Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 20 March 2002, Corrected Copy)

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Debate resumed from 19 March.

Mr STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Scully [10.00 a.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable members representing the electorates of Keira, Kiama, The Entrance, Coffs Harbour, Myall Lakes, Wakehurst, The Hills and Baulkham Hills for their contributions to this important debate. The purpose of this bill is to introduce measures that will reduce the opportunity for motorists and vehicle operators to evade prosecution for traffic offences for which they are liable. Importantly, these provisions will support the enforcement of legislation for traffic offences, particularly serious speeding and red-light camera offences, and thereby promote road safety for the whole community. During this debate Opposition members expressed concern about the provision relating to penalty notices being deemed to have been served within seven days of being sent. The date on which the police serve the infringement notice is the key date because it determines the final lodgment date, which is the date by which a registered operator must nominate the driver responsible at the time of the offence. Failing to nominate by that date is an offence.

At present the date of service of the infringement notice can be disputed, thereby making the final lodgment date indeterminate. That is why it is necessary to change the service period to seven days. This problem will be overcome by making certain when a notice was sent. It is putting certainty back in the legislation. The concerns raised about time factors, particularly for country folk, are not as relevant as Opposition members may have painted in the debate. When a person receives the initial infringement notice he or she has 28 days to deal with it. If the person fails to react to the notice he or she will receive a reminder notice, which provides for a further 28 days in which to respond. If the person fails to react to the reminder notice a further 35 days are provided before the matter is properly determined through the courts. All up, there are 92 days between the date the infringement notice is served and deemed to be served and the point of prosecution. The end result is that all the issues raised by Opposition members have been rectified.

Mr Fraser: They haven't been.

Mr STEWART: The honourable member for Coffs Harbour raised some of those concerns, as he is now pointing out. I point out that the Opposition's concerns have been remedied. This bill further clarifies the situation in terms of making the lodgment date clear, rather than indeterminate, as was the case in the past. On that basis, this bill addresses those concerns. It provides for a proper determination of the lodgment date whereas it was previously indeterminate, and it sets out clearly the rights of people in terms of this important legislation. The bill is paramount in terms of ensuring the safety of motorists on our roads. The bill ensures that those who commit traffic offences are properly prosecuted. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes—Deputy Leader of the National Party) [10.07 a.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], line 8. Omit "7". Insert instead "21".

No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], line 10. Omit "7-day". Insert instead "21-day".

These amendments provide for the extension of the time for deemed notice from seven days to 21 days. During my contribution to the second reading debate I outlined some of the reasons for these amendments. I am pleased that the Government understands my problems. During my contribution I said that many areas have only one or two postal deliveries per week, and the honourable member for Murray-Darling interjected that some areas have no postal deliveries. People could be deemed to have received an infringement notice under the Act although they did not actually receive the notice, and they could then incur a penalty and, if they did not know to pay the penalty, they lose their licence or registration. The Hansard proof of 19 March states:

Many of the areas represented by the honourable member for Murray-Darling have only one postal service or, at the most, two postal services a week.

Mr Black: Some have none.

The interjection highlights the Opposition's concern. Obviously, the Government is also concerned about this matter. I am heartened that the honourable member for Kiama was so concerned that he suggested I move an amendment to the bill, which I had foreshadowed in my contribution. Obviously, the honourable member for Kiama was not paying attention, which comes as no surprise. So at least two Country Labor members will vote for these amendments. If these amendments are not accepted, people in country areas will be significantly affected because they will not get their mail within the time limits imposed by the Government in this bill.

I applaud the honourable member for Kiama and the honourable member for Murray-Darling for supporting the Opposition's amendments. I look forward to the historic time when, as members purporting to represent country areas, they vote with the Opposition on the amendment. The legislation must be fair and equitable, which can be achieved only if recipients receive penalty notices in a fair and equitable manner. This will not be the case if there is deemed service, which can create a dangerous precedent. Some unknown person nominated by the Commissioner of Police—it could be a police officer or a layperson—will assert that a letter was sent on a certain day and the recipient will be deemed to have received that notice within seven days. The Opposition is not prepared to accept that seven days is a reasonable time. It is of the view that a longer time is necessary to enable people to understand the ramifications of their actions, to perhaps put forward the defence that they were not the nominated driver and to proceed with the necessary statutory declaration. Seven days is not sufficient time, and therefore I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Mr STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.11 a.m.]: The Government opposes the amendments for good reasons, some of which were outlined during earlier debate. Deeming that a penalty notice is served seven days after it is posted will provide certainty that a statutory declaration was submitted within the required time. This was not previously the case. It is a fair and equitable provision. Currently a statutory declaration nominating another driver of a vehicle involved in an offence must be submitted to the Infringement Processing Bureau within 21 days of the receipt of the penalty notice. Honourable members would be aware that the final lodgment date of the statutory declaration can be unclear because the date of service of a penalty notice can be, and has been, disputed. This has caused problems in the operation of the system.

By clarifying the date upon which the penalty notice is served the Government is aiming to reduce disputes about resultant delays in the timely submission of statutory declarations and to provide certainty in the process. This bill will address many of the concerns raised not only by constituents but most recently by the media, which has levelled criticism at the failure of the system. Extending the period beyond seven days for deemed service of the penalty notice will defeat the primary purpose of the bill, which the Opposition has applauded at all stages of the debate. The Opposition has said this is a positive move in the right direction by the Carr Government, but it now seeks to turn that around with an inappropriate amendment that ignores the main purpose of the bill. The bill seeks to reduce the opportunity for people to manipulate the system and avoid their obligations under the penalty notice.

The bill also introduces a provision for the admissibility into evidence of a certificate as to when the penalty notice was posted. Therefore, aggrieved people will have an avenue of redress under the legislation. A similar approach was adopted in section 29 of the Fines Act 1996, which was supported by the Opposition, and this is no different. It is accepted that the previous system needed to be amended to make it workable. People who have been able to manipulate the traffic infringement system should be brought to account and this deeming process will enable the system to be fair and equitable. Specifying that a penalty notice is deemed to be served seven days after it is posted provides certainty in the system, particularly the required time in which a statutory declaration must be submitted. The main focus of the bill is about road safety, protecting the community and accountability of motorists who break the law under the definitions of the Act. I commend the bill but oppose the amendments moved by the honourable member for Myall Lakes.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [10.16 a.m.]: It is with some amusement that I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary because he has not listened to the shadow Minister or to his own members, the honourable member for Murray-Darling and the honourable member for Kiama. In regional and rural New South Wales people may not receive mail that was posted seven days ago. The amendments are simple in that they specify an increase from 7 days to 21 days in order to be fair and equitable. Mail is not delivered on a daily basis in rural and regional New South Wales. Sometimes my mail is sent to Nana Glen Post Office and sometimes to the Jetty Post Office. Sometimes mail does not arrive for two weeks because of the Australia Post system.

The Parliamentary Secretary has not provided the Committee with a valid reason why the time should not be increased from 7 days to 21 days. Indeed, his arguments were such that he should support the amendments if he believes in fairness and equity. The Parliamentary Secretary misled the Committee about what was said in debate last night. The Opposition does not support the legislation; it is not opposing the legislation, which is quite different. He failed to listen to arguments put forward by honourable members last night and has not addressed those arguments this morning. The Parliamentary Secretary may aspire to sit on the front bench, with all the dillydallying by Mr Carr, but I believe that the honourable member for Wyong would win by a nose. The Government should start listening to the people and to Opposition members, who talk to the people of rural and regional New South Wales. This is an opportunity for the Government to ensure that those people are not unfairly disadvantaged by this proposal. If the Government had any decency it would agree to the amendments.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [10.18 a.m.]: I participated in the debate last night along with other members, in particular, former members of the Staysafe Committee and current serving members of the Staysafe Committee. We stated last night that this bill improves road safety and targets drivers who, for whatever reason, manipulate the system to avoid demerit points or losing their licence. The Parliamentary Secretary for Roads said it was necessary to make certain that notices are sent to a registered operator because the date the notice is served by the police is the key date that determines the final lodgment date. The final lodgment date is the date by which a registered operator has to nominate the driver responsible at the time of the offence, and it is an offence to fail to nominate by that date. At present the date of the service of the notice can be disputed—and that has clearly been happening—which makes the final lodgment date indeterminate.

This legislation is being introduced to deal with those issues. It was not thought up overnight. As indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary, it has been used in other areas relating to people who do not meet their civic responsibilities. He pointed out that the Crimes Act 1996 includes similar conditions that were accepted by the Parliament. I am not a lawyer—I see there are a few lawyers opposite at the moment—but as a member of Parliament many people come to me with issues regarding traffic infringements, notices, et cetera. Quite often they unreasonably expect, for whatever reason, that the penalty is unfair and that the police should not be catching them with cameras at red lights or with radar at known black spots. They regard it as an unfair imposition on their civil rights. I am sure all honourable members—the honourable member for Dubbo is nodding—have people come into their office who say that they are good drivers and, yes, they were speeding but that should not be included in the consideration of a penalty.

Mr J. H. Turner: Point of order: I endorse everything said by the honourable member for The Entrance in relation to road safety and we have bipartisanship in relation to that. The deemed time for service about which we are talking is seven or 21 days and he should be addressing the Chair in relation to that matter.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind the honourable member for The Entrance of the need to confine his remarks to the subject matter of the amendments. I am unable to rule on the point of order without looking at the legislation. The honourable member for The Entrance may proceed.

Mr McBRIDE: I will keep developing the argument. During that interjection the honourable member for Cessnock pointed out that everything I have said has happened to him, and I am sure it has happened to the honourable member for Myall Lakes and the honourable member for Bega.

Mr J. H. Turner: Point of order—

The CHAIRMAN: Is it the same point of order?

Mr J. H. Turner: It is, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I do not uphold the point of order. The honourable member for The Entrance may continue.

Mr McBRIDE: As I said earlier—

Mr J. H. Turner: Point of order: In view of the fact that you said you could not rule on my first point of order until you had read the legislation, and you have now ruled on the second point of order, have you now read the legislation?

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chair does not answer questions of that nature. If the honourable member for Myall Lakes is taking the same point of order as he took earlier, I do not propose to rule the honourable member for The Entrance out of order after he has uttered only four words.

Mr McBRIDE: As the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier, the total process is the seven-day deeming period after which there is 21 days, which makes a total of 28 days for the notice period. Following that there are another 28 days for the reminder and about 35 days for the final notice. The whole process can take about 91 days or three months. Three months must be sufficient time to deal with the system. This legislation will bring certainty to the system which the legal people understand better than I. People regularly go to court about certain issues and, if the legal criteria are not met, matters are thrown out of court on a technicality, as has happened in the past. People have been using the loophole of the technicality associated with the law, which was not the intention of the Parliament in the legislation. This legislation will close the loophole to ensure certainty in the system. We need to clarify the date of the start of the process and to reduce the opportunity to manipulate the system.

Currently the statutory declaration nominating another driver or vehicle involved in an offence must be submitted to the Infringement Processing Bureau within 21 days of the receipt of the penalty notice. However, the final lodgment date for the statutory declaration can be unclear because the date of service of a penalty notice can be disputed and has been disputed in the courts. It has just been pointed out to me that there is a major issue in relation to drivers of milk trucks and other commercial operators. They go around the system by delaying the process so that it goes outside the six-month statutory limit and thereby avoid the penalties for which they are responsible. A number of people have beaten the fines in this way. On 17 February an article in the Daily Telegraph said:

A magistrate yesterday recommended changes to the Road Transport Act after a speeding driver escaped without penalty because he was driving a company car.

Justin Davis, an official with the Australasian Meat Industry, avoided both a fine and the loss of three licence points because his employer was named on the court summons.

The legal loophole, uncovered in Newcastle Local Court yesterday, allowed Mr Davis to avoid penalty.

This legislation will tie up that loophole in the Act. The article continued:

An RTA spokesman said it would look into the Roads and Traffic Act "to see what can be done".

Mr Davis was caught speeding three times by a stationary camera on the Newcastle Rd, Lambton.

Two of the offences—

Mr J. H. Turner: Point of order. I would hope you have had a chance to look at the legislation by now.

The CHAIRMAN: I certainly have.

Mr J. H. Turner: The honourable member for The Entrance is way off in addressing the amendments that I have moved.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for The Entrance should direct his remarks to the amendments relating to changing the period from seven days to 21 days. His last argument did not relate to the amendments, and I ask him to return to the leave of the amendments.

Mr McBRIDE: In conclusion, in regard to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Myall Lakes, I support the Parliamentary Secretary for Roads who said there is need for certainty in the system and that is why I expect that these amendments will be defeated.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

Dr KERNOHAN, by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation and rebut allegations made about me in the Daily Telegraph of today, 20 March 2002. These allegations reflect upon me and upon all members in that they imply that I and other members are interested simply in obtaining benefits as a result of our membership of this House. The benefit in this case is free tickets to the Royal Easter Show. The allegations about me are untrue and hurtful. I have been a financial, fully paid-up member of the Royal Agricultural Society [RAS] for more than 40 years, including during the past 11 years when I have been a member of Parliament.

I have never sought free tickets to the Royal Easter Show and I have always paid my way 100 per cent. As a paid-up RAS member for 40 years, I, together with other members, have always been able to attend the Royal Easter Show without incurring further cost, as membership carries the right of entry. I have a lifelong interest in dairying and have a Doctorate of Philosophy in Agriculture. I have had a close association with the dairying section of the Royal Easter Show for many years since showing my own cattle in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The imputation against me is false and I am requesting a retraction from the editor of the Daily Telegraph.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove—Leader of the Opposition) [10.32 a.m.]: I begin my contribution to this debate by paying tribute to the Governor, Marie Bashir, and congratulating her on the way in which she has performed her duties and responsibilities as Governor of this State. Since her appointment in March last year Professor Bashir has played her role with dignity, skill and dedication. We are fortunate to be served by a Governor with such capacity and such a commitment to responding to community feelings and sensitivities. It is unfortunate that the leadership of the Governor is not matched by that of the Labor Government.

In line with convention, the Governor, in opening Parliament on 26 February, was required to deliver the Speech prepared and given to her by the Carr Labor Government. It was a very boring speech. It contained no new ideas and no inspiration, just re-announcement after re-announcement from a tired Government. As a blueprint for the future, the speech was a major disappointment. Once again this Government has shown that it has no plans, no clear ideas and no vision of where it wants New South Wales to be in the next five, 10 or even 15 years. More and more we are seeing a New South Wales Labor Party that has given up on governing and is focused only on the March 2003 election. We are seeing a Premier, a Cabinet and a party more concerned with image than results and with rhetoric rather than substance. They are not offering this State any real solutions.

While thousands of people face unacceptable delays in overcrowded hospital emergency departments, while public schools are losing students and teachers, and while our public transport system is plagued with failure, Labor responds by spending $104 million in taxpayers' money on paid propaganda and advertising in the last financial year alone. There is no commitment to finding solutions. On this side of the House we categorically reject Labor's notion that spin and propaganda are more important than substance. After seven years, the Premier and his Ministers have run out of ideas. There is no fresh thinking, only excuses.

So the Governor was left to re-announce a long list of projects and promises that should have already been delivered or should be well under way. I ask the House: How many times have we heard about the cross-city tunnel? What about the much talked about railway carriages? Brian Langton—we only just remember him—made that announcement in 1997. New carriages were then announced in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. It is now 2002 and we still do not have them—as the State's poor, suffering commuters well and truly know.

There were a couple of notable exceptions from the Speech—promises made previously but not repeated. I refer to the promise made in 1999 that 1,100 extra police will be on the beat by 2003. We did not hear that promise again. Nor did we hear the promise that the Government will reduce crime rates in New South Wales. The promise that I know the shadow Treasurer was listening for but did not hear was that there will be no new taxes and no tax increases. Since Labor came to power there have been massive tax increases and massive tax changes, none of which have benefited the people of this State.

The state of play in New South Wales as revealed in the Governor's Speech was that no improvements are foreseeable in the future. We heard only promise after promise, all of which we have heard before. The real state of play in New South Wales was evident the day before the Governor's Speech. Those who picked up the Daily Telegraph and the Sydney Morning Herald saw what is really going on in this State. On that day the Sydney Morning Herald began a series about the State's dilapidated and run-down rail infrastructure. We have heard Labor's promises about improving transport services for the past seven years—and no doubt we will hear them again in the next 12 months—but the reality is very different, as the Sydney Morning Herald pointed out. Commuters across New South Wales face the daily problem of overcrowded trains and buses, lack of security, poor service and failing infrastructure.

The other side of the story was depicted in the Daily Telegraph, which revealed that the Premier and the Treasurer are grabbing $6.3 million a day in a tax boom. The newspaper's headline told the story: "Money for Nothing: the $6.3 million a day tax!" The Government continues to increase taxes and has shown no inclination to reduce the tax burden on businesses and families in this State. The Auditor-General revealed that Labor has collected an additional $5.7 billion in tax—above and beyond its projected tax take—in the past four years. However, the real question that Labor will not or cannot answer is: Where does all the money go? New South Wales is the highest taxed State but one of the worst off in terms of basic services—be they primary school resources, health care or transport services. The Labor Government is living politically day to day, worried only about the radio and television news bulletins and tomorrow's newspaper headlines. Labor has no encompassing vision for the future.

The spending spree that the Government has embarked upon this year shows that Labor has suddenly realised that it is in trouble. Just 12 months before a State election, Labor has suddenly discovered that local schools are in desperate need of routine maintenance, with sweltering classrooms and peeling paint. Just 12 months before a State election, Labor has realised that it has not kept its promise to the community to put more police on the streets to patrol and provide a visible deterrent to crime. Just 12 months before a State election, Labor has recognised belatedly that it must address its seven years of neglect of country roads.

As the community well knows, this is all too little too late. The Labor Party has been in government in this State for seven years and it has not been able to articulate a plan for the future. With hospital waiting lists higher than they were in 1995, with children leaving public education in record numbers, with crime rates 50 per cent to 150 per cent more than they were when this Government was elected, and with the unenviable tag of New South Wales being the highest taxed State in Australia, this Government has no real record. For seven years it has coasted and cruised along. The Government has no real record and, importantly, it has no clear plans for the future.

In sharp contrast, the Coalition is strongly committed to delivering a social, economic and cultural environment driven by innovation and with excellence as our goal. As a nation and as a State we laud our sports stars and celebrate our sporting achievements. The Coalition will be looking for the same innovation, achievement and drive for excellence in other areas of endeavour. We will establish a framework for excellence in key areas, such as education and small business. New South Wales must have an innovative education system that leads our region and is right up there in the front line of world standards. We cannot afford to let our children's education fall behind. We are competing not only with Victoria and Queensland but with Singapore, California and Europe. We need to know that our children will have the best innovative, creative and exciting education that we can provide for them. If we do not, we condemn their future.

We believe that a comprehensive and integrated tripartnership between technology, education and business is absolutely essential if New South Wales is to be competitive internationally. That tripartnership must be founded on innovation and research and development in business, and we must seek ways to improve agriculture and adapt technology to ensure that opportunities that we know exist are captured for our State and that we can help those in the industry to grow. The Coalition believes that any efficient organisation plans for its future—and not just for the next 12 months but, as I said earlier, for five, 10 and 15-year cycles. Today I would like to speak about three areas in which we believe we need to plan for the future of our State.

The first involves the need for an infrastructure plan. Our State has grown like Topsy: a bit of road here, some rail development there, and hospitals here. Much of that infrastructure work has been driven not by the need of the community but because it might win a marginal seat. The Coalition totally rejects the concept of planning based on politics. We believe in an infrastructure plan that is developed to make New South Wales work better. The Coalition intends—and has started the process already—to plot the State's existing infrastructure. This is not just about road, rail and ports, but about identifying where we have our schools, universities, TAFE colleges, hospitals and sporting infrastructure. Once we have done that we will then fill in the gaps. We must have a plan to ensure that the whole of the community benefits.

We have the Premier bashing our migrant community and blaming all of the woes of Sydney on his perception that there are too many migrants in Sydney. With the greatest respect, I think the Premier misses the point. If the Premier is serious about ensuring the development of New South Wales he has to look at the development of regional New South Wales, because migration internally places as much stress on Sydney as any migration from overseas. We need an infrastructure plan that makes towns like Dubbo, Bathurst, Wagga Wagga and all the smaller satellite towns viable. For that to happen, they must have proper infrastructure connections to Sydney and to ports that make it viable for businesses to establish in those communities and move their product to market and export it. Those communities, if they are to be viable, need infrastructure that will attract and keep people in them.

One can talk all one likes about decentralising, about providing business incentives for companies to go to the country, but unless there are schools for children to attend, and hospitals that we know can provide quality services, unless we know that there is something for our teenage children to do on a Saturday night and sporting facilities that they can access and play on, we will never have effective regionalisation. We therefore need an infrastructure plan that takes all those matters into account and prioritises development. People are not silly. They well understand that we cannot build every bit of road in 12 months, and we cannot build to satisfy every hospital need in 12 months, but if we can prioritise needs and tell them the time frame for delivery, they will believe us. If you have a plan for the future and are honest about that plan with the people of this State, they will believe you.

The second point I would like to discuss this morning is planning not only for Sydney but for our communities. In recent times this Government announced the release of 89,000 blocks of land on the urban edge of Sydney in recognition of the fact that Sydney will continue to grow. There is no doubt that Sydney will continue to grow, but instead of being obsessed with architecture, what the design of a three-storey walk-up will be, and whether triangles should be inside circles, we should be planning for the development of Sydney and in that plan taking into account the needs and character of local communities.

We cannot possibly release 89,000 blocks of land on the urban fringe without asking: Where are the roads? Where are the schools? Where are the sporting fields? That is an absolute planning disaster, as we have seen in past development. My colleague the honourable member for Hawkesbury knows very well the argument that we have had about Windsor Road, and I am sure my colleagues the honourable member for Baulkham Hills and the honourable member for The Hills will agree with him. The Government kept on talking about the release of more land in that area without giving thought to providing road infrastructure to support that development.

Dr Kernohan: Camden roads are gridlocked in peak hours.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: Exactly. We cannot allow Sydney to continue to be developed like that. Secondly, we have to consider what we will do for the inner rims, the parts of Sydney closer to the Sydney central business district. This Government has been so intent on imposing its will on communities that it is destroying the character of those communities by the imposition of artifices such as SEPP 5, through two-storey walk-ups which no longer fit in with the character of those communities. That is why the Coalition has announced that it will abolish SEPP 5 and the disaster plan SEPP 53. We will work with communities to ensure that the planning processes and planning developments for those communities take into account local character and the ability of the community to live within those planning policies. Otherwise, we will end up with a city that is neither attractive nor liveable—and nobody wants that.

The third area I would like to speak on briefly is the need for the State Government to be involved in the process of identifying and encouraging new industries. We have in our Premier an attitude that I think can be paraphrased by a line in a movie that I once saw, "If you build it, they will come." I think our Premier believes: This is Sydney, they will come. With the greatest respect, that is not the case. Sydney is certainly an attractive proposition for people from overseas, but if we do not encourage development of new industries in the whole of the State, not just Sydney, we will not be able to provide future opportunities for our young people.

It distresses me that New South Wales is lagging behind Victoria and Queensland, for example, in the promotion and development of biomedical and biotechnical industries. This State has some of the finest medical researchers and some of the best facilities with close proximity to key markets. A Coalition government will have the opportunity to become a champion of biomedical research, setting our sights on making New South Wales a medical State of excellence and promoting and developing biotechnology and biomedical research. The relationship between researchers, health providers, private organisations and government needs to be enhanced on all levels.

Government needs to provide a range of services to facilitate and encourage investment and performance, rather than inhibit it with unco-ordinated regulatory and planning controls. Innovative investment in biomedical research—and I am talking not just about dollars but about attitude and approach—will generate substantive returns in improved health outcomes for our community and for business development in our State. Victoria and Queensland already have seen the opportunities; sadly, New South Wales is lagging far behind. But that does not apply only in relation to biotechnology. For example, we have fantastic opportunities in the burgeoning film industry in this State.

We have a fantastic facility that continues to develop in this State. We need to make sure that young people in New South Wales are encouraged through their education system to take up the opportunities available within that industry. We must ensure that we have creative people coming through our system so that this burgeoning industry can continue its momentum. We know that other States would like to take this industry from us. Queensland is doing its darnedest in that regard and is spending money hand over fist trying to achieve that result. It has been quite successful, and during the last financial year actually increased its film production by 40 per cent. On Queensland's estimate that increase improved its economy by $400 million and created 3,100 jobs.

We must ensure that New South Wales remains the pre-eminent film production State and, indeed, remains competitive with the rest of the world. At the moment we are maintaining that position, but in order to continue in that role we must make sure that the creative people we already have are supported by more young people coming through our education system. We should encourage growth and development in the film industry because that provides a huge opportunity for the future of our young people. The development of our agricultural industry is an important issue. We have done marvellously well with traditional agricultural areas, and we all know that at the moment land prices, wheat prices and cattle prices are good.

Mr Merton: And wool.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: And also wool prices, as my colleague the honourable member for Baulkham Hills reminds me. We must recognise also that we sit on the edge of the fastest-growing market in the world. Asia has the fastest growing middle-income group in the world through India and China. This should be an opportunity for us to begin target-marketing our food to the rest of the world, but not only traditional food. We should be working with our Federal colleagues to ensure that we develop products to export to those markets that are willing to pay for them. Those markets are looking for good quality produce, and this State is missing out on the opportunity to provide it.

A couple of years ago I spoke to people who were keen on the concept that New South Wales would become, to use their words, the food bowl for Asia. I spoke to them not long ago, and they are worried that the New South Wales Government does not seem to have a real commitment to this idea. We are missing out on this great opportunity. We must examine innovative ways in which to encourage our agricultural producers to examine those markets and change the product mix to provide for those markets. When I visited Wilcannia recently I learned that its people want to grow roses. I have no idea about growing roses and I would not have thought that Wilcannia had the right climate, but the people there assure me that they have the opportunity to grow roses. But they cannot get anyone to listen to them.

If Wilcannia had the opportunity to grow roses it would not only provide the area with a wonderful export market but also provide huge employment opportunities and other associated benefits, such as health improvements, for an Aboriginal community that wants to become self-sufficient. We should examine those opportunities and encourage and assist communities to drive them. We should also consider value adding to our food production. This State should encourage manufacturing as Victoria does. A key to achieving that goal is water reform and ensuring that we have proper water supplies. The Coalition will talk a lot about water this year because we recognise that the key to agricultural growth in this State is ensuring a constant and proper water supply.

The Opposition will establish an innovation centre as part of our idea to help identify potential new industries. The centre will be an incubator for new ideas and trends and will bring together the entrepreneurial expertise of business managers, and in particular the creativity and energy of many young people. There are many young people with very good ideas, but often they do not have the business heads to get their ideas off the ground. A Coalition government will encourage those young people and their business ideas. After the 1999 election I made a simple commitment to the people of New South Wales: By the 2003 election the community would well and truly know where we stand, what our policies are and what we would do in government. We have commenced that program and will continue with it over the next 12 months.

We are unveiling our policies to our timetable, not to a program that suits the Premier, the Government or indeed the honourable member for Blacktown. Already we have a number of major policies on the table. I have talked a little about our planning policy and already we have gone into more detail about that. The community knows our views on public lands and our need to maintain public open space. We have talked about the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecutions, like every other public official in New South Wales, should be accountable to the community, through the Parliament. We will establish an oversight committee for that purpose. We have spoken about freedom of information and the need for open government.

Over the next 12 months we will continue to talk about all the issues we believe are important to the people of this State. We will maintain our program of policy initiatives and take them forward within a framework that makes New South Wales work better economically and socially. Under Labor New South Wales has become a State of neglect and in need of urgent attention. Our initiatives will build on the groundwork that we have laid and the work that has been done already on the ground by our members around New South Wales. In 12 months time we look forward to letting the people decide whether they want Bob Carr and the Labor Party in power for 12 years. We have had seven long years so far and there has not been a lot of achievement. Could the people of this State possibly want them for 12 years? We will ask the people of this State to decide whether Labor is arrogant and out of touch and has reached its use-by date.

The Coalition has a fresh approach to government. New South Wales is the Premier State and we will provide the impetus to make it an international leader by creating a productive tripartnership between education, technology and business. That is what we mean by innovation. I look forward to seeing the people of New South Wales reap the benefits of our programs. If we can improve the economic structure of this State, if we can provide more opportunities for business and if we can ensure future job opportunities for our young people, then we will be able to make sure that we can invest in education, health, transport and police.

A strong State and a strong economy will then help us deliver a strong socially based State. We have a plan and we know what we want to do in our first term; we know what we want to deliver for the people of this State. Not only do we know what we want to do for the next four years, but we know how we want New South Wales to look and how it should be developed over the next 10 and 20 years. The development of New South Wales cannot be stopped. We must make sure that it works in the best interests of the people of this State.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Face.

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Schedule 1

Mr McGRANE (Dubbo) [11.00 a.m.]: I support the amendments moved by the Opposition because they are logical. Overall, I support the bill but the Opposition's amendments provide that the period of notice be increased from seven days to 21 days. Government members have stated that the infringement is dealt with by the system within approximately 90 days. In supporting the Opposition's amendments I make the point that a person who is the subject of a notice has only seven days in which to respond, whereas the amendment provides for 21 days. If the Opposition's amendments are accepted all other processes involved in dealing with the infringement will take effect following the notice period of 21 days. My support for the Opposition's amendments is based on the fact that people who live in rural areas will not be able to respond within seven days. Although I support the overall purpose of the Government's legislation, the Oppositions' amendments, if accepted, will provide an additional 14 days within which people may respond.

The Committee should accept the amendments—it is a matter of fairness. The Government intends to catch people who try to get around the system, and I have no problem with that. However, it is the responsibility of members of Parliament to ensure that the changes to the legislation are fair. Honourable members from both sides of the Chamber have highlighted the fact that mail deliveries in country areas are not as frequent as those in metropolitan areas. The seven-day period is potentially detrimental to people who live in country areas. Therefore, the Opposition's amendments are logical and fair. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes—Deputy Leader of the National Party) [11.02 a.m.]: I place on record a response to some of the matters mentioned by the honourable member for Bankstown, the Parliamentary Secretary, and the honourable member for The Entrance. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that members of the Opposition support the bill, but members of the Opposition stated that they would not oppose the bill. The Opposition accepts that there has been manipulation of the system, but that issue is separate from the deeming provision for receipt of the notice. During my contribution to the second reading debate I asked for an estimate of the degree of manipulation of the system, but the Parliamentary Secretary did not refer to that during his reply. The simple fact of the matter is that it is possible to contest the notice, but in country areas many people will not receive the notice within a seven-day period.

That constitutes a double whammy for country people. First, they will not receive the notice but will be deemed to have received it, even though it may have been wrongly served because the person who is named in the notice may not have been the driver. Second, they have to go to the expense of contesting the presumption that the notice was received before expiration of the seven-day period. That will create difficulties for people who live in country areas because the legislation deems that notice has been received after the expiration of seven days from the date it is issued. As the honourable member for Murray-Darling pointed out, some country people do not even receive a mail delivery during a seven-day period. Moreover, people who live in remote areas and who may need to consult a solicitor will have to travel to the nearest town, which may be up to 500 kilometres from where they live.

Country Labor members will no doubt toe the party line and vote against the Opposition's amendments. They should be held accountable by country people. During the second reading debate the honourable member for Murray-Darling admitted that some constituents within his electorate do not receive mail within a seven-day period. If those people are the subject of an infringement notice but are not the persons who committed the misdemeanour they may well be deemed to have committed the offence. The honourable member for Kiama invited me to move an amendment, and that is exactly what I have done. As I said at the beginning of the Committee stage, I invite the honourable member for Kiama and the honourable member for Murray-Darling to vote with the Opposition and to support these important amendments.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone—Minister for Land and Water Conservation, and Minister for Fair Trading) [11.06 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The effective management of our New South Wales coastal areas is of immense importance to the New South Wales Government and to all Australians. It is the coastal zone which provides a home to a large percentage of our State's population; it is the coastal zone which gives us vital transport links. It is a major source of food and raw materials, it contains valuable and irreplaceable habitats, and it is a magnet for tourism and local recreation. Unfortunately, it is our use of the coastal zone which is leading to serious problems of habitat degradation, declining water quality and resource depletion. There are increasing concerns within the community about population pressures, inappropriate development, loss of aesthetic values, loss of coastal amenity and the loss of traditional public access. In June 2001 this Government responded to these concerns by announcing a package of comprehensive and balanced measures to safeguard the New South Wales coastal zone for present and future generations.

An important part of the proposals was to ensure the protection of our State's beaches and headlands by requiring local councils to prepare coastal plans of management for any beaches where emergency works might be needed to combat storm erosion or where there were likely to be public access constraints. In this legislation—the Coastal Protection Amendment Bill—the Carr Government delivers this protection to the people of New South Wales. The proposed amendments to the Coastal Protection Act have arisen from the landmark report prepared by a subcommittee of the Coastal Council of New South Wales, chaired by Professor Bruce Thom for my predecessor, the Hon. Richard Amery. The report essentially dealt with two issues. The first was the impact of emergency actions taken by either councils or individual property owners in response to storm erosion. The second issue was the problem that the redetermination of private property boundaries, defined by reference to mean high-water marks, created in terms of both coastal amenity and public access to the foreshore. The review reinforced the Government's concerns that ad hoc actions by both individuals and authorities in response to storm erosion or emergencies can create an ongoing loss of beach amenity after the emergency is over.

The review identified a sequential pattern of events where a threat, or a perceived threat, to property due to storm erosion was addressed by either the owner or the local authority through the dumping of a range of materials, many of which were ill-suited to the task. After the storm emergency no attempt was made to clean up these ad hoc works. The result was that the long-term amenity of the beach was irretrievably lost, not from storm damage but from the emergency response. These problems were highlighted during apparent emergencies in 1998 and 1999 at Collaroy-Narrabeen and Byron Bay which led to the placement of ad hoc protective works with no consideration for the long-term impact on the beaches. Following its review the Coastal Council recommended that legislation be put in place to integrate emergency works within the framework of the coastal management process as set out in the Government's coastline management manual, and for the implementation of such works to be linked to the activities of the State Emergency Service.

As I have said, the second issue discussed in the report relates to the amendment of property boundaries which are defined by reference to a mean high-water mark. New South Wales beaches that border the open ocean and estuaries experience both erosion and build up or accretion. A number of problems arise when private ownership of land is defined by the mean high-water mark behind a sandy beach. Erosion of land can result in works by the property owner to protect that land. Accretion of land can result in attempts to redefine the land title, with subsequent moves by the property owner to protect this newly acquired land from future erosion and from access by the wider community. Where the land-water boundary is ambulatory—that is, where it moves with the mean high-water mark and the movement is gradual, natural and imperceptible—the legal doctrine of accretion and erosion applies.

Under this doctrine landowners can apply to have their property title redefined through an administrative process or through the courts. Processes of shoreline accretion and erosion along the New South Wales coast almost inevitably create situations where the accretion takes place gradually and imperceptibly, but erosion occurs rapidly as a result of dramatic storm events. As a result, property owners have time to claim title to the newly accreted land under the doctrine of accretion but do not lose this land under the doctrine of erosion as the loss is usually sudden and dramatic and is readily observed and documented. In New South Wales the doctrine of accretion and erosion has become a one-way activity with owners readily increasing their landholding and never surrendering it. The net effect is that application of the doctrine favours the private landowner at the expense of the public domain. If the issue remains unaddressed we will see a continued loss of public access along the foreshores of our estuaries, in particular as property owners continue the cycle of protecting their properties from erosion and laying claim to any accretion beyond those protected boundaries.

Let me turn now to the legislation. The Coastal Protection Amendment Bill will amend the Coastal Protection Act 1997 in three major areas. First, it will define the area to which the Act applies. Second, it will give the Minister for Land and Water Conservation the power to direct local government councils to prepare coastal management plans. These will include the specification of appropriate responses to the management of erosion under emergency conditions. Third, it will modify the basis on which land boundaries defined by a mean high-water mark can be adjusted. In addition, the bill proposes an amendment to the Crown Lands Act to allow the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to create easements for access over freehold land where the boundary was defined by reference to mean a high-water mark and a coastal management plan recommended that such an easement or easements would be needed to maintain customary access.

Under the Coastal Protection Act 1997 the coastal zone to which the Act applies is defined as excluding the urban regions of Sydney, Newcastle, Illawarra and the Central Coast, extending from Newcastle in the north to Shellharbour in the south. Item [1] of schedule 1 inserts new section 4A, which significantly extends coastal zone boundaries. The only areas excluded from the zone are those parts of the local government areas of Pittwater, Warringah, Manly, Woollahra, Waverley, Randwick and Sutherland that are not, and are not likely to be, affected by and that do not, and are not likely to, affect coastal processes including coastal wave and wind action. The waters and foreshores of Sydney Harbour and Botany Bay continue to be excluded from the coastal zone. This expansion of the coastal zone to include much of the greater metropolitan region has the strong support of local government councils and is consistent with the coastal package which this Government announced in June 2001.

The bill will introduce a new part 4A into the Act. It deals with the preparation of coastal management plans. It is proposed that the Minister for Land and Water Conservation will have the power to direct a council whose area falls within the coastal zone to prepare a coastal management plan. New part 4A specifies matters that must be dealt with in the coastal management plan and the process for its preparation, approval, gazettal and future amendment, if necessary. Specifically, the bill directs that coastal management plans must include provision for emergency management works during periods of beach erosion and for continuing and undiminished public access to beaches, headlands and waterways.

