with North Gold Ltd, a subsidiary of Rio Tinto, to take a 100 per cent interest in the Lake Cowal gold project. Homestake is the second-largest producer of gold—

[Interruption]

Please give us a question on the budget. This is question time. Do not throw another petulant fit and walk out, although that is something the Independents would no doubt wish for. The Lake Cowal project is located 24 kilometres north of West Wyalong in the Central West. It is part of the Lachlan gold belt, which also hosts the Cadia and Ridgeway copper goldmines and numerous smaller goldmines. Homestake operates 12 mines world wide and has been exploring and mining since 1961, with four mines in Western Australia. So, on top of the great announcement today of hundreds of jobs in the Central West of New South Wales, we look forward to an early decision about the Lake Cowal project which, again, the Government is very keen to see proceed.

Mr Armstrong: Point of order: The Homestake company has 40 per cent of its activities in Australia. It is very much Australian, and everyone in Orange knows that. I call on the Government to support this mine to the hilt.

COALITION EDUCATION COMMITTEE

Mr ANDERSON: My question is directed to the Premier. What is the Government's response to the Coalition's announcement this morning to set up an education committee to examine the inner-city school strategy and related matters?

Mr CARR: I was aware of such an announcement, but what focused my attention on it was a document dropped into my office last night, the Opposition strategy for the handling of this issue. I know honourable members would like me to share that with them, because it is a most curious document. There are a lot of points of interest in this document. It goes a long way to demonstrating the kind of Opposition—is that the tinkle of nervous laughter? Let me first of all express my appreciation to the co-operative member of the frontbench who got it to my office. One wonders where to start. The document purports to have been written by the shadow Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, MLC, although there are so many spelling mistakes and grammatical errors in it that I cannot believe that. It says, "Proposed school changes, suggested approach." It tells each of them what to say, what to do, what questions to feed. These instructions, printed over 13 pages, include eight spectacular spelling errors and nine errors of grammar and sentence construction.

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

Mr CARR: The shadow Minister for Education and Training cannot spell "partisan", cannot spell "disadvantaged", cannot spell "supervise" and cannot spell "desirably" as in this sentence, "Desiraly the party leader should attend as many sittings as possible." I think "desiraly" the Leader of the Opposition should not walk out in question time. I think that would be most "desiraly." What a huge admission about the cynicism of the Liberal Party this document is and what an admission about its record. I recall the Minister for Education and Training pointing out yesterday, in respect of the treatment of non-government schools, the Kent formula and the damage that has done. At least they acknowledge it, because I extract this sentence from the long strategy document of the Opposition, "Unfortunately the Coalition has a reputation for being interested only in non-government schools."

Mr O'Farrell: It is not true, it's a perception.

Mr CARR: Barry, I would keep my head down if I were you. The honourable member says it is not true but his colleague the shadow Minister for Education and Training says, "Unfortunately the Coalition has a reputation for being interested only in non-government schools." He says it is not true, it is only a perception—yes, a valid perception! Here is the Coalition's document for running this campaign about the restructuring of schools. It continues, "Unfortunately the Coalition has a reputation for being interested only in schools in its zone or 'swinging' electorates." It gives the game away. Is the shadow minister an honest person? Do honourable members think the shadow Minister for Education in another place is a very honest person?

Mr O'Doherty: Tell us about the gun at Cecil Hills High School when you talk about honesty. Tell us about Walt and the gun.

Mr CARR: I was waiting for that. The honourable member for Hornsby is the latest Liberal member to put his name on the country Liberal web site. It says, "I have nice tracts of bushland in my electorate … Hornsby enjoys a village atmosphere." Hornsby has a village atmosphere—clog dancing, peasant weddings and maypoles. Members opposite have left the Chamber to get the document.

Mr O'Doherty: Point of order: On behalf of my electorate I am offended by the Premier's derision of Hornsby. I ask you to direct him to withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Hornsby to order.

Mr CARR: The document goes on; the admissions get deeper. The shadow Minister for Education and Training said that the Liberal Party "is not identified with interest in disadvantaged schools, students and parents". The Coalition is not identified with disadvantaged schools, students and parents. This document is a disgrace. It points to the cynicism of the Coalition's campaign. The Coalition is not interested in disadvantaged schools—the shadow Minister says that. The Leader of the Opposition should not shake her head that way. The Coalition has a perception of not valuing—

Mrs Skinner: That is not correct.

Mr CARR: That is what the shadow Minister says: The Coalition has a reputation for being interested only in non-government schools.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Mulgoa on two calls to order.

Mr CARR: It points to the cynicism of the Coalition's strategy. The document then advises Coalition members to fake sincerity. Let me quote the document. I have not made it up, have I?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Hornsby on three calls to order.

Mr CARR: The document states, "The success or failure of this undertaking"—that is, running opposition to the Government's draft proposals—"will depend on the perceived genuine perks, the warmth of friendship in its relations with the community and the projection of its awareness of the need for reform." Honourable members should note the words "the need for reform". The document then contains this advice about the fake sincerity campaign, "Media publicity must generate spontaneity"—misspelt, once again—"from the quality and nature of those involved and the sincerity of the committee approach." That is the committee they are setting up. "All party publicity must be mature and"—wait for it—"carefully supervised." The Coalition cannot afford to have those wily members from Lane Cove and Vaucluse hijacking the affair. The document says, "Vaucluse and Hunters Hill high schools, while important to the local members, should not be regarded in any way as the underlying agenda for this undertaking." What cynicism!

[Interruption]

Members opposite are holding a crisis meeting: What did Forsythe mean by this? Sack Forsythe? By the way, the memorandum on the letterhead of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe is directed to the honourable member for Cronulla, the honourable member for Vaucluse, for whom there is a little warning about Vaucluse, the honourable member for Oxley—I will say more about him in a moment–and John Ryan MLC. In view of this campaign, one must recall what the Leader of the Opposition said when she was asked what she would do. During an interview on radio 2BL on 27 March she was asked, "What's your stance on the closure of those inner city schools? If you were Premier would you close them or not? Yes or no?" The yes or no question is always difficult. The Leader of the Opposition intoned, "Well I don't know that they need to be closed until we go and consult those communities." A decisive answer!

Mrs Chikarovski: Did you listen to John this morning with Alan Jones? Talk about indecisive!

Mr CARR: Don't get desperate, Kerry. Arriving only hours after this leaked policy and strategy document from the shadow Minister comes an email from one person on the hit list. The email, from Andrew Stoner to all Coalition members, electorate offices, staff, et cetera states:

Mr Stoner: Point of order: The Premier is misleading the House about that email. I did not send it. I ask the Premier to verify the document and table it.

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

Mr CARR: I am sorry. It has been pointed out to me that the email was sent by Andrew Stone, who is a member of the shadow Minister's staff.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Oxley on three calls to order.

Mr CARR: I thank honourable members for that terrific clarification. Mr Stone is on the shadow Minister's staff.

Mrs Skinner: Point of order: The Premier indicated that the email message was sent to Coalition offices and Coalition members of Parliament. I ask you to rule that the email is inadmissible. It was obtained illegally from a system that you run and it is a confidential document for which you must take responsibility.

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

Mr CARR: I will not finish reading the document because of the embarrassment it has caused the honourable member for North Shore.

Mrs Skinner: It is not an embarrassment. You are losing it. I will distribute emails from your office.

Mr CARR: I ask honourable members to discard any impression they might have from the sentences I have read. I ask the House to discard any implication or any view that might have been half formed as a result of reading an email that was addressed to all Coalition members from someone correctly identified by the Opposition as a staff member of the shadow Minister for Education.

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

Mr CARR: The honourable member for North Shore is right: I should not read any more, and I should not embarrass the honourable member any further.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Burrinjuck on three calls to order.

Mr CARR: I conclude by thanking the frontbench member on the team of the Leader of the Opposition for getting this message to me. I appreciate that. I know the hazards that may have to be confronted with emails, but this one is valuable because it highlights to the community the total cynicism of the Opposition's approach: Fake sincerity, pretend to be warm, and manufacture a real regard.

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

Mr CARR: Bear in mind that there is no support among members of the public for Liberal Party attacks on the Government school sector; bear in mind that the Liberal Party is seen to be not caring for disadvantaged schools; and bear in mind that, on the way through, the email has demonstrated that Hon. Patricia Forsythe cannot write English and certainly cannot spell.

STUDENT VIOLENCE MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Mr SOURIS: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the Minister for Transport on three calls to order.

Mr SOURIS: On the morning of 10 April as he prepared for his ministerial media stunt, did he at any time have a discussion with the Premier regarding his statement to the House on the Cecil Hills High School?

Mr AQUILINA: I have already given an answer to that question and have nothing to add. I refer the honourable member to my statement.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Myall Lakes on two calls to order.

TOBACCO SMOKING

Ms HARRISON: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. How is the Government acting to reduce harm from smoking?

Mr KNOWLES: I thank the honourable member for Parramatta for her question and for her interest in this matter. It is a matter of public record that approximately a quarter of all Australians smoke. It is also a matter of record that each year 19,000 of those people die Australiawide. Smoking is the biggest single cause of preventable death by a factor of 10 from the next biggest cause. On International World No Tobacco Day, the State Labor Government wishes to highlight those statistics.

Those figures are disturbing because they relate to preventable disease such as emphysema, heart disease, cataracts and all the other co-morbidities that can be avoided. On top of all that, we now know that passive smoking—that is, breathing in someone else's cigarette smoke—is also harmful. Studies demonstrate that in children, ailments such as bronchitis, pneumonia, increased risk of SIDS and asthma are linked to second-hand smoke. The Illawarra landmark case last month demonstrated yet again that passive smoking affects occupational health and places in the workplace new safety imperatives. Inevitably, the move towards smoke-free environments gathers momentum.

On International World No Tobacco Day, I welcome Andrew Pennmone from the New South Wales Cancer Council to the public gallery. Together with Andrew, this morning I launched a $500,000 media campaign in conjunction with the New South Wales Cancer Council. The Let's Clear the Air campaign seeks to reduce the damage caused by passive smoking and increase the number of people who wish to quit. Media campaigns are just one part of what must be a multifaceted strategy. Activity has been occurring on a range of fronts, including the prosecution of providers who breach the law applying to tobacco sales to minors, legislation to limit advertising, and, of course, the Government's Smoke-Free Environment Act. I say quite proudly that last year the Government was honoured with a Noffs Foundation award for leading nationally with what has been regarded as model legislation for other States to follow.

I am pleased to advise that the Smoke-free Environment Act is in place and is operating smoothly right across the State. There has been a very high level of compliance in restaurants. In one key survey, not one diner out of 2,646 diners was observed smoking. In the most recently concluded survey, out of 65 Sydney restaurants owned by people of a non-English speaking backgrounds and frequented by people from the Lebanese, Chinese, Khmer, Korean, Turkish and Vietnamese communities—in which the propensity for smoking is higher than the average throughout the community—only one case of a diner smoking was observed out of a total of 2,082 who participated in the survey. That reflects the smooth implementation of a major culture shift in the community, based on this Government's legislation.

There is a clear expectation in the community that this Government will continue to bear down on the effects of environmental tobacco smoke. The Government is well aware of the costs by way of lives and the costs incurred overwhelmingly by our health system, and these factors require the Government's policy to keep moving. The Government acknowledges that more must be done. I am pleased to announce the release of the New South Wales Tobacco Action Plan complemented by additional funding of $1.5 million a year. This comprehensive plan outlines anti-tobacco initiatives for the next four years.

The program has six key result areas: raising community awareness and education, encouraging smoking cessation, reducing the availability and supply of tobacco use, limiting the marketing and promotion of tobacco, tobacco regulation, and reducing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. These strategies have achieved demonstrable success nationally and internationally. The additional funding of $1.5 million effectively doubles the funds for anti-tobacco initiatives.

Mrs Skinner: From nothing to nothing! It is pathetic.

Mr KNOWLES: Which program would the honourable member for North Shore cut to fund more initiatives in this area? Nothing was identified in the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition this morning in her reply to the budget. Nothing at all was identified.

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

Mr KNOWLES: In contrast to that, yesterday I was asked very good questions by Independent members—not members of the Coalition. That happened after the Opposition walked out of the Chamber. I still have not been asked any questions by the Opposition spokesperson. The Opposition is on its own in the position it takes on this matter. The Cancer Council and the Noffs Foundation have been working steadily towards improving the no smoking profile in the community. The State Government has almost doubled the funding that has been made available and now a clear strategy is being directed at reinforcing those efforts. That course has been applauded by all people who are associated with this campaign. The funding is clearly being targeted at approaching the problem of reducing smoking, and the Government will provide ongoing funding to increase compliance with the law.

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

Mr KNOWLES: The strategy will also provide $1.8 million for public education campaigns that will be particularly focused on convincing young people that persisting with smoking is against all the trends.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for North Shore that she is on three calls to order.

Mr KNOWLES: The Government will commence projects aimed at reducing Aboriginal smoking rates, which are currently approximately double the rate of the rest of the community, and further supporting the non-English speaking background communities. The campaign will also focus on smoking among people who are mentally ill. Smoking is three times more prevalent among schizophrenia patients than among the general population. The New South Wales Tobacco Action Plan is the latest step in a progressive program by this Government to reduce smoking and its harmful effects. I welcome the support of the Cancer Council in the initiative that was announced this morning, and I welcome the council's collaborative work with the Government in pressing home the no smoking agenda even further as we take communities with us in what has been a remarkably progressive program over the last year. That is cause for celebrating International World No Tobacco Day.

HIH INSURANCE

Mr BROWN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Sport and Recreation. What is the latest information on the Government's rescue package for home owners who were devastated by the HIH collapse?

Mr WATKINS: I should like to update the House on progress in the implementation of the New South Wales Government's rescue package for victims of the HIH collapse. Earlier today I accompanied the Premier when he handed over the first cheque—for $177,604.10—to Peter, Emily and Jade Laidlaw, who were overwhelmed to receive the cheque as part of the rescue package. It is one of sixteen cheques going out today to families right across New South Wales and it is the first instalment under the HIH home warranty insurance rescue scheme announced by the Treasurer just a couple of weeks ago.

More than 600 New South Wales home owners were devastated by the HIH Insurance collapse. The Laidlaw family, whose Drummoyne house was left roofless when their builder went broke, today gratefully received a cheque that will enable them to get their lives back on track. Another 15 cheques, ranging from $500 to $200,000, will be posted this week. In total, more than $1 million is on its way today.

The next stage of the rescue package is being finalised by the New South Wales Treasury with the assistance of the Department of Fair Trading. As part of this, a claims processor and assessor will be appointed. Freehills Solicitors have been appointed to resolve complex legal issues—of which there are many. I take this opportunity to thank the staff of the Department of Fair Trading involved in getting the rescue package up and running so quickly. In particular I thank Lyn Baker and Rod Elliott of the department. They really are the epitome of good public servants dealing with a major public problem, and they are doing so with great professionalism and commitment to duty.

