Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 20 September 2001, Corrected Copy)

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

General Business Notice of Motion (for Bills) No. 4 [Local Communities (Brothels—Flexible Zoning) Bill] postponed on motion by Mr Windsor.

Debate called on, and postponed on motion by Mr Hazzard.

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [10.03 a.m.]: Honourable members will recall that yesterday the House acknowledged the state funeral of Charles Mance, which is to take place at 11.30 this morning. A number of honourable members and Ministers will attend that funeral but the House will continue to sit. Therefore, I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to provide that no divisions or quorums shall be called between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. at this sitting, to enable members to attend the funeral of Lionel Charles Mance.

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 6 September.

Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater) [10.05 a.m.]: The existing legislation has failed to allow councils to control the location of brothels and it has failed to empower councils to close down brothels that are operating illegally. Many councils have introduced environmental planning policies or development control plans dealing with the appropriate location of brothels. These development standards typically provide that a brothel shall not operate within prescribed distances from schools, residences, churches or hospitals. However, brothel operators are using State environmental planning policy [SEPP] No.1 to avoid the application of development standards that would prevent the operation of a brothel on a particular site.

SEPP 1 provides the applicant with an avenue to convince the Land and Environment Court that the council's development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances. This policy has resulted in the establishment of brothels in locations that blatantly contravene council planning policies such as local environment plans and development control plans. These policies have been developed by professional planners in consultation with the local community according to the process established in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. They are important planning tools that express the concerns of local residents and businesses as well as providing for future growth in a locality. Poor planning outcomes result when clear standards dealing with such a sensitive and important issue are overruled in court.

The use of SEPP 1 to sidestep development standards also adds to the legal bills of councils. As costs are not generally awarded in these appeals, each party is liable for its own expenses. Even when the court dismisses an applicant's appeal to approve a brothel under SEPP 1—such as occurred in the recent case of Weynton v Rockdale City Council—the council is still liable for costs sustained in opposing the attempted evasion of its development standards. The uncertainty that SEPP 1 brings to council regulations on the location of brothels has encouraged the explosion of litigation following implementation of the Disorderly Houses (Amendment) Act. More than 40 cases involving applications for brothels have gone before the court since 1996.

Local policies on the location of brothels are not appropriate. These policies have been developed in consultation with the local community; they express the views of the entire community as to those locations in the locality in which it is appropriate for brothels to operate and those in which it is inappropriate. The operation of illegal brothels is a matter of serious concern to councils and the community. Illegal brothels are brothels operating without consent or operating in areas where they are prohibited. Estimates of the number of illegal brothels vary, but it is likely that hundreds are operating across the State. Illegal brothels are often in inappropriate locations without proper controls on occupational health and safety. This can create a dangerous environment for residents, clients and particularly for sex workers. Many workers in these brothels are illegal immigrants who are forced to work as prostitutes to pay debts owed to brothel operators or people smugglers. If an illegal immigrant working in an illegal brothel is sexually assaulted or physically attacked, that worker will have very little recourse to the law and, in many cases, will be afraid to go to hospital.

Compliance action by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs revealed that the number of unlawful non-citizen sex workers in Australia has exploded from 56 in 1996-97 to 243 in 1998-99. Of these people, 154 or 63 per cent operated in New South Wales. The fact that these brothels continued to operate in defiance of the law means that the exploitation and unsafe work practices go unchecked.

Both the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Local Government Act empower local councils to make orders in respect of a wide range of matters. But councils across the State are complaining that the enforcement of orders against illegal brothels is complex, time-consuming and expensive. Section 17 of the Disorderly Houses Amendment Act empowers councils to apply to the Land and Environment Court for an order to close a brothel. The process of adducing evidence to support such an application is slow and expensive. As one council planning director, now an executive director of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, asserted:

The major problem appears to be the resources we've had to use in policing unauthorised brothels and initiating legal action to close them.

A council can only apply for such an order if it has received a sufficient number of complaints from local residents or businesses to warrant the order. The court then has to consider a wide range of matters before it can make the order. In gathering evidence, some councils are forced to hire private investigators to have sex with a prostitute on the premises, and to attest to this in court. It is clear that the court order is a slow, expensive and unwieldy method of closing down an illegal brothel.

Court orders are often ineffective. In Bankstown City Council v Attallah in 1998 Justice Cowdroy ordered that Mr Attallah be restrained from using premises as an illegal brothel. However, Mr Attallah continued to allow the premises to operate as a brothel in defiance of the court order. The council was compelled to seek further declarations and orders to stop Mr Attallah from permitting the illegal brothel to operate. Mr Attallah was found to be in contempt and given a substantial fine. However, the court order did not prevent the premises from operating as an illegal brothel for another 18 months. In Fairfield City Council v Taouk and others Justice Lloyd granted an order closing an illegal brothel. However, he deferred closure of the brothel for 18 months on the basis that the operators "ought to be allowed adequate time to relocate their business". How ridiculous! The ineffectiveness of these laws means that many councils have little choice but to turn a blind eye to illegal, and potentially dangerous, brothels. A resident was reported in the Bankstown-Canterbury Torch on 13 May 1998 as saying:

When you ring council they say it is a matter for the police. When you ring the police they say they cannot do anything. It's just passing the buck.

It should come as no surprise to the House that the Government has done nothing to address these serious concerns. In May 1997 the Government commissioned a joint review by the Attorney General and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning into the Disorderly Houses Amendment Act. The then Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, now Minister for Health, said at the time, "We are happy to look at it again to see if it is working." However, no details or outcomes from the review were ever publicly released, and no legislative action has been taken. Following continued public outcry, the Government announced another review of brothels legislation early last year with the formation by the then Attorney General of a brothels task force. Surprise, surprise, 18 months later no details or outcomes have been released and no legislative action has been taken. These reviews, like the review of the Land and Environment Court, have disappeared without trace. Maybe this is because the Government does not see any problem. The Attorney General said in this place recently:

We have a number of laws to restrict where prostitution can occur in our community—to ensure that it cannot happen in inappropriate areas.

The Attorney General has his head firmly buried in the stand if he believes that these laws are working. Maybe it is because the Government has given up trying. The Premier is on record in this place as saying that the regulation of brothels "will never be fixed" and that under his Government it is destined to remain "a tragic and unsatisfactory area of public policy". That is not good enough. The New South Wales Coalition does not agree with the Premier. Regulation in this area should not be destined for failure. Our bill provides a key distinction between the Government and the Opposition. The Carr Government is tired and decaying, with no new ideas and no resolve to create a better New South Wales. This bill shows that the Coalition is committed to building a safer environment for the people of this State.

I have written to every council in New South Wales seeking their comments on the bill, as well as to the New South Wales Council of Churches and representatives of the sex industry. I am grateful for the responses I have received, which have been overwhelmingly supportive of the bill. I particularly register the strong support for the bill from local government. Councils including Grafton, Hornsby, Lismore, Guyra, Sutherland, Pittwater, Gunnedah, Berrigan, Baulkham Hills, Holroyd, Tenterfield, Gosford, Inverell, Narrabri and Wyong, to name a few, have responded positively. The underlying principle of the bill is to recognise the danger to public health and safety caused by the operation of illegal brothels, and to return streets to their communities.

The objects of the bill are enunciated in subsection (2) of section 121BA. The first two objects are to protect the community from the operation of illegal brothels and to encourage restriction and regulation of brothels under instruments and policies made or adopted by local councils. This is achieved by halting the use of SEPP 1 as a backdoor means to avoid council development standards controlling the location of brothels. Quite simply, the bill will exclude applications for brothels from the operation of SEPP 1. Now brothel operators will have no alternative but to comply with council standards. Planning decisions will be made by council and the community under an established and transparent process, not as a consequence of evasive litigation.

Clause 4B will be inserted into SEPP 1 to provide that the policy will not apply at all in respect of any development for the purposes of a brothel within the meaning of the Disorderly Houses Act 1943. To ensure that SEPP 1 is no longer used as a backdoor means of setting up a brothel, this provision will only be open to amendment by a subsequent Act of Parliament, rather than by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning acting alone by regulation. The bill will also amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to provide local councils with power to issue an order specifically directed against illegal brothels; to circumvent the normal lengthy process by which an order is made; and to ensure swift compliance with an order against an illegal brothel.

The bill proposes to insert a new provision into section 121B of the Act to empower councils to direct a specific order against the operation of an illegal brothel. Councils will be able to issue an order against a wide range of persons to cease the use of premises as an illegal brothel. Item [3] of schedule 1 to the bill provides that an order against an illegal brothel will be exempted from the long and complex process of planning and enforcing an order. It will amend section 121D of the Act so that orders against illegal brothels are not subject to the lengthy process by which less urgent orders are made. Section 121M of the Act also will be amended. Item [4] of schedule 1 to the bill provides for the insertion of a subsection providing councils with power to direct that an order to close an illegally operating brothel must be fulfilled within 48 hours from the time the order is made. This particularly gives councils strong and new powers to close illegal brothels quickly rather than waiting 12 or 18 months.

The Act provides tough sanctions against ignoring a council order. Section 125 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act provides that it is an offence to breach an order under the Act. Section 126 allows the Land and Environment Court to impose a penalty of up to $1.1 million for an offence under section 125, and a daily penalty of up to $110,000 for a continuing breach. The Coalition wants to make it clear to illegal brothel operators and the owners of those premises that it is not to their financial benefit to run these operations. If the only thing that makes them stop is a swift court order and the power of the rangers, with the support of police, to secure the premises, and the threat of fines of $1.1 million followed by fines of $110,000 per day, that is what we will do. We support the community's right to control its streets. We support the community's right to maintain the character of its neighbourhoods. We do not support a government that has deregulated brothels in New South Wales to the extent that it is easier to run an illegal brothel than it is to run a legal brothel, because it is so hard to close an illegal one.

Finally, the bill provides for the creation of section 121ZJA in the Environmental Planning an Assessment Act. This section will provide that where council has issued an order for the closure of an illegal brothel, and where the order is ignored, the council can act with any necessary assistance from the police to prevent entry to the premises the subject of the order. This will finally give councils the apparatus they require to fulfil their functions under the law. It will empower councils to regulate the location of brothels according to proper planning principles following consultation with the community. I was pleased to receive a number of suggestions on ways to improve the bill. The major concern shared by several councils was that they should be able to recover costs incurred in making an order to close an illegal brothel. Ratepayers should not be forced to pay for the costs incurred in closing a brothel that operates outside the law. Therefore, I will move an amendment in Committee to ensure that these costs can be recovered from the person required to comply with the order.

These reforms will allow local government to restrict brothels to appropriate areas. Councils will be empowered to act immediately against illegal brothels. Sex workers will not be forced out of legal brothels and onto the streets. Instead, the operators of illegal brothels will be forced to obtain lawful consent for the activities conducted on their premises. For some brothels this may involve moving to a more appropriate location. For those operators who employ illegal immigrants as sex slaves, or who refuse to upgrade their premises to ensure a safe and clean environment, this bill will give councils the power needed to put those operators out of business. The bill will not enable councils to pass unrealistic or unworkable planning instruments to regulate brothels. Environmental planning instruments to control the location of brothels will still have to be approved by the Minister under the Act. The Minister will have the final say over those areas in which brothels can be located. However, the honourable member for Tamworth may introduce a bill seeking to deal with this matter and the Coalition looks forward to discussions with him to that end.

Once these instruments have been gazetted applicants, councils and residents will have much more certainty than under the present system. This bill will provide operators of legal brothels, sex workers, councils and the community with a clearer, cheaper, fairer and safer planning system. The Coalition has been forced to introduce this bill because of the Government's failure to do so. Its unwillingness to deal with this issue is of enormous concern to the community. The Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Education and Training, and honourable member for Bankstown, who is present in the Chamber, knows better than any other Labor Party member the community concerns about this problem. Recently he and I appeared on ABC television on Stateline to voice our concerns with this matter.

The honourable member for Bankstown is well aware of the proliferation of illegal brothels in his community and in suburbs that constitute his electorate. He is well aware also of residents' concerns about them. He knows that his Government has failed to do anything about it. I challenge the honourable member for Bankstown to fully support this legislation when the opportunity arises to debate it. He is on the public record—he has been on television—stating his opposition to the proliferation of illegal brothels in New South Wales.

Mr Debnam: He is a very active local member.

Mr BROGDEN: As the honourable member for Vaucluse says, the honourable member for Bankstown is a very active local member. We ask that he particularly champion his cause on his side of the House; that in Caucus he try to talk some sense into his Ministers, particularly the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, into considering ways to give councils powers on behalf of their communities to close down these illegal operations. The operation of illegal brothels is a matter of real shame for this Government. In 1995 the Government moved to decriminalise brothels in New South Wales, which the Opposition supported. But now 6½ years later it is clear that legislation does not adequately deal with the operation of illegal brothels. After 6½ years the Parliament and the public no longer can regard it as a mere oversight of legislation, a drafting mistake or an issue that will go away. The proliferation of illegal brothels is getting worse.

Honourable members need go no further than the back pages of their local newspapers to see the proliferation of available sex services. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we make no moral judgment. The Coalition supports these activities being rightfully placed in planning legislation rather than in law and order legislation. We support the regulation and, more importantly, the policing of these matters being taken from the New South Wales Police Service. But we expect that once those responsibilities are given to local councils, the councils will be given adequate powers to deal with illegal brothels.

It simply is not good enough that councils are forced to go to outrageous lengths to close down illegal brothels. It simply is not good enough that tens of thousands of ratepayers' dollars are eaten up in legal fees and expensive time-consuming court cases in attempts to try to close down illegal brothels. It simply is not good enough that councils use ratepayers' funds to employ private detectives to pay for sex in illegal brothels simply to prove that that activity takes place. That is just absurd! Whilst it is easy to turn a blind eye and ignore these problems, it is not easy for residents who have illegal brothels operating next door or in unit blocks. Homes, streets and neighbourhoods should not be turned over to cars and people arriving at all hours of the night to engage in activities that have the potential to attract violence, drug use and other ancillary behaviour that accompanies illegal brothels.

We accept that both the Land and Environment Court and some local councils have approved brothels to operate legally. They pay tax and their workers are inspected regularly by members of the Sex Workers Co-operative. Those workers know their rights and what access they have in times of need if they are subjected to violence by clients or bad management by the operators of the legal brothels. However, under the law those who work in illegal brothels are in no-man's-land. If they are sexually assaulted by a client and seek police or medical help, they have to decide how much detail they will reveal about where and how the assault took place. The situation is worse when illegal brothels employ illegal immigrants.

Whilst there is not a proliferation of those events in New South Wales, there are instances of enough cases to make that unacceptable. The solution for the Government is very simple: give councils the appropriate powers to deal with illegal brothels. We seek to reverse the onus of proof just as the Government reversed the onus of proof with respect to drug rings. The Coalition supported reversing the onus of proof so that police did not have to prove that a drug ring was operating; they simply have to have an expectation and then the reverse onus must be proved.

We ask the Government to support the reversal of onus of proof concept with this bill so that councils do not have to waste time and money proving that illegal brothels are operating. Councils should have only an expectation that an illegal brothel is operating to issue the order. Then the legal costs and waste of time and money will be placed on the operator to prove he or she is not operating illegal premises. We want the burden of proof, cost and grief to be imposed on the operator of the illegal premises and not on the council or community.

Both sides of the House should support this bill, which often happens with many bills. The majority of Independent members to whom I have spoken support this piece of legislation. They support it, not because we ask them to make moral judgments, to be wowsers or to put their personal morality on any other part of government, but because they agree with the Opposition that this bill should be passed so that illegal brothels can be closed and communities can take back control of their streets and neighbourhoods.

Pursuant to sessional orders debate interrupted.

Debate resumed from 6 September.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [10.30 a.m.]: I support the Wilderness Amendment (Private Property Rights) Bill, which was introduced by the honourable member for Monaro. The object of this bill is to amend the Wilderness Act 1987 in relation to wilderness proposals to preserve private property rights. From the outset it should be made clear that these proposals will not be at all detrimental to the concept of wilderness. As the honourable member for Monaro pointed out in his second reading speech, this bill will make a small amendment to the nomination process. Wilderness identification, assessment and subsequent declaration procedures remain essentially the same. Wilderness areas take up 1.9 per cent of the State. Approximately 1.5 million hectares in New South Wales are declared as wilderness.

The National Party believes that national parks, wildlife and nature reserves, and wilderness areas must be maintained for the protection of native flora and fauna and for the enjoyment of present and future generations. At the last election the National Party proposed establishing management advisory trusts comprising land-holders and community representatives to advise on the management of each national park and wilderness area to achieve better management. Clearly what is needed but unfortunately not provided by the Government is adequate funding to ensure that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is able to properly control noxious weeds and feral animals, maintain bushfire trails and conduct fire hazard reduction burning in wilderness areas.

New South Wales boasts some of the best wilderness areas in Australia. Indeed, the honourable member for Monaro's electorate is home to some of the most stunning of those landscapes. They are extremely valuable areas that need protection and proper management to ensure their long-term viability. However, the current Wilderness Act has become a hindrance to the protection and management of wilderness areas. The Act is putting a brake on the use of wilderness areas for tourism, education and recreation. In many instances access is severely limited or not available at all, thereby limiting the potential for small tourism-based businesses in rural and regional areas. This in turn limits job opportunities and other flow-on effects in areas which often suffer from high levels of unemployment.

As the honourable member pointed out, we must involve people who care about and have a vested interest in wilderness areas—people who will take on some of the management and conservation roles as adjuncts to their operations. Instead, under the current Act, wilderness areas are being left to strangulation by noxious weeds and destruction by feral animals, and are under threat of severe bushfires. I receive many letters and phone calls from property owners adjoining national parks, reserves and wilderness areas to complain that the areas are overrun by weeds, feral animals and dangerously high levels of fuel build-up.

By law, feral animals on private land must be controlled, but in wilderness areas their destruction goes unchecked because of a lack of will and a lack of funding. Weeds such as serrated tussock, blackberries, African love grass, St John's wart and Scotch broom threaten to destroy the native bush, as do feral animals such as pigs and rabbits. The amendments proposed in this bill will modify the procedure the director-general must follow when considering whether land should be identified as wilderness. Before the director-general considers or assesses a proposal, the consent of any owner, lessee, mortgagee or chargee of the land will be required. These consents will lapse when two years have expired, and new consents will be required if the land has not been identified as wilderness within that time.

Much taxpayers' money has been wasted on inappropriate assessment and declaration procedures and in the original nomination procedures. Private land-holders are hit by large costs when they get caught up in the process through no fault of their own. I note that in March the National Parks and Wildlife Service reported that a further 200,000 hectares of parks and reserves, including vast areas of Kosciuszko National Park and south-east forests, have been identified as potential wilderness areas. As my colleague the honourable member for Monaro pointed out, many traditional horse riding and recreational areas are within identified areas, and if declared wilderness access will be denied, apart from foot access. Additionally, 47 private properties have been identified and will require the consent of the owners if they are to be declared wilderness. This applies to freehold, lease, lease in perpetuity and conditional purchase lands.

The honourable member for Monaro has previously alerted the Parliament to the fact that many areas recently assessed as having significant wilderness value have been constantly grazed over long periods. Under this bill, the amended definition of "self-reliant recreation" will include access by means such as mountain bikes, horseback and four-wheel drive vehicles, obviously with conditions and permits if necessary. The Act already provides the Government with regulatory power to control access in sensitive areas. But, as is very obvious when one visits these areas, vandals and others illegally enter these areas and wreak much damage, which costs many taxpayers' dollars to repair. The honourable member for Monaro pointed out that allowing permitted access by horseback, tourism buses, four-wheel drive clubs and other groups will allow people to take ownership of the bush, which means a better outcome all round.

The amendments put forward by the honourable member for Monaro will allow the full potential for conservation, education, tourism, recreation and promotion of our wilderness areas. This will ensure that these very valuable areas are preserved for future generations. Further, the amendments will allow people who otherwise would not be able to access these areas—such as the elderly, the disabled, the infirm and families with young children—to enjoy these truly beautiful areas. In conclusion, it is National Party policy to preserve appropriate access rights to national parks, reserves and wilderness areas. As a basic principle of efficient management of our environment, the National Party has always believed that parks, wilderness areas and reserve areas are for the people. I offer my support to the bill introduced by the honourable member for Monaro.

Mr WEBB (Monaro) [10.37 a.m.], in reply: I thank the Leader of the National Party for his most eloquent summation of the processes in New South Wales to date and the forecast for the future, and for his contribution to this debate on my bill, which has been before this House since November 1999. This issue is important, and I have spoken about it on numerous occasions in this House, as have other National Party members. This bill is important as it deals with important assets that belong to the people of New South Wales. National parks, reserves, State forests, Crown land, areas designated as wilderness, farm lands and all lands reserved for the use of the people of New South Wales, including those lands for which private ownership has the immediate and overarching right, are important to us all. They are important not only for agricultural production and their mining potential; obviously they are important for the aesthetic beauty of the State. Those lands are very important from a tourism point of view, and from a conservation and preservation point of view. Obviously, the education and promotion of our lands across the State, nation and world are important for the people of New South Wales, and they are dear to my heart.

The recreation uses of those lands, which are addressed in the bill, are very important not only to me but to many people who partake of recreational activities in wilderness, national parks, reserves, Crown lands and associated lands. I am a fifth-generation grazier in an area that has national park on one side and the Murrumbidgee River, a private national park, on the other. We do a lot to control feral animals, bushfire threats and weeds in the area. Part of the problem with the identification and nomination of further wilderness areas across the State is that the State Government, through the National Parks and Wildlife Service, is completely unable—through a lack of funding and, in some cases, lack of will or direction—to sufficiently address the feral animal, noxious weed, bushfire and other threats that have a negative impact on the lands.

The heritage aspects of these lands is of major concern to an ageing population and those who wish to travel back to see the lands where there forebears and forefathers had some pioneering involvement. The declaration of much of this land as wilderness prevents the elderly, families with young children, and incapacitated and disabled people from reconnecting with the land to which they have a previous attachment. It is particularly important for the Aboriginal population of New South Wales. Aboriginal people who claim a much longer contact with the land than others, perhaps a contact they cannot prove because it was not written down on paper because that is not their way, are prevented through the process of nomination, identification and declaration of wilderness over those lands from maintaining that contact. That is hardly an act of reconciliation.

The honourable member for Coffs Harbour spoke about an area of some 833,000 hectares of Aboriginal land that has been included as wilderness, which is another example of the ability of a third party to nominate for identification and possible declaration over any part of the State. The Koori people have demonstrated a longstanding connection with the Nadgee Wilderness Area on the far South Coast of the State and many other areas, but through the process they are excluded from exercising their historical and heritage rights. The same applies to many non-indigenous white Australians who have been excluded. Some families have almost 200 years of agricultural, pioneering and logging connection to the land. If those areas were visited today people would see a pristine wilderness area that must be preserved. But those areas have been logged three times in the past 150 years or grazed for clearing more than 100 years ago and grazed until the last 30, 40 or 50 years.

But nature has a wonderful capacity to repair any man-made intrusion into the land. Before our eyes the wilderness value has returned, because that is the nature of the land. Our bush has the capability to provide production, education, promotion, tourism, recreation and heritage opportunities. But associated with those opportunities and the people and businesses directly involved is a multiplier effect of those businesses and its impact on small country towns and regional centres. That flow-through effect—which has helped to build Sydney and the cities of Australia, and to contribute to the world economy and the cultural fabric of our society—has often been ignored by the desire to lock up the land and prohibit any previously identified contact with the land; to pull down the huts, pull down the fences, block off the roads and tracks which, in many cases, have been around before white man, and pretend that the wilderness is there.

When weeds, feral animals and bushfires arrive—as they did in Guy Fawkes, Byadbo and elsewhere in the State, and will do so again—they are accepted as natural events. Bad luck about the quolls, bad luck about the possums, bad luck about the native species. The National Parks and Wildlife Service and this Government, through its green lobbyists, have ignored the potential for private enterprise to contribute to the wealth of this nation, which will provide funds for the conservation of the land they propose to lock up and preserve. Regrettably, they do not understand the issues at stake. That is no more obvious than in the contributions to the debate on this bill by the honourable member for Liverpool and the Parliamentary Secretary, the honourable member for Canterbury. In their opening remarks they referred to so-called hypocritical statements I made about wilderness.

I support wilderness. I love the bush. Pristine areas that have been preserved are certainly worth preserving. In many cases nothing else can be done with the land and that is why it exists today. In many cases those areas are inaccessible, which is why they are so valued today. Government members demonstrated their lack of understanding of the issue and their lack of understanding of the implications on private land-holders, as well as their complete lack of understanding of the potential to use parks and wilderness areas for the generation of wealth and the peace and recreation of people, to maintain heritage contacts and to make positive use of the educational and promotional aspects of wilderness and bush areas. They referred to statements I have made elsewhere about my belief in wilderness. I believe that a lot of areas that have been declared as wilderness are not wilderness because for decades they have experienced substantial intrusion by people. They do not satisfy the definition of "wilderness". They have great potential for logging. They have great potential for agriculture.

They certainly have great potential for tourism, recreational, educational and promotional opportunities. The legislation I seek to amend denies and will continue to deny people the ability to make the best use of those opportunities. The honourable member for Liverpool said that the bill provides no extra protection for property rights, but if he had read the bill he would realise that that is exactly what it does. The bill removes the necessity for a private land-holder to sift through the process of identification, nomination prior to identification and declaration. At the final stage he will be able to say, "No. I understand the processes gone through. It has been at great public cost, but I do not want my land declared as wilderness. I do not want to enter into a voluntary conservation agreement at this time, but I have the prerogative to do that at some time in the future."

The contributions from Government members were paranoid nonsense. One third party—I cannot bring myself to say the name of his organisation—has been responsible for many third party nominations of wilderness areas across the State. Much of the land has been identified. It has been assessed at great public cost and part of that cost—which is the cost of the protection of private property rights—is incurred after the identification and nomination process. That process involves the gathering of information about land that has been the subject not of indigenous connection but, rather, agricultural pursuits. The land has a history of logging, roadworks and buildings.

The identification of threatened species of flora and fauna on land in proximity to other wilderness areas constitutes a blight on the land and, as many cases demonstrate, poses a significant financial cost on the land-holder as well as the land-holder's neighbours. Bearing in mind the ageing farming population in districts within or around wilderness areas and national parks, the body of information that has been collected at public expense by the National Parks and Wildlife Service and others poses a significant financial burden on land-holders. The process often devalues the land and that makes it impossible to continue to carry out agricultural pursuits or to even on-sell or enter into transactions in relation to the land because many buyers simply are not interested in land that has a wilderness declaration attached to it. There is a consequential inability to manage the land because of declarations related to threatened species and native vegetation and all the other burdens associated with the identification of private property as wilderness areas.

It is not the case that land has not been conserved or that investment has not been made, and many cases demonstrate that fact. The Boates land in the Jerangle district had been cleared and grazed by cattle for well over a century. It was identified and subsequently declared a wilderness area, which demonstrates the very fact that agricultural intervention in the land has nothing but preserved the wild and pristine nature of the land. Conversely, there are examples of national parks areas, abandoned Crown land and even—I regret to say—absentee landlord properties that have been neglected wherein weeds have taken over and feral animals have been allowed to run rampant. As a result, the natural and intrinsic attributes of the land have been destroyed.