Honourable members would be aware that local councils have been developing coastal management plans in accordance with the processes set out in the Government's coastal management manual for many years. The development and implementation of these plans has been strongly supported by the Government through the provision of both technical and financial assistance. In 2001-02 around $5 million will be available to councils for these activities on a 50 per cent subsidy basis. It is to be hoped that councils will continue to follow this process with both technical and financial support from the Government and that there will be relatively few instances when the powers to direct councils to prepare a coastal management plan will need to be used.

The Coastal Council of New South Wales is co-ordinating the development of a whole-of-government coastal zone management manual to replace the separate and now outdated manuals currently used for managing the New South Wales coast and its estuaries. A key component of the new manuals will be a section dealing with options to address emergency storm erosion in the overall context of a coastal zone management plan. While it is expected that councils will continue to support the development of management plans, should councils not be prepared to develop and implement them on a voluntary basis it is essential that the Government has the power to direct councils to do so. Further, if a council fails to comply with such a direction, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation will have the power to make the coastal management plan instead of the council. In such cases, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation will be able to recover the cost of the preparation of the plan from the council.

The bill makes provision for substantial penalties for persons carrying out works which do not comply with coastal management plans and allows the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to take action in the Land and Environment Court for an order to remedy or restrain a breach of a coastal management plan. New part 4B modifies the doctrine of erosion and accretion as it applies to land whose boundary is defined by a mean high-water mark. It does this by removing the powers of the courts, the Minister administering the Crown Land Act 1989 and the Registrar General to make a declaration or determination concerning the mean high-water mark boundary if either a perceived trend by way of accretion is not likely to be indefinitely sustained by natural means or if, as a consequence of making such a determination or declaration, public access to a beach, headland or waterway will be, or is likely to be, restricted or denied.

No longer will property owners be able to have a boundary title adjusted simply by showing that any accretion has been slow and imperceptible. Now a property owner must also show that the process is irreversible and that customary public access to the foreshore will not be lost. In conclusion, the bill provides for an amendment to the Crown Lands Act 1989 by the insertion of a new section 58A to enable the Minister to create an easement over private freehold land where the boundary is defined by the mean high-water mark for the purpose of securing continued public access to a beach, headland or waterway, but only if the creation of such an easement is recommended in a coastal management plan. No compensation is payable in such cases.

The purpose of this provision is to ensure that customary access is not lost should a property owner construct protective works or fencing on his mean high-water mark boundary such that erosion immediately outside the works or fencing makes it impossible for a continuation of existing access. This amendment includes a provision that the owner or lessee of the land would not be liable for personal injury or death or loss of property of a person using the easement unless such loss was caused by the property owner's negligence. The amendments to the Coastal Protection Act I have outlined are soundly based and will ensure that coastal New South Wales remains accessible to the community and is effectively managed. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr D. L. Page.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone—Minister for Land and Water Conservation, and Minister for Fair Trading) [11.21 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill contains amendments to the First Home Owner Grant Act to implement three changes to the administration of the grant. The primary purpose of the bill is to formalise changes to the first home owner grant announced by the Commonwealth Government last year. At the start of the GST, the Commonwealth introduced the First Home Owner Grant Scheme to provide $7,000 for first home owners. This scheme is administered by State and Territory revenue offices. On 9 March 2001 the Commonwealth introduced a further $7,000 grant for first home owners building a new home rather than buying an existing dwelling. The additional $7,000 grant for new first homes was to end on 31 December 2001. On 9 October 2001 the Commonwealth announced that the grant would be extended until 30 June 2002, but at the reduced amount of $3,000. The Commonwealth remains responsible for funding both the $7,000 first home owner grant and the additional grant of $3,000 for new first homes.

The Commonwealth has relaxed the eligibility criteria for the additional grant, loosening the timing restrictions on the start and finish of building work. The other eligibility criteria for the additional $3,000 grant are identical to those for the additional $7,000 grant that applied between 9 March 2001 and 31 December 2001. The Office of State Revenue [OSR] has been administering the grant on the basis of the Commonwealth's announcements. To ensure that no applicants were disadvantaged by Commonwealth delays in formalising the revised guidelines, the OSR has reviewed any prior applications that were rejected but would have been eligible under the new guidelines. These amendments to the First Home Owner Grant Act authorise the extension of the additional grant for new homes at the reduced rate of $3,000, and revise the guidelines in accordance with the Commonwealth's announcements. Apart from formalising current administrative practice, the amendments will provide a legislative basis for applicants' rights of review and for compliance audits by the OSR.

The second amendment creates a specific offence for knowingly giving false or misleading information in an application for the grant. The Act currently contains an offence for knowingly giving false or misleading information to an authorised officer. However, most applications for the grant are not made to the Chief Commissioner or other authorised officers but to authorised financial institutions. The new offence will have a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units, consistent with the existing offence. Similar provisions exist in other States' grant legislation. The final amendment authorises the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue to recover amounts from third parties in certain circumstances. The Chief Commissioner of State Revenue is currently authorised to recover grants that are required to be repaid by the applicant, penalties imposed on the applicant, and amounts paid in error to another person. These amounts can be recovered directly only from the applicant or the other person.

In relation to taxation laws, the Chief Commissioner is also authorised to collect amounts of tax from third parties who owe money to, or hold money for, a taxpayer. These provisions, sometimes referred to as "garnishee" provisions, are an effective means of recovering amounts payable where direct recovery from the taxpayer has not succeeded. In practice, the third party is usually the bank with which the taxpayer holds an account. At present, there is no equivalent third party provision in the grant legislation. The proposed amendment to the First Home Owner Grant Act mirrors the existing provision in the Taxation Administration Act and will be consistent with the current practices of the Office of State Revenue for recovery of money payable to the Chief Commissioner. The provision requires the Chief Commissioner to notify the applicant and the third party in writing and indemnifies the third party in respect of the payment. The effect of all these amendments is to clarify the rights and obligations of applicants for the grant. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion by Mr McManus, on behalf of Mr Knowles, agreed to:

That the Gene Technology (New South Wales) Bill, which was introduced in the Legislative Assembly during the previous session of this present Parliament but interrupted before its completion by the close of this session, be now reintroduced at the stage which it had reached at the time of such interruption.

Debate resumed from 21 September 2001.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [11.27 a.m.]: "Gene technology" is a term that refers to a whole range of techniques for genetic investigation, analysis and change that depend on the direct manipulation of DNA, the material substance of heredity. I am indebted to a web site for this information. I wish to advise members of the web site, genetech.csiro.au, because they may wish to look at it later for a very informative overview in relation to gene technology. The web site also states:

Gene technology is developing at a rapid rate and it will continue to revolutionise basic biological research and development. It provides the potential to improve our health, create a safer and more secure food supply, generate greater prosperity and attain a more sustainable environment.

Gene technology is already providing new ways of preventing, treating and curing human and animal diseases; it is helping farmers improve agricultural production with less impact on the environment; and in the near future, it will allow better food products to be available to consumers at reduced cost.

The technology has given us vital new products like human insulin for diabetes, interferon and other drugs for treating certain cancers, and vaccines against diseases like hepatitis B. Millions of human lives are protected by gene technology every day.

Gene technology has been around for a long time. A relative of mine worked for many years in the 1960s with the World Health Organisation on the modification of soya beans in India, introducing soya production and improving technology. That had a tremendously beneficial impact on the provision of food for that country. For all the tremendous benefits of gene technology, there are concerns about unintended effects on human health and safety and on the environment. There are also broader ethical concerns about manipulating genes. The development and use of genetically modified organisms [GMOs] and products have been regulated by a variety of Commonwealth and State laws. Because of weaknesses and gaps in those arrangements, the States and the Commonwealth have been working together to establish a nationally consistent regulatory scheme for gene technology that is not already regulated.

The objects of the bill are to adopt in this State a uniform Australian approach to the regulation of genetically modified organisms. The Coalition supports the legislation because we believe it is important to have a national regulatory regime to provide a mechanism by which we can address some of the concerns I have identified. The new regulatory scheme involves the adoption and application of the Commonwealth gene technology laws by the States and Territories. This bill is the New South Wales component of the nationally consistent regulatory scheme and follows the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act and Gene Technology (Licence Charges) Act, which commenced in June last year.

The Commonwealth gene technology legislation provides for the establishment of the Gene Technology Regulator, an independent decision maker on licence applications who reports directly to the Commonwealth Parliament. The Gene Technology Ministerial Council will be established to oversee the operation of the Gene Technology Regulator and to issue policy principles and guidelines. That council will comprise Ministers from the Commonwealth and each State and Territory. Under the legislation all activity with genetically modified organisms is prohibited unless the activity is an exempt dealing, a notifiable low-risk dealing, licensed by the regulator or entered on the register of genetically modified organisms.

In considering licence applications the Gene Technology Regulator will undertake scientific risk assessment in consultation with interest groups. The regulator will undertake research on risks posed by genetically modified organisms, monitor activities involving genetically modified organisms, and she—at the moment a woman occupies the position—has a broad range of enforcement powers. The gene technology legislation establishes three gene technology committees. The first is the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, which will provide scientific and technical advice to the Gene Technology Regulator on each licence application. The second is the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee, which will provide community views, and the third is the Gene Technology Ethics Committee, which will provide advice on ethics, guidelines and prohibitions.

The Commonwealth legislation bans the cloning of human beings and certain human-animal cell experimentation. Those prohibitions were included as an interim measure until the States had nationally consistent legislation in place to comprehensively ban cloning of human beings. The New South Wales Government has indicated that it believes the national scheme has significant advantages over each State and Territory establishing its own regulatory system. The Coalition supports that position. Correspondence from the Total Environment Centre was sent to me and to various Ministers and members of the upper House in relation to this bill. I wish to refer to advice I have received today from the Premier's Department in relation to matters raised in that correspondence.

It was suggested that debate on this bill should be delayed. Apart from the fact that debate has been delayed because of the proroguing of Parliament and the intervening break, it has been pointed out by the Premier's Department that other States have already introduced legislation to implement the national scheme—namely Queensland, Tasmania, South Australia and Victoria. The Gene Technology Regulator advised this morning that Victoria is leading the way because it has already introduced the regulations that must support these bills. The Premier's Department points out that any further delay may have associated risks. At present some GMO-related technologies and applications are unregulated. The absence of an appropriate regulatory regime could lead to adverse outcomes for the environment and for human health and safety. This regulatory regime assists in addressing those concerns.

The letter also raised GE-free zone policy development. The Premier's Department has pointed out that under the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act the Gene Technology Ministerial Council may agree to develop a policy principle on the designation of areas for genetically modified food and non genetically modified crops for marketing purposes. The New South Wales Minister, along with all the other Ministers, will be represented on the council. That Act requires consultation on the development of such a policy principle. The scheme also provides for ongoing public consultation and, when considering whether to issue a licence for a GMO, the national regulator must call for public submissions. I accept the advice from the Premier's Department that some of the issues raised in that correspondence, which was the only concern addressed to me, have been satisfactorily addressed. For that reason the Coalition is happy to support this legislation.

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [11.36 a.m.]: I support the Gene Technology (New South Wales) Bill. This legislation is part of a new regulatory scheme. It is a national scheme but not a Commonwealth scheme. That means it involves the adoption and application of the Commonwealth gene technology laws by the individual States and Territories. This bill provides the New South Wales component of the scheme. It applies the Commonwealth law to New South Wales. As I read the legislation, the only exception to that is that this bill does not apply sections 192B to 192D of the Commonwealth provisions, which are those in the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act that relate to human cloning and cell experimentation.

Gene technology, as anyone who speaks about this matter acknowledges, is powerful new technology that is developing at a rapid rate. Gene technology involves modification of living organisms by incorporating or deleting one or more genes to introduce or modify specific characteristics of the organism. A number of arguments claim that that has positive effects and that a range of benefits flow from it. Those benefits include improved health, a safer and more secure food supply and, arguably, a more sustainable environment. However, the ability to introduce genes from one species to a different species can also raise concerns about unintended effects upon human health and upon the safety of the environment. Obviously, there are also broad ethical concerns about manipulating genes which in a sense go to the essence of life on the planet. In that sense these are very significant and substantive issues and this is significant legislation.

Gene technology can be used in a range of areas and in a range of ways. It can be used in scientific research, agriculture, medicine and environmental remediation and across a range of industries. The potential range of industries, I suspect, keeps increasing even as we speak. That is a reflection of the rapidly developing nature of this field. Gene technology is used by universities and public research institutes for scientific research into biology and medicine. In agriculture it has been used by State Government research bodies, by the CSIRO and by private companies. Genetically modified crops with pesticide resistance and herbicide tolerance have been released in Australia. Genetic modification can be used to slow the ripening of fruit. It has been used to increase the vase life of flowers. Genetic modification of micro-organisms is used to produce therapeutic products such as insulin. Biopharmaceuticals available in Australia already include enzymes, hormones, monoclonal antibodies, blood coagulation factors and hepatitis B vaccines.

Genetically modified organisms are used to decompose toxic substances and to clean up industrial sites or environmental accidents. That is an interesting example because the instinctive concern people have about gene technology is often on an environmental level. Interestingly, the technology can be used to address concerns that those who are worried about these issues would rate highly. Industry uses gene technology to produce enzymes for use in paper pulp production. Clearly, with that number of applications, benefits are flowing from the use of gene technology. In agriculture gene technology can allow Australia to maintain or improve existing production efficiencies and maintain Australia's share of world markets. It may do that through increasing productivity, by savings in energy and chemical inputs to farm production, by the recovery of degraded land and by producing changes to the characteristics of agricultural products not possible through other techniques.

The Australian health sector uses gene technology as a diagnostic tool for disease prevention and treatment and to conduct research into the causes of disease. I have already mentioned the biopharmaceuticals already in use in Australia. Those genetically modified products may have improved efficacy, greater availability and cheaper production. They may reduce the likelihood of allergies developing and reduce the risks of transmission of infectious agents. Biotechnology can also provide safe food by reducing contaminants, allergens and natural toxic compounds in foods. Gene technology can be directed at environmental opportunities, including the production of biodegradable plastics and biodiesel, and bioremediation.

On the other hand, there are potential risks, including an increase in the likelihood of people using genetically modified foods developing allergies, increased use of agricultural chemicals on herbicide-tolerant crops, the transfer of genes to related species of conservation value, the impacts of genetically modified organisms on species further up the food chain, genetically modified animals escaping and becoming pests, plants with increased ability to withstand herbicides or extreme environmental conditions becoming weeds, contamination of traditional or organic crops by genetically modified crops and—in a sense, this is a great fear for some people—the unknown long-term or intergenerational consequences.

In a sense, at the core of many people's fear is the fact that the risks of gene technology are unknown, and because they are unknown it becomes much harder to guard against them. If the precise consequences were known they would be a lot easier to prevent. I suspect that is why there is some concern about the use of gene technology. It is also the reason that there needs to be a genuine national scheme, and a coherent and rigorous structure needs to be established. There seems to be broad agreement that the Commonwealth scheme provides that coherent and rigorous structure. Therefore the adoption of this legislation is important, because it is about implementing that national scheme. It is not only about allowing all the positive things to happen; it is also about providing safeguards so that people's concerns and fears are able to be met in terms of the rapid development of what is a very new technology. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.43 a.m.]: I strongly support this bill. As mentioned earlier, the purpose of the bill is to implement the New South Wales component of a nationally consistent statute-based regulatory scheme to protect the public health and safety of people and, importantly, to protect the environment from the risks associated with gene technology. Gene technology, which is a new technology, has set alarm bells ringing in the community. That is good because it has resulted in an important and focused debate on the issue. Recent comments in the media, in this House and in other places reflect the concerns relating to such technology if it is not handled properly and through proper jurisdictions with focused and constructive legislation. This bill provides that focus.

In terms of the background, the new regulatory scheme provides a clear path to market for producers of those types of gene technology products that fall outside the mandate of existing regulators. In the main, these are living, viable micro-organisms, plants and animals. The scheme provides for community consultation, which is very important. Obviously, community consultation adds to the substance of the direction we take in the future with this technology. Importantly, transparency is embedded in the bill. We need to be transparent. We need to illustrate that what we are doing is open to community scrutiny, consultation and criticism, when necessary, in terms of the decision-making processes. Keeping the processes open and transparent is important.

The bill provides for independent, legally enforceable auditing and compliance monitoring. That goes hand in hand with the transparency focus in this bill. Auditing and compliance monitoring underline the need to ensure that the approach taken with this new technology is accountable and can be measured in terms of outcomes. Importantly, if alarms bells are ringing, we need to know that we can make a U-turn and take steps to remedy the situation. It is important to reinforce the benefits of gene technology, which have already been canvassed in this debate. Gene technology is used in scientific research, agriculture, medicine, environmental remediation and industry. In terms of these applications, gene technology is used particularly by universities and public research institutes for scientific research into biology and medicine. That research has provided great benefits, especially in cancer research opportunities now and in the future.

We are still very much in the dark about how to deal with cancer, which is a horrific disease. Gene technology will provide opportunities to alleviate the suffering of people with cancer and, hopefully, find a cure for certain cancers one day. It provides us with a window of opportunity in this regard. It is early days, but a window of opportunity is starting to emerge. In terms of agriculture, gene technology is used by State Government research bodies, the CSIRO and private companies. Genetically modified crops with pesticide resistance and herbicide tolerance have been released in Australia. That is important for the Australian environment, which is very harsh and does not provide much sustenance to crop manufacture. Gene technology allows us to develop crops that are better able to cope with Australian conditions, particularly the dryness of the environment, the lack of soil and so on, and that is an important initiative. Again, gene technology can provide a path towards producing crops that cope with environmental conditions if handled carefully.

Genetically modified organisms are used to produce therapeutic products such as insulin. I do not have to say anything about that because people know the value of research. Biopharmaceuticals available in Australia include enzymes, hormones, monoclonal antibodies, blood coagulation factors and a hepatitis B vaccine. In this instance the application of gene technology in a framework that provides accountability and is able to be carefully monitored is important. Genetically modified organisms are used to decompose toxic substances. We have had problems with industrial accidents throughout Australia. We have an extremely fragile environment and some of the smallest industrial accidents can severely impact on that environment. Gene technology is a shining light in that area because it enables us to learn how to deal with some of these concerns. Gene technology provides huge benefits. As I said, this bill provides for the Commonwealth's gene technology legislation to be implemented as legislation in New South Wales.

Importantly, the proposal helps to ensure that the Commonwealth law and the applied law of New South Wales are administered by the Commonwealth as if they constituted a single law of the Commonwealth. In that regard, the proposal will provide a concrete and uniform focus for the State and the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth law establishes a statutory Gene Technology Regulator, which our bill complements. It uses a Gene Technology Ministerial Council to oversee the operation of the regulatory scheme and establishes three advisory committees to provide scientific, ethical and policy advice to the Regulator and to the ministerial council. The Commonwealth bill prohibits dealings, or activities, with genetically modified organisms [GMOs] unless the GMO is exempt, scheduled as a low-risk notifiable dealing, on the register of GMOs or licensed by the regulator. It establishes a scheme for assessing the risk to human health and the environment, with extensive public input, and importantly provides a centralised public database for all GMOs and genetically modified products.

A great deal has been said about this bill. I applaud its direction and the focus that it provides for this most important technology that will lead us well and truly into the twenty-first century and beyond. We clearly need to harness this technology despite the criticism of it. If there is a transparent, accountable framework for this technology, in uniformity with the Commonwealth, New South Wales will benefit greatly, particularly in relation to human disease, agriculture and research that provides a better quality of life and better opportunities for improving the environment and enhances our opportunities through medicine. I applaud the bill and strongly commend it to the House.

Mr McMANUS (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Knowles [11.52 a.m.], in reply: I acknowledge the contributions of the honourable member for North Shore, the honourable member for Liverpool and the honourable member for Bankstown. The importance of this bill is signified by the fact that it has been accepted in a bipartisan way. I appreciate the input of both the Opposition and the Government. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [11.53 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill. The bill is part of a package of reforms designed to target repeat offenders at the bail stage. The bill removes the presumption in favour of bail for certain repeat offenders, making it more difficult for those offenders to be granted bail and providing a disincentive to offenders to commit further crimes. A range of initiatives across government agencies is also being developed to break the cycle of recidivist offending. The issue of bail remains a matter of ongoing community concern. The proper balance between protection of the community and the rights of the accused, who is legally presumed to be innocent, is an important matter that warrants regular monitoring. In recent times concern about the issue of bail has been heightened by police reports about the increasing number of persons who continually re-offend. The Government is pleased to introduce the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill in an effort to offer further protection to the community from the risk of repeat offenders.

I turn now to the provisions of the bill. The bill inserts a new section 9B into the Bail Act. Section 9B provides that the presumption in favour of bail is removed for accused persons, irrespective of the type of offence they have committed, in certain circumstances. Traditionally, bail was refused for offenders who were at risk of flight and in danger of not appearing at their next court date. In recent times the protection of the community has also become an increasingly important criterion for the court to consider. This was particularly the case for serious offenders. Amendments put forward by this Government in 1998 tightened bail criteria in relation to serious offenders. The court must take into account when assessing bail for a person charged with a serious offence the following matters: whether or not it is likely that the person will commit any serious offence while at liberty on bail—that is, section 32 (1) (c) (iv) of the Bail Act—and, if the offence for which bail is being considered is a serious offence, whether, at the time the person is alleged to have committed the offence, the person had been granted bail, or released on parole, in connection with any other serious offence—that is, section 32 (1) (c) (v) of the Bail Act.

There appears, however, to be a growing category of accused persons who commit less serious crimes repeatedly. These offences are generally lower down the scale in criminality in comparison to say, murder, malicious wounding, or drug supply, and fit within the general presumption in favour of bail category. This bill aims to target those offenders who commit less serious offences and are likely to do so again. Proposed section 9B (1) provides that the presumption in favour of bail is removed for those who are charged with other crimes whilst on bail, on parole, or on a bond or community release sentence. The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research recently released a report on bail called "Bail in NSW: Characteristics and Compliance" which highlighted the increasing incidence of persons failing to appear in compliance with their bail condition to attend at the next court date.

In 14.6 per cent of cases finalised in the Local Courts in 2000, for persons on bail, the accused person had a warrant issued by the court as a result of failing to appear at court. These rates are particularly high for certain offences, particularly property offenders. It is assumed that offenders who fail to appear are committing further offences whilst on bail. Removing the presumption of bail will make it more difficult for these types of offenders to be released into the community. Accordingly, proposed section 9B (2) removes the presumption in favour of bail for any previous offence of failing to appear before a court in accordance with a bail undertaking. Proposed section 9B (3) removes the presumption in favour of bail for any person accused of an indictable offence if the person has been convicted of one or more indictable offences. This provision is to be read in conjunction with the new section 32 (1) (b) (vi). The amendment provides that the court must also have regard to the type of criminal history of the accused person as part of the criteria when considering granting bail.

It is a common maxim that past behaviour is a good predictor of future behaviour. Criminal justice agencies use the existence of prior offences as part of their criteria in assessing high-risk offenders. Of importance, however, is that the existence of a prior offence is only one factor in making that assessment. This is also true of the courts when making bail determinations. The bill requires the court to also consider the type of offence, the seriousness of that offence, the number of previous offences and the length of time between the offences. For example, an accused person with a single prior offence committed five years ago is likely to be treated in a different manner than an accused with five convictions in the past six months. The prior criminal history of the person is only one criterion of many that the court must have regard to when making a bail determination.

Item [4] of schedule 1 inserts further new criteria that should be considered by the court. If the accused person is under the age of 18 or has an intellectual disability, the court must consider any special needs of the person arising from that fact when assessing the interests of the person in making a determination about the grant of bail. The literature on juvenile re-offending shows that once children are incarcerated in a detention centre, the probability of them committing further offences is very high. Gaol as a last resort for juveniles is, therefore, a particularly important concept. Items [5] to [8] contain new provisions which provide the court with more options when granting bail in relation to the conditions that might be imposed upon the accused person. Often the lack of employment or appropriate residence will be a debilitating factor in deciding whether to grant bail. The availability of supervised bail accommodation and the suitability of the accused person to be bailed to this type of accommodation allows the court to both strengthen existing requirements of bail and divert offenders who might otherwise be incarcerated.

This is particularly important for vulnerable accused persons such as juveniles, intellectually or mentally disabled persons, or persons of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background. The provisions in proposed section 36 (2A) simply allow the court to consider the appropriateness of bailing accused persons, particularly those of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background, to supervised bail accommodation if they are suitable and a place is available. This is in line with the recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in relation to gaol as a last resort and the overrepresentation of Aboriginal persons in custody.

Provision is also made in the bill to review these amendments in 12 months. As I indicated earlier, these amendments are part of a wider strategy of reform. In addition to procedural changes by police and the courts, joint initiatives are being developed by an interagency working party chaired by my department. Representatives from a number of government agencies have been consulted on these reforms and will continue to meet to develop further programs, including procedural changes and diversion options. I take this opportunity to thank those members of the working party for their effort in ensuring that these amendments are the fairest, most efficient way of tackling this problem of repeat offenders.

Finally, it should be noted that these amendments sit within the context of the Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment Program [MERIT] as a program that can address repeat offending. This program uses the Bail Act to divert defendants with drug problems into treatment as a condition of bail. It is an "opt in" program, targeting those who are motivated to treat their problem with intensive supervision provided by the Department of Health. In many cases these people already have a significant criminal history and will fit our target of repeat offenders. Early reports on the success of this program are very encouraging. The bill contains constructive and worthwhile reforms. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Fraser.

Debate resumed from 13 March.

Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater) [12.02 p.m.]: The Coalition will not oppose the majority of the provisions of the bill. However, we are concerned about the Government's failure generally to address vehicle emission testing and make amendments to the appropriate regulation. We will oppose those regulations in this Chamber. I foreshadow that in the Legislative Council my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Minister for Local Government, will seek to ensure restitution for the extra costs incurred by local government through enforcing State Government environment protection measures, particularly significant costs with respect to training involved.

The bill proposes a number of main amendments to environment protection legislation, but it also contains a raft of reasonably minor amendments. The significant amendments include amendment of the Contaminated Lands Management Act, to extend the licence for auditors from one to three years. I understand that this brings the audit licence in line with the process in other States, particularly Victoria. It is obviously sensible to extend the duration of that licence from one to three years in order to reduce and achieve greater productivity in administration.

The bill proposes amendments to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. It seeks to extend the powers of the regulatory authority to all authorised officers; to enable an authorised officer to apply for a search warrant for breaches; and to allow investigations commenced in good faith by an incorrect authorised officer to be continued by the correct authorised officer. I will deal with that matter in some detail later. A further amendment proposed to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act will allow a person to appeal a decision not to grant a licence to the Land and Environment Court, and make it an offence to falsely state that goods or services are endorsed by the Environment Protection Authority. The last-mentioned amendment is very valid. This Parliament, if it wishes to give significant regulatory powers to agencies such as the Environment Protection Authority, should prohibit the public being misled by advertisements or false statements. To that end, it is good and sensible that false representation of endorsement by the Environment Protection Authority be an offence under the Act. That provision is strongly supported by the Coalition.

With respect to the main amendments to the Radiation Control Act 1990, it is noted that that Act is to be amended to establish a licence to possess radioactive material and equipment. Clearly, that is a sensible measure particularly for operators of radioactive services, to ensure streamlining of administration by attaching the licence to the premises or a facility of a company rather than to the person who operates the premises or the facility. As a consequence, where staff move on to other facilities or other places of employment it is not necessary to transfer a licence between operators. This process is facilitated by providing that the licence remains with the premises. The Opposition regards that as a very sensible amendment.

With respect to the amendments to the Protection of the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2000, it is noted that the regulation is to be extended to cover not only vessels but sound systems in motor vehicles. People are often disturbed by the noise coming from the open windows of motor vehicles. The extension of the noise control regulation to vessels is commendable. People enjoying the water should not have their enjoyment disrupted by unnecessarily noisy vessels. Also, as I said earlier, sound systems in motor cars are to come under the regulation. That is a good step forward, and the Coalition supports it.

The Coalition has two concerns with the amendments proposed to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The first relates to the issue of incorrect authorised officers. At present, officers investigating a pollution incident may at some stage become aware that they are the incorrect officers to investigate that incident. I understand that although that is not a widespread practice or mistake, it does occur. Where that happens it can void further investigation and perhaps provide a defence in court further down the track. The legislation will amend the Act to allow a procedure whereby an officer who becomes aware during an investigation that he or she is the incorrect authority to notify the correct authority and effectively walk away from the investigation or be deputised by the correct authority to complete the investigation.

If the incorrect authority walks off the investigation, what powers exist to ensure that the correct authority walks onto the investigation? The amending bill uses the word "may" rather than "must" or "will". A situation may arise whereby, for argument's sake, a local council may be called to attend to a pollution incident and, having investigated the matter, may later discover that it is the incorrect authority to investigate the matter. If, for example, the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] is the correct authority and the local council is the incorrect authority and walks off the investigation, there is no requirement in the bill for the EPA to walk on and continue the investigation.

Last week I attended a briefing by the Minister's officers, and my understanding is that they do not perceive this to be a problem because they believe that public pressure will build up to ensure that the investigation is carried through. I do not believe that is sufficient. A citizen may have a pollution problem caused by another person dumping an illegal substance on that citizen's property. If the citizen wants the matter prosecuted and the incorrect authority walks off the investigation, there is no provision in the bill for the correct authority to walk on and complete the prosecution, if that is the appropriate course to be followed. While the Opposition appreciates that the bill is an attempt to clean up the anomaly in the present legislation, we do not believe it goes far enough. I deal now with the issue of extending powers to local government. During the Minister's second reading speech, he stated:

I have already referred to the importance of the partnership between local councils and the Environment Protection Authority under this legislation. This partnership embraces the taking of enforcement action. The bill will remove any doubt that a council can prosecute in the Land and Environment Court for an offence under the Act or regulations if the court grants leave and the other requirements of section 219 of the Act are met.

By virtue of this bill the Minister seeks to clarify the relationship between the State Government and local government, but in doing so raises particular concerns. One matter of concern, as I mentioned earlier, is the cost to local government of fulfilling these responsibilities. All honourable members know that local governments are tied in many places in respect of funds. The bill makes no mention of a transfer of funds to local councils to support their implementation of this legislation. The Minister may indicate during his reply that there is a capacity for cost recovery within local councils, but that does not deal with unsuccessful prosecutions.

The other matter that I should mention in respect of the extension of powers to local government is the element of inconsistency. One of the concerns expressed by industry at large is that in the application of the new powers there may be an overly zealous council officer in one part of the State and a less zealous council officer in another part of the State, resulting in a capacity for inconsistency in the application of this legislation. I ask the Minister to indicate during his reply how those concerns might be overcome and whether a provision can be included in the bill to prevent such inconsistency.

The Opposition's major concern with this bill relates to the amendment of the Clean Air (Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Fuels) Regulation 1997. We understand that the bill will effectively extend the observation test and change the method of issuing infringement notices from requiring an officer to stop a vehicle and issue a notice to effectively issuing a notice based on observation of a number plate and sending the notice through the mail. The Opposition is very concerned about the Government's complete failure over a seven-year period to deal with the motor vehicle emissions testing. The Australian Labor Party's roads policy for the 1999 State election contained this promise:

Vehicle emission performance and evaporate you emission checks will become a part of registration inspections from the beginning of 1996.

Under its Action for Air plan, in May 1986 the Carr Government announced plans to introduce a compulsory vehicle emissions test. The ALP's policy on roads, "Priorities—Safety and Efficiency", which was announced in March 1995, contained the election promise to which I have referred. The first part of the scheme was designed to introduce non-compulsory testing facilities. The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] has operated two, and two only, free but voluntary vehicle emission testing facilities since October 1998—one at Penrith and the other at South Botany.

In 1997 the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads announced that by the year 2000 annual emissions testing would be performed on all passenger and light commercial vehicles that are at least four years old. That very policy was enunciated in a media release by the former Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Pam Allan. By 1998 the deadline had been extended to 2001, so the Government has quite clearly failed in relation to vehicle emissions testing. It has failed to meet its own standards that were set out in a 1995 election policy document formulated by the then Carr Opposition and failed again in 1997 when the former Minister for the Environment put forward that very policy. Both policies failed and an extension of the implementation deadline to 2001 indicates the Government's weakness on vehicle emissions testing.

The RTA's environment report for 2001 does not indicate that testing has been introduced. The report simply states that over 300 vehicles were voluntarily tested at the South Botany and Penrith testing stations. The RTA's web site makes no mention of the introduction of a compulsory scheme. The Environment Protection Authority's web site asserts that compulsory vehicles emission testing has not been introduced owing to the cost of emission-testing equipment. The Smoky Vehicles home page contains an article entitled "Let's Clear the Air", and among its frequently asked questions are "What happens to a smoky vehicle report?", "Am I wasting my time reporting smoky vehicles?", "Will an emission test ever be added to the registration check?", and so on. The web site has become an apology for the failure of the Government and the Minister. The web page states:

The equipment available presently to measure emissions properly costs over $80,000. For this reason, the RTA does not require every inspection station to purchase emission testing equipment.

Next week will mark seven years of administration by the Carr Government in this State. The Minister for the Environment has been a member of the Government from day one and under his administration of the Environment portfolio after nearly three years there is a clear failure of the Government to meet its 1995 election policies on vehicle emissions testing. The Minister is now blaming the cost of the program for the Government's non-implementation. There are still only two free but voluntary RTA-run vehicle emissions testing stations in the greater Sydney area.

I conclude my remarks on that point by referring to the evidence that my office has confirmed with the RTA today, namely, that the compulsory testing regime has not been introduced. Instead of providing the people of New South Wales with a legitimate, scientific and detailed procedure for testing smoky vehicles, the Carr Government falls back on the extension of the smoky vehicles test, which is at best subjective and which is now even weaker. The situation may arise where an EPA officer may see a smoky vehicle and, without even pulling it over, take down the registration number and issue an infringement notice through the mail to begin the enforcement process. That is not good enough.

The Opposition believes that officers should be required to stop a vehicle and issue a notice. At that point drivers of vehicles should know why their vehicles have failed the test, or at least they should know what the problem is rather than receive an infringement notice later for having a smoky vehicle. The amendments to this regulation will make it an offence for anyone to state that he or she was not driving the vehicle or that the vehicle was stolen at the time—a standard practice used in all traffic infringement processes. Those amendments are accepted and well received by the Opposition. The amendments relating to vehicle emissions testing were proposed after the Environment Protection Authority realised that the Department of Roads had failed to deal with this problem. The best that this Government can do after seven years in office is to seek to expand the vehicle emissions testing process to include further observation tests rather than deal with the problem. There is no real commitment from this Government to deal with smoky vehicles. This legislation is just window-dressing. The Government must deal with the broader issue of vehicle emission testing. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 6 January 2000 states:

The State Government has been accused of reneging on a commitment to clean up Sydney's air by introducing compulsory testing of car exhausts.

The director of the Total Environment Centre, Mr Jeff Angel, says NSW is falling well behind schedule to introduce a compulsory testing program for cars older than four years from the start of 2001.

He says NSW should follow the lead of Western Australia, which abolished the sale of leaded petrol in January 1.

That again demonstrates that the Government has failed in this area. The article continues:

The Carr Government announced plans to introduce compulsory vehicle emission tests in May 1996. In October 1998, the Transport Minister, Mr Scully, introduced a voluntary testing program and said a compulsory program for cars older than four years, to be run by private operators, would start from early next year.

Such a program would cut carbon monoxide emissions from cars by 25 per cent and oxides of nitrogen by 9 per cent, the director of the Environment Protection Authority, Mr Neil Shepherd, said.

We are faced with considerable urban growth in the city in which we live. Figures from this Government reveal that 50,000 new residents are expected to move to Sydney each year. Additional demands will be placed on our roads, which will not be able to cope because of this Government's failure to provide enough infrastructure. This Government must do something about vehicle emissions testing. It should not just permit an officer from time to time to issue an infringement notice for a smoky vehicle. We need a system in place that is properly regulated by the Roads and Traffic Authority.

The Minister for the Environment should not have to clean up the mess that was caused by the Minister for Roads, the Hon. Carl Scully. Effectively, that is what this regulation will do. It will continue that subjective test. Many people who have received fines for smoky vehicles have had little capacity to argue fairly. They have said that their cars might have had problems when starting up in the morning but that they ran cleanly for the rest of the day. So it would be regarded as quite unfair if they were fined for such a small incident. The Opposition will oppose that regulation as it simply does not deal with the problem effectively. It is not a genuine attempt by this Government to deal with vehicle emission control.

The Government must honour its original commitment—a commitment that it made seven years ago when in opposition—to introduce a compulsory and effective testing procedure for older vehicles. The Government will not solve these vehicle emissions testing problems until it honours that commitment. Pollution incidents will continue to occur. The Minister will never be able to deal effectively with those incidents as he does not have adequate staff. He should not be expected to have officers all over the State waiting for smoky vehicles to drive past them, jotting down the number plates and sending out infringement notices. That would not be an effective procedure.

The Minister for the Environment should require his colleague the Minister for Roads to commit to his original promise and deliver an efficient vehicle testing program, in particular for those vehicles that are over four years old. As I said earlier, the Opposition will oppose the amendment to that regulation but it will not oppose other amendments to this bill and the regulations contained within it. However, the Opposition expresses concern about the increased costs of this exercise to local government. My colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place will seek to move a number of relevant amendments to achieve a desired outcome.

Ms MEGARRITY (Menai) [12.26 p.m.]: I support the Environment Protection Legislation Amendment Bill. As the Minister said in his second reading speech:

This bill is a step in the consolidation of the Government's reform of the environment protection laws in this State.