The 600 remaining claims will be processed in an orderly way, with further cheques being presented next week. The likely order of payment is as follows: first, home owners whose claims have already been agreed to by HIH before its collapse or by Strategic Claims Solutions; second, other claims requiring processing and assessment only; and third, claims that are before the New South Wales Fair Trading Tribunal. Some cases may be finalised without further tribunal proceedings, while others may need to be determined after legal processes are concluded. We will then move on to the 200 newer claims, and very complex older claims that are still with the liquidator. Affected home owners will be paid after they sign over to the New South Wales Government their right to pursue their claims with the liquidator, KPMG.

The first 16 recipients have been contacted by Fair Trading. My departmental staff have advised me that most recipients have been completely overwhelmed by the news—and it is little wonder. One couple is currently living in a tin shed. An older lady whose insurance claim arose out of the renovation of her kitchen was completely overwhelmed by the news that the money was on its way to her. Home owners who have already submitted a claim will be contacted by Fair Trading when their claim is about to be finalised.

I am informed that KPMG has put in place arrangements for home owners who need to make a new claim. These families should contact Strategic Claims Solutions on 9320 2700. Any persons with a query about the status of their claim can contact the Fair Trading building insurance hotline on 1800 678 588. Home owners affected by the HIH collapse were faced with a double tragedy. First they had defective or incomplete building work done to their homes, which caused them great pain. Their homes warranty insurer, HIH, from whom they were expecting some relief, then collapsed, leaving many of them believing they would lose their life savings. Today we start helping them to get their lives back on track.

CLEVELAND STREET HIGH SCHOOL CLOSURE

Ms MOORE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. In light of the Minister's answer earlier today and his negotiations with Vaucluse and Hunters Hill high schools, will he withdraw the proposal to close Cleveland Street High School and commence negotiations about the school's future, given its comprehensive community submission which acknowledges the specific and urgent needs of the Aboriginal community currently attending the school?

Mr AQUILINA: The consultation period for the draft proposal Building the Future closes today. I have indicated that any schools that will now proposed for closure will be advised publicly before 15 June. Following that period there will be a further consultation period of three months. No closure will take place—if indeed a school is to be closed—before the start of the 2003 school year.

Let me make this statement in relation to Cleveland Street High School and the proposal for the provision of education for the Aboriginal community in inner Sydney. I have not yet had the opportunity to see the proposal raised in this House by the honourable member for Wakehurst. However, officers of my department have advised that it is a well-considered submission that contains detailed proposals and therefore warrants very close consideration. I promise the honourable member that I will give it my close consideration.

CABRAMATTA ANTI-DRUG STRATEGY

Ms MEAGHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. What is the latest information on the Department of Community Services involvement in the Government's anti-drugs strategy for the Cabramatta area?

Mrs LO PO': There is no stronger advocate for the Cabramatta area than the honourable member for Cabramatta. On 27 March the Premier announced his anti-drug strategy for Cabramatta. As part of this strategy the Department of Community Services [DOCS] will be involved in a number of projects, including a seven-day-a-week street team to work with people affected by drugs and alcohol; family counselling services, including intensive support for families; and a mobile child care service. The six-person DOCS Cabramatta street team will provide coverage 24 hours a day, some of it on call. The team will work with police on the streets. Its role will be to work proactively with disadvantaged people, especially adolescents and young people.

The street team will be operational in July. It will provide initial counselling, assessment of risk factors and support needs, referrals to accommodation, drug and alcohol counselling, and other support services. We will work with homeless young people and those who are drug affected. We hope to make contact with them before they join the ranks of the Cabramatta users. We know that the difficulties faced by the Cabramatta community can only be dealt with if we all work together. To do that, the Cabramatta street team will be co-located at the police station. It will liaise closely with health and support services in the area.

The Cabramatta street team will provide a much-needed link with housing services. An extra 50 beds, comprising 40 short-term beds and 10 long-term beds, and support counselling staff and services will also be provided in the Cabramatta area. The short-term crisis accommodation will be set aside for people referred to by the outreach team. A further 10 properties will be allocated to people who need permanent accommodation but still need support. This would include, for example, people who have been through a detoxification or rehabilitation program.

Supporting families is critical in helping young people. In many cases the best resolution for young persons is to reunite them with their families. Getting in early prevents a young person from becoming entrenched in the drug culture. Families and young people often will not attend a counselling centre. If they find it difficult to go to such centres, we intend to take counselling to them. Two specialist family support workers and interpreters to work with families from non-English speaking backgrounds will also be able to assist. To build on that help, a new mobile child care service will be set up to bring child care to families, to assist them to participate in counselling and drug and alcohol rehabilitation.

The Department of Community Services has already called for expressions of interest for the family counselling service, intensive family support and the mobile child care service. It is anticipated that the services will be selected in July this year. These Cabramatta anti-drug measures are a positive step in breaking the cycle of drug and alcohol dependence and homelessness. Government agencies and their community partners will continue to work together to tackle the issues at Cabramatta head on.

Ms MEAGHER: I ask a supplementary question. In light of—

Mr Hartcher: That's three questions to us and seven to that side.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the honourable member for Gosford seek to take a point of order?

Mr Hartcher: Yes. Point of order: The custom of this House is that both sides of the House have the opportunity to ask an equal number of questions. Of the 10 questions asked during question time today, seven have come from the Government side and the Independents and three have come from this side.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Five questions have been asked by members of the Government and four questions have been asked by members of the Opposition.

Mr Hartcher: No, there has not. The Independent member for Bligh is not a member of the Opposition.

Ms MEAGHER: In light of the Minister's answer can she give an indication of the cost implications for the budget? Will the Minister assure honourable members that the money is available as soon as possible?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a supplementary question. It does not arise from the Minister's answer and I rule it out of order.

STUDENT VIOLENCE MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Mr PICCOLI: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. When the Minister said to the House on Tuesday that the teachers at Cecil Hills had written to him saying they understood he was still refusing to visit the school to apologise, was the Minister referring to the letter in which the teachers describe him as malicious, wilful, callous and incompetent?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee has asked two questions. I will allow him to rephrase the question.

Mrs Chikarovski: Point of order: Because of the noise on the other side of the House I think you misheard the question. There was only one question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member asked two questions.

Mrs Chikarovski: I am happy to show it to you! There was one question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member asked two questions in a row.

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOX BAITING PROGRAM

Mr MARTIN: My question without notice is to the Minister for the Environment. What is the latest information on the Government's plan to reduce fox numbers?

Mr DEBUS: I know that Country Labor members are especially concerned about the threat that foxes pose to livestock. I am pleased to inform honourable members that a new draft plan to further reduce fox numbers across the State will be released for public comment next month. The National Parks and Wildlife Service, in consultation with New South Wales Agriculture, the Department of Land and Water Conservation, and State Forests—

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

Mr DEBUS: By the way, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour asked me about aerial baiting—I think he meant for dingoes—on the north coast of New South Wales. The observations of the honourable member for Oxley yesterday caused me to make a few inquiries. I can inform the honourable member that aerial baiting is going on as we speak, as part of an ongoing plan—and that completely contradicts claims made by the honourable member yesterday. The plan will be a key part against this introduced predator of native wildlife and livestock. The Government and the community's efforts to reduce the threat from foxes are already paying off and numbers are declining in many regions after only a few years.

Obviously, however, there is much work to be done. The new plan will help the National Parks and Wildlife Service target critical populations of native species where fox impacts are greatest, and buy better co-ordinating existing programs on both public and private lands, the plan will also help farmers to combat the threat of foxes to livestock, especially to lambs. The shadow spokesman on the environment, the honourable member for Southern Highlands, issued a press release yesterday suggesting that the National Parks and Wildlife Service had halved the amount of money to be spent on each hectare of land during the past few years.

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

Mr DEBUS: That says something about why questions are not being asked about the budget in this House because, in fact, the Government has doubled to the amount of money that is being spent per hectare in the national park systems in this State.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interruption by members on both sides of the Chamber. I place the honourable member for Ballina on three calls to order.

Mr DEBUS: One way this money is being spent is through the Government's allocation of $22 million since 1995 for pest management compared with $4 million allocated by the Coalition Government when it was in office. However, the present budget allows for an additional $4.13 million during the next five years for pest control, which includes almost $1 million for special fox and wild dog programs. The timing is obviously advancing, so I shall not detain the House with large numbers of examples of the programs that have been increasingly successful across the State in recent years, but perhaps one is worth mentioning. The Yathong Nature Reserve in western New South Wales is one of the few parts of the State where mallee fowl still exists in the wild. For many years surveys have indicated that populations of mallee fowl have been declining.

With the support of neighbouring land-holders, the National Parks and Wildlife Service has undertaken a massive fox baiting program—the largest program in eastern Australia—around that reserve, laying 35,000 baits annually, which has drastically reduced the number of foxes in that area. At the same time mallee fowl, captive bred at the Western Plains Zoo, have been released. Surveys show that for the first time the largest population of mallee fowl in the State has been stabilised. For the first time in memory, the population of this particular bird of great significance will actually increase in the western slopes and plains. There are many other examples, but I look forward in the coming weeks to providing honourable members and, indeed, country people with more details of these very important fox and wild dog programs.

STUDENT VIOLENCE MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Mr PICCOLI: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Is the letter from which the Minister quoted on Tuesday as endorsing his position on the apology to the high school boy the same letter as the one that describes the Minister as malicious, wilful, callous and incompetent?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the Leader of the Opposition wants to hear the answer she should remain silent.

Mr AQUILINA: I tabled that letter at the request of the House. It is a letter which specifically indicated that the school in question—which I have not named and which I neither confirm or deny—is not desirous of any more media attention.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee has asked the question. He should listen to the answer in silence.

Mr AQUILINA: It was precisely the answer that I gave. The letter has been tabled.

Questions without notice concluded.

CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS

Federal Government Public Housing Policies

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville—Deputy Premier, Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for Housing) [3.19 p.m.]: The motion for urgent consideration of which I gave notice earlier is:

This motion is urgent because the Federal and State budgets that have just been delivered make it clear that the State Government will do what it can for people who are at risk of homelessness but that the Federal Government has a lack of commitment, as demonstrated by its budget cuts, particularly its cuts to the housing portfolio under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The Federal Government regularly makes attempts to get people off welfare. We know the affect that would have for those desperately trying to maintain private rental. The Federal Government's policies give, comparatively, very different levels of rental subsidy, although certainly the subsidies are in the same dollar amounts.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The subsidies are comparatively different given rentals in New South Wales, particularly in Sydney, as compared with other States. Also, the Prime Minister, having launched the St Vincent de Paul winter appeal, and donated $100,000 to it, has not recognised that his Government's cuts to funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement have been highlighted by St Vincent de Paul as leading to an increased risk of homelessness. It is urgent that this House debate these important issues and provide leadership at the State level, in the hope of leading the national Government to a better response to the needs of those at risk of homelessness.

School Closures

Mr O'DOHERTY (Hornsby) [3.21 p.m.]: The Deputy Premier talks about leadership. It is extremely urgent that this House have the opportunity to debate—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Hornsby will confine his remarks to the reasons his motion should receive priority.

Mr O'DOHERTY: Mr Speaker, at the point at which you stopped me I was saying that is why my motion should be debated—so that we can discuss the appalling lack of leadership shown by the Premier day after day. My motion talks about the closure of schools. In addressing that matter today, the Premier wins the Walt award of the day. The Premier has issued today's Waltism. Walt writes the Premier's speeches. Walt is the guy who went up to the press gallery and knowingly and deliberately told a falsehood, deliberately lied to the gallery to indicate that there might be, probably be, may be, wink wink, nudge nudge, a gun involved in the Cecil Hills incident.

Walt is the guy who went out and deliberately let that run because the Government wanted to make it a better story. Walt, the guy who writes the Premier's speeches, is the one who had the Premier telling this House things which deliberately misrepresented the position of the Opposition in relation to school closures. He deliberately concocted a tissue of lies about the matters that the Premier raises in this House under the guise of entertaining this House. There is no excuse for deliberately lying and misleading this Parliament, no excuse whatsoever. There is no excuse for saying he wanted to make the place laugh. This man is supposed to be, and purports to be, the leader of this State.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have read the motion of which the honourable member for Hornsby has given notice. It does not refer to any of the matters that the honourable member has canvassed so far. The first paragraph of the motion seeks to condemn the Minister for Education and Training, the second paragraph asks this House join with the Legislative Council for the purpose of extending the consultation process on the Building the Future proposal, and the third paragraph calls on the Minister for Education and Training to give an explanation regarding the conservatorium. The honourable member for Hornsby should address the reasons why a debate on those three matters should receive priority.

Mr O'DOHERTY: The school closure issue must be debated urgently. The consultation on it finishes today. The Minister has been saying that he will have consultation so that the people can have their say about the closure of schools, including schools in the electorate of Marrickville, represented by the Deputy Premier, and in the electorate of the Premier. Do they oppose the closure of those schools? Of course not—because they are members of the Cabinet. What was said by the Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism, a member of Cabinet, when it was proposed in previous years to close schools in her electorate? She said: No, we could never close those schools because we do not know what the population trends will be in the inner city in future years.

It is urgent that the House debate my motion so that we may hear what was said by David Roland, the department's director of properties at the time. He told a committee of the Legislative Council in 1997 that the department could not then frame a clear strategy on the closure or otherwise of school sites in the inner city because it was impossible to predict population changes in the inner city. There have been substantial urban renewal programs in the inner-city area even since David Roland uttered those words in another place in 1997. If the department was unable then to provide a clear direction on whether or not to close school sites, it is less able today to provide clear direction. Yet the Government has been saying that it will close those schools.

The inevitable public outcry occurred—public outcry that the Minister for Education and Training himself would have led in a previous incarnation as then shadow Minister back in the 1980s, so he has changed his spots. In order to try to manage the public outcry, we had another piece of Waltism, the man who cannot be believed and writes words for the Premier, who also cannot be believed, in the form of a sham community consultation process. That was a consultation process that could not be believed. The Minister, in the middle of the consultation, said, "Oh, no, it's not negotiable. We will receive your submissions, but don't think we will actually change our minds. Don't think we will actually listen to what you have got to say." The Minister today is offering the same platitudinous Waltisms in relation to Cleveland Street and in relation to the submission by the Aboriginal community.