It is painful to witness the passing of land-holders—and the many generations of the Boates family are a good example among numerous examples—whose input and love of the land has lasted for more than a century and to know that the National Parks and Wildlife Service will not have the financial support of this Government that will be necessary to maintain the land for future generations of Australians in the condition in which it has been preserved by people such as the Boates. The stewardship of land-holders over more than two centuries has created a great legacy for future Australians, but now families such as the Boates are disaffected and their children will not inherit the land. Future generations of the Boates family will have to take up some other livelihood with the thought in the back of their minds that their historical connection, stewardship, experience and knowledge of the land will be lost. That is part of the reason why the Coalition is seeking to defend private property rights and part of the reason why this bill seeks to obtain the consent of land-holders prior to the identification process being undertaken, prior to assessment and certainly prior to any declaration.

Major private property rights have been eroded by various pieces of legislation that have been enacted by the New South Wales Parliament. The whole impetus of legislation relating to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, threatened species, water management, native vegetation, the Sydney catchment area, and the Shoalhaven and upper Shoalhaven areas is basically about eroding the rights of farmers and private property rights to the extent that in many cases the land is no longer viable. Controls are being imposed on properties that are beyond the ability of land-holders to pay for—controls that supposedly are necessary. The honourable member for Ballina spoke eloquently about protecting the resources of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Those resources may be wasted by carrying out an assessment that may later be rejected, and that is the nub of the principles underlying this bill. As the honourable member for Ballina said, that constitutes a blight on the land.

Mr Fraser: That increases the costs for private land-holders.

Mr WEBB: As the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has said, costs are incurred and money is wasted by making an assessment that can be rejected by the owner of private land who has every right to say, "That's it, thank you very much. I do not accept the nomination." Not only is there a substantial initial cost to the New South Wales taxpayer, but there is an erosion of the financial resources available to the National Parks and Wildlife Service to manage lands that have been placed under its care. The honourable member for Ballina highlighted the similarities between the bill that I have introduced—which will help to prevent a third party placing a blight on land—and action taken by a former Leader of the National Party, the Hon. Wal Murray, who sponsored the just terms legislation.

The honourable member for Canterbury referred to misconceptions but, unfortunately, any misconception is entirely on his part. The honourable member for Canterbury obviously does not understand the process. As the honourable member represents an urban electorate, his lack of understanding does not surprise me one bit. The Coalition is in contact with many people from urban and regional areas of the State who have a recreational or commercial connection with country areas—they supply goods to the tourism and recreational industries or they are involved with education. Those people need a greater connection with the land.

The honourable member for Lismore referred to the need for greater access to park and wilderness areas within his electorate and other northern areas of the State. He made the valid point that at first instance parks and wilderness areas are owned by the people, so what right has legislation to exclude them? Legislation certainly has the right to exclude people if they are causing damage to an area or if action needs to be taken against vandalism. However, open slather for vandalism is created due to the exclusion of decent law-abiding citizens, land-holders, lessees and people who have an historical connection to the land. That is what has been happening in many areas.

The honourable member for Lismore referred to a letter from one of his constituents, Geoff Hamilton, who also wrote to me. I will not read the entire contents of the letter, but Mr Hamilton makes the point that he is a tired and worn-out grazier, like many other people throughout the State, and he has lost the grazing rights to a forest lease which he formerly held for 34 years. He highlights the importance of the historical connection and experience of families who have built up the land by stating that in 1905, when Mr Hamilton was eight years old, his father rode bareback on a horse with a mob of cattle from the Bellinger River to the mid Clarence River at Ewingar, where Mr Hamilton's grandfather had settled. He stated:

As then there were only scattered trees, once the trees were either cut down or killed, the regrowth came, producing millions more trees.

That proves that members of the green movement do not know what they are talking about when they accuse land-holders of wiping out all the trees. Many arguments can be advanced and much experience can show that the bush is more thickly wooded presently than it has ever been before. Sturt's account of his pioneering experience refers to being able to ride on horseback at a gallop through the trees and being able to see miles through the trees. That cannot be done presently.

Mr Yeadon: We are thinning it out.

Mr WEBB: I agree with the interjection of the Minister for Forestry. Considerable wealth has been accumulated as a result of logging throughout the State. Logging is very important. There is much evidence to show that that logging over 150 years or more, apart from contributing to the wealth of the nation, has in fact preserved the bush. It has maintained the values of the bush and continues to do so. There is also the aspect of mitigation of bushfire risk. The honourable member for Burrinjuck, in her contribution, spoke about the Franklin family from Brindabella, people I have known all my life. My forebears knew the Franklins. In fact, in the 1860s my great, great grandparents and grand uncles took cattle from the Queanbeyan area up to Uriarra and Brindabella to a grazing lease on the Peppercorn Plains.

There is plenty of documented evidence that pioneer grazing has left pristine areas of wilderness. It did not destroy those lands as feral pigs do. It did not destroy the land as blackberries and other weeds and vermin do. The honourable member for Burrinjuck referred to the connection that Aboriginal people have with the land and their concern about future access by their people and other people who want to take their children, the disabled or the elderly to proposed wilderness areas in four-wheel drive vehicles.

Ms Hodgkinson: And their grandparents.

Mr WEBB: That is right. As the honourable member for Burrinjuck says, and their grandparents—people who have had a former connection with the land and have every right to maintain that connection with its history and heritage. Let me repeat that this bill has been before the House for almost two years. I am grateful that the Government has allowed debate on it, because I believe, as do many other honourable members, that it is an important bill. I reiterate that it seeks in a minor way to amend the Wilderness Act to ensure that private property rights are maintained; and to redefine wilderness access to include activities other than bushwalking on a conditional permit basis. On that point, the Government is now proposing, by way of regulation, to ban certain other self-reliance activities that have a minimal impact on wilderness or parks areas, but have a major tourism, business, education, promotion and recreation aspect.

Those activities include such things as whitewater rafting, abseiling, and camping in parks, which was formerly permitted. The Government is now proposing to ban those activities. That will take the eye of the public away from those important areas. It will allow the vandals, feral animals and weeds to ravage those areas and destroy the values we have spoken about. In debate on this bill on 6 September, the honourable member for Burrinjuck spoke about her experience of the lack of ability on the part of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to maintain its management role and control of feral animals and noxious weeds throughout those areas. The National Parks and Wildlife Service is not at fault. The Carr Labor Government is at fault because it has eroded the funds. It has not maintained adequate funding to enable the service to carry out its activities.

The honourable member for Oxley spoke in support of the bill. He said what I have said previously and what Government speakers have ignored, that we need national parks and wilderness areas to preserve the environment in which we live. He spoke about the Werrikimbe and Oxley Wild Rivers wilderness areas, and the fact that they are world-class areas of pristine Australian bushland. The Leader of the National Party also spoke about the areas throughout the State that have been preserved for their wilderness values, some of the best in the country in fact. The honourable member for Oxley referred to the process that once a nomination is made there is effectively a blight on the value of the land. That is what I am seeking to amend. If the owner of the land wishes the process to continue he has only to nod his head and let the director-general know that he is happy with the process and happy to let it go through to finality. He may or may not exercise his right to give consent to the declaration of that wilderness area.

I am seeking to move that right from the end of the process to the commencement of the process, in fairness to the land-holder and to protect those former private property rights. There have been many instances, as the honourable member for Oxley said, of people expressing an interest in the land. They see the "For Sale" sign on the corner post or in the newspaper. They come to look at the land and they like what they see. They appreciate the value of the land and are aware of what it might produce, but once they hear it has been nominated as wilderness they say, "Oh, no. Forget that." They know it is going to remove their control of the land; that it will remove the potential for the land-holder to realise its potential and obtain a return on his or her investment.

The honourable member for Coffs Harbour, in his contribution, spoke about the process as it is unfolding at this time as detailed in the Northern Wilderness Assessment Report. He identified many thousands of areas of land, formerly logging land or private property, that had been identified at this stage. Those lands include 16,000 hectares of Crown leases which really have a freehold right, the same as leased lands. They include State Forests leases and Aboriginal land, to which I referred earlier. He said those areas should not have been included in wilderness in the first place because in many instances the land does not satisfy the definition of "wilderness". Yet the lands are nominated by a third party with very little idea of what is involved—probably someone sitting in a glass or ivory tower in Sydney who looks out the window and sees only urban landscapes; someone who despairs at the loss of greenery and says, "What can I nominate next?"

The Act allows them to make that nomination. Following that, the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service is required to direct his staff to collect information in order to assess that private property, Aboriginal land, Crown lease or former State forest—in fact, any land. They go through that process at great public expense and then propose a declaration of that land. They then talk to the owner and, if he wants that to go ahead, they will give him the nod and it will happen. Usually, if it is private property, the owner of the land will say, "I did not want it. That land does not satisfy the wilderness definition. I and my family before me and the previous owners of this land have logged it over generations." Some have had farming businesses, or recreational and tourism businesses associated with the land.

They do not want the land nominated. Many wish to continue to preserve that land at their own cost for the good of all Australians, with the attached generation of wealth, taxation, rates and so on. They do it, not only for themselves, but for the good of the local community, for the towns and businesses in the region and for the people of New South Wales and Australia. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour also spoke about the evidence of the damaging aspects of feral animals and noxious weeds in the areas that I am talking about, and the inability of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to control and prevent that damage.

The honourable member for Coffs Harbour referred to the decimation some years ago of Guy Fawkes River National Park by bushfire. Removing people with a history of contact with the land and reducing access significantly diminishes the ability of government agencies to control feral animals, weeds and bushfires. In many cases the very values that the Wilderness Act seeks to conserve are destroyed. I support the conservation of national parks and reserves, and I also support private ownership of significant areas that have the same values. I support funding arrangements to control the threat of bushfires, feral animals and noxious weeds. I despair when funding is not available through government agencies and the values we seek to preserve are destroyed. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour made the point that the National Parks and Wildlife Service was unable to contact the 120 holders of a total of 28,531 hectares of freehold or leasehold land that has subsequently been identified as wilderness.

Mr Fraser: It is outside the terms of the Act.

Mr WEBB: Exactly. The director-general must contact those freehold landowners and seek their consent prior to the declaration. Many city people have no idea how large an area in excess of 28,000 hectares is. They do not understand the significant production capability of such an area. The director-general has gone outside the terms of the Act, illegally identifying more than 28,000 hectares as wilderness. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour accurately assessed the historical position and the present position. He has had a long association and connection with wilderness areas near Coffs Harbour and with former attempts to amend the Wilderness Act along the lines of the bill we are presently debating. The national parks in his area have significant cultural and heritage value but the National Parks and Wildlife Service has insufficient resources to manage them. Passage of this bill would solve problems with bushfires, feral animals and noxious weeds, and landowners would not be blighted by nominations of their land by individuals who have no right to nominate it in the first place.

The Leader of the National Party referred to the desire of the National Party to put in place management advisory trusts. He spoke about funding limitations and encouraging a caring community. That does not mean locking areas up and excluding access. The Leader of the National Party also spoke about the threat posed by further nominations, identifications and declarations and the blight that process continues to place on those lands. I reiterate that the amendments to the Wilderness Act 1987 will not diminish at all the concept of wilderness. The honourable member for Liverpool, who is in the chair, and other Government members suggested that I do not like wilderness. That is not the case. In the first paragraph of my second reading speech I pointed out that my bill would make only minor amendments to the nomination process and redefine the access conditions—on a permitted, conditional basis—to wilderness areas, for all of the reasons I have spoken about.

The wilderness identification assessment and subsequent declaration procedures essentially would remain the same. Wilderness areas in Australia, New South Wales and the Monaro—which has some of the finest bush scenery in pristine landscapes of all—are uniquely beautiful, usually quite inaccessible, and often unspoiled or changed from the natural type that they have been for a long, long time. Wilderness areas by their very nature are wilderness areas. Almost nothing we can do to them as a whole will ever change their importance and value. That is not to say that they can be neglected, undermanaged or indeed mismanaged. We have spoken at length about the potential threat the current legislation poses.

I have spoken about the many missed opportunities under present arrangements. There are opportunities with heritage, Aboriginal reconciliation, education, promotion and production. Farm production and forestry generate wealth. Once land goes from private ownership into public ownership, rates no longer are paid to the local government body. There would not be so much of a problem if the National Parks and Wildlife Service and State Forests paid rates to the local government body, even at a vastly reduced rate. However, the State claims that the lands are used to generate wealth through tourism and general promotion. So perhaps those government bodies should be paying rates to the local government. That would generate funds that could be used for the promotion and conservation of the lands that we are talking about.

I have seen at first hand the vandalism of the impact of weeds, feral animals, and bushfires. Land-holders are being disfranchised. People with a valid reason to access the areas are being excluded just because they cannot come in with their bushwalking boots and a little pack on their back, or because they are infirm, elderly or have children in tow, or are in a group not used to bushwalking. By excluding those people we are contributing to the further destruction of parks, reserves and wilderness areas. Access is necessary to deal with the intrusion of feral pine trees, to control that weed. Dingoes and wild dogs destroy native flora and fauna. Feral pigs and rabbits destroy the land values that we are talking about through their manner of feeding.

Unfortunately, by removing the funding and the experienced and dedicated people who live around the areas and who take care of them, the feral animals will remain and will continue to destroy the very values that we are seeking to preserve. The funds that are available have been stretched well beyond their capacity to manage the land. There is not enough money to administer the land, let alone for people to get out and use a chainsaw or some Roundup to clean up weeds. There is not enough money to maintain the fire trails so that officers can travel by four-wheel-drive vehicles to inspect the land for damage. The nomination process has denied them the opportunity for that input and has continued to water down funds for the stewardship of that land for the good of us all. By locking up and excluding human use and access surely we lose most of that history, and our descendants will lose much of the colourful past that constitutes our heritage.

Unfortunately, contrary to many green trendy beliefs, land nominated as having wilderness value, or adjoining land, suffers a sharp decline in value. Money can no longer be borrowed and development consent is no longer forthcoming. Often the land becomes unuseable even to the cash-strapped National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS].The NPWS has a third-party fund to buy land, but often it decides not to take land that has been offered to it, although it wants the land declared as wilderness. The NPWS says that the land has suffered blight to the point at which it is worthless, and it does not have the funds to resume the land. That land therefore stands worthless, neglected, and subject to the ravages and threats of weeds, feral animals and bushfires.

Because my second reading speech was delivered on 30 April 2000—some time ago—I remind honourable members of the importance of the process to which I am referring. Often people who suffer from the NIMBY—not in my backyard—syndrome are frightened by the urban landscape and want to ensure that what they see does not happen in their backyard. They use the Act to nominate land for wilderness protection. Another syndrome from which many people suffer today is the NOTE syndrome—not over there either. I am continually dismayed by the activities of an otherwise nondescript group, the CAVE people—the community against virtually everything. They continue to lock themselves against development and against farming or logging communities.

They are part of the city-based, armchair environmentalists who continue to drive a dagger through society, and build brick walls between city and country societies. They do not understand the issues, they do not understand what has been preserved, they do not understand the definition of "wilderness", and they wish to deny many people the ability to create business through tourism, recreation and education. Aboriginal groups have also been denied access. The CAVE people do not understand the process. The wilderness process itself does not acknowledge the value of agricultural production or the value of former and current forestry operations. People who nominate the land are beneficiaries of the wealth that is generated. They have the capacity to enjoy public transport in the city, walk on footpaths, and partake of educational and recreational opportunities which exist in the city but are not provided for most of regional and rural New South Wales.

The people who nominate the land do not understand the multiplier effect and the value of production from tourism, agriculture, forestry, primary production and other businesses that play a major role in society. There is an intrinsic relationship between investment in agricultural primary production and tourism businesses across the State, some of which operate out of Sydney. They rely on telecommunications, motels, cafes and service stations in all country towns across the State. If we all work together we would benefit from the attributes that we are seeking to preserve. We would all benefit from the stewardship that many partake in, but unfortunately many are excluded from doing so because the Wilderness Act 1987 disfranchises landowners and excludes many people from gaining access to those areas.

The Act already provides regulatory powers to control access to sensitive areas. I am talking about changes that would allow conditional, permitted access by tourism buses and horseback groups. Evidence is available to show that horseback riders who use areas along bushfire trails, former public roads and tracks in good conditions that are suitable for that purpose cause virtually no damage whatsoever. But the major advantage of allowing them to enter those areas—apart from wealth generation through tourism businesses—is that their love for the land and their input into the management of the land are maintained. That is very important.

Motorcycle groups, four-wheel-drive clubs and other groups who wish to gain access to that land on a conditional basis should be allowed to do so. We must be careful not to concentrate access onto parks and reserves by excluding access to broader areas, because that would result in damage. Unfortunately, to deny the elderly, communities and families access to that publicly owned land is to deny them part of our natural heritage. That is a major concern to me. I wonder if in 50 or 100 years time, when the bush has been charred by bushfires or destroyed by feral animals, people will understand the pioneering of those areas.

My amendments are very simple. The speeches made in this place surely demonstrate our love of the Australian bush and our understanding of the wilderness and definition of the land, as well as our desire to make sure that that is maintained for the future. My amendments will change the Act slightly. Owners of land will be able to give their consent prior to the nomination process. That would save significant public funds being wasted on the nomination process in the event that owners refuse consent.

Fundamental changes must be made to allow the access about which I have spoken by means other than bushwalking. There must be opportunities for education, tourism, recreation, conservation and preservation of those lands. This issue is important to me because the bush is dear to my heart. I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate, and I commend bill to the House.

Pursuant to sessional orders debate interrupted.

Debate resumed from 6 September.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.30 a.m.], in reply: This motion came before the House last year in response to an attempt by the Opposition to render the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act null and void after one year of operation. The motion sought to condemn the Opposition for that approach and commended those members of the upper House who took the principled stand of not supporting the Opposition amendments to the bill. Several attempts were made by the Opposition to thwart debate on the motion. However, the debate resumed in March this year.

I take this opportunity to commend the honourable member for East Hills and the honourable member for Miranda for their contributions to the debate, and I take issue with the comments made by the honourable member for Davidson and the honourable member for Gosford. The Opposition argued that the New South Wales Act did not meet the minimum standards of the model bill. That is incorrect. The Commonwealth, Victoria and New South Wales have framed their Acts as closely as possible to the model bill. The New South Wales legislation is relevant to the current operational practices and the investigation and prosecution of crime in New South Wales.

The Government's Act improves upon the model bill and removes certain ambiguities that were associated with it. Under the model bill there must be reasonable grounds to believe that the procedure is likely to produce evidence tending to confirm or disprove that the suspect committed the relevant offence, whereas in New South Wales the requirement is that there might be reasonable grounds to believe that the procedure is likely to produce evidence tending to confirm or disprove that the suspect committed the relevant offence. That means that the New South Wales Act provides police with greater powers to test suspects than the model bill.

Under the model bill the police officer or magistrate has to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the request to conduct a forensic procedure is justified. That is to be determined by balancing the public interest in obtaining the evidence against the public interest in upholding the physical integrity of the suspect. In balancing both competing interests, the bill provides that the officer or magistrate is to consider the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offence and the gravity of it. That limitation has not been included in the New South Wales Act.

Although the model bill provides for the testing of convicted offenders, and released offenders may be asked to consent to testing, that is not as useful as it sounds. There are so many threshold tests and qualifications related to the use of that power in the model bill that New South Wales decided to go down a different path. The model bill requires police to weigh up the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offence committed and whether carrying out the procedure is justified in all the circumstances in relation to every offender they wish to test, including those currently in prison. That would clearly create major difficulties in implementation. It would also probably result in far fewer convicted offenders being tested than the number that is being tested in New South Wales.

The New South Wales Act is balanced and reasonable. It allows for suspects and persons convicted of serious indictable offences to be tested, and it provides New South Wales with appropriate coverage. During the parliamentary debate the Opposition called for the Act to be reviewed to ascertain whether it is an effective tool. The legislation provides for three reviews. The Ombudsman will report on the exercise of the functions conferred on police officers under the Act after the Act has been in operation for two years. After the Act has been in operation for 18 months the Attorney General will review the Act to determine whether the policy objectives of the Act remain valid and whether its terms remain appropriate. The Standing Committee on Law and Justice will inquire into the operation of the Act and its regulations. That review has already commenced. There are adequate review mechanisms. The Act is effective and has had magnificent outcomes for offenders and people who could be wrongfully accused.

Debate adjourned, by leave, on motion by Mr Gaudry.

Debate resumed from 6 September.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [11.37 a.m.], in reply: This motion has been on the notice paper since 23 October 1999. Despite its age the subject matter of the motion is as relevant today as it was then. That is a great shame because during the intervening period there has been tremendous focus on medical research and infrastructure funding, particularly in relation to potential of the biotechnology industry in this country and particularly in New South Wales. Nothing has been said by the Government to suggest that New South Wales has anywhere near the level of commitment of other States such as Victoria and Queensland. To refute any suggestion that might be inferred from the Government's response that New South Wales has done the right thing, I refer again to an article in the Australian Financial Review of 27 August entitled "Too little too late for NSW biotech lobby", which quoted the authors of a 1999 report aimed at boosting the New South Wales biotechnology sector and stated:

… the NSW Government has been too slow in acting on the report, while Victoria and Queensland had pledged a combined $600 million to biotech development.

By comparison, the recent announcement in New South Wales of $68 million over five years is nothing short of an insult, particularly as many different consultants and commentators on the biotechnology industry have identified exciting new growth potential for the State. Patients who are suffering can now benefit from the new technologies that have resulted from the research. This industry also offers tremendous employment prospects and economic benefits to the State.

I recently visited the Westmead Millennium Institute where I spoke to researchers—they are always inspiring—who are working on a project that offers new hope to people who suffer from diabetes. This project involves breeding pigs with pure genetic material that is used in pancreas transplants. This has the effect of reversing advanced diabetes entirely. The researchers told me that people who were near death now lead normal lives and no longer need to rely on the medications that are normally associated with the treatment of diabetes. That is terribly exciting work and is but one of the many projects being conducted around Australia. Many more such projects could be undertaken in New South Wales if the State Government made a greater funding contribution in this regard.

I have visited many other projects under way at various major research institutes and talked to young scientists who have extended their skills by working with the top people in their field at institutes at Harvard and so on. Some return to Australia, but not nearly enough. That is why New South Wales must catch up with the funding commitments of Victoria and Queensland. In its last budget the Kennett Government provided $310 million for science over five years and the Queensland Government allocated $100 million. In comparison, New South Wales—the most populous State in Australia—recently allocated only $68 million over five years. We are simply not in the race compared with other States and we will be left behind if we do not act now. I commend the motion to the House.

Debate adjourned, by leave, on motion by Mrs Skinner.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [11.43 a.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) condemns the cut-backs to weed funding allocated in the electorate of Lachlan for this coming year;

(2) condemns the reduction in funding from $403,000 last year to $352,517 this year; and

(3) notes the deleterious effect on the environment of the reduced funding for weed eradication.

This motion has been on the business paper since 21 October 1999—that is, for almost 24 months—and the funding situation deteriorated still further in 2000 and 2001 not only in my electorate but across the State. In the past six months, particularly since the announcement of annual funding for weed eradication, most agricultural pages of country newspapers and farmer conferences at which there was a discussion of environmental matters such as the management of rivers or new policies regarding native vegetation have noted the escalation of weeds in the Lachlan and throughout New South Wales generally. I do not exaggerate when I say that weeds are now a major environmental and economic problem. Weeds such as St John's wort cause problems not only for private agriculture and local government but for the State Government. However, the Government is not addressing the escalating weed problem.

In the Wyangala Recreation Area approximately 5,000 acres of St John's wort will erupt at Christmas time. The Wyangala Dam is located at the head of the Lachlan River and the seeds travel down the river as far as Hillston and can even enter the Murrumbidgee and Darling rivers and the great Combong swamp. The continual reduction in weed funding is a great problem for environmentalists, agriculturalists, rural communities, local government and State Government departments based in the Lachlan. That is symptomatic of most of New South Wales. This motion points out that in 1999 funding was cut from $403,000 to $352,517, and those cuts have continued consistently every year since. I ask the House to make it clear to the Government that it is not prepared to accept further desecration of the environment, the agricultural potential and the New South Wales economy as a result of neglected weed control.

When people see weeds growing beside a road or railway track it is easy simply to say, "What a shame." That is what often happens. However, the weed problem hits home when waterways are choked, white-faced sheep develop photosensitisation and the skin peels from the white udders of cows, and calves starve to death. They are just some of the things that are occurring in the Lachlan and Murrumbidgee regions. Devil's claw is a problem in the Far West, as is Bathurst burr in wool. Wool is currently achieving the best prices on the international market since the 1950s, yet bad infestations of Bathurst burr will probably depreciate the value of our wool by anything from 20 per cent to 30 per cent.

Mr R. H. L. Smith: Fireweed on the coast.

Mr ARMSTRONG: It is out of control. Tussock is a major problem in the Southern Highlands and on the Southern Tablelands. It would be remiss of me not to mention golden dodder, an old favourite of a former leader of my party, the Hon. Leon Punch, who built his career in this place around golden dodder. He is now dead and gone but golden dodder continues to grow. I thank the House for this opportunity to address this matter. My message is simple: the Government must provide more funding to help the community to help itself. Land-holders are responsible for the control and eradication of weeds on their land at their own expense, and in the majority of cases they do a good job. Local government and the rural protection boards are also responsible for eradicating any weeds on their land.

Local councils must ensure that land-holders meet that responsibility, which is sometimes difficult as councillors may be reluctant to take action against their friends in the district. However, Lachlan Shire Council, which is based at Condobolin in the west of the State, has proved extremely resilient in this regard and has launched several prosecutions against people in order to secure future funding. Although this motion is specific to the Lachlan, it is equally applicable to inland New South Wales, the North Coast and the South Coast.

Mr O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.48 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the honourable member for Lachlan for two reasons. First, as the shadow Minister for Transport, I am well aware of the failure of the State Rail Authority to protect adjacent property holders sufficiently from the infestation of weeds in rail corridors. That is a significant issue that successive governments have attempted to come to grips with and failed. Notwithstanding last year's commuter rail crisis, to which the Government responded by claiming it had ensured that trains in Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong are reliable, safe and run on time, too little attention is paid to this issue, which is significant to people not just in the Lachlan electorate—to which this motion refers specifically—but across rural New South Wales generally. It is an issue that concerns environmentalists as well as land-holders, farmers. It is another issue about which property owners and the green movement are at one. It is one of those issues upon which State Rail should take more action.

The second reason for my contribution to this debate is to acknowledge the twentieth anniversary of the honourable member for Lachlan becoming a member of this House. It is ironic that this motion, which was placed on the notice paper on 21 October 1999, should be debated today, the twentieth anniversary of his election to this place. No doubt over those 20 years he has strongly represented his electorate by devoting an enormous amount of time to speaking in this House about weeds, weed eradication and related issues. It was terrific to hear him invoke the name of his former leader, Leon Punch,, who some might is pushing up daisies. In Leon's case he is pushing up weeds! I simply take this opportunity to wish the honourable member for Lachlan well on the twentieth anniversary of his election to this House. I look forward to being here when he celebrates his fortieth anniversary as the member for Lachlan.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt—Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [11.51 a.m.]: Before I criticise the motion moved by the honourable member for Lachlan, bag him and refer to his claim as outrageous, I should, in the spirit of the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, congratulate the honourable member for Lachlan on his 20 years in office. I came to this place about two years after him and we have been debating from opposite sides of the House for the entire period. He and other members of the House are celebrating 20 years in this place. The honourable member for Lachlan has enjoyed a distinguished career, including a term as the Minister for Agriculture. He was probably one of the best leaders the National Party has had for some time, but that is another story. That is the end of the good news.