The bill proposes to amend the Clean Air (Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Fuels) Regulation 1997 to make the owner of a motor vehicle that emits excessive air impurities guilty of an offence, with a new defence being that the vehicle was stolen or illegally taken when it was being used. Importantly, it replaces the reference to testing a vehicle for excessive air impurities with a reference to determining whether the vehicle emits excessive air impurities. As our population has grown so has the number of cars and trucks on our roads, which is obviously adding to air pollution. That is why the Government must continue to work with the community to improve air quality.

Last June the Government released its mid-term environmental statement and announced a package of new measures to tackle air pollution. The Premier recently announced a new plan to ensure that cleaner cars become a feature of the New South Wales car fleet. The Government will set two benchmarks to better inform the community of the cleanest cars available—one for very clean cars and the other for above-average performance. Stamp duty will be restructured for new cars. The cleaner the car the less one will pay in stamp duty. So cleaner cars will be cheaper cars. All government agencies will establish fleet improvement plans with targets for reductions in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

The Environment Protection Authority will contribute to the development of a consumer green guide for new cars, and a voluntary clean fleet program for private companies with a large number of vehicles. These measures will lead to significant reductions in auto emissions and further improvements in Sydney's air quality. Back in 1998 the Government put in place Action for Air, a 25-year air quality management plan for Sydney, the Illawarra and the lower Hunter. At the Clean Air Forum which was held during November last year we subjected that plan to the full scrutiny of community, industry and other representatives. The clear message from the forum was that the Government's strategies for cleaner cars, trucks and buses, cleaner industries, energy efficiency and better management of open burning are delivering results.

Lead, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in Sydney have all dropped dramatically in recent years. Despite the increase in population and car usage in recent decades—a matter to which I referred earlier—smog levels have not increased. However, we must do more to further improve air quality. I am the parent of an asthmatic child and a large proportion of my constituents are asthma sufferers, so I pay attention to the Government's air quality initiatives and achievements. While a member of the local council we championed the natural gas vehicle program. I am pleased that this Government has introduced a range of measures to cut air pollution, including the creation of a three-year $6 million Clean Air Fund to help local councils tackle air pollution in their neighbourhoods, for example programs to replace outdated and polluting wood heaters with cleaner alternatives. It has implemented new design standards for wood heaters to further reduce smoke particle emissions; and it has boosted State Transit's green fleet, which will result in more than 400 buses being powered by clean, compressed natural gas by 2002.

It is a fact that many of the serious concerns about pollutants in petrol are being addressed. Diesel vehicles, therefore, are increasingly becoming the focus of emission reduction programs around the world as more research shows that diesel fumes can be harmful to human health. This Government is tackling the problem in a number of ways. I urge the shadow Minister to talk to his Federal colleagues about the Howard Government also pursuing this as a priority. By 2006 Australia will have moved considerably closer to European standards in relation to national emission standards for diesel vehicles, although not for petrol vehicles.

New South Wales will continue to push the Commonwealth Government to implement stricter European standards as a matter of priority. Furthermore, New South Wales worked with other States and the Commonwealth to develop a national environment protection measure [NEPM] that contains programs—such as detection of smoky vehicles, audited maintenance of large fleets, vehicle test and repair, and community education—to reduce emissions from diesel vehicles. The NEPM is underpinned by new in-service emission standards for diesel vehicles established under National Roads and Transport Commission legislation. These standards provide the benchmark against which the performance of diesel vehicles can be assessed.

The New South Wales Government will again lead by example. Commencing next month, the State's own bus operator, State Transit, will undertake emission testing of all its diesel buses and repairing of those that do not meet in-service standards. We will also be working with private trucking fleets to develop maintenance programs that ensure vehicles comply with in-service emission standards. The New South Wales Smoky Vehicle program is already the most successful initiative in Australia in keeping smoky vehicles off our roads until they are fixed. In the financial year 1999-2000 roughly 2,500 penalty infringement notices and 2,300 warning letters were issued by the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority, which also receives around 700 reports of smoky vehicles from the public each month.

If a vehicle has been properly maintained, it should not emit excessive air impurities when used. Smoke is therefore a very obvious indicator that a car is out of tune, that it is burning petrol too quickly. This is not only costly to the environment but, obviously, to the person concerned, who is buying more petrol than they would otherwise need. This additional cost, on the basis of an average car, has been estimated to be something like $200 to $300 a year. As outlined by the shadow Minister, voluntary emissions testing of petrol-fuelled vehicles has been available to the public at Roads and Traffic Authority testing stations at Penrith and Botany since 1998. In the first two years of operation, approximately 900 vehicles were tested.

Another very important aspect of the bill is the proposed amendment of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2000. Items [1], [2] and [4] of schedule 5.5 change the offences of causing or permitting the off-road use of a motor vehicle, the use of a motor vehicle sound system and the use of a vessel in a manner that causes offensive noise so that they fit within the new scheme. Items [3] and [5] introduce the new scheme for the offences referred to in items [1], [2] and [4]. Under the scheme, the driver and the owner of the vehicle that is used, or the sound system of which is used, will each be guilty of the offence except when the vehicle was stolen or taken illegally.

Offensive noise is a real concern to my community. In recreation areas which have adjoining residential properties in particular, it is not uncommon for drivers to park their cars, leave the car doors open, and use the car's extremely loud sound system to accompany a picnic or other activity. Such noise is particularly disturbing at night for those trying to sleep. However, as a local member I am also very aware that council officers have great difficulty issuing penalty notices for these offences because currently they have to identify who caused or permitted the use of the vehicle concerned. Approaching the driver of a vehicle or the person in charge of a vessel to ascertain this information can be difficult and dangerous. Interviewing the owner is time consuming and, unfortunately, often fruitless. Enforcement is much simpler and safer if the registration number of the vehicle or vessel can be observed and the registered owner issued with the notice. I have highlighted two aspects of the bill that have relevance for my community. I believe that the bill will enhance the operation of this Government's impressive environment protection laws, and I commend it to the House.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [12.34 p.m.]: I wish to comment on the legislation rather than oppose it. I would like to clarify a matter raised by the honourable member for Pittwater, for the Minister's benefit. The honourable member for Pittwater had previously understood that a vehicle had to be stopped to be assessed. We understand that that is not correct, and I would like it to be recorded that it was a misunderstanding on the part of the honourable member for Pittwater following a briefing from the Minister's staff. However, the honourable member does not blame anyone for that misunderstanding. I have contributed to debate on almost every occasion that the protection of the environment operations legislation and the Protection of the Environment Administration Bill have been debated in this place. I still regard the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] as an organisation that runs with the stick more than with the carrot and the stick, and I tend to think that the amendments put forward in this legislation are much the same as in the past: more stick and less carrot.

The legislation contains positive measures. For example, anyone who may misrepresent themselves as having EPA accreditation needs to be given a message that that is not acceptable, that it will never be acceptable, that it is purely a matter of misrepresentation. I reiterate the comments made by the honourable member for Pittwater concerning councils and authorised officers. What worries me now is that local government has been doing, and will continue to do, a lot of the work that the protection of the environment administration legislation imposes on the general public. That comes down to council inspectors being authorised by the EPA to go out and do some of that work. That raises a potential concern with regard to water pollution, particularly from agricultural pursuits.

There is a famous case—in some regards I would suggest it is a landmark case–in which Mr Laurie McBaron, a dairy farmer at Rally, lost his dairy because of the EPA. When he started there, he went through hell and high water in endeavouring to meet the EPA requirements. His dairy is far cleaner than any other dairy one would ever see. It is a new rotary dairy, and as the cows are there for less time, there is less effluent, and so on. Mr McBaron had to go to extra lengths and expense to ensure that the effluent could escape from the dairy. The dairy is located on the hill at Raleigh. Mr McBaron has a collection pit, the dairy is hosed out after each milking, the collection pit takes the effluent, and the effluent is then pumped onto the hillside. Mr McBaron was forced to put in an extra pump, all because of EPA regulations.

I would suggest that, to a large extent, some council officers and EPA officers have been overzealous in what they have done with Mr McBaron over the years. Mr McBaron appealed against the conditions that council had imposed on him and which had been pushed through the EPA. The Land and Environment Court judge said he was quite surprised at the lengths he had to go to comply with EPA and council regulations. Indeed, as is noted in the transcript, the judge said, "Didn't cows actually poo in the paddock anyway?", which is a fact. The amendment in schedule 2 [6] inserts new section 120 as follows:

Prohibition of pollution of waters

(1) A person who pollute any waters is guilty of an offence.

(2) in this section:

pollute waters includes cause or permit any waters to be polluted.

The Protection of the Environment Administration Act provides that pollution of a waterway occurs and is deemed to be an offence if a person places liquid, gases or solid in a position where it may—I emphasise the word "may"—be washed, blown or percolated into a waterway. "Waterway" as defined by insurance companies, other legislation and so on is a gutter. So anyone who ashes a cigarette—I am not talking about dropping a butt in the street—could be guilty of an offence under that Act, and the penalties are quite severe. I am somewhat concerned that this bill is tightening up what I see as an already catch-all phrase in the legislation.

Local government inspectors who are authorised to act on behalf of the Environment Protection Authority have to be fully and properly trained. The Government should contribute to local government to ensure that authorised officers are not poorly trained or unqualified and are not overzealous and create havoc within the community with regard to pollution offences. The town of Bellingen has a high level of what I term hippy greens, who are not employed and who live on the drug culture in communes. They are constantly attacking the farming community over purported pollution, with no facts but plenty of supposition. If the local council is to be the adjudicator on these issues, its representatives have to be properly qualified. The Government has an obligation to take that expense away from councils and ensure that ratepayers are not paying for it.

At the moment Bellingen council is under threat of a breach by the EPA over its own tip, yet that tip and recycling facility was opened by the former Minister for the Environment, Pam Allan, who waxed lyrical about how great it was. The council, which is also an authorised officer as such, is being threatened by the EPA about a facility that has been licensed and approved. In country areas we should be using a more carrot and less stick approach and providing education programs. In line with the septic tank legislation, owners are now paying $25 a year to councils for inspections that I believe are not needed, as well as to someone who has inspected them. This whole push is a little too expensive, not only on council but also on the ratepayers.

I am interested in the motor vehicles because I have made many complaints to the Minister's office about people who have been travelling up Dorrigo Mountain, for example, in a diesel vehicle which has emitted a puff of smoke out the back, and who get an infringement notice based on someone's word. It is often found on inspection that there is no excessive emission. If a claim is made by an officer that the vehicle issued smoke from the bonnet or the exhaust pipe for 10 seconds, the driver is basically guilty of an offence. It is quite frightening. In one case the vehicle of a person who runs a small courier business between Armidale and Coffs Harbour had been fully serviced the week before, yet that person copped an infringement. When that person took the vehicle back to the mechanic who did the job, he tested it and said there was no emission. That person paid the fine but I do not think it was a fair assessment. Who knows who issued the infringement or why? The honourable member for Pittwater quoted an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of 6 June 2000. It stated:

Only 500 cars had been tested at the RTA's voluntary testing facilities since October 1998 …

Although the honourable member for Menai waxed lyrical about the benefits for people who have cleaner cars, it would be nice if the Government provided those discounts now. The Government should be proactive, not having someone sit on the street corner noting number plates and issuing infringement notices. It should be telling people that it will give the discount if they provide a certificate. If the Government wants to continue this regime of car spotting it should do it in 12 months time. It should be proactive and inform the public that they will benefit from cheaper stamp duties on their car registrations and that they have until their next registration to provide a certificate.

The honourable member for Menai said that the Government will only now have all its public transport vehicles tested. I suggest to the Minister for the Environment and to the Minister for Transport that that should be done on a regular basis. There should be a maintenance program to ensure that vehicles owned by the Government are not polluting our atmosphere. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister will declare to the House the results of those tests. The Minister for Transport should lead by example—he should have been leading by example from day one—and ensure that no public transport in this State is discharging emissions to the extent that regulations are breached. Nothing is more annoying—as I noticed this morning as I walked from Woolloomooloo to Parliament House—than the noise coming from some vehicles. One bloke went past in his vehicle and the noise coming from his speakers was unbelievable. Anyone within 500 metres could hear the tune he had on—and it was fairly ordinary.

Mr Hunter: There is an extra fine for that.

Mr FRASER: That is good! Such noise is an invasion of our privacy. How many times have honourable members sat in traffic and watched their rear vision mirrors shake because of the volume of the beat from the car behind them? I urge caution. Noise from boats is offensive, but Repton and Mylestom are the only areas in my electorate where people can ski. A lot of powerboats go down there. In the past, noise pollution officers have hidden behind trees, taken noise levels and then sent notices. A proactive attitude would be better. They could talk to clubs and boat owners and explain that people live in the area. It is a problem because people can ski in only one spot in the whole electorate. If people have noisy boats, perhaps talking to them first and threatening them with a breach if they do not have them fixed is a better way to deal with it. Something needs to be done, especially with respect to some jet skis and powerboats. However, the EPA and authorised officers should be able to compromise when they are breaching people on this issue.

Mr HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [12.47 p.m.]: I support the Environment Protection Legislation Amendment Bill. I listened with interest this morning to comments made by a number of honourable members. I understand some of the concerns raised by members opposite and I am sure the Minister will address them extensively in his reply. I commend the honourable member for Menai for her contribution and for her strong interest in this issue. In his second reading speech the Minister said:

This bill is a step in the consolidation of the Government's reform of the environment protection laws of this State. These laws have been fundamentally overhauled since the Carr Government was elected in March 1995. The newly elected government then embarked on a comprehensive reform program to ensure that we have the right tools in New South Wales to tackle the environmental problems that confront us as we go forward into the twenty-first century. As happens with the implementation of any major reforms, the need for some minor adjustments and improvements to these new laws has now become apparent. The bill addresses that need.

The bill amends a number of Acts: the Contaminated Land Management Act, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, the Radiation Control Act and the Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods) Act. It also makes associated amendments to regulations under two of those Acts. The amendments to the Contaminated Land Act 1997 enable contaminated site auditors to be accredited for a period up to three years but retain the requirement for annual reports to be lodged. Basically, the reference to an "annual accreditation fee" paid by a contaminated site auditor is changed to a reference to an "accreditation fee". Also, the reference to the "year" of accreditation of a contaminated site auditor is changed to a reference to the "period" of accreditation. In addition, the amendments enable the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] to accredit contaminated site auditors for up to three years at a time. Currently, accreditation must be for a year at a time. That fundamental change brings the New South Wales site auditor accreditation scheme more into line with the practice in the Victorian scheme, which is the other main auditor accreditation scheme in Australia, and it reduces administrative burdens on site auditors and regulators.

The amendments require the site auditor's accreditation notice to specify the period of accreditation, and they require a contaminated site auditor's accreditation to expire when the accreditation period expires. They ensure that, whatever the period of accreditation as an auditor, auditors must continue to report annually on their site audit works. That is important, and I am sure the community would agree with it. Reporting annually is not onerous; less frequent reporting could mean that problems with an auditor's work come to attention too late for appropriate action to be taken. I commend those amendments to the House.

Amendments to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act clarify that a licence condition requiring additional information to be given following notification by a person of a pollution incident may be imposed, and that such information will be admissible in evidence against the person who makes the notification. A further amendment will simplify the offence of pollution of waters by combining the existing separate offences into one offence. That is important for my electorate of Lake Macquarie. Further amendments clarify that when determining whether a vehicle is emitting excessive air impurities the emissions do not have to be observed coming from that particular point, clarify that a search warrant can authorise the search of premises where evidence of an offence is located, regardless of whether the offence was committed there, and enable an authority that mistakenly exercises regulatory functions to continue to act as a regulatory authority if the correct authority does not direct otherwise.

Further amendments create an offence of falsely representing that any goods or services are approved, provided, recommended or used by the EPA, and enable regulations to be made concerning the prohibition or regulation of fuel-burning equipment, industrial equipment, fuels and fuel tanks, and concerning requirements for the emission of and testing for air impurities. I quote again from the Minister's second reading speech, which is important. The Minister said:

A number of the amendments in this bill relate to existing offences under the Act and regulations. The scheme of offences is strong and effective but a few modifications and clarifications are required. Some of the current offences relating to offensively noisy vehicles and vessels will be brought within a framework similar to the existing successful regime in the Act for dealing with littering from vehicles. This will be achieved by the bill's amendments to the Noise Control Regulation as well as to the Act. Local councils' capacity to deal with these vexing and common noise problems will be improved as a result.

The bill includes minor changes to the Act and associated regulations to assist in the enforcement of laws that are directed at getting smoky vehicles off our roads. The smoky vehicle program is extremely important in the battle for better air quality. The scheme of water pollution offences will be simplified by replacing the current three separate offences with one general offence of polluting waters. Importantly, however, that will not weaken the current scheme or expand its scope. The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 introduced several useful regulatory tools, such as the clean-up notice and the prevention notice. The bill makes it clear that a person who has not carried out pollution clean-up or prevention work by the time required by one of these notices is still obliged to carry out that work. People should not be able to escape their obligations just because the specified deadline has passed.

I have already referred to the importance of the partnership between local councils and the Environment Protection Authority under this legislation. This partnership embraces the taking of enforcement action. The bill will remove any doubt that a council can prosecute in the Land and Environment Court for an offence under the Act or regulations if the court grants leave and the other requirements of section 219 of the Act are met.

The amendments to the Radiation Control Act 1990 require a person who possesses a radioactive substance or radiation apparatus to hold a licence, and enable a licensed person to sell or give away such a substance or apparatus to a person who has such a licence. Further, they enable penalty notices to be issued for offences under the Act or regulations. The bill makes minor but useful changes to our environment protection laws, and I commend the bill to the House. It will make the operation of our environmental laws smoother and more efficient. Given the concerns raised by constituents in the Lake Macquarie electorate, in particular officers of local councils, these amendments will improve our environmental laws and address community concerns. They will assist councils with their operation and build on the partnership between State and local government, to which the Minister referred in his second reading speech, and in particular the partnership between the EPA and local government. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hazzard.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Mills) left the chair at 12.58 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.]: I have already made it clear that resolving the problem of public liability insurance requires action by the Commonwealth, the States and Territories and the insurance industry. The Commonwealth has the power and the responsibility to regulate the insurance industry and has responsibility for the price of insurance. The States can help by reforming the law of torts that deals with public liability. I call for the insurance industry to price rationally and to recognise its responsibility to the community. Today I met with representatives of the RSL, the Local Government and Shires Associations and the Insurance Council of Australia to discuss public liability insurance cover for Anzac Day commemorations. I am pleased to confirm that the main Anzac Day march, and those of the RSLs 417 sub-branches, will have insurance cover available under the policy of the State branch. While cover is in place for Anzac Day this year, the Commonwealth, the States and the insurance industry must consider proposals to drive down cost pressures on public liability insurance across the board.

Today I focus on the specific measures to address the problems of public liability insurance that New South Wales will take to the national forums and the specific measures that New South Wales calls on the Commonwealth to implement. New South Wales will address the increasing size and number of public liability claims. New South Wales will introduce tort law reform legislation for personal injury cases. New South Wales is proposing a number of measures. We will be discussing these proposals with other jurisdictions and more generally, but intend to move on these issues as soon as possible. The Government has already introduced restrictions to lawyers advertising in this area, but there are other measures that could be introduced to discourage speculative claims. A plaintiff's lawyer could be made to pay the defendant's legal costs if the plaintiff loses and the court decides that the claim was speculative and not supported by evidence. The Government also proposes to review contingency fee arrangements which appear to be encouraging this trend towards excessive litigation.

We also propose requiring plaintiffs to provide expert evidence of negligence up front. This might have particular application in professional negligence claims but could also extend more broadly. It is important that the cost of litigation not be driven up by long cases that should never have been brought. One of the problems in this area appears to be the number of small claims that are argued in a way that drives up legal costs and makes insurance more expensive. A way to address this is to cap legal costs for small claims to a proportion of the claim. This will mean that no-one is prevented from bringing a small claim but the cost of arguing the claim must be kept at a realistic level. Another way to address the problem is the introduction of thresholds to preclude trivial claims.

We propose to change the law to exclude claims that should never be brought and provide defences to ensure that people who have done the right thing are not made to pay just because they have access to insurance. First, we want to protect good Samaritans who help in emergencies. As a community, we should be reluctant to expose people who help others to the risk of being judged after the event to have not helped well enough. Second, we propose to ensure that a warning of risk becomes a defence for risky entertainment or sporting activities. Such a defence could apply only where there is no breach of safety regulations.

Third, we will revisit the High Court's removal of the immunity from liability for highway authorities. While reinstating the immunity might not be the best approach, we want to protect public authorities from unrealistic standards imposed with hindsight by a court. What we expect of public authorities must take into account their obligations to the community generally and their resources to perform those obligations. Their actions or omissions should not be judged as though the particular case is the only case in which they are required to act. Fourth, we will provide that the existence of a power does not imply a duty to exercise that power. Unless Parliament explicitly imposes a duty on a public authority to consider exercising a power, the public authority should not be liable for failing to exercise that power.

Fifth, we propose abolishing reliance by plaintiffs on their own intoxication. If someone carries out an activity for which they should be sober, but they do so when they are drunk or drugged, they should not get any special consideration. They should be judged by the same standards of responsibility as the rest of us would be judged, that is, as if they were sober. This is not unrelated to the legislation being debated in the upper House at the present time which says that drug dependency or drug addiction cannot be the subject of a claim under the antidiscrimination law. Someone who gets themselves dependent on heroin, cocaine or marijuana should not then be able to drop that as a responsibility on their employer. So personal responsibility ought to be asserted here, and that is what the Government is doing.

Sixth, we will consider preventing people from making public liability claims where their injury arises in the course of committing a crime. Finally, we propose changing the professional negligence test to one of peer acceptance. Conduct that is consistent with a respectable view within the profession should not be held to be negligent just because a court might, with hindsight, favour a different view within the profession. Professional negligence cases should not be about substituting a judge's preferred view for a view that is legitimate within the profession.

Some of the pressure on public liability premiums appears to arise from increasingly large damages awards. The Government is investigating a cap on general damages. General damages are not the specific damages that cover the cost of health care or loss of income. Rather, they are awarded for pain and suffering. Last year the Government introduced a cap for general damages in health care claims, which is currently $350,000. Pain and suffering cannot really be compensated financially. Overgenerosity in this area should not be allowed to unfairly burden the rest of the community.

The Government is also proposing a cap on damages for loss of earnings and earning capacity. These damages are capped for motor accident and health care claims, currently at $2,712 per week. Damages are also awarded for the cost of free care provided by relatives. We will review this category of damages. It is not clear that these damages are truly compensatory. At the least, we need to consider introducing limits comparable to those we introduced for health care claims last year. These limits restrict such damages to the cost of the extra care required because of the injury. A defendant should not have to pay for free care that would have been provided whether or not the injury occurred.

The Government proposes increasing the discount rate that courts are required to apply to damages for economic loss. This is the percentage by which damages for economic loss are reduced to take account of the fact that such damages are inherently speculative. Who knows whether the plaintiff would really have become a world-class concert pianist, a great chef or a brilliant scientist? We introduced similar changes for health care claims, and we need to consider extending them here. We also need to stop courts awarding interest on damages for non-economic loss. Interest is generally payable on compensation that represents the plaintiff's past losses, but it should not be payable on damages that do not represent a financial loss. Non-economic loss is not a financial loss and interest is not awarded on these damages in the motor accident or health care claims.

The Government proposes to remove the power of the courts to award exemplary or punitive damages. Such damages are clearly over and above any compensation for the plaintiff's injury. They have been prohibited for motor accident and health care claims, and extending the prohibition should remove this unnecessary risk factor for insurers. We will also create a presumption in favour of structured settlements rather than lump sum damages. A structured settlements replaces a once and for all lump sum award with regular payments. They are already available for motor accident and health care claims, but Commonwealth tax laws currently unfairly discourage parties from agreeing to them. We also propose providing a wider range of options for damages awards, including provisional damages. This would help courts to have a full menu of damages options so that they do not have any reason to over-compensate a plaintiff.

The insurance industry is a national industry. It sets premiums on a national basis. Uniform tort law reforms should be adopted nationally. At the national insurance meeting and at the Council of Australian Governments, New South Wales will encourage the other States and Territories to adopt some or all of these reforms—reforms that we intend to proceed with in New South Wales. By the way, it is important that this action takes place nationally because, even if this State adopted the whole package, settlements in other court systems around Australia would flow through into the rates set for insurance—that is, set on a national basis. We must ensure that consumers benefit from these State and Territory tort law reforms, presuming that the other States proceed with them as we will.

To ensure that the tort law reforms have the maximum impact on premiums and to ensure that there are no windfall gains for insurers, New South Wales calls on the Commonwealth Government to amend the Commonwealth tax laws that currently prevent the use of structured settlements and to release the findings of the 2001-02 inquiry by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] into insurance premiums, including the pricing of public liability insurance. The Commonwealth has the report and it should make it public.

The Commonwealth has the power to regulate the insurance industry and it needs to make that regulation work properly. New South Wales calls on the Commonwealth to investigate and report publicly on the effect on premiums of its new asset requirements for insurers; to provide to the States and Territories a proper evaluation of the costs and benefits of the National Compensation Commission proposed by the Commonwealth, which was today supported by the New South Wales Coalition parties; to increase the powers of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [APRA] to collect information from insurers; to analyse and use the information that APRA collects to regulate the insurance industry properly; to address the regulatory confusion that arises from having three Commonwealth bodies—APRA, the ACCC and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission [ASIC]—regulating the insurance industry; and to ensure that it is ready to implement the recommendations of the HIH royal commission without the years of delay experienced at the Commonwealth level with the recent prudential reforms.

My final point is this. The Commonwealth Government has an obligation to take public liability seriously. Even the State Opposition has now joined the New South Wales Government in demanding Commonwealth leadership on public liability insurance. This is the most comprehensive package of reforms advanced in any jurisdiction, both within the Commonwealth's boundaries and on a national basis. I am proud to place the package before this House and to invite the support of all honourable members of this House and in the Legislative Council to ensure that reform is proceeded with. This is a comprehensive package and it deserves the support of all honourable members of this State's Legislature.

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

Ms SEATON (Southern Highlands) [2.32 p.m.]: There is no doubt that New South Wales is in the grip of a public liability crisis which the Premier could have averted if he had bothered to act on last year's Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) statistics that show the dramatic rise in the number of public liability claims. This is the Premier who has refused to listen to community calls for reform.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Opposition listened to the Premier in silence. I expect Government members to extend the same courtesy to the honourable member for Southern Highlands.

Ms SEATON: This is the Premier who refused to listen while hundreds of community groups were forced to cancel much-loved community functions. This is the Premier who refused to listen when businesses were abandoning parts of their business activities because they could not get insurance coverage. This is the Premier who said that he would turn up to next week's meeting with Senator Helen Coonan only if the Federal Government put up a proposal.

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

Ms SEATON: This is the Premier who is not prepared to tackle the issue and show leadership for New South Wales. The people of New South Wales are entitled to ask why the Premier has taken so long to make a statement on public liability. There are 52 million reasons—$52 million in stamp duty that the Government rakes in from public liability insurance premiums every year. The Carr Government has been forced by the Coalition to put some effort into coming up with some proposals to address public liability insurance. While the Premier was burying his head in the sand, members of the Coalition were moving around their communities and holding public liability seminars. We were seeking input from people on ways to fix this crisis. I draw to the attention of the House a serious matter in my electorate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair does not believe that any of the statements made by the honourable member for Southern Highlands so far in her contribution has warranted the present level of interjection from the Government benches. I ask Government members to remain silent.

Ms SEATON: This matter demonstrates the level of concern felt by people over the increase in public liability insurance premiums. The Picton Anzac Day organising committee normally organises two marches, one in Picton and one in Thirlmere.

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

Ms SEATON: In my electorate a group of returned servicemen face a bill of $5,000 in public liability insurance premiums to conduct two Anzac Day marches, and members of the Government are not taking the matter seriously. It is a serious issue. When the Picton RSL committee, which was no longer included in the Wollondilly Council's insurance scheme, tried to obtain insurance it was offered a premium of $2,500 for each of the two marches.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Transport to order.

Ms SEATON: As a result of the diligent work of Mr Ray Law of the Picton committee, the group managed to get an insurance premium quote of $700 for each of the marches. That made the marches only just affordable, and many people chipped in to help. At the time this happened, which was more than two weeks ago, I telephoned the Insurance Council of Australia and alerted it to the problem. I asked for the help of the Insurance Council in finding a better deal for members of the RSL who are not part of the RSL group. I have been in a position to circulate that information to a number of groups that have been disadvantaged in the past by insurance premium increases. I am pleased to say that the Coalition took that initiative and has been able to make a big difference to some committees in their organisation of Anzac Day marches.

Earlier today the Coalition released a comprehensive recommendation and discussion option paper on public liability insurance. That paper forms a submission to Senator Helen Coonan's inquiry, which will be conducted next week. The Coalition has put an enormous amount of effort into this discussion paper. It is the result of a number of community meetings and a good deal of research and input from Coalition members and from members of the community. The Coalition recommends reform of the taxation treatment of structured settlements, which allow payments to be made gradually over an injured person's lifetime. The Coalition is looking at measures to encourage pooling to reduce costs, coupled with the adoption of standards to reduce the risk of accidents. If the Government could be bothered, it would get the Ministers for Small Business and the Minister for Fair Trading to create a community insurance network help desk to provide assistance to charity groups, business groups and other groups around the State who want to find others in similar positions to themselves so that they can pool their information and reduce premium costs. A helpline would assist those people to find each other, get together and perhaps obtain access to lower insurance premiums.

Absolutely nothing has been heard from the Government, which is simply unprepared to put itself out to help small businesses, sports groups, charitable organisations and recreational groups to obtain the public liability insurance they need. The Coalition recommends the creation of a consistent insurance framework across the nation and the development of strategies to shift people away from the blame-game culture. The Coalition is considering recommendations that will result in the separation of small and large claims and make sure that small claims are heard and settled outside the costly legal arena. The Coalition is also endeavouring to have the ministerial gathering look closely at a number of proposals, including ways of creating workable immunity for good Samaritans and volunteers, and excluding from compensation those who are injured during the course of the commission of criminal acts and who later sue their victims.

We want consideration given to enforcing waivers and tightening up duty of care and forseeability definitions. The Government must implement tougher contributory negligence provisions and determine what impact large payouts are having on overall insurance costs. What would it take to create a national private underwriting framework? We must restore commonsense, give everyone a fair go and reward those who make an effort to upgrade safety standards and reduce risks in workplaces and venues. However, we must also ensure a proper means of redress for those who are seriously injured through negligence. When the meeting to which I referred earlier starts next week, the New South Wales community and, no doubt, all Australians will have enormous expectations.

People are looking for solutions to this public liability crisis. We must make some innovative and strong decisions if we are to restore commonsense, fairness and affordability to public liability insurance. The Liberal-National Coalition will be pleased to make a comprehensive contribution to that discussion. We look forward to Senator Coonan's meeting next week. I know that she will make every effort to find the best solution to this crippling crisis. I am proud that the Coalition will be able to contribute to that process.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt—Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Corrective Services) [2.41 p.m.]: Following the devastating outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain it became clear to governments around the world that disease preparedness was even more important. Accordingly, a major emergency disease exercise simulating a foot and mouth disease outbreak will be conducted between 9 and 13 September 2002. It will be the largest and most complex emergency exercise ever run in Australia. The New South Wales Government is taking a leading role, particularly through New South Wales Agriculture. Animal disease preparedness and response activities in New South Wales are being co-ordinated through the State Emergency Management Committee.

All emergency committee organisations will be involved in these ongoing preparedness activities and the national exercise. The organisations include New South Wales Agriculture, New South Wales Police, State Emergency Services, Public Works and Services, Environment Protection Authority, Department of Community Services, Department of Information and Technology, Department of Health, New South Wales Fire Brigades, Rural Fire Service, and transport and local government. Industry groups, which are also being consulted, will be involved. I will briefly outline some other important planning activities being undertaken. New South Wales Agriculture, with the assistance of emergency committee members, is conducting six saleyard workshops at Dubbo, Gunnedah, Wagga Wagga, Casino, Goulburn and Forbes to discuss how a foot and mouth disease outbreak is to be handled in those saleyards.

The aim of having workshops at those six centres is to demonstrate to key staff from surrounding saleyards how these response plans are developed, so they can go away, with the assistance of New South Wales Agriculture and other emergency management personnel, and develop plans for their own saleyards. New South Wales Agriculture has developed a first response team of 80 highly skilled operatives who are carrying out intensive training in preparation for the national exercise. New South Wales Agriculture is also assisting in the revision of the national AusVet plan, which sets out procedures for animal health emergencies.

The British Government has spent over $6.4 billion to date dealing with the recent foot and mouth disease outbreak. The total cost to the British economy is estimated to be over $84 billion. The New South Wales Government is, therefore, taking an active role in preparing for a possible disease outbreak. A key factor contributing to the failure of the efforts by United Kingdom authorities to contain foot and mouth disease and associated costs has been the lack of effective livestock identification and tracing system. The New South Wales Government is taking the matter seriously.

The Premier will actively pursue this issue at the next meeting of the Council of Australian Governments. The issue is also on the agenda to be discussed by the Standing Committee on Primary Industries in Launceston today. It is critical that all governments and industry bodies in Australia combine to implement mandatory livestock identification and effective tracing systems. The teamwork approach occurring through the State emergency committee is similar to the teamwork demonstrated by members of the committee that was established during the recent bushfires. This foot and mouth disease simulation will ensure that we maximise our response capability and, therefore, minimise our potential losses.

Mr SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [2.45 p.m.]: The Coalition supports the Government's proposed simulated foot and mouth disease exercise. Exports are our business. If foot and mouth disease happens to get past the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service it must be suppressed and controlled. This exercise is a little too late. It should have been done a long time ago. I sincerely hope that the simulation to be held between 9 and 13 September will be only that—just an exercise. What are the differences between the United Kingdom and New South Wales? Britain has no eradication and control plans. As a result, foot and mouth disease spread rapidly throughout that country. The Opposition supports the Governments proposed simulated exercise and congratulates all those agencies that will be involved in it. I sincerely hope that we do not have to implement such an exercise at a later date.

Petition seeking rejection of the proposed alterations and additions to the shoreline buildings of the heritage listed Jones Bay Wharves, received from Ms Nori.

Petition asking the House to make banks provide a basic service for all and to make arrangements for the aged and the disabled, received from Mr Campbell.

Petition praying that the House retain the existing exemptions applying to religious bodies in the Anti-Discrimination Act, received from Mr Amery.

Petition praying that the Government allow continued access to public lands, abandon plans to declare the south-east wilderness study area wilderness, and repeal the Wilderness Act 1987, received from Mr Webb.

Petition praying that the House initiate a review of Lane Cove tunnel works, received from Mr Collins.

Petition requesting that the Sydney Harbour Bridge toll not be increased, received from Mrs Skinner.

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

Petition asking that permanent classrooms replace temporary demountable classrooms at Northbridge Primary School, received from Mr Collins.

Petition praying that the House note the concern of Malabar residents about 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.

Mr TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [2.51 p.m.]: I move:

That General Business Order of the Day (for Bills) No. 12 [Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (General Sentencing Principles) Bill] have precedence on Thursday 21 March 2002.

The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (General Sentencing Principles) Bill is urgent. As reported publicly over the weekend, the more quickly this bill is passed the more quickly the Government will be in a position to pursue a guideline judgment on gang rape. The bill has been passed by the Legislative Council. It establishes general sentencing principles in legislation—for example, that a court must take into account the personal circumstances of the victim. This includes the victim's age, particularly the very old, the frail and the very young, and the nature of the victim's occupation. This motion is urgent and should be supported by all members.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [2.52 p.m.]: I move:

That General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) given by me this day [Danielle Evans] have precedence on Thursday 21 March 2002.

This is a matter relating to the health and wellbeing, in fact, the life, of a 17-year-old girl, Danielle Evans, who has been forced to wait for treatment for a massive growth on the brain. The girl's mother approached me because the doctor had told her that the delay in her daughter's treatment is increasing the risk to her life. I subsequently spoke to the girl's doctor, who was named by the Minister for Health in a press release as Dr Smee, and two other doctors at Prince of Wales hospital. Doctors told me, and the girl's mother has confirmed it, that she cannot have treatment at Prince of Wales Hospital because the angiogram equipment at that hospital is out of order; indeed, it was condemned last October.

It gets worse. The equipment broke down in March last year while being used on this very patient. It was condemned last October. New equipment was bought in January, but that new equipment still has not been installed in the hospital. The Minister issued a pathetic press release in an effort to divert media attention from this matter last Friday, when I first raised it in this place in my Address-in-Reply to the Governor's Speech. In that press release the Minister said that the young woman, or any other patient whose doctor deemed their case urgent could have had their treatment at St George Hospital at any time during the past six weeks. Danielle Evans' mother, Kerry, wrote to me yesterday, and this is what she said:

I am appalled and incensed at the outright lies, innuendo and the smear upon Dr Smee and yourself by Craig Knowles and his attempt to clear himself and his department of any wrongdoing …

Faulty Angiogram machinery and delays in installing same are causing life-threatening delays to my daughter …

She is definitely at risk of a haemorrhage … To insinuate that this is not a reality or a risk is laughable. Add to this the complications and side effects of the AVM she is experiencing, such as paralysis and seizures.

Mrs Evans goes on to say:

… this machine was known to be passed its use by date in March 2001 when it broke down halfway through Danielle's first angiogram. But it took until October 2001 before the machine was condemned and a new machine was ordered. It was thought to be up and running by January 2002—obviously I and other patients and their families are still waiting for it to be commissioned.