On the one hand the Minister says to the honourable member for Wakehurst, "Go soak your head. I'm not listening to you." Then, when the honourable member for Bligh raised the matter, the Minister said, "I will look at that very genuine submission; I will read it carefully." The honourable member for Bligh will not be surprised when the Minister does not change his mind one iota on the basis of any submission, because the Government never intended to consult the public in any genuine sense. It is urgent that the House have the opportunity to debate this collaborative proposal on Cleveland Street. Aboriginal people say that this is nothing more than a new kind of mickey mouse mission school proposal. It is urgent that this Parliament, on behalf of its communities, have the opportunity to debate what the Government is doing.

Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Marrickville be proceeded with—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 49

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
Ms Harrison
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Mr Knowles
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch
Mr Markham
Mr Martin
Mr McBride
Mr McManus
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Mr Nagle

Mr Newell
Ms Nori
Mr Orkopoulos
Mr E. T. Page
Dr Refshauge
Ms Saliba
Mr Scully
Mr W. D. Smith
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whelan
Mr Woods

Tellers,
Mr Anderson
Mr Stewart

Noes, 38

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

Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr 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.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PUBLIC HOUSING POLICIES

Urgent Motion

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville—Deputy Premier, Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for Housing) [3.35 p.m.]: I move:

That this House condemns the Federal Government for its:

The provision of support to homeless people and people who are in crisis is a priority for the New South Wales Government each and every day. We acknowledge that a safe and secure home is fundamental to a person's quality of life. The State budget delivered last Tuesday, which is further evidence of our ongoing commitment to provide housing and support for the most vulnerable in our community, stands in stark contrast to the Howard-Costello budget. In the first three years of the Howard Government $67 million was cut from New South Wales funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. In addition, the Federal Government has taken a further 1 per cent efficiency cut every year.

On 1 May this year the Prime Minister launched the St Vincent de Paul winter appeal and donated $100,000. On the same day the St Vincent de Paul Society released "Roofs Over Heads", a national report examining the lack of affordable and secure housing and its impact on people in need. It is obvious that the Prime Minister has not read the report or taken note of its recommendations. A key finding of the report was the impact of funding cuts to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement on low income families. The Prime Minister may have felt a warm inner glow as he donated $100,000 of taxpayers' fund to the appeal, but it does not make up for the hundreds of millions of dollars that his Government ripped out of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement since coming to office.

Despite the Howard Government's continual funding cuts to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, this year the New South Wales Government will provide housing assistance to a record 479,000 people across New South Wales. We will continue to increase public, community and Aboriginal housing so that the number of government owned and managed properties will total 149,376 in the year 2001-02. That is an increase of almost 17,000 properties since this Government came into office in 1995. As I said earlier, the Government has been able to achieve this growth, despite Federal Government funding cuts, while also spending record amounts on maintenance and upgrades. This year we will be spending more than $354 million on maintenance and upgrading to improve more than 60,000 homes. That is $210 million more than the Opposition spent in its last year in government. This year we are spending $354 million and the Coalition, in its last year in office, spent $144 million—a dramatic increase under a Labor Government.

While we are continuing to increase public, community and Aboriginal housing, we will provide assistance to people on low incomes to help them gain access to the private rental market. This year we will spend more than $21 million on our Rentstart program to help people with the establishment costs of setting up a private tenancy. That is an increase of $10 million—almost double the amount spent by the Coalition in 1994-95, its last year of spending. This year Rentstart will help more than 60,000 people with the cost of bonds and rent in advance and it will help out people who have fallen behind in their rent. We recognise the importance of the private market in meeting housing needs, but the Commonwealth consistently fails to recognise the specific needs of the Sydney market. Rents in Sydney are higher than anywhere in Australia. The Commonwealth's rental assistance program does nothing to help low income renters in Sydney. That fact is acknowledged in "Roofs Over Heads", a report prepared by the St Vincent de Paul Society, which notes:

The regional variations in rent are also a major issue as the Commonwealth pays the same amount of assistance regardless of the city or region in which the person resides.

The report notes that rents in Sydney are $81 a week more than Hobart, yet Commonwealth rent assistance is the same for both cities. Unless the Commonwealth changes its rent assistance policy, more and more low income renters in Sydney will find themselves in difficulty. Data from the supported accommodation assistance program shows that homeless people were most frequently in private rental accommodation prior to becoming homeless. The Federal Government has to acknowledge that its policies are causing more and more people to get into housing difficulty and rely on charities for assistance. This is particularly so with Centrelink's policy of breaching people on benefits for the most minor of infringements, such as failing to fill in a form correctly. More and more people are being breached by Centrelink and are having their payments drastically reduced or cut off altogether.

How does families in receipt of welfare payments exist when their income is cut off or substantially reduced? How do they pay the rent? How do they pay the bills? How do they clothe and feed themselves? It is no wonder that charities are finding more and more people calling on their services and stepping in to help because the Federal Government has walked away from its responsibility. It was in desperation with the Federal Government's policies that the Society of St Vincent de Paul wrote to all Federal members and Senators in October last year, warning the Federal Government "not to divest itself of its welfare obligations." The Federal Government is long on rhetoric when talking about mutual obligation but it is short on action. There is nothing mutual about it. It is simply: do as you are told or suffer the consequences. The Society of St Vincent de Paul was complaining that Centrelink had referred over 80,000 people for help in Victoria alone. That is the Howard Government's policy in action: to divest itself of all responsibility and make the charities an unpaid arm of government.

Unlike the Federal Government, the Government has in place a comprehensive housing policy to help people in need, a policy that works with the non-government sector. That could mean providing help to private renters right through to supported accommodation to people who are homeless and cannot live independently. The core of our response is a strong Government-subsidised housing system which includes public, community and Aboriginal housing programs linked to support services that address some of the underlying problems that often contribute to homelessness and housing crises. We recognise that homelessness is a complex issue and can be linked to unemployment, mental illness, family breakdown, domestic violence, child abuse and drug or alcohol abuse. We need a range of strategies to respond to the needs of each individual.

In 1999 the Government established a partnership against homelessness to co-ordinate and improve a wide range of housing and support services for homeless people. Many tenancies fail because support has not been co-ordinated effectively, and gaining access to support has been difficult and confusing. The partnership against homelessness aims to improve the first point of contact with the service system, expand access to crisis and long-term accommodation and improve the co-ordination of services at the local level. The 2001-02 budget provides for the expenditure by the New South Wales Government of more than $157 million on direct service provision to help the homeless and those in crisis. That is an increase of about $50 million on what the coalition spent in its last year of government in 1994-95.

The Government will continue to increase the number of beds under the crisis accommodation program, so that in 2001-02 3,200 beds will be available every night across New South Wales for people who are homeless or in crisis. That is 1,100 more than in 1994-95. That means that this year more than 69,000 people who are homeless or in crisis will receive both accommodation and support, an increase of more than 24,000 since 1994-95. In addition, the Department of Housing will spend more than $12 million in 2001-02 on the special assistance subsidies program. That will provide a rent subsidy to about 2,000 people with disabilities or HIV/AIDS so they can rent properties in the private market to be close to family and support services. As well as providing those direct services, the Department of Housing is helping those in greatest need into secure affordable housing. This year more than 15,000 households will be newly accommodated in public, community and Aboriginal housing. Of those, more than 4,600 people with a disability, a serious medical condition, or who are homeless or at risk of homelessness will be given priority housing.

Furthermore, 15 per cent of new community housing stock and 12 per cent of new public housing stock will be provided to people who need support services. It is useful to compare the approach of the New South Wales Government with that of the Federal Government. It has been over a year since the Federal Government released its discussion paper to develop a national homelessness strategy. A year later we are still waiting to hear back from the Commonwealth. A year is a long time to wait, especially if you do not have a roof over your head. It is time for the Commonwealth to put its money behind its words and join New South Wales in a co-ordinated approach to help those who are homeless or in crisis. New South Wales is committed to providing housing and support to those in need, and that help is there every day of the year.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [3.45 p.m.]: The Opposition opposes the motion, but it gives us the opportunity to pursue a number of issues and spend a little time looking at the State Government's record on public housing. Unfortunately, this subject does not get the attention it deserves. It is a subject many people in the community do not feel comfortable with and which does not get sufficient exposure. With people who are in need of crisis housing sleeping rough on the streets, with 125,000 people homeless every night and with 60,000 people contacting the Homeless Persons Information Centre every year, it is critical that the community gets a better understanding of the issue. The Government needs to increase the resources it commits to resolving the problem, including increasing its support for non-government organisations. Public housing is an important part of the equation, and it is being used increasingly to address some of the needs of the homeless.

The Minister claims the Government is committed. I want to question aspects of that commitment, because I do not believe the needs of those seeking shelter are being addressed as effectively or as broadly as they ought to be. I agree with what the Minister said about homelessness being a complex problem. One needs a broad and diverse range of strategies to meet the needs of the homeless. A range of different support services are required. We cannot measure those people against ourselves, because many come from difficult backgrounds and broken relationships and many experience significant health and mental health problems. To expect a one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of addressing their needs is to show a lack of understanding of the complexity of the issue.

Let me turn to the size of the homeless population in New South Wales. It has got to the point where the homeless have listed themselves for public housing. The public housing waiting list in New South Wales is just shy of 100,000 people. That number is not insignificant, and it is by far the most significant of all States. The number has increased by in excess of 10,000 over the five or six years this Government has been in office. That is 2,000 a year, notwithstanding the Minister's assertion that the Government has invested more resources in the area. If the Government was genuinely committed to addressing the housing waiting lists in New South Wales that number would have plateaued or dropped in its time in office. However, it has continued to climb year by year simply because the available resources are not being directed in an effective or appropriate manner.

The funding that the State Government has committed to public housing in recent years must be questioned. There is strong evidence that not all the funding that is available for public housing and the provision of new housing has been expended in that area. There is an example of that in the budget that was brought down earlier this week. Capital works spending on public and community housing was cut in real terms by $11 million. In the two areas to which I referred it is now down to $193.7 million. If the Government were committed, it would have increased funding in that respect rather than slashing it.

I turn now to the sale of property. This area concerns me significantly. During its time in office the Government has been increasingly selling off public housing property. In the last financial year it sold off some 880 properties at $117 million gross, twice what it had budgeted for in last year's budget. That is three times the rate of sale in 1994-95. If the Government is seriously committed to providing additional properties in the public housing stock, it would not be selling property at such a rate and it would reinvest the money from those sales. But it has not the money.

The report on the review of State finances, which the Government quietly released in January and on which the Minister has remained silent, disclosed that both recurrent and capital funding of some $225 million for what is called housing and community amenities function was available but was not used to address the broad, complex needs of the homeless who are in some form of crisis housing. If the Government is genuinely committed to providing resources and the necessary support it should use that funding to provide those resources and support, rather than allow the Treasurer to siphon the money back to Treasury.

I shall look briefly at the capital funding that has gone into the provision of new public housing stock over the past three years. Two years ago the budget contained an allocation of $102 million; this year that figure has decreased to $97.4 million. Two years ago $103 million was allocated for community housing; in this year's budget the figure is $96.3 million. There have been substantial cuts in real terms, especially when one takes into account the goods and services tax and increased property values, predominantly in Sydney but also in other urban areas. The Government's alleged commitment is not supported by the provision of funding.

I significantly question whether the Government is only good on rhetoric and is failing comprehensively on providing resources. In terms of the management of public housing, some 100,000 people are desperately waiting for public housing. However, when it comes to turnover New South Wales has one of the worst rates in Australia. In New South Wales it takes an average five weeks to move a new tenant into public housing once a property has been vacated. No private sector manager or landlord would allow a property to remain vacant for five weeks. To put it simply, there is no excuse for not moving someone into a property within days of it becoming vacant, if not on the same day, given the critical need that exists.

One consequence of not moving people into vacant properties—I will not go into detail about this now—is the vandalism that occurs when a property remains vacant. That exacerbates the housing problem, because extra funding is necessary to address that. Honourable members should bear in mind that the cost of vandalism to public housing in New South Wales ranges roughly from $10 million to $20 million a year, if not more. The Minister said that some 15,000 people are being moved into public housing each year. That is a play on numbers, because the figure projected for this year is 15,000. However, more than one-third of that number are people being relocated within the public housing market. Consequently, only some 10,000 people will be expected to move from the waiting list or from a position of critical need into semipermanent housing supported by taxpayers. That number has declined over recent years.

I think these figures will be of interest to honourable members. In 1999-2000 the Government allocated funding to build or purchase 597 properties; the figure this year is 499. That is a decrease of some 100 properties. In the Aboriginal housing sector, two years ago the figure was 170; this year the figure is 95. So the number of properties being provided is diminishing. The number of property sales increased from 298 in 1994-95 to 880 last year, which is a substantial increase. If properties are to be sold, moneys from those sales should be used to provide additional housing stock. To make up some of the leeway, the Government is relying on leasing property, but that is a short-term solution. In the longer term the costs of leasing property will take up a larger proportion of the State housing budget. The Government is deferring a critical problem in terms of providing for a housing portfolio that can meet the entire, broad needs of those who are in desperate need of shelter in this State.

[Debate interrupted.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Urgent Motion: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by Dr Refshauge agreed to:

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PUBLIC HOUSING POLICIES

Urgent Motion

[Debate resumed.]

Ms BEAMER (Mulgoa) [3.55 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Minister for Housing about the lack of progress made by the Federal Government on the national homelessness strategy. In the time available to me I shall make a few brief points on the homelessness issue. Late last year the Minister asked me to review the program for the homeless during the Olympics and other issues relating to homelessness during the Olympics. A ministerial advisory committee was established which received submissions and heard evidence on the matter. Indeed, the honourable member for Hawkesbury made a submission to the committee. Amongst other things, the committee's brief terms of reference referred to temporary accommodation for the homeless during the Olympics. During the review the committee ascertained that homelessness presents this city with a number of complex problems. One problem is the lack of opportunity for homeless people to move from fully supported accommodation into less supported accommodation and the closing down of boarding houses.

Although some people did not need the supported accommodation available to them in the city, they still needed some support. However, they did not need the same level of support afforded them in public housing or in the private rental market. The lack of such accommodation was highlighted to the committee. I am pleased to congratulate the Government on looking at the model proposed by the committee. Since then, the Government has been trialling boarding house projects for people with low support needs. Properties are being managed by community housing associations to provide help for people who have problems with basic living skills, such as cooking and cleaning.

I am sure the honourable member for Bligh will agree that another complex issue relates to homeless people with a mental illness and the lack of support between housing initiatives and mental health initiatives. The Department of Disability Services and the Department of Housing need to work together to help people with a mental illness who are seeking accommodation. In the housing sector, particularly in relation to supported assistance program housing, there is an inability to deal with people with a mental illness whose need for accommodation is acute. Therefore, many problems arise because of what is occurring in the housing sector. Interestingly, the committee noted that this is the first time non-government agencies have worked with Government agencies. Non-government agencies have benefited from the links they forged with the Department of Housing and the Department of Health. That has enabled them to think not only that their clients will be with them for a specific period but also that their clients will move to another place.