Notice of the motion moved by the honourable member for Lachlan in this special week was given on 21 October 1999. Some things have changed since then. I cannot understand why the honourable member did not bring on this matter before now, but that is a problem the Opposition will have to address. Weeds cost New South Wales agriculture and forestry producers an estimated $600 million a year. They also pose a major threat to conservation areas. The honourable member for Lachlan has made his point about weeds funding in his electorate not only in this House but in many other public statements. The Department of Agriculture has a major investment in research to the tune of $3 million a year, including external funds, to develop more effective weed control methods. Emphasis has been placed on biological control and other environmentally benign technologies. The department is also a partner in the Co-operative Research Centre Weed Management Systems. Its contract has just been renewed for a further seven years, involving an amount of $80 million.

The co-operative research centre is taking the lead in agricultural and environmental weed management research for South Australia. It will have greater focus on weed management problems. Clearly, our achievements in that area are substantial and are improving. While some members representing city electorates may not be fully aware of the importance of this issue, with improved pastures and better climatic conditions in recent years weeds management is becoming more difficult and a more prominent political issue in country New South Wales. I remind the House that when the Carr Government came to power in 1995 for many years noxious weed funding had been static at $5 million a year, and that includes some of the years the honourable member for Lachlan served as Minister for Agriculture. The Carr Government has steadily increased that funding to the current level of $6.887 million per year. Whilst the Coalition had a particularly slow approach to funding, we have increased funding by over $1.8 million in response to calls from Country Labor and others.

The Government has not only increased funding. It has also adopted a more strategic approach. Money is now provided for regional weed authorities to establish regional weed strategies. Over the past year funds have been targeted to develop regional and statewide plans for specific weeds such as parthenium, mesquite and alligator weed. Under the Government Rural New South Wales is not only receiving more money to combat weeds. It is also obtaining more strategic value from that funding. I remind the honourable member that this financial year the Lachlan Valley Noxious Plans Advisory Committee received $133,000 to implement a regional weed management plan for weeds such as St John's wort, African boxhorn and golden dodder. That should respond to the many interjections of the honourable member for Lachlan. Every time I speak on this subject he always interjects and asks, "But what are you doing about golden dodder?" I hope that finally answers his persistent interjections.

This year a total $287,494 was provided to the committee and its constituent councils. The amounts I refer to as being allocated for weed funding will be different from the allocations at the time the honourable member gave notice of his motion. Councils received $337,000 to control weeds such as spiny burr grass, St John's wort, silverleaf nightshade and blackberry in the eastern and western Riverina area. Parts of the shires for which those councils are responsible are in the Lachlan electorate. In addition, the Government provided $163,000 to assist in training council weed control staff, including those in the Lachlan electorate. The story gets better. Whilst I am not responsible for informing the honourable member that his electorate boundary has changed, he should be aware that his electorate no longer includes the Cowra shire. The honourable member should remember that times have changed along with his electorate boundaries. He would be aware that funds are not allocated according to the size of an electorate; they are allocated strategically to deal with particular problems.

Unlike the Opposition, the Government is confident that the weeds problem can be dealt with at the local level. Working with the rural community, rather than arbitrarily deciding what is good for it, is the real reason for the surge in support for Country Labor. Today I can announce that that commitment goes further. An amount of $300,000 has been provided for trusts and councils to manage weed control on small parcels of Crown land across the State. That is important. Shortly, I will introduce legislation, which I believe the honourable member for Lachlan will support strongly because it will make State authorities subject to the provisions of the Noxious Weeds Act.

In the Central West $63,250 in State funding been approved for weed control on Crown land. Given the interest of the honourable member, I will specify how that funding is to be allocated. Wellington Council will receive $5,000; the Six Foot Track Heritage Trust, $1,000; the Portland Common Trust, $750; Windamere Regional Park, $5,000; Forbes council, $500; Hill End and Tamaroora Common Trust, $2,500; Grabine Lakeside State Park Trust, $2,500; Windamere Foreshores, $5,000; the Department of Land and Water Conservation for Queensland Leadville Mine, $2,000; Cabonne Council, $2,500; the Department of Land and Water Conservation for Carcoar Dam, $3,000; Hassans Wall Reserve, Lithgow, $2,000; Upper Macquarie County Council, $20,000; Bland Shire Council, $5,000; Southern Slopes County Council, $5,000; and Mid Western County Council, $4,000. In other regions of the State funding has been allocated as follows. The Far West of the State, $12,000; the North Coast, $39,700; the south-west, $19,000; the Hunter and the lower North Coast, $40,500; the metropolitan area and south-east, $104,150; and the north-west, $21,400.

As the honourable member would be aware, weeds such as blackberry on Crown reserves have a serious impact on ecological values, whereas other weeds such as serrated tussock and St John's wart on vacant Crown land have the capacity to spread to adjoining agricultural land—another issue raised by the honourable member for Lachlan on a number of occasions. New South Wales Agriculture and the Department of Land and Water Conservation each supply 50 per cent of that funding. Co-operation at the agency level now allows for targeted implementation at the local level through appropriate bodies. The Carr Government has a strategic response to weeds based on targeting the problem. In the years before the Labor Government came to power in 1995, $5 million was allocated annually for weed control, but the funding was not strategically allocated and resulted in a waste of taxpayers' dollars. It was an ultimate do-nothing policy. Perhaps this is the system the honourable member for Lachlan suggests we should return to.

Our Government has increased funding by 6.5 per cent per annum, with an announcement of a further injection of $300,000. More importantly, funding is allocated in a far more responsible manner. The ad hoc approach has been rejected. As we were given notice of this motion two years ago the numbers have changed. We continue to increase our funding. Obviously, the Government rejects the motion. In the time remaining I will not attack the honourable member for Lachlan on this special occasion: he is celebrating 20 years in this place. I am sure that he will continue to fight for issues such as this. However, my explanation to him in this House makes his motion redundant. We will continue to fight to ensure that funding to eradicate weeds increases. We will also consider ways the money is being spent. I want to ensure that we put more money into eradicating weeds. I take his comments on board. But we reject the motion, which condemns the Government. The wording is appalling. [Time expired.]

Mr R. H. L. SMITH (Bega) [12.01 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Lachlan on his 20 years in this place. He may have a few drinks tonight to celebrate, but he probably deserves a medal for being here for 20 years and putting up with some of the things that go on in this House. I realise that the first two parts of the motion directly affect the Lachlan electorate. I have visited the area on a number of occasions, and I am aware of the weed problem. It is a massive problem all over the State. Paddocks full of weeds and Paterson's curse need attention. It is disturbing that the Government would cut funding for weed control to the Lachlan electorate. Weeds are a major problem and the Government must concentrate on programs to eradicate them. We endeavour to keep prime agricultural land out of the hands of developers to keep it in production, but year after year weeds are turning prime agricultural land into useless land.

The third part of the motion notes the deleterious effect on the environment of reducing funding for weed eradication. In my electorate of Bega fireweed, a very invasive weed, has invaded the rich dairying areas of the Bega Valley. They are losing the battle with fireweed. There does not seem to be an effective weedkiller for it. We have to pull it out by hand or put sheep in cattle paddocks to try to keep it under control. It is a massive problem on the coast. As the honourable member for Lachlan mentioned previously, the tablelands in the Monaro area have a problem with serrated tussock, which is also very invasive. It is a very light weed and is transported on the wind. It is taking over the Monaro and reducing much of that fertile and productive country to barren and totally unproductive country. At one stage it was difficult to obtain weedkiller for serrated tussock, but that is now back on track.

A massive amount of money is needed to control the problem. It is simply too much for an individual farmer to control. National parks, public areas, railways and road reserves have uncontrolled growth of serrated tussock, which is part of the problem. We need a concerted effort by every farmer, public body and every land-holder to at least control some of these weeds. Other weeds, such as Scotch thistle and nodding thistle, are becoming a problem on the tablelands. Bathurst burr is another problem, particularly its effect on wool as alluded to by the honourable member for Lachlan. It must be controlled. Reduced funding to the Lachlan electorate will not help to solve the problem. The Government must make a concerted effort all over the State to try to control these weeds that are out of control. If action is not taken in the near future our prime agricultural land that we have been trying so desperately to preserve will be lost. The most productive country in New South Wales will no longer be productive.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [12.06 p.m.], in reply: I thank those who contributed to the debate. I also thank the Minister, the honourable member for Bega and the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai, the shadow Minister for transport, for their complimentary remarks on my 20 years in this place. I appreciate the announcement by the Minister of increased funding for weeds in many parts of New South Wales. His announcement supports my moving this motion in 1999. Unfortunately, the escalation of weeds is faster than the ability of the public purse to allocate funds. Weeds have been out of control for the past couple of decades. You could throw money at the problem all day without any effect. It is important to make the best use of funds. I appreciate the research and development programs implemented by the Government. I emphasise that in many parts of the State the problem is not contracting, but escalating. This is evident by the number of farmers meeting and vegetation groups, et cetera, around the State. Any country paper, every six or eight weeks, will have some story about weeds.

Because I live on the Lachlan River and have country facing the river I am aware of the increase in the variety of new weeds that have come down the river in the past couple of years. It is quite frightening. We have devil's claw just out of Cowra, something we have never had before. Ten or 15 years ago we would see one or two noogoora burr but now it is not uncommon to have half an acre here or there. Those are the sorts of problems the Minister and the department must address. Members of this House must ensure that we continue to highlight these problems in the public arena. All these programs require public recognition and co-operation, which means education. I compliment regional papers and journalists for highlighting the problem with weeds. Those who have private lands have a responsibility to control the weeds on their private lands, and the State has a responsibility to control weeds on railway lands, as my colleague mentioned. The Minister bears the cross of having to control weeds on all lands. I thank honourable members for their participation in this worthy and proper debate. I look forward to seeing better results from the Minister's announcement about funding. I hope to hear increased announcements of a similar type.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

Division called for and, pursuant to resolution, deferred.

Mr O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.11 p.m.]: I move:

That this House notes with concern the effect of the Government's increase in transport fares upon Australia's inflation rate.

I moved yesterday for the introduction of a private member's bill that would provide for honesty in campaign material. Honourable members might wonder what that has to do with this debate. What that bill will not do is stop the sorts of deceit and deception practised by the New South Wales Labor Party in the 1995 State election campaign. During that campaign the Labor Party, hand on heart, stood before the voters of this State and said, "No tax increases and no new taxes." Yet, in the time Labor has been in office, we have seen exactly that, not merely in respect of taxes, but also in respect of charges upon which similar ironclad commitments were given by the current Premier and the current Treasurer during the 1995 election campaign.

Since Labor came to office, fares on average across the CityRail system have increased by 48 per cent. In other words, if, when the Premier came to office in 1995, your fare was $1, you are currently paying $1.48. In 1995-96 we saw a 5 per cent fare increase for City Rail customers; in 1996-97, a 5.3 per cent increase; in 1997-98, a 2.3 per cent increase; in 1998-99, a 3.2 per cent increase; in 1999-2000, a 13.8 per cent increase; and in 2000-01 an 8 per cent increase. The last State election was held in March 1999. It might be of interest to the House to note the continued deceit and deception practised by the Carr Government on the voters of this State. In the year before the election—that is, the 1998-99 year—fares were lowered, but immediately after the March 1999 election the largest ever increase in fares was instituted: 13.8 per cent.

I make the point that, at the same time as this Government was ratcheting up rail fares, each time pledging that the rail system would improve, it was stating that these fare increases were necessary to provide additional income to allow improvements to be made to Sydney's rail system. Each time it pledged that in advance of fare increases and each time fare increases were granted. A year later the same commitment was given—"Look, we're sorry about last year. We did not improve services as we promised to do before we introduced the last increase. If you will just allow us another increase this time, those services will improve." We saw last year what became of that promise. Last year's rail crisis across the Sydney-Newcastle-Wollongong electrified system was a direct consequence of the failure of this Government to put sufficient money into maintenance and investment in the CityRail network.

That was despite the 48 per cent increase in fares over the term of this Government. At the time that the Government was increasing rail fares astronomically, Australia's consumer price index—the measure of Australia's inflation—was travelling at a much lower level. For instance, in 1996-97, when this Government raised fares by 5.3 per cent, the underlying rate of inflation was 1.3 per cent—an increase of almost four times the inflation rate. In 1997-98, when this Government increased fares by 2.3 per cent, there was a zero annual average inflation rate across Australia. In 1998-99, when this Government increased fares by 3.2 per cent, Australia's inflation rate was 1.2 per cent. More particularly, I refer honourable members to 1999-2000, when we had the largest ever fare increases—that is, 13.8 per cent on average. "On average" means that many of those fares went up significantly ahead of this figure. Some, of course, did not rise.

In the year that the Government increased fares by 13.8 per cent across the rail network, what was Australia's inflation rate? It was 2.4 per cent! Once again, almost a six-fold increase in fares, compared to Australia's underlying inflation rate. Just to complete the square, in 2000-01, when fares went up by 8 per cent, Australia's underlying inflation rate was 6 per cent. There is no doubt that when it comes to fares this Government has never seen a fare increase it does not like, save for those occasions immediately before a State election. It is also clear what the consequences of those fare increases are upon Australia's inflation rate. They have fuelled Australia's inflation rate and have made it far more difficult for the current Federal Government, which has provided strong and effective economic management to this State, to continue that effective management. I imagine, given that he is at the table, that the Parliamentary Secretary for Transport will respond to this motion. I look forward to his contribution. I am sure that the residents of his electorate and the rail commuters look forward to it.

In 1995-96, when Labor first came to office, a weekly ticket from Canterbury to the city cost $14. Today that same weekly ticket for that same 10.16 kilometre trip into the city each day costs $23. The Parliamentary Secretary for Transport, the honourable member for Canterbury, someone who is primarily sent to this place to represent his constituents, someone who has secondarily been given the task to have a say in relation to transport and rail issues, has done such a terrific job. Not only has he helped to preside over average fare increases across the rail system of 48 per cent since Labor came to office, but he has delivered to his own constituents who travel from Canterbury to the city a 64 per cent increase in the price of a weekly ticket.

He is not alone. Many members of this Government have stood by and seen the Minister for Transport and his predecessor raise fares dramatically. Commuters from Bardwell Park are paying 64 per cent more for their weekly tickets than when Labor was first elected. The same applies to Campsie and Carlton commuters. The Deputy Premier deserves some mention. A weekly ticket from Erskineville to the city was $9 in 1995-96 and is $17 currently. The Deputy Premier has achieved an 89 per cent increase in the price of a weekly ticket for his constituents. On my analysis of the figures, that puts him at the top of the hit parade! Certainly those commuters who use the system day-in, day-out, those commuters who have no alternative but to use the system, understand those price increases and understand where they have come from.

Yesterday, the Premier released to me documents in response to a request under freedom of information legislation relating to his movements by helicopter around the State. Expenditure amounted to $54,000 since the last election campaign. The Premier needs to understand that integrated transport means more than having a limousine meet your helicopter! Integrated transport means ensuring that people are encouraged to use the train system; that they are given some affordability in that use and are given some reliability over the service that they have. Since this Government has been in office it has presided over increase after increase in relation to the rail system. Hornsby commuters have seen their weekly tickets increase from $19.40 to $30, a 55 per cent increase. That is one of the centres to receive an increase well above the 48 per cent average fare increase that this Government has presided over.

The former member for Kogarah was Minister for Transport. A new member for Kogarah was elected at the last election. Weekly passes from Kogarah have risen from $14 to $23—64 per cent. The weekly ticket from Macdonaldtown has increased from $9 to $17—an 89 per cent increase. I could list all the stations across the CityRail network.

This Government has never seen a fare increase it does not like. The fare increases that this Government has presided over have fuelled Australia's inflation rate and are economically irresponsible. But more important, they have made it much less attractive for people to catch public transport and more attractive for people to use cars. That is why Sydney continues to reel under a transport crisis. Residential streets, arterial roads and highways across this city are clogged more and more. The department's figures show that average travel times during peak hours in this city have blown out. People spend more time sitting in their cars. Why do people put up with it? Because the rail system is unreliable and the economics favour cars versus trains—economics which this Government has worsened significantly. [Time expired.]

Mr MOSS (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.21 p.m.]: It is interesting indeed that members of the Coalition wish to argue that public transport fare increases have had an adverse effect upon Australia's inflation rate. Surely they could not look past one of the single biggest fare increases of recent times, the GST, which was not the result of anything the New South Wales Government has done. The GST is solely the work of the Liberal and National parties in coalition. The regressive and unfair GST imposed on the Australian people by the Howard Government caused prices to rise across a range of goods and services. One of the reasons the GST is so unfair is that it indiscriminately taxes the consumption of goods and services regardless of whether those goods and services are essential or luxury items. Consequently, it places a greater taxation burden upon those in society that can least afford it. It is commonsense that some basic goods and services ought to have been exempted from GST. Undoubtedly public transport is one. Why should commuters be slugged with a tax on tickets for the train, bus or ferry that takes them to and from work when those services reduce road congestion and are environmentally friendly? They should not.

The Howard Government had the opportunity to exempt public transport from the GST but, in its typical mean and tricky style, it refused to. As a result the New South Wales Government had no choice but to pass the GST on to commuters by way of fare increases. Every railway station, bus stop and ferry wharf in effect has now become a branch of John Howard's tax office. It is more than a bit rich therefore—in fact it is gross hypocrisy—for members of the Coalition in this State to talk about fare increases when one of the largest fare increases has been unfairly imposed by their Federal counterparts. People are very angry about the GST tax slug, and they are fully entitled to be angry, because the Federal Government chose to reject the State's proposal to exempt public transport from GST. The State Transit Authority and the State Rail Authority had no option but to pass on the cost to commuters because it is the law. The Commonwealth will take $40.7 million from train travellers alone as a result of the GST.

I emphasise that not one cent of this GST revenue will return to State Rail or State Transit to be spent on improving the service. Not one cent will be used for upgrading rail tracks, signals and stations. Not one cent will go to new trains, buses or ferries. Unlike the previous Liberal Government, we introduced an impartial, non-political review of fares by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. Contrast this approach with the first thing the incoming Liberal transport Minister, Bruce Baird, did in 1988 when he jacked up fares across the board. There was no independent process involved; it was simply by ministerial edict. And who was Bruce Baird's right-hand man when all this took place? He is sitting opposite today. He is the same member who had the barefaced gall to weep crocodile tears in this place about the effect of public transport fare increases. Of course, I am referring to the mover of the motion, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. At the same time the Coalition was jacking up transport fares there was the slash and burn, the almost unbelievable hacking and destruction of country passenger rail services.

Mr O'Farrell: Point of order: Mr Deputy-Speaker, I am happy to enjoin the honourable member in debate when I speak in reply but I take him back to at least part of the motion, which relates to fare increases and inflation rates. Country passenger services and employment are a long way removed. I am more than happy to talk about Carl Scully's record on slashing 5,000 jobs.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The debate has been reasonably wide-ranging, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has conceded. I do not uphold the point of order.

Mr O'Farrell: On the point of order—

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on the point of order.

Mr O'Farrell: I want to speak to the point of order again, Mr Deputy-Speaker. Everything I said clearly related to fare increases and inflation, as contained in my motion. I take you back to my speech. As I said, I am more than happy to have the wider debate. But under the standing orders of this place the honourable member is not permitted to take a sojourn in relation to other motions. He can answer the 500 motions on the general notice paper and move his own motion but he cannot divert from the substance of the motion now before the House.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the closure of country rail services in passing only. I am sure he will continue in that vein.

Mr MOSS: Yes. Apart from the GST, a major reason for fare increases over the past few years has been the slash and burn policies of the previous Government. Those policies related to country passenger railway services, the closure of rural branch lines and the mass sackings of thousands of railway staff. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was there guiding the destruction from the then Minister's office. Now he suddenly pretends to be concerned about commuters. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has not forgotten his old boss. Where was the new-found concern under the Baird and O'Farrell regime for the impact on commuters? Where was the consultation? Where was the arm's-length independent review process? It was good enough for Deputy Leader of the Opposition simply to jack up fares whenever he felt like it—no process, no accountability. No wonder they were tossed out like old newspapers in 1995!

Public transport fare charges under the Carr Government have been reviewed by an independent body. The process has been totally transparent and based upon evidence of the need for increases. We have depoliticised the process. Fare increases in New South Wales in recent years have been to cover increased operating costs. Every cent has gone back into projects to improve the network, including the introduction of comprehensive security on all 301 CityRail stations, major station upgrades, and new buses and trains. There are now state-of-the-art digital security cameras on every station, along with high-intensity lighting. Under this Government there are two security guards on every City Rail service after 7.00 p.m. and random patrols throughout the day—all this under a Labor government.

Recently the Government upgraded Liverpool, Penrith, Regents Park and Ashfield railway stations. Campsie railway station is due for a major upgrade. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to people in my electorate having to pay more for weekly tickets to the city, and he referred specifically to Campsie. I assure him that commuters at Campsie are more than happy to pay extra for the state-of-the art facilities that will be provided with the more than $4 million upgrade of that station, not to mention the long-awaited disability access. The Government is delivering on services in my electorate, and for that reason commuters are happy to pay increased fares. However, the GST goes straight back to Canberra. If fares are having an effect on Australia's inflation rate, it is important to point out that the increase relates to the GST. That means that there are no windfalls for New South Wales. The Government opposes the motion, which implies that the actions of this Government have had an effect on inflation. Any concerns we may have about this country's inflation rate rest squarely with the Federal Government's GST policies.

Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [12.31 p.m.]: This motion dates back to 27 October 1999, when it was introduced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—who was probably a man ahead of his time, because at that time things were pretty bad. That is when public transport literally came off the rails. I am prepared to meet head on the devastating claims made by the honourable member for Canterbury that the GST was to blame for the increase in fares. Let us examine the record and see how that claim stands up to scrutiny. Let us see how accurate the honourable member for Canterbury was.

Mr Campbell: One hundred per cent.

Mr MERTON: Yes, 100 per cent. The increase in fares in the financial year 1999-2000 was 13.8 per cent, on average.

Mr Campbell: That is a big figure.

Mr MERTON: The honourable member for Keira may well say that is a big figure, and it is. However, the GST was introduced on 1 July 2000. Before the introduction of the GST the State Government had increased fares by 13.8 per cent. And the honourable member for Canterbury has the audacity, gall or stupidity—and I will be kind to him; I do not really think he is stupid—to say that the GST is to blame for fee increases.

Mr Moss: You said you would restore country services.

Mr MERTON: The honourable member for Canterbury refers to services. Some months ago State Rail suffered crisis after crisis, with a litany of woes. Trains were going in the wrong direction, they were travelling backwards from Katoomba to Sydney and going up the Liverpool line instead of to Central station. Travellers to Parramatta who were told, "Sorry, we are taking a detour via Liverpool" were concerned that they would be fined for fare evasion. But the Deputy Premier takes the cake. Last week he said, "Motorists are addicted to cars." Travellers are not addicted to cars: they are compelled to travel by car because of the lousy public transport system. The Deputy Premier rewarded the people of Erskineville with fare increases of almost 100 per cent in the past seven years. That is a great record!

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned Chatswood railway station. The Minister for Transport would know a little about Chatswood as he is a former resident. Fares from Chatswood have been increased by 64 per cent. Fares from other stations have increased by 34 per cent, which is about par for the course. Fares from Bardwell Park have increased 64 per cent. The reality is that in 1996 the inflation rate was 1.3 per cent and the Government increased fares by 5.3 per cent; in 1997-98 the inflation rate was virtually nil, and fares were increased by 2.3 per cent; in 1998-99 the inflation rate was 1.2 per cent and the Government increased fares by 3.2 per cent; in 1999-2000 the inflation rate was 2.4 per cent and the Government increased fares by 13.8 per cent; in 2000-01 the inflation rate was 6 per cent and fares went up 8 per cent. Fares have precipitated an increase in inflation.

There is a litany of disaster as far as State Rail is concerned, but the Government has rewarded people not by reducing fares but by increasing fares, and those fares have caused an increase in inflation. The only areas in which rail fares have not increased are Baulkham Hills and Castle Hill—because there are no railway stations there. The way things are going, the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link will not be built. The Government's record is appalling. It has fuelled inflation in New South Wales and left a legacy of bad transport, increased fares and a bad taste in the mouths of the residents of New South Wales.

Mr O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.36 p.m.], in reply: I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary for Transport, who from time to time sends me good letters that actually respond to constituents' concerns, has shown his incredible ignorance during this debate. I take up the point raised by the honourable member for Baulkham Hills. The year before the GST came into effect, the Government presided over a 13.8 per cent average fare increase across the State Rail system. That is the largest fare increase ever implemented by any government in the history of the New South Wales railways. It had nothing to do with the GST or with the improvement in services. I say that because the following year, in its submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] the Government again argued, when pressing for an 8 per cent fare increase, that such an increase would help improve services. Every year the Government has given a commitment that fare increases would lead to better services, and every year the Government has failed to deliver on those services.

Mr Moss: Patronage is up.

Mr O'FARRELL: I refer the honourable member for Canterbury to the statistics of State Rail which show that the rail system over that time has not improved on any performance criteria. I inform the honourable member that IPART was introduced under the Fahey Government. He made a basic error of fact when he said that that has depoliticised the process. I again make the point that when it came to fare increases before the March 1999 election campaign, the Minister for Transport did not accept the recommendations of IPART. He artificially lowered the fare increases, waited until his Government was re-elected, and then put fares up by 13.8 per cent.

For the honourable member for Canterbury to say that the process has been depoliticised is an outright lie. I was interested to hear what he said about the GST generally. I assume from what he said that as part of Labor's rollback process, the GST under a future Labor Government would be removed from public transport fares. That is the clear conclusion from what the Parliamentary Secretary said today. He made out a case as to why the GST was an horrific tax on public transport users. The Opposition will seek a clear commitment from his Federal colleagues and from his Minister for Transport that the rollback will include the removal of the GST from public transport fares. The second most interesting thing that the honourable member for Canterbury, the Parliamentary Secretary for Transport, said was that not one cent collected by applying the GST to public transport fares would be returned to public transport.

Mr Moss: That is correct.

Mr O'FARRELL: He has confirmed that by way of interjection, and that is recorded in Hansard. We know that all the GST collected under that legislation is returned to the States. That is why the Premier of this State was the first Premier to sign up for the GST in Canberra. If the Parliamentary Secretary for Transport is saying that none of the money being taken from public transport users as a result of the GST is going back into public transport, it is because Michael Egan and the Premier will not allow it to happen. That is my point. Since Labor has been in government fares have gone through the roof. They have increased 40 per cent, well in excess of inflation, and none of that money has found its way back into public transport. We do not have the public transport we deserve. Clearly, this Government is more interested in filling its coffers centrally, to apply that money elsewhere, than in adequately funding public transport. This Government has pursued a fare increase policy that applies to public transport fares across the State, and that is having an impact upon Australia's and Sydney's inflation process.

Mr Campbell: Why has patronage increased?