Mrs Evans goes on to say that Danielle's doctor, Dr Smee, like me, has been promised continually by Prince of Wales hospital since January that this equipment would be up and running very soon. The Minister should get on with treating this patient. [Time expired.]

Mr KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Health) [2.57 p.m.]: It is true that the honourable member for North Shore has been trying to beat the life out of this yarn since last Friday.

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

Mr KNOWLES: It is also true that an old machine is being replaced, as we speak, with a new machine. Any reasonable person would understand that it takes a considerable time to commission these machines. It is a $2.5 million machine that is being replaced. The South East Area Health Service, in the absence of the availability of the machine in the public hospital at Prince of Wales is either relocating patients to St George hospital or alternatively paying for treatment at Prince of Wales Private Hospital on the same campus. The advice I have been given is that Dr Smee was aware of those alternative arrangements. Indeed, I am further advised that arrangements are being made for the patient to have the procedure at St George hospital later this week or possibly next week.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

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

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

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

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

Mr Greene Mrs Grusovin Ms Harrison Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Mr Iemma Mr Knowles Mr Lynch Mr Markham Mr Martin Mr McBride Mr McManus Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Mr Moss Mr Newell Ms Nori

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

Mr Collins

Mrs Lo Po'

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Why has he failed to honour the Premier's promise to rid our schools of violence when confidential figures obtained by the Opposition reveal for the first time that the number of assaults in government schools, serious enough to be reported to police, soared by more than 120 per cent, from 533 in 1995 to more than 1,200 last year? When is the Minister going to give our teachers the support they deserve?

Mr WATKINS: I am glad that the Opposition asked this question today, because I was going to make this announcement and give this answer.

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

Mr WATKINS: The issues of suspensions and violence in our schools are of great interest to the community. These are sensitive matters open to misinterpretation and misrepresentation. The Opposition regularly misuses this concern to beat up the public education system and is doing it again today.

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

Mr WATKINS: The Opposition did the same thing last December, and for the past month it has had information in its possession from its freedom of information application, ready to berate our public school system.

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

Mr WATKINS: Today the Opposition has launched its invidious attack.

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

Mr WATKINS: That is why today I am releasing the past three years' worth of data, as well as announcing a new plan to improve how we collect, collate, analyse and report on this data from our public school system. Honourable members will recall that on 23 December last year the Leader of the Opposition wheeled out figures, which she claimed showed that our public school system was unsafe. Those figures related to suspensions, threats of violence and acts of violence in our schools. Her effort was just the latest misuse of those statistics, which she re-announces with alarming regularity and again today.

Mrs Chikarovski: Point of order: For the Minister's information, the statistics he refers to are from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Mr WATKINS: I am glad to hear that because I will come to those figures in a minute. Apparently the Opposition will not reveal the figures today, so I will reveal them. Let us see whether members opposite lied about suspensions and acts of violence in our school system. In December, when the Opposition launched this attack, Bev Baker, President of the Parents and Citizens Association, appeared on Channel 7 and said:

Our schools are not violent. Our schools are 400 times safer than the kids are in their own home.

Marie O'Halloran, President of the Teachers Federation, said on Channel 2:

The increase in suspension rates shows that teachers are acting to stop violence before it happens.

I will say the same thing today as I said back then: Our schools are safe places. Soon after my appointment I asked the Department of Education and Training to draw up a new plan.

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

Mr WATKINS: I spoke with key partners in education, the parents and teachers, who were sick of this misuse of information in attacking the public school system. The new plan will, once and for all, take this shock-horror value away from the Opposition. It will see regular publication of the information that Opposition members are intent on misusing. I have instructed departmental officials that we need to report regularly on suspensions, acts of violence, possession of weapons and any other related matters in a clear, transparent and non-misleading way. The data will be independently reported every six months through the faculty of education at the University of Technology, Sydney.

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

Mr WATKINS: The project will be headed by Professor Andrew Donzie, the very well respected dean of education at that institution.

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

Mr WATKINS: A steering group comprising the Department of Education and Training, the Parents and Citizens Association and the Teachers Federation will assist in overseeing the project. The data I have released today shows a number of things.

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

Mr WATKINS: Suspensions from public schools have increased over the past three years and the reason is clear: At the beginning of 1999 principals and teachers were given a stronger and more effective discipline policy. They are using that policy, particularly in relation to the suspension of students. They are stopping, by suspension, incidents before they escalate. They are protecting other students better by withdrawing difficult or potentially violent students before they do real damage. The raw figures should not be overstated. They show an annual suspension rate of 0.016 per cent when compared to the total public school population. I turn to violence in our schools. While any violent incident is of great concern, the actual incidence of violence in our schools is tiny. In 2001 the number of incidents of violence or threat of violence that warranted a report to head office was 870. That figure, based on the 770,000 students who attend our schools every day for about 200 days of the year, gives a rate of 0.0006 per cent. That is the incidence of violence in our schools.

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

Mr WATKINS: Let us turn to weapons. Data collection in relation to weapons has been a problem because under the current system tennis balls and rulers are characterised as weapons. If a child throws a tennis ball at another child, that is an assault with a weapon. One of the explicit benefits of the new system that I am outlining today will be that data will be appropriately collected by an independent source so that figures are not artificially inflated and double counting is avoided. Opposition members talk about public education only when they want to give it a kicking. They have no plans, no solutions and no policies in this area. Where is their policy? They do not have one. All they have are statistics that they release regularly, which they misinterpret and then use to attack the public education system.

Most members opposite value public education; I know that because I have met an increasing number of them in schools in their communities. Why do members opposite allow their party leadership to get away with this shameful attack on public education? I am indebted to the Leader of the Opposition, who jumped up earlier and said, "No, no, no." She was referring to Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BCSR] figures as if they prove that our schools are increasingly violent places. Let us look at those statistics, which the Opposition has had for a while. The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research data is not an indicator of school violence. The data represents crime reported to have taken place in specific locations, and is made public, for example, on local government areas.

It does not specify victims, perpetrators or involvement in the context of the school community. It is a record of police information about incidents of assault, robbery and offensive behaviour on and around school premises. The data is collected 24 hours a day, 365 days per year on weekends, on evenings when there is no-one at the school and on school holidays. These figures do not reflect what is happening in our schools during school hours. The Opposition's attack on the public education system is shameful. It is a beat-up. It is part of the Opposition's tactics to disregard the fine work that is being done in our public education system.

Mr COLLIER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. What is the latest information on the Government's efforts to curb marine pollution?

Mr SCULLY: Earlier this year the Premier released an independent study showing that Sydney Harbour has returned to health. We are now witnessing the return of a variety of marine life not seen inside the heads for years. Along with Sydney Harbour, many other waterways are vital to the economic vitality of New South Wales. Sydney Harbour, the Port of Newcastle, Botany Bay, Port Kembla, Yamba, Lord Howe Island and coastal rivers and waters are also important marine ecosystems. Commercial use of our waterways by ships, especially oil tankers, must never be at the expense of those valuable marine environments. That is why I am pleased to announce today that the Government will introduce legislation in this session to amend the Marine Pollution Act to boost protection.

The Marine Pollution Act sets out the offences and penalties for oil and chemical spills from ships in New South Wales waters, in line with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Whether by accident or negligence, the environmental and commercial costs of oil and chemical spills can be enormous: killing marine and bird life, damaging the shoreline, depleting fish stocks, stopping shipping and restricting the recreational use of waterways. Honourable members will recall the 300,000 litres of crude oil spilled at Gore Cove from the Laura D'Amato in August 1999. That caused significant damage to Sydney Harbour, but a successful prosecution was mounted following that oil spill. It attracted the largest ever fine—$620, 000—for an oil spill in New South Wales waters.

Following that incident the Government implemented all the recommendations of the inquiry into the spill, including mandatory valve checks prior to transferring oil from ship to shore and the mandatory use of booms around vessels during transfer operations. These measures already surpass world's best practice. More needs to be done. To better protect Sydney Harbour and other marine environments we are sending a strong message to the shipping community: If your vessel pollutes our harbour and our waterways, you will pay dearly for your negligence. To protect Sydney Harbour, our waterways and our marine environments the Government will increase almost tenfold the penalties for polluting our harbour. A harbour cruiser will be liable to pay up to $10 million in fines for such a careless act. The amendments will increase fines for oil spills from $1.1 million to $10 million for corporations and from $220,000 to $500,000 for individuals. The fines for failing to report a spill or failing to co-operate with an investigation will also be increased from $275,000 to $2.75 million for corporations and from $55,000 to $120,000 for individuals.

In addition, we will also remove a loophole in the law. Operators have from time to time used a wear-and-tear defence to avoid prosecution for oil and chemical spills. They avoid their responsibilities by claiming that their ship spilt an oil or chemical because of the normal wear and tear in the ship or vessel over a period of time. The legislation will require all ships entering State waters to hold insurance for oil pollution damage, in line with Federal law. Boosting fines and removing loopholes and such defences, which I do not think the public would appreciate as being appropriate, will strike a balance between working ports, working waterways and protecting the marine environment. These fines will be the highest penalties in any jurisdiction in Australia, and will create an incentive for the shipping community to use shipping lines that have good environmental practices and to take care when using our waterways.

The message to captains of ships proposing to enter our harbour is quite clear. As they steam towards our harbour they should take extra care because they may be personally liable for fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars and the shipping company they work for could be fined up to $10 million. We cannot guarantee that events and accidents like the incident in Gore Cove will not occur again, but we can guarantee that we will continue to provide the deterrent necessary to give a very strong warning to the shipping community to take extra care when they enter New South Wales waterways.

Mr SOURIS: My question is directed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Will the Minister reaffirm the commitment made by his predecessor on 13 September last when he stated that caveats in water management plans are simply not necessary and would erode water property rights, a position he made known to all water management committees across the State?

Mr AQUILINA: The water-sharing plans currently being implemented across the State represent a landmark change to natural resource management in Australia. Representatives of irrigators, farmers, environmental groups, government and other diverse interests have worked for almost three years to provide a future for water in this State. These plans are about delivering certainty to irrigators, farmers and the environment. They will provide people whose living is tied inexorably to water with security for the next 10 years. The environment will be accorded the same safeguards and assurances. The security of water plans will deliver to all parties, as is shown in detail in each plan. Honourable members will be aware that the security of users' water rights was successfully debated in Parliament on the Water Management Bill. The passing of the Water Management Act late last year established, amongst other things, a planning regime for water management.

The water-sharing plans being developed by water management committees will have a 10-year term and will establish the bulk access regime for the water source covered by the plans. The bulk access regime is a set of water-sharing rules which defines the water available for extraction under the water access licenses. Calculating this regime will require water for the environment to be defined and environmental water rules to be established. That is a crucial point. I repeat, the calculation of the regime will require water for the environment to be defined and environmental water rules to be established. They will also require water for basic land-holders' rights to be identified. The intent of the water-sharing plans is to provide water users with a 10-year period of security as to their access to water, something which they do not enjoy now and have ever enjoyed in the past. The Carr Government will be able to give them the security they need for access to water over the next 10 years.

The Water Management Act provides for compensation to be claimable by licensed water users if a change that is not provided for in the water-sharing plan itself is made by the Minister during the term of the plan which reduces the water available to licensed users. There are provisions that permit change when it is clear that the plan is not working or when we know from the outset that later information is likely to result in the plan being varied. Another vital point in relation to these plans is that whilst the 10-year plans will provide all users of water with security as to the amount of water they will have access to, nonetheless, we are aware that it will be an evolving plan. In consultation with irrigators, farmers and all water users in towns and rural areas, we will be able to work towards the evolution of the new plan following the 10-year plan.

Many of the current draft water-sharing plans contain provisions that allow the plans to be changed during their term. Again I ask honourable members to refer to the legislation and the terms under which the water-sharing plans are being developed. In some cases the changes will result from further studies undertaken in relation to environmental water needs. All of these issues are covered in the legislation, in the way the water plans are being drawn up and in the consultation process that has been undertaken. I compliment my predecessor on his foresight in putting the water-sharing plans into action. We can now proceed in an orderly way. He deserves to take a bow because this monumental legislation is now being effected in a way that will provide everybody with security for water for the next 10 years and at the same time protect the environment, irrigators, farmers and country towns.

Mr D. L. Page: Point of order. Whilst acknowledging that the Minister is new to the portfolio, my point of order relates to relevance. The question was specifically about caveats in water management plans: it was not about the general issue of water management plans. I ask the Minister to address the issue: will they have caveats? It is a simple question.

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

Mr AQUILINA: I have been explaining to the honourable member, who does not understand, how the water-sharing plans that we are developing will offer 10 years of security, and at the same time have a flexibility that will not threaten the security of the plans. In other cases provisions relate to the possible introduction of more flexible water management arrangements for water users. In all cases that allow variation of the plans without compensation the water management committee has a major role. The committee must either prepare a replacement plan or determine what aspects of the plan, if any, may be varied during its term. As these water plans progressively go on exhibition across the State, I encourage everyone on the land or in the city to view them and comment on them. Of course, we know that Opposition members are incapable of doing so because they know nothing about water in rural areas.

Mr NEWELL: My question without notice is to the Minister for Local Government. What is the latest information on the investigation by the Department of Local Government into Tweed Shire Council?

Mr WOODS: On 23 May 2001 the Director-General of the Department of Local Government, Mr Garry Payne, ordered a formal investigation into the planning practices and procedures of Tweed Shire Council in respect of two development projects, the Kings Forest Estate and Seaside City on the Tweed Coast, south of Kingscliff. This report is in regard to one of those developments, the Kings Forest Estate. The investigation involving Seaside City is still a matter before the courts. I would say at this point that the investigation was initiated following a request from both the council and the Director-General of Planning.

By way of background, I am advised that a number of councillors, as well as some developers, residents and landowners, have for some time been pursuing Mr David Broyd, council's Director Development Services, alleging that he is anti development and not performing his job properly. Matters came to a head with what will, if it proceeds, be one of the largest urban residential coastal development in New South Wales, the Kings Forest Estate project. This very large landholding of 1,100 hectares is located just in from the coast on environmentally sensitive coastal lands and could house some 10,000 people. It was purchased in 1990 by a Japanese-owned company, Narui Gold Coast, for $21 million.

After the local government elections in 1999 the new council, led by the then Mayor, Counsellor Lynne Beck, set about taking steps to facilitate that development. In April 2001 the local environmental study document and a draft local environmental plan went on public exhibition. The contents of those documents caused dismay on the part of the developer, Narui, and its consultants. They went to Councillor Bob Brinsmead, then deputy mayor, about the matter, at the same time threatening to sue the council. Due to Mr Broyd 's central role in the development of these documents, councillors believed he was standing in the way of this project. The report documents the concerns raised by Councillor Brinsmead and his fellow councillors and notes that Councillor Brinsmead made the following allegation:

Council officers have in this way corruptly conspired to keep councillors in the dark about their manipulations, and they have conspired to keep the public in the dark.

The council called for a departmental investigation. At the same time my director-general was approached in relation to concerns about the processes followed by council in appointing another consultant to undertake an environmental study into Seaside City. The department's senior investigations officer, Mr Robert Bulford, was appointed as departmental representative to undertake the investigation. Mr Bulford spent four weeks at council reviewing council files and interviewing witnesses. A draft report was prepared, and extracts of the draft were sent to some 20 people of whom adverse findings or comments were made in the draft report. Included in the group were a number of councillors, including councillors Beck, Brinsmead, Marshall and Lawrie.

They reacted strongly to the report and accused the departmental representative of being biased and politically motivated, as well as himself of being anti development and not having the interests of the people of the Tweed shire at heart. I must say some of the attacks against Mr Bulford were particularly bitter and strident. The 224-page report is now being forwarded to the council. The Local Government Act requires it to be tabled at its first meeting, which is due to commence this afternoon. The report found inappropriate practices regarding councillors attending meetings between major developers and council planning and development staff for the purpose of bringing pressure to bear on staff to give advice acceptable to developers and the development. The report notes that council's planning practices had been the subject of a series of investigations by the department and the Independent Commission Against Corruption in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The ICAC investigation was in relation to North Coast land dealings. The current report notes:

Tweed Shire Council has been the subject of a number of past investigations and inquiries, and that many of the issues and findings in those investigations and inquiries give one a sense of déjà vu when examining the issues in this present investigation.

The investigator also concludes:

I am concerned that some of the findings of my own investigation demonstrate that council has lost sight of past sins and recommendations and is falling back into old proscribed ways and habits. My concerns are directed at the elected councillors in this regard.

The report has cleared Mr Broyd in respect of the allegations against him about his handling of matters on the Kings Forest Estate development. There are six recommendations, including a review of practices in respect of meetings between developers and members of council and councillors. This involves limiting the participation of councillors to meetings where only the "big picture" of the project is discussed. The report recommends that the council duly proceed with the relevant planning procedures for the Kings Forest Estate. It also recommends that the director-general refer the matter of apparent discrepancies in election funding returns to the Election Funding Authority for its consideration.

Under the Local Government Act the council has 40 days to respond to me about the report and to outline the steps it will take to implement the recommendations. I strongly urge the councillors to examine the report very closely and to immediately set in train measures to implement its recommendations. For the benefit of honourable members, I seek leave to table the report entitled "Report of an investigation under section 430 of the Local Government Act 1993—Re: Tweed Shire Council".

Leave granted.

Report tabled.

Mr HUMPHERSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Corrective Services. Can the Minister explain how it is possible that prison officers have uncovered contraband in the maximum security cell of former Labor Party powerbroker and convicted assassin Phuong Ngo just days after his arrival at Lithgow maximum security prison? Has the Minister been advised of the nature of the contraband found?

Mr AMERY: Before I have a go at answering this question I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition has anything to declare. Has she got any confessions to make?

Mr Hazzard: Point of order: The Minister has made it clear that before he answers the question he wants to do something else. He has no choice. The question is about contraband in political assassin Phuong Ngo's cell. This is a very serious matter, and we should get a substantive answer from the Minister. If Phuong Ngo has contraband, it is a very serious issue that should worry all members on the Government side of the House as well as members on this side of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The standing orders do not state how the Minister should answer a question.

Mr AMERY: The point of order is a clear example of a person with either not enough or too much medication.

Mr O'Farrell: Tell us about the Phuong Ngo case.

Mr AMERY: Actually, I will tell you a lot about the Phuong Ngo case. One thing that the Phuong Ngo case shows clearly is that nearly everyone can show photographs of others standing with him at functions. He has clearly been able to worm his way into virtually every organisation that has any sort of authority and have his photograph taken. We know he has no credibility, but basically this case really is helping us to focus attention on the way we are managing this maximum security prisoner. It has also exposed the lack of credibility of the Opposition on this whole matter. Last week we saw them in those beautiful photographs.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair cannot hear the Minister. I call the honourable member for Oxley to order.

Mr AMERY: Since the expose on Tuesday last week the Leader of the Opposition has been explaining her attendance at a similar function at Silverwater. There was a very enlightening interview by Mr Steve Price, a 2UE talkback host. In regard to her attendance at the event at Silverwater, Steve Price asked the Leader of the Opposition this question, "Were you sent an invitation?" She said, "No, I wasn't sent an invitation—not a printed invitation." Price said, "Well, how were you invited?" The Leader of the Opposition said, "I received a letter from the organisation saying...", and Price said, "But that's an invitation." The Leader of the Opposition said, "I received a letter from an organisation saying that they were having this function and would I attend." Price said, "But that's an invitation."

The interview caused chaos in my office. The Royal Agricultural Society sent me an invitation to one of its functions and the Rooty Hill Returned Services League sent me an invitation in the form of a letter to an Anzac Day function. Up until the time when the Leader of the Opposition explained the difference between a printed invitation and an invitation in the form of a letter, I had been dealing with both as invitations—but the difference has been clarified! As all honourable members would know, except the Leader of the Opposition—and this will not be the scoop of the day—they are both invitations! She has demonstrated her lack of credibility.

Mr George: I have sent you one and you haven't answered it.

Mr AMERY: I will get an answer to the honourable member for Lismore, so he should not worry.

Mr Hazzard: When?

Mr AMERY: All in good time. I am working my way towards it.

Mr George: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. I have sent the Minister an invitation and he has not answered it.

Mr AMERY: That is untrue. It was only a letter inviting me to the honourable member's electorate.

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

Mr AMERY: The actions of the Leader of the Opposition lay the basis for an attack on the credibility of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition was quite clearly caught out in this matter but she made a couple of interesting comments. She actually said that her case was different from the Long Bay case. She said that people at the Silverwater function were invited by the Department of Corrective Services and that that was not the case with the other function. The Leader of the Opposition happens to be wrong. She was at a function that was organised by the Department of Corrective Services, and that was also the case for the function at Long Bay. Were those functions hosted by the Department of Corrective Services? Yes, they were—both of them. The only differences between the two functions, as I have said, were that they were at two different locations and the senior officials of the Department of Corrective Services had different names. The Leader of the Opposition was well and truly caught out.

Mr Carr: Where is she?

Mr AMERY: The Leader of the Opposition generally flees the Chamber halfway through question time. Turning now to the issue of contraband—

Mr George: Thank goodness for that!

Mr AMERY: They do not call the honourable member for Lismore "Thomas the tick member" for nothing. Ever since the person who is at the centre of this controversy was transferred to Lithgow, where he is confined in a maximum security centre, as outlined by the commissioner, Department of Corrective Services officials have been watching his mode of operation within the prisons system. From my investigations it is quite clear to me that when he was at Long Bay he was able to manipulate the other prisoners to become a representative on prisoners' committees. He had too much to say about these so-called cultural events and I believe that the recent episode has undermined any confidence that the public may have had in prisons cultural events. As a result, I have already announced a number of changes to the organisation of cultural events in prisons.

In addition, the investigative team from the Department of Local Government has written to me and asked whether the Department of Corrective Services has any information that will assist with the investigation that is now being carried out through the good offices of the Minister for Local Government. I have very eagerly provided all information that my department can provide on calls, contacts Ngo may have had, people who may have visited, any phone call records that can be detected, and so on. My department is providing all possible information to try to assist the investigation being undertaken by officials of the Department of Local Government. I understand that the investigation will examine this person's contacts or possible influence on the Fairfield City Council.

Since Ngo's removal to Lithgow, I understand that officials from the Independent Commission Against Corruption—although I have to check this part of my information—and departmental investigators have gone into the prison and have searched his property. I understand that some items belonging to him have been seized. He was found to have possession of a CD-ROM and a computer disk, which he obviously obtained through one of his courses. The commissioner has already launched an inquiry into those possessions. Ngo no longer has access to computers and is now working in a textile area. As all honourable members would be aware, people having access to computer rooms in prisons is not new. I assume that is where he found the CD-ROM. Any information that has been found and any property that has been confiscated, as well as any records in the possession of the department, will no doubt assist in the investigation that is now being carried out. As I said, Ngo is now under very close observation in the Lithgow maximum security prison. I thank the honourable member for his question, but I hope that the facts presented by the Opposition will be a bit better in the future than they have been in the past.

In conclusion, I make the observation that this issue has provided two benefits. First, it has allowed all honourable members to focus attention on the influence of this fellow while he is in prison and any other sort of influence that he has been able to exert on prison committees. This issue has allowed us to focus attention on this person and I have found that issue to be more beneficial than negative. Second, it has showed the lack of credibility and the dishonesty of the Opposition in regard to this matter. To my mind, that is an important aspect of the whole episode. When asked by Steve Price on a radio program, "Why didn't you declare your appearance at Silverwater?", the Opposition Leader said, "It was an oversight." The New South Wales Opposition now has a leader who has no policies, no credibility and now, by her own admission, no memory.

Mr MARKHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Information Technology. What is the latest information on the New South Wales Geographical Names Board's plan to give dual names to geographical features in New South Wales?

Mr YEADON: The honourable member for Wollongong is one of this State's greatest advocates for Aboriginal issues and he has taken a particular interest in the State's dual naming policy. He has been a great advocate for that policy. There is a great deal of power, pride and social significance attached to a name. That is why last June the Government announced that it would establish a process to adopt dual Aboriginal names for geographical features in New South Wales—features such as rivers, creeks, mountains, headlands, waterfalls, caves and so on. As I said at the time, dual naming acknowledges European history and Aboriginal culture, particularly emphasising the continuing link between Aborigines and the land and the sea.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. If the honourable member for Wakehurst wishes to conduct a private discussion with his colleagues, he should leave the Chamber.

Mr YEADON: I point out that dual naming does not apply to address features such as suburbs or streets, nor does it apply to built infrastructure such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Importantly, this voluntary policy is workable, culturally appropriate and cost-effective. Earlier this week I announced that Dawes Point, which is located under the Sydney Harbour Bridge at The Rocks, was the first nomination to be considered under the policy. The dual name being considered is Tarra, although some consultation needs to be completed before the name and final spelling can be officially adopted alongside the name of Dawes Point.

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

Mr YEADON: The Dawes Point peninsula was originally the territory of the Caddiegal people who knew it as Tarra. Its English name derives from the colony's first surveyor and engineer, Lieutenant William Dawes, a volunteer astronomer with the First Fleet. The site's Aboriginal name Tarra was noted on early maps of Sydney. Signs at Dawes Point already reflect the name Tarra.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Pittwater will cease conversing with his colleagues.

Mr YEADON: I can now inform the House that we are working on a submission for the dual naming of a number of other geographic features around Sydney Harbour. This submission originally came from Sydney City Council. The Geographical Names Board is now working with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council to ensure the accuracy of Aboriginal names. The submission from Sydney City Council could include names such as Elizabeth Bay—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease laughing. I ask her to show some decorum.

Mr YEADON: Perhaps Opposition members could show some respect for institutions in this country. It appears as though members of the Liberal Party have a profound disrespect for them. We have only to witness the recent antics of another Liberal at the national level.

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

Mr YEADON: The submission from Sydney City Council could include names such as Jerrowan for Elizabeth Bay, Bayinguwa for Garden Island and Waallamool for Woolloomooloo Bay. We are attempting to ensure the accuracy and pronunciation of these names. I therefore apologise if I have pronounced any of them incorrectly. The submission could also include Yourong for Mrs Macquarie's Point and Memel for Goat Island. It is expected that a submission will go to the board at its next meeting on 10 April. When a dual name is adopted both names will formally apply.

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

Mr YEADON: In daily conversation people can choose to use either name or both. The dual name, together with the European name, can be used on maps and on signs. That is being done successfully in other States and jurisdictions. Probably the best known example is Uluru or Ayers Rock. In New South Wales the system will help us to better reflect our history, culture and identity as a State. Finally, the New South Wales dual naming system is community driven. The Geographical Names Board receives and considers applications brought forward by local communities. There is also a consultation process involving Aboriginal land councils, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, relative State government agencies and the Local Government and Shires Associations. This policy is another example of the Carr Government's efforts to preserve cultural heritage and celebrate diversity.

Mr D. L. PAGE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Given that sustainable forestry operations on privately owned land were originally excluded from State environmental planning policy 46, will the Minister now consider excluding those operations from the Native Vegetation Conservation Act and making sustainable forestry on private land subject to a separate code of practice?

Mr AQUILINA: When I recently visited the electorate of the honourable member for Murray-Darling I spoke to a number of native foresters in the Murrumbidgee area who graphically explained the way in which they were being affected by current regulations which restricted them from harvesting native forests. I undertook at that time to again examine that area of activity. I am examining that issue and I will ensure that I consult with foresters just as I consult with groups in all other electorates. The Government has embarked on a process of consultation. As I move around this State I speak to all community groups and I ensure that I listen to them.

It is quite obvious from the response that I am getting that rural New South Wales has given up on the National Party in this State. Members of Country Labor, members of the Carr Government and the Independents who represent a number of seats in rural Australia appear to be the only people who are listening to constituents in that area. I am absolutely delighted that I have an opportunity to visit people in rural New South Wales and talk with irrigators, foresters and farmers. As recently as today I talked to conservationists to ensure that we have balanced harvesting, water sharing and conservation policies in this State—something that Opposition members were incapable of doing.

Ms HODGKINSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. How does the Minister justify the Southern Area Health Service cutting 60 per cent of the Yass community health car pool—a move which has been condemned as deceitful by the Southern Slopes Health Council and which resulted in the resignation of a senior manager as there will be severe cutbacks to community health services in the Yass district?

Mr KNOWLES: What an extraordinary question from Opposition members! How do they justify Michael Wooldridge cutting the guts out of projects to put $5 million into a lobbyist building in Canberra? In relation to the honourable member's electorate, cancer services are provided in Goulburn at St John of God Hospital and at outreach clinics at Eurobodalla, Bega Valley, Cooma, Yass and Young.

Mr BLACK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. What is the latest information on rural health initiatives?

Mr KNOWLES: In stark contrast—

Mr Richardson: Point of order: I did not hear the Minister's answer to the previous question. I did not hear a word of his answer because he turned away from the microphone.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is why we have Hansard. The honourable member for The Hills can read the answer in Hansard. The Minister has the call.

Mr KNOWLES: Last week I gave details of a $4 million program for rural accommodation for health workers, a program that was well received throughout the bush. Today I thought I would give members an update on the small hospitals program occurring throughout the State. I intended to provide a long list of hospitals and a long list of information, but then I realised that I did not have to because from today, courtesy of the Minister for Public Works and Services, people can now click onto the New South Wales Health web site and look at these buildings and sites in real time. Progress photographs are updated monthly, and there is access to the plans and perspective drawings. I place on record my thanks to the Minister and his team at the Department of Public Works and Services for what is regarded as a world-class web site in terms of exposing this information to the community.

Today it is worth reporting the results of that terrific program, created initially by Ian Sinclair and built upon by communities right around the State, and now capitalised on in terms of building local services in local towns. A $2.5 million additional allocation will further assist the better integration of health services in small country towns. An additional $13,000 will go to Coolamon; $111,700 will go to Holbrook's health service and co-located ambulance station; $124,000 will go to Jerilderie; $101,000 will go to Blayney; $112,000 will go to Coolah's health service and ambulance station; $136,000 will go to Rylstone; $230,000 will go to Boggabri; $274,000 will go to Gilgandra; $110,000 will go to Gulargambone; and another $202,000 will go to Emmaville, which is in the electorate of the honourable member for Northern Tablelands.

Last week Emmaville's small hospital received a new cottage to accommodate its medical staff. An additional $202,000 is going to that town to assist local health services and that terrific community, which is largely led by volunteer women who are achieving the result that they have worked so hard for. Funding of $203,000 will go to Collarenebri, $254,000 to Lightning Ridge, $246,000 to Brewarrina, $197,000 to Denman, and $181,000 to Nimbin. Those allocations of funding reflect where we are building or refurbishing small country hospitals and reinstalling services in country towns. The funding reflects our interest in the bush and is in stark contrast to the $5 million ripped out of the bush by Michael Wooldridge and John Howard as a consequence of their desire to give a lobby group money for a building in Canberra.

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

Mr KNOWLES: An amount of $4 million has already been provided for rural hospital accommodation. Today an additional $2.5 million has been announced for further services in country towns.

Mr THOMPSON: My question without notice is to the Minister for Small Business. What action has the Government taken to provide improved advisory services for small businesses across New South Wales?

Ms NORI: In view of the length of time that question time has taken I will be brief. I want to update the House on changes to a very important program within the Small Business portfolio. I refer to the delivery of start-up services for people who want to start up a new business. Last year we changed the system so that, for the first time, it went to open tender. For a number of years business enterprise centres [BECs] had argued, I think with good merit, that they should have three-year funding. The aggregated three-year funding across all the BECs then triggered the basic threshold amount that was required for a public tender process to take place. So the system went to public tender, and there were some interesting and very pleasing results.

I am pleased to say that the organisations that were successful in the tender process are all local organisations with expertise on the small business needs of communities. The tender process has also resulted in more extensive service coverage of New South Wales. For the first time, Dungog, Jerilderie, Berrigen, Kosciuszko Park villages and the townships of White Cliffs, Ivanhoe, Menindee and Wilcannia will get access to this important service. Improved outreach and/or site locations will also be provided to the local government areas of Baulkham Hills, Liverpool, Bankstown, Ashfield, Auburn, Burwood, Strathfield, Ulladulla, Vincentia, Tumut, Coolamon, Gundagai and Lockhart.

I will conclude by providing the House with information about the number of jobs that have been created through this service delivery. During the first six-month period, about 2,750 new jobs have been created, of which 1,220 were created in the December quarter. Most of the 1,220 jobs related to people becoming self-employed by starting a new business. One in four related to people being employed in a new business, and one in eight of the new jobs created related to the expansion of an established business. These are very pleasing results for this program in the Small Business portfolio. I was very pleased to hear that in the December quarter the advisory service received 30,147 inquiries and that 63.1 per cent of those inquiries related to starting up a new business. It is of great interest to me that so many people are considering starting up in small business. Sometimes it is the service's sad task to inform people that their business plan is not good enough but, in many cases, it facilitates an individual's attempt to start up a business, with pleasing results.

Questions without notice concluded.

Miss BURTON (Kogarah) [4.07 p.m.]: My motion is urgent because in the St George area up to 1,000 vehicles at any one time, many of them modified, invade Sydney's southern suburbs every weekend causing traffic, unbearable noise and pollution. While the Government has done much in relation to drag racing and street racing legislation, we believe that it should go a little further.

Mr TINK (Epping) [4.08 p.m.]: My motion is urgent because as at 15 January 2002 the police web site referred to a plan to spend $4.25 million on Neighbourhood Watch funding. The motion is urgent because when Murwillumbah Neighbourhood Watch 12 made inquiries about how to get a share of this funding it was told that it does not exist. The motion is urgent because that organisation was told that the paragraph should not have been put on the web site in the first place. The motion is urgent because the web page was changed two days later, on 17 January, and the reference to funding was removed. The motion is urgent because Murwillumbah Neighbourhood Watch 12 is disappointed that the Government makes these claims in the public arena so it looks good, but is not prepared to pay up when asked. The motion is urgent because Nowra Neighbourhood Watch 12 voted at its last meeting to consider disbanding due to lack of support from local police. The motion is urgent because Nowra Area 12 is concerned about being kept in the dark on the prevention of crime in that area. The motion is urgent because, as a result, it is exceedingly difficult for Nowra Area 12 to advise and help the local community keep the area safe.

Mr Tripodi: Why is the motion urgent?

Mr TINK: I hope the honourable member for Fairfield will help us out with a vote, in light of his intense interest in the subject. The motion is urgent because the Nowra community is becoming more reluctant to report anything other than major crime because of the response it receives. The motion is urgent because the Carr Government must honour its $4.5 million commitment to Neighbourhood Watch and not mislead and deceive community groups that are trying to promote public safety. The motion is urgent because the Minister for Police should not be an Indian giver when it comes to funding for Neighbourhood Watch. The motion is urgent because the people of the Tweed, including Murwillumbah, would like to know where their local member stands when it comes to defending the Murwillumbah Neighbourhood Watch area 12 group on a crucial funding issue. The motion is urgent because the member representing Murwillumbah should stand up for his Neighbourhood Watch area 12 group and ensure that it gets the funding it was promised by the Government through its official police web site, and the police Minister in particular.

The motion is urgent because the member representing the Nowra area should also stand up for his Neighbourhood Watch area 12 group, which believes it is not getting the support of the Government and the support of local police because the police in turn are underresourced by the Government. The motion is urgent because those two members of the Government should stand up for their local Neighbourhood Watch area groups. They should take on the Minister for Police about a promise made in his time as Minister of $4.5 million to Neighbourhood Watch community groups. That promise has now been withdrawn. Those two members and, for that matter, all members of the Government should take on the Minister for Police and ensure that that $4.5 million promise is delivered. These two Neighbourhood Watch areas, amongst many others in the State, say to the Government that the police are not being resourced to support them in local partnerships to sort out crime problems in their areas.

The Minister for Police talks about local solutions to local crime problems, yet he withdraws $4.5 million worth of funding from local Neighbourhood Watch groups. The motion is urgent because the Minister must be reminded by this House, which through its members represents all the Neighbourhood Watch area groups in the State, that he cannot make a $4.5 million commitment and then promptly withdraw it. It is up to all members of this House to unanimously support Neighbourhood Watch and the funding that the Government promised and which it has now withdrawn. The motion is urgent because Neighbourhood Watch groups in Nowra, Murwillumbah and everywhere else in the State cannot function because the Government is not giving police the resources to attend Neighbourhood Watch meetings. If the Minister for Police is serious about local solutions to local problems, he needs to be reminded by this House of the importance of Neighbourhood Watch.

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

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Aquilina Mr Ashton Ms Beamer 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 Mr Lynch Mr Markham Mr Martin Mr McBride Mr McManus Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Mr Moss Mr Newell Ms Nori Mr Orkopoulos Mr E. T. Page

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

Mr Armstrong Mr Barr Mr Brogden Mr Collins Mr Cull Mr Debnam Mr George Mr Glachan Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Hopwood Dr Kernohan

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

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

Mrs Lo Po'

Mrs Chikarovski

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Miss BURTON (Kogarah) [4.21 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) condemns the activities of "car hoons" in southern Sydney and other areas;

(2) notes the disruption they cause to local families and businesses;

(3) calls on the Government to extend its existing laws on "car hoons" to allow the police and the Roads and Traffic Authority greater powers to remove and seize them; and

(4) further calls on the Government to expand the legislation to include other forms of punishment such as community service orders.