In terms of boarding houses, the Government is talking about people moving to accommodation that provides a level of support but does not insist that people be in by 9.00 p.m., lights out, et cetera. Supported accommodation enables people to have a level of self-reliance; it does not mean that people must pay all the bills and do everything for themselves, because some people do not need that level of support. One result of the review was the extension of the normal operating hours of the Department of Housing telephone assessment and referral centre to operating 24 hours. That was not only for the two weeks of the Olympics; the extended operating hours covered the period just before and just after the Olympics as well.

The Government has now contributed $1 million to a two-year pilot program in the Hunter and Central Coast areas to co-ordinate approaches to address the needs of homeless individuals. Features of the program will be the provision of expert assessment of the needs of each homeless person and the provision of practical assistance to agencies dealing with homelessness as well as other agencies that support homeless people. That will be done to facilitate assessment of homeless people in a timely manner. There will also be ongoing case management to ensure that people do not slip through the system. Links need to be formed between housing and other agencies, particularly those dealing with mental health and drug and alcohol abuse.

A method that I must say works well, although it is still being reviewed by the Government, is a housing protocol that has been developed among the Department of Housing, security guards and the Police Service so that in Sydney homelessness is not treated as a crime. This approach will enable homeless people to make some choices and some of them are making the choice to sleep rough. I will be interested to see how the Government responds to retaining a protocol which provides scope for not treating homeless people as criminals but as people with dignity.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [4.00 p.m.]: I wish to make the most of this brief opportunity to speak about a matter which was the subject of my question to the Premier yesterday about the budget. I strongly support this motion, which condemns the Federal Government for its lack of progress on the national homelessness strategy. The Federal Government has decreased funding for public housing and has set in place policies that increase homelessness. Notwithstanding the dramatic increase in rents and house prices in Sydney and the burgeoning public housing list, there is a growing homelessness crisis. Yet the Commonwealth Government has decreased its contribution to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement [CSHA] by 1 per cent annually whereas the State Government has increased its contribution by 14 per cent.

The State's housing budget has been estimated to have increased by 10 per cent. I acknowledge that, and I support what was said in the media statement released by Shelter New South Wales: A national approach is needed to address the acute housing problems that we are facing in New South Wales and across Australia. It is time for the Federal Government to provide a lead. It is not enough for John Howard to merely launch programs. It is a matter of his Government making an ongoing and substantial commitment to resolving an important social problem. The reason I asked the Premier a question about this matter yesterday was that the Treasurer had not even mentioned housing in his Budget Speech. Because I represent an inner-city electorate, this is a matter that is very much in the forefront of my mind.

I was quite alarmed that there is no mention of housing in the State budget speech and that is why I welcome the opportunity of taking part in this debate. Notwithstanding the State Government's 10 per cent increase in housing funding, I take this opportunity to call upon the Minister for Housing, who is at the table, to lobby the Treasurer and strongly urge that part of the budget surplus be allocated to dealing with the problem of homelessness. I say that because I believe that the State Government has a responsibility to fund solutions to the problem of homelessness. It is Government policies of urban consolidation and the Government's successful promotion of Sydney as an international finance and tourism centre that has put tremendous pressure on the inner-city areas.

Cheap accommodation that used to be available now no longer exists. Indeed, the Government has reaped huge rewards in stamp duty from city apartment development and that revenue has been channelled into the consolidated revenue. Some of that income should be spent on the downside of the Government's policy, the casualties of that policy: the homeless and people on the Department of Housing waiting list. In 1999-2000, the State Government reaped a windfall of $600 million in stamp duty over and above the anticipated sum of $1.7 billion. That represented a 35 per cent increase and brought the total stamp duty revenue derived from apartment developments, particularly in the inner city, to $2.3 billion.

As a result of Government policy, a commensurate and dramatic increase of people who are living on the streets has occurred. The Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS] pointed out in its response to the budget that neither Prime Minister John Howard in his Federal Budget nor Treasurer Michael Egan in the State budget offered any hope to the 30 per cent of this State's population who rent through the private rental market or those whose names are listed on the State's public housing waiting list. I again call upon the State Labor Government, as I did previously, to allocate part of its budget surplus to fund solutions to assist the most disadvantaged people in our community: the homeless. I also call on the Government to fund the increase in the construction of public housing and reduce the shocking list of 100,000 names that are on the public housing waiting lists. I believe that that is what a compassionate government should do in a civil society.

While the Treasurer has been highly commended for paying off the State's debt, for paying for the Olympics and for producing a budget surplus, I believe that there is now an opportunity to allocate further funding to people who are in greatest need in our community. As well as the stamp duty windfall, I remind the House that gambling taxes, which increased by 2 per cent in 2001-02, will apparently blow out by 18 per cent over the next three years. Having identified a very serious problem with which I have to deal on a daily basis, I am also identifying areas of huge revenue for the Government, revenue derived from stamp duty and gambling taxes. I reiterate my call to the Treasurer and the Minister at the table to provide further assistance, notwithstanding the 10 per cent increase in housing funding. Given the increase in the housing crisis in the city area, can some of the budget surplus not be applied to resolving the problems of people who are the most disadvantaged in our community?

Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [4.05 p.m.]: In common with the honourable member for Mulgoa, last year I was a member of a ministerial advisory committee. I learned quite a lot about problems experienced by homeless people throughout the Olympics. The committee came up with some scenarios and plans. Funding has been provided to trial a program that is aimed at addressing the problem. But let us remember that this motion for urgent consideration is directed at condemning the Howard Government. The New South Wales Government is committed to doing everything it can for homeless people in this State, but it takes more than the State Government to solve the problem.

The Howard Government has been a disaster for the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement [CSHA] and an even bigger disaster for homeless people and people who are vulnerable to homelessness. Governments must have a commitment to helping homeless people. The New South Wales State Government has that commitment and I know that the honourable member for Bligh and some Opposition members have that commitment, but I am not convinced that the Howard Government does. I do not think anyone in the wider community is convinced of that either.

The Howard Government has shown no commitment to the CSHA. There has been a massive decline in the total Commonwealth funding for the CSHA since 1996, the year the Federal Coalition Government was elected. The most recent CSHA, which is effective from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2003, continues the downward trend in housing funding. The only reason CSHA funding did not fall even further is that it was part of the Howard Government's deal with the Australian Democrats to pass the GST legislation. The Howard budget, which was released last week, is further confirmation of the decline in funding for housing. The Howard budget stands in marked contrast to the budget introduced by Treasurer Egan in this House last Tuesday.

The Howard Government's budget looks ahead to 2003-04. It projects that housing funds will decrease by $100 million from 2003. Unlike the Federal Howard Government, the Carr Labor Government recognises the need to provide affordable, low-cost accommodation for the people of New South Wales. At a time when the Commonwealth Government is cutting funds provided under the CSHA, the Carr Government is providing more housing assistance to those who are most vulnerable and at risk in the community. The Howard Government just does not understand, or does not want to understand, that homelessness requires a whole-of-government approach. That means a holistic approach to income support arrangements, the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program [SAAP], health policies, employment, education and training opportunities, as well as affordable housing strategies.

As I mentioned, the Howard budget, which was delivered last week, is cruel evidence of the Federal Government's lack of understanding of, and concern for, the homelessness issue. If members of the New South Wales Opposition are genuine in their concern for homeless people and for those who need housing assistance—and I remind the House that yesterday the Opposition walked out: Opposition members asked no questions about this matter, but the honourable member for Bligh did—they should try to persuade their Federal colleagues to restore adequate funding to New South Wales under the CSHA instead of trying to score cheap political points.

Perhaps the Opposition could convince its Federal colleagues to index the funding provided to New South Wales under the CSHA or, at the very least, to abolish the 1 per cent efficiency cuts. Despite the funding cuts to the CSHA, the Carr Government has been able to provide a greater level of housing assistance to those who need support. Most importantly, this Government has provided assistance to those people who may be vulnerable to homelessness. The Government recognises that the causes of homelessness are many and varied and that a range of strategies is needed to address the problem. While the Government recognises the need to house people, it also accepts the need to ensure that the housing assistance provided is both appropriate and sustainable. It is no good housing a person for a night or two, simply to make the statistics look good, if something cannot be done for the longer term.

The Opposition will continue to be irrelevant on this issue as long as it seeks to trivialise rather than understand these important issues and develop appropriate policies. The Federal Government's record on housing, as with most other issues, has been abysmal. The only homeless people that the Opposition in this place and the Howard Government care about are those who are likely to be made homeless when the royal commission finally gets to the bottom of the HIH collapse and has bankers, speculators and HIH directors led off to a special place—perhaps Long Bay Gaol or something of that nature.

Unfortunately we still have the legacy of the years of the Greiner-Faye Government when housing moved backwards, as did the Department of Community Services. Unlike the Opposition, the Carr Government is committed to building a strong and flexible social housing system in New South Wales that can respond to the many and varied needs of the citizens of this State. By contrast, the Howard Government's policy is often made on the run. It has to be dragged kicking and screaming before it will do anything on most social issues—and housing for the homeless is one of them. More insidious is the amount of money the Howard Government has cut from the sorts of programs that provide long-term solutions to homelessness.

In April 1999 a Howard Government-sponsored evaluation showed growing demand for homelessness services, and made recommendations about how the Howard Government could deal with this demand. Nothing has been done. In the 2000-01 budget the Howard Government allocated only an extra 18 per cent in real terms over five years. That does not even match the inflation figure. The Carr Government is committed to doing as much as it can for homeless people. The Federal Government has no interest in the issue whatsoever, and its budget delivered recently shows that it is failing in those areas.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [4.10 p.m.]: It is of great distress and concern to me that I have had to listen to such hypocrisy from the Government benches with only a slim glimmer of some compassion and understanding from the honourable member for Mulgoa, who touched on some matters of significance. With a very slight change of words the text of this motion could equally apply to the State Government. Only a few weeks ago in this Parliament I, together with two of my colleagues, the Hon. Janelle Saffin and the Hon. Ian Cohen, sponsored a summit on homelessness. The summit drew together 180 delegates, who would represent the greatest bank of expertise on homelessness that could be assembled in this State. The Government blacklisted the summit, blackballed it, ignored it. It did not have one representative at the summit to report to the summit or participate in debate, and therefore obviously made no contribution of substance to the debate.

Had representatives of the Government attended the summit they would have realised that the people who genuinely support the homelessness debate in New South Wales are equally condemnatory of the Federal Government and the State Government. I can assure members that the State Government got no brownie points from the people who attended the summit. The summit clearly demonstrated that, although money is important in the homelessness debate, accommodation strategies and better mechanisms for addressing homelessness are equally important. Whilst we may condemn the slow progress of the Federal Government in developing a national homelessness strategy, we could also condemn the State Government for having no strategy on homelessness. Whilst it is a national problem, homelessness is very much generated out of local circumstances. There are very few generic national causes of homelessness in Australia. They arise out of the circumstances that exist on the ground. It is an extremely localised element in society.

When we talk about an increase in funding for public housing at the State level, that may be true in an actuarial sense. However, organisation after organisation complains about the decrease in funding by the State Government for organisations that, although run on the smell of an oil rag, are delivering real benefits to homeless people in this State. Whilst I am grateful to the Minister for Housing for allowing extra speakers in this debate so that the honourable member for Bligh and I could speak, I must say that in the Minister's contribution—no doubt carefully crafted by some speechmaker—there was very little hint of true compassion for homeless people in this State. Anyone who attended the summit over the three days and listened to the real-time experiences of people who suffer from homelessness, the real-time experiences of people who are trying to deal with homelessness on a day-to-day basis, would realise the desperation of the homelessness situation in New South Wales and the growing problem of homelessness in this State.

The third element of the motion, which condemns the Federal Government for its policies that increase homelessness, could equally apply to the State Government. Of all the issues raised at the summit, the rapid escalation of gambling addiction in New South Wales emerged as a major cause of homelessness. That is the result of not exclusively this Government's policy but of policies developed by governments over many years and exacerbated, accelerated and developed by this Government. Gambling addiction is now proving to be one of the great scourges of modern society in New South Wales and one of the greatest causes of homelessness. The homelessness problem is being stimulated by a policy of this State Government, for which it should be condemned. In passing, the Minister attacked the Commonwealth Government for not adjusting the Commonwealth rental assistance program. The summit rejected the concept of simply increasing rental assistance to adjust for cost of living differences between the States, on the basis that in the long run all it does is raise the rental levels in a particular State by the amount by which rental assistance is increased. It does not go towards assisting the people in need; it goes towards assisting landlords.

Mr Ashton: So the real estate agents knock it off, members of the Liberal Party?

Mr ROZZOLI: These days all the landlords are on your side of politics. We need a much more enlightened strategy in regard to the current rental assistance at both State and Federal level.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
_________

MIRANDA ELECTORATE BANK BRANCH CLOSURES

Mr COLLIER (Miranda) [4.17 p.m.]: Despite all their protestations about community obligations, banks are continuing to cut over-the-counter, face-to-face services in my electorate. They continue to weave their web of deception, saying that they are moving, amalgamating or transferring branches, when in fact they are shutting them down. The banks continue to justify these closures by saying that people want more electronic banking and less face-to-face service. The reality, of course, is that people no longer have a choice. The fraud and deception in all of this is that banks are forcing customers to use automatic teller machines and other forms of electronic banking. But, of course, our socially minded and socially obligated bankers never bother to consult with communities before they shut down their branches or withdraw their face-to-face services.

Since November 1999 three banks have been closed in the western part of my electorate, in Kirrawee, Gymea and Jannali. National Bank branches are due to close their doors in Jannali and Gymea on 20 June. As if that is not enough, we now have the Happy Dragon, St George Bank, announcing that it will replace over-the-counter, face-to-face service with machines. It says that two of its branches will become fully automated and that there will be no over-the-counter service. "We're not shutting the doors," says the St George Bank, "We are reconfiguring our network. We will have one or two staff on hand to train you on how to use the machines. No cash-handling facilities, mind you—just training for you."

A journalist in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader has called this kind of bank a clayton's bank—that is, the bank you have when you're not having a bank. Where is St George, the Happy Dragon, doing this? In Jannali and Gymea! And when? On 18 June and 25 June—just before and just after the proposed closure on 20 June of two National Australia banks. In terms of face-to-face services those two suburbs will effectively lose four banks in one week and six banks in 12 months. St George bank that had its origins in the Sutherland shire.