Mr O'FARRELL: Because they have no alternative. Average commuters do not have the opportunity to swan around this State in helicopters. But, more important, I refer to the Department of Transport's own figures showing that road congestion across the city is so bad that average travel times have lengthened and average speeds during peak hours have dropped. That is the sort of integrated transport approach that this Government brings to the process. The roads are clogged, the rail system has not improved and the buses are not where they should be. I make the point on behalf of the Opposition that this Government has been rapacious when it comes to fare increases. It is not devoting money to improving public transport.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

Division called for and, pursuant to resolution, deferred.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.42 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes with grave concern the 33.8 per cent increase in Aboriginal deaths in custody in New South Wales in the period 1990-98; and

(2) calls on the Government to recognise the seriousness of the issue insofar as the increase in Aboriginal deaths in custody of 33.8 per cent compares to the increase in Victoria of 2.5 per cent, Western Australia 16.3 per cent, South Australia 12.5 per cent, Tasmania 1.25 per cent, Northern Territory, 6.25 per cent and Queensland 27.5 per cent.

This matter has been on the notice paper since 28 October 1999, so it has taken two years for this important motion to be debated.

Mr O'Farrell: How many additional deaths have occurred?

Mr HAZZARD: In answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the numbers have continued to increase. As shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I focus today on indigenous deaths, but it is an issue for all prisoners in New South Wales. The population in New South Wales prisons has skyrocketed. No doubt that is partially in response to community outcry for more severe penalties, but we have a duty of care to ensure that people in custody receive the proper attention that is not only good for them but for the community in the long run. We must consider the health, literacy and employment skills of prisoners entering and leaving prison. Sadly, I do not believe that there has been a substantial improvement in those areas over the past few years under the Carr Government, although, to be honest, it has been a long-term problem in New South Wales.

It is time that governments became serious about putting resources into providing basic services to inmates so that we can focus on these problem areas. The number of Aboriginal inmates in New South Wales is approximately 9,000—an increase of 4,000 in the past few years. On average that is 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the prison population. In some localised areas the figure is far higher. For instance, in women's prisons Aboriginal inmates make up 40 per cent of the prison population, and on my last visit to Broken Hill 95 per cent of the prison population was made up of Aboriginal Australians. That should send a warning to the Government that these fundamental problems inside our prisons should be taken seriously, the most fundamental being to ensure that inmates stay alive.

I put this matter on the notice paper in 1999 in response to a Productivity Commission report that indicated a vast increase in the number of Aboriginal inmates who died in New South Wales. At that time there was hope that the figure may have decreased, but the 1999-2000 annual report of the Department of Corrective Services showed that there had been seven deaths of indigenous inmates. I am concerned that the tenor of the report, under the heading "Deaths in custody", is that we are doing it better than before. I do not accept that, nor would the Aboriginal community or those with compassion and an interest in bettering the conditions of Aboriginal people in New South Wales. The report stated:

Deaths in custody have also dropped to the lowest rate in four years. The suicide rate has remained steady in spite of the increase in the average daily full-time inmate population, showing that the crisis management teams in correctional centres are successful in identifying those inmates who need close surveillance and therapeutic programs.

In 1999-2000 deaths in custody, excluding those of indigenous people, were slightly lower—but only because in 1996-97 the numbers escalated dramatically from those in 1995-96. The Coalition lost government in 1995, and 18 inmates died that year. Without drawing too long a political bow, by 1996-97 that figure had increased to 29 under the Carr Government. The same number of inmates died in 1997-98, and 26 died in 1998-99. In 1999-2000 there was a slight drop to 23. Those figures tell us that we are not doing enough to address the issue of deaths in custody. Four Aboriginal or indigenous inmates died in 1995-96, three in 1996-97, four in 1997-98, four in 1998-99, and last year the number had escalated—in fact, almost doubled—to seven.

This Government would like us to believe—perhaps because governments have to justify their positions—that it is doing more for indigenous inmates than ever before, or perhaps that it is doing as well as possible. However, I suggest that the Government is not doing as much as it can and that there is room, and a great need, to do more. These days indigenous inmate deaths are often attributed to natural causes. That in itself is a problem, because it tells us that Aboriginal people who enter the New South Wales prison system are not being assessed properly for life-threatening diseases.

We know that Aboriginal people who enter the prison system tend to suffer diseases such as kidney and heart disease at much higher rates than non-indigenous Australians. I say to the Department of Corrective Services—not necessarily the Government, although it is ultimately responsible—that we need to make a fair dinkum effort to ensure better liaison between the Corrections Health Service, which is a separate entity, and the department. We must make sure that there is a concerted effort to address the number of deaths by natural causes—which are avoidable in many cases. If we tackle that problem appropriately, it may lead to a reduction in the number of Aboriginal deaths in custody.

I am disappointed that I cannot speak about this issue at greater length, because there is so much more to say. I know of deaths that occurred because hanging points were not removed from cells. Ten years after the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody the department tells us that it is doing better. However, inmates continue to die. Trent Lantry died in Cessnock the year before last, and his mum, Veronica Appleton, remains extremely unhappy that her son died because he was put into a cell with hanging points. He was an at-risk inmate and that should never have happened. If Parliament is fair dinkum about trying to make our prisons safer and ensuring that offenders do not die in our gaols but leave prison better people, both sides of the House must make policy commitments to allocate more money to health, literacy and employment skills in New South Wales prisons, particularly for Aboriginal inmates.

Mr MARKHAM (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.52 p.m.]: I assume that the honourable member for Wakehurst was referring to the Australian Institute of Criminology report entitled "Aboriginal deaths in prison 1980 to 1998; National Overview", which is a Trend and Issues publication No. 131. This report does not state that there has been a 33.8 per cent increase in Aboriginal deaths in custody in New South Wales. The honourable member has totally misread the report in this regard, including the figures relating to other jurisdictions. The report actually states that New South Wales accounted for 33.8 per cent of all indigenous deaths in custody in Australia during the period from 1990 to 1998. Similarly, the figures cited for other States do not describe the increase in the number of Aboriginal deaths in custody in each State but the proportion for each State of the national total of Aboriginal deaths in custody.

New South Wales has the highest inmate population in Australia—35 per cent in 2000—and houses 28 per cent of the national total of indigenous full-time inmates. At September 2000, 15.4 per cent of all full-time inmates in New South Wales gaols were indigenous. While every death is tragic, the number of deaths is very few when we consider that there are more than 7,500 offenders in full-time custody at any one time in New South Wales. Each year about 16,000 people are received into custody in New South Wales and approximately 50,000 people are supervised by the Department of Corrective Services in court and police cells. Of these 66,000 people, 19 died in custody in 2000 and 16 have died this year. Despite the rising prison population, the number of Aboriginal deaths in custody in New South Wales has remained relatively stable since 1995.

Nevertheless, all deaths in custody are of great concern, and the Government is fully committed to implementing policies and procedures to attack the issue, including the recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. By far the largest categories of deaths are those attributed to suicide or to natural causes. The number of suicides has fluctuated from four to 15 per annum since 1989. In 1998 there were two indigenous suicides, in 1999 there was one indigenous suicide, and in 2000 there were three indigenous suicides. So far this year there has been one indigenous suicide. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, in New South Wales suicide constituted the single largest cause of death among males aged between 15 and 24 years. This is a sad statistic for the community.

It is important to note that the prison population reflects this community problem more intensely. The prison population has a higher propensity for self-harm, suicide, mental health problems and drug abuse. Experienced prison and medical staff say that they are now dealing with an incoming inmate population that is far more unstable than that of 10 years ago, chiefly due to the mental and physical toll taken by heavy drug abuse. In fighting suicide, the quite horrifying data revealed by the first ever inmate health survey released by the Corrections Health Service indicates the difficulties that correctional staff face, even as the inmate population rises. Some 54 per cent of females and 37 per cent of males had contemplated suicide at some stage, and 39 per cent of females and 21 per cent of males had attempted suicide. The vast majority of these incidents occurred while the inmate was in the community so prison staff had no record to assist them.

Some 65 per cent of those inmates described the attempt as impulsive, and more than 75 per cent admitted that they had not talked of their intention prior to the attempt. The data on mental health, self-harm and drug abuse histories is similarly horrifying. While the department is always refining procedures and making improvements, it seems to me that correctional staff do a superb job in the circumstances. In some instances correctional officers have shown quite remarkable devotion to duty in applying emergency first aid in circumstances presenting personal risk. The department has been diligent in investigating deaths and, in most instances, in making the necessary changes to procedures before an inquest is held. I note that the Coroner's Court has been, on the whole, complimentary of the department's efforts at suicide prevention. When handing down a finding in February 1998, the senior deputy State coroner noted:

… I am convinced that the Department of Corrective Services has gone to considerable lengths to attempt to reduce the number of suicides in prison and prisons are generally far better run now than they were in 1994 when I commenced to hear these inquests.

In addition to the numerous therapeutic and education programs available, the department has invested significant resources to reduce potential hanging points in New South Wales correctional centres. The Coroner's Court has agreed that much has been done in this regard but acknowledged "the fine line" between prisoner safety and humanity—something the department is very conscious of. In an inquest in 2000, a coroner commented:

The punishment is deprivation of liberty and prisoners cannot be kept in cells so austere as to amount to cruel and inhumane treatment. I am satisfied, at this stage, that the Department is working hard to achieve that balance.

It is important to remember that the royal commission noted that no humane cell could ever be a cell without a single hanging point. Suicide prevention measures in New South Wales are extensive and include Long Bay Hospital, the Kevin Waller Unit at the Malabar Special Programs Centre at Long Bay, and the Mum Shirl Unit at Mulawa Correctional Centre. These centres provide a network of specialised support for inmates identified as being actively suicidal. Acute crisis management units have been established at Malabar Special Programs Centre and at Bathurst and Cessnock correctional centres. These purpose-built units provide specialised care for inmates who are at risk of self-harm.

The Corrections Health Service is responsible for performing suicide/self-harm risk assessments on every inmate as soon as he or she is received into custody. Corrective Services welfare officers also see every new inmate to assist him or her with concerns such as contacting family members. Intervention teams have been established, bringing together Corrections Health Service and Corrective Services staff to assess and oversee the management of individual inmates referred to them as being possible suicide/self-harm risks. Psychologists work as part of these teams. A clinical co-ordinator has been appointed to oversee programs for at-risk inmates and provide clinical supervision of psychology staff statewide.

The high rate of incarceration and poor health is an important issue. While every effort must continue to be made by correctional authorities to finetune procedures and policies, the real problem is the high rate of incarceration and, of course, the poor state of health of many new inmates across the full range of indicators. A major challenge is to develop programs to divert offenders from full-time imprisonment. Diversionary strategies that have been put in place in New South Wales include periodic detention, home detention, suspended sentences and the establishment of mobile camps at St Heliers, near Muswellbrook, Broken Hill and Ivanhoe. In relation to Aboriginal programs in correctional centres, in 1995 the department established an indigenous services unit to co-ordinate programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander inmates. The department runs many programs for Aboriginal inmates in addition to mainstream programs which, of course, are open to Aboriginal inmates.

Some examples of special programs for Aboriginal inmates are Aboriginal alcohol and other drug programs, which are run by Aboriginal alcohol and other drug workers in correctional centres with high Aboriginal populations; the Aboriginal Cultural Link Program, under which Aboriginal inmates at Broken Hill Correctional Centre carry out work in Mutawintji National Park and in other places in the area; the Aboriginal Mentor Program, under which new Aboriginal inmates meet with existing Aboriginal inmates in a structured way to ease the transition to prison life; special literacy courses for Aboriginal inmates; an Aboriginal cultural centre called Girrawaa, at Bathurst Correctional Centre, where up to 25 Aboriginal inmates are able to develop artistic and employment skills; an Elders Visitors Program, under which Aboriginal elders visit inmates to teach them about Aboriginal culture; and programs at Brewarrina Yetta Dhinnakkal Centre.

Yetta Dhinnakkal is a new correctional centre situated on a 10,500-hectare property on the Bogan River south of Brewarrina. Yetta Dhinnakkal is an Aboriginal expression meaning "right pathway". The centre currently houses about 20 inmates, who are taught rural skills such as how to operate heavy equipment, tractors, tip trucks and backhoes. Inmates also carry out community service work such as ground maintenance at local churches, sports grounds and parks. In addition, the department has appointed several Aboriginal official visitors to assist Aboriginal inmates who have complaints about the correctional system.

I assure the House that Yetta Dhinnakkal runs a very good program. I have visited the centre on a number of occasions. I attended the opening with the Premier and the then responsible Minister, the Hon. R. J. Debus, a couple of years ago. Our caucus committee on Aboriginal affairs visited Yetta Dhinnakkal at Brewarrina in October last year. Good work is being carried out at the centre. I agree that there is a major problem with indigenous deaths in custody and with the number of indigenous people being incarcerated, and the Government will do everything it can to reduce those numbers. I know that the Opposition will support us in trying to achieve that goal because this Opposition does not use Aboriginal affairs as a political football.

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

Motion by Mr Markham agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to postpone consideration of committee reports at this sitting.

[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 1.03 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Mr CARR (Maroubra—Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [2.15 p.m.]: In the wake of the 11 September terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the State and Federal governments stepped up security. I want to share some details of this with the House. During the Olympics and Paralympics, New South Wales police gained an international reputation for its security and anti-terrorism measures. That expertise and experience are being called on now. Local area commanders across New South Wales have been asked to identify and ensure regular patrolling of all American, British, Israeli, Jewish and Islamic institutions and offices within the State. Checks are being carried out on all chartered aircraft operators, flying schools and air-training facilities to identify any suspicious or unusual activity.

The Police Service is receiving valuable, confidential intelligence reports from Federal law enforcement agencies. They are liaising with diplomatic representatives. Police commanders have been instructed to brief all relevant personnel about their roles and responsibilities under the national anti-terrorist plan, which is a longstanding arrangement between the States and the Commonwealth to deal with any terrorist threat. At this time there is also an opportunity to show our great humanity, to express a quality that separates our home from many others, and that is tolerance. We must exhibit the virtue that terrorists in the extreme form set out to destroy. Sadly, a small section of the community has seen an opportunity to practise hate. Last Thursday I instructed the Community Relations Commission to set up a 24-hour hotline to handle complaints from the Arabic and Islamic communities.

As at midnight last night the hotline had received 250 reports of threats to places of worship and physical violence. Most reports related to verbal abuse and harassment of women of Islamic faith. There have been reports of women being abused, and a few cases of their being physically attacked. These are deeply serious criminal offences. There are also reports that members of the Sikh community who wear traditional turbans have been harassed and spat on. I say unequivocally that this type of behaviour has no place in Australia. It is unAustralian. During the Olympics, exactly one year ago, we were able to boast to the world, with good grounds, that we were a place of special harmony. One of the boasts Australians could make was that we were the most socially harmonious society in the world. Certainly, I cannot think of one that is more socially harmonious or, at the same time, more diverse than Australia.

I point out that that sort of behaviour is illegal. I recall the passage through this House of the racial vilification legislation, supported by every member in this House at the time. Police have been instructed to ensure that all incidents that are motivated by prejudice, or racial or religious grounds, are recorded and marked as incidents on the computer operated police system [COPS]. At the request of police I urge anyone with information regarding such acts of violence to come forward and assist police. This morning I was informed that the Muslim Women's Association of Lakemba reported that more than 50 women had contacted the association to say that they are too afraid to leave their homes to shop for groceries. This is terrible. I urge all Australians to sign up again for the proposition that ours can be the most tolerant and the most socially harmonious society in the world. This should be seen as a source of pride by all Australians. It is worthwhile reflecting on what President Bush said on a visit to a Washington mosque:

Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of America; they represent the worst of humankind and they should be ashamed of that kind of behaviour.

It reminds us that many of the Americans who died in the attack on New York were of the Islamic faith. These terrorist outrages touch us all. They took place and produced victims regardless of faith and regardless of ethnic origin. Terrorism has no respect for those factors. On Monday I visited a mosque at Bonnyrigg and I expressed the Government's support for the Australian Islamic community at this time. Today, I am sure with the support of the Opposition, I extend that on behalf of all members of the Parliament to members of the Islamic faith proud to call themselves Australian. Let all of us in this House take this opportunity to go back to our communities and say, "Tolerance and respect". Let us protect Australians of Arabic background and of the Islamic faith. Let us tell everyone, the people in our schools like the schoolchildren here with us today, that it is unAustralian to pick on people because they have a different background and a different religion to you.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove—Leader of the Opposition) [2.21 p.m.]: Last Wednesday morning when we started to absorb the full impact of what happened in New York last week, many of us were thinking many things: sympathy for the people who were caught up in the tremendous tragedy, sympathy for American colleagues who had lost families and children, and sympathy for all those who were watching the horrendous scenes and who were caught up in the absolute terror of the people involved in such a terrible tragedy.

Once they got beyond that immediate reaction, people started to think about the further implications. I include myself in that group. That is why I rang the Premier on Wednesday and said to him that we needed to talk publicly about the need for tolerance in our community; that we, as the political leadership of New South Wales, need to stand and state very strongly that, despite our expressions of horror and anger, revenge cannot form any part of what we do in Australia; revenge cannot form any part of what we do in New South Wales. I support the Premier's comments today. I reiterate what was said in this House only the other day, and will be said constantly throughout our community—we are a tolerant community.

We as a community have opened our arms to the world. In doing so we have said to the world, "Come to Australia. Bring your talents, your skills. Bring your culture and your religion. We accept them here and we work together here to build a better country." We have done that for so many years. One of the fabulous things about the Olympics was that, no matter where people came from to compete in this wonderful city of ours, there were people in that crowd in those huge stadiums—at the basketball, at the athletics, at the swimming—who had come from other homelands to live here and who were cheering them on. Yes, they were cheering for the Australians, but they were cheering for athletes who came from other countries, which had been their original homelands.

It is because of that great tolerance and acceptance that Australia is the nation it is today. It is because we have been prepared to say to the people of the world, "Come, live with us in peace and harmony; let us show the rest of the world how it can be done," that Australia is the nation it has become today. We all become distressed when we hear of any attack on a member of our community on the basis of racial or religious grounds. That is not the way we operate here, nor should it be. I join with the Premier in saying that those of you in the community who believe that spitting on children, tearing off headscarves, and stoning buses is an acceptable way of life in Australia—you are wrong. The vast and overwhelming majority of Australian people will reject that sort of attack on any other member of our community. We will not and do not believe that that is the Australian way of life.

Let me say also that I appreciate the Premier advising us of the improvements relating to security. One of the other phone calls, amongst a number I made on that day, was to friends at the Auburn-Gallipoli Mosque. I said, "This is not a phone call I particularly want to make, but I believe you should be conscious of the security of the mosque." I was very distressed to hear that prayers were abandoned on Friday because of a bomb threat at that mosque. I felt absolute shame. No-one in our community should believe that that is an acceptable way for us to live in this State and in this country. I say to our friends in the community, regardless of whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Muslim: "You are welcome in this country. You have been, and will continue to be, welcome in this country. You are welcome to pray in the manner you choose. You are welcome to practise your religion in the way you choose, because you have come here to be part of Australia and Australia today is a multicultural, multireligious community." That is what makes us great.

I say to every member of this House that we, as the political leadership of New South Wales, have a responsibility to go out into our own communities and make sure that we practise tolerance and preach a message of tolerance. Our role is not to stand in Parliament and make speeches. We should go out into our communities and at every opportunity teach people and children—as the Premier said, like the children who are in the gallery today—that our way of life is what we have come to accept, to honour and to enjoy. It is a way of life that is the envy of the world. We cannot and must not let it be threatened. We cannot and must not tolerate those who would seek to undermine it. We are very proudly all Australians.

Mr WOODS (Clarence—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [2.26 p.m.]: Pasminco Ltd was placed into voluntary administration late yesterday. Pasminco Ltd is the world's largest integrated zinc and lead producer. The company's debts are currently estimated at $3.2 billion. Pasminco employs some 867 people and 328 contractors at its two mining operations at Broken Hill and Elura, near Cobar, and at its Cockle Creek smelter in the Hunter. I am advised the administrator is in Broken Hill today to discuss the situation with Pasminco. Pasminco Managing Director, Greg Gailey, advised the State Government this morning that it is the company's intention to continue to trade for the foreseeable future.

Mr Gailey is confident that the company's assets would be sold and that continued employment for its work force would be secured. He also indicated that employee entitlements appear secure as they rank behind the costs of the administrator and a small number of secured creditors. They come before the banks, which are unsecured creditors. It appears there is sufficient value in the company's assets to ensure that workers' entitlements are met. A meeting that was scheduled before yesterday's announcement had been arranged for next Monday between officers from the Premier's Department and Pasminco. We are now looking to widen that meeting to include other key agencies. The managing director will attempt to have the administrator present at the meeting.

In relation to the Cockle Creek operation, the State Government has shown its commitment to the Hunter region by the establishment of the $10 million Hunter Advantage Fund. That fund has assisted more than 38 projects with an investment value of some $170 million for the Hunter region. In regard to the two mines in the electorate of Murray-Darling, in 1999 the New South Wales Government formulated a transition strategy for the economic future of Broken Hill in the wake of the closing down of Pasminco's operations by 2006. The State Government provided $500,000 under the Regional Economic Transition Scheme towards the establishment of a community fund known as "Transition 2010".

The fund is aimed at supporting sustainable job and investment creation projects. Transition 2010 has established an advisory committee with the task of assessing and approving project applications for funding under its business development scheme. To date, seven projects have been approved with the potential for investment in excess of $20 million.

Assistance was provided to Redgum Products, a kangaroo meat processing plant located on the outskirts of the city. The New South Wales Government also acted to merge Australian Inland Energy and the Broken Hill Water Board. We have also provided assistance to the Broken Hill Convention Bureau. In addition, the State Government has provided $5 million to the Broken Hill Exploration Initiative program over the past six years, and more than $2 million for the Cobar region in the same period. More funding is being pumped into the region through the New South Wales Government's $30 million Exploration New South Wales program announced last year. Consolidated Broken Hill, which I will be meeting with next week, has already announced its plans to mine silver, lead and zinc in the region. The Minister for Mineral Resources approved earlier this year the transfer of a lease from Normandy to Consolidated Broken Hill to enable the company to undertake trial mining.

I am also advised that a bid has been submitted to take up the Pasminco Broken Hill operations. I know that the honourable member for Murray-Darling is very concerned about these developments for his community. He has been actively involved in endeavouring to secure the future of the Western Division of New South Wales. The honourable member for Murray-Darling and the Government will continue to work with Pasminco and the communities involved to protect jobs and to encourage new investment in these very important regions.

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes—Deputy Leader of the National Party) [2.31 p.m.]: We are sorry to hear that Pasminco has gone into voluntary liquidation. We have sympathy for workers, contractors and people affected throughout New South Wales, particularly in the areas mentioned by the Minister—Newcastle and out into the west. We hope that they are able to obtain employment and will be looked after. Pasminco has been transparent on this matter: it has briefed the Government and the Opposition. The Opposition has been assured that workers' entitlements have been preserved and will be available. But the issue goes further than that: unfortunately, it involves the demise of yet another company in New South Wales. We should all be concerned about that. New South Wales cannot continue with the level of company collapses it has experienced recently.

Although the Minister tried to paint a picture showing some help from this Government in relation to Pasminco and some of the areas that have been affected, I am sorry to say that it is not enough—and it is certainly ill directed. The Minister referred to the Hunter Investment Fund paying $10 million over a number of years. Money from the fund was directed to the relocation to Newcastle of a call centre for the Commonwealth Bank. I would have thought that more deserving causes could have been assisted by the fund. I was surprised to hear the Minister virtually crowing a few moments ago about $5 million over six years to assist exploration in the Broken Hill area.

In view of the fact that metal deposits in Broken Hill have expired, I do not think that is a great achievement. Communities such as Broken Hill have been crying out for direction and leadership in relation to finding additional assets to mine. The Minister said that a company intends to mine for zinc and silver. But how long will it take for that company to get through the approval process of the Government and all the other requirements imposed upon it? We are very disappointed and upset about what has happened with Pasminco. The Government must show far more leadership in the present situation with companies going to the wall almost routinely. As I said, we have sympathy for the workers and hope that they are looked after. If Pasminco is liquidated I hope that the process will be orderly.

Petition praying that the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust Act be amended to provide for effective public consultation and full public disclosure of all commercial activities and leases, received from Ms Moore.
Petition praying that the head lease proposal for North Head Quarantine Station be opposed, received from Mr Barr.

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

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.

Petition calling on the Government to focus policing strategies and resources on beat policing, received from Mr Debnam.

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

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

Petition praying that the House prevents the closure of Woolloomooloo, Paddington, Redfern and four other inner eastern suburbs police stations and praying for adequate police resources, including uniformed foot patrols, in the inner east area, received from Ms Moore.

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

Petition praying that there be an immediate increase in police resources in the inner east, that there be an increase in the uniformed police foot patrols to deter crime and that an effective police recruitment drive be developed to properly resource community policing, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that the amalgamation of local police commands in the inner east be opposed, that Redfern, Kings Cross, Surry Hills and Paddington police stations be upgraded, and that an effective police recruitment drive be developed to properly resource community policing, including uniformed foot patrols, received from Ms Moore.

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

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

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

Petition praying that services at Mona Vale Hospital be retained, received from Mr Brogden.

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

Petition asking the House to support the retention and refurbishment of Chatswood High School, received from Mr Collins.

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

Petition praying that the Government reimburse the $5 million in funding that has been withdrawn from non-government schools and reverse its decision to withdraw a further $13.5 million in funding in 2001, received from Mr Richardson.

Petition requesting the Government to re-exhibit the revised environmental impact statement containing changes to the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link, received from Mr Humpherson.

Petition praying that the Government review the design of the ventilation system for the M5 East tunnel and immediately install filtration equipment to treat particulate matter and other pollutants, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that Moore Park be used for passive recreation after construction of the Eastern Distributor and that car parking not be permitted in Moore Park, received from Ms Moore.

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

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

Petition stating that the proposal to exit the cross-city tunnel via Kings Cross tunnel into Rushcutters Bay will lead to increased traffic congestion in Woollahra, Paddington and Edgecliff, and praying that the Roads and Traffic Authority work with Woollahra Council to identify and implement traffic management strategies, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that the House reinstate Queenscliff as a suburb with the Geographical Names Board, received from Mr Barr.

Petition praying that funds be made available to assist in the remediation of Manly Lagoon, received from Mr Barr.

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

Petition praying that the House reinstate the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust as soon as possible, received from Mr Rozzoli.

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

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.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: My question without notice is to the Premier. Will he order State Government agencies to honour existing support programs for country residents who fly to Sydney for medical treatment, including a Bega family, which has been told by the Department of Health that following the Ansett collapse they will not be reimbursed for now worthless tickets they bought to bring their child with a disability to Sydney for an appointment with a consulting specialist?

Mr CARR: As the Minister for Health has assured patrons across country New South Wales, no patient will be financially disadvantaged by losing the contribution paid for travel. All approved applications for air travel will be reimbursed. I was pleased to be able to announce half an hour ago that because of an arrangement entered into by the Government and Hazelton, Hazelton is resuming air services, with assistance from the New South Wales Government.

Mr Souris: You've changed your tune.

Mr CARR: No. I am sorry that the good news so distresses the Opposition! By the way, I do not agree with Jackie Kelly, who regards the Ansett collapse as a mere blip.

Miss BURTON: My question without notice is to the Premier. How is the Government working with other States to better protect workers entitlements?

Mr CARR: Jackie Kelly said that the collapse of Ansett is a mere blip.