The Traffic Amendment (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Bill was introduced in November 1996. It was drafted to assist police in cracking down on car hoons and the social disorder that accompanies them wherever they congregate. I am pleased to say that the bill had strong bipartisan support. The House acknowledged the work of the honourable member for Vaucluse and the trailblazing work of the Victorian police in targeting car hoons. The bill was designed to target selfish and aggressive people whose desire to show off put the safety and security of the law-abiding community at risk. When the bill was introduced the former Minister for Police, the honourable member for Strathfield, pointed out that safety and public amenity were of major concern to the Government.

It is clear that these idiots have no concern for the safety of bystanders, the public or even their own passengers. Cars are lethal weapons in irresponsible hands. These people have decisively demonstrated that they are not responsible drivers. The bill sought to hit them where they would feel it hardest—by seizing their cars. Attacking the assets of criminals is a vital part of modern crime fighting. Just as we seize the assets of drug dealers, we should also send a clear message to hoons by removing their means of committing crime. As the former Minister said, if car enthusiasts want to show off they can go to Eastern Creek.

Several incidents before the introduction of the legislation demonstrated how urgently it was needed. In one incident drivers and passengers in 150 cars turned violent when police arrived. At the time the bill was introduced Tony Stewart, who was then the honourable member for Lakemba, spoke about an extraordinary incident that clearly illustrates the importance of tougher laws and bears repeating. He was visiting a constituent on the occasion of her one hundredth birthday. Standing on her lawn, they saw two cars tearing down the street. One car lost control and ploughed into the fence of the house next door. This woman, who had lived through the Depression and two World Wars, narrowly missed being knocked down and killed in her own house.

The problem does not impact only on public safety. The culture of lawlessness that is promoted by these car hoons encourages young people to have no respect for the law and, indeed, their fellow citizens. It promotes a culture that idolises the outlaw and normalises casual lawbreaking. It denigrates law-abiding citizens. The erosion of our basic civic virtue can only encourage crime and disorder in the community. The honourable member for Rockdale and I raised the issue with the new Minister for Police. He came to St George to see the problem first hand. He is as keen as we are to get tough with car hoons. I commend the House for having passed the original bill, but the time has come for more.

Cars have been confiscated and regular police operations have taken place. Operation Tonda in my area has been a great help, but clearly we need to give these idiots a bigger kick. As the police Minister said on the day he inspected the new Kogarah police station, we need to get tougher; we need to put their licences in jeopardy. I have been talking to my local police about the problem and, I am pleased to say, so has the Minister. I have been working with my colleagues the honourable member for Rockdale and the honourable member for Keira to put a proposal to the Government which builds on the Minister's earlier suggestion of attacking their licences. We propose deterrents, restitution and increasing the risk of getting caught.

First, we must begin to use demerit points for hooning offences. The success of demerit points for other road offences shows that we can achieve good results by using this method. People who commit hooning offences must be eligible for disqualification, even before they have a licence. In effect, a pre-licence disqualification will increase the age at which these people can apply for a licence. Most young men are determined to get their licence as soon as possible. I hope we can use this enthusiasm to encourage them not to offend. Too many young people think the law cannot touch them because of their age. They should think again. The imposition of a disqualification on young people, even before they get their licence, will send a strong message that these laws will be enforced, no matter what their age or situation.

I have been at the compound watching as many operations against car hoons unfold. While I was watching these operations, which were successful, it was clear to me that the hoons used their mobile phones to alert their friends that an operation is under way. That means that they divert to other areas. While we are trying to crack down on hoons using the measures contained in the good legislation to which I referred, they get on their mobile phones and, unfortunately, they arrange to go to Cronulla or down to Wollongong. Therefore, I believe we need a flexible response. We need to be able to target them whenever and wherever they are. I urge the Government to consider resourcing the police and the Environment Protection Agency to bring in cars for inspection at any time of the day or night to check for illegal modifications and noise violations. An important part of the car hoons culture is showing off to impress people.

Mr Kerr: You show off by going to Cronulla.

Miss BURTON: It makes them feel good to flaunt their cars and their bad behaviour. I thought my motion had bipartisan support. I am sure the honourable member for Cronulla will agree with me and support my initiatives. It makes car hoons feel good that sensible law-abiding people find them threatening and retreat from the streets when they are around. So I want to see them make public restitution for their offences. I suggest that they be made to perform community service, such as removing graffiti or picking up garbage from the beaches and the streets. They would not look so tough covered in paint or with bags of garbage slung over their shoulders. I would like the Attorney General to examine how that can be achieved through community service orders or through the Young Offenders Act, depending on the age of the offender. I applaud Rockdale council for coming on board with the trial of supplementary policing. I know that will contribute to a community-based solution to this problem. Those of us who live in affected areas note that the problem peaks during summer. Therefore, I ask the Government to begin drafting a strategy well in advance of the change of season.

Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [4.30 p.m.]: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion. I thank the honourable member for Kogarah for raising this issue; it is perhaps an indication that the Government is finally getting serious about this issue again. I first raised this matter in this House on 14 November 1996, when I introduced a private member's bill. I spoke about the problem and said:

Breaking the law is an attractive proposition to many of these car drivers because for too long we as a society and as a Parliament have refused to deal with people in terms they can understand. These offenders, these car hoons, understand the offences; they understand that cars are used to commit the offences; and they will understand when this Parliament says that the cars will be impounded.

The honourable member for Kogarah said that taking steps to deal with this problem had strong bipartisan support, but initially it did not. The Government fought tooth and nail to stop the bill. I have to say that one member of the Government, the honourable member for Blacktown, decided to join us and fought hard for the bill. I know he took up the issue in the Government party room and eventually, two weeks after I introduced my private member's bill, the former Minister for Police had the courage to take the bill, change a few words in its title and reintroduce it as a Government bill. The Coalition supported that wise move. Basically this problem had become so extensive over 25 years across New South Wales and other States that the minute the Coalition publicised the proposed private member's bill it received widespread community support.

Eventually the Minister for Police had to acknowledge that radio was running hot and the newspapers were following it. The Government then introduced its own bill. However, a number of points were subsequently changed. There was a six-month trial, which was a fair enough approach to take. I want to dwell for a minute on some of the points I made in my contribution to the second reading debate on the Government's bill. I acknowledged the former Minister for Police and thanked him for having the courage to pick up my private member's bill and reintroduce it as a Government bill. On 27 November 1996 I said:

The young men who indulge in this behaviour share a number of values, several of which include an apparent contempt for society, certainly a contempt for authority, but also a pride in their cars, which they obviously value as their major asset.

I then said that an incident that had taken place on the Sunday before the Government introduced its bill was clearly the motivation for the Government's bill. I continued:

I simply reiterate that this bill will be useless unless it is strongly marketed by the Minister and the Commissioner of Police.

I have to say that I was the only person in the State who marketed this bill to the hoons across New South Wales. I had tremendous support from the media because many members of the media, like honourable members, live in the suburbs that are affected by these car hoons. We got the message out a number of times. The honourable member for Kogarah is correct in saying that the problem often peaks in summer months in many suburbs. This legislation depended upon sending out a strong message and backing it up. Unfortunately, while the former Minister for Police had the courage to introduce the bill initially, he did not have the political will to back it up. That is why I have continually asked, during the past few years, for the figures on how many cars have been impounded under the legislation. I have kept an eye out for reports in the media about the problem recurring in certain areas.

I am not sure where the honourable member for Kogarah is headed with this motion or what proposals she will bring forward. However, the Opposition would certainly be interested in looking at any proposals and discussing them in detail. I suggest to the honourable member for Kogarah that she not lose sight of the fact that this was simple legislation. It simply sent a strong message to car hoons: We have had enough. You treasure your vehicles, you intimidate the community with your cars and now we are going to use your cars to make you behave." There was no doubt in their minds that the bill involved any other penalties, although obviously under the legislation they would be hit with fines and the costs of towing away the vehicles and so forth. The legislation turned the administrative burden back onto the offender. It was innovative in that regard because the police needed help to get them out of the paperwork cycle or away from the police station and the court, where they were virtually locked up dealing with these offenders. The administration burden was reversed and put on to offenders.

However, the main message was simple and straightforward: If you intimidate the community with your car, we will take it. As a member of the Government the honourable member for Kogarah might be more successful than I have been in trying to get from the Government the number of times cars have been confiscated twice. Well over 1,000 cars have been confiscated once for a period of months, but the bill provided that when the offence is committed a second time the car was simply taken and not given back. I think I am correct in saying that the Government has never told me how many times cars have been taken for second offences. That is a critical point, because it is a test of courage for the Government and for this House. There are about 1,000 young hoons and thugs in Sydney who rage across the city knowing that they can call our bluff on various matters—and this is one of them.

I ask the honourable member for Kogarah to find out from the Commissioner of Police and the Government how many cars have been confiscated a second time. I know offences are recorded under the name of the individual, not under the registration number of the car, but it would not be too difficult to tie up the two. How many people have been hit twice? The question is: How serious are we? Are we sending a strong message? I know the motion of the honourable member for Kogarah is probably well intentioned. However, I fear that she might be introducing a range of penalties that will simply water down the thrust of the bill.

Miss Burton: Car or licence, or both.

Mr DEBNAM: If I could deal with the licence aspect for a moment, under the arrangement that this Parliament has put in place in the past decade a large number of people are driving whilst unlicensed and uninsured. It is a major problem for the honourable member and her constituents and for me and my constituents, and it needs to be addressed. As the Coalition puts more pressure on the Government during the next 12 months, I am sure the Government will finally address that problem. Licensing is problematic, and I suggest that the honourable member does not go near it. There is a big enough problem to start with. We need to focus on the way these young men love their cars and love to intimidate the community. If we took the cars away from them, we would remind them that we are serious.

Miss Burton: We do take their cars away from them.

Mr DEBNAM: Let us see how many. I know we take them away for a few months for a first offence, but let us see how many people committed a second offence and lost their cars totally. We should again send out that strong simple message. It was backed by the media because the community was right behind it. This all comes down to police presence. If there is no police presence in the community these cars will never be taken. I suggest that it was a problem in 1996 and it has been a problem ever since, especially as the number of police disappeared from the streets of various suburbs, particularly the seaside suburbs that were under attack by these car hoons. The Government needs to look at the problem police numbers in New South Wales and at the lack of beat police. I know we are now moving to the Costa strategy of celebrity policing, but that will not deliver a police presence on the streets and it certainly will not put police in a position in which they can impound these vehicles.

I know they can take details of the vehicle and impound it the following day, but if the Government wants to send out a strong message the vehicle needs to be impounded immediately the behaviour is observed. The legislation provides that the offence needs to be observed by someone who is prepared to stand up in court. The court must then be able to accept that evidence and find the offence was committed. To make the measures effective we need to have police on the street. If the honourable member for Kogarah wants to bring forward proposals that she thinks will strengthen the legislation, the Opposition would be delighted to look at them in detail, but I do not think she will do that.

Miss Burton: You don't know, do you?

Mr DEBNAM: No, we do not know. I was hoping that in her 10 minutes—

Miss Burton: You obviously don't understand the issue.

Mr DEBNAM: You are new to this House and I suggest you do more research on this subject. Then we will see how much you know about it. If the honourable member for Kogarah was unable to deliver the detail in the 10 minutes she had to speak this afternoon, that suggests to me that this is about a run-up to the election, when she will make a number of proposals that are not going to work. I suggest she takes a tough stance. The Minister for Police has not done so.

Mr CAMPBELL (Keira) [4.39 p.m.]: I strongly support the urgent motion moved by the honourable member for Kogarah. I do so on behalf all the people of the Illawarra region who are sick to death of the fact that every time there is a crackdown on car hoons in the southern suburbs of Sydney or in Cronulla, the hoons move to beachside suburbs in the Wollongong area. I speak on behalf of the families who cannot go to the beach for a picnic in summer, or in winter for that matter. All too often these car hoons come down and take over the area. The people of the area that I represent are more than happy to have daytrippers come from Sydney with their families to enjoy the beach and the beachside lifestyle, but we are tired of hoons taking over whole areas.

A number of small business people in my area also have been threatened and intimidated by these car hoons, who, as the honourable member for Vaucluse said, love their cars. They spend a fortune modifying and altering their cars, which then become a problem. I support the motion also because some residents in affected areas of Wollongong are literally locked in their homes; they are too scared to go outside homes for fear of break and enter offences. On Saturday and Sunday evenings residents are subjected to noise and the abuse that goes with all of this. I support the motion also on behalf of all ratepayers in the area that I represent. They also are sick of this type of activity because they have to spend money on installing gates across car parks adjacent to the beach and put up with formal road closures that have been put in place to prevent road closures that result from car hoons taking over and clogging up roads by literally walking across them and blocking them.

Residents are fed up with having to pay for chicanes, speed humps, lights and signage, as well as with the cost to local government and to government generally. They are equally concerned about road safety issues—the burnouts and donuts and the use of speed humps as launching ramps. The hoons spray oil on the road. Some of their vehicles are modified so that oil can be dropped from the bottom of the car onto the road, obviating someone being caught pouring a can of oil onto the roadway. They then do donuts, spinouts and burnouts, with all the attendant safety issues.

Many people gather to witness these activities. The notion of a car careering out of control and hitting half a dozen or a dozen spectators is of real and serious concern. As we know, legislation has already been put in place, and that has had some effect. When there were problems in Wollongong one Sunday afternoon a car was confiscated and returned on the Monday morning. Jim Bailey, who was then the local area commander, became a bit cunning and transported cars to Sydney overnight, which caused some inconvenience to those whose cars were confiscated. The core of the motion is to build on that previous legislation, make it more appropriate and put in place other deterrents to those who would do the wrong thing and cause such disruption and concern to residents and others.

I join the call to place drivers licences in jeopardy, as well as confiscate the vehicle. I join the call to consider the imposition of demerit points as well as place ownership of a vehicle in jeopardy. I call for continued operations between police, the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] and the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA]. We need to look for ways to ensure that those organised operations are not undermined by the use of mobile phones or scanners. There is obviously the potential for inspectors employed by the Police Service, the RTA and the EPA to check for these illegal modifications in a way that is less structured than a formalised operation on a given day. With support for this motion and continual tightening up of these measures, I hope we will be able to stay on top of the issue.

[Debate interrupted.]
Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow two extra speakers for periods of five minutes each on the motion for urgent consideration.

[Debate resumed.]

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [4.45 p.m.]: It is important to bear in mind the history of this matter. Legislation was first enacted in 1996. It is now 2002. It was in 1996 that the honourable member for Vaucluse introduced a private member's bill.

Miss Burton: It obviously is not enough, is it?

Mr KERR: The honourable member for Kogarah is right: The Government legislation that was introduced is not enough. Where was the honourable member for Kogarah in 1996? She was not in Kogarah. Legislation was introduced by the honourable member for Vaucluse in a private member's bill.

Miss Burton: It was not enough, was it?

Mr KERR: Let us talk about the urgency of legislation. When the honourable member for Vaucluse introduced his bill there was no law on this issue. The honourable member for Kogarah says that the law is not enough, but there was none at that time. In fact, when the honourable member introduced his bill he moved that it be treated as urgent and be moved to the top of the business paper. He moved that General Business Order of the Day for Bills No. 16 be reordered to have precedence on Thursday 21 November.

Mr Whelan: That bill was seriously flawed.

Mr KERR: It was not seriously flawed. In fact, the Government adopted it. When the honourable member for Vaucluse moved that it be reordered every member of the Labor Party voted against his motion, including the honourable member for Heathcote, a Labor representative of the shire. This was an urgent problem in 1996, as it is in 2002. The honourable member for Kogarah outlined the seriousness of this matter. We are not talking here about childlike mischief: we are talking about activities involving serious danger to life and limb. As the honourable member for Kogarah said, even the passengers and friends of these car hoons are at risk of being involved in a car crash, quite apart from injuries that might be caused to pedestrians.

This activity is so serious that we must have serious penalties to deal with it. Picking up rubbish from beaches and sending it back is not a serious deterrent or serious punishment for placing people's lives at risk. I have received complaints about activities in Prince Street, Cronulla. The honourable member for Kogarah talked about these car hoons migrating to Cronulla and Wollongong when police got onto them. I repeat, the penalties must be very heavy for these serious breaches of the law. The honourable member for Kogarah talked about cancelling licences. Many of the drivers of these vehicles are unlicensed.

Miss Burton: Have you any evidence of that?

Mr KERR: I have plenty of evidence of that. It is in fact consistent with their general attitude.

Miss Burton: Have you read the report of Operation Tonda? The people involved there had licences.

Mr KERR: I would like to say more about the research being done by the honourable member for Kogarah. I want the honourable member to tell us, in reply to the debate on this motion, how many cars have been confiscated permanently, and over what period of time. The honourable member for Wollongong spoke about the failure of the Government's legislation and about cars being confiscated on a Sunday and returned on the Monday. How often does that occur now? What is the average period of confiscation in regard to motor vehicles? I look forward to receiving information that is provided as a result of the vast research carried out by the honourable member for Kogarah when she next addresses this Chamber.

To my mind, this issue revolves around police presence. There is no point in having tough laws if there are no police officers to enforce them. Even the honourable member for Kogarah and other members of the Government have acknowledged that Cronulla is very vulnerable to this type of crime, yet the Minister for Police has taken away police from the Sutherland shire and located them in Bankstown. Today the honourable member for Kogarah has outlined a very persuasive case. She has persuaded me that additional police are needed in Cronulla to deal with this problem.

Miss Burton: No, that is not what this is about.

Mr KERR: Yes it is. The honourable member for Kogarah should not underestimate her powers of persuasion. That is the real issue.

Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [4.50 p.m.]: Over the years the activities of car hoons have caused a great deal of upset and disruption to many communities around Sydney, but it seems to be the beachside suburbs that bear the brunt of car hoons' activities, and beachside suburbs seem to be the real magnets for people involved in that type of activity. In more recent times those people have been congregating in my electorate at Dolls Point and even more recently they have been monstering the otherwise peaceful and very pleasant community of Brighton-Le-Sands. Their vehicles have been modified, often illegally, to maximise their noise and they tamper with or remove the anti-pollution devices in their cars. They also have illegal mufflers and exhaust systems as well as illegal tyres. Many of these people maximise the offensiveness of these cars by having illegal sound systems in their vehicles that are often referred to as boom boxes.

The hoons in the cars bring with them, or attract, their cheer squads who block the footpaths and impede pedestrians and others who want to go to the beachfront or to one of the area's many restaurants. They simply crowd out footpaths, and people, particularly families or the elderly, feel intimidated by their presence. When their numbers are at a peak—and I have seen them around Brighton in their hundreds—the noise is simply overwhelming. As I informed the House on a previous occasion, it does not matter whether people live at ground level or in a tenth-floor home unit; the noise still gets through from roaring, revving engines, screeching tyres and the thump, thump, thump of the boom boxes. Last year a constituent wrote to me and described his circumstances. His letter stated:

There is constant and extremely loud music emanating from the vehicles, to such an extent that the sound and vibrations are felt in all quarters of our building.

He was referring to a 10-storey block of units. The letter goes on to state:

The screeching of tyres as motorists 'race' one another off traffic lights, and excessive noise from exhaust systems which has now been lifted to greater annoyance levels by 'blow back' systems as the car is pushed through the various gears, only adds to the debacle. The footpath hooligans who pay homage to these idiot drivers, constantly run out into the main stream of traffic and speak to drivers, who in turn hold up other motorists until they have finished their conversation. This leads to a barrage of 'horn honking' from the line of traffic building up behind them.

As I reported to the House a few weeks ago, a search for a solution to this problem has involved a number of actions being taken. A thorough community safety audit was undertaken which involved police, the local council, local businesses, particularly restaurants in the area, and local residents. This led to the council installing boom gates on the beachside carparks so that they may be closed at a reasonable hour, thereby denying the hoons the opportunity to congregate and create havoc as they used to. Other measures arising out of the community audit have dealt with street safety, traffic issues and signage. More work needs to be done, particularly in relation to traffic. Following the opening of the M5 East, a traffic study on the whole district will be undertaken. It is hoped that that will lead to a number of measures being taken by the RTA and the local council in an attempt to manage the problem.

A series of blitzes has been undertaken by police, the RTA and the EPA and the outcome of those blitzes is under review. I believe that that review will be the basis of Government action that will be taken very shortly. Local councils have erected signs in the area that warn of on-the-spot fines for car stereo noise pollution. Some of the cars that I have seen have very extensive sound systems which blast away without any regard for the comfort of others, including the drivers. Some boom boxes are capable of generating noise levels above the human pain threshold of 120 decibels. A 747 jet flying low over rooftops generally will reach a level of 90 decibels but these boom boxes can reach 120 decibels.

In whatever action the Government intends to take, I strongly urge that serious consideration be given to extending the provisions of the Traffic Amendment (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Act to open up the prospect of vehicle confiscation for serious or repeat offenders. On that point, I agree with a number of the remarks made by the honourable member for Vaucluse because, if properly implemented, followed up and enforced, I believe that vehicle confiscation is the way to begin to resolve the problem. Anything less decisive is a half measure.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [4.55 p.m.]: A short time ago the honourable member for Kogarah made the comment across the Chamber: "That's why we are on the Government side and you are on the other side." This debate is a form of grandstanding by the honourable member for Kogarah so that she may retain her seat at the next State election. One has only to look at the history of this legislation and what has been done by this Government over the past 10 years to know that. The honourable member for Vaucluse proposed a private member's bill to address a situation that has been highlighted by this motion for urgent consideration—a situation that no community finds acceptable.

The honourable member for Vaucluse introduced legislation and the Australian Labor Party in government voted, to a man and a woman, against that legislation. A very short time later the Labor Government introduced legislation which picked up, with minor variations, the legislation introduced by the honourable member for Vaucluse. This debate concerns a problem that still exists on the streets, despite legislation that has been introduced, because of a lack of police resources within communities. Not far from my home on a somewhat regular basis on Friday and Saturday nights, the louts come out. From what I can see they bring out a couple of old jallopies—their own cars—on a section of road between Mount Coramba Road and the bridge area south of Mount Coramba Road.

They hold races—possibly drag races—set tyres alight, and leave the road in a disgusting mess, with burnt rubber clearly visible the next day. After those activities some of those louts, on their way home, have taken to producing homemade bombs to blow up letterboxes for a bit of fun. It happened to mine on two occasions. They gather 15 kilometres out of Coffs Harbour on a busy Friday or Saturday night and the police cannot get there, even though there is basically only one road in and out of the area. I have mentioned this matter to the police on a number of occasions but they say that they have so much trouble in town that they cannot get out of town. It is important to bear in mind that these louts endanger not only their own lives but the lives of anyone else who lives in the Central Bucca area who happens to be coming home or going to work.

I live probably 1½ or two kilometres from the area and I can actually hear their efforts from my place. One has only to hear the noises that they make and see the condition of the road after they have left to realise that someone is going to be killed, and I suggest that in all probability it will be one of the hoons. The real source of the problem is that there are insufficient police resources. In paragraph 3 of the motion the honourable member for Kogarah calls on the State Government to extend its existing laws relating to car hoons to allow police and the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] to exercise greater powers to remove and seize them. I note that among questions placed on notice is a question that was asked last year by the honourable member for Vaucluse which the Minister answered in a very roundabout way. The second part of the question reads:

What are the physical locations of the yards or depots that are used to store impounded vehicles?

The answer is:

Vehicles are stored in a variety of locations and holding yards across the State.

This Government is trying to cover up the fact that, whilst this legislation is useful, it is not being implemented because of a lack of police resources. The honourable member for Kogarah did not tell the House this afternoon what measures should be implemented. She is probably not sure what those measures are. All honourable members would be aware that this House is governed through media release. This issue is all about the honourable member for Kogarah holding on to her seat at the next election.

Miss Burton: I outlined the measures in my speech.

Mr FRASER: The legislation should be expanded to include other forms of punishment. What does the Government intend to do with the licences of these hoons? Does it intend to take away their licences?

Miss Burton: Their drivers licences.

Mr FRASER: It is the intention of the Government to take away their drivers licences, which will increase the number of unlicensed and uninsured drivers on our roads. Instead of applying the law as it exists the Government is implementing a regime that will result in the licences of these drivers being taken away. Such a policy will not be effective.

Miss Burton: You are not putting forward anything.

Mr FRASER: The legislation that was passed by this Government was originally introduced by the honourable member for Vaucluse. Because of a lack of resources that legislation is not being implemented in the way it was intended to be implemented by the honourable member for Vaucluse. This motion is politicking of the worst kind. [Time expired.]

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.00 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Kogarah, the honourable member for Keira and the honourable member for Rockdale on referring today to some practical solutions to an issue that is causing problems in our coastal communities, in particular, Sydney, Wollongong and Newcastle. Police need practical additions to the powers that they already have to give them certainty when dealing with car hoons who cause danger to the communities in which they operate. Car hoons pose a danger not only to themselves; they pose a danger to those pursuing recreational activities. The noise that they create disturbs the amenity of many residents.

It is well recognised that Newcastle residents pursue recreational activities on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. Many car enthusiasts from all over the Hunter Valley—some from as far away as the Central Coast and Taree in the north—visit Newcastle during that period. They turn up at the beaches, display their cars and show off the modifications to their cars. Unfortunately, a group of those enthusiasts are what can only be described as hoons. Their idea of a fun night is to put oil on the road, do burnouts and donuts, follow each other around residential streets revving their engines, and play their sound systems at excessive levels. The city council, the lord mayor, the police and I as the local member are working together with the community to try to address this problem using existing legislation and the powers of councils.

These people are interfering with the ability of local residents to pursue recreational activities on the beach. Newcastle council has had to lock gates at Nobby's Beach car park—an issue referred to earlier by the honourable member for Keira—as that is the favoured area in which to do burnouts. After 11.00 p.m. people are prevented from parking on Wharf Road and The Esplanade. Hoons have now moved on to other beachfront areas, for example, Bar Beach. They have disrupted residents in that area to such an extent that they are up in arms. Police have issued infringement notices for defective cars and they have checked on alcohol and drug issues in an attempt to deter these hoons.

The honourable member for Keira and the honourable member for Kogarah said earlier that these hoons use scanners and mobile phones which detract from the capacity of police to control them. We must educate these people—an issue that is being pursued by the Police Service. We want more responsible drivers. These hoons are spoiling amenities not only for themselves; they are spoiling amenities that are used by the whole community. The community safety officer and council officers have also embarked on a program of education.

It was demonstrated today that we must strengthen the provisions in the Act to give police more power so that they are able to take away people's licences, remove cars and reduce the capacity of those people to own cars if they continue with destructive behaviour that impacts on the whole community. As was alluded to earlier by the honourable member for Keira, their behaviour impacts on ratepayers. Councils are spending a huge amount of ratepayers' money to employ officers to lock gates, patrol car parks and build speed humps—measures that are designed to try to deter these people. I congratulate the honourable member for Keira on suggesting such practical steps. I compliment the honourable member for Kogarah on introducing this motion.

Miss BURTON (Kogarah) [5.05 p.m.], in reply: Opposition members are a negative, whingeing, carping lot. They are an absolute joke. The honourable member for Vaucluse, who is five years behind the debate, obviously has no concept of community and policing expectations. I wish to deal with a number of issues that were raised in debate on this motion. The honourable member for Rockdale and I have been working with local councils, businesses, residents and local police to find a long-term solution to this problem. As I said earlier, the legislation that was introduced by this Government in 1996 was successful. I have visited a number of areas on the nights that police have launched their operations and I have witnessed its extremely successful implementation.

Police are issuing defect notices and cars are being taken off the streets. I know that this legislation is successful because the day following a police operation I receive telephone calls from hoons or their parents who plead with me to assist them to get their cars back. Honourable members are not aware that the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] tests all cars to determine whether they are illegally fitted out. The bulk of fines are issued by the EPA or the RTA. Special and effective police operations are in place. People are aware that the debate has moved on. Hoons are aware of these changes and they are now moving to new locations. The EPA and the Roads and Traffic Authority test these vehicles because the police do not have the necessary equipment.

Street racing is a different issue altogether. Police have the ability to apprehend and confiscate those cars. On a Sunday night as many as 1,000 hoons could be doing laps around the streets of Brighton-Le-Sands. They are not breaking any road laws but they have illegally fitted mufflers and boom boxes and their cars are illegally modified. These are the cars that the police are going after. However, we are calling for additional police resources. The honourable member for Vaucluse referred earlier to education. Forcing those kids to do community service would be an effective way to drum it into their heads that if they are caught at any time of the day with cars that are illegally modified and they do the wrong thing the police will take away their cars or their licences. That is what this motion is about. We are asking for stronger legislation because this debate has moved on, the issue has changed and the behaviour of car hoons has changed. Opposition members have again been caught out snoozing on the job.

Mr Debnam: Point of order: If the honourable member for Kogarah is going to bring forward some proposals, she should do so. She is simply presenting a case that demonstrates that this is a re-election campaign by an arrogant local member.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Beamer): Order! That is not a point of order. The honourable member for Vaucluse will resume his seat.

Miss BURTON: The Opposition has no policies. Obviously, members opposite have not talked to their local police, who strongly support the proposals that we are calling for today.

Mr Debnam: Tell us what they are.

Miss BURTON: I have told you what they are. Obviously you were not listening. The honourable member for Vaucluse is asleep on the job. We on this side of the House are the ones who are solutions based. I am trying to work with my local area, my colleagues and the Government to find a long-term solution to this problem. It might be an ongoing problem. It may be that in a few years time we will have to introduce further legislation—who knows? But that is the way government works—although members opposite would not know that, because they are asleep at the wheel. Members opposite carp, whinge and whine, but the reality is that they were caught out. They introduced their outdated private member's bill five years ago, and the reality is that they have been caught out asleep at the wheel.

Motion agreed to.

Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Peter Edward Collins be appointed to serve on the Standing Committee on Public Works in place of Thomas George, discharged.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER: As Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Works I welcome the honourable member for Willoughby to the committee.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to postpone the taking of private members' statements until after consideration of the matter of public importance and Government Business Order of the Day No. 1 [Environment Protection Legislation Amendment Bill] at this sitting.

Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [5.13 p.m.]: I raise a matter of grave concern to the people of Western Sydney, particularly the many thousands of people who live in the Auburn, Clyde and Parramatta areas. I refer to a proposal by Collex Pty Ltd to build a waste transfer terminal at the Clyde marshalling yards, which are owned by a State government entity, FreightCorp. This matter has been deemed by the Minister for Planning to be of State significance, and hence the power of the elected representatives of the Auburn electorate has been usurped and taken away from them, and the fate of the project remains solely in the hands of the Minister for Planning. The residents of Auburn have contacted me to express their concerns about the matter. I attended a public meeting a few weeks ago, at which around 1,500 angry residents voiced their disapproval of the proposed waste transfer terminal. As the Mayor of Auburn, Michael Tadross, said, the proposal is yet another attempt to dump on Western Sydney. Mayor Tadross said:

The Auburn local government area already has five other waste facilities, including the Lidcombe liquid waste station, the liquid transfer station, and the medical transfer incineration at Silverwater. We are already doing more than our fair share in dealing with Sydney's waste.

The proposal is that something like 200 trucks a day will bring putrescible waste from all over Sydney to this site, and the waste will then be taken by rail to Woodlawn, which is near Goulburn. The Opposition has no objection to the waste going to Goulburn; it fills the mine there and it also allows workers to receive their entitlements. No-one has any objection to that. However, the residents of Auburn and Clyde object to waste being transported from all over Sydney to the waste transfer station at Clyde, which is immediately adjacent to the Duck River, an area that is sought to be remediated and regenerated and then made a showpiece for the people of Western Sydney. The waste is to be taken in trucks, which will allow waste particles to fly into the air and add to the present volume of garbage trucks in the area. There would be something like 200 truck movements a day, seven days a week, to and from the site.

Residents and businesses are concerned about the level of unacceptable odour and dust emissions. There is a potential for asbestos to be shipped through the facility. Indeed, the development will reduce the value of a neighbouring State government asset, which makes it even more surprising that the State Government would consent to this development application being lodged—let alone hijack the agenda by the Minister for Planning usurping the role of the elected representatives of Auburn and deciding to become the sole consent authority. The marshalling yards are very close to houses. In fact, the centre of the transfer terminal where the waste will be dumped is approximately 500 metres from houses, and the outskirts of the terminal are 250 metres from houses. I congratulate the Minister for Western Sydney, the Hon. Kim Yeadon, on his expression of great concern about the impact of odorous particles in the air and the volume of garbage trucks in the area. The Minister said:

The facility will be little more than an open tin shed, where up to a million tonnes of fermenting, putrid garbage and waste would be dumped and then compacted.

The Minister said he was angry that the waste would be moved from one area of Sydney to another. The Minister was 100 per cent correct when he said:

Waste should be processed in the region it is generated. Western Sydney must not become the dumping ground for other people's rubbish.

The question is: What decision will his colleague the Minister for Planning make in respect of this vital matter? It is a matter that concerns residents. It concerns Mr John Drake, who has spent an enormous amount of time working on behalf of the local residents. Mr Drake is gravely concerned that council's powers have been taken away. Mr Drake said that the Waste Board has a contract with Collex for 150,000 to 400,000 tonnes of waste. The contract states that local North Shore waste transfer terminals must be used to compact and containerise the waste. This contract was the basis of the Woodlawn development approval; it is breached by the Clyde development approval.

In other words, Mr Drake believes—and I believe he is absolutely correct—that the proposal at Woodlawn is in no way linked to the proposal at Clyde. In other words, it is not a matter of State significance, and if it is to be adjudicated it should be adjudicated by the elected representatives. However, the Carr Government, in its high-handed approach, has taken the power from the elected council. Mr Drake, like many other residents, is also concerned that the Woodlawn site is approved for asbestos. If asbestos were to be brought to the site in trucks, dust and asbestos particles could get into the air in close proximity to residential properties. It would not be a desirable situation for the people of Western Sydney who have chosen to live in this area.

It is a matter of grave concern to the people of Western Sydney. The Duck River area has enormous capacity to be rehabilitated and remediated. For many years the Duck River area was the source of environmental concern for the people of Auburn and Clyde, but it now has the potential to become a showpiece, with cycleways and gardens. It is also the site of an important State government redevelopment: the marshalling yards at Clyde. Instead, plumb in the middle, the Government has allowed a proposal for the installation of a waste transfer depot. There is a solution—that the Woodlawn proposal be allowed to proceed. The Opposition supports the site at Tarago, some 20 kilometres south of Goulburn.

It is not necessary for a waste transfer facility to be erected at Clyde. Garbage should be taken to local transfer terminals where it is collected, compacted and put into sealed containers. They could then be taken to Clyde in sealed containers, as opposed to being in trucks without having been compacted and processed. Garbage could be taken to other places, such as the facilities at Hornsby or Clyde. The Opposition's simple point is that waste should be compacted and put into containers in the area in which it is gathered. There is no need for a transfer terminal to be located at the rail yard. The facility at Woodlawn can go ahead provided that the waste is not carted all over Sydney.

I again ask: Why Auburn? Is it because Western Sydney has become a dumping ground? Is the Labor Party's lost heartland out of favour? Is it being taken for granted? I attended a public meeting of 1,500 residents where one man said that he remembered Ben Chifley speaking in that park. The message those people gave loud and clear was that they voted Labor, they trusted Labor all their lives, they supported the Labor Party and what did they get in return? The answer was that they were to get a rubbish terminal. There are already five such depots in the heart of what has the potential to be a wonderful area once Duck Creek is rehabilitated, but the Government has decided to allow the application to be put and, in this case, it has usurped the power of the council to decide whether it goes ahead. The Opposition believes that it should not go ahead. [Time expired.]

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [5.23 p.m.]: Of course the Government is aware of community concerns regarding the potential impact on the environment and on human health caused by waste facilities generally. I understand that Collex, the proponent of a waste transfer terminal at Clyde, has submitted a revised development application to my colleague the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning and that this is currently being considered. I understand that the public exhibition process for the proposed facility closed on 1 March.

The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, who is the consent authority for this proposal, has assured me that all submissions received will be very carefully considered as part of an open and transparent evaluation process. The Minister will determine the application after taking into account all relevant issues of environmental concern, including those in public submissions. It would be inappropriate for me to pass an opinion on the proposal or in any way to pre-empt my colleague's decision. To do so would undermine the process that is under way. I emphasise that point. It will do nobody any good if I or any other representative of the Government at this stage comments on the matters that my colleague is currently determining.

The waste avoidance and resource recovery legislation passed in 2001 represents a considered effort by the Government to influence the way in which we look at and handle waste materials. That legislation is an enormously significant consolidation of the best principles of the 1995 waste Act. It also captured the Government's refined thinking on the measures that can be employed to improve our overall waste reduction and secondary markets agenda. The Greiner-Fahey years saw little in the way of any meaningful attempt to grapple with these issues. There were many discussion papers but no action. The waste industry is worth about $2.5 billion nationally, yet the Coalition has not produced a clear policy statement on the issue since its prophetically titled document—No Time To Waste—in 1994

By contrast, since 1995 this Government has made an extended effort to put in place policies and systems that respond to the contemporary waste agenda. Obviously, the 1995 Waste Minimisation and Management Act, introduced in the first year of the Carr Government's first term, was a major milestone. It is worth reminding the House of some of the important things delivered in that first wave of reforms. Since 1995 there has been a 24 per cent reduction in waste disposal compared to 1990. The diversion rate for recyclables is 34 per cent higher than the national average. The green-waste diversion rate is double the national average and there have been quite unprecedented levels of support for waste programs through funding grants.