St George is again putting the boot into those two communities. The Happy Dragon recently announced a 25 per cent increase in its half-yearly profit, to $211 million. Our Happy Dragon shows its contempt for the community that has been loyal to it for years by removing all face-to-face services within days of the National Australia Bank shutting down two branches in those suburbs. Like the National, St George has not bothered to spend one cent on community consultation. If any members of this House doubt that St George consulted the community, let me put that notion to rest. I quote from page 9 of the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader on 17 May:

I have been around for some time and I know that for many people banking is an essential service. In fact, I have yet to meet any adult who did not want or need a normal branch. That is sheer arrogance! The bank removes our services—although saying it cares about its impact on seniors, businesses and the general community—and it insults our intelligence with the statement that these branches are for people who do not want or need normal branches. St George does not care. The National Australia Bank does not care. The Commonwealth bank simply does not care. The people, shopkeepers and seniors of Jannali and Gymea realise that.

The time has clearly come for the establishment of a community bank in the Sutherland Shire. Community banks have been shown to work in suburban areas, as well as in country areas. They have the capacity to give the community the service it deserves. They can give something back to the community from the profits they make. The Gymea Chamber of Commerce is in the process of establishing a community bank in Gymea. I commend the Gymea Chamber of Commerce for this initiative. In fact, I support it to the extent that I have put my money where my mouth is. I pledged my personal support in the sum of $1,000 towards the establishment of a community bank in Gymea. I, along with the rest of my community, are getting to the point of saying, "Damn the major banks. If they can't give us the services we want, if they can't listen to us, we will have to go it alone." In fact, the question is: What have we got to lose?

BLACK SIGATOKA OUTBREAK

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [4.22 p.m.]: I draw the attention of honourable members—and the Minister for Agriculture in particular because I do not think he is aware of this matter—to a black sigatoka outbreak in Tully in Queensland and the dangers it may cause to the banana industry from Queensland through to the Nambucca Valley. Nine detections were found on the first inspection of the Tully Valley and all the bananas were destroyed, but 28 days later a second inspection found another six detections.

It has been estimated that the cost of eradicating the bananas in the 500 metre circle around these protected areas would cost somewhere between $4 million and $5 million. Queensland growers have decided that the cost was too much so a decision was made to contain the disease in the area to try to eradicate it. Black sigatoka is an airborne virus. The honourable member for Tweed is in the Chamber, and I am sure he is just as concerned about his industry. The possibility of a black sigatoka outbreak in New South Wales cannot be understated.

Mr Ron Gray, Chairman of the New South Wales Banana Industry Committee, approached me, the Minister and the department and requested that the quarantine zone be extended from a 50-kilometre buffer zone north of the Queensland border down to Gosford, or, if not Gosford, at least to Karuah, which was the old transport boundary. We also need assurances from Queensland growers or the Queensland Government that they will do everything they can to stop bananas from Queensland being transported down the Pacific Highway through some of the best banana-growing areas in Australia.

Mr Newell: They have agreed on it.

Mr FRASER: The honourable member for Tweed said they have agreed on it. Whilst initially there was agreement, they have gone back on the undertaking. The chairwoman of the banana industry in Queensland said, basically, that she can do nothing to stop them sending bananas to Sydney, down the highway, so she will not attempt to do so. Presently, bananas are being transported down the Pacific Highway against the request of the banana industries in Queensland and New South Wales and now against the wishes of the Minister. The Minister should raise this matter with the Queensland Government and appeal to the growers in Queensland that, if they are going to send bananas, they should send them down the Newell Highway—down the centre—to keep them away from the banana-growing areas. Airborne bacteria could destroy the North Coast banana industry in a very short time.

When black sigatoka was detected in Brazil it took less than two years to go from one side of the country to the other. Experts and scientists from all over the world told the executive officer of the Australian Banana Growers Council that Australian banana growers should go to any extreme to keep the disease out of Australia. The committee and growers believe that now that the disease has been detected, it may already be too late. We must work co-operatively in a bipartisan manner to ensure that this valuable industry, estimated to be worth some $50 million for the North Coast, is protected at all costs.

I know that some growers in Coffs Harbour also grow in Tully. We should bar them from bringing any machinery or cartons back from Tully. We must have a total quarantine. We cannot afford this fungal virus to get into bananas on the North Coast. I ask the Minister to do whatever is in his power to ensure that all steps are taken to keep the bananas from Queensland off the highway, and stop any bananas from the 50-kilometre buffer zone north of the border coming to Coffs Harbour. I know that that will hurt some industries there but to even land those bananas at Coffs Harbour, or any part of northern New South Wales, would be to open the possibility of this disease becoming rife on the North Coast.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt—Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [4.27 p.m.]: I assure honourable members that the predictions made by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour about the consequences of an outbreak of black sigatoka in New South Wales are not in any way overstated. Banana growing is a substantial industry in this State, valued at $60 million at the farm gate. There are about 1,000 plantations and the industry employs 3,000 people. There have been previous outbreaks, in the Daintree in 2000 and in the Cape York Peninsula.

I am concerned that the quarantine restrictions put in place, as the honourable member for Coffs Harbour said, have been breached. I will have my regulatory officers investigate the matters raised by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour this afternoon. I assure the honourable member that I will do everything I can to enforce the quarantine, and I will be cautious about the request from some sectors of Queensland to relax those restrictions.

I have been clearly advised that if movement restrictions were relaxed or removed it would weaken Australia's position in opposing import applications from other countries, for example the Philippines and Ecuador, under the world trade rules. The relaxation of the restrictions not only will impact on the New South Wales and Queensland industries but could have international consequences. I know that the honourable member for Tweed also has concerns about this matter. My department will contact him about any concerns that he has about a breach of the regulations that have already been the subject of agreement.

COOLANGATTA AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Mr NEWELL (Tweed) [4.29 p.m.]: I also thank the Minister for his response and the earnest actions that he has taken thus far regarding the outbreak of black Sigatoka in northern Queensland and its implications for the industry in New South Wales. I appreciate the comments made by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour in raising the matter. It has been a matter of grave concern since the outbreak occurred.

This afternoon I wish to speak about the Gold Coast airport, which abuts the State border, and half of which is in my electorate. The facilities servicing the airport obviously are in Queensland, but half of the landing strip is in New South Wales. Just yesterday, 30 May, Gold Coast Airport Ltd submitted its "revised fresh master plan for Coolangatta airport" to the Federal Government. That master plan relates to the proposal to establish a facility that expands the airport at some stage in the future. This has been a commercial operation since the Federal Government leased the airport to Gold Coast Airport Ltd in 1998. The airport, which is completely privatised, needs to be able to maximise its return to shareholders.

The problem is that airports, in attempting to maximise their return to shareholders, are not environmentally friendly to the local population. The owners of the Gold Coast airport have inherited a number of problems. Those problems have arisen, perhaps, through mismanagement over a number of years. I am concerned that that mismanagement is not allowed to continue and that processes are put in place to protect the residents, particularly to the south but also to the north of the airport, by ensuring that the airport functions properly.

The basic problem I see with the master plan submitted yesterday is that it was not open to public consultation. Gold Coast Airport Ltd did go through what it called a process of public consultation regarding its previous master plan, which was rejected by the Federal Government. Ostensibly, it was rejected on the basis that the local council, the Tweed Shire Council, had said it would not condone the extension of the airport past the airport boundary.

I have read previous master plans but not the fresh master plan, because I have not had the opportunity to peruse it. Those previous plans referred to public consultation, but the problem that I and the communities of Tweed, Banora, Cudgen, Kingsliff and Fingal have is that the public consultation, while it supposedly did occur, was not reflected in the master plans. Nothing indicated that any concerns raised by the communities have been addressed. In fact, although some concerns were raised by the Airport Noise Environment Consultative Committee, public representatives on that committee are still not happy with the master plan submitted yesterday.

As a matter of courtesy I was given some information contained in media releases about the master plan. In the time remaining to me I would like to mention just some of those issues. The first is that the information said that earlier this year the Prescribed Airspace Regulations were gazetted for Coolangatta airport, protecting the obstacle limitation surface for 2,900 metres. Also included in the information is an indication that earlier this year those regulations were enshrined in legislation. It bugs me, and irks all of the people of the Tweed, and the people of Banora Point particularly, that the change in those regulations and their enshrining in permanent legislation was never raised with the local populace by the Federal member, who is part of the Government that enshrined those regulations in legislation.

WINDSOR WOMEN'S PRISON

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [4.34 p.m.]: It is most fortuitous that the Minister for Women is in the Chamber because the matter I wish to raise is in a sense relevant to her portfolio. I wish to express the grave concern of many women in my electorate, certainly the women's groups in my electorate, about the Government's proposal to move posthaste towards the construction of a new women's prison on the South Windsor correctional complex—or, as I prefer to call it, the John Moroney correctional complex.

The concern expressed by these groups is that after this matter was examined by the Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population—a committee of the upper House—the recommendations of the committee made it clear that while consideration should be given to the benefits to be gained from spending money on the building of a new prison, currently estimated at $42 million, closer consideration should be given to spending that money on a series of remedial and interventional methods that may get to the heart of the reasons why many women today are going to prison.

The profile of women prisoners is not quite the same as that of male prisoners, although undoubtedly there are some similarities. Many of the crimes that women commit and that lead to their imprisonment are generated by societal conflicts and other circumstances into which they are drawn by a number of other factors which, many people believe, are capable of being addressed in a different way. The committee also expressed concern that consultation on those issues was only sought from the Department of Corrective Services after the decision was made to build the new women's prison. The committee regarded that as a convoluted way of approaching the matter.

Also, the committee was concerned, on the basis of evidence before it, that the decision to build the women's prison at South Windsor was largely a bandaid response to the burgeoning female prison population. In other words, it was a knee-jerk reaction to the end result of criminality and women, rather than a consideration of the reasons that lead to that burgeoning population. The evidence received by the committee overwhelmingly demonstrated that, for women, imprisonment is probably the least effective criminal sanction to prevent a recurrence of offending behaviour.

The recidivist element of our correctional system has been a matter of grave concern to me for many years. The committee agreed—I do not think anyone would disagree—that the current overcrowding in women's prisons is a matter of grave concern. That issue will need to be addressed. The committee pointed to a need to look at a wider range of community-based correctional options and prevention programs, rather than the simple and obvious end result of sending women to prison.

The consultation with stakeholders was, as I said, made after the decision to build the prison was taken. This scarcely addresses the matters that are of concern to the community. Obviously, it did not address concerns regarding the relative isolation of the South Windsor correctional complex, and the various mechanisms suggested as a means of getting families of imprisoned women to visit were not seriously or practically addressed. The committee therefore called for a moratorium on plans to build the prison and for those involved to go back to the drawing board to address the matters that lead to the burgeoning women's prison population.

The recommendation of the committee was that the Minister for Corrective Services undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the proposal to build the new women's correctional facility at South Windsor and of the alternative community-based measures recommended in its report. The committee said that the cost-benefit analysis should be completed no later than the first sitting week in October 2000 of the New South Wales Parliament, and recommended that the results of that analysis should be published. Though it is eight months since that deadline has come and gone, the analysis still has not been done. It is questionable whether the decision to build a new correctional centre at South Windsor has any validity in addressing the social problems that face women in our community.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith—Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women) [4.38 p.m.]: I inform the honourable member for Hawkesbury that a group of four people who are concerned about this issue came to see me in my electorate office. I have made representations to the Minister for Corrective Services in relation to this matter. When I receive a response to those representations, which might clarify the issue, I will forward it to the honourable member. The requests that have been made are in line with what the honourable member said earlier. I am still waiting for a response to the issues that were included in those representations.

Mrs BARBARA WRIGHT JURY DUTY OBLIGATIONS

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [4.40 p.m.]: Tonight I draw to the attention of the Attorney General a case relating to my constituent Barbara Wright of Foresters Beach involving a $1,000 fine for breaching jury duty obligations. Barbara, a mother of three teenage children, is a good parent, a good citizen and a community-minded person. Barbara helps out as a community worker both in the broader community and in her children's schools. Some of her volunteer work includes assisting in school reading programs, working in the tuckshop, school maintenance and fundraising for the Red Cross on the Central Coast. Barbara, who has been in permanent employment for the last 10 years, worked for nine years without a day's absence. Barbara is a bedrock of our society.

I refer now to the issue of jury duty. Mrs Wright has so far received four notices for jury duty. On the first three occasions she dutifully followed the required procedures, that is, she rang the sheriff's office on the notified day to inform him of her availability. On two occasions Mrs Wright followed procedures. She rang the sheriff's office as required and was told that she was not required. On another occasion she was required for jury duty and attended the court but was not subsequently empanelled as the court case was dismissed. On the first three occasions Mrs Wright acted responsibly, followed the procedures and carried out her civic duty—another demonstration of her responsible commitment to her community.

On the fourth occasion Mrs Wright was distracted by significant issues relating to the future of one of her teenagers and she failed to ring the sheriff's office at the nominated time. This occurred despite the fact that Mrs Wright made an annotation in her diary "Ring for jury duty" on Sunday 4 February 2001. I have with me a copy of her diary, which clearly shows that annotation on Sunday 4 February. On three occasions Mrs Wright complied with the procedures. On the fourth occasion, while distracted by a family crisis, she failed to ring the sheriff's office. Mrs Wright was subsequently fined $1,100. I have made representations on behalf of Mrs Wright to no effect and I am bitterly disillusioned. I quote from the Minister's letter dated 16 May 2001, which states:

The Sheriff is of the view that forgetting to attend for jury service is not an acceptable explanation and this policy has been consistently applied for some time. Whilst it is appreciated that Mrs Wright had family matters distracting her at the time, this has been argued by others who have failed to attend for service. In order to ensure that no one is favoured over another who has faced a similar penalty, it is important to continue to apply the policy in every instance. It would only be in exceptional circumstances that such an excuse could be accepted.

I am arguing that this is an exceptional case. Mrs Wright could have tried to evade jury duty and she could have sought exemption, like so many people do. I have with me in the Chamber the sheriff's notification which lists in schedules 2 and 3 ineligible people and those who can claim for an exemption. Eight categories of ineligible persons are listed in schedule 2 and 14 categories are listed in schedule 3, and that does not even include the subcategories. So 30 or more categories are listed in the notification under which people can be exempted or apply for exemption. Mrs Wright did not choose to do that. On three occasions she did the right thing but, on the fourth occasion, she was distracted by personal matters.

The Minister for Community Services, who is in the Chamber, would know, as a mother, that anyone confronted by a domestic situation involving teenagers—and I and every other parent who has teenagers has had experience of this—can be overcome by that situation to the point of near paralysis. Mrs Wright forgot to ring the sheriff's office, even though she had made a note on her calendar to do so, which proves that the lady is genuine, given her personal record in relation to this matter. Just about every professional business person in society—and that includes members of Parliament—can apply for exemption from jury duty. I appreciate that the fine for not attending for jury duty is large because there are so many exemptions. It begs the question: Why would someone who has regularly participated in jury duty procedures be hit with a sledgehammer when she slipped up because of stressful circumstances?