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

Mr CARR: Add to that all of the other collapses under the helm of the Federal Government—HIH, One.Tel, one after the other, and thousands of people out of work—and there are still ad hoc responses to the big question of workers entitlements. Ansett goes down and there was no scheme to protect the entitlements of the workers, so the Federal Government had to make up something on the run. It put a tax on airline tickets, a further blow to the tourism industry of Australia.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There are too many Opposition members wandering around the Chamber. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr CARR: Tomorrow the New South Wales Minister for Industrial Relations, along with Ministers from the other Labor States, will put forward a plan at a meeting of the Industrial Relations Ministers Council in Queensland. The whole nation, with the exception of the only remaining Liberal Government—South Australia—is in agreement. Their view is that the Commonwealth's idea of ad hoc responses has to be thrown out. The Labor governments are intent on establishing a plan that, first, will ensure that 100 per cent of all entitlements are paid to workers where a company goes under. That means unpaid wages, accrued annual leave, long service leave, termination and redundancy payments and superannuation. That is the first point in the combined approach of the Labor governments.

The second point is that our plan should cover the workers in all States and Territories. It is a truly national plan, as any such plan for securing workers entitlements must be. The third point is vital as far as I am concerned: the plan must be funded by employers, not by taxpayers. The Liberal-National party proposition, which is that every time a company goes down the taxpayer has to pay the workers entitlements, is not sustainable. That approach was forced on taxpayers by another ad hoc response to the collapse of a company chaired by John Howard's brother. That is its genesis. The Government's approach will be supported by reforms to the Corporations Law.

The Commonwealth's approach is a pathetic substitute for a genuine national scheme that raises its funds from an equitable and small levy across all employers. I hope that all members of the House will support that approach, and I challenge the Opposition to draw the line with the failed, bankrupt approach taken on workers entitlements by the national Government and support the stand taken by all other State administrations in Australia with the exception of the South Australian administration.

Mr SOURIS: My question is directed to the Premier. Will he advise the House whether he intends to deregulate the meat and poultry industry in the near future?

Mr CARR: The Minister for Agriculture is itching to get a question from the Leader of the National Party on that subject.

Mr BROWN: My question is to the Minister for Transport. What is the latest information on timetabling for CityRail?

Mr SCULLY: The State Rail Authority proposes to introduce a new timetable for the CityRail network. This month marks the anniversary of the 2000 Olympics. Rail services during the Games were one of the features of the best Olympics ever. The network carried more than 30 million passengers: a great effort by thousands of rail workers and volunteers. CityRail's Olympics timetable achieved a high level of punctuality and reliability. That was done by simplifying the operation of the timetable.

At busy stations extra time was allocated to the timetable to take into account the time needed to load and unload the tens of thousands of extra passengers. Train operations were simplified to minimise the number of times trains moved from one track to another. In addition, a more simple, repetitive stopping pattern was introduced to ease the manner in which trains were operating. Much of the Olympic legacy remains. There has been improved station access, cleaner trains and enhanced security. Millions of dollars have been expended on achieving those things. On-time running has improved but we still have a way to go.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Davidson would like to know this morning's on-time running. I acknowledge that some improvement is still needed, but I am happy to tell the Opposition that this morning's on-time running was 100 per cent. However, we will not rest on our laurels; we will make sure we continue to improve. I believe that we can best apply the legacy of the Olympics to the general operation of trains, particularly in the Sydney metropolitan area. At my instruction CityRail commenced work on a new timetable some time ago. But the lessons learned from the Olympics are not the only relevant issues. There has been a series of major infrastructure upgrades. Significant work has just been completed on a substantial section of the East Hills line with four new tracks. There is a new track on the Richmond line and the line from Dapto to Kiama has been electrified. These significant changes must be accommodated within the timetable. To take advantage of that new infrastructure the timetable will need to be altered.

The difficulty is that the timetable is based on 1992 patronage and train numbers. In 1992 there were 250 million passenger journeys per year and there are now 285 million passenger journeys per year. Despite that huge increase there has been no major change to the timetable for nearly a decade. There has been substantial new infrastructure so we need to alter the CityRail timetable. During the Games we learned that properly taking into account the time taken for people to get on and off trains will better reflect reliable train running. Because of all the additional people now using our trains CityRail believes, and I agree, that the loading and unloading time at some of our busy stations should be taken into account. The timetable does not reflect the tens of thousands of extra patrons using the trains.

We will apply the Games legacy fewer crossover movements and simpler stopping patterns. We will also reflect the changing needs of passengers. Many people are working later so there will be extra capacity between 6.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. on week nights. Weekend capacity will also be increased. I wish to make it clear that every single station in the CityRail network will continue to be served by trains. I should like to deal with the mischievous assertion made by the honourable member for Southern Highlands on her local radio station this morning. I assure the House that CityRail will continue to run trains direct from the Southern Highlands to Central. In fact, the number of carriages will be increased.

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

Mr SCULLY: As honourable members know, particularly Government members, running CityRail is a complex matter. It involves hundreds of kilometres of track and thousands of daily services carrying almost one million people to work or to school and home again. We will be doing all we can to provide a safe and reliable service. A new timetable is only part of that process, which involves a number of other factors. That is why we are building extra tracks, buying new trains, enhancing the maintenance of both tracks and trains, and undertaking enhanced training and safety initiatives. That is why we have employed scores of extra cleaners.

The new timetable will be a major change for commuters and private and public bus companies, which will need to interact with CityRail services. I expect the timetable to be introduced during the first half of next year. All honourable members who have an interest in CityRail services, and that is probably the majority of this House, should be aware of that. I have emphasised to CityRail it is important as this timetable is developed over the next few months that there be full consultation and communication with all the stakeholders affected by this important proposal.

[Questions without notice interrupted.]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind members that when an urgent motion is presented to the Parliament it should be typed and signed and two copies should be provided. In other words, three copies should be handed to the Clerks. A motion in the same form as the one I am holding up is not acceptable. If any member from either side hands up a motion in that form in the future I will rule it out of order.

[Questions without notice resumed.]

Mr HARTCHER: My question is directed to the Premier. What action will he take to ensure that the court hearing the appeal of the Director of Public Prosecutions against the lenient sentences given to the three gang-rapists recently will have before it the victims' complete statements rather than the abbreviated versions given to the sentencing judge, which the victims and their parents say are incomplete and misleading?

Mr CARR: Speaking as a non-lawyer, I will do anything I can to ensure that those complete statements are put in the hands of the court. If I have to go to the court myself and seek leave to hand them up to the bench, I will do so.

Mr LYNCH: My question is directed to the Premier. What is the latest information on the Office of Drug Policy's inquiry into the use of cannabis for medical purposes?

Mr CARR: Today I released a consultation report on the issue of medical cannabis. Medical cannabis has been on the Government's agenda since October 1999. It is a sensitive subject, which is why, in keeping with the Government's policy on drugs, our approach is to move forward slowly and cautiously, weighing up the risks involved, making decisions based on the evidence and consulting widely at all times.

In 1999 the then President of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Medical Association [AMA], Dr Kerryn Phelps, and the New South Wales Law Society said that cannabis offered relief to sick people and that obstacles to its use in those circumstances should be removed. Cannabis is already available for medical purposes in a number of countries. The United Kingdom Government is funding clinical trials to investigate its therapeutic value, and nine American States, including Oregon, California, Arizona and Colorado, allow cannabis to be used for medicinal purposes. Canada has a national scheme. However, we will not be following Canada's lead in providing a regulated cannabis supply.

I hope that we, the elected representatives of the people, some of whom are sick and seeking relief from pain, would consider on compassionate grounds any measure that may alleviate their pain. On 19 October 1999 I announced an expert working party to conduct a full investigation into medical cannabis use. I remind honourable members of an important distinction: the working party's task was to examine medical cannabis use, not recreational use. I am opposed to the decriminalisation of cannabis, and it was one of the few recommendations of the Drug Summit that the Government did not support. The Government did, however, adopt the summit's recommendation for a cautioning scheme for minor cannabis offenders. That scheme is under evaluation, and indications are that it may be appropriate to review cannabis quantities for young people. The Attorney General has advised that he will give me a report shortly.

Central to our evidence-based approach to drug policy is a commitment to make changes where the evidence warrants it. Members of the working party that examined medical cannabis included representatives of the Royal College of General Practitioners and the AMA. It was chaired by the former head of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Professor Wayne Hall. The report, released on 1 November 2000, recommended a two-year trial in which registered patients with specified medical conditions would be exempt from criminal prosecution for the possession or use of small amounts of cannabis for medicinal purposes only. The working party's findings were released for public comment and today I released a report on the consultation.

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

Mr CARR: Of the 117 submissions received, 72 per cent were in support of medical cannabis and 11 per cent were against. Of the 38 submissions from legal, medical, religious and community organisations, 17 supported medical cannabis use and six opposed it. Seventy-nine submissions came from private individuals, with 68 in support and eight opposing it—some did not offer a view either way. Seventeen submissions were received from people who were close to someone who had used cannabis medicinally—mainly parents and spouses. Among those who offered an opinion were two nurses, a medical doctor, a psychologist, a teacher, a student, a local council worker, a former plumber and a business manager. Ages ranged from 20 to 68 years.

Fifty submissions came from individuals who supported medical cannabis use because of personal experience. The arguments raised in support of this were that conventional treatment did not work, did little to relieve symptoms and caused adverse side effects. They argued that cannabis was more effective. Submissions that opposed medical cannabis were primarily concerned with the general health risks associated with cannabis, including smoking, the lack of scientific evidence of its therapeutic benefit, the potential for the scheme to be abused and the risk of encouraging widespread use. The stories of people who write from personal experience provide the best insight into this issue. One man suffering bowel cancer said that the only way to encourage his appetite for food was to use cannabis. He wrote:

I hope that you can come to a decision soon whether people can grow a plant or get it by prescription. At least we could get rid of the bad feeling of being a criminal just because we want to live.

Another individual with multiple sclerosis wrote:

Having tried cannabis with great reluctance and guilt I discovered … cannabis has a very favourable effect on the illness, without the side effects of the more traditional methods. It quickly relieves spasms and brings on pain relief.

A woman wrote about her husband, who was receiving radiation treatment for prostate cancer. He was losing weight and the will to live. Consuming marijuana by eating it in biscuits helped his appetite to return—perhaps it helped to prolong his life. She wrote:

We (both octogenarians) were completely naive about marijuana and disliked breaking the law to obtain supplies … but we had no choice.

Cabinet has yet to consider the working party's recommendations and the report of the public consultation. We will do so soon, keeping in mind the risks associated with cannabis and the range of community views on the subject but also the need for compassion. I acknowledge the concerns of those who have reservations about medical cannabis. To some extent I share them. I give them an assurance that caution will be our watchword in this area.

Mr SLACK-SMITH: My question is directed to the Deputy Premier. Now that he has been found to have defamed former New England health board member and Aboriginal community leader Tony Dennison, will he reveal to the House how much taxpayers' money has been spent so far on his behalf and who will pay any damages and costs awarded?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The case is still proceeding.

Mr THOMPSON: My question is directed to the Attorney General. What is the latest information on charge bargaining?

Mr DEBUS: There is no doubt that charge bargaining, which is also referred to by many as plea bargaining, is practised in every common law jurisdiction in the world. If a plea of guilty is entered as a result of a so-called charge bargain, in almost every case victims of the crime will not need to testify. Avoiding the trauma of court proceedings can hasten a victim's rehabilitation. That has a practical benefit, especially for victims of sex offences or when the victims are children. That is why many victims of crime thoroughly support charge bargaining. However, the process of charge bargaining has to be fair and just and must consider the rights of the victim. As the House will be aware, I asked for a report from the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] about the charge bargaining process used in the recent sexual assault case at Villawood.

I advise the House that I have received that report. It indicates that the Director of Public Prosecutions' own prosecution guidelines and policies were not followed adequately in that matter. The DPP has written directly to the victims in this case and the head of my department is in correspondence with the solicitor for the victims. However, I have received clear advice that discussing this matter further or releasing the report now may prejudice the Crown's appeal. I must obviously accept that advice: there is no public interest in a report that may prejudice that appeal. In the meantime, the solicitor for the victims will be briefed and provided with a full report once the Crown's appeal is completed.

I view this case with the greatest concern. That is why I can today advise the House that this week I commissioned the Hon. Gordon Samuels, QC, to conduct a three-month review of charge bargaining in this State and its application by the DPP. Mr Samuels has been provided with a copy of the DPP's report. I have asked Mr Samuels—who, honourable members will know, is a former Governor of this State, a former judge of the Court of Appeal, a former chairman of the Law Reform Commission and a person of the highest intellectual capacity and personal compassion—to commence his review at once. In analysing the way in which charge bargaining applies, the review will focus particularly upon the necessity of ensuring adequate consultation with victims. Mr Samuels will also report upon the adequacy of safeguards to ensure that charges and agreed facts reflect the criminality of relevant offences and that they permit a sentencing judge to be satisfied that the policy and the guidelines have been complied with.

The report will, of course, include recommendations for any necessary amendments to current practices. If the former Governor concludes that legislation is needed, of course the Government will introduce it. The Government will restructure also the board of management of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] in order to provide additional rigour to the management, administration and financial accountability of that office. This board will help the office do its job. Today I can announce that two independent appointees will join the DPP board of management; people with significant expertise in public sector administration and financial accountability. While there must not be public comment that could undermine the appeal about which I have spoken, in his report to me the Director of Public Prosecutions said:

There is no evidence of any general or widespread failure by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to comply with guidelines. This—

that is to say, the Villawood case—

is but one of over 8000 cases prosecuted by [the DPP] in a year.

The measures announced today are designed to improve the legal process and charge bargaining while the appeal in the Villawood matter continues. While the Samuels inquiry is ongoing, and pending any recommendations Mr Samuels may make, two independent management advisers are to be appointed to the board of management of the DPP. That board will have a role in assisting the DPP with budgetary and structural issues. Its advice will be relied upon by both the DPP and the Government to develop future directions for best practice in managing the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is a course of action that retains integrity and independence for the DPP and provides for the best outcome in the accountability of the DPP.

Mr WINDSOR: My question without notice is to the Minister for Agriculture. Does the Government have any plans to deregulate the chicken meat industry?

Mr AMERY: I thank the honourable member for Tamworth for his surprise question and for his continued representation on behalf of chicken growers within his constituency. I can answer that question pretty quickly and will inform the House shortly of the answer. In relation to representations I am receiving on behalf of chicken growers, I should dwell on the fact that different issues concern different chicken growers in different parts of the State. In Tamworth and other parts of the State, particularly inland, we are seeing the establishment of large-scale chicken producers using tunnel ventilation and so on. These establishments are able to produce chickens for the processors at a much lower price than some of the older established chicken growers who use sheds that were built as early as 1955. This patchwork of producers is putting a lot of pressure on the Government to introduce appropriate regulations that will address all chicken producers.

A lot of producers are centred in western Sydney or Mangrove Mountain on the Central Coast. The honourable member for Peats has been a strong fighter for that group for quite some time, as has the honourable member for Maitland and members from other parts of the Hunter. They have been concerned about the impact of regulations on the industry. The honourable member for Tamworth asks: Is the Government about to deregulate the chicken meat industry? There has been no decision by Cabinet to deregulate the chicken meat industry in New South Wales.

Mr Souris: Why are they coming to see us?

Mr AMERY: If the Leader of the National Party wants an answer to a question, he should ask me one. Obviously the honourable member for Tamworth wants an answer, so please be courteous and allow me to answer. The chicken meat industry, like all other regulated industries in New South Wales, was required to go through a competition policy review to look at a number of things, including the public benefits test for the regulations. A report was tabled some time ago. A proposition was put to the Cabinet Office to consider what we would do for the future of the industry. Of course, I cannot disclose what is going before Cabinet.

Mr Souris: Why not?

Mr AMERY: Why not? I thought you were a Cabinet Minister once—you should know. During the process of arriving at a decision, the Government was lobbied by both sides of the chicken meat industry—that is, the processing sector and the chicken growers from different parts of the State. As a result of those representations, a meeting was convened involving the New South Wales Farmers Association, Chicken Growers Association, and various other people and members of Government. The meeting resolved not to press ahead with a decision from Cabinet but to satisfy a public benefits test required of us by Canberra. We set up an inquiry under the Hassall's consultancy firm to address the public benefits test of those regulations. Any day now I shall receive a copy of that report. I understand that my department has already received an initial copy and that the matter will be discussed when we go through to the Cabinet decision. That is where we are up to with that part of the process.

What is the Cabinet decision going to be? First, let me weigh up a couple of challenges to the industry. The honourable member for Tamworth knows how I and the Government stand on looking after regulations that make sure they look after farmers. I believe we have a pretty good record in that regard. It would be easy for the Government to make a decision tomorrow or next week to keep existing regulations. One thing that now confronts me is that, as members from the Hunter have brought to my attention, some processors have written to chicken growers saying, "Under current arrangements your contract will not be renewed in three years time." Honourable members should realise that not just regulations govern the conditions of a relationship between the grower and processor; there is also a contract over which the Government has little control.

One major concern at the moment is that letters are going out to chicken growers stating that their contracts will not be renewed in 2004. Will my regulations stop that process? No, they will not. We now have all the typical arguments from the processing sector about capital investment in the industry going to other States and all the other usual arguments. We will now see whether existing regulations will solve the present problems of those poultry producers of trying to keep a reasonable price for their product. I do not believe that problems of cancelled contracts can be resolved. I do not know whether the regulations can be slightly tweaked one way or another to try to accommodate the two types of structures in the poultry area—that is, what the industry what might call the older, less-efficient operations and the newer plants, which are producing chicken meat at a much lower cost using tunnel ventilation and so on.

They are the challenges. Apart from the really silly cheap shots of the Leader of the National Party, I am sure honourable members would realise that it is very challenging and something that the industry regrets. We will certainly do everything we can to make sure that we address all the industry problems. For honourable members who do not have poultry meat in their area, the regulations are very simple; they are not overly challenging. A poultry meat industry committee—comprising chicken growers, poultry producers and an independent chairperson—sits down to nut out a price to be paid to poultry producers. That is regarded as anti-competitive. Another challenge has hit the Government in the past couple of days. The poultry processing sector has approached the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] and asked for permission under the Trade Practices Act to collectively deal with poultry producers. If this is not challenged in one way or another it could circumvent our poultry meat regulations.

Added to this process is a challenge by poultry meat growers through the ACCC to circumvent existing regulations. A decision to maintain regulations or change regulations will have to address how to exempt our regulations from trade practices. At the moment the poultry meat legislation is not exempt from trade practices legislation. As honourable members can understand, we have to deal with a multitude of ingredients. I am very sympathetic, as I always have been, to chicken growers. Any changes made by this Government will ensure that we address their concerns—that is, like dairy farmers, they get a decent and fair price for their product, and the ability to make substantial investment and reinvestment.

Mr Hazzard: Point of order: The Minister has misled the House insofar as a few minutes ago he indicated that he would explain the position of the Cabinet on this matter, but he has failed to do so. Talk about a headless chicken!

Mr GAUDRY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police. What action has the New South Wales Police Service taken following the recent theft of 300 digital two-way radios?

Mr WHELAN: New South Wales and other law enforcement agencies around the nation are on alert in preparation for the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting [CHOGM]. Leaders of most of the 54 Commonwealth nations will meet in Brisbane from 4 October, which includes an official opening by Her Majesty, the Queen. The recent theft of 300 digital two-way radios at Newcastle raised fears by police that they could be used to breach high-level security at the conference. Communication is the key to any security operation. The theft of these radios could, clearly, pose a potential threat to CHOGM. I am advised that as soon as the threat was reported, the New South Wales Police Service communications group began liaising with the Queensland police CHOGM planning unit. I am advised that a number of measures were immediately put in place to ensure that the stolen radios were effectively inoperable.

These measures included ensuring that attempts to buy batteries and chargers for the radios to reprogram this brand of radio were restricted. In addition, I am advised that the radios are fitted with a unique identification system, which allows them to be automatically disabled if any attempt is made to hack into the local government radio network. It is not appropriate for me to comment on the security arrangements for CHOGM. Responsibility for co-ordinating security arrangements for the meeting, which will be held in Brisbane, lies with the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland State police. I can assure honourable members that the New South Wales Police Service is ready to co-operate in any manner necessary, and the New South Wales police will do all in its power to ensure the successful completion of CHOGM.

Mr RICHARDSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Small Business. As 92 per cent of New South Wales small businesses do not believe that her policies are helping them, will she spend more time helping small business and less time on overseas junkets which, in the past 18 months, have cost more than $106,000, including a visit to Covent Garden in London to study its program for buskers?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question is too lengthy. I rule it out of order.

Mr PRICE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Health. Will the Minister outline special arrangements for health services as a result of the collapse of Ansett?

Mr KNOWLES: Some interesting questions were asked at the beginning of question time. The Leader of the Opposition might like to stay around to hear my response. Once again, she has been set up by the troops. Unlike Jackie Kelly, the New South Wales health system regards the impact of the Ansett collapse as more than just a blip. I place on record my great appreciation on behalf of the community health workers who made enormous efforts in recent days to reconnect their services and transport provisions, patients and specimens around the State. The hardest hit area, Broken Hill, was totally serviced by Ansett. The honourable member for Murray-Darling, a great advocate for Broken Hill, has been successful in putting new arrangements in place. The Royal Flying Doctor Service and the Air Ambulance are working overtime. Much of this is about commonsense. Much of it is about properly and adequately using resources to ensure that people are not disadvantaged.

One of the schemes is the Isolated Patient Transport Assistance and Accommodation Scheme [IPTAAS]. Opposition members are bolting because they know that they made a blue in question one of question time. As the Premier quite correctly said, under IPTAAS no patient will be financially disadvantaged by losing a contribution to their travel. All approved applications for air travel will be reimbursed. But places such as Broken Hill or areas served only by Ansett subsidiaries—Belmont, Orange, Bathurst, Lismore, Merimbula, Parkes, Narrandera, Lismore and Casino—have major problems to deal with. People are hiring cars and in some cases Qantas is stepping in. There are new flight schedules. The Royal Flying Doctor Service and the Air Ambulance are flying some of these services and patients, particularly pathology-type services. Good things are happening after the devastation of Ansett and its impact on regional New South Wales. Systems have been put in place quickly to maintain services.

It was a little churlish for the Leader of the Opposition to allege in question one that an individual had been charged because of the collapse of the airline, and that we had refused to pay the IPTAAS payment. That is not like the Department of Health. It is not the sort of thing it would do. We checked. I will not identify the patient. I will call him Master J. H. of Bega. He has attention deficit disorder and he was referred for treatment to a specialist in Sydney. It is important to note that the family arranged its own travel without prior approval under IPTAAS. The family saw the doctor, who said that Master J. H. had to go to Sydney. The family then bought some tickets on Ansett. As a result of Ansett's demise the tickets were forfeited. They lost their dough.

Mrs Skinner: Point of order: I seek leave to table a letter from the Ageing and Disability Service about IPTAAS's decision to refuse to refund the price of an Ansett ticket previously approved by IPTAAS.

Leave not granted.

Mr KNOWLES: The advice is that the family arranged their own travel, without prior approval. Ansett's demise resulted in the cancellation of their tickets. The family have since made an application to IPTAAS and—guess what?—it has been approved and the cost of their tickets will be refunded to them. The situation is exactly the same for anyone else who meets the IPTAAS criteria. Once again the Leader of the Opposition has been set up—set up big time—by the woman who voted no confidence in her. Who was it? Brogden, Skinner and Seaton. They said, "Read this question, Leader. This will make you look good." They have made her look like a mug!

Mr RICHARDSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Small Business. Will the Minister spend more time helping small business and less time on overseas junkets which, in the past 18 months, have cost more than $106,000, including a visit to Covent Garden in London to study its program for buskers?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Questions should not provide information. The question is out of order.

Questions without notice concluded.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [3.32 p.m.]: Local courts in New South Wales deal with approximately 95 per cent of the State's criminal workload. The majority of our citizens who have contact with the court system have contact with the Local Court. The Justices Act 1902 sets out the procedures to be followed for criminal cases and statutory applications in the court.

This legislation is almost a century old and is a consolidation of even older colonial legislation. When it was developed its key focus was on the role of justices of the peace sitting in police courts, a system which bears no resemblance to the present arrangement of independent judicial officers sitting in the Local Court. Since enacted, the Justices Act 1902 has been amended hundreds of times in an attempt to graft contemporary practices and procedures onto the original structure. It has become complex, disjointed, procedure oriented and difficult to interpret. It contains antiquated rules and practices that are difficult to adapt to accommodate technological and social change. It has created impediments to court efficiency.

I am pleased today to table for exposure a package of new legislation to replace the Justices Act 1902. The package sets out clear, streamlined procedures for commencing and hearing cases in the Local Court. Access to justice and respect for the law are partly dependent upon an understanding of it. The language used in the proposed legislation is simple and the requirements are clear, consistent and readily understandable. The review process has involved extensive consultation over a number of years.

A Justices Act review discussion paper, along with a draft bill, was circulated in 1992 by the then Coalition Government. But the project became becalmed and was abandoned. Undaunted, my predecessor, the Hon. Jeff Shaw, revived the project and set about reforming the procedures of the Local court. After prolonged consultation, the exposure draft bill being tabled today is the result. The underlying philosophy of the legislation is to streamline processes, to reduce delay and to reduce the amount of administrative work being undertaken by magistrates, freeing them up for more court hearings. It is envisaged also that some procedural changes will reduce the amount of time police spend waiting around in court, enabling police to return to the front line.

Some members in this House would have you believe that magistrates spend a fraction of the day in court. Such a comment flies in the face of the fact that the court finalises something like 290,000 matters each year. And I would point out that the Local Court has been recognised two years in a row as doing better than the national average in finalising matters in less than six months. This is despite having the largest caseload of any jurisdiction in Australia with over a quarter of a million new cases each year.

The package also contains a bill to reform the method of appointment and regulation of the Office of Justice of the Peace in New South Wales, which has remained relatively unchanged since the late nineteenth century. The bill tabled today is the result of detailed consultation. This Government is committed to improving the efficiency and accessibility of the justice system. The package tabled today makes it simpler and quicker to start and run a case to the Local Court; it will have an impact on many people and organisations in the community. For this reason, the Government intends this package of bills to sit on the table of this House until October so as to provide an opportunity for people to put forward their views on them. I seek the leave of the House to table these bills.

Leave granted.

Bills tabled.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [3.37 p.m.]: The Opposition will support any program that improves the efficiency of the Local Court. The Local Court, as the Attorney General said, handles 95 per cent of all litigation in New South Wales and has a long and credible record of serving the community. That is why the issue of court delays is serious and of concern to the Coalition. I have made it clear that an examination of the Local Courts Review issued over the past two years continues to show unsatisfactory resolution of the delay problem. The average sitting time was less than five hours a day, from 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., and in many courts amounted to only 3½ hours per day. That point, raised by me, taken directly from the Local Court Review, has never been answered.

All I have received have been long letters from the Chief Magistrate—members of this House will be well acquainted with her. She is a former member of the Legislative Council and a former representative of the Nurses Association—and she is now defending the reputation of the Local Court. The Local Court needs no defending. Everyone supports it, but there clearly needs to be a shake-up in the administration of the Local Court to address serious court delays, if the six months delay that the Attorney General so complacently referred to is to be reduced. People should not automatically think there is going to be a six-month delay, when that could well be reduced to a more effective four-month delay. That is why they are being reviewed by the Auditor-General. That is why articles are appearing in the Australian Financial Review and other leading organs of opinion, critical of the structure of the courts and demanding that they be improved.