We now see a clear focus on waste reduction throughout the community and a shift away from concentrating solely on municipal waste. The 1995 reforms delivered the first real push to address commercial waste and construction sector waste, which together make up about two-thirds of all waste. Kerbside recycling, which lurched from crisis to crisis in the early 1990s, is now relatively stable. Our most recent changes are transposing the culture of kerbside recycling in the household sector into ordinary business. It is a big challenge. It is cheaper to recycle than to dispose of just about all recyclable material. We know also, thanks to work undertaken by Nolan-ITU and SKM Economics, that kerbside recycling provides many benefits.

The assessment of kerbside recycling in Australia by those consultants shows that an average $42 benefit per household per year is derived from kerbside recycling. According to the report, "This comprises an average net financial cost of $26 per household per year and an average environmental benefit of $68 per household per year". That is a rather compelling equation. The challenge in this, as in other areas of environmental policy, is to convince the marketplace and individual businesses that greener commercial or industrial practices can lead to operating cost reductions. That is a matter that honourable members will see more of in the months and years ahead. One other major initiative of the 2001 reforms is the creation of the organisation Resource New South Wales, which replaced nine waste boards. It is already proving to be stronger, tighter and more strategic in its operations than the boards could be.

Resource New South Wales has continued with the implementation of the successful waste board programs using the experience of staff who have transferred to the new organisation. At the same time the organisation has started its preparation of a waste strategy for the whole State—it will be the first ever—to be ready by the end of the year. The excellent board of Resource New South Wales is assisting the agency to develop effective programs that will assist New South Wales to deliver its goals of efficient use of resources and continual reduction in waste generation. Resource New South Wales will continue to support regional waste management approaches, will boost market development opportunities for secondary or recyclable materials, will provide research and government funding, and will support emerging waste technologies that contribute to the goal of sustainability. It will also drive reforms in the area of illegal dumping.

As I said, Resource New South Wales is required to develop a statewide waste strategy in consultation with interest groups and the public. That exercise was widely advertised to allow for full consultation and involvement. Resource New South Wales will also be developing a set of approaches to support waste reduction, including groups of councils and industry in partnership programs to assist in that endeavour. The new legislation provides a much clearer framework of roles and responsibilities than we have ever had before. New South Wales has now adopted a model which has worked very well in the energy sector: A clear separation of roles between the EPA as regulator and policy developer, and Resource New South Wales as the body responsible for implementing strategic programs across the State.

After only a few months of operation, Resource New South Wales is already working closely with the EPA. Under the new system, the EPA will in turn be freed up from some of its former responsibilities to devote more of its efforts to enforcement of the regulations that have been devised to assist us in matters such as illegal dumping. We have already seen significant waste reduction in the municipal sector. The framework is designed not only to improve on that performance but to deliver substantial waste reduction in other waste streams, particularly in the commercial and industrial sector and the construction and demolition sectors. As I said, those sectors make up about two-thirds of the total waste stream.

It does not matter how good we get at recycling the household rubbish we are all aware of it on a day-to-day basis, we have not dealt with the total problem of waste—for instance, we have not moved as far as we might to reduce the need to create new landfill—if we do not deal with those other commercial sectors. I repeat that the Government remains highly conscious of community concerns about the potential impacts on the environment and human health caused by waste facilities anywhere. Certainly, that applies to the circumstance of the proposal at Clyde. I repeat also that it would be inappropriate for me to in any way pre-empt my colleague's decision in the matter. [Time expired.]

Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater) [5.33 p.m.]: The Minister spent only two minutes of the 10 minutes available to him to speak about this matter of public importance. Where is the Minister for Planning? Why is he not in the Chamber to explain the process and to reassure the people of Clyde and the surrounding community? More importantly, where is the local member, who received notice about this debate from the shadow Minister for Western Sydney some hours ago? Although the local member, the honourable member for Granville, is also the Minister for Western Sydney, he is not in the Chamber to participate in this debate. Instead, he sent the Minister for the Environment, who spent most of this time talking about the Government's broad policy and approach to planning.

The Minister said that the Coalition has no policy on planning, and jumped back to 1994, when the Coalition was last in Government. Let me make it clear that in the run-up to the next State election the Coalition will have a comprehensive waste management policy that focuses on providing competition in waste services, rather than continuing a government monopoly that does not provide efficiency and, in so doing, is not cost effective for consumers. To that end, the importance of today's debate is twofold: first, to represent the interests of the people of Western Sydney, particularly the residents of Clyde and the surrounding area who will be strongly affected if the project goes ahead; and, second—and this is just as important—to continue the Coalition's commitment to the Woodlawn Collex project, which will provide the Tarago community in the Mulwaree shire with jobs and opportunities into the future.

The Woodlawn project is strongly supported by the local member, the honourable member for Burrinjuck. She has been a strong advocate of the project for some time. The problem for the Minister and the Government is how to ensure that the project goes ahead in rural New South Wales in a form that does not damage the lifestyle of the people of Clyde and the surrounding area. The people of Clyde have raised a number of concerns. I acknowledge the immense amount of work done by John Drake, on behalf of the Clyde Residents Against Garbage in the Environment group, to represent the interests of that community. Auburn Council has expressed concerns about the proposal. It is concerned that about 200 trucks per day will be travelling to and from the site. The Auburn local government area already has five other waste facilities, including the Lidcombe liquid waste site, Lidcombe transfer station and a medical incinerator at Silverwater.

Auburn Council is already doing more than its fair share of processing Sydney's waste. According to the council, Western Sydney already has the highest incidence of asthma and other respiratory conditions than any other region in Sydney. This proposal will only further reduce the health of Western Sydney residents. Council is concerned about unacceptable levels of odour and dust emissions to residents and businesses from sorting and crushing operations. There is a potential for asbestos to be shipped through the facility. The proposed development will reduce the value of the State Government asset, which is earmarked for disposal. Redevelopment of the marshalling yards is commencing in an ad hoc manner, despite Auburn Council's planning controls to ensure orderly redevelopment patterns which seek to maximise the amenity and functionality of any redevelopment in the yards.

According to Auburn Council, the lifestyle of the residents will be reduced, which will be reflected in lower property values. Importantly, council is concerned that the proposed development will have a detrimental impact on the water quality of Duck River, given its proximity to the river and the location of access roads and a weighbridge adjacent to the bank. Auburn and Parramatta councils have been spending considerable sums of money on cleaning up this sensitive environment. The Lord Mayor of Parramatta, Councillor John Haines, has indicated that he and his council oppose the project. It is all well and good for the Minister to restate the Government's policy on and approach to waste management. We are bitterly disappointed that the local member, who is also the Minister for Western Sydney, has not put forward his view in this debate.

The Minister for Western Sydney does not care about his local residents or these issues. Where is the honourable member for Auburn on this issue? Where are the Labor members who take the people of Western Sydney for granted? Where are the Country Labor members who are asking the Government to solve this problem so that the Woodlawn project can proceed in Tarago? That would give the people of the Mulwaree shire some certainty about the outstanding issue of payment of workers entitlements, and it would introduce competition into waste management in New South Wales. [Time expired.]

Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [5.38 p.m.], in reply: Today Opposition members have put forward a positive case for why the Collex proposal should not proceed at Clyde. Undoubtedly the proposal at Tarago, which is south of Goulburn, is worthwhile. The honourable member for Burrinjuck has fought very hard to establish and maintain that proposal, which involves workers entitlements. Although the Minister read a departmental speech, he did not deal with specific issues, such as the Clyde proposal, the environment or Duck River, which is in the heart of the Labor Party's territory in Western Sydney.

Jack Lang, who was an icon, lived in Auburn. People tell me that he was a good local member—indeed, elderly people still remember him. He would be rolling in his grave if he knew what the Labor Party had done. Worse than that—this project may never get off the ground. The Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads gave his consent for Collex to lodge a development application. However, his consent was unnecessary—no consent, no development application, no proposal, nothing! Apart from that the Planning Minister said "Well, this is of State significance. We will not worry about the elected representatives, we won't give them a say in it, we will forget them." It then became a matter of State significance and the elected representatives now have no input.

The people of Auburn and Granville may well feel let down by this Government and by a party that has purported to represent their interests for the past 100 years or thereabouts. At the end of the day, they have no hope. The Minister has not given them any reason to believe that this transfer will not go ahead. They simply want a fair deal. Many people are agitated because the transfer station would not be necessary if the waste was processed in the areas where it was collected and then taken to the local transfer station, put on trucks in sealed containers and brought across to Clyde—or somewhere else for that matter. There would be no problems about odours or people getting asthma in an area that has one of the highest incidence of asthma in Australia. Those issues would not arise. Perhaps the Minister for Transport has decided this is the way to get rid of the site at Clyde, but it will come at a price. I saw something like 1,500 people who were gravely concerned about what is proposed by the Labor Party, a party they had nurtured.

Mr Brogden: They were just there to see you.

Mr MERTON: They were there to see me too, as the shadow Minister for Planning said. It is all so unnecessary. People such as John Drake and the committee have worked hard to do something about this matter. John Drake believes the waste should be processed where it is collected. If that happened there would be no need for this transfer terminal to be utilised at all. He correctly said:

The railhead/intermodal facility for Woodlawn could be at Hornsby or Clyde or at Collex's Greenacre transfer terminal (there is rail there) or somewhere else or to a number of railheads. There is no need for a transfer terminal to be at the location of the railhead, in fact, there is really no point unless you want to increase greenhouse emissions from many garbage trucks rather than a few semis.

Honourable members can imagine 200 trucks a day bumper-to-bumper on Parramatta Road. If a truck is running a little late the temptation is to turn down a side street, and the next thing trucks will be rumbling down narrow streets around First Avenue, Clyde with asbestos and all kinds of odours and emissions going directly into households. That is not good enough and the people of Western Sydney deserve better than to have their area become a dumping ground for other people's rubbish. They are good, honest hardworking people who deserve a fair go. They want nothing more or nothing less. I know they will not get it from the Government, but the Opposition will fight to the end for them.

Discussion concluded.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [5.43 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. As I have said previously, the bill is a step in the Government's reform of the State's environment protection laws. Those laws have been fundamentally overhauled since the Carr Government was elected in March 1995. The newly elected Government embarked on a comprehensive reform program to ensure that this State has the right tools to tackle the environmental problems that confront us as we go forward into the twenty-first century. As happens with the implementation of any major reforms, there is a need for minor adjustments and improvements to these new laws over time. This bill addresses such a need. There are no major policy changes, but rather a number of modest but nevertheless necessary changes to the bill.

I now turn briefly to the matters raised by the honourable member for Pittwater either in his contribution today or in briefings provided to him by the Environmental Protection Authority [EPA] and my staff. He has raised a number of issues in relation to the roles that councils presently play in monitoring and enforcing environmental standards. Under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act local government councils have the power to issue clean-up and prevention notices, to issue penalty notices and to commence prosecutions. Councils also have a variety of enforcement powers under local government and planning legislation that can be used to manage environmental problems. The honourable member raised the circumstances in which a council incorrectly undertakes an action under an Act and then abandons that action upon discovering its error. He proposes that the appropriate regulatory authority, namely the EPA, be compelled to continue the council's action to completion under those circumstances. I do not accept that view.

It is not appropriate to fetter the discretion of the appropriate regulatory authority with an appropriate response to an offence or alleged offence. For example, upon further investigation the EPA could decide that not only was the council wrong in believing it had a right to take action, it may also have been wrong in its assessment of the offence or of the appropriate remedy. To force the EPA to continue with such an action would clearly be inappropriate. That is separate from circumstances in which it is clear that a council will not exercise its powers. There are a range of measures the EPA may contemplate if a council refuses to exercise its powers. For example, in an emergency the EPA may issue a clean-up notice to a polluter. The EPA can direct a council to take clean-up action itself, or it may choose to issue a penalty notice or take court proceedings for an offence. Members of the public who are dissatisfied with a council's response may also utilise complaints processes, such as the council's own complaints procedures or those of the Ombudsman.

The honourable member for Pittwater also raised the costs to local government associated with the enforcement of this legislation. The first point to make is that local government was consulted before this bill was drafted. The Local Government and Shires Associations have directly indicated their support for the measures before the House today. Further to the question of costs, the honourable member for Pittwater is apparently unaware that councils retain the bulk of the fine when they issue penalty infringement notices on their own behalf. That is the case for all environmental offences. It is a fact that councils do not lose money by enforcing the environment laws; in fact, it is generally the case that they make a little. Furthermore, councils are able to issue compliance cost notices to recover their administrative costs if they have issued clean-up or prevention notices.

The honourable member for Coffs Harbour suggested that local government officers are often overzealous, and the honourable member for Pittwater suggested that consistency of enforcement could not be achieved if local government is the main avenue for the enforcement of environmental regulation. I am advised that consistency is achieved by two measures. First, the EPA issues prosecution guidelines to councils. Second, and I have seen this important process happen, council officers who are involved in enforcing environmental laws go through training conducted by the EPA about the legislation to ensure consistency of application.

Mr Brogden: Paid for by the EPA?

Mr DEBUS: I am not sure; I think so. The honourable member for Pittwater has made much of his concern for air quality and has labelled the Government's progress in that area a failure. It is likely that from time to time members of this House will be unwilling to let a good story be destroyed by the facts, but in this case the facts should hold. The fact is that Sydney's air quality is improving significantly. Lead, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in Sydney have all dropped dramatically in recent years. Despite an increase in population and car usage in recent decades, smog levels have not increased. We are doing better than one might originally have anticipated without an emissions testing program.

The honourable member for Coffs Harbour criticised the Environment Protection Authority for, he said, using more sticks than carrots. However, one who looks at air quality policy as a whole right across government will see that although the EPA is somewhat biased in the area of sticks—after all, that is a substantial part of its job as regulator—one will find lots of carrots, some of them offered by the EPA. I will explain a little about the approach that the Government is taking. In November last year the Premier announced his Cleaner Car initiative.

We will set two benchmarks to better inform the community of the cleanest cars available—one for very clean cars and the other for those of above-average performance. Stamp duty will be restructured for the purchase of new cars—the cleaner the car you buy, the less stamp duty you will pay. That means that cleaner cars will be cheaper cars. All government agencies are to establish fleet improvement plans with targets for reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The Government will assist in the development of a consumer green guide for new cars, and there will be a voluntary Clean Fleet program for private companies with a large number of vehicles.

Other measures that will add to a significant reduction in emissions from cars in the immediate future include the creation of a three-year, $6 million Clean Air Fund to help local councils tackle air pollution in their local neighbourhoods. Those will include, for example, programs to replace outdated and polluting wood heaters with cleaner alternatives. They will include also new design standards for wood heaters to further reduce smoke particle emissions. I am sure honourable members would be aware that smoke particles are critical to the creation of the brown haze sometimes seen in Sydney in the autumn. The initiatives focussed on wood heaters are extremely important in that respect. They are also extremely important in a number of towns along the Great Divide which have new programs just now going into place, such as Armidale and Lithgow as well as other towns that are cool and at high altitude and have a lot of trouble from the effects of wood smoke in winter.

There will be a boost to State Transit's green fleet that will result in 400 buses powered by clean compressed natural gas by 2002. I can also advise that negotiations with the petrol refining industry secured an agreement to provide low-volatility petrol to reduce pollution during summer time. That significantly reduces the emission of volatile pollutants into the air. That agreement was in place for the summer that has just ended. The changes that are in place or about to be put in place will guarantee a continuing improvement in the quality of our air.

The honourable member for Pittwater suggests that penalty notices for smoky vehicles should be issued on the spot and that the tests currently used are subjective and inadequate. No doubt the honourable member, in forming that view, relied in particular on representations from the honourable member for Wakehurst. I expected the honourable member for Wakehurst to speak in this debate at great length about a particular prosecution, but he has not participated in the debate. However, the matter that he previously raised regarding a particular prosecution is indicative of the effective application of the EPA's smoky vehicles policy. That was a case in which, in the end, a small business person who objected to the claim by an EPA inspector that his vehicle had issued excessive smoke was found to have committed the offence but received no penalty.

The court agreed not to impose a penalty in that case because part of the purpose of the smoky vehicles policy is to ensure not simply that we collect revenue but that we guarantee effective action is taken by those who are in possession of smoky vehicles. That policy is working exceptionally well. The EPA has an extremely high success rate for prosecutions in court, including the one I just mentioned. In the year 2000 the EPA had a 100 per cent success rate with smoky vehicle defendants who had elected to go to court. In other words, in the overwhelming number of cases the courts find that the evidence presented by enforcement officers is legitimate.

The prosecution guidelines ensure that a penalty notice is issued within 14 days of an offence being observed, which means that most offenders received the notice within a short period of being observed. Indeed, for first-time offenders in a private motor vehicle EPA policy is to issue a warning only. Only repeat offenders using private motor vehicles are subject to penalty notices. These measures will continue. Obviously, that is so because emissions from motor vehicles are the largest single source of pollutants threatening our air quality. Controlling vehicle emissions will continue to be a most important priority of the Government.

Diesel vehicles are increasingly becoming the focus of emission reduction programs around the world as more research shows that diesel fumes can be especially harmful to human health. Diesel fumes are particularly critical to the formation of both the brown haze that we get in our autumn air and the photochemical smog in our summer air. By 2006 Australia will have moved considerably closer to European standards in relation to national emission standards for diesel vehicles, although not for petrol vehicles. New South Wales will continue to push the Commonwealth Government to implement stricter European standards as a matter of priority.

New South Wales has worked with other States and the Commonwealth to develop a national environment protection measure which contains programs—such as detection of smoky vehicles, auditing of large fleets, vehicle test and repair and community education—to reduce emissions from diesel vehicles. That national environment protection measure is underpinned by new in-service emission standards for diesel vehicles established under National Roads and Transport Commission legislation. These standards provide the benchmark against which the performance of diesel vehicles can be assessed.

The New South Wales Government will lead by example, commencing soon emission testing of all diesel buses operated by State Transit. We will also work with private trucking fleets to develop maintenance programs that ensure vehicles comply with in-service emission standards. In summary, despite having made great progress in securing air quality, the Government will not in any way rest on its laurels. It will continue to implement positive programs—like the smoky vehicle policy, like the diesel fuel policies, like the Clean Fleet program—to ensure a healthy future. This bill makes a small contribution to that greater project. It is a worthwhile contribution that should be viewed in the context of our whole-of-government approach to the issue. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The following bills were returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:

Sydney Bethel Union Extension Amendment Bill
Children (Detention Centres) Amendment Bill
Conveyancing Legislation Amendment (e-plan) Bill

Pursuant to resolution private members' statements taken forthwith.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [6.00 p.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I make this private member's statement to acknowledge in this Parliament the outstanding achievements of two fine young Australians. Their accomplishments are notable because much of what they have achieved is symbolic of the values that we should promote in society and treasure as important in the spirit of good human relationships. At a time when some of our institutions are struggling to retain their integrity and respectability, the achievements of these two young fellows stand out like a beacon as an example to others. I speak of two of our Paralympic skiers: Mr Bart Bunting and his companion and guide in his events, Mr Nathan Chivers. Although Bart lives in Sydney for work-related reasons, his family are constituents of mine at Annangrove. He is very much an Annangrove boy and, of course, Annangrove has been very much a part of the Hawkesbury electorate for many years.

On behalf of my fellow citizens of the Hawkesbury electorate, it is with great pride that I congratulate Bart on his fine achievement. His feat is also, of course, an inspiration to others in the community with disabilities to reach out and do things which on the surface seem impossible. As I waited in the Chamber for an opportunity to speak I could not help thinking of my dear friend and late colleague David Hunter, a former member for Ashfield, who went blind at the age of six, was elected to this House when he was 35 and served here for 35 years. He was a tremendous member of Parliament and he made a fantastic contribution to the community despite the fact that he was blind. As a member of Parliament, I find it hard to imagine how a person could do this job without sight. However, David did that, and he did it very well. The achievements of Bart Bunting and Nathan Chivers have been chronicled in the media, and some members witnessed the events on television. They won two gold medals—one in the downhill and one in the super G—and a silver medal in the giant slalom.

Honourable members should picture if they can—and I am afraid that I cannot—skiing down a slope of at 80 kilometres an hour, give or take 10 kilometres an hour, relying solely on instructions coming through a loudspeaker from someone who is skiing, in the case of slower speeds, two or three metres ahead and, at faster speeds, up to 10 metres ahead. I ask honourable members to imagine the level of co-operation and commitment that is necessary both on the part of the person following and the person who is leading, and the need for the person who is leading to give accurate instructions to guide the person following through the obstacles and to enable that person to interpret the slopes. The instructions would have to be conveyed in a way which permits the person following to instantaneously adjust his pattern to ski down the slope. I ask honourable members to then imagine themselves in a competition in which they are trying to ski faster than someone else and win a race. That adds a whole new dimension to it.

Bart took up skiing only four years ago. Originally he was reluctant to do so because he thought he could not stand the cold and wet conditions. However, he is an adventurous and courageous young man. As soon as he got onto the snowfields and experienced the thrill, he was hooked and he has now gone on to win at Paralympic level. His summing up of his attitude was one of the things that I found most inspiring. He said, "I never set out to win the Paralympics. It was always something I did for fun." So far as I am concerned much of the fun seems to have gone out of sport at the highest competitive level. It is an aggressive business and in many cases it is a dog-eat-dog existence. Too much is being fought out in the courts and there are drug scandals, but Bart's achievement has been attained for the purest motivation: sport for sport's sake. This House should acknowledge his accomplishment as an achievement of exceptional quality.

Ms SALIBA (Illawarra) [6.05 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House a matter of concern to people who live in my community of Oak Flats. I refer to the proposed name change of the Oak Flats railway station. I found out about this proposal by reading an article in a newspaper. The article stated that the Shellharbour City Council proposes to change the name of Oak Flats railway station to the Shellharbour City railway station when the new bus-rail interchange is completed at some time in the future. Oak Flats railway station has been in existence for many years, and it has been the local railway station for most of the people who live in Oak Flats, Warilla, Mount Warrigal, Lake Illawarra and the surrounding areas of my electorate. It was my local railway station when I was growing up and I took many a train ride from Oak Flats to Sydney. I feel strongly that retaining the name of Oak Flats is an important issue for the people of my community.

Oak Flats is a strong community with a fighting spirit. To let the House know exactly what I mean, I refer to an event that happened approximately two years ago. All the commercial banks pulled out of Oak Flats but the community rallied together and formed a community bank modelled on the Bendigo community bank. We now have our own Oak Flats community bank. The Oak Flats community fights hard for everything it achieves. Members of the community stick together, stand up for their rights and they make sure that their voice is heard. Last Saturday morning I held a public meeting. I informed the community by newspaper and radio announcements that I would be out in the street with a petition that would be presented to the Shellharbour City Council and to the Minister for Transport, calling on the council to reject the change of name from "Oak Flats" to "Shellharbour City". In a two-hour period, almost 300 people came out specifically to sign the petition.

Mr Fraser: Name them.

Ms SALIBA: I have all the names on paper. They made it clear to me that they do not support the proposal to change the name of the station. It is important to note that there is already a station at Dunmore that has "Dunmore" and the name "Shellharbour" in brackets underneath, and that station is listed in the train timetable. It would be confusing to have another train station with the name "Shellharbour City" on it. I understand the argument advanced by the councillors. They want to put Shellharbour on the map, so to speak, and have that name registered in a train timetable. But I point out to the councillors that if people know about some of the beautiful tourist attractions such as the shopping and the beautiful brand new city centre at Shellharbour City, they will also know how to get there.

Anyone wanting to go to those tourist attractions in Shellharbour would find out how to get there. The challenge for Shellharbour council is to find better ways of promoting the city. Council could spend more money on tourism and on promoting the Shellharbour city area. That would be more beneficial than putting Shellharbour city on the train timetable. It would be a costly exercise for the New South Wales Government to put Shellharbour on the train timetable and to install ticketing machines and computers at train stations. A brand new timetable is being released in April. If Shellharbour is put on the train timetable it will mean that the timetable to which I have referred will need to be changed.

All these issues must be considered. I have written to the Minister for Transport and to Shellharbour City Council and I have advised them that I object to this. I am sure that the Minister for Transport will listen to my views and the views of my community. The Oak Flats Chamber of Commerce has worked hard to ensure that Oak Flats is a thriving community. Mrs Jenny Butler, President of Oak Flats Chamber of Commerce, and Mr Geoff Egan were instrumental in setting up the community bank and ensuring that the voice of Oak Flats is always heard. Mrs Joanna Schmidt from Oak Flats Progress Association was responsible for presenting a petition to ensure that council understood all these concerns. [Time expired.]

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [6.10 p.m.]: I again raise the pressing need for the Alstonville bypass. On any normal day more than 15,000 vehicles pass through the narrow main street of Alstonville. Within close proximity of the main street are two primary schools and one high school, which in total have over 2,000 students. With a high number of student pedestrians together with the local town population who need to cross Bruxner Highway in Alstonville, the conflict between vehicles and pedestrians is a major problem. Pedestrians are at risk and traffic is subject to lengthy delays. When the Pacific Highway is blocked—as it was recently with the bushfires or as it is sometimes because of flooding—traffic volume through Alstonville can more than double, exacerbating the problem even further.

The local Alstonville community is frustrated by the delays to this much-needed project. The public consultation process for the bypass began in earnest in 1995. A corridor had been reserved for nearly 20 years prior to that. In 1995 a preferred route was identified, an environmental impact statement was subsequently prepared and public comments were received. As a result, two significant alterations were made to the project. The first was to allow access to and from the bypass to Russelton Industrial Estate, and the second was to improve the western end traffic arrangements at Sneath's Road. Both were good initiatives. Whilst that increased the cost of the project to $36 million I am advised by the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] that there were significant benefits as well. So the benefit-cost ratio for the amended proposal is largely unchanged.

A representations report was subsequently submitted by the RTA to Planning New South Wales. I understand that that report should be coming back soon to the chief executive officer of the RTA to enable final planning approval to be given. I also understand that there are no apparent problems with the amended project. I particularly thank the three RTA officials who gave me, the mayor of Ballina, councillors from Ballina shire and other interested residents a comprehensive briefing on the technical aspects of the project on 6 March this year. It was much appreciated. However, it goes without saying that the seven-year period taken to complete the planning process is a major disappointment to me and to the local community.

I was pleased that on Friday 8 March the Minister for Roads was able to respond to the many invitations that he has had to visit Alstonville to see first hand the nature of the problem. I thank the Minister for coming. I also thank the honourable member for Lismore for his interest in and his support for this project. I was pleased to hear the Minister state on the day that he could see why the bypass project was important and that it really came down to a funding issue. He indicated that he would come back to me soon on that issue. The local community and I look forward to his advice. I know by any objective measure that this project should be funded. I urge the Minister to take advantage of the Federal Government's offer to contribute at least $12 million to the project.

The Minister indicated that he comes to joint funding arrangements with the Commonwealth on various projects throughout the State. Given the generous offer by the Commonwealth Government to help fund a State highway bypass project I respectfully suggest that the Minister grab that money with both hands. The local community is aware that if the New South Wales Coalition is elected next year it is committed to building the bypass. I know that the community will also welcome an announcement that the current New South Wales Government will fund the project in the upcoming budget.

I again stress that the Alstonville bypass project, a worthy project by any objective criteria, must be funded as soon as possible. It is the highest State road work priority in my electorate. I again thank the Minister for inspecting the situation first hand. I thank him for recognising the need for the Alstonville bypass. I look forward to some positive funding announcements in the future. Any such funding commitment will be warmly welcomed by the Alstonville and Wollongbar communities as well as all those commuters who live and work in the Ballina and Lismore shires and who strongly support the construction of the Alstonville bypass.

Ms ALLAN (Wentworthville) [6.15 p.m.]: Last Saturday morning I had the pleasure of officiating at the opening of the Karla Zolshan Centre in Aldgate Street, Prospect, on behalf of the Minister for Community Services, who has been ill for the last couple of weeks. In my capacity as the local member and as representing the Minister I was delighted to open the first centre in Western Sydney for the Autism Association of New South Wales. I was joined on that occasion by Mr Adrian Ford, the chief executive of the Autism Association, Mr Richard Bell, president of Silverwater Rotary Club, Mr Ossie Pisanu, chairman of the board of the Autism Association, as well as many excited local members of my community.

I said on that occasion that one of the enduring issues that has been part of my service as a member of Parliament over the last 13 or 14 years has been the need to have more services for people with special needs in Western Sydney. It is an area of growing concern. Over the years I have had discussions with the Spastic Centre of New South Wales, the Leukaemia Foundation and the Autism Association, which has, at long last, recognised that while central agencies might work from areas such as Forestville in the northern regions of Sydney, because its client base is often from Western Sydney it is important that it locate services in the region. The Autism Association would not have been able to have its centre in Western Sydney, in particular in Prospect, without the support of some important people.

First, I mention the benefactor for the centre, Karla Zolshan. Philanthropy in our country is not nearly as significant as it is in areas such as North America, but it is growing. Mrs Zolshan, who was present on the occasion of the opening of the centre, is an elderly lady—she might not like me describing her as elderly—who lives in Double Bay and has owned commercial property in Prospect for some years. She had willed this commercial property in Prospect at Aldgate Street Shopping Centre to the Autism Association. More recently, Mrs Zolshan realised that the Autism Association might get better value out of that property before she died. Why should she not enjoy the fruits of her benefaction by ensuring that the Autism Association got its facility under way as quickly as possible?

As a result of an alliance which her adviser formed with the Rotary Club of Silverwater, the property was granted to the Rotary Club. That club, in turn, developed a relationship with the Autism Association and the centre was opened. That was all done through a close partnership with the Department of Community Services, which is delighted to have this centre in Prospect. It will use that centre for a number of services that are currently provided for clients with autism in our community. The Autism Association will also fund a research officer, who will operate from that centre. The department will ensure that a school therapy team works from that centre.

So the department and the Autism Association are relocating services from the northern suburbs of Sydney to Western Sydney. I refer also to the President of the Autism Association, Mr Ossie Pisanu, a delightful gentleman who is also the father of six-year-old autistic twins. I have a child who is five years old, almost six years old, and I can appreciate how challenging it must be for Ossie Pisanu to have twins who are six years old and autistic. I assume that that is the motivating reason that he is chairman of the board of the Autism Association of New South Wales.

I refer to one final matter regarding the importance of the centre to the client base in Western Sydney and its location in the Aldgate Street Shopping Centre. Many local shopping centres are suffering such strong competition from large commercial retail outlets that they are not able to operate effectively. Also, there are often shops in those small shopping centres that are empty, and sometimes that creates a fairly gloomy atmosphere. The centre will be a tremendous boost to the Aldgate Street Shopping Centre and will create a focus for activity in that shopping complex. I was delighted that the local pharmacist also attended the opening. The relocation of services is a delightful opportunity for local shopkeepers to increase their services and customer base. I congratulate the Autism Association, particularly Mrs Zolshan on her generosity in providing this facility, and the Rotary Club of Silverwater on its initiative in establishing the centre in that location. [Time expired.]

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [6.20 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House a project sponsored by the Rotary Club of Mosman. Last night I had the pleasure of hosting a function for this project in the Parliament precincts. Since 1997 Mosman Rotary Club has been involved in sponsoring a group of medical specialists who provide hand surgery and rehabilitation to communities in South-East Asia. In fact, the group approached Mosman Rotary in 1996, and subsequently set up the Vietnam Hand Surgery and Rehabilitation project. Since that time the group has formed hand units in the three major hospitals of Hanoi, Hue and Ho Chi Minh City. The medical team has now moved on to Myanmar, in Burma, where it is also setting up a project.

The medical team includes surgeons and others from St Luke's Private Hospital and Sydney Hospital, who also attended last night's function. They told us about the beginnings of the Myanmar project. I particularly acknowledge Professor Bruce Connelly, a very skilled surgeon, who heads the team and is a very inspiring man. I spoke to him at length during the evening. If there were more Bruce Connellys in the world it would be a better place. On the team's first visit Professor Connelly was accompanied by another surgeon Peter Scougall, Rosemary Prosser and Cathy Merry as therapists, Barbara Beare as theatre nurse, Pam Morris as secretary-manager and David Robinson as photographer.

During last night's function the team delivered a presentation that included photographs of patients they had met in Myanmar on their very first visit. It was obvious how much these patients were going to be helped by the team, because not only were they taking their skills to that country, they were taking equipment that was provided to them by other sponsors of the project. Quite apart from Mosman Rotary, which has paid the fares and accommodation for these medical teams, which return to these countries several times during the year, other organisations have also raised funds and provided donations for the purchase of equipment, other medical needs, books and journals.

The medical teams do not simply perform the treatment; they also teach local practitioners how to perform it. It is a little like the Fred Hollows technique. When one looks at photographs of these teams, one can see that they are very skilled surgeons now that they have worked in Hanoi, Hue and Ho Chi Minh City. Professor Connelly said last night that the surgeons and the teams that are presently in Myanmar are extremely committed and very skilled to their level of expertise, but they have not had the benefit of the people with this experience. They certainly have not had recourse to the type of equipment that is needed. We were shown a slide of a fellow whose hand was paralysed from polio, which he had contracted as a child—a correctable condition.

Professor Connelly indicated that on his first visit he assisted one of the two surgeons at Yangon hospital in an attempt to screw back a piece of bone at the elbow of a young farm worker. The only equipment available to the surgeon was an old-fashioned hand drill, pieces of which kept falling off. The hand drill in the photograph looked like the drill that my son uses to fix his boat in the backyard. But now, with the very generous donations that accompany the team, they have the equipment they need to really make a difference to these people's lives. Last night's function was sponsored by the Rotary Club of Mosman, which I congratulate. The event also provided an opportunity to thank all the other sponsors of this fine project, and to give people a chance to say well done and thank you to this very inspiring team of surgeons, nurses and therapists. I add my congratulations to them. It was indeed an honour to host the function.

Ms ANDREWS (Peats) [6.25 p.m.]: The concept of a fast ferry service from Ettalong Beach to Sydney has been bandied around for a number of years. Indeed, there is also a Gosford to Sydney ferry proposal, which I have been advised in writing does not require Government assistance. I have a letter from the principal of the company concerned confirming that. Not long after I became the member for Peats I led a delegation to the then Minister for Transport on this very question. The Minister listened intently to the proponents of the fast ferry service, but at the end of the day he advised me that the company had no money to make the dream become a reality. Nothing much has changed. All that has changed is that the deck chairs on the Titanic have been rearranged. The dream is still a long way from becoming a reality.

The company steering the idea of a fast ferry service, Fast Ships Limited, appears not to have the capital available to buy even one suitable vessel to allow the service to come into operation. Yet the company has the audacity to want the State Government to build a terminal on the foreshores of Ettalong Beach at a cost of $4.3 million. It should be borne in mind that at this stage there is no vessel in sight, but the company wants the terminal up and running so that it can then lobby private investors—perhaps even mum and dad investors—to invest in the company.

Having no lack of hide whatsoever, Fast Ships Limited wants the State Government to act as guarantor for the purchase of a ferry. The company contends that if the State Government agreed to act as guarantor, private enterprise would be more likely to invest in the project. So if the company defaulted in its payments for the ferry, the ferry ran aground or any other calamitous event occurred, the burden would be on the State Government to fund the ferry. And these people claim to believe in free enterprise! It is clear that they want to socialise the losses and privatise the profits. Where will the company's call for State Government assistance end?

All the proponents of this project claim that the fast ferry is a very good idea and will be a real bonus for the area. If that is the case, why has there not been more private investment to date? I think the answer is quite simple: potential private investors are not convinced that the proposal is viable. On two occasions one of the three current directors of the company has been to see me. On both occasions I have requested further information, but to date that information has not been forthcoming. Yet the information sought was simple enough, and included how much directors and shareholders would be contributing to the project and what car parking facilities would be provided by Fast Ships Limited at Ettalong.

In correspondence dated 3 January 2002 Mr Alf Salter, a director of Fast Ships Limited, advised me that the company was not seeking "Government assistance in hard dollar terms, but by way of guarantees, which could lend credibility to a new business and would assist in raising adequate funds to get our business going within a shorter period of time." If the State Government were to adopt this approach we would be setting a dangerous precedent to support other speculative ventures. This conflicts with earlier reports that the company wanted the State Government to provide the infrastructure—a wharf and terminal costing $4.3 million. In a telephone conversation that took place on Monday 25 February Mr Salter sought my support for the construction of the $4.3 million terminal at the State Government's expense. When I challenged him on this change of heart, Mr Salter said that if I were more comfortable with the Government providing the infrastructure rather than acting as a guarantor for the purchase of a ferry, the company would pursue that avenue.

Throughout this debate I have maintained that I have no objection to the concept of a fast ferry service to operate between the Central Coast and Sydney provided that all environmental impact study requirements are met and that local government has no serious objection. As I have stated publicly, I do have grave concerns about the Government committing to the support of infrastructure and/or funds, guaranteed or otherwise, for a project that may not, under closer scrutiny, stack up. Information from the Australian Securities and Investment Commission suggests that the company has experienced constant turnover in directors since the registration of the company in August 1996, six different principal places of business, 16 previous directors and five previous secretaries.

Media publicity since 1996 has consistently suggested a link between the viability of the ferry project and the redevelopment of a residential hotel/accommodation resort at the nearby Ettalong Beach Club, formerly the Ettalong Beach War Memorial Club. This latter development was launched in 1999. To date the club project has stalled at foundation level and, as far as I am aware, lacks adequate finance for completion. The current Gosford City Council development application approval for the ferry project is limited to one vessel for five years although the information memorandum made available by the company is essentially premised on the operation of two vessels. [Time expired.]