This case must be genuinely reviewed and the sheriff's office and other government agencies must tread more gently when dealing with members of the public. This genuine and sincere person and other people in society are being damaged by the mindless following of procedures. I hope that the Attorney General will review this case. I hope that he is able to resolve the issue of how to treat people who have a successful history of complying with their civic duties.

KILLARA LAND CLAIM

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [4.45 p.m.]: I refer tonight to land in east Killara in my electorate located at the end of Kanowa Avenue—land which in recent months has been the subject of community concern. In December 1996 council resolved to rezone and to preserve a portion of residential land. As council was proceeding with this rezoning it discovered that a land claim had been lodged by the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and the rezoning of the land was put in abeyance. However, last year the land claim was approved. I bring to the attention of the House another aspect involving this land. I acknowledge that there has been substantial community support for reviewing aspects of this case. The Friends of East Killara have been active in this regard, capably led by Ms Freda Martin and Mrs Cathy Cowley.

Because of the topography of the land—it drains into the upper middle harbour—it would be a natural inclusion into Garigal National Park. After some correspondence with council, a public meeting was held about a month ago which was attended by 200 or 300 local residents. The mood at that meeting was fairly evident. The primary objective of the meeting was to preserve the land as natural bushland. I am concerned as there appears to be a conspiracy between various government departments and the local land council in relation to that land. I have in my possession correspondence from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. That body wrote to the Department of Land and Water Conservation in September 1997 in regard to the inclusion of this land in Garigal National Park. The letter states:

NPWS officers have inspected the land with representatives of the Metropolitan Local Land Council.

Obviously no independent inspection was carried out to ascertain the ideal usage of that land. The community believes that it should be preserved—a view that is backed up, in a sense, by the letter written by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The letter also states:

A short inspection indicated that the land contains at least two rare flora species ... The location of the land also means that any development may affect the catchment of the streams flowing into Garigal National Park.

Given the nature of that letter and the role of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, there is cause for substantial concern. The Metropolitan Land Council wrote to the Department of Land and Water Conservation in July 1997 in the following terms:

... the Land Council has been involved in discussion with Landcom regarding the possibility of joint venture developments.

The letter further states:

... the East Killara Claim offers the Metropolitan Aboriginal Community the greatest opportunity by far to reap benefits from a venture with Landcom.

The next page is entirely missing and apparently has been lost or misplaced by the department. It clearly indicates that the department and the local Aboriginal land council have been working for many years, despite their public protestations to the contrary, not only to develop the land and to work with a view to granting a claim going back some four years now, but with a view to putting a very substantial residential development on the land when, in the past few months, they made it very clear that that was not their intention. Those two items of correspondence are of great concern to me and the community. The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning has indicated it has some concerns about rezoning land from residential and it is generally concerned about any reduction of land zoned for residential purposes in Ku-ring-gai. It makes clear that they dearly want to see this land developed when it is not appropriate. If the land was needed for residential purposes, why was the claim granted when under the Act it is not claimable Crown land?

SEYMOUR CENTRE BATHURST VOLUNTEERS

Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [4.50 p.m.]: I wish to speak today on the subject of volunteerism. Everyone in this Chamber will be aware of the impact last year's Sydney Olympics had on raising the profile of volunteerism, and we have heard many times about the wonderful contribution of volunteers in making the Games as successful as they were. While I concur with that, an event I attended in Bathurst on 18 May put the focus for me on something that has been happening in all our communities long before the 2000 Olympics. The Seymour Centre, which is a day care centre for disabled people in Bathurst, has been running for many years. The Minister for Community Services is aware of this organisation because it is home and community care funded, and, with the record funding for the Minister's portfolio, we are hopeful that the Seymour Centre will be the recipient of some of that largess. The centre is capably managed by Narelle Stephens, and Beryl McLeay plays a major role as the organiser of the carers group.

The dinner was held on 18 May so the professional people who run the centre could, in the International Year of Volunteers, pay tribute to the efforts and work of the volunteers. Dozens of volunteers turned up for the dinner. The Federal member and I were able to present all of them with a certificate of appreciation. The striking thing about getting all those volunteers together at the Seymour Centre was that it gave me a good overview of the range of people who volunteer for work in our communities. They come in all shapes, sizes and colours. They had one common trait: a real pride in what they were doing. Some of them work just a few hours a week, some work every day. Many are retired people who are doing something useful with their retirement years by helping others.

The Minister for Community Services will be well aware that Bathurst is one of the places to trial the Experienced Hands program that she introduced in 1999. Kerry Spinks, from the Bathurst Information and Neighbourhood Centre, who was a guest speaker at the function at the Seymour Centre on 18 May, spoke about that program, of which she is the co-ordinator for Bathurst. The Experienced Hands program was an initiative of the Minister for Community Services to bridge the generation gap by putting younger people in our community who may have problems in touch with older, experienced people who have had a long and useful life and who are looking to impart their knowledge. Perhaps a young person who is having learning difficulties will be introduced to a retired schoolteacher. A young single mother having difficulties coping with the pressures of budgeting and so on may be put in touch with a volunteer lady, perhaps a grandmother who has raised a family and has a deal of experience. That was one of the groups introduced on the night and is another example of how productive volunteering is in our communities.

It has been estimated that if $10 an hour were placed on the worth of these volunteers in a city like Bathurst we would be talking about something in the range of $9 million to $12 million in volunteer work. While we do not want to talk about volunteerism in mercenary terms, it is important in the International Year of Volunteers that we use this opportunity to reflect on the value of volunteers. That concept was behind the Seymour Centre running this function for the volunteers. In many other places in my electorate—such as Lithgow, Blayney, Oberon, Kandos, Rylstone, and some of the smaller villages such as Cullen Bullen—this activity is going on and the benefit is flowing back to the community. I congratulate Narelle Stephens and the people at the Seymour Centre on demonstrating how important volunteers are in our community.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith—Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women) [4.55 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Bathurst on raising this important issue. His calculation of the worth of volunteers is probably correct. I remember reading some documents stating that if we were to put a value on volunteers—and I have forgotten the value but it may have been $10 an hour—the worth of volunteering in Australia would be close to $18 billion or $20 billion a year. It is not something to be sneezed at. My department has tried very hard to make sure people are aware of it, because in many communities it is the volunteers who keep the community together. Many years ago we seemed to have a different structure and we had a support system around us. That is now being left to a few groups in the community, but the volunteers are the social glue that keeps us together. I congratulate the honourable member for Bathurst on bringing up this issue. It is the International Year of Volunteers. The tragedy is it is not their year every year, because they are a most important part of our community.

MURRUMBIDGEE UNREGULATED STREAMS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Ms HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [4.57 p.m.]: I wish to speak once again about issues relating to water, the most treasured natural resource in my electorate. For years now I have been approached by those who live and work on the land who daily see their future and the future of their children being attacked by the policies of this Government. In question time last Tuesday the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation made a disgraceful personal attack on me in relation to the Murrumbidgee unregulated streams management committee. He also accused the National Party of "whipping up hysteria in the farming communities it represents and embarking on a concerted campaign to disrupt the water sharing plan process". What a lie! I responded, in very moderate terms, to concerns expressed to me by many farmers about the way their access to water is being restricted by the Carr Labor Government.

One farmer in my electorate, whose family has been on the land since the days of Hamilton Hume, expressed it differently to me. He said to me just a fortnight ago that farmers were so disgusted by the interference of this Government that the water inspectors should be careful or they would find themselves at the bottom of a sinkhole wearing a pair of cement boots. While I do not go along with threats of violence, this statement is a sad indictment of just how much this Government has alienated country people. That this Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation, who is also currently facing a no confidence motion in this place on yet another issue relating to New South Wales water, is unaware of and surprised by these sentiments is a crushing condemnation of how out of touch he really is.

In the media release issued under his name at the same time as he was abusing me personally in the Chamber, the Minister accused me of a "totally unfounded scare campaign". I point the Minister to the protest meetings held in recent months in areas including Bega, Bungendore and Goulburn, the outcry against the "Sustaining the Catchments" paper and the rejection of his ovine Johne's disease policies by sheep farmers as evidence of a rising swell of country discontent with him, other Labor Ministers and indeed the whole New South Wales Labor Government. The Minister mistakenly trivialised the importance of the matter.

If he had bothered to read my release he would have discovered that it was not the members of the Murrumbidgee unregulated streams management committee that I attacked, but his Government's anti-farmer and anti-country agenda. Again, the Minister's statement that, "The honourable member for Burrinjuck, who is quoted as saying that the legislation, which she claimed was introduced by stealth, was a far left green agenda which would result in the stream access of many farmers for stock and domestic uses being severely limited" is false. I said, and I stand by my statement, that the Carr Labor Government is introducing, by stealth, a far left green agenda which could see farmers forced off the land by severely limiting their stream access for stock and domestic uses.

I was approached by several constituents from within the committee's structure who were desperately worried that their concerns were being ignored against a private agenda set by the Minister. The truth is that the committee was discussing fencing off of streams to stop stock access to water! How much more restrictive can the Minister get? As for the Minister's contention that there is only one Aboriginal representative on the Committee, I draw his attention to the role played on the committee by Mr J. Simpson. Ms F. Grant is noted on the committee list as the Aboriginal representative, with Mr R. Dunn as her alternative. Mr Simpson has addressed and attended committee meetings, and those in the committee structure have been told that Mr Simpson is also an accredited member of the Murrumbidgee unregulated streams management committee. The Minister seriously misled Parliament in his statements against me on 29 May. He said

The honourable member for Burrinjuck claimed that Wagga Wagga and Tumut councils had not been consulted about the plan. That is also wrong. The local government representative on the committee comes from Wagga Wagga.

Unfortunately, again, the Minister failed to check his facts. Neither Tumut council nor Wagga Wagga council was approached by the committee, as was confirmed to me by the General Manager of Tumut Shire Council and the Wagga Wagga Planning Office staff. The councillor the Minister refers to is Councillor Lindsay Vidler. I have been informed that Councillor Vidler felt he was unable to discuss the committee's deliberations with his council and had not done so. I have been the subject of a personal attack by the Minister because the committee structure he set up in his legislation has removed the ability of land-holders to have a say in matters which directly affect their future. I had to speak out to protect their rights.
I have also been successful. I note with pleasure that since I spoke out—and only since I spoke out—the committee has set a date for community consultation in the Tarcutta area. Thankfully, it has also upgraded the protection of basic land-holder rights from a secondary to a primary specific objective. The Minister seriously dropped in my estimation of him by making such a huge gaffe last Tuesday. He ought to be embarrassed, and he should issue an apology to Parliament, to me and to the people of the Burrinjuck electorate for misleading Parliament in this important matter.

LIVERPOOL ELECTORATE NATIONAL SORRY DAY CEREMONIES

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [5.02 p.m.]: I advise the House of two related events that I recently attended within my electorate. The first event was on last Thursday 24 May at Ashcroft Public School. This event was part of the "Journey of Healing" promoted by the National Sorry Day Committee. It included a tree planting in a commemorative garden and then a ceremony with the student body. Apart from myself, the local community was represented by several councillors from Liverpool City Council, including Cecilia Anthony. The assembly was addressed by a number of people, including the school principal, Mark Diamond. Speakers also included Nancy de Vries, a resident of Liverpool who was a member of the stolen generation. Nancy is well known by people in this building because she addressed Parliament several years ago as a representative of the stolen generation.

Other members of the stolen generation contributed to the event. Val Wenberg read poetry, and sisters Jackie Bedford and Carol Kendall shared their experiences, including the fact that they only discovered each other's identity comparatively recently. A group of very young students from kindergarten to year 2 who made up the school's junior Aboriginal dance group performed at the event. Despite limited time for preparation and the apprehensions of the staff, I though they performed very creditably. As part of the event, badges for the "Journey of Healing" were distributed. There was a brief written statement with the badge, prepared by the National Sorry Day Committee, part of which stated:

The day was a very successful event. The school and the local committee which organised the event should be congratulated. The second event took place on Saturday 26 May, which was National Sorry Day, at the Liverpool Regional Museum at the corner of the Hume Highway and Congressional Drive at Liverpool. This event involved a commemorative tree planting and plaque unveiling for the "Journey of Healing". The mayor of Liverpool, the Hon. George Pacuillo, who is a former State Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, with the assistance of a member of the stolen generation, placed the first shovel of dirt on the tree. Councillors Wendy Waller and Cecilia Anthony unveiled the wording of the plaque. There were readings of poetry and speeches from members of the stolen generation.

The event was organised by Liverpool council's Aboriginal consultative committee and Aboriginal projects officer Jackie Bedford. Whilst these issues are obviously—and justly—national political issues, they also have a very direct local resonance in areas such as Liverpool and south-west Sydney generally. At a very basic level, many members of the stolen generation live in our area—and I have already mentioned the names of some of them in my comments. Moreover, Liverpool has its own particular history of invasion, occupation and dispossession and all that that entails. Indeed, it is not acknowledged sufficiently or frequently enough. The early years of white settlement in Liverpool saw a guerrilla war waged in the area. The fiercest skirmishes reached a crescendo in the period 1814 to 1816.

It is worth noting that the council commissioned history of Liverpool, Christopher Keating's On the Frontier, is a useful European and non-indigenous attempt to redress this history. That history records the names of some of the non-indigenous people who were killed in the warfare. It also notes, rather poignantly, that the indigenous people who were killed have not left any written history. The event occurred at the Liverpool Regional Museum. That was entirely appropriate because that site was of great significance to the traditional owners. It also became the site for one of the earliest, and still existing, European houses in Liverpool. In a sense the site is almost a microcosm of the experience of dispossession of the indigenous by the non-indigenous.

The structure concerned is now known as Collingwood House and was originally owned by Ebor Bunker. Bunker, an American whaling captain, is also broadly representative of much of non-indigenous society during the first few decades of European incursion. He supported Macarthur and the Rum Corps against Bligh, seemingly because he was not given all the land he wanted. The Macarthur empire, through the Australian Agricultural Company, dispossessed indigenous owners of large parts of New South Wales, and it relied on the slave labour of the convict system to make a profit. In that sense it is totally appropriate that the event I am referring to took place at that location, because it represented both the indigenous and non-indigenous traditions in Liverpool. It is a truism that history is written by the victors and the traditions of indigenous resistance are too often ignored and forgotten, as are the attitudes and actions of the non-indigenous who did not share the simplistic approach of Bunker and Macarthur. Henry Reynolds has written a book entitled This Whispering in our Hearts, which deals with part of that tradition in an attempt to restore what has been lost.