If the Attorney General is satisfied with the progress of Local Courts administration, why is he introducing reforming legislation? That has only just been tabled and no-one from the Opposition side has yet seen it. Issues are constantly raised about the sitting times of Local Courts in country New South Wales, and the way in which the courts are maintained and operated to serve their communities. For example, at Manilla in the New England area the Local Court was closed on the excuse of the unsatisfactory state of the toilets. All that was required was an upgrading of the toilets. Rather than do that the Government closed the courthouse and sittings of the Local Court at Manilla no longer take place. That shows how seriously the Attorney and the Government take the provision of Local Court services to rural New South Wales. At least the Coalition stands up for rural New South Wales. We have heard nothing from the much-vaunted Country Labor on the issue of Local Court closures across rural New South Wales. We did not hear about Manilla. All we have heard is a specious defence that I should not criticise sitting hours in the Local Courts.

I commend the magistrates for working under their present difficulties. Having visited many Local Courts, I concede the enormous difficulties they work under, because the Attorney does not fight hard enough to get the necessary budget and capital works enhancements that are so urgently required. I commend the Attorney for laying the package on the table for consideration. It will be of significance to thousands of legal practitioners and hundreds of thousands of people in the community. Every member of this House will be interested to see what happens to justices of the peace under the new statute. At present members of this House are responsible for the appointment of justices of the peace. All members will look at this legislation with interest. Reform is needed. Local Courts are an integral part of our system and they should be supported adequately by the Government with real money, not just rhetoric.

Mr KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Health) [3.42 p.m.]: Earlier today my counterpart in Victoria, the Hon. John Thwaites, announced in Parliament the formation of a united public health system in Albury and Wodonga. From 1 January next year the Albury and Wodonga health campuses will work as one, under single management. This historic agreement has been welcomed by the entire regional community as a commonsense approach to improving health care for Albury-Wodonga. Just over 12 months ago John Thwaites and I met and signed a memorandum of understanding to progress talks aimed at achieving today's result. In what can only be regarded as a very short period, given the complexity of issues involved, local health service providers, clinicians and community representatives have worked to achieve a new model of health care that spans the border, breaks down traditional interstate rivalries and delivers better health care by linking up clinical services, cross-appointing medical teams, removing duplication and putting the administration of two great facilities under common management.

I place on record my great appreciation to all of the people involved, particularly my counterpart John Thwaites. At the local level I mention Karyn McPeake and Tom Keating from the two area health services, Dr Scott Giltrap, who is the Chairman of the Border Medical Association, and my long-time colleague and the immediate past Mayor of Albury, Mel Reid. I also thank all those involved in the consultative committees and meetings. Equally, in what was quite properly a bipartisan effort, I thank the local member, Ian Glachan, for his unswerving support for what is a terrific initiative for his community. I also place on record my thanks to the regional newspaper the Border Mail for its strong advocacy of what, after all, is a commonsense result. Each of the people and organisations played a vital leadership role in achieving the objective. Since 1974 and the establishment of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation there have been many attempts at cross-border collaboration. However, few have succeeded and none have existed on a scale such as this. This is unambiguously good news for the region, good news for intergovernment relations and great news for regional health.

Mr GLACHAN (Albury) [3.44 p.m.]: First I say how pleased I am to see that this step has finally been taken in relation to health matters in Albury-Wodonga. I very much endorse and support it. My colleague the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for North Shore, and I have been keen to see this happen for some time. I thank the New South Wales Minister and the Victorian Minister for having made the decision. I ask the Minister for Health a question that needs to be answered: How will funding for the two hospitals to work as one be arranged? To whom will they be accountable? Will it be to the Greater Murray Area Health Service or to the Victorian system? For some time I have advocated the establishment of a separate health system for Albury-Wodonga totally divorced from Greater Murray. We want our own health area to serve the people of the border region. I will continue to work for that in the coming months and years.

I am very proud of the fact that soon after I became member for Albury the New South Wales Government built a new base hospital at Albury. It has been an outstanding success. It was so good that the Queensland health department, having inspected it, built one exactly the same in Queensland. I am very proud of what has happened in health in Albury. It will make a great difference to the delivery of health services to the people of the border. It will concentrate our efforts and bring more efficiency into the delivery of health care, and the people of my area on both sides of the border will benefit. I again sincerely thank the Minister for what he has done.

Mr KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Health) [3.46 p.m.]: Noting the areas that members opposite represent, my referring to the Montana Nursing Home in Mosman, the Roseville nursing home in Willoughby, the Leumeah nursing home at Hornsby, the Rosemont nursing home in Manly, the Lister nursing home at Manly, the F. H. Rayward Lodge nursing home at Warringah, Wyuna Nursing Home at Hornsby, Leighton Lodge nursing home at Hornsby and Bardwell House Nursing Home at Mosman, and the most recent, the Trentham House at Willoughby, should be reason enough for them to grant my motion urgency. Inevitably, as you might expect, these are nursing homes that have closed or are due to close in the northern region of Sydney—hundreds of beds disappearing from the system. Very little is being done by the Commonwealth Government on the policy side of the ledger to arrest the slide.

The Minister for Aged Care has issued 5,666 licences in this State alone, claiming that that solves the problem. The trouble is that old people cannot sleep on a piece of paper; they need a bed. Whilst the licences may have been issued, they are certainly not being taken up by the nursing homes sector. In fact, nursing homes continue to close. The nursing homes I have just mentioned are only those on the northern suburbs of Sydney. The list goes on and on statewide. The nursing home association has already foreshadowed nursing home closures continuing at an ever-increasing rate right around the State. The knock-on effects are dramatic. One needs only to look at any paper in any region of any part of Australia to understand just how devastating the problem is.

Every State and Territory health Minister is arguing for greater attention to this issue by the Commonwealth Government here and now, and to stop Bronwyn Bishop mouthing platitudes about issuing licences that mean nothing to the industry or to the people who need the services. This is an urgent issue. It is one of those issues that John Howard talks about as fundamental to the way in which we as Australians choose to live in the future; that is, how we provide care for older Australians. I call for a bipartisan approach to resolve the issue.

State and Territory health Ministers of all political persuasions have put models to the Commonwealth Government in an effort to achieve co-operation and improvement for the elderly. The urgency exists simply because people are now faced with nowhere to live. If the honourable member for Willoughby were in the Chamber I bet he would think the matter urgent, because a lot of people at Trentham at the moment have nowhere to go and no prospects of anywhere to go. They might sleep at Trentham at night, and maybe tomorrow night, but in a few nights time they will not be able to. This important issue needs urgent consideration by all parliaments.

Mr OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [3.50 p.m.]: This matter is urgent because, first, it involves this House and a Minister of this House and, second, because that Minister has made certain comments relating to the racing industry and the recently concluded review of the Thoroughbred Racing Board Act. The day after the review concluded the Minister commented that there would be no changes to the Act, although the whole process of calling in submissions, seeking opinions and considering opinions had been undertaken. The Minister laughed in the face of the process and has, therefore, thrown the racing industry into great confusion.

This matter is urgent because the racing industry employs 50,000 people, it is decentralised, it is clean and green, and it is an industry that this State should protect. This State can do a lot to encourage the growth of the industry and, therefore, employment. At present the State Government is allowing the racing industry to bleed into other States. The Minister for Health is allowing that to happen and is also allowing confusion in the racing industry by making comments that confuse many racing participants because they do not know the Minister's state of play.

Many substantial and good submissions have been produced on the statutory review of the Thoroughbred Racing Board Act, which was concluded in recent weeks. Questions were asked about the Minister's favourite organisation, the Racing Industry Participation Advisory Committee, and questions have been asked about whether the Thoroughbred Racing Board should have more independence. Questions have been asked about the number of members on the board, and that has been debated in this Chamber over recent years. Submissions have been made in regard to—

Mr Thompson: Point of order—

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

Mr Thompson: The honourable member for Port Macquarie is required to give reasons why his matter is more urgent than the proposition put by the Minister for Health. He is not doing that. He is going to the substance of his argument as if the House were debating a motion that he had moved. I ask you to bring him back to the point, and that is that he should demonstrate why his proposition should be regarded as more urgent than that of the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order.

Mr OAKESHOTT: This matter is urgent because it involves this Chamber, not the Federal Opposition. This Government is attempting to be a Federal Opposition, something that does not exist in Australia today. It seems that someone within Labor Party ranks has taken up the cudgel in an attempt to be a Federal Opposition, 10 weeks before a Federal election. Kim Beazley and the Australian Labor Party based in Canberra cannot do it so I guess the New South Wales Labor Government feels that it has to pick up the pieces. This matter is urgent because the thoroughbred racing industry owners are questioning what the Minister has created and which organisations he supports—for instance, the Thoroughbred Breeders Association. Many people have lodged submissions regarding the structure of metropolitan, provincial and country racing and the benefits of rejecting that structure. To date many good, considered submissions have been lodged on the statutory review of the Thoroughbred Racing Board Act.

Many people have taken the time and made the effort to prepare submissions. After the date for acceptance of submissions had passed, many people said that they were doing more work and asked to lodge further submissions. The Department of Gaming and Racing allowed them to do that, yet while the process was under way the Minister stated publicly that no changes would be made to the Act. The day after the review was completed, the day after people had gone through the process of spending time and money, the Minister said—

Mr Anderson: Point of order: Mr Speaker, you made a ruling some minutes ago that the honourable member for Port Macquarie was not debating the urgency of the issue. You upheld the point of order taken by the honourable member for Rockdale. I ask you—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The speaking time of the honourable member for Port Macquarie has expired.

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

The House divided.

Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Aquilina Mr Ashton Mr Black Mr Brown Miss Burton Mr Campbell Mr Collier Mr Crittenden Mr Debus Mr Face Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mr Greene Mrs Grusovin Ms Harrison

Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Mr Iemma Mr Knowles Mrs Lo Po' Mr Lynch Mr Markham Mr Martin Mr McBride Mr McGrane Mr McManus Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Mr Moss Ms Nori Mr E. T. Page

Mrs Perry Mr Price Dr Refshauge Ms Saliba Mr Scully Mr W. D. Smith Mr Stewart Mr Torbay Mr Tripodi Mr Watkins Mr West Mr Whelan Mr Woods Mr Yeadon Tellers, Mr Anderson Mr Thompson

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

Dr Kernohan Mr Kerr Mr 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 J. H. Turner Mr Webb Mr Windsor Tellers, Mr Fraser Mr R. H. L. Smith

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Health) [4.00 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) condemns the Federal Government and the Minister for Aged Care for their failure to provide sufficient aged-care and nursing home accommodation for older Australians; and

(2) notes the fact that despite the Minister for Aged Care issuing more than 5,600 nursing home bed licences in New South Wales alone, they remain non-operational, nursing homes continue to close, and the nursing home industry reports that it is on the brink of collapse.

As I indicated in my remarks to substantiate my claim that the motion was urgent, the Prime Minister in his most recent address to the National Press Club outlined the challenges for the future of our country. He particularly underscored the need to provide adequate services for our older Australians. He made the point that as we get older and as the size of the ageing community relative to the number of taxpayers continues to expand, it is essential that national priorities and policies provide solutions to problems such as aged-care accommodation and health care. Sadly, at the moment it is apparent that on this front Federal policy is going backwards.

The Howard Government has announced 5,666 licences in New South Wales, but they are for phantom beds. The beds do not exist because the nursing home sector is simply not taking up the licences. A licence is not a bed; it is simply an opportunity to have a bed if one can afford to make it work. With nursing homes closing left, right and centre around the State, particularly on the northern beaches of Sydney, the announcement of additional bed licences has been regarded by the nursing home industry as little more than a sick joke.

For example, in the past two years in one small part of this State—the northern area of Sydney from just across the Sydney Harbour Bridge through the northern beaches—nine nursing homes have closed, either temporarily or permanently, with the result that 480 beds have totally gone from the system. Three other nursing homes with a total of another 119 beds face similar closure. In the past few days we have also seen newspaper articles reporting the closure of another 50 beds at Trentham Nursing Home in Willoughby. That struggling facility is destined to close this month. As a consequence of old people having nowhere to go at present in New South Wales 792 older patients are occupying acute-care hospital beds when they should be in aged-care facilities. They are living in hospital wards when they should be living in nursing homes. Of those 792 a staggering 465, more than half, have been living in hospital wards for more than three years.

In some rural communities individuals have been living in hospital wards for in excess of eight years. These people are not sick but simply have nowhere else to go. They have been assessed by the Commonwealth Government, by Bronwyn Bishop's department, as being eligible for nursing home beds. Those 792 people are not receiving acute-care service, hospital service or rehabilitation. They are ready for discharge but they have nowhere else to go because nursing home beds are not available for them. As nursing home closures continue to bite in this State and around the country the situation will get worse. No-one will throw those people out. That is not the suggestion. However, everyone accepts that the quality of life of older people is not enhanced if they are stuck in hospital beds, especially when they are not sick. They need the comfort, decency and dignity of nursing home facilities, the aspiration John Howard expressed in his National Press Club luncheon address some weeks ago. That is, indeed, the aspiration of all Australians.

The circumstances I have described in New South Wales are replicated around Australia. More than 2,000 people around Australia are presently living in hospital beds rather than nursing homes. That is a clear example of failure of Commonwealth policy. Bronwyn Bishop can talk about issuing bed licences until the cows come home. In the last year or so she has issued 5,666 licences in New South Wales alone but no-one is taking them up. People cannot sleep on pieces of paper, on licences. They need beds. Those phantom beds are regarded as a sick joke by everyone in the industry.

The cost of maintaining these people in hospital beds is enormous. It is the equivalent of 488 beds and is a direct shift from the Commonwealth to the State of about $80 million. Those people cannot go anywhere and sick people cannot be put in those beds. As a consequence, they block up the system, and with nursing homes continuing to close the situation will get worse. During the month of July we interviewed those 792 people. We thought they might like living in hospital, as they had been there for three years and we wanted to know whether they were happy to remain here. Honourable members will not be surprised to learn that only 0.21 per cent of them said they wanted to remain in hospital. They are not fools; they know they are getting a raw deal. Indeed, 99.8 per cent know that they should be in nursing homes. They have been assessed by the Commonwealth under the Commonwealth's rules but they have nowhere to go because of the Commonwealth's failure in nursing homes and aged-care policy.

Health Ministers raised these fundamental issues with Bronwyn Bishop at the health Ministers conference in Adelaide a couple of months ago. We worked together to offer solutions, including modelling transition bed systems, only to be told that we do not have a problem in Australia. Bronwyn Bishop is in denial: her only response in Adelaide was to repeat an announcement about beds that she made four or five months ago. She offered no other response to that group of exasperated health Ministers of different political persuasions who know that the failure of Commonwealth policy has caused major blockages in our hospitals to the detriment of those who are genuinely sick and need to access hospital beds.

We recently read the startling story in the Sunday newspapers about a member of this Parliament who was stuck for 24 hours in the emergency department of a North Sydney hospital. He was most complimentary of the staff, who gave him excellent care, but he eventually discharged himself. He could not leave the emergency department because there were no beds available in that hospital. We checked his story and pulled in the records. We discovered that 18 beds in that little hospital were occupied by people whom the Commonwealth Government had assessed as requiring nursing home places. However, no nursing home beds were available for them. This is a particular problem on the northern beaches and in the northern suburbs of Sydney. Such people have to stay in hospital if they cannot be discharged into nursing homes, and as a result sick people who require acute treatment in hospital have nowhere to go.

We can solve this problem only if we work together. The Commonwealth and the States must co-operate. We have proposed models to Bronwyn Bishop but we have largely been ignored. Like other health Ministers, I wrote recently to Bronwyn Bishop suggesting that we might seek to pool or make available money under the present multipurpose service program, which has resulted in little hospitals and aged-care facilities rolling out around New South Wales. The program has provided 34 new hospitals in country towns. That means that people can grow old and spend their final years in the towns where they raised their kids. We should arrive at a sensible model based on working together and sharing money to help older Australians.

Co-operation on the part of Bronwyn Bishop is the only thing missing from that sensible, commonsense approach to addressing the closure of nursing home beds left, right and centre and blocked access in hospitals when elderly people have nowhere else to go. Until she responds positively and acknowledges that this is a major problem that will only get worse, she will be constantly criticised for taking her eye off the ball. We must work together. As John Howard said, this is about the aspirations of future generations of Australians to provide care and comfort to all older Australians. This issue goes beyond politics to the very heart of our community aspirations towards our ageing population.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [4.13 p.m.]: It is disappointing to hear the Minister for Health, who purports to be bipartisan about this issue, launch nothing more than a base political attack. There should be true bipartisanship in this area. Yet such behaviour on the part of the Minister and his Government is entirely consistent. Honourable members should think back to the lies and misleading statements that they have made to the people of New South Wales. Should we believe a word that this Government, this Minister or his predecessor have said? They promised to halve hospital waiting lists in 1995. The Minister should be worrying about that issue first and foremost because waiting lists have increased from 44,000 to 52,000.

Mr McManus: Why?

Mr HAZZARD: Because this Minister and his Government are incompetent. The Minister failed completely to mention some of the people in our nursing homes. If he took responsibility for health and the Government offered proper care to people with disabilities, nursing home beds would not be blocked.

Mr Knowles: They were assessed under Bronwyn Bishop.

Mr HAZZARD: The Minister can raise his eyebrows, but he should listen. Some 240 people with multiple sclerosis are occupying nursing home beds in New South Wales. They are young people, aged up to 24 or 25 years, and they want to leave those nursing homes. If the Minister is genuinely concerned about those people or the beds that they occupy, he should want that too. The Multiple Sclerosis Society has written to the Minister and to every Labor member asking the Government to look after those young people by finding alternative facilities. The Minister has failed. Why is he worrying about Federal issues when he cannot deal with matters within his own area of responsibility? I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after the word "That" with a view to the inserting:

"this House condemns the State Government for its failure to provide quality aged health care in public hospitals and State-operated nursing homes."

Mr Knowles: That is not our role.

Mr HAZZARD: What about Allandale nursing home in the Hunter? It is State operated. The coroner condemned the way in which this Government has allowed that nursing home to be run.

Mrs Skinner: Deaths.

Mr HAZZARD: Deaths have occurred in that nursing home. The Minister purports to talk about bipartisanship and decency but instead plays base politics. If he or any member of the Government were serious they would act in a bipartisan manner and recognise the achievements of Bronwyn Bishop and the Federal Government in providing accreditation and lifting standards in nursing homes across New South Wales and Australia as a whole. The fact is that the Minister has done nothing more than play base politics.

Pursuant to sessional orders debate interrupted.

Mr Aquilina, by leave, tabled the variations of receipts and payments estimates and appropriations for 2001-02, in terms of section 26 of the Public Finance and Audit Act, arising from the provision by the Commonwealth of specific purpose payments in excess of the amounts included in the State's receipts and payments estimates.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove—Leader of the Opposition) [4.15 p.m.]: I am delighted that the Minister for Education and Training is in the House. I assume that he will stay to hear my remarks about Hunters Hill High School and, presumably, provide a response. This will be the first opportunity that students, parents and teachers of Hunters Hill High School have had to hear the Minister explain why he intends to close their school. On 10 April this year the Minister released a document entitled "Building the Future", but that education plan clearly had no intention of building a future for Hunters Hill High School. That plan, which the Minister said upon its release was not negotiable, included the closure of Hunters Hill High School. We have been trying to get information from the Minister for some time as to why Hunters Hill High School was deemed worthy of closure.

Let us look at the school's record. It has recorded outstanding results in education, sporting and cultural achievements, yet for some reason the Minister has slated it for closure. We are told that the school is to be closed because of enrolment problems, but the Hunters Hill High School Parents and Citizens Association wants to know on what the Minister has based that decision about enrolments. The parents and citizens association was forced to go to court to get information from the Minister about the demographic basis of his decision. It thought that it had won a victory last week when the court instructed the Minister to provide information about why he was refusing to allow the school to take enrolments for next year. The parents and citizens association thought it would receive some useful information from the Minister as a result of that court decision.

However, it received only forty pages of material which had already been seen by the Hunters Hill Parents and Citizens Association, including letters written by the Minister's office to the Hunters Hill High School lawyers, Gilbert and Tobin. There were copies of the Building the Future plan and accompanying pamphlets. The only two documents which the parents and citizens association had not seen were two letters, neither of which gave any explanation as to why the Minister has refused to allow enrolments to be taken for next year. According to the parents and citizens association the documentation that it has received offers no reasons for the Minister's decision to refuse enrolments for years 7 and 11 at Hunters Hill High School next year. At the moment we are going through a process called a school closures review committee. That committee is taking information from the community, which includes the broader community and the school community, including parents, students and teachers of Hunters Hill High School, as to why that school should stay open.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the students, some of whom are in the gallery, their teachers, all of whom have been very supportive in this process, the parents and citizens association, which has put in an enormous amount of time, energy and effort into showing this Minister why the school should stay open and, of course, the local council and various community representatives who have been working with Hunters Hill High School to explain why the school should remain open. Today I have a simple request, which is also the request the school has been making for some time: Why has Hunters Hill High School been slated for closure? The school has an outstanding academic record, a sporting record that other schools can rightly envy, and a cultural record that other schools could look to and say, "We would love to have the same."

Why is such a successful school being slated for closure? The only answer seems to be that it sits on a piece of property the department has determined can be sold for a lot of money. The Minister knows about that because that is about the only bit of information the community has been able to get. Three months before the Building the Future plan was put into the public arena the Minister sought evaluations of the property to find out what it would be worth as residential property. The Minister chooses to close Hunters Hill High School because of the value of its property. The students, parents, teachers and the community say to the Minister that that is not a good educational reason to close a school. It is not a good reason to put in doubt the future of the young people who now attend the school and those who wish to do so in the future.

We seek from the Minister a clear reason for that decision, which he repeatedly said was not negotiable. We want to know that the decision is negotiable. We want to know why the Minister took that decision. More particularly, we want to know that he will listen to and take cognisance of the review committee. If that committee does the right thing with the strength of evidence presented to it by the school community in toto, we want to know that the Minister will not close that school but will make sure that it continues to grow and becomes a showpiece for public education in New South Wales. [Time expired.]

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone—Minister for Education and Training) [4.21 p.m.]: I was not aware that the Leader of the Opposition would be making a private member's statement this afternoon. However, I am pleased that I was in the House as I will be able to respond to a number of erroneous factual matters she has placed on the record. The Building the Future plan was not released by me on 10 April as she stated. It was released much earlier, in March. An extensive consultation program was undertaken before its release and during that consultation program many submissions—

Mrs Chikarovski: You had 16 submissions that were sent—

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! The Leader of the Opposition is out of order.

Mr AQUILINA: I listened to you in silence. You can listen to me in silence. You want to state everything except the facts. The facts are these. The submission in relation to Building the Future was advanced by the department because Hunters Hill High School was regarded as having no future viability because its local enrolment was basically non-existent. Most of the students come from outside the area. That is the fact of the matter. Hunters Hill High School is taking students from Balmain, Leichhardt and Ryde. It is taking them from virtually everywhere except Hunters Hill because there are no local students.

The demographic study about which the Leader of the Opposition talked so much, and which was undertaken by people from Hunters Hill High School, was flawed. An independent study done by a professor at Macquarie University showed how flawed it was. In fact, it was so flawed that it took into account male students who were resident at boarding schools within the local area; they were counted as potential students to be enrolled at Hunters Hill. That is the kind of factual misrepresentation in that demographic study. I have a committee of review looking at the matter. It has not yet reported to me but will do so on 30 September. We will make a decision once the committee of review has reported. [Time expired.]

Mr GREENE (Georges River) [4.24 p.m.]: On 10 September I attended, with great pride, the official opening ceremony of the Georges River College Oatley campus. The campus is part of the Oatley Education Centre, which also incorporates Sydney University facilities, the St George and Sutherland Shire Community School and the Southern Sydney Institute of TAFE. The Premier and the Minister for Education and Training also attended the ceremony. The current enrolment at the campus is 470 year 11 students. The Georges River College comprises four campuses: Oatley, Peakhurst, Penshurst and Hurstville. It is pleasing to note that those schools are functioning successfully as part of the college. The Minister and the Premier were proud of the opening and the fact that it was used as the launch of a successful Education Week for the Department of Education and Training. The opening of the campus was also a reflection of the strength of education in the St George district. The opening ceremony was a compliment not only to those students and officials who participated but also to the district.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the principal of the Georges River College, Mr Bob Ramsay, and the principal of the Oatley campus, Mrs Terri O'Brien, who has done a magnificent job with her staff in the first year of operation of the campus. Terri O'Brien is leading staff who are obviously committed. That was evident from the enthusiasm of the students and staff during the opening ceremony of this successful educational venture. I also congratulate the deputy principal, Mr George Lubans, who is working hard in the college environment. I particularly congratulate Mrs Louise Harper, whose hospitality students again came to the fore in catering for this significant function. A large number of dignitaries, officials and parents attended the ceremony.

I have visited the Georges River College on about 10 or 12 occasions since it opened earlier this year. I have been impressed with the dedication of the staff. Their commitment and involvement is obvious. I was most impressed also by the enthusiasm of the students. I have met a variety of students who have been happy and confident to engage in conversations with me—the Fury twin sisters and Connie Poulos to mention only three—as well as the school leaders. One can only be impressed by the manner in which the students present themselves on these occasions. Whilst reflecting on the opening ceremony I take the opportunity to compliment Sydney University on its involvement. Professor Ken Eltis from the university attended the ceremony. Mr Kim Fillingham from TAFE, who has put so much time and effort into the structure of the project, also attended, as well as Patricia Carroll from the St George and Sutherland Community College. Their involvement in the project since 2000 has been significant.

It was pleasing also to see Mr Ken Olah, who took on the huge responsibility of getting the program up and running. The Deputy Director-General of the Department of Education and Training, Mr Alan Laughlin, was present at the opening ceremony, as well as John Burkhardt from the properties division of the Public Works Department. These people have all ensured that the Georges River College Oatley campus is the jewel in the crown of State education. I congratulate them on that achievement. I look forward to working with the community and the parents and citizens association under the leadership of Mr Rob Clarsen well into the future. [Time expired.]

Ms HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [4.29 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the considerable concern about the restructure of nursing staff at Goulburn Base Hospital, which will result in a significant reduction in both the level of patient care and working conditions. Kerrie MacDonald, the local paediatrician and New South Wales Branch Representative of the Australian Medical Association, said, "Goulburn Base Hospital is at a crisis point in terms of funding and a nursing shortage. Sections are being asked to cut costs where it is just not possible." Dr MacDonald has worked closely with nursing staff at Goulburn Base Hospital for more than 10 years. She knows what she is talking about. The restructure of nursing staff, which so concerns her, will result in the abolition of seven nurse unit manager positions and their replacement by two nurse managers who will be required to manage a number of different wards, such as paediatrics and obstetrics, in which they do not possess the required clinical skills and background.

The changes will also result in five evening and shift night nurse managers, who were formerly referred to as assistant directors of nursing, losing their supernumerary status. They will be attached to the Emergency Department. In their new role they will be unable to assist with crises and patient care in other wards. Currently, nurse managers have a roving commission to move between wards to assist with medical emergencies as needed. They also do a considerable amount of administrative work. Dr MacDonald is not the only doctor who is concerned about the changes. Dr John Egan, a career medical officer at Goulburn Base Hospital for the past 10 years, has publicly expressed his concern by saying:

It's a dangerous idea. A pivotal control person will be taken out of the loop and won't be free to work in other wards.