Mr CULL (Tamworth) [6.30 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House concerns in relation to the security of Tamworth City Council's water supply. The irrigation industry and the community of Tamworth are concerned with the delays in dealing with the water issues that confront the district. Concern has been expressed that the Namoi regulated water-sharing plan has been compiled without consideration of the Peel Valley or Tamworth City Council's right to water from Chaffey and Dungowan dams. Whilst we recognise that some hydro-geological data are not currently available, as the Peel Valley contributes about 10 per cent of water in the Namoi Valley it is important that it is included in the Namoi regulated river water-sharing plan. It does not make sense to create a water-sharing plan and not include the Peel Valley and Tamworth water requirements.

In 1974 Tamworth City Council contributed financially towards the establishment of Chaffey Dam to secure a guaranteed water supply for the city of Tamworth and the Peel irrigators. A written agreement that guarantees Tamworth city access to 16,400 megalitres of water to secure the future and present development within the city is most important. The council contributed financially to the dam, which was built in 1974, and the written agreement is based on that. Currently the New South Wales Government is trying to renege on this contract. The council has commenced an action through the courts. I encourage the Government to resolve this issue before the concerned parties expend considerable resources in court costs.

As part of the Tamworth water management plan, Tamworth City Council is currently developing a 100 per cent effluent reuse scheme for Tamworth city. Currently Tamworth city generates around 4,200 megalitres of effluent water annually and this is currently being discharged back into the riverine system. With the proposed Environment Protection Authority [EPA] load-based licensing levies for effluent disposal, council will be liable to pay up to $1 million per year. To avoid this charge Tamworth City Council proposes to establish an effluent reuse scheme. However, the proposed scheme has been delayed since 13 August 2001 by requests from Planning New South Wales for river modelling and social economic studies to be undertaken.

This undue delay has prevented council's development application to Parry Shire Council proceeding, and Tamworth council now faces additional costs imposed upon it by the EPA as it is forced to continue to discharge effluent into the river system. The Government was speaking today about consultation. It is disappointing to the people in these valleys and in Tamworth that it does not take into account the social impact of its judgments in securing the water supply for Tamworth city. I encourage the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to assist Tamworth council to resolve these issues. It is surprising that a number of these effluent reuse schemes are operating throughout the State, and it is difficult to understand why Tamworth city has been singled out by the EPA, which has delayed the process of the development application.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.35 p.m.]: On Monday afternoon I met with members of the Newcastle Italian Welfare Organisation to hear their concerns and receive their petitions arising from the decision of the Scalabrinian Order of Missionaries to close its chapel in Beaumont Street, Hamilton and move the order's priests to Sydney. This decision comes after 46 years of service by the order for both the spiritual and the cultural needs of Newcastle's Italian community. The order owns the Italian Centre on Beaumont Street, which contains the chapel, a meeting hall, a restaurant, a café and a welfare office. It is both the heart and the soul of our Italian community and very much a part of the multicultural mix that is Beaumont Street.

The centre was established in 1966, drawing on the generosity of the newly arrived predominantly young Italian migrants, their hard work and their skills in building construction. In the words of the then Bishop of Maitland, the Most Reverend John Toohey, in the commemorative book of the time, "It will serve as office, chapel and meeting place for the religious and material assistance of Italian immigrants. The newcomer will find friend, counsellor and spiritual adviser in the person of the Scalabrinian father ministering there." The age of the people has changed but their needs and the importance of the centre to our Italian community has not. Now many of the more than 2,000 Italian-born Australians are over 60. After years of hard work in our industries many are retired on moderate incomes or pensions.

The social and spiritual fabric provided by the chapel and the Italian centre are even more important than at earlier times. The centre provides an important meeting place, catering for over 120 at its Wednesday pensioners meeting and up to 80 at the Ethnic Committee Council Daycare program on Fridays. It houses the office of the Italian Welfare Organisation to deal with needs of the community and its hall is available for broad community use. Of more importance to the ageing community, the chapel provides for the celebration of the sacrament and the taking of confession in the Italian language.

The community has appealed to the Scalabrini Order to continue to provide this service to its congregation on Sundays, even if the move is made from Newcastle. The Italian community has the strongest attachment to the Italian Centre. They funded it, they built it; it has been the base of their cultural life over the past 40 years. They are most upset that they have not been consulted regarding its future and do not support its moving away from this hub of activity in Hamilton. Our ageing Italian community members have given their working lives to the benefit of Newcastle. Their labour was welcomed at BHP, Stewart and Lloyds, Commonwealth Steel, Rylands and State Railways. Transfield and Electric Power Transmission built their businesses on the skill and hard work of these migrant workers. These people established their families in and around Hamilton and have contributed greatly to the economic and social fabric of our city. I quote again from the commemorative book, which celebrates their achievements:

Except for a few cases which for health reasons, for family, or through restlessness, could not cope with the first difficulties, the Italian community of Newcastle is well settled in the economy and in the social life of the country. Many had the financial strength to undertake jobs and contracts on their own, and within the last ten years one can count about thirty concrete contractors, ten building contractors, three petrol station and repair garages, carpenters and joiners' shops, one telescopic hoist, two firms of housepainters, one real estate agency, one photographic studio, three barber shops, four restaurants, three cafes, one cake shop, one bakery and five delicatessens.

It cannot be said that the Italians leaned on the shoulders of the locals. On the contrary, they gave a brilliant example of workmanship and intelligent sense of enterprise, which benefit the prosperity and welfare of the entire city of Newcastle.

More than 181 families are acknowledged in the booklet for their donations to the construction of the centre. The Italian community has financed, physically built and sustained the Italian centre as their spiritual and cultural focus in Newcastle over this long period. Today, on their behalf, I appeal to the Scalabranian Order to keep both of these aspects of the Italian centre operating in Beaumont Street, Newcastle, for the benefit of our Italian migrant community and the whole community of Newcastle.

Mr R. H. L. SMITH (Bega) [6.40 p.m.]: Ulladulla High School is in urgent need of upgrading. The school was built in 1974 and is showing the signs of 28 years of wear and tear. At present 1,140 pupils attend Ulladulla High School. I have been informed by local real estate agents that approximately 200 families have moved into the area since December 2001. As those figures show, the Ulladulla area is growing fast, and the present facilities at this school simply cannot keep up with the growth rate. Over the past two years there has been much discussion and many meetings held in relation to this issue. However, very little constructive development has taken place. The present problems at the school include the structural integrity of the permanent buildings, which are constructed on a sloping site and are showing signs of movement. The accommodation for the staff is atrocious.

The special education staff—who teach two classes of disabled students, moderately handicapped students and severely handicapped students—share three desks between six teachers. Two new demountable buildings to house the special needs classes were promised last year but have still not been installed. Six staff are forced to use a converted classroom as their office, with one teacher's desk actually being inside a shower recess. This has left the physical education staff with no separate shower or change area, requiring them to share the students' facilities. This is an appalling situation for teachers to be faced with. The physical education department should have an area specifically for its needs, with adequate space and proper facilities for the teachers. The art kilns are situated inside general classrooms which do not have exhaust fans. The kilns emit odorous vapours, and because of occupational health and safety concerns the teachers fire them only on weekends and in their own time.

The former Minister for Education and Training promised funds to relocate the kilns last year. However, work on the project has not commenced, and when school recommenced this year the parents and citizens were informed that the project may not proceed. Although some funds were allocated for urgent sewerage replacement works at the school, only bandaid solutions have been implemented, with small sections replaced now and again. The toilets block at least once a week, and there are serious problems when heavy rain falls. Departmental plans to convert the senior students' study room into a staff room, depriving year 12 pupils of their quiet area in which to prepare for exams, is both unfair to and unwanted by all concerned. I am advised by the president of the parents and citizens association that the department plans to divide the school into two halves. This will mean a 10-minute walk for teachers between some classrooms. This plan is not only impractical but is rejected by the parents and citizens, and the teachers.

Apparently, the department reviews the school staffing needs on a standard formula, which allows for three square metres per teacher and seven square metres for staff to move about. The formula may have worked in the past but, with today's technology, computers and printers take up most of the teacher's desk space and leave very little room to move about, as is the case at this school. In June 1996 the District Superintendent of Schools—he does a wonderful job and I respect him—advised the parents and citizens committee that upgrading Ulladulla High School was on the top of his list, along with Bega High School and Bodalla Public School. Since then funds have been allocated to Bega High School and Bodalla Public School, but Ulladulla High School is still waiting.

How does the Government expect dedicated teachers to maintain a positive attitude to their work and to continue meeting the needs and demands of their students while working in such appalling conditions? It is no wonder that I am continually advised that morale amongst teachers in schools across New South Wales is the lowest it has been in many years. I demand that the Government take into consideration the urgent needs of the teachers and pupils of Ulladulla High School and ensure that work commences immediately on the long-overdue upgrade.

Ms HARRISON (Parramatta) [6.45 p.m.]: I draw the attention of honourable members to the difficulties facing the sport of cycling in New South Wales in maintaining its very existence in the light of escalating public insurance liability costs and the fees imposed by the New South Wales police force. The primary concern relates to road races conducted around the State but also relates to track and mountain bike races. Recently the Premier announced an inquiry into the user-pays scheme for New South Wales police. I welcome his timely interest in and concern about this issue. I welcome also his statement in the House today regarding public liability insurance and the Government's plans to provide assistance on this issue. Indeed, this afternoon I ensured that New South Wales Cycling received a copy of the Premier's press release issued today.

Public liability charges and police fees have resulted in the cancellation of a number of major cycling races. Only this month Goulburn Cycle Club announced the cancellation of the 2002 Race of the Future, which is an annual Canberra to Goulburn cycling road race, primarily because the public liability insurance coverage for this race jumped from $10 million to $20 million, which has raised the premium to $5,000. This, coupled with the increase in police fees for the event, has left more than 300 cyclists without a race. The Goulburn, as it is known, is Australia's most historic cycling road race. Although the race is conducted by volunteers and not for profit, it was viewed as not fitting within the guidelines for an exemption from the police fees.

Last year I raised these issues with the Minister for Police and the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads when the eighty-ninth Goulburn to Sydney annual race was cancelled due to rising police fees, which for that race were estimated at about $10,000 or $11,000. At that time the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] agreed in principle to a system whereby New South Wales cycling officials could be trained and accredited to conduct these races. This recognised the fact that many cycling officials are already experienced and many cycling races are conducted over long, lonely stretches of country roads. These officials would be able to assist police, thereby reducing the number of police needed and reducing costs. In country towns and bigger cities police are used to control intersections that need to be closed. Cycling officials are used to travelling in convoys to repair bikes when necessary, and they could control country roads during cycle races. That would reduce the number of police involved. This proposed stopgap measure was embraced enthusiastically by the RTA; it would enable cycling races to continue while the issue of public liability insurance and police fees is examined.

While the idea was canvassed enthusiastically, nothing in writing has been received by New South Wales Cycling to progress this concept. In the meantime fees have continued to rise, which has put the sport in jeopardy. The Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads was supportive of and encouraging about the proposal. I ask him to call on his department to deal with the issue speedily and to progress it further. I also call on the Minister for Police to continue the good work of his predecessor, the honourable member for Strathfield, in dealing with New South Wales Cycling and in addressing the unreasonably spiralling police costs.

Also, I call on the police Minister to deal more adequately with a policy matter that I raised with him in a letter dated 31 January. I received a response to that letter today. The matter relates to Mr Fekete, who was pulled up by Queanbeyan police last September and eventually had his Vitorinox tool, which is a multitool, confiscated as a prohibited weapon. Mr Fekete is contesting the fine. I understand from the response I received from the Minister today that the police intend to let the matter proceed in the normal manner in the Queanbeyan Local Court on 2 April.

I understand that the Minister cannot interfere in the court process, but I would like the Minister to make a statement about government policy relating to cyclists carrying a multitool in their pack to make repairs, thus enabling them to stay on the road. Recently I spoke to a cyclist who was cycling 1,000 kilometres a week. People do not cycle 1,000 kilometres a week round a cycle track; they cycle on country roads, often a long way from the city and the nearest petrol station. In those circumstances cyclists often find that their mobile phone does not work. In fact, recently my son's bike broke down at the bottom of Galston Gorge and he had no reception. He had to climb out of Galston Gorge and ring me to come and get him.

Cycling clubs put a great deal of effort into training youngsters on how to fix their bikes. My son did a course conducted by Bicycle New South Wales so that he can repair his bike. What is the Minister's view on cyclists, especially mountain bikers who end up in the middle of nowhere, carrying a multitool? It is a safety issue. Cycling New South Wales is trying to promote and grow its sport but it is faced with increasing costs. As a result, it will attract few people, people who could eventually go on to represent Australia successfully. Cycling offers many health benefits. Cycle club members regularly visit schools across the State to help teachers. The Government needs to take a more comprehensive across-the-board approach. [Time expired.]

Mr IEMMA (Lakemba—Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for Sport and Recreation, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [6.50 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Parramatta for raising this issue, and for the strength of her advocacy and support of cycling as a sport in this State. I place on record due recognition of her efforts both as a local member and as a former Minister for Sport and Recreation in her initiatives to support cycling and cyclists in this State. In relation to the public liability issue that she raised, I support the comprehensive package announced by the Premier in the House earlier today. The honourable member for Parramatta highlighted one of an increasing number of cases that has been brought to the attention of the Government across the board. Many fine sporting and community organisations and businesses have become the victims of escalating insurance premiums as a result of what has happened to public liability. The package announced by the Premier this afternoon is a comprehensive and strong response to that issue.

On Friday I will be launching a kit called "It's Your Business" for the directors of voluntary organisations and sporting organisations. It aims to assist them when they have meetings with insurance companies. Risk management has become one of the key issues identified by the insurance industry in relation to public liability. The kit will provide directors with the tools to interpret financial information, implement effective corporate governances, understand legal obligations and, most importantly, analyse and minimise risk. I am happy to follow up the other issues raised by the honourable member for Parramatta in relation to the Roads and Traffic Authority and the police to facilitate the coming together of those two organisations and, more importantly, to get the response that is still outstanding from the Roads and Traffic Authority. [Time expired.]

Mr BARR (Manly) [6.52 p.m.]: I refer to marine-related issues in the Manly electorate—a water-based electorate that extends from North Head to North Curl Curl, which includes the northern reaches of Sydney Harbour. The focus of residents in that area is very much on the quality of water because it affects their quality of life and the many millions of visitors that Manly is proud to receive. I shall refer to three important initiatives that are enhancing the marine environment of our area: the Cabbage Tree Bay declaration, which is a no-take aquatic reserve; the Shelly Beach overflow works, which are being undertaken by Sydney Water; and the STAR project—a stormwater treatment and re-use project—at North Steyne. Manly Council has had an integral and important role in each of those initiatives.

Cabbage Tree Bay is a beautiful little area on the northern side of North Head, containing Shelly Beach. Visitors to Manly walk along Marine Parade to Shelly Beach. Fifteen months ago I brought to the attention of the House that Manly Council had passed a plan of management for Cabbage Tree Bay that proposed that the area should be a no-take marine sanctuary. That stance met with some opposition from anglers and, to an extent, that is understandable. However, most anglers are in spirit environmentalists and see recreational fishing as an opportunity to experience and learn about the natural environment. Therefore, to make such a small area a no-take area shows that there is a widespread understanding on the part of the community that fish stocks are being enhanced, which in turn increases the diversity of fish stock in the area. On 25 February the Minister for Fisheries announced that Cabbage Tree Bay was to become a no-take aquatic reserve. Choosing to protect an area such as Cabbage Tree Bay was a difficult decision, and I congratulate the Minister and Manly Council on their stance. I would also like to congratulate Councillor Judy Lambert and Manly Council staff for their work in relation to this matter.

The $6 million Shelly Beach overflow works project has just been completed by Sydney Water. That project will significantly reduce the 40 to 60 stormwater overflow events over a 10-year period to six. In the past in periods of heavy rain there was an overflow from the weir along Marine Parade into Shelly Beach. That overflow weir has now been closed. There is still an outfall at the cliff face at the heads but that will occur only in six events over a 10-year cycle. Furthermore, the odours that emanated from that area will now been eliminated. That is a big gain for the people of Manly and Sydney, and for the environments. The Cabbage Tree Bay no-take aquatic reserve and the works to protect the quality of water go together and are important. I am very proud to have been involved in the second project, the Sydney Water project, which involved a lot of consultation with the community and Sydney Water and its alliance partners in the Northside Storage Tunnel project. They now use that as a template for community consultation because from the very beginning we decided what we wanted and the engineers from that alliance worked with us to achieve it.

Last but not least I refer to the stormwater retention and re-use project at North Steyne. This innovative scheme involves government agencies, the community, industry associations, the corporate sector, small business and local government. The idea demonstrates that ultra urban catchments can be retrofitted to reduce stormwater pollution. Much of what happens at the moment involves end of pipe solutions with devices to catch litter, but they do not stop the toxins and nutrients from getting in the water, which is what this project aims to do. The project has had international recognition. In fact, at the moment the BBC is doing a story about it. I will talk about this project in more detail on another occasion. Among things, it involves pervious pavers on the streets that allow the water from the rain to filter through into the soil and not end up in stormwater drains. [Time expired.]

Mr MARKHAM (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.57 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Manly on bringing this good news story to the attention of the House. Often honourable members use private members' statements to complain about the Government and what does not happen. The honourable member for Manly has highlighted the good that is occurring in his electorate.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Mills) left the chair at 6.58 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the honourable member for Hornsby to make an inaugural speech forthwith with a time limit of 30 minutes.

Mrs HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [7.31 p.m.]: I stand before you this evening filled with pride and humility as I deliver my inaugural speech in Australia's first Parliament and thank those gathered, including many people who have had a significant impact on my life and who tonight view this momentous occasion from the gallery. As individuals each of us must exist within our own communities and have the power to exercise choice in all aspects of our lives. I have added another community to my life and acknowledge the importance of meaningful participation with others in society to achieve the goals I have set down and to increase my learning along the way. I am a devoted participant in my community and believe I have empathy with all who reside within its boundaries. It is this strong sense of community that I want to work hard to promote and I give a firm promise to maintain and the increase the ties that I have to the Hornsby area. As the recently elected member for Hornsby, I want to continue my efforts to listen to community concerns and hope to always be at one with the people amongst whom my family and I have lived for 17 years.

Speaking of community ties and the strength of spirit that exists in so many parts of the electorate, I acknowledge the presence of Steve Spies, Principal of the Berowra Christian Community School. Last Sunday I had the privilege to attend a dedication service for new school buildings that would add to the comfort and efficiency with which pupils, parents and teachers work together in the pursuit of knowledge. My predecessor, Stephen O'Doherty, now Chief Executive Officer of the Christian Schools Association, was also present as part of the service. This special day for the families in attendance typifies the community spirit present in the electorate. The overriding message was the vital importance of strong societies and that as individuals we must approach others with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience, forgiveness and, above all, love and peace. I believe these attributes are the basis of happy and unified communities. Thank you, Steve, for including me in your church and school celebrations. I feel all the more strong for having participated in such a significant ceremony.

To Stephen O'Doherty I give a solid commitment to continue the very close relationships he shared with so many in our community. I also will seek out local service clubs and other groups, for example, Legacy, and participate in the work they undertake. I am the sixth member for Hornsby and follow five men, to be the first woman to win the seat. The electorate came into existence at the 1927 election, was abolished at the 1991 election following report of the Electoral District Commissioner and was re-established in 1999. Major James Barclay Shand, a clerk and company secretary, was elected as the first member for Hornsby in 1927 and held the seat until 1941, both as a National Party member and as an Independent. Sydney Albert Dawson Storey, a draftsman and hospital secretary, entered Parliament in May 1941 and remained the member for Hornsby until 1962, winning seven elections during that time. He served as a member of the United Australia Party and then as a Liberal.

The Hon. John Clarkson Maddison, a solicitor, was elected as the next member for Hornsby from March 1962 until October 1973, when he became the member for Ku-ring-gai until 1978. Maddison held a number of ministries—his special concerns were public administration and law reform—and was Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party for three years. His maiden speech showed a great concern for the need to improve the North Shore rail service, a fact that will be of interest to the current member for Ku-ring-gai. He was also associated with the development of the original Hornsby and District Hospital into the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Hospital, a fact that is a great interest to me.

The Hon. Neil Edward William Pickard was elected to Parliament as the member for Hornsby on 17 November 1973 and served the electorate until May 1991. He sits in the gallery this evening with his wife, Sally-Anne, and I honour their presence. Neil commenced his career as a minister of religion and then moved into education, where he was a high school teacher and a university lecturer. He held the ministries of education, energy and mineral resources. His service to the community was, and still is, exemplary and I often hear people recalling his hard work and saying how much he is admired to this day. Neil Pickard once said:

… we live in a new world that has both expanded and contracted. It is both fragmenting and uniting; diversifying, yet at the same time growing more monolithic. The demands of the citizens of this new world are more complicated, pressing, exacting and critical than ever before in the history of man. In a modern democracy, responsible citizenship requires an intensive knowledge of one's own culture and a commitment to those things of great worth and real value upon which our society is built.

These words were stated in Neil's inaugural speech in 1974 and are as relevant today as they were nearly 30 years ago. Stephen Mark O'Doherty, journalist and broadcaster, was elected as the fifth member for Hornsby in March 1999, having previously represented Ku-ring-gai, and retired from Parliament on 22nd January 2002. He is well known for his consuming interest in education issues and a great love of music. Having been elected in the resulting by-election on 23 February I have some very large shoes to fill indeed. I am the sixty-sixth woman to be elected to Parliament in New South Wales and it is significant to recognise this in the centenary of the women's vote in New South Wales. I also stand in this place as a Liberal, having joined the party 20 years ago. Without the experience of participating at many levels of the organisation, as well as mentored by extraordinary people with immense talent, I would not today be the parliamentary representative of the Hornsby electorate. The Hon. Bruce Baird, member of Parliament, now the Federal member for Cook, provided me with a great deal of encouragement when he was the member for Northcott until his retirement in 1995.

During these years I was fortunate to also have advice from people like Betty Grant, Robin Timmins and David Love. I gained much experience in Normanhurst branch and achieved a considerable amount on a personal level. My attachment to the branch runs deep, and I admire and respect my colleagues in both the branch and the wider Hornsby State Electorate Conference. Of course I am grateful for the support and counsel of a number of these people, and I particularly mention Phil Bolte, the Conference President; John Truscott; Euan Gilmour; Greg Newling; Mary McFarlane, Normanhurst Branch President; and Tony Chappel.

In 1996 I became the thirteenth president of the Women's Council of the Liberal Party New South Wales Division. I remained in the position for four years and during this time contributed at State executive level as well as being the New South Wales delegate to the Federal Women's Committee and Federal Council. Throughout these years I continued to increase my knowledge and expertise and was extremely active in policy development—a love I bring to Parliament. Colleagues and mentors during this period included Chris McDiven, now New South Wales State President; Robyn Parker, current President of the Women's Council; Debra Klika, one of my vice presidents; Marie Wood and Betty Combe, also past presidents; and Betty Davy, a woman of indefatigable energy and wisdom. I must also mention Senator Marise Payne, Mary Ingall, Linde Jobling and Deirdre Flint, current President of the Federal Women's Committee. A special mentor of mine is the Hon. Danna Vale, MP, Federal Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence.

My election campaign was grounded on community values and what the residents of the electorate saw as their most important needs. The campaign was positive and focused and in no way denigrating to others. I hope to extend this approach to everything that I attempt in my new role. I would like to acknowledge more of the wonderful people with whom I have had the pleasure of working, specifically in association with the campaign. To my campaign manager, Jeff Willis-Jones, I owe a debt that I am sure I will never be able to repay, as I do to Nicola, Joshua—my godson—and Naomi, who gave up their husband and father for so many weeks as he assisted me to be the best possible candidate.

I must also thank Kerry Chikarovski, the Hon. Greg Pearce, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, Barry O'Farrell, Andrew Tink, Peta Seaton and Jillian Skinner—with whom I am looking forward to working in the critical portfolio area of health. Despite reassurances to the contrary, the reality is that much work needs to be done before every person can access adequate and timely health care. To the Secretariat staff—Scott Morrison and Reg Chamberlain in particular, and also Katie and Rose—I send my heartfelt appreciation. Gratitude is also extended to my now colleagues in Parliament, who all perform splendidly and who have made me feel part of this complex place in which we reside. A very special mention goes to Ben Franklin: the Young Liberals are a credit to his fine leadership—there are too many names to list at this time.

The history of Hornsby is a long and interesting tale. It was settled by land and water, and many diverse events have defined its make-up today. One interesting story describes how Brooklyn received its name. The Union Bridge Company of the United States of America won the tender to construct the first railway bridge over the Hawkesbury River. This company also built the Brooklyn Bridge, and therefore the township was named after the famous New York construction. The pioneer family names of Duffy, Burdett, Wall and Pearce—there are many others—are now street names in the Hornsby area. Imagine the amazement of these early settlers if they could see the new Westfield development in the town centre!

The Hornsby electorate reaches from Brooklyn and Dangar Island in the north, with the Berowra and Cowan creeks defining the upper west and east boundaries. The southern border sees the suburbs of Westleigh and Thornleigh. The electorate also encompasses Cowan, Berowra, Berowra Heights, Mt Ku-ring-gai, Mt Colah, Asquith, Hornsby, Hornsby Heights, Normanhurst, Waitara and parts of Wahroonga. It is an electorate of great diversity, with smaller communities set in natural bushland or on magnificent waterways, as well as medium- to high-density areas with retail and some light industry. There are many businesses in the electorate, and the Hornsby Chamber Of Commerce, under the able leadership of Michael Burn, is endeavouring to meet their needs. I look forward to assisting him.

I was born in Melbourne and lived there until I completed my Higher School Certificate in 1971. Originally intending to pursue teaching as a career, I soon encountered difficulties with a change in States and pursued my second choice: nursing. My general training commenced in October 1972 at Royal North Shore Hospital in St Leonards. I graduated in 1976 with a high distinction and the Director of Nursing's Prize for General Proficiency and commenced a career path that would take me through many experiences in both personal and professional dimensions. Mentors over that time included Edna Cane, Charge Sister of the Outpatients Department; Kathy Baker, then Nurse Educator; and Irene Campton, Deputy Director of Nursing. Edna Cane now resides at Wesley Gardens, and I still see her every now and then. Kathy Baker climbed to great career heights in the Northern Sydney Area Health Service, and Irene Campton has retired and works hard for the Royal North Shore Graduate Nurses Association.

I learned under the old nursing certificate course and, whilst this was not educationally perfect, it provided me with practical experience that I took with me into my work as a registered nurse. As a new graduate in 1976 I had the amazing opportunity to commission two wards, 8B and 11B, in the newly completed addition to buildings at Royal North Shore Hospital. I was placed in charge of 11B, where we cared for patients with diseases in the areas of oncology, haematology, endocrinology and renal—in other words, some very ill people indeed. The then Director of Nursing, Mrs Ruth McClelland, now Rister, gave me advice I was never to forget: "It is better to have respect than popularity." These words have stood me in good stead in any difficult decisions I have had to make, and they will stand me in good stead in the future.

My subsequent nursing career spanned 20 years and encompassed medical-surgical experience as well as nurse education, accident and emergency—including a period at Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Hospital—and community work. While at Sydney Home Nursing Service, Hornsby area, for seven and a half years I formed many friendships, some with patients and their carers. Eleven years ago I looked after Yvonne Fehlberg, a 32-year-old woman who died of breast cancer leaving children aged six, four and two years of age. Her husband, Dean, a Westleigh resident, recently stated:

The manner in which Judy performed her professional duties was above reproach but of far greater importance was the consideration, kindness and understanding that (she) shared with my family, friends and neighbours.

This statement is what community is all about. I cannot tell you how much it means to me to be thought of in such a poignant way. It will be not be lost on anyone that for me there is a great deal of symbolism in being part of this most historic Legislative Assembly, which is situated in what was once the Rum Hospital of early colonial times. The earliest part of the Parliament building was completed in 1816 and was used as the Surgeon's Wing. The theme of health and hospitals has run through my life, and I know that some of the work that I will undertake will also relate to how they are managed. I already have a strange affinity with this place. Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Hospital is the heartbeat of my community. It is literally the epicentre of people's concerns in the electorate. Old and young alike are genuinely worried that their community hospital will disappear or change its role so that it no longer meets their needs. The hospital must be rebuilt on many levels, and I want to be right there to guide its progress.

Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Hospital began as a district health service provider in 1933. Matron L. Malcolm was in charge of the nursing staff. The most recent Director of Nursing is Rosemary Harrison—and what a different role she has from the matron's role in the hospital's infancy. Sir Edgeworth David was entrusted with the task of gathering funds for the hospital—thus the significance of Edgeworth David Avenue. It is interesting to note that the completion of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the electrification of the Northern and North Shore rail lines meant that demands on the hospital rose with the subsequent increases in the local population. Much fundraising and many decisions later, Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Hospital stands as it is today. Amongst many other needs, the building of a new maternity and accident and emergency department will be crucial, but the one overriding community sentiment is that the hospital remains. I am sure that everyone remembers the Save Hornsby Hospital rally in 1996—the community had a message to send and the hospital was saved.

Following the 1996 Federal election win, I underwent a complete career change. I worked as Office Manager/Media Adviser to the Hon. Philip Ruddock, MP, then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. This was one of the defining times in my life when I was forced to take on many challenges that I had never faced before. I count the experience I gained in this position as integral to my ability to carry out my current role and thank Philip for the opportunity he gave me. A deep appreciation goes to Fiona Brown, one of the Minister's key staff members in Canberra, who taught me a great deal about people management and commonsense.

In 1998 1 commenced in the role that was to take me to the present as Executive Director of the Australian Podiatry Association (NSW). Working in this capacity has honed many of the skills that will assist me as the representative for Hornsby. I developed a wide and diverse network of contacts and set in train achievements about which I am very proud. The Coalition of Health Professionals New South Wales saw the creation of a group focussed on current problems in the health arena—more specifically affecting ancillary providers—by working together to provide solutions. Dr Bill O'Reilly counselled me with much good advice and encouragement and I value his friendship most highly. I also co-ordinated the Podiatry Clinic at Matthew Talbot Hostel for Homeless Men, a wonderful service to a very disadvantaged group in our society and an area that should have a great deal more attention to relieve the suffering these men endure. Bernard Cronin, Executive Manager of the Talbot, said:

We need people of Judy's calibre to voice the needs of not only her own electorate but those of the poor in the broader community who have few to speak on their behalf.

I think these words are especially pertinent when we consider that homeless people are sleeping in the garden beds and alcoves around this very Chamber. Further, due to my efforts, "Fly-in/Fly-out"' podiatry services now exist in many places in rural New South Wales. These projects are based on a sense of community and require every member to work together to ensure successful outcomes. They are an example of creative problem solving when conventional plans do not materialise due to the lack of will to implement them. I am committed to promoting health and wellbeing in the community and to ensure that all parts of the health care team are equally valued. I have many aspirations for the electorate of Hornsby, but will touch on only a few.

The first is the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Trust. The abolition of the trust has now clearly been shown to have removed an important consultation mechanism and many people have expressed their concerns about the health of the catchment from environmental, economic and recreational perspectives. I will advocate for an appropriate replacement for the trust so that the local environment can be sure of protocols to maintain and improve its quality. Next is Studio ARTES. Stephen O'Doherty spoke many times about Studio ARTES; he loved to be part of the activities of this exceptional project that allows disabled young people to reach their potential in creative areas and work place skills. Wendy Escott and Sue Byatt work tirelessly to provide valuable experiences for the participants, Brooke, Lars, Jackie and many others, and need government assistance to continue and expand their enterprises.

A most important consideration is our youth. There are many fine examples of our youth and their statements as they make their way into adulthood. Brodee Pendlebury, my young neighbour in Mount Colah, whose UAI was 98.9, went on to greater achievements with the selection of her major work in ARTEXPRESS. I have watched an extraordinary talent mature since first meeting her when she was aged five. Kate Fairlie, who has just completed her higher school certificate as well, is now a Rotary Exchange Student in Thailand. Martin Drinkwater, another young neighbour, is at the University of New South Wales completing a Science-Commerce degree. Young people in our area need more opportunities to discover who they are and where they are going.

An institution we highly value is our Rural Fire Service. Bushfires are an ever-present concern for the electorate, as the 1994 and more recent fires at Christmas last year have shown. We rely heavily on our Rural Fire Service and I have met lately with representatives from the Muogamarra Volunteer Brigade. The word "muogamarra" means preserve for the future—a most appropriate name. A rich history accompanies the development of rural fire services in the area and senior Captain Max Bolton has been with Muogamarra since 1972. With a current active membership of 20, the brigade has attended many incidents, such as fires, motor vehicle and train accidents, plane crashes, and storm and flood damage—a very versatile role. They are in desperate need of a new canteen vehicle and I will be working hard to enable the acquisition of such a vital part of their work for the community.

Now some information about the Hornsby demographics. Hornsby's diverse population today, which is not reflected accurately in the 1996 census data due to demographic changes over the past few years, contains many wonderful people and some of these I have spoken to over the past few weeks. There are a great many people from a large number of different backgrounds. Sam Sharma and his wife are relatively new residents of the Hornsby electorate and they have made the area a home for them and their extended family and friends. Percy Lum, proprietor of the Loong Cheong restaurant in Florence Street, is integrally connected to the community and has many business contacts in and around the area. Dr Spencer Wu, President of Citizens Community Care Inc., is a dental surgeon who also works with Chinese people to help them to sort out problematical issues. He and I met recently to assist one of the residents of Hornsby. It is people like Dr Wu who inspire others with their community-minded attitude. I will be working closely with all the communities in the electorate.

Without the love and support of family I could not have hoped to achieve what I have so far. Steve, my husband, and my daughters, Jessica and Ashleigh, give me the strength to aim high and go on when times are tough. My sense of family is very strong; I am one of six children. Ruth and William, my parents, provided the best environment they could for their growing offspring. They divorced a number of years ago and my father subsequently married Elsa. My father's death two years ago is still as painful now as it was then. He would be, and I know that somehow he is aware, very proud of his eldest child. He always supported us and had faith in our abilities. Mum taught us to care and to raise our children in a nurturing atmosphere. Dad gave us the thirst for knowledge and the ability to conquer obstacles.

I completed a Master of Bioethics in 1997 and dedicated my final year dissertation to my father: He had always wanted us to pursue education as far as we could and it was his dream for me to complete a university degree. I am immensely proud of my siblings Tony, Jenny, Peter, Wendy and Karen and love our family gatherings with partners and children. Being a member of a large family has taught me many lessons for a cohesive and considerate community. My mother and father-in-law, Ilva and Alf Hopwood, and brother-in-law Chris accepted me into their family and have provided much counsel and love over the years. Others I want to mention as having a significant effect on my life are my cousins, Mary and Nick Kotis and Jan and Adrian Eisenhauer, and a friend from age four, Marilyn McIlvenna, and her husband Geoff.

My gratitude is extended to the Clerk of the Assembly and his staff and, of course, Mr Speaker. Thank you to all the members of this place who have welcomed me and assisted in my learning and transition to where I now stand. Thank you also to the people of the Hornsby electorate who have given me their trust by electing me as their representative in the New South Wales Parliament. I will never tire of my aspirations to help those in need of assistance and will always strive for a better community for us all. The most important focus for my endeavours will be for the residents of the electorate of Hornsby, but I hope to participate in improving the lives of individuals all over the State. Communities are about people; politics is likewise about people. The challenge is there waiting to be effected, and I am ready and eager to begin the journey.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the introduction and progress up to and including the Minister’s second reading speech of the Coal Industry Amendment (Validation) Bill, notice of which was given this day for tomorrow.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr YEADON (Granville—Minister for Information Technology, Minister for Energy, Minister for Forestry, and Minister for Western Sydney) [8.02 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Coal Industry Act 2001 was passed by this Parliament in its last sittings without opposition. That Act, lawfully proclaimed by the Governor to commence on 1 January 2002, provides for altered arrangements in the New South Wales coal industry in respect of the delivery of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and mines rescue services. In effect, those functions are now to be performed by private corporations approved by the Minister for Industrial Relations. Moreover, under the authority of the Act, orders were made by me as the Minister for Industrial Relations to transfer the assets, liabilities and staff of the Joint Coal Board to one of the approved companies, Coal Services Pty Ltd, with effect from the Act's commencement date.

The successful introduction of these altered arrangements required the co-ordinated proclaimed commencement of the Commonwealth's Coal Industry Repeal Act 2001 to achieve the legal dissolution of the Joint Coal Board, which had been established under complementary Coal Industry Acts 1946 of the Commonwealth and New South Wales parliaments. Indeed, the Coal Industry Act 2001 was drafted on the basis that the Joint Coal Board's cessation and the transfer of its assets, liabilities and staff to Coal Services Pty Ltd were to be effected on the same date as that on which the Commonwealth Coal Industry Repeal Act 2001 commenced. The problem that has arisen in the agreed planned commencement of the Commonwealth and New South Wales Acts on a common 1 January date is that the Commonwealth's proclamation, having been made by the Governor-General- in-Council on 20 December 2001, was not gazetted before 1 January. The effect of the Commonwealth's error is that the Commonwealth Act has not lawfully come into force and there is no dissolution date for the purposes of provisions under the New South Wales Act relevant to the dissolution of the Joint Coal Board and the transfer of its assets, liabilities and staff.

I am pleased to advise the House that the Commonwealth Coal Industry Repeal (Validation of Proclamation) Bill 2002 passed all stages in the Australian Parliament on 14 March 2002 and awaits the Governor-General's assent. That bill corrects the Commonwealth's error. It declares that the Commonwealth's proclamation commencing its 2001 Act is as effective as if it had been gazetted before 1 January 2002, so ensuring that that Act did in law commence on that date. The Commonwealth bill contains further provisions ensuring that all actions taken on the assumption that 1 January 2002 was the commencement date are valid. This validation provision has effect to the extent permitted by the legislative power of the Commonwealth and the bill expressly authorises the making of a law by this State of a like validating nature for past acts.