GALSTON ROAD, HORNSBY HEIGHTS

Mr O'DOHERTY (Hornsby) [5.07 p.m.]: Last weekend honourable members of this House would have been moved, as I was, by the tragic news of the death of a Salvation Army volunteer who was collecting for the Red Shield appeal. The death occurred in my electorate, on Galston Road in Hornsby Heights. The tragedy is added to by the fact that residents have been complaining about the state of this road for many, many years. In the past 12 months the Government finally agreed to establishing a working party to look at safety improvements on this road. The working party was established following a public meeting which I called at Rofe Park on Galston Road and which was attended by the Parliamentary Secretary for Roads on behalf of the Minister and a representative of the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA].

The working party consisted of the RTA with Hornsby council and myself attending on behalf of the community to put the community's views strongly to both of those bodies. For years residents have been told that no-one could assume responsibility for the various problems on the road, that it is now a State road so the State should assume responsibility for it. In relation to issues such as footpaths and drainage, the State kept saying that it is the council's responsibility. As a result of the working party we managed to get an agreement from the RTA that certain proposals would be advanced to fix problems associated with this road. To my mind, that represents an acknowledgement by the RTA that there are serious issues regarding Galston Road.

The proposals advanced by the RTA—and, indeed, which it agreed to at the last working party meeting in August last year—involve sealing the road to the edge and providing concrete guttering in some places and asphalt bunding in other places; addressing the safety of a number of intersections which are considered unsafe by residents and according to accident records; better delineating many of the intersections; clearly delineating the lines on Galston Road; and creating a cycleway, which would also have the impact of slightly narrowing the carriageway, thereby reducing the speed of traffic, making it harder for cars to pass on the left-hand side of cars making a right-hand turn. In short, a number of proposals will specifically address the traffic and safety issues, as well as drainage issues, raised by my constituents over many years. One local resident was quoted in the newspaper as saying that Galston Road was an "accident waiting to happen". The article stated:

The residents were shocked by the double tragedy of what occurred on the weekend in light of our discussions over many months, in which they thought that perhaps something was happening with Galston Road. At the last meeting in August, the RTA gave me an assurance that it would exhibit the proposals for improving the road by the end of the first school term in 2001. That deadline came and went so I asked the Minister when the working party would report. I was given an answer in Questions and Answers that I received only two days ago: A plan showing the proposed improvements will be exhibited during May 2001. It is now the end of May and that plan has not been exhibited. The latest information I have from the RTA is that it will be exhibited in June. My constituents have waited a very long time since last August, and the promised completion date, approximately March this year, has long since passed.

I turn now to address the funding issue. Before Easter I also placed a question on notice to the Minister and asked whether there would be funding in the budget for this project. The answer I received was that consideration would be given to the provision of funding in the forthcoming State budget. The budget papers do not provide enough detail to enable me and other Coalition members to know whether funding has been set aside in the overall allocation to the RTA. I have written to the Minister and asked him to make funding available in the current departmental budget as a matter of urgency and importance. I implore the Minister to treat this matter with the utmost seriousness, as do members of my constituency. I conclude my remarks by citing of the words of a resident who wrote to me after the accident:

The residents of my electorate have asked me to once again impress upon the Government the importance to them of this issue. Indeed, their regard for this issue is no less than the regard they have for human life itself.

BONDI BEACH RAIL LINK

Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [5.12 p.m.]: I wish to again address the Bondi rail link issue, as I have on many previous occasions in this House. Approximately three months ago I had reason to slam the Government for its secrecy over the Bondi rail project. On that occasion the Government had grabbed further planning control over major projects and had done so in a very secretive way. The Government attempted to gazette regulations without releasing any information whatsoever about the project. Time and time again over the last four years I have made the point that the Carr Government, because of its secrecy about the Bondi rail project, has treated the entire community with contempt. The Bondi community is well aware that the Government has massive problems that can probably best be described as various levels of incompetence in the offices of the Minister for Transport and the Rail Access Corporation. However, that is not a reason to keep all the information about the project secret for four years. As I said, the Government has been simply treating the community with contempt in relation to the building of a tourism tunnel to Bondi.

Lo and behold, on 21 May the Minister issued a press statement which announced that the Bondi Beach rail link would not proceed in the proposed form. The Minister explained that instead of committing taxpayers to expenditure of approximately $95 million for an extension of the rail line to Bondi Beach and the construction of a station, $86.4 million would be spent on a turnback facility at Bondi Junction to boost the capacity of the Illawarra line. That showed the extraordinary decision making that is being engaged in by the Carr Government, a Government that is running scared on infrastructure projects. It also showed that for four years the Minister has simply been unable to get the project right and make it viable for residents of Sydney.

Apart from highlighting the Government's incompetence in the management of infrastructure projects and the extraordinary secrecy surrounding the Bondi rail project in particular, I note that the present stage of the Bondi rail development project presents a great opportunity for the Government to finally to embrace a light rail alternative. If ever there were an opportunity for light rail in Sydney, it is on the south-eastern route through the Premier's electorate, Coogee Beach and Bondi Beach. The time is ripe in the Government's infrastructure planning for it to embrace light rail on the Bondi line. I have made that point several times to the Minister and I make the point again. I ask the Minister to take the point seriously.

The selection of a light rail alternative would provide rail access to tens of thousands of residents in north Bondi, Bondi, Bellevue Hill, Bondi Junction, Paddington, Darlinghurst and the city. The shadow Minister for Transport thinks it is a great idea. He and I think it should be investigated and that the Government should call for expressions of interest. Having said that, I also call on the Minister for Transport to come clean on information that is available to date on the Bondi rail project. The community, the shadow Minister for Transport and I would be very interested in examining the projections for cost, revenue and passenger numbers for the project. We would also appreciate having details of expenditure on the project over the past four years, expenditure that probably now approximates a little more than $10 million.

Given that the Minister has spent four years examining this particular project, the Opposition would also like to see the details on the evaluation of the light rail option. Throughout the project the Minister has acknowledged that he needs to do a detailed evaluation of a light rail alternative. At this stage, considerable information must be available and the Opposition would like to see it. The Opposition would also like to see the information that the Government has on the route options, the projection of costs, passenger numbers, revenue and any expected taxpayer payments. I would basically like the Government to hand over the information for which taxpayers have paid over the past four years. I ask the Minister to allow the Opposition to examine the detailed data that is available. Following that, the Minister should seriously call for expressions of interest for the Bondi light rail project. I say to the Minister, Carl Scully: It really is about time you got on the Bondi tram!

FATHER PAUL FITZGERALD GOLDEN JUBILEE CELEBRATION

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.17 p.m.]: This Saturday, 2 June, is an important occasion for the community in Toukley, in particular St Mary's parish, because the community is celebrating the golden jubilee of the priesthood of Father Paul Fitzgerald. Sunday, 3 June, is the actual date of Father Fitzgerald's fiftieth anniversary but there will be a major celebration in St Mary's on Saturday night. Father Fitzgerald is important not only to St Mary's parish but also to the wider community. He was the parish priest at Toukley for 24 years from 1970 until he retired from an active priestly life in 1994. Father Fitzgerald was born in Kilmeena, County Mayo, and was educated at St Patrick's seminary in Carlow. He is a person of very eclectic taste: He is a keen golfer as well as a provider of spiritual guidance to a whole range of people, not only in the St Mary's community but also in the wider community.

I well recall that before I was elected a person who was not a member of the parish but certainly a prominent member of the community, Ross Barnes, spoke to me about the wonderful empathy that Father Fitzgerald was able to develop with members of the community. Father Fitzgerald spoke at Ross Barnes' funeral, which demonstrates that in terms of the ecumenical movement Father Fitzgerald was ahead of his time in reaching out to people from other denominations or, indeed, people of no denomination. My abiding memory of Father Fitzgerald was that over many years on a Friday night he officiated at housie that was held in the parish to raise funds for the school. But in February 2000 I discovered that I have a much closer affinity with Father Fitzgerald than I had previously realised.

My children, James and Stephanie, were baptised by Father Fitzgerald in 1987 and 1988 respectively. My paternal grandfather's grandfather, James Royan, was baptised by Father Fitzgerald's great uncle, Father John Fitzgerald, in the parish of Islandeady in County Mayo 131 years before Father Fitzgerald baptised my son James. That is certainly a happy coincidence when one considers that despite separation by several continents and a span of 131 years, members of the Fitzgerald family were baptising members of my family, generations apart.

The celebration this weekend is even more important when one considers that Father Fitzgerald was very sick last year. He spent many months in hospital and we were all concerned about his health. Fortunately, he has had a full recovery and is back living in his house at Lake Haven in the Wyong electorate. I am sure he will enjoy his sojourn back to Ireland, particularly County Mayo, later this year. The Toukley community is looking forward to celebrating Father Fitzgerald's life with him on Saturday night. It is timely to acknowledge that a large number of Irish priests, brothers and nuns, including Father Fitzgerald, came to this country. Father Fitzgerald's two brothers, Father John and Father Frank, also came to Australia. The essence of Irish Catholic priests, nuns and brothers can be summed up in two stanzas of John O'Brien's Vale, Father Pat:

We left the friendly stars astern, the Irish slides agleam,
We dared the seas in sailing-ships before the days of steam,
We faced a weird wild waste of world that brave men trembled at:
No shipside welcome met the men who came with Father Pat.

We turned our horses' heads out west, beyond the furthest track,
With nothing but an alien star to light the journey back.
The echoes mocked us as we went, and silence startled sat
When out beyond the rim of things we marched with Father Pat.

Certainly for people who come from the Northern Hemisphere the Southern Cross is an alien star. On Saturday night we will not only celebrate Father Fitzgerald We will also celebrate all the Irish priests, nuns, and brothers who have made such an indelible contribution to building up Australian society, not simply in the narrow, religious sense but in a wider spiritual and material sense. Father Fitzgerald is a man of faith and a faithful man, and I thank God for his priestly life.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.22 p.m.]: The honourable member for Wyong has paid tribute in the House—to a very catholic Irish audience, I admit—to Father Paul Fitzgerald for his 24 years of ministering to the Catholic community of St Mary's parish and also for bringing guidance to the wider community. The honourable member emphasised in his contribution the enormous social and religious impact of Irish priests, brothers and nuns in the development of Australia. As I listened to him read the poem it brought to mind other poems. Bush Christening is one such poem. It illustrated that the Irish priesthood had both a great sense of religious adherence and also a feeling of being amongst the people. Of course, we are not averse to sharing in the daily delights of the community. The honourable member's tribute acknowledges the great contribution to the community of Father Paul Fitzgerald, and I thank the honourable member for Wyong for bringing it to the attention of the House.

NEWCASTLE MIGRANT RESOURCE CENTRE

Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [5.24 p.m.]: Last Monday I had the privilege to attend the twentieth anniversary celebration of the Migrant Resource Centre of Newcastle in the Hunter Valley. I would like to pay tribute to the outstanding work carried out by the centre over the past 20 years in helping new migrants to the Hunter region settle into the community. A large number of people attended the celebration, including my colleague the honourable member for Newcastle, in whose electorate the centre is located; Philip Ruddock, MP, the Federal Minister for Immigration, Ethnic Affairs and Reconciliation; and Con Sciacca, the shadow Minister, who paid tribute to the work of the centre.

The celebration began, rightly, with a speech by Ray Kelly, the manager of the Awabakal Aboriginal Co-operative, on behalf of the Awabakal traditional owners, welcoming people to Awabakal country. That was followed by a speech by Dr Henry Chan, the present chairman of the management committee of the Migrant Resource Centre. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Dr Chan's excellent leadership of the centre over a number of years and his sensitivity and generosity of time and spirit have contributed greatly to the success of the centre. Dr Chan said in his speech:

As part of the ceremony the Federal Minister, Mr Ruddock, made presentations to the centre's long-serving staff members. Four management committee members had greater than 10 years service. They were Bill Siminovski, Trudy Mills-Evers, Alina Kizeweter and Dr Henry Chan, the present chairman. For the information of honourable members, I am married to Trudy and was able to accept the presentation on her behalf. The plaque that was displayed on the occasion contained the following inscription:

A similar inscription would have been written about the other three people who had more than 10 years service on the management committee. They are volunteers, of course, but some staff have been there for longer than 10 years. They include the present director, Violetta Walsh, Alex Burns, Irina Lupich and Tima Oto. I also pay tribute to those long-serving staff members who, once again through continuity of service and dedication, have been able to ensure high-class service to the migrant communities of Newcastle and the Hunter. Dr Chan went on to pay tribute to the people who had been pioneers in the establishment and development of the centre. Roger Motyka was the first chairman, and he was also in attendance on the day. Roger led his steering committee through some difficult and challenging times, to establish credibility and effectiveness for the fledgling service. It was a challenge; it still is a challenge.

Dr Chan said that the communities here were not used to government assistance and understandably looked on the new service with a degree of caution and even suspicion. Some wondered what was the hidden agenda, and why, 30 years after the vast post-war immigration had begun, the older groups especially looked askance. Where was help when they needed it? But Roger and his steering committee persevered, nurturing the centre over four years from establishment to incorporation. Roger left the centre with enduring legacies: a strong commitment to service to migrants, a strong support base among the ethnic communities, and an open and collaborative sense of partnership with the funding body, which, of course, is mainly Federal. Indeed, Ian Macphee, a former Federal member of Parliament, launched the service in 1981. In conclusion, I pay tribute to the 17 years of leadership of Violetta Walsh as the co-ordinator of the Migrant Resource Centre. I also pay tribute to her deputy of the past few years, Lulu Tantos. Between them they deliver a fine service. I wish the centre continued success.

Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [5.29 p.m.]: I would like to add a few words to the contribution of the honourable member for Wallsend, who has played a very important role, through his wife and as the local member, in the Newcastle Migrant Resource Centre. The centre was established about 20 years ago, at a time when the Wran Government was well down the track with its multicultural policies. At the time the centre was badly needed in the region. The Hunter region did not have the massive influx of immigrants that other areas such as Canberra and Wollongong had, but its migrants were probably the most diverse.

In regions with many Yugoslav immigrants, they normally have considerable difficulty getting along. That rarely occurred in Newcastle, and if it did it was never noticed by people like me. People such as Alex Burns, Violetta Walsh and Irina Lupich have given tremendous service to the centre over a long period and provided a great deal of understanding for people from Celtic and Anglo-Saxon backgrounds, like me, who acknowledge what a great contribution those people have made to the community in general. I pay special tribute to Roger Motyka, who is well known in the Ukrainian community. He has given a tremendous amount of time and has provided guidance and patience beyond belief in that organisation. I know that his contribution to the organisation and the Ukrainian community is well recognised, as he is a world expert outside the Ukraine. He has been a great asset to the Migrant Resource Centre. [Time expired.]