Dr Stephen Myers, an Emergency Department doctor at Goulburn Base Hospital and the Director of Clinical Training, publicly stated:

These changes will result in the Emergency Department nursing staff being reduced to one ADON who has responsibility for the whole hospital at night and one doctor, who is responsible for all the patients overnight.

Dr Myers further said:

Even a superficial analysis of this situation shows that the proposal is fundamentally flawed. There are a myriad reasons why this proposal cannot go ahead, but the most compelling is that it is unsafe.

It is not just the doctors at Goulburn Base Hospital who are concerned about these changes. I have been informed that every nurse at the hospital is opposed to the restructure. What is of most concern to me as the local member is that, instead of responding to the real and significant concerns of those who are most intimately concerned with patient care, the management of Southern Area Health Service [SAHS] has decided to push ahead with the changes while attempting to stop debate on this important issue.

On 14 September a meeting was held at the hospital between management, nurses and union representatives at which staff were threatened with dismissal if they continued to express their concerns publicly. I have been contacted by nurses who were at this meeting who are livid at the way SAHS responded to their concerns. One of the nurses told me that SAHS is a dictatorship and that management is uninterested in consultation. She said that nurses have been specifically told that if they talk to their member of Parliament or to the media they will lose their jobs. Today I received a letter from another nurse, whose name I will not reveal in the interests of her being able to maintain her job. She wrote a detailed letter and concluded by saying:

Our concern is not just our wellbeing but the safety of the patients—it is true, one day, someone will die, and I want to know who is going to carry the can then. I am happy to elucidate on specific incidents if required. As a matter of interest, despite their denials, I can also confirm that we were told at the meeting that talking to the media is an offence that merits termination of employment.

I have also been informed that the doctors who publicly spoke out against the restructure have been severely reprimanded. Honourable members will be disgusted to hear that Southern Area Health Service has decided that the way to deal with this problem is to restrict the democratic rights of individuals to express their concerns to their elected member. Early this month I wrote to the Minister, and I thank him for attending the Chamber to hear this private member's statement. I also raised these concerns with his staff. I told the Minister that the prime consideration in this situation must be the care and welfare of patients, and the safety and working conditions of the staff. I was promised answers. Instead, I found that the Southern Area Health Service has threatened staff with dismissal. I challenge the Minister for Health to deny that such instructions have been issued.

If this restructure makes changes that are in the best interests of patient care and staff welfare then it should be able to stand public scrutiny and debate. The restructure has generated significant coverage in Goulburn's media, and responses from the Southern Area Health Service have been published. In not one of these responses has the Southern Area Health Service ever stated that the restructure will improve patient care or benefit staff working conditions. Really, this change is all about cost-cutting at the expense of patient care and staff welfare. Dr Myers has stated that management is "negligent". Dr Egan said, "It's a major blow." Dr MacDonald was quoted in the media as saying that the restructure is "nothing more than an attempt to shave costs from a system which does not have any fat". The nurse who wrote to me today said:

In support of the statement above regarding the NSW Nurses Association, they claim that the meeting was a success and that an understanding was reached re the need for the restructure. This is blatantly untrue. The meeting ended in a general feeling of betrayal by our union. Indeed the so-called "professional" union delegates found quite a deal of humour in the situation.

Why is the restructure going ahead?

Mr KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Health) [4.34 p.m.]: The Australian Medical Association representation views and the apparent conflict between the workers on the wards and their union, the New South Wales Nurses Association, are instructive to the member that there is a thing called medical politics. I have been the Minister for Health for a little over two years now, and I can say that medical politics leave for dead the politics that we engage in in this Chamber. However, these are important issues. Professional health care workers have a moral and legal obligation to report specific incidents of concern to the Health Care Complaints Commission. If they wish to forward those through their local member to me they will be fully and thoroughly investigated. No-one should ever be in a position of alluding to specific incidents without being asked to back them up. I ask the honourable member to ask the individual who wrote to her to have those matters properly and thoroughly investigated on an absolute confidential basis for the benefit of the families and patients involved. That is the law, and that is what we stand for in this place.

I have been advised that the New South Wales Nurses Association has been actively involved in the process of roster changes. Whenever I get involved and there are roster issues in any hospital in the State there are always a myriad views and concerns. The association fully supports the changes. If there are differing views perhaps it is a matter between the association and its membership. The changes are designed to improve and are focused on improving patient management. I have a specific statement that is contrary to the assertions made by the honourable member: no staff have been threatened with dismissal, and no doctors have been severely reprimanded. If someone can provide me with evidence to the contrary, I will be more than happy to continue to look into it. What I am interested in, and I am sure it is what everybody in Goulburn Base Hospital and the region is interested in, is ensuring that the hospital works effectively. If there has been an agreement to go forward on a trial basis with the roster changes, often the best thing is to see how the trial goes. If it does not work we can change it back. [Time expired.]

Ms MEGARRITY (Menai) [4.36 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to a recent school function in my electorate. The function coincided with the statewide celebration of Education Week. Last Thursday evening, 13 September, I attended Bangor Primary School's annual Performing Arts Spectacular. To accommodate the large number of people who wished to attend the event it had to be held over two nights at the Sutherland Entertainment Centre. Bangor Primary School has a well-deserved reputation in my community for the academic and co-curricular achievements of its students. Last week's production again demonstrated excellence in both organisation and performance. It is not an exaggeration to say that I was overwhelmed by what I experienced on the night. The three-hour program was certainly diverse. Dance items, for example, included square dancing, modern dance choreography and even a dazzling exhibition of ballroom dancing.

The talented young man in the ballroom dancing performance, Matthew Gerome, is a former student of Bangor Primary School. He is now in year 8 at a high school in the shire. His invitation to perform in the production is typical of the commitment to and pride in the large and small achievements of this school community. The spectacular included well-performed choral items and well-rehearsed and well-delivered performances by the school band. Honourable members would be particularly interested to know that public speaking was included in the entertainment. Based on my observation of these performances it was easy to see why students from Bangor Primary School have achieved high ratings in regional competitions. To the amazement of the audience the highest energy items were reserved for one of the final items on the program: a non-stop and exciting demonstration of gymnastics and other physical activities set to music.

I have not attempted to detail all of the items in the program, and I am reluctant to cite a favourite performance. However, I am sure honourable members can imagine the particular appeal of the kindergarten item. The majority of the children were dressed in their pyjamas, singing a song to the effect that their bananas were in pyjamas and they were in their pyjamas too. Other children were dressed in various toy costumes and positioned on a toy shelf. It was obvious that the two boys who were dressed as the world-famous B1 and B2 relished their roles. They performed with great enthusiasm and were reluctant to leave the stage at the conclusion of the item.

The grand finale of the night involved the whole cast and centred on the theme of the evening: celebration. In addition to the students who performed on the night, students were involved behind the scenes and also hosted the show. I wish to make two specific observations about the night. First, the consistent quality of the performances was astounding. During the course of the evening I had to remind myself that I was not attending a talent school event. The quality and consistency of the performances was a tribute not only to the talents of the students but also to the dedication and talent of the staff at Bangor Primary School. Parents and families, of course, were heavily involved in the preparation of the show, in particular the numerous costumes—glittering as they were—worn by the children.

The second specific observation that I made on the night was the large number of children involved in every item. I imagine that, due to the complexities involved in organising such a night, it would have been very tempting to find a few particularly talented children to anchor an item and perhaps have some others in the background. That was not the case. Bangor Primary School obviously took the harder road and involved the maximum number of children in each item. In fact, at times the stage was so full I could not imagine how they managed to find their way around. It was a tribute to the rehearsals that they had undertaken. The two specific observations I have made contributed to what was an outstanding night of entertainment for everyone who was present. It was made all the more poignant by the fact that it was less than 48 hours after the events in New York and Washington.

When we walked in that night a certain feeling of apprehension and upset was still present. The principal, who spoke at the beginning of the night, said that she had wondered whether to observe one minute's silence as they had done on the previous evening's performance. In true Bangor Primary School style she had consulted the children. The children said that they wanted to observe one minute's silence for two reasons. First, that although they had observed one minute's silence the night before, at the Wednesday night's performance, people at the Thursday performance needed to show their respect. Second, the children said the event had been so horrendous that it could not possibly be forgotten in just one night. As I said, the maturity with which those children performed on and off the stage is a credit to them, to their parents and to the entire school community

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [4.42 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House, and in particular to the attention of the Minister for Education and Training and the Minister for Fair Trading, an issue relating to primary schools in my electorate—and, I am sure, throughout Australia and New Zealand—involving a company, Australasian Publishing Group Pty Ltd. I believe that company has acted immorally, unethically and quite inappropriately in relation to its dealings with young primary school students. Australasian Publishing Group Pty Ltd was responsible for organising a competition throughout Australia and New Zealand. It invited primary school students, including those from Belrose Primary School—of which one was my son—to submit a poem. The upshot was that the entries once received were not merely assessed to be considered for a prize. The group wrote directly to the students who had entered the competition and then sought to coerce them into believing that the poem they had submitted may be published in an Australia-wide bound volume to be called "Poets of the Future II".

That company gave a strong impression that that would occur only if the book was purchased at a cost of $54.95 plus packaging and delivery costs. It also pressured the students to purchase a poetry package at a cost of $149, which most primary school students would undoubtedly be unable to pay. I believe it was unethical to pressure young children in this way, to in turn put pressure on their parents to make the purchase so that they would not be disappointed. A letter sent to the students advising them of the opportunity to have their poems published in a national book would certainly have raised their hopes and given them a sense of pride. They would later discover that the letter had been sent to all their peers at school and that there were strings attached to the offer. The offer was effectively a sham.

It was made quite clear on the second page of the letter that publication could not be guaranteed unless the students were to purchase the book at a minimum cost of $54.95. I warn parents and schools not to participate in this competition in the future because I do not believe the company has acted in a manner that warrants such participation. I also urge students not to provide their names and addresses if they do participate. The letter sent to students stated, amongst other things, that the prize money for the first prize had been increased to $2,000. That should be read in the context that the company was likely to reap revenue literally in the millions of dollars if tens of thousands of participants took up the so-called offer. The letter stated in part:

… we are very excited to offer you the opportunity of having your poem published! … 'Poets of the Future II' will contain many poetic pieces from students all over Australia and New Zealand. The book will be produced as a beautifully presented, hard bound volume that will literally last four generations'

Still attending school and a Published Poet … this could be you!

… "Poets of the Future II' will be our second poetry anthology and we hope you will choose to be a part of it.

Any eight-year-old child would be proud to receive such a letter advising that his or her entry in a national poetry competition had apparently been selected for publication. However, that is far from the truth. Possibly tens of thousands of children participated in this poetry competition. They undoubtedly all received an identical letter. There were strings attached, because an attempt was made to coerce them into purchasing the volume in order to guarantee the publication of their poem in the book. The following statements appear on the second page of the letter:

We have only a limited number of places available in the book …

While you are under no obligation whatsoever to make a purchase, we do reserve positions in the book for those who do.

The company's action in writing directly to the students, bypassing their parents and teachers, really was unethical and inappropriate in the extreme. [Time expired.]

Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [4.47 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House the excellent Education Week celebrations that took place in my electorate. On Monday, 10 September, at Paul Keating Park in Bankstown, the 49 public schools in the Bankstown district celebrated public education with a wonderful concert showcasing the talents of our students and staff. The program was conducted by students of the district and was attended by Dr Alan Laughlin, Assistant Director-General of Schools, Dennis Mackenzie, Superintendent of Bankstown District Schools, Mayor Kevin Hill, the honourable member for Bankstown, Tony Stewart, and me. But the stars of the day were the more than 900 students who made up the choir. Student comperes included Ali Beydoun, Alexandra Moore, Julie McAlonana, Enock Badu, Erin Muir and Michael Robinson.

David Gordon, Sarah Bertram, Jessica Smith and Amanda Tunks performed wonderful solo items at the celebratory concert. Representative teachers from all local schools received awards recognising the excellence and diversity of the teaching and learning at their schools in the Bankstown district. On Wednesday, 8 September, the Deputy Premier, the Hon. Andrew Refshauge, presented New South Wales prizes for the National History Challenge 2001: "Making Our Nation". Prizes were awarded to students from government and non-government schools from years 5 through to 12 on topics relating to Australia's development. I congratulate the New South Wales History Teachers Association, and Mr Albert Marchetto, Ms Kate Cameron and Mr Graham Spindler of the New South Wales Parliament's Education Office on their enthusiasm for these competitions and their love of history. I also thank the Deputy Premier for the presentations.

I also acknowledge the great success of the now annual Garden Fair conducted at East Hills Girls High School last Saturday. This event raises money for the school. I publicly thank Mrs Veronica Necyporuk, the Principal of East Hills Girls High School, and the staff, the parents and citizens, the school council and, importantly, the students who volunteered their time over many weeks to make a long day a huge success. In addition, I congratulate Ms Julie Kanaan of Sir Joseph Banks High School and Amanda Tunks of Picnic Point High School for having received the Minister's Award for Excellence.

I know both of these students very well. They are outstanding ambassadors for public education. Their ability to sing, dance, do academic work and represent themselves in Bankstown as fine examples of what the government school system can produce constantly ensure us of the success of that system. I further acknowledge the successful literacy program that has been conducted at Sir Joseph Banks High School at Revesby. Every term the students produce a magazine called "Joey's Mad Mag" under the leadership of Miss Sue Jarman. It is creative, innovative, very enjoyable, sometimes serious, always very entertaining and often humorous reading. I look forward to each edition. The most recent edition focused on the vital role of careers and vocational education in the school. I will say more on vocational education and school careers at a later date.

I also offer congratulations to the parents and staff of Panania Public School, who conducted a financially successful quiz night last Saturday. More than 200 parents and friends of Panania Public School attended. In this speech I do not have time to name individually all the driving forces behind the night but I pick out the principal, Mr Rodney Yates, Bob and Carol Bell, Lynne and John Addison, Linda Hicking and Kate Taylor. They were supported again by the staff and parents and citizens and the wider community at a wonderful function held at the Panania-East Hills RSL Club. I had the honour to be the quizmaster on the night and I enjoyed it immensely. In my area government schools are in very good hands.

I also thank the Minister for Education and Training for finding funding under the minor capital works program to assist with the refurbishment of a building that dates back to 1927, Bass Hill primary school. The money is very much appreciated. The concrete and brick building has been out of action for a little while. I appreciate the money that has been made available to get the building back in action. As the honourable member for Menai just said, Education Week is a great opportunity for members to get out and see what is being done in our government schools. It gives us a great chance to keep in touch with people who are doing so much in schools—way beyond what is called for by their normal salary as teachers or their normal demands as parents. The students put in so much. I am sure all members appreciate their efforts. [Time expired.]

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes—Deputy Leader of the National Party) [4.52 p.m.]: I speak tonight on crime and safety in my electorate. I will limit this speech to what is happening to learning institutions in my electorate of Myall Lakes, mostly involving young people. A number of schools in my electorate unfortunately have suffered significant vandalism and wanton criminal activity. One of the problems is that the Department of Education and Training and the Government operate under a false economy: many schools do not have alarm systems. Tuncurry school has been broken into a number of times, particularly during vacation periods. That is why I am speaking today: we are approaching another school vacation. That school had to put a special case to the education department to have the school patrolled over the vacation period. That should not be necessary; it should occur naturally. It is regrettable but many break-ins occur during vacation periods. On 13 August Manning Gardens Public School at Taree wrote to the Minister for Police and sent me a copy. The letter states:

Dear Mr Whelan

Manning Gardens Public School P & C is extremely concerned about the level of vandalism occurring at our school. It has been ongoing since 1984. In the past three months in particular, including the winter vacation period, the levels have been excessive, eg, smashed windows, break-ins, theft, internal vandalism and the killing of pet goldfish being looked after by the children.

Those responsible appear to be young offenders in the 6 to 10 age group and some have been apprehended. This situation is affecting the well-being of children, parents and staff, diverting us from our core business of learning and undermining confidence in the education system.

Those two paragraphs sum up the unfortunate situation we are now in. We need not only alarms and patrols; we also need an education system that teaches young people the value of the schools. The letter continues:

We had an education system that worked very well because there were set guidelines. Parents, teachers and police, along with the community and the children knew the consequences of overstepping these guidelines. Consequences no longer appear to fit the crimes being committed.

It is practical to install alarms in schools. It is a false economy to allow schools to be destroyed or vandalised. The education system should teach children of their responsibilities to look after and care for their school. There should also be parental responsibility. I feel very strongly that parents should know where children in the 6 to 10 age group, as mentioned in the letter, are at any time. If they do not, they should be held responsible for the actions of those children if they are found to be responsible for vandalism or destruction. A new college is being built at Forster-Tuncurry, the Great Lakes College. It is a substantial undertaking involving many millions of dollars. It will have a junior school, a senior school and a TAFE. It is on acres. Perhaps it is a sign of the times that we should consider building a caretaker's cottage on the site. I have been given no undertakings or assurances even that alarms will be put in.

The Holy Name Public School, a Catholic school at Forster, has had 22 break-ins this year, yet it is situated only 400 metres from the police station in a busy part of Forster. Snugglepot Preschool at Taree has averaged one break in a week in the last five weeks. So there is an epidemic in the area. The Government will have to face up to the problem and take social and infrastructure decisions. People, particularly young people, should be educated about their responsibilities. Another preschool in the area has experienced similar difficulties. It is a very proud preschool, one of the oldest preschools in my electorate. It does not want to be named because it believes that there is hope for the young people concerned; they just need direction. The school would not like its name mentioned as that could lead to identification of the young people involved. I ask the Government to look seriously at school security with a view to overcoming the present false economy whereby schools have to make special applications to have the sites patrolled during vacation periods. The vacation is upon us and there will be further damage in the school system. [Time expired.]

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.58 p.m.]: This Saturday 28 students and their teachers from St Pious X Catholic school and the Hunter School of Performing Arts will fly from Australia on a return visit of friendship to Rome and to Catania in Sicily. The visit has been made possible only because of the enormous effort and dedication of a large number of people who worked together to unravel a complex problem from among the enormously complex legal and insurance issues surrounding the collapse of Ansett.

As I said in this House on Tuesday, those schools had paid $67,000 for tickets and insurance on 10 September and on 12 September their cheque was cashed. At that stage the collapse of Ansett occurred and Price Waterhouse Coopers was appointed as administrator. I pay tribute to all the people involved in this significant effort. I received a letter from the school today conveying its thanks to me for the work that I have done. But this was only part of an enormous contribution of a whole range of people. I mention particularly, first, Price Waterhouse Coopers and Annette Stanton, who realised that this was a calamitous issue for the schools.

Martin Madden, on behalf of Arthur Andersen, took over as administrator. He was willing to look outside the square and realise that the dreams and hard work of the students, parents and communities of the two schools to make the trip should not be lost. Selina Rankin, from Traveland at Newcastle, worked tirelessly on behalf of the schools. Carey Butler, the manager of the local travel agency, was also supportive. Doug Potter, Traveland's State Business Manager, co-ordinated the insurance claim. His efforts included communicating with QBE insurance in Melbourne, attending the office, and sending notes to Transit Industry Insurance [TII], the QBE subsidiary for insurance matters.

Such was the level of pressure on TII not only from the collapse of Ansett but also from work associated with the enormous and awful events at the World Trade Center in New York, it was impossible to contact TII by telephone, so people had to work through QBE in Melbourne or through Traveland. I pay tribute to John Tranchini, the owner of Traveland at The Junction, for his incredibly generous offer to pay for the air tickets if the insurance claim was not fast-tracked in time. I pay tribute to the local media, including the Newcastle Morning Herald, Helen Kapalos of NBN, 2NC ABC Radio and the Daily Telegraph, also operating out of Newcastle, for the amount of work that they did for this significant event, which was perhaps small when compared to the enormous difficulties facing the travel industry and the insurance industry as a result of other calamitous events.

The efforts to unravel those issues, to solve them, and to be prepared to work to prevent the dreams of the young people being dashed should be commended by all. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do that in this House today. I thank Gerry Campbell, the General Manager of Marketing for Traveland, for his work through this period. Grahame Crombie, Travel Industry Insurance, was willing to take up the insurance cover, to transfer payments to Lufthansa to enable the trip to go ahead, and has not received one cent of the money paid for the insurance that was lost following the collapse of Ansett. That is an absolutely disgraceful situation and is something that we should pursue. Money paid in good faith into that fund has disappeared. I congratulate all those who were involved in enabling the students to have a great trip. [Time expired.]

Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [5.03 p.m.]: I sincerely thank the honourable member for Newcastle for raising this matter this afternoon. I thank everyone involved in trying to get these kids away and easing the heartbreaking situation. The St Pius X High School is located within my electorate, and one of my daughters attended that school. The Hunter School of Performing Arts is my old school, which my youngest son attended. I take an intense interest in that school. A memorial prize for performing arts, dedicated to my mother, still exists at the school. From personal experience I know that those schools and those associated with them, especially the kids, were in the good hands of the honourable member for Newcastle, who attempted to salvage as much as possible from that calamitous situation.

The planned cultural exchange will be of immense benefit to both schools, especially St Pius X High School, which has had a large number of Italian students over the years. Special studies at the Hunter School of Performing Arts include Italian. John Tranchini, the owner of Traveland at The Junction, is an Italian of some repute. I know his family and have known him since he was a kid. His father was well known in the plumbing industry. John is associated with the local soccer club, and was chosen on several occasions to take part in delegations that I have led overseas. It does not surprise me that John Tranchini led the way in dealing with this dilemma. I join the honourable member for Newcastle in condemning those who tried to put obstacles in the way of the trip. However, there is some goodwill in the community and, hopefully, the kids will see the not-so-serious side of what has occurred.

Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater) [5.06 p.m.]: In recent months there has been growing concern about acts of petty crime and vandalism in Avalon, on the northern beaches, in the Pittwater community. I am disturbed to have to bring to the attention of the House events that have taken place throughout the month of August at the Maria Regina Parish School, Avalon. That small Catholic parish school has an enrolment of only 165 students, which it hopes will increase to 172 next year. It is a one-stream school and is important to the Pittwater community. It is a lovely little school. The kids are great, the teachers are dedicated, and the school is an important part of the Catholic parish of Avalon-Mona Vale.

Honourable members can imagine how distressed I was to learn from the principal, Kerry Ellwood, of recent acts of vandalism that defy belief because of their stupidity and shamefulness acts of vandalism. This little school has very poor resources, as honourable members would imagine, and it does an important job in the community. To have this level of vandalism visited upon the school by a couple of young idiots is very disappointing. On the weekend of 4-5 August the school's alarm was activated by children smashing 22 windows throughout the school. Large rocks, a computer monitor and a log of wood were used to smash windows. They were later found in the classrooms. Smashed beer bottles were found throughout the playground.

According to a police report, on Sunday 12 August about 15 windows were smashed. On the weekend of 18-19 August, 13 windows were smashed, many new plants were destroyed in a newly completed garden area, basketball rings and backboards were broken and, again, broken bottles were thrown throughout the playground. A parent found three boys, estimated to be 16 years old, at the school and the police were called. Today the duty officer at Dee Why police station told me that the school has taken the matter further. The school and the community are very disappointed, as I am, that one of the boys has been nominated for a caution. The two other boys are still to be dealt with. One of the three boys arrested by the police was paralytic—he was unable to walk. It defies belief that these young idiots can cause such damage to such a small school and get such little punishment.

The school is insured, but it costs the school $250 each time it makes a claim. The damage disrupts the school and costs the school community time to attend to it. The school has also been required to hire security guards at $35 an hour for four hours late at night and in the early morning. That is $140 per weekend for a school that runs on a very tight budget. The school cannot afford that money, nor should it have to. On behalf of the Avalon community, the Maria Regina Parish School, the parents and children I express enormous disappointment at these activities and the fact that the boys have not been more severely punished.

The principal, Kerry Ellwood, has informed me that the boys have not even rung to apologise, nor have their parents. It is little wonder that people lose their patience with the justice system when petty crime, which does enormous damage to such a small school, continues but the children involved are not even required to apologise. I will work with the local area commander and the school to improve security in the area so that the school does not have to go to the extra cost of hiring security guards and the kids can go to school on Monday in the hope and expectation that it will not have been vandalised. [Time expired.]

Mr TRIPODI (Fairfield) [5.11 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the closure of yet another branch of the Commonwealth Bank in my electorate, this time in Bass Hill. Tomorrow will be the last day that bank will serve the residents of Bass Hill, Villawood and Georges Hall from the Bass Hill Plaza, on the Hume Highway. Once again elderly residents, who cannot travel to more central districts to do their banking, are left with fewer choices and must change from their familiar banking practices of the past. While the Commonwealth Bank adds more to its billions in profits, disadvantaged families are being forced to spend more to travel further to do their essential banking in the more distant suburbs.

Queues in existing banks are already an issue. Only yesterday a customer advised that he stood for 17 minutes in the queue at the Commonwealth Bank at Fairfield for an over-the-counter transaction, and then again for three minutes at the ATM. In total, it took him 20 minutes to hand over money to the bank. Queues in the Westpac bank at Fairfield have regularly stretched out the door since the closure of branches at Chester Hill and Fairfield Heights. From time to time banks leave an ATM when they close a branch, but one must question their use. Last Friday, 14 September, the Villawood ATM was closed and people who arrived in an Armaguard truck were working on it. Yesterday in Neeta City Shopping Centre at Fairfield the ATM was out of order, and Armaguard people were there from 8.45 a.m.

Unfortunately, ATMs are sold to the public as a service, equal in work and effectiveness to bank branches. However, when a computer system goes down in a bank, staff can often complete the transaction manually and people can still obtain their money. But ATMs are often out of operation. It is particularly frustrating for people who have deliberately travelled to an ATM to find that it is closed. The Bass Hill Plaza is a commercial centre with many small businesses which need the security and service of a local branch. This closure has created a security vacuum in the northern suburbs of the Bankstown local government area.

Small businesses, the elderly and general customers will now need to carry large sums of money with them. The bank's proposed solution of allowing the service to be provided from the post office at the plaza will not help small businesses. The post office advises that it will only service personal customers, not business customers. Local small businesses, particularly those without a safe on the premises, will need to commute a minimum of six to seven kilometres to the closest branch. The bank has written to me stating:

We will continue to have a strong presence in the area with branches at Chester Hill, Regents Park, Condell Park and Bankstown.

Most residents would not describe Chester Hill, which is the closest listed branch, and is six or seven kilometres away, as "in the area". Regents Park, Condell Park and Bankstown are at least 10 kilometres away. Residents of Bass Hill, Villawood and Georges Hall, who have relied on this bank and have been loyal customers over the years, have been abandoned as bank profits grow and bank queues grow. Small businesses also have been abandoned to do the best they can without this essential service.

The honourable member for Bankstown drew to the attention of the House a short time ago the closure of the Greenacre branch of Westpac bank. It seems to me that the Bankstown area is being plagued by bank branch closures. I am concerned that customers are being required to travel considerable distances. For example, to travel from Chester Hill to Bankstown is at least 10 to 15 kilometres. That causes enormous inconvenience to small businesses, many of which involve only one, two or three people. They do not have the staff to travel long distances during business hours to do banking that is crucial for them to remain safe on their premises.

Employers have occupational health and safety obligations under the governing legislation, and keeping large sums of money on the premises places them in breach of the Act and makes them vulnerable to criminals who may choose to target them. I am concerned about what is happening in the Bankstown local government area. Security issues will arise as a result of branch closures. Banks should be concerned about this increasing trend. They should reconsider their policy and consider the impact of branch closures on the community.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith—Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women) [5.15 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Fairfield on pursuing this issue. There is not a member on either side of this House who has not received representations from people in their own electorate about the inconvenience of banks. If one reads all the information about baby boomers, our society is ageing and, therefore, we are getting rid of branches at the wrong time. Older people are most disadvantaged by bank branch closures. When I was the Minister for Fair Trading I undertook an inquiry throughout the State to find solutions to branch closures, particularly in rural areas.

The community has some clever solutions. It is aware that it is foolish for four banks to each have a building in a country town. Given the advent of computers, online mainframes and so on, it was suggested that each bank pay for a proportion of the building and keep it staffed during the week so that people knew which day their business could be dealt with. The banks were present at every consultation and acknowledged that the idea was sensible, but nothing has been done. I again congratulate the honourable member for Fairfield because this issue will not go away. As elected representatives we will keep telling the banks that they should be giving service to the people, not depriving them of it.

Mr PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [5.17 p.m.]: My electorate has two of Australia's most significant rivers running through it, the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers. At the moment those rivers are facing significant problems. I refer to today's editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald. I raised this matter earlier but I wish to speak further on it. I am concerned because some of the matters raised in the article are inaccurate. People in western New South Wales complain that city people and those on the coast do not understand issues affecting communities in western New South Wales.

The Blue Mountains is often referred to in western New South Wales as the sandstone curtain. The Sydney Morning Herald, the Daily Telegraph and other newspapers have considerable influence on public opinion and many people are disturbed when articles referring to western New South Wales are incorrectly reported, particularly as many people in urban areas believe them to be factual.

I do not believe that journalists or editors have malicious intentions; they are simply uninformed. Today's article referred to the current state of the Murrumbidgee River and wetlands and compared this with the state of the river in 1983. In 1983 western New South Wales had just come out of one of the most significant droughts that it had ever faced, and it was a very wet year along the Murrumbidgee River. Conversely, we are currently in the middle of a 10-year dry spell. It has been some time since western New South Wales has endured such a long dry period. That is one explanation for some of the points in the National Parks and Wildlife Service report.

The article claims that State governments, farmers and irrigation corporations have done nothing to address the environmental problems caused by our management of Australia's rivers in the past 200 years. However, the irrigation corporations, farmers and State governments are the first to acknowledge those problems. Land and rivers must be sustainable to ensure the future of farmers and their children, and the newspaper's claim that nothing has been done in this regard is completely incorrect. A cap has been placed on extractions from the Murrumbidgee River, and the National Heritage Trust, the New South Wales State Government and irrigators are spending a great deal of money attempting to address many of the existing environmental problems.

It is a complex issue, and the solutions are not easy or cheap. Plenty of work is being done—although we could always do more. I was particularly offended by the biased nature of the article, which contained few opposing views. However, as I said earlier, many people will read the article and believe it to be true. I caution the media to be more careful about its reporting, which can have a significant effect on public opinion and the way in which members of Parliament view events around New South Wales. The media has a responsibility in this area. I raise this issue not to be overly critical of the media but to raise its awareness.

Mr HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [5.22 p.m.]: I wish to speak today about the opening of the new Toronto fire station. One week ago, on Thursday 13 September, a special ceremony was held in the Lake Macquarie electorate. At 2 p.m. on that day the official opening of the new $1.26 million Toronto fire station took place. I was very pleased to be asked by the Minister for Emergency Services to represent him at the ceremony and, as the local member, to officially open the new fire station.

Attending on the day were Commissioner Ian MacDougall of New South Wales Fire Brigades; the Mayor of Lake Macquarie City Council, Councillor John Kilpatrick and his wife Ellen; other Fire Brigade representatives, including the Acting Regional Commander, Chief Superintendent Bob Dobson and Chief Superintendent Bob Lewthwaite; as well as the chaplain of the fire service, Chris Holland. Also in attendance was my parliamentary colleague Kelly Hoare, the Federal member for Charlton; my brother, Councillor Alan Hunter from Lake Macquarie City Council and his wife Annette; my father, Merv Hunter, the former member for Lake Macquarie, and his wife Bette; and the former Federal member Bert James. The many official guests included representatives of the emergency services and former Toronto firefighters together with representatives of local schools, community groups, registered clubs and service clubs.

I mention in particular Toronto Workers Club, which provided hundreds of chairs for people attending the ceremony. It was certainly important for those community people who had lobbied the Government over the years to see a new facility such as this new fire station in the area. It was certainly appropriate for them to attend the official opening and be a part of the ceremony. Also present at the opening was the captain of Toronto Fire Brigade, Doug Brady, and his crew—the hardworking fire fighters of the Toronto fire brigade. The proceedings began with students of Biraban Public School singing the national anthem, and I congratulate those students and teachers on participating in the ceremony.

Chief Superintendent Lewthwaite thanked the schoolchildren and welcomed the official guests. Councillor Kilpatrick, the Mayor of Lake Macquarie, then said a few words of welcome. He was followed by Commissioner MacDougall, who spoke of the hard work of local fire fighters who risk their lives trying to save local people and property. I was called upon to perform the official opening, and I echoed the remarks of the commissioner, particularly in light of the tragic events in the United States of America last week. It was certainly timely for us to stop and think about those American emergency service workers, many of whom lost their lives while trying to save others. The people assembled at the official opening certainly took that on board and showed their appreciation of the Toronto firefighters.

During his address and blessing, Chaplain Chris Holland called for a minute's silence and we paid respect to all of those who lost their lives in the tragedy in America. Students from Coal Point primary school, who had a poster display at the fire station, also participated in the official ceremony. The fire station is located in an excellent position. It will give firefighters greater flexibility to attend emergency situations in both the north and south of Toronto, offering easier access to main road 217. The previous fire station was located in a residential area in Brighton Avenue. Funding for the $1.26 million station came from the Government's $25.4 million Fire Station Building Program, which was unveiled by the Minister in 1999.

It will not be the only fire station in the local area as new fire stations are planned for Wangi Wangi and West Wallsend. The new station is a state-of-the-art facility, with the latest in firefighting and emergency resources, including two new engine bays, a station commander's office, watch room, gymnasium and locker rooms. The hardworking retained firefighters of the Toronto station are certainly glad to see this facility. I pay tribute to them. These men have worked for the Toronto community for many years, risking their lives for us and our property, and they deserve to be congratulated. The Government remains committed to helping our local firefighters provide the best possible service to the community by giving them the best possible facilities, which they deserve.

Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [5.27 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Lake Macquarie on raising this matter this afternoon. The new $1.26 million facility at Toronto indicates how the population on the west side of Lake Macquarie has burgeoned in recent years. The station replaces the garage-type facilities that were provided in Toronto, Charlestown and at many other locations throughout the Lake Macquarie area when it was no more than a cluster of scattered villages. More recently, the area—and especially Toronto—has become a major centre, and this new facility is most welcome.

The preparatory work on the station dates back to the time of the honourable member's predecessor and father, Merv Hunter, who requested a much better facility. Alex McMurtrie, a former fire commissioner, a firefighter at Wangi Wangi and a great friend of the Hunter family—who has now passed on—was at the forefront of attempts to make certain facilities available on the west side of Lake Macquarie. As the honourable member said, new facilities are planned for Wangi and West Wallsend—and perhaps Floraville or Tingira Heights—to replace the facility in the Windale area.

Once again that is a consequence of the motors at those locations being unable to go into the newly serviced areas of Warners Bay. What has happened at Toronto and Doyalson recently is a clear indication of the Government's commitment to providing adequate fire protection facilities for developing areas. I commend the honourable member for Lake Macquarie for raising this important matter and paying tribute in the House to the people he has named.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [5.29 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to the awful plight facing thousands of families around New South Wales in the wake of the HIH collapse. Too often when disaster strikes the long-term everyday impact on individual men and women and their families is overlooked because of the magnitude of the overall picture we have to face. The collapse of HIH on 15 March has had enormous ramifications around Australia, particularly in New South Wales. Homer builders are finding it incredibly difficult to get building insurance to start or finish their projects. As honourable members know, under the Home Building Act brought in by the Carr Labor Government every builder or home renovator must have insurance for any work valued at over $5,000 before commencing. HIH was one of only three accredited insurers in New South Wales to offer home warranty insurance to commercial home builders; it had around 30 per cent of the market share. No wonder the impact has been so massive.

One of the two remaining insurers, Dexta, estimates that in the two years prior to the collapse it processed a total of 3,000 policies. In the two months following the disaster it processed almost 6,000 policies. While the insurers are working overtime to process applications, builders are facing huge delays. Some builders in my electorate have not worked since the collapse because they are unable to obtain any cover. Over the past six months I have received many letters from builders outlining the personal hardships they face as a result of this situation. One builder from Davistown has held his licence for 15 years and during that time received not one complaint against his work. Despite this, he was told in June that it would take up to three months for his application to be processed.

These are not builders who normally would expect to face a difficult time obtaining insurance because of bad workmanship or registered claims against them. They are builders who have been in business for up to 40 years: they have always paid their accounts and have never had complaints against their work. Many of them employ other staff. Yet they are being told after waiting months for insurance cover that they can initially only insure up to a limited amount, which is sometimes not enough to complete even one project, before they must seek reassessment. One builder in my electorate had to lay off five staff as a result of this insurance situation. Another had to lay off his two tradesmen. Both he and his partner also had no income until the warranty note was finally processed.

The collapse of HIH has had ramifications for both small business and families. For small business, the late commencement of many home building projects will cause significant cash flow problems, not to mention missed opportunities for future contracts. For families, of course, the lack of income will affect the ability to pay off mortgages and provide for those dependents. My office has been able to assist some individual builders who have raised the problem with me. I place on record my thanks and appreciation for the work of David Pierce from Dexta Insurance. He has been incredibly helpful whenever my office has contacted him. The problem is not so much with the insurers, of course, as they are overloaded with work.

The Department of Fair Trading has given the two insurers 15 staff between them to assist in the job of processing the many applications. With the collapse of HIH insurers are now requiring more from builders. Proof that a builder has sufficient assets to cover the amount for which insurance is required is only one of the many issues that must be examined. The Coalition demands an inquiry into the building industry in New South Wales. Despite the general housing boom, caused in no small part by the Federal Government's generous first home owners grant, thousands of contracts have been stalled because builders are still waiting for insurance cover. Discussions are currently taking place about a limited Federal inquiry into home warranty insurance. However, clearly an interim measure must be found for builders in New South Wales. The Carr Labor Government must be prepared to come forward and offer an equitable alternative until this current crisis is over.

In the past six months the Minister for Fair Trading has done nothing for the thousands of builders affected by this crisis. He has not managed to attract even one new insurer into the scheme despite his assurances three months ago that this would happen. The future of the building industry and thousands of families in New South Wales is hinging on what action this Government will take. A range of options must be canvassed and established to solve this current crisis. The Government must act now. I call upon the Minister, the Premier and the Government to urgently convene the necessary meetings to arrange options that can be presented to builders in New South Wales.

A major meeting of builders will be held at Wyong on the Central Coast in the next couple of weeks. I propose to attend that meeting and will urge builders to get behind the Coalition's demands that the Premier take action and convene a summit of the building industry to determine which urgent priorities can be addressed to make sure home warranty insurance is freely and easily available to the builders of the Central Coast electorate. This will be an important meeting that I will be attending. I am sure other members on the Central Coast will attend also. I hope they will come with genuine solutions for the Central Coast builders and their families.

Mr WATKINS (Ryde—Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Sport and Recreation) [5.34 p.m.]: My first appeal to all members of this House is to contact my office if they have particular problems with builders in their electorates who may be facing delays in obtaining insurance. We have links with building associations and insurers. We have been able to assist individual builders to obtain insurance cover and to get back to work. We have established a standing reference group, which includes representatives of the Master Builders Association [MBA] and the two insurers, Dexta Insurance and the Housing Industry Association.

That standing reference group had its second meeting yesterday. We are putting together a package of measures that should be able to assist builders. The standing reference group will provide me with advice on issues arising from problems presented to it. Over the past fortnight I have been working with the department to put in place a range of new phase two initiatives. I assure the House that I am well aware of the problems faced by contractors. We will do all we can to assist them. The department is closely monitoring the home warranty insurance applications that are being processed. Fair Trading is paying for some of its staff members to work in the Melbourne offices of the insurers to assist in fast-tracking building applications. We are sending out more information to builders on how best to prepare their applications for assessment.

Detailed information has been provided to local members of Parliament. Regional builder forums have been held, and we have provided specific assistance for specialist associations, such as master planners and landscapers. We are actively pursuing additional insurers, and one is currently before the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [APRA]. For more than a month we have been waiting for APRA to give final approval. That is causing additional concern in New South Wales. An insurer is ready to enter the marketplace but we will not allow that to happen until APRA, which is the relevant governing agency, gives the tick to proceed.

The Government is working hard with all parties to do what it can to get builders back to work, but we require the assistance of local members to approach the matter in a positive and helpful way for their constituent builders. Honourable members should not be talking negatives; they should be trying to help us find a positive answer. I am disappointed that the honourable member for Gosford is the second Coalition member in two days to launch an ill-advised attack on what the Government has been doing to help. They should talk to the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Association and the insurers, who will be able to tell them what the Government has been doing to assist builders to get back to work and do what they do best. [Time expired.]

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [5.37 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House the concerns of NRMA members over the licentious use of members' money by the road service group to mount a chain of legal actions against media groups and some of its own directors. On top of a raft of NRMA legal skirmishes, its president, Nick Whitlam, has launched a series of his own actions against former NRMA advisers, against its sister insurance company and against a radio station. In most of these actions can be found the NRMA's law firm, which is simultaneously providing legal advice to NRMA and to Nick Whitlam, as well as instructing the group in a wave of court actions that threaten to turn the road service group into a vexatious litigant at any tick of the clock.

Then there is the issue of NRMA's close association with a particularly large law firm in Sydney. That law firm receives tens of millions of dollars of legal work without having to tender for it. Nice work if you can get it! What is not known generally is that the same law firm has contributed funds and services to the Nick Whitlam-led Members First faction of the board, the controlling faction, in both the 1995 and 1997 half board election campaigns. One particular senior partner's name features in the 1997 Members First donation list. Only months later that same partner was personally asked by Nick Whitlam to provide detailed legal advice on the precursor to last year's demutualisation of NRMA Insurance, the One Mutual concept.

The letter to the partner was written and signed by Nick Whitlam, who addressed the partner by his first name: Andrew. The legal advice was detailed and included an outline of the One Mutual proposal, the use of the scheme of arrangement as a way of fast-tracking the proposal through the court system, the important issue of directors' potential liabilities and insurance for same, and a number of other issues.

The issue of the potential conflict of interest of the law firm in question has been forwarded to the Legal Services Commissioner, who has in turn forwarded it to the Law Society's professional standards body for investigation. Already legal threats are flying from the law firm over this referral, including threats of defamation—the action that is so commonly associated with NRMA—all without saying exactly who they are acting for, if it is the NRMA or if it is Nick Whitlam. Or have the two interests become merged as increasingly the NRMA is threatened as Nick Whitlam's private money box? Amid the wave of litigation and the huge cost involved in acting for one or the other or both, members are entitled to know if any of Nick Whitlam's several private actions are, in fact, being paid for indirectly by NRMA members through the lawyers' invoices being sent to NRMA instead of Whitlam.

Now, apart from worrying about what a huge waste of money this involves for a road service organisation whose prime objective should be offering efficient, reliable, prompt and low-cost roadside service to its two million members rather than turning itself into a professional litigant, I want to bring to the attention of the House some other matters that concern me. Recently, the NRMA board secretly approved an upgrade in its directors' expense indemnity policy, which will indemnify directors for certain legal actions from NRMA's money bin as well as providing them with loans to mount legal actions. This type of benefit is unheard of in properly governed companies and is a valuable benefit not normally bestowed—along with fax machines, mobile phones and generous travel expenses—on directors.

Given today's high cost of litigation, this unlimited directors' legal expense indemnity provides a huge monetary benefit to directors. At the same time it is an expensive directors' fringe benefit paid for by members that should be brought to their attention and their approval at least sought before more millions of dollars are wasted in our courts so that the NRMA and Whitlam can settle scores. Honourable members must be bursting to know just who the law firm is and who the senior partner is whose contribution to the Members First election campaign fund four years ago has reaped such a high dividend. It was Andrew Stevenson, senior partner in Corrs Chambers Westgarth and Nick Whitlam's private solicitor.

Of course, Corrs is the firm that is doing 95 per cent of NRMA's legal work as well as Nick Whitlam's legal work in the raft of cases I mentioned earlier. Is this not a conflict of interest of the highest order that deserves the closest scrutiny? The Australian Securities and Investment Commission should ensure that Nick Whitlam stands aside from his duties as director and chairman whilst its actions against him for alleged breach of directors duties are heard. But the subject of awarding large contracts in return for payment of donations of up to $50,000 in cash or kind to Members First requires a full judicial inquiry to ensure that all the deals done are fully exposed and to protect members' money from being misused to satisfy the political ambitions of some on the NRMA board.

Dr KERNOHAN (Camden) [5.42 p.m.]: On 16 May this year one of my constituents, Mr Denis McNeilly of Glen Alpine, wrote to me in the following terms:

I am writing to you with regard to the contempt shown by State Rail to its commuters.

The issue is the state of the Commuter Car Park and the rail bridge to Macarthur station.

I have requested to the Minister Carl Scully and State Rail to have the commuter car park cleaned on a regular basis, however it never happens.

This car park has always been dirty for at least the last 10 years.

Mr McNeilly resorted to having the commuter car park included as a site for the 2000 Clean Up Australia Day. The result was 55 bags of rubbish. Attached to that letter was a letter to the honourable member for Campbelltown from the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Andrew Refshauge, dated 9 March 2001,which states:

The carpark is leased to the State Rail Authority who has responsibility for its maintenance at the commuter carpark. I have asked the Business Land Group to discuss this matter with State Rail to ensure that the issues raised in respect of the carpark at Macarthur Station are attended to.

With regard to the overhead walkway linking Macarthur Square and the railway overpass, the Business Land Group has recently undertaken major repairs and maintenance at a cost of $400,000.

Mr McNeilly's letter went on to say that the car park, despite being fully cleaned in March 2001, is now dirtier than ever and the overpass has also become filthy. He wonders whether the areas are ever cleaned. He raised this issue with Macarthur station staff, who are exploring the option of expanding the maintenance contract to include the car park and overpass. As a result of Mr McNeilly's letter of 16 May, I wrote to the Minister for Transport on 18 May in the following terms:

As the commuter carpark is leased to the SRA, it is clearly their responsibility to maintain it. Although the Business Land Group was asked to discuss this matter with State Rail in early March, nothing has happened since the initial cleanup.

The people of Macarthur have the right to a regularly cleaned carpark and walkway—when are they going to get it?

On 27 August I received a reply to my letter of 18 May from the Parliamentary Secretary for Transport, Kevin Moss, which said:

CityRail has advised me that the Macarthur Business Land Group owns the car park and adjoining overhead pedestrian walkway at Macarthur railway station.

We had known that for four months. The letter continued:

CityRail has been involved in ongoing negotiations with the Macarthur Business Land Group, with these negotiations being primarily concerned with which organisation is responsible for the maintenance of the site.

It is six months since the Minister responsible for the land group wrote the first letter about this matter. I forwarded the transport Minister's letter to Mr McNeilly, who wrote to me again. He thanked me for my advice and told me that he had spoken to Michael Pring of the Business Land Group, who advised him that the car park has been provided to State Rail at no cost, as was the railway overpass, neither of which the SRA wants to maintain and keep in a clean and safe state. For more than six months two government departments have been arguing about who is responsible for keeping an area neat, clean and tidy, and suitable for public use. It is ridiculous.

Do these government departments not talk to each other? They are shifting the onus from one to the other. Today the Minister said in this House that CityRail is working on a new timetable. If it cannot organise a timetable to keep a place clean, how can it expect to organise timetables to run trains on time? The Government is promoting the use of public transport but when my people want to go to Macarthur, Campbelltown or Leumeah stations they have trouble parking in dirty car parks. Someone has to do something about it, because it is a matter, as Mr McNeilly said in his first letter, of State Rail treating commuters with contempt.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [5.47 p.m.]: In an example of EnergyAustralia's environmental vandalism throughout the city, street trees planted in Redfern 25 years ago and nurtured to maturity by the local community were brutally hacked on Friday 14 September. The massacre of South Sydney street trees by EnergyAustralia's contractors, Active Tree Services, follows recent similar incidents in the Waverley and Woollahra local government areas. I understand that EnergyAustralia is also now attacking trees on the North Shore through its indiscriminate and insensitive use of its authority under section 48 of the Electricity Supply Act, legislation that allows it, for safety reasons, to prune trees away from overhead power lines up to a maximum clearance of 1½ metres. Many street trees have been cut much more than that. Some have been cut two or more metres away from powerlines.

The whole central core on some trees has been removed, leaving a grotesquely misformed u-shape in the foliage. Other trees have lost all the branches on one side, leaving them misshapen and dangerously unbalanced. The trees will take years to recover. None will ever be restored to its natural shape and some are damaged beyond salvation. Residents are passionate about their local environment and furious that whole streets have been devastated. Residents in densely populated areas rely on street trees for their health, wellbeing and amenity. Street trees have important benefits of providing shade, filtering dust and pollution, limiting strong winds and cooling surrounding air. They have an enormous aesthetic benefit of improving streetscapes, adding natural colour and attracting bird life. Trees create local character and seasonal changes.

The inner city was a concrete dust bowl before the community tree planting projects of the late 1970s. Councils now support street beautification in response to the expectations of their residents and ratepayers. Councils now support planting programs, and they have prepared street tree master plans and tree preservation orders. Following my intervention, the Minister has told me he is very concerned and has agreed to make EnergyAustralia more responsible for street trees and the urban environment. He will make legislative or regulatory changes if negotiations with EnergyAustralia do not result in a policy change that protects street trees.

I am particularly disturbed that the Minister currently has no legislative power to direct EnergyAustralia to halt its gross environmental vandalism. As a corporatised Government authority, EnergyAustralia is not responsible to local communities and has not developed a sensitive and responsible approach to the urban environment. I met with Mervyn Davies, EnergyAustralia's General Manager, Network; Ron Wilcoxen, South Sydney City Council's Director of Public Works and Services; and staff of the Minister for Energy.

I showed Mr Davies photographs of the massacred trees in Marriott and Young Streets, Redfern. I was shocked that he considered the brutal hacking acceptable and planned for EnergyAustralia to continue its devastation. He defended the pruning policy, claiming that EnergyAustralia was taking action because councils had failed to prune the trees. He argued that while the results may not be aesthetically pleasing, the work was in accordance with Australian standards. However, EnergyAustralia's destruction appears to severely breach Australian Standard AS4373 relating to the pruning of amenity trees. Specific issues include the standard's requirement to thoroughly inspect the trees before pruning, to refer to relevant legislation including tree preservation orders, to remove as little as possible and to retain the natural distribution of foliage.

South Sydney City Council has indicated that it has funding allocated for aerial bundling of cables, and is flexible in respect of where this occurs, to limit the destructive impact of EnergyAustralia on street trees. I am shocked that EnergyAustralia did not provide council with the opportunity to explore this alternative before irreversibly damaging trees. Following my meeting, EnergyAustralia has agreed to halt further work in south Sydney until a survey has been done jointly with council to identify options for more sensitive pruning. Where responsible trimming is not possible, alternatives such as aerial bundling or replanting of trees are to be explored.

Last year EnergyAustralia told me that it was exploring commercial opportunities for the further undergrounding of mains infrastructure and was developing user-pays financing options. EnergyAustralia informed me that the cost of placing existing overhead cables underground was of the order of $5,000 to $10,000 per customer. I believe EnergyAustralia should pay the cost of its current policy. Even without the significant environmental, physical, aesthetic, psychological and cultural value of street trees for local communities, mature trees cost thousands—even tens of thousands—of dollars. EnergyAustralia and telecommunications companies should pay the real cost of their impact on the urban environment, with the funds used to bundle overhead cables or put them underground as a permanent solution.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.52 p.m.]: Every member of this House would be aware that this is the International Year of Volunteers. I believe it is important to put that in context by drawing attention to volunteer organisations and the people who run them. A worthy volunteer organisation in the electorate of Wyong is the Central Coast MS and Handicapped Group Incorporated. The president, public officer and trustee of that august body is Joe Parker, who happens to live in the suburb in which I live: Noraville. Two other trustees are Ron Turner, who was an accountant by profession and is the treasurer of the group, and Mr Stan Cowgill. I should point out that my family has a long history of association with the Cowgill family, who came from the town of Cowgill in Yorkshire.

Stan was a third-generation staircase maker, and is prominent in the Toukley Presbyterian church community. The bus drivers who give so generously of their time are Mr Fred Jackson, the bus co-ordinator, Eddie Johnston, Tony Morath, John Maslen, Wal Donaldson and Max Dunn. Joe Parker, who retired after 15 years of full-time driving for the group, undertakes relief bus-driver duties when required. Secretarial duties are capably handled by Robyn Hislop. The main focus for the group is the provision of opportunities for disabled people to get out of the house. The group provides them with a range of activities that enhances their quality of life and integration into the community—not in a bureaucratic way but in a sensible and practical way that helps them a great deal.

Activities include bus trips to various venues and social events. One important activity is transporting people on Tuesday to the hydrotherapy pool at the Toukley swimming pool complex, where other volunteers include swimming instructors who are trained to assist disabled people. In fact, Patricia Parker, Joe Parker's wife, is one such person. The group's activities are open to adults. There are no facilities for children. Activities occur mainly on weekdays, though not exclusively so. Adults are the main beneficiaries of the group's activities. The group receives no handout from government. It raises its own funds by conducting street stalls and with the assistance of service clubs, such as the Lions Club. Max Dunn, one of the bus drivers, is prominent in Toukley Lions Club, which raises funds for the group.

The group was disappointed to miss out on an Olympic Mercedes bus when those buses were being allocated after the Olympic Games. Although the group has two buses, neither has the capacity to transport people in wheelchairs. Fortunately, that problem will be overcome because the group has successfully tendered to purchase a bus from the Wyong Community Transport Service, which obtained one of the Olympic Mercedes buses. Obviously, the purchase of the Wyong Community Transport Service's old bus will involve a considerable financial outlay, but the group is keen to secure the bus, which has wheelchair access facility. Only today the group learned that its tender for the bus has been successful. It now has to make sure that it has the $13,500 purchase price.

I am confident that the Central Coast community will be able to raise the necessary funds in a short period to meet that need and to assist the group. The new bus is critical to the future of people with disabilities in the Wyong Shire. The group presently assists disabled people and those with multiple sclerosis from Mannering Park in the north of Wyong shire to Forresters Beach in the south. I believe that organisation epitomises the concept behind volunteering, and I believe the purchase of the bus can be brought to a successful conclusion in the near future.

Private members' statements noted.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Friday 21 September 2001 at 10.00 a.m.

House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.
_______________