CHATSWOOD HIGH SCHOOL RELOCATION

Mr O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.31 p.m.]: I refer to the relocation of Chatswood High School, which is currently in the electorate of the honourable member for Willoughby, to the University of Technology, Sydney [UTS] site at Lindfield, which is in my electorate of Ku-ring-gai. I have used the word "relocation." Today I express my concerns about the sham community consultation program initiated by the Minister for Education and Training when he announced that schools like Chatswood High School would be closed and relocated. Despite repeated requests, two in writing, the Minister has refused to provide any opportunities for local Lindfield and Roseville residents to be consulted, to be informed, to raise their concerns and to have those concerns addressed as part of this relocation process. That consultation process ends today. The Minister has even refused to acknowledge the letter that I sent asking for him to set in place a consultative process so that those residents of Lindfield and Roseville who live adjacent to the existing UTS campus could be consulted about the proposal.

Why is it important that they be consulted? The first reason, as every honourable member knows, is that to have a successful local school there has to be a good relationship with the local community. That is especially true of primary schools, but it is equally true of high schools. One could argue that it is even more important in high schools because high schools draw their students from further afield. If the local community adjacent to those high schools is not supportive, terrible problems—which I am sure many honourable members have had to try to sort out over the years—may arise. I regret that the refusal of the Minister for Education and Training to consult the local residents of Roseville and Lindfield means that from the outset the relationship between those residents and a relocated Chatswood High School has got off on the wrong footing.

The second reason those residents deserve consultation is that during time the UTS has operated on that site in Lindfield many residents have put up with traffic and parking problems that have been the bane of their lives. It is clear that with the relocation of Chatswood High School those problems will increase. Why is that clear? Two of the three sites identified on the UTS campus for the establishment of a rebuilt Chatswood High School are car parks. No indication has been given by either UTS or the Department of Education as to where the vehicles that currently use those spaces will be relocated. Residents adjacent to the site, and those who will be living adjacent to the new school, can expect continuing traffic and parking problems.

The third reason the residents deserve consultation is that the Government is pressing ahead, according to its current timetable, with relocation of Chatswood High School two years ahead of any railway station being built on any proposed Epping to Chatswood railway line. I do not know when that railway line will be built. Certainly the Government is silent about that and it seems to be back-pedalling. It seems to me that no school should be relocated to the UTS site unless a railway station is built. If it is the Government's intention to build a railway station, surely the relocation of any school should be delayed until it has been built. Any school will increase bus traffic for local residents living adjacent to the UTS site. To relocate this school before a station is built will worsen that situation. Residents will put up with a continuing problem of parking, traffic and bus movements through their area, which they have experienced in relation to UTS.

Other issues have not been considered in relation to the relocation of this school. During the last bushfires that affected the north shore, UTS almost burned to the ground. Houses in Lyle and Winchester avenues, Lindfield, were affected by fire. Property was lost. Residents want to know what assurances can be provided by the Government in relation to potential fire hazards of any school relocated on that site. People want to know about the interaction between students who attend Chatswood High School, students who go into year 7, and those adults who attend university campuses like UTS, Lindfield. I say again that this has been a sham consultation. It has set back any relationship between Roseville and Lindfield residents and a proposed relocation of Chatswood High School. As a strong supporter of public education, I have to say it is a shame that the Government has muddled this in the way it has.

NEWCASTLE MIGRANT RESOURCE CENTRE

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.36 p.m.]: Today it is a pleasure to join with the honourable member for Wallsend, who is in the chair as Acting-Speaker, in celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the establishment of the Migrant Resource Centre in Chaucer Street in my electorate. On Monday we celebrated with the Federal Minister for Immigration, Ethnic Affairs and Reconciliation, Philip Ruddock; the shadow Minister for Immigration, Con Sciacca; the Lord Mayor of Newcastle, John Tate; the Federal member for Newcastle, Allan Morris; the Deputy Lord Mayor, Councillor Barbara Gaudry; other councillors and a huge number of members of the multicultural groups that now live in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley. It was a real tribute to see the dedicated staff of the Migrant Resource Centre, under the leadership of Violetta Walsh and her deputy, Lula Tantos, and members of the various communities celebrating. We were entertained during the afternoon by Spanish-speaking youngsters in a group called Tonatiuh, who performed a cultural dance. The South Pacific Island Culture in Education [SPICE] team brought together the Samoan and Tongan members of the community who gave the most exciting rendition of dance and song.

That is only part of the multiculturalism we saw in the Fiesta and Cultural Stomp. Honourable members should recognise the importance of the Migrant Resource Centre in assisting those groups within our community in their cultural pursuits and particularly giving them access and understanding of a wide range of programs provided by State, local and Federal services which are provided, not only through Federal funding, the major source, but through State funding programs as well. The centre can access the Hunter-based rural information campaign and the specialist migrant placement officer program, both of which are funded through the State Government. A huge range of programs are available, as the President, Dr Henry Chan, mentioned in his speech.

Dr Chan referred to Management Skills in the Community Sector which, during three years, assisted a large number of mature migrant women to develop competencies. Many of those women continue in valuable and productive employment to this day from a program run by the resource centre. The centre had a pivotal role in providing recovery services to the many communities following the earthquake in 1989. The centre initiated the rural strategy, which acknowledged the needs of rural and isolated migrant communities. The Migrant Resource Centre is the only centre of its kind north of the Hawkesbury. Its catchment area goes right to the Queensland border and out to the west. It provides a marvellous service to the people.

Under the Building Better Cities program, with Federal Government funding two houses were built near the centre in Everton Street. This was a first in providing on-arrival accommodation for refugees outside the metropolitan area. This has been a very important program in assisting people who have come to this country to escape persecution and possible death in their homelands. The centre promotes productive diversity as a critical plank in the economic benefits of Australia's multiculturalism. It had a very intense and highly emotional involvement in the Safe Haven initiative in Singleton, in assisting people who were seeking asylum in Australia at a time of intense conflict in the Balkans. This program has been very valuable to our community. I must mention the tributes paid on the day, in the International Year of Volunteers, to the lengthy volunteer service of so many people to this valuable centre. There could not be a more telling example of volunteerism than in the work being undertaken by the Migrant Resource Centre in Newcastle. I congratulate each and every one of those persons.

Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [5.41 p.m.]: I am happy to speak once again on this matter and congratulate the honourable member for Newcastle, whose electorate hosts the Migrant Resource Centre. I commend him for the interest that both he and his wife have taken in the centre over the years of its existence, even before he became a member of this Parliament. Today the honourable member alluded to the changing nature of the centre since its inception in 1981. It is unfortunate that it was not until 1981 that it came into being, bearing in mind that the Hunter had been welcoming immigrants since 1949.

I attended a junior high school in the 1950s that had a large number of young people who could not speak English. Those students in our class were a lot older than we were merely because they could not speak English. They had terrible difficulties. I, probably more than anybody in Newcastle, am acutely aware of those difficulties because we were all thrown in together in my junior high school, to come out as fodder for trades at the end of the day. In that period those young people were mainly from Europe. I was not present at the performance that took place recently, because I was out of the district, but it involved Asian and South-East Asian people. There were no people from the Pacific nations many years ago. Those people certainly had things a lot easier then.

Luckily, with the change in government in 1976, the Wran Government pursued multicultural policies. The establishment of the Migrant Resource Centre made life a lot easier for those newcomers. As I said earlier in response to the comments made by the honourable member for Wallsend, the centre had a better understanding of those within the region and was better able to deal with them, rather than have them called wogs and Balts and all sorts of inappropriate names, as there was a tendency to do in those days because of a lack of understanding. I congratulate the Migrant Resource Centre, Dr Henry Chan, and all the volunteers who have supported the centre over the past 20 years.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [5.43 p.m.]: In the early 1990s I shared many platforms with the then Opposition spokesperson on education, John Aquilina. We were opposing Terry Metherell's plans to close local schools without reference to the local community. I am really quite shocked that in 2001 Minister John Aquilina plans to close local schools, again without input from our communities. I urge the Minister to withdraw his school closure proposal and support calls from recent public meetings for genuine consultation over a 12-month period with the affected school communities to develop a responsible proposal. A range of alternatives must be canvassed so that an informed decision can be made. I do not believe that has been the case up to this point.

Minister Aquilina's proposal does not anticipate the dramatically changing nature of south-eastern Sydney. Government policies of urban consolidation project huge population increases in that area, with the Green Square development to add an extra 30,000 residents. In advocating school closures in inner-city areas undergoing urban renewal, the Minister is at cross-purposes with his own Government's urban consolidation policies. I have to ask whether or not this a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing. The Government was warned in 1997 against selling school assets in suburbs undergoing urban renewal by the education department's property director. We should bear in mind that, under Premier Kennett, a sell-off of schools in Victoria later backfired when new school sites had to be bought up in inner Melbourne due to urban renewal.

Further, the proposal does not have a sound educational basis, nor does it consider welfare implications, and parent choices of schools. The proposal contains no information about how this model was developed. There is no evidence of the pros and cons of comprehensive schools, which 85 per cent of students in New South Wales government schools currently attend. Despite this lack of research, Building the Future marks a shift towards single-sex and selective schools. The plan fails to address falling enrolments as well as high rates of school non-attendance. The 1996 census figures indicate that non-attendance rates in the South Sydney local government area for both primary and high school students were much higher than the State average.

Larger centralised schools could exacerbate non-attendance rates. Students who already face major obstacles on their way to school will have further to travel under the current proposal. Redfern and Waterloo contain much low-cost housing for some of the most disadvantaged communities in New South Wales. Requiring children who are already struggling to attend school—due to inadequate family or social support—to travel greater distances to school can only impede their access to education, and increase their social disadvantage.

Building the Future fails to acknowledge the importance of locally based schooling, and the vital role that schools play within local communities. The Government has recognised the need for community building in this area by implementing the Redfern-Waterloo project. Closing local schools flies in the face of the Government's Strengthening Communities initiatives. An alternative to Building the Future has been developed by a working party—which I asked the Minister about today in question time—comprising members of the Aboriginal Education Consultative Forum, the Teachers Federation and staff from local schools. Amongst the recommendations of the working party is a proposal to establish a primary-to-year-12 school at Cleveland Street High School. This alternative community-driven proposal has been developed in recognition of high local adult unemployment rates, socioeconomic disadvantage, and the potential impact of urban consolidation. It seeks to address factors contributing to students failing to complete high school.

The proposal acknowledges the need to continue working with students banned from other schools, or with juvenile justice issues. Those consulted in its development do not believe that segregating "students with challenging behaviours" will address their needs. Instead, difficult students need a small school with specific welfare and behaviour management programs, which also attracts students not considered "difficult", and which does not exacerbate existing disadvantage by "ghetto-ising" students. The project acknowledges the needs of the area's significant Aboriginal population and emphasises the importance of counteracting historic and continuing alienation of Aboriginal students from the education system, and reflects extensive consultation with local Aboriginal people. The proposal seeks to address the multiple disadvantaged which may impede Aboriginal students learning.

Those involved with this alternative proposal have called for the retention of a secondary campus in the area, genuine consultation within a realistic time frame, funding for a working party to drive the consultation process, and a 20-year commitment to develop and implement the facility. These demands are the minimum requirements. The Government received a $600 million stamp duty windfall last year, and some of this revenue should be spent on infrastructure and services for the existing and increasing population. Building the Future simply marks the continued reduction of government investment and degradation of services in south-eastern Sydney, while the population dramatically increases.

ALSTONVILLE BYPASS

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [5.48 p.m.]: Tonight I raise an issue that is very important to my electorate. It is the need for an Alstonville bypass. Alstonville is situated on the Bruxner Highway between Ballina and Lismore. The need to build a bypass at Alstonville is highlighted by the fact that at the moment up to 18,000 vehicles a day pass through the relatively small Alstonville town centre. That is a lot of vehicles for a small place like Alstonville to accommodate. As a result, there is tremendous conflict between Alstonville pedestrians and through traffic going from Ballina to Lismore or vice versa.

A number of people who live in Lismore, a regional centre, actually work at Ballina, which is closer to the beach. For many years governments have recognised the need for the Alstonville bypass. Twenty years ago the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] reserved a corridor for it. In about 1993 or 1994 the RTA made a commitment to go ahead and build it. In about 1995 the community consultation process commenced and route options were released for public discussion. It was then agreed that the preferred route would be the route that had originally been designated. Planning continued and an environmental impact statement was called for and subsequently completed.

To my knowledge, and to the knowledge of everyone in that area, there are no controversial elements to this bypass. No environmental issues will prevent its construction. On 18 February 1997 I made a diary note of a conversation I had had with an RTA official. He told me that the planning process would take another 18 months to two years and that the construction would take another 18 months to two years beyond that. In other words, planning would be completed by February 1999 and the construction would be completed about now. At that stage I was prepared to accept those assurances, but I am no longer prepared to do so.

There is a great deal of anger in the Alstonville community about the fact that there was no allocation of funding in yesterday's budget for the construction of this bypass. Only $300,000 was allocated for planning, which is totally unacceptable and unsatisfactory to my community. People desperately want to see the completion of the Alstonville bypass, and justifiably so. As I indicated earlier—and this varies from day to day—up to 18,000 vehicles travel through this small village, and that is dangerous for pedestrians. There is a bottleneck at Alstonville when people travel to and from work in the mornings and afternoons. Alstonville High School and Alstonville Primary School are located close to the main street, and that creates a lot of pedestrian traffic.

I call on the Government to rethink this project and to fund it as a matter of urgency. There is a budget surplus of $368 million and it is important that this project be funded, and funded now. This project, which will cost a total of $32 million, has been five or six years in the planning. In my view the Government is just stalling the planning process so it does not have to fund this project. It is totally unacceptable that we have had to endure these delays. I call on the Government to allocate the money as a matter of urgency so that work on the Alstonville bypass can proceed.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.53 p.m.]: I was interested to hear the contribution of the honourable member for Ballina, who was sincere in his presentation of facts. The honourable member referred to funding having been allocated for the Alstonville bypass, so the Government has obviously made a commitment to it. Small towns up and down the coast have to contend with a heavy level of traffic. However, in some areas communities have elected not to have their towns bypassed, which I find quite unusual. I refer in particular to the community of Coolongolook, which elected to retain the Pacific Highway in the centre of that town.

Mr D. L. Page: That is certainly not the case in Alstonville.

Mr GAUDRY: I am aware that that is not the case in Alstonville. I recall the media controversy relating to the bypass at Moree. Federal Government funding was inadequate to construct that bypass. The former member for that area, the Hon. Wal Murray, attacked the Federal Government on that matter. We need some balance here. I commend the honourable member for Ballina for raising this issue, which I am sure he has already referred to the Minister for Transport. I will ensure that the Minister is made aware of the honourable member's contribution tonight.

Private members' statements noted.

House adjourned at 5.55 p.m. until Friday 1 June 2001 at 10.00 a.m.
_______________

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:18:38 : Update this page