There is a need for accompanying validating New South Wales legislation in this matter in respect of past acts taken by this State—notably the Minister for Industrial Relations' orders under the New South Wales Act transferring the assets, liabilities and staff of the dissolved Joint Coal Board to a new approved company and the approved companies in their dealings with such assets, liabilities and staff since 1 January 2002—being acts based upon the erroneous assumption that the Commonwealth Act commenced on 1 January 2002. Under the bill which I have now introduced, to the extent permitted by the legislative power of the New South Wales Parliament and consistent with the permission granted by Commonwealth validating legislation, past acts based upon the assumed 1 January 2002 dissolution date commencement of the Commonwealth Act are valid. The Coal Industry Amendment (Validation) Bill 2002 is purely correctional in nature and follows in the wake of initiating Commonwealth legislation of a like character. I assure honourable members that the bill is not contentious. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Schedule 1

Mr STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.08 p.m.]: I thank all honourable members who have contributed to the discussion of this matter. I reiterate the Government's position of not supporting the amendments.

Question—That the words stand—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Aquilina Mr Ashton Ms Beamer 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 Lynch Mr Markham Mr Martin Mr McManus Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Mr Moss Mr Newell Ms Nori Mr Orkopoulos

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

Mr Armstrong Mr Barr Mr Brogden Mrs Chikarovski Mr Cull Mr Debnam Mr George Mr Glachan Mr Hazzard Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Hopwood Mr Humpherson

Dr Kernohan Mr Kerr Mr Maguire Mr McGrane Mr Merton Ms Moore 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 Torbay Mr J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Mr Webb Tellers, Mr Fraser Mr R. H. L. Smith

Mrs Lo Po'

Mr Tink

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the resumption of the adjourned second reading debate on the Game Bill.

Debate resumed from 19 March.

Mr PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [8.20 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in this debate. In principle the Coalition supports the bill. We particularly support the objects of the bill. For the benefit of the House, the first object of this bill is to provide for the effective management of native and introduced species of game animals. I do not believe any responsible person could argue with that or with the objectives of the Government. The problem of introduced species in New South Wales is becoming increasingly important. The introduction and management of feral species goes hand-in-hand with the control of diseases. The Australian landscape has been altered as a result of European development and that has had an impact on our native species. Many species have become extinct, but a number of native species have survived well. It is the role of this Parliament and the Government to control the management of our native species.

The second object of the bill is to promote responsible and orderly hunting of those game animals on public and private land and of certain pest animals on public land. I emphasise the importance of the reference to "responsible and orderly hunting". I am a hunter and a licensed firearm owner and I have a substantial property in the south-west of New South Wales where I experience problems with feral and pest species. When it is time to sow the rice crop I experience problems with ducks. That issue is also covered by the provisions in this bill. Hunting, a long-standing recreational pastime, is an important part of the proper management of introduced and native species. The vast majority of firearm owners and hunters are responsible and orderly people. This afternoon a group of people staged a demonstration outside Parliament House about the introduction of this bill. There was not exactly a throng of people; there were about 50, but they made rather outrageous claims about hunters.

As I said earlier, most firearm owners are responsible people, and I include myself in that description. The honourable member for Bathurst, who is the patron of the Bathurst Gun Club, and other honourable members have an interest in firearms, hunting and the like. We do not want irresponsible people using firearms. We do not want idiots, if I may call them that, participating in target shooting, sports hunting and feral animal control. It is in the interests of responsible firearms owners to weed out the idiots. If they are a part of the shooting fraternity they will continue to tarnish us all. These days things are difficult for licensed shooters and hunters as hunting is not exactly the most popular pastime.

Many people oppose hunting. That was confirmed by the demonstration outside Parliament House today. They probably do not want people to hunt at all. Responsible hunters and firearms owners do not want irresponsible people using firearms. There is no doubt that feral animal control is one of the biggest issues facing Australia today. Most people in metropolitan or coastal Australia probably think that the issue concerns only those living in country areas. The feral animal problem, which involves more than just New South Wales, is a critical issue. During question time today the Minister for Agriculture said that from 9 to 13 September the Government will conduct a major emergency exercise simulating a foot and mouth disease outbreak. I commend the Minister for that initiative.

An outbreak of foot and mouth disease in New South Wales or Australia would be devastating to the livestock industry. Anyone living in Sydney who believes that such an outbreak would be devastating only to the livestock industry is sadly mistaken. All relevant agencies will be involved in the simulated outbreak so that they know what to do if an outbreak occurs. The feral animal control issue has been referred to in a number of reports. It has been said that the feral pig population in Australia could quickly spread a disease such as foot and mouth. I know from experience in the south-west of New South Wales that other feral animals and introduced species such as foxes cause a huge amount of damage.

For the benefit of honourable members I will recount a story told to me by a lady involved in the demonstration outside Parliament House today. The lady, who lives somewhere in the northern suburbs, was appalled when I told her that I shoot cats and foxes on my farm. When I explained to her that cats and foxes are predators and that they do a large amount of damage to our native species she said that she was totally opposed to people shooting feral cats and foxes. She said that in the 200 years that they have been in Australia, they have formed an important part of the food chain as the natural predators of our native species have become extinct. That is indicative of the knowledge of the general public about feral animal control.

Cats are much-loved pets for many people. I do not oppose people keeping cats in their houses or units. However, feral cats do an enormous amount of damage. The large numbers of cats that I see on my farm are not the cuddly pets that curl up at the end of one's bed. Cats and foxes have become a significant problem in this State. Most people with an attachment to animals think of cats and foxes as nice fluffy animals. That has probably impacted on the way in which we have managed those pest species. There is general opposition in Australia to the hunting and killing of those animals. There is no humane way of getting rid of those animals. People are even opposed to the use of 1080 poisons to control foxes. The calicivirus is an effective method of getting rid of rabbits, but it does not kill them in two seconds; it takes some time and it is perhaps a little painful for the animals. Unfortunately, there is no ideal way of getting rid of those feral animals. However, if we want native species to flourish in New South Wales we must do something about getting rid of feral animals.

I would like to refer to another example in my electorate. The plains wanderer, a bird species in the Conargo region and the Hay Plains, has become significant because it has been declared a threatened species. Landowners have been restricted in the amount of land they are allowed to develop for irrigation. Interestingly, the problem is not that land clearing is affecting the plains wanderer but that when the land is cleared and developed for irrigation the increased vegetation attracts mice, rats and the like. It also attracts foxes. Those who have come up with a recovery plan for the plains wanderer have said that around any irrigation development there must be a two-kilometre buffer zone for foxes, the argument being that the foxes will clean up the plains wanderer. A couple of groups that have been involved in a concerted effort to get rid of foxes in that region, including the Southern Riverina Hunting Club, have faced resistance from some organisations in their attempts to get rid of foxes. However, at the end of the day they are trying to get rid of a pest animal that is causing enormous destruction. There is the perception, particularly amongst environmental groups, that the killing of any animals is not on, but they have certainly got it wrong.

Whilst the Coalition supports the bill in principle, we believe that it does not add much to the current law. We will move amendments to the bill in the upper House to which I will refer later. I acknowledge that the bill contains one important additional measure. It gives firearms owners and hunters a voice to government, which is something they have not had until now. Councils will be able to make recommendations to the Government, which they have not been able to do in the past. Some firearms groups have complained to me that they have not had the easiest access to government to put forward their case on various matters. Hunting, nominating species as pests or feral animals and matters relating to the Firearms Act are probably outside the scope of the Game Council. However, the bill provides one of the first forums for hunters and firearms owners to present their views. Apart from that, as a firearms owner and landowner I am not particularly excited about the bill.

The people who were protesting outside Parliament today were up in arms about the bill. They claim that it will allow people to shoot on public land, and there will be a huge rush of people doing all sorts of dastardly deeds. However, I do not believe that the bill will have that result. Not much will change under the bill. The Firearms Act of 1996 will still apply. In other words, people will still have to be appropriately licensed. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act will still apply, as it should. With regard to what animals can or cannot be hunted, I do not think much will change. Under the current law, ducks are not allowed to be shot or hunted on private land. A farmer who is able to prove that ducks are causing damage to a property is able to obtain a mitigation permit from the National Parks and Wildlife Service to shoot ducks. My brother obtains such a licence from time to time, depending on the prevalence of ducks on our property. I would prefer to have a duck season introduced but, nonetheless, the current law ensures the protection of the rice industry in particular.

The bill does not provide for the killing of kangaroos without permission and without a quota. Under the current law pest animals such as pigs, goats, rabbits and so on can be shot on private land, provided the shooter holds a firearms licence, without the need for approval of any other authority. The current law prevents quail and other species listed in the bill from being shot. I am aware that from time to time some government agencies allow organisations to shoot on government land. I believe that from time to time the State Forests allows the Sporting Shooters Association to organise shoots on land owned by the department when it is deemed necessary, and I do not believe there is anything wrong with that.

As I have said, I do not believe much will change after the bill is passed—and I assume it will be passed. It will still be permissible to shoot pest or feral animals on private land. The hunting of game, including quail and the like, will still be banned on private land, and the current exceptions with regard to ducks and kangaroos will stand. Hunting pests or game on public land will still be strictly controlled by the Government and various agencies. Therefore, I do not believe that the bill adds anything in a practical sense to what is already allowed under the current law. It simply adds a layer of bureaucracy. The various licences that the Minister referred to in his second reading speech will need to be obtained, whereas previously that may not have been necessary. One thing that firearms owners are fed up with is the bureaucratic paperwork involved in owning a firearm. Adding another layer of bureaucracy is simply another insult to firearms owners.

If the Game Council recommends that any parcel of public land should be able to be used for the hunting of game or pest species, that recommendation needs to be approved by the Minister. The recommendations of the council will be non-binding. At the end of the day it is up to the Minister, and that is the case of the moment. The classification of game animals has to be approved and quotas have to be decided. Once this bill is enacted there will not be wholesale permission for the hunting of game animals, as some people believe will be the case. As I have said, the bill will add another layer of bureaucracy to what is already a fairly cumbersome operation for those who own firearm and hunt with them.

The protesters outside Parliament today yelled and screamed about the fact that the bill will allow the introduction of a duck season. That is certainly not the case, and the Minister explicitly excluded that in his second reading speech. With due respect to those who drafted the bill—and I admire people who draft legislation because I believe they have a difficult task—it seems to be drafted in an odd way. Clause 5 (1) lists game animals, clause 5 (2) then lists pest animals, and clause 22 refers to protected game animals. Basically, that means that all animals are protected game animals, and therefore a quota must be obtained from the Minister for animals to be hunted. As I understand the bill, the only game animal is deer. Considering the provisions in clause 22, the list of game animals is redundant. Clause 22 states:

22 Protected game animals

For the purposes of this Act, a protected game animal is a game animal that is protected fauna within the meaning of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

Note. Protected fauna is defined in that Act to mean any mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian, except fauna of the species listed in Schedule 11 to that Act. The species listed in that Schedule include carnivores, cloven hoofed animals, horses, primates, hare, rabbits and squirrel.

Those animals are not protected game animals. I understand that almost all animals, other than those listed as pests, are protected game animals and cannot be hunted on private or public land without the Minister first setting a quota. Currently—and I do not imagine that this will change—the quota for most protected game animals will be nil, perhaps with the exception of ducks and kangaroos. My explanation is cumbersome because I think the legislation is cumbersome. The point I am making is that people will be able to shoot pest animals, that all animals other than pest animals are protected game animals, and that the Minister will decide which protected game animals will be able to be hunted. As I said, currently protected game animals are unable to be hunted, so I assume the quota for most of them will be nil. Clause 23 provides for the Minister to set quotas for the hunting of protected game animals. Clause 23 states:

(2) (c) quotas are to be set, in accordance with a methodology prescribed by the regulations—

we have not yet seen the regulations—

on the basis of the best scientific information available of estimated regional population numbers of protected game animals.

As an interesting aside, a scientific study of ducks was undertaken a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, one difficulty with having a country electorate is that the report is in my office in Griffith, so I am unable to give the exact name of the committee that prepared the report. The study was undertaken when the possibility of reintroducing a duck-hunting season was being considered. Basically, the conclusion in the report is that there is no good reason why a duck-hunting season should not be reintroduced. The study included duck population counts and the like. It would not be inappropriate to say that this report contains some of the best science available when considering whether a duck-hunting season should be reintroduced. As a matter of interest, once the bill is passed by the Parliament, I wonder whether the provisions in clause 23 (2) (c) might lead one of our duck- hunting friends to challenge the Government to reintroduce a duck-hunting season. That is an interesting side issue.

What is essentially wrong with the legislation? Under this bill, the Game Council will be only an advisory body. Several opponents of the bill have complained that the Game Council will comprise a majority of hunters. That complaint is extraordinary. One would expect an environmental council or advisory committee to comprise a majority of environmentalists. Indeed, medical advisory panels are comprised of doctors. Therefore, one would expect the Game Council to comprise a majority of people interested in hunting game animals. As I was listening to the protesters outside Parliament house today my heart rate became rather high. At the end of the day, the Game Council is only an advisory council, and various Ministers will decide whether to accept or decline the council's recommendations.

Obviously, this legislation has its origins in the Shooters Party. I am about to speak for John Tingle, MLC, although I do not want to do so. I am sure this is not the bill he wanted the Government to introduce. I pay credit to John Tingle; he has been an advocate for shooters during the time he has been in the Parliament. To be honest, if I were John Tingle I would be a little embarrassed about the flimsy nature of this bill. I am sure the original bill he put to the Government and to the Premier would have had a lot more impact and effect than this bill will have. However, I suppose he had to produce something because it was necessary for him to produce a result before the end of his term in the Parliament. The Premier is not a friend of firearm owners and hunters, and I do not think John Tingle would have got better legislation than this bill. Despite his efforts, I am sure he is disappointed with this bill. But that is life when one is dealing with the Labor Government.

It is not that Labor and the Premier hate guns; it is simply that Labor and the Premier hate people who like guns. I have outlined the Coalition's concerns about this bill. The Opposition will be moving amendments in the upper House. Earlier I referred to the additional level of bureaucracy that this bill will impose on hunters, which will not be welcomed. The Coalition's commitment to hunters and to the people of New South Wales generally is to reduce the bureaucracy, paperwork and red tape that the people of New South Wales face. And hunters are no exception. That is why the Coalition will move an amendment to remove the need for a game licence to hunt game that is not protected game on private land. That would make the bill more workable and acceptable to hunters.

We will move amendments to enable the Game Council to make recommendations and to recognise additional species as pests and game species, and to provide for the trial use of recreational hunters in three national parks in New South Wales. While some people may consider that to be controversial—in particular, the people who protested outside Parliament House today—at the end of the day, one big issue in New South Wales is the control of feral animals. We are not talking about Lane Cove River National Park, Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park or any national park near an urban or built-up area; we are talking about national parks, where there is a serious problem with pest animals. Earlier I referred to the Minister's statement today about the disaster that would befall Australia if there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. If the wild pig population in national parks cannot be controlled—that is a problem—all the agricultural measures in the world will never get rid of foot and mouth disease.

For people to say, for whatever reason, be it animal welfare, the love of national parks or the ability to walk through pristine national parks, that there should not be opportunities for hunters to control feral animals is shortsighted and will, at the end of the day, do enormous damage to rural Australia, agriculture and Australia as a whole. I do not understand why people would oppose the trial in national parks. There are plenty of examples—none of which we would specifically identify—of national parks that could do with a totally integrated pest management program. Currently some national parks use helicopters with marksmen, conduct baiting programs and the like, and recreational hunters. That is probably not the correct way to refer to them, because the hunters would be permitted to shoot feral animals as part of the control program. Shooting will not be done simply for recreation but to control pest animals in national parks, which is something that all honourable members are keen to see happen.

There are examples of that in other jurisdictions in Australia, New Zealand and overseas. I understand it works rather effectively in South Australia. In my office in Griffith I have a South Australian report from a national parks officer which refers to a couple of national parks where recreational hunters have been used as part of their feral animal—particularly goat—management program. That program has been very effective in reducing the numbers of feral goats in national parks. Feral goats cause an enormous amount of damage, and the program has been very popular in South Australia. That program has been conducted in conjunction with the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia [SSAA] and those who are permitted to shoot in those national parks are properly licensed and closely monitored.

Mr Martin: Operation bounce back.

Mr PICCOLI: That is exactly right. Operation bounce back has been very effective. I am sorry that the Government has not seen fit to include some national parks in the bill. I hope that with the passage of time and before our amendments are moved in the upper House, the Government will seriously reconsider a trial. I hope that honourable members will do all they can to put aside any of the negative talk from environmental groups and others who object to recreational hunters being used in national parks. They can be a very effective tool. They are certainly not the panacea for feral animal control in national parks, but integrated with mustering with a helicopter and baiting they can be effective and safe. I do not believe that the hunters would do a worse job than Nationals Parks have in regard to done feral animal control in the past, which has been less than appropriate. I am sure most honourable members know what I am referring to.

I hope that all honourable members, including the Premier and the Minister, will keep an open mind about this very effective, safe and cost-effective way to control feral animals. It is very expensive to have marksmen hanging out of helicopters. Licensed registered hunters will virtually hunt free. I foreshadow those three amendments and several others that will be moved in the upper House. I want to acknowledge a number of people or groups who have contacted my office about this bill. Warren Brown, who is in constant contact with me and gives me information, and Wayne Brown are responsible shooters of the kind that we need in this State.

As I said earlier, we want to get rid of the idiots. The Southern Riverina Hunting Club takes a very proactive role in feral animal control in their region and they enjoy what is a legitimate pastime. I acknowledge the SSAA, which contacted not only the Opposition but the Government, and the thousands of responsible shooters across New South Wales. At the end of the day they will be ones who are affected by this bill. Young men and women, mothers and sisters participate in legitimate recreational hunting and shooting at clubs. While it is a permitted pastime those people will enjoy their form of recreation. The Opposition will not oppose the bill. We certainly support the objects of the bill. I have foreshadowed some amendments that will be moved in the upper House.

Mr HICKEY (Cessnock) [8.55 p.m.]: I support the Game Bill. The overview of the bill states:

The objects of this Bill are:

(a) to provide for the effective management of native and introduced species of game animals, and

(b) to promote responsible and orderly hunting of those game animals on public and private land and of certain pest animals on public land

The principal features of the Bill are as follows:

(a) Game animals for the purposes of the Bill are:

(i) native and introduced species (namely, deer, duck, quail, pheasant, partridge, peafowl and turkey), and

(ii) certain pest animals (namely pigs, dogs (other than dingoes), cats, goats, rabbits, hares and foxes living in the wild).

I represent an electorate of many different facets, which probably has the most shooters per head. The environmental groups that were here today portray the shooters in my electorate as gun-toting hooligans, but it is quite the reverse. They are sensible, dedicated family men and women who clearly are responsible in their work, ethics and the management of their sport. The people who paint these pictures for the general population should meet the shooters on the rifle ranges and in the gun clubs. I am patron of many clubs in my electorate and, quite frankly, I have found those people to be quite sensible and responsible. Total Environment Centre campaigner Fran Kelly, said:

Game hunters have a long history of spreading pest species such as pigs, deer, dogs and foxes around for their enjoyment. They introduce them to new areas, leave "seed" stock to breed for future hunting and through their blood sport they make proper managed and systematic pest control almost impossible.

It is absurd to taint them as people who are spreading these pests around. She also said:

The Bill is not about regulation or pest control as the Government claim. The fact that hunters are in charge of every aspect of it means there is no meaningful regulation, and pest problems will get worse as hunters have more opportunities to spread them around for blood sport purposes—a common occurrence already.

Those statements need to be challenged. The hunters I have seen have been very responsible and proactive in culling the pests in the communities. They are keen to get into areas where these animals are creating a lot of problems and become pests. It is very cheap for this Government to utilise this method to cull these pests. The chair of the inquiry into feral animals, the Hon. Richard Jones, MLC, said:

With the evidence before our inquiry into feral animal control already, it is clear that the shooting of feral animals by recreational shooters has very little to do with feral animal control.

I do not know how better to control feral animals than by shooting them. We are trying to eliminate feral animals. The final result of the process of shooting is elimination. It has been stated that the Game Bill gives a "green light to recreational hunters to use any means at their disposal to injure, maim or kill any cats, dogs, deer, pigs, foxes, goats or other animals who cross their path." That is not the case. The Game Bill only addresses animal species that currently can be legally hunted on public and private land in New South Wales using methods currently permitted by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. No amendments to that Act or to the tight gun control laws introduced by the Carr Government since 1995 are proposed in the bill. In fact, rather than downgrading the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Game Bill underpins that Act and the tight gun control laws introduced by the Carr Government since 1995. One of the two primary objectives set out in the explanatory note to the bill is, for example:

… to promote responsible and orderly hunting of game animals on public and private land and of pest animals on public land.

The proposed game hunting licence and the code of practice for hunting are two components of the bill that assist in realising that objective. People hunting on public land and people hunting designated game animals on private land will be required, for the first time, to be in possession of a game hunting licence. People who lose their game hunting licence will not be permitted to hunt game which, because of the definition of "game animal" in the bill, would prevent them hunting on all public land in New South Wales. Reasons that the Game Council may refuse to grant a game hunting licence include that a person had been found guilty of an offence involving cruelty to animals, personal violence, damage to property or unlawful entry onto land. Compliance with provisions of a proposed hunter code of practice may also be made a condition of the licence.

Currently, there is no comparable hunting licence and penalty system in New South Wales. Because of that, the State Government has few opportunities to promote ethical and humane hunting among punters who are not regularly involved in hunting or target shooting club activities. I am the patron of a sporting shooters club in Cessnock, which had a meeting on Saturday afternoon. Frankly, those shooters are embracing the Game Bill to some degree. They are not totally happy with it, but they understand where the Government is going with this measure and are trying to sort it out. As a matter of fact, the Minister for Police was with me at that meeting, and we discussed many aspects of the bill.

The current ban on recreational duck hunting will remain in place. It states that quotas are not to be set to enable the hunting of protected game animals for sporting or recreational purposes. The bill is consistent with the threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats prepared by the Biodiversity Group of Environment Australia, which recognises that private hunters can play a role in pest control. The plan states:

The South Australian Department of Environment and Natural Heritage uses recreational hunters for controlling feral goats and to complement other methods of feral cat control in some areas.

One example of that is Operation Bounceback. In that exercise, hunters assist the Department of Environment and Natural Heritage to control feral goats in and around the Flinders Ranges and Gammon Ranges national parks, particularly in areas where the terrain is too rugged for mustering, as part of a wider recovery plan for the yellow-footed rock wallaby and other medium-sized mammals and reptiles. I was out the back of Broken Hill with the caucus committee on Aboriginal affairs and saw the yellow-footed rock wallaby being brought back into national parks around Broken Hill. Poison was being used in those national parks to kill foxes. Clearly, the control of the foxes enabled the wallaby to regroup and breed in the surrounding hills. It is interesting that the same method has been used in South Australia, where shooters have gone in and done the work rather than baits being laid. I consider that more sensible and safer. The plan states also:

In identifying shooting, when carried out humanely, as an accepted technique, it should be noted that it is labour intensive and currently there is no code of practice for the humane destruction of feral cats. Development of a code is identified as an action for this plan.

The Game Bill seeks to involve hunters in feral animal control and native animal protection and species recovery programs in a manner similar to that referred to in the plan I have mentioned. It goes one step further, however, by proposing a statutory code of practice for hunting linked to a revocable hunting licence. Clause 21 of the bill preserves and clarifies the current powers of the relevant Minister to control hunter access to public lands. It also sets out matters to which the Minister must have regard before granting that access. These include public safety, use by others of the land and other broader land management plans for the area.

Clause 23 of the bill preserves and clarifies the existing powers of the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife to set the quota of protected animals, including ducks, which may be killed or captured by licensed hunters for environmental management or agricultural protection purposes. The bill does not give hunters access to national parks and other lands identified for similar conservation purposes. Permission to access private land currently would still need to be obtained from private landholders, who can always contact a rural lands protection board if they are concerned that hunting might compromise an established feral animal control program.

The Game Council will, however, be able to co-ordinate participation of licensed game hunters in pest control initiatives. For example, the bill creates a point of contact for hunters wanting to be involved in feral animal control, native animal protection and threatened species recovery programs, but does not give the Game Council or individual hunters control of those programs. The council could also be a point of contact for a rural lands protection board or State government department if it decided that hunters could play a role in a pest control or conservation program. Hunter involvement of this type is very successful elsewhere in Australia and overseas.

The Game Council will also represent the interests of licensed game hunters in other matters including gaining licensed hunter access to public and private lands for the purposes of hunting game species. For the reasons outlined above, it is inaccurate to portray the Game Council as the body with sole responsibility for "governing hunting," as is sometimes suggested. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee raised an issue about hunters being appointed to the Game Council. That is a bit like having bowlers in control of bowling clubs. Frankly, one would expect hunters to be represented on the Game Council.

The question has been asked: Does the Game Bill erode landowners' rights to control pest animals on their own land? Land access rules do not change under the bill. Hunters will still be required to obtain the permission of the landowner before entering private property. Landowners can always contact a rural lands protection board if they are concerned that hunting might compromise an established feral animal control program. Permission to access public land rests with the New South Wales government department responsible for managing those lands. Clause 35 of the bill underpins those principles by making damage to property and unlawful entry onto land grounds for suspension or cancellation of a game hunting licence.

Also, a game hunting licence is not required by anyone hunting feral pigs, dogs, cats, rabbits or foxes on private land. A land-holder hunting other game animals on their own land is also exempt from the need to hold a licence. Hunters other than the land-holders would, however, need a licence to hunt deer, duck, hare, certain quail, pheasant, peafowl and turkey on private land as these are game animals under the bill. Some have asked: Does the Game Bill authorise hunter access to national parks? The bill does not seek to give hunters access to national parks, wilderness areas and other lands managed for similar conservation purposes. Does the bill authorise the creation of game parks and trap shootings? Under section 19 (a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 game parks are currently prohibited in New South Wales. The Game Bill does not seek to amend that section or any other section of the Act. The Game Bill does not authorise the creation of game parks or trap shooting.

In summarising my remarks on the bill, I reiterate that the Cessnock community has embraced this legislation and is eager for this type of legislation to be implemented. Approximately six months ago some of my constituents approached me to obtain legislative provisions which would allow them to enter public land and eradicate pest species. I think the Minister should be congratulated on the introduction of this bill. He has shown the New South Wales hunters that he has their best interests at heart. As a result of compliance with the gun laws of New South Wales, shooters are demonstrating that they are responsible people. Hunting is one of the safest sports in the world. All the hunters, members of rifle range clubs and skeet shooters of New South Wales should be congratulated on their attitude to New South Wales legislation. [Time expired.]

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [9.10 p.m.]: As the honourable member for Murrumbidgee has stated, the National-Liberal Coalition does not oppose the Game Bill in principle. The Coalition supports the objects of the Game Bill to provide for the effective management of native and introduced species of game animals and to promote responsible and orderly hunting of those game animals on public and private land, and pest animals on public land. In particular the Coalition supports the principle of controlling pest animals on public land while staunchly defending the right of landowners to control pests on privately owned land. However, as my National Party colleague has stated, the Coalition has some concerns which I will outline and which we will attempt to resolve through amendments in the other place. The concerns of the National-Liberal Coalition relate to the duplication of licences proposed by the bill, the lack of power of the Game Council, the effect of the Game Bill on the Rural Lands Protection Act and the New South Wales Firearms Act, and the exclusion of national park estate land from the definition of "public land".

The Carr Labor Government has been negligent in its management of public land and has allowed pest animals and noxious weeds to breed and spread unchecked. It is fair to say that feral animal control on public land, particularly in national parks, is one of the most pressing problems facing rural and regional New South Wales. Landowners whose properties adjoin national parks and other Crown land are suffering the most. Wild dogs are breeding and living on public land where they are out of reach of land-holders. These dogs launch attacks on sheep and livestock on surrounding properties, which results in economic losses for land-holders. Similarly, the number of feral pigs is reaching alarming proportions thanks to their freedom to breed and live in national parks and on other public land. Feral pigs not only cause significant damage to livestock, fences and crops, but also pose a very real risk of spreading disease in the event of an exotic disease outbreak.

Despite the fact that pest animals are causing untold damage for land-holders, the Carr Government continues to display a dismal record of control of pest animals on public land. In recognition of the problems that pest animals are causing land-holders whose properties surround public land, the Coalition is pleased to note the objective of the bill to promote hunting of pest animals on public land. However, the Coalition questions why the Game Bill excludes national park estate land from the definition of "public land". According to the National Parks and Wildlife Service's 2000-01 annual report, as at 30 June 2001 lands managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service totalled approximately 5.4 million hectares or, to put that another way, 6.7 per cent of the total land area of New South Wales.

Why has the Carr Labor Government decided to exclude such a large area of land from the definition of "public land", effectively excluding skilled hunters from providing cost-effective pest control management? Indeed, during the first incarnation of the bill the Minister for Agriculture in his second reading speech used the specific example of foxes posing a threat to mountain pygmy possums in the Snowy Mountains National Park—he said that they are a threat to the conservation of biodiversity. As it stands, the Game Bill will not allow skilled people to hunt foxes and ease the threat to the mountain pygmy possum because national parks are excluded from the definition of "public land" in the bill. Why did the Minister use an example of a pest threatening a native species in a national park when he is not prepared to do anything about it? As a result of the exclusion of national park estate land from the scope of the Game Bill, national parks will continue to act as a refuge for pests and prolific game animals, thereby enabling them to spread to surrounding private and other public land, causing damage and increasing the cost of control programs in affected areas.

The National-Liberal Coalition will move an amendment in the other place for a two-year trial to be conducted to allow hunting of game in three national parks that are yet to be determined. The Coalition proposes that the trial will be supervised and evaluated by the National Parks and Wildlife Service and, if successful, more national parks will be included in the definition of "public land". This trial will have many benefits for pest control, including allowing hunters to contribute to the control of wild dogs that potentially or possibly are breeding in the Kosciuszko National Park and that are causing so much damage to land-holders. My colleagues the honourable member for Burrinjuck and the honourable member for Monaro have raised in this House the issue of the presence of wild dogs in the Kosciuszko National Park. They have reported that the dogs are moving unchecked out of the national park into the State forests and then onto private property where they wreak havoc on the livelihood of farmers. One farmer lost 332 sheep in less than 12 months—

Ms Hodgkinson: John Parker.

Mr SOURIS: The majority of John Parker's losses were attributed to wild dog attacks. The sheep are being mauled and they die from injuries that are sustained during attacks, or they die as a result of fly infestation of the injuries that they sustain in the attacks. The Coalition believes that the inclusion of national parks in the definition of "public land" will provide alternatives for the control of pests such as wild dogs in national parks, and should therefore be supported. The Game Bill provides for the Minister who is responsible for public land to make a declaration that game animals on public land may be hunted by licensed hunters. The declaration may be limited to particular parts of the land, to particular game animals, to particular times or to particular circumstances. This provision allows the Minister to strictly control when and what licensed hunters will be able to hunt on public land.

The Coalition believes that this provision provides a sufficient safeguard for a trial of three national parks in the definition of "public land" under the Game Bill. Moreover, this amendment will not create secret game parks because the bill requires a declaration which enables hunting of game on public land to be made public. It must also be remembered that the National Parks and Wildlife Service will benefit from the ability to use skilled and appropriately registered hunters as a cost-effective resource in implementing control and management strategies for pest and games species. The Carr Government has not provided the National Parks and Wildlife Service with sufficient resources to adequately control feral animals within national parks and is now ignoring the option of using the network of skilled hunters that is already in place and ready to assist in pest control programs.

Clearly this Government has no regard for the losses that feral animals are causing land-holders whose properties surround national parks. I understand that the Game Bill was presented to this House without any consultation with the largest hunting organisation in New South Wales. The Minister for Agriculture will be interested to know that the New South Wales division of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia has 36,000 members, yet the SSAA was not consulted about the initial drafting of this bill. If the Minister had consulted the SSAA he would have known that it has a hunting and conservation program that organises hunting activities for members on private land and Crown land, mostly State forests. There is already a system in place whereby State Forests liaises with the SSAA to facilitate hunting on land that is controlled by State Forests.

In the light of this information, it appears that the Game Bill's proposed restricted licence, which provides for the hunting of game animals on declared public land, is duplication of a program that already exists and will simply allow the Carr Government to collect money for an activity that already takes place. The only way the Government could justify the introduction of a new licence, and hence a new fee, would be to open additional land to hunting. This again takes honourable members back to the need to include national park estate land within the definition of "public land". The Coalition believes that the licensing system proposed by this bill is unnecessarily complicated and requires a duplication of effort and expense. It creates another layer of bureaucracy and an extra expense for hunters. As I said earlier, the Coalition believes that land-holders should have the right to control animals classified as pest animals on their land—namely, pigs, dogs, cats, goats, rabbits, hares and foxes living in the wild.

I understand that this bill allows land-holders to hunt pests on their land without a licence. However, hunters will be required to apply for a general game hunting licence before they can hunt game animals on private land of which they are not the owner. Hunters who have gone through the process of becoming a licensed firearms owner should not be forced to apply and pay for another licence to hunt game that is not protected game on private land when they have the permission of the land-holder. Similarly, a land-holder should have the ability to grant permission for any licensed firearms user to hunt game that is not protected game on their land without either party having to acquire an additional licence.

I have already pointed out that the restricted game hunting licence effectively duplicates the SSAA's hunting and conservation program and the very definition of an occupier's licence creates another duplication. In the event of a land-holder wishing to grant permission for a third party to hunt protected game on private land, the Game Bill prescribes that both the land-holder and the prospective hunter must be the holder of a game hunting licence. The objective of monitoring the numbers of protected game hunted using game licences could be achieved without the Government double dipping on licence fees and without imposing extra bureaucratic processes on lawful firearms owners. To avoid the licensing duplication that results from this bill, the Coalition will move in the other place that the licensing system be consolidated.

Under this bill the functions of the Game Council will be limited. The Minister has refused to include a provision for the Game Council to recognise additional species of either game or pest animals. Does the Minister suggest that the list of game and pest animals included in the Game Bill is exhaustive and will never need updating? The powers of entry of officers of the Game Council are of concern. Licensed firearms owners are already subject to strict controls and checks. The exercise of access provisions by officers of the Game Council should be limited to occasions when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence may have been committed rather than the open slather that the bill currently provides. It is imperative that this bill does not undermine the network of hunting clubs throughout New South Wales.

Membership of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia is recognised under the New South Wales Firearms Act as satisfying the requirement of proof of a genuine reason for hunting. Hunting clubs are concerned that an application for a game hunting licence may be considered as also providing proof of a genuine reason for hunting under the Firearms Act to improve the appeal of game licences to prospective hunters. In order to overcome the concerns of hunting clubs and provide them with some security I call on the Minister to guarantee that game licences will not be recognised as proof for a genuine reason for recreational hunting under the New South Wales Firearms Act. Such a guarantee would be consistent with the requirement of the bill that membership of an approved hunting club and the completion of adequate training are prerequisites for the holding of a restricted game hunting licence. The responsible approach of hunting and other recreational shooting clubs has been integral to the process of firearms licensing and ownership reform in New South Wales. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Their good work should not be undermined by the introduction of game hunting licences. The Minister for Agriculture made special mention in his second reading speech of the amendment to clause 30 of the bill to contain mandatory provisions in the proposed hunting code of practice that must be observed by licensed game hunters. I question how the hunting community can be asked to support this provision when the code of practice has not been developed. The bill establishes a situation in which hunters will be required to abide by a code of practice that they have not seen and know nothing about. I also ask the Minister to clarify two further points in relation to the operation of the Game Bill.

First, the Minister said in his second reading speech that he would ensure that a regulation exempting land-holders from the need to hold a game hunting licence when taking part in joint pest control programs is made as soon as possible should the bill receive the support of the Parliament. I place on the record the Coalition's support for such a regulation and call on the Minister to guarantee that the regulation will be made. I also call on the Minister to explain why a person assisting another person hunting pest animals in accordance with the duty imposed on the person under the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 or the Wild Dog Destruction Act 1921 is not exempt from the requirement to possess a game hunting licence.

Second, farmers in the Western Division of New South Wales are justifiably concerned that the definition of "public land" may be deemed to include their western lands leases due to the fact that the High Court is yet to answer the question as to whether western lands leases confer the right of exclusive possession. I trust that the Minister considered this point when preparing the Game Bill. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the Minister in relation to western lands leases, the Coalition will move an amendment in the other place to clearly exempt those leases from the definition of "public land".

The Coalition supports the comment made by the Minister for Agriculture that "claims by environmental groups are baseless and driven by emotion". It is unacceptable for animal welfare and green groups to mislead the community about legislation such as the Game Bill. In particular, the Coalition rejects suggestions that recreational hunters will deliberately restock pest animal species to provide them with hunting targets in the future. As I stated earlier, the damage that feral and pest animals are causing in rural and regional New South Wales is one of the biggest problems facing country New South Wales. The potential pest control benefits in this bill present the most compelling case for supporting it.

Citycentric green groups and animal welfare organisations should recognise that licensed firearms users are responsible and law-abiding citizens who deserve to be respected. They possess skills that can be harnessed by the community and they should not be treated like criminals. I invite critics of the Game Bill to visit country New South Wales and witness first-hand the damage caused to crops and fences by wild pigs and, more confronting still, the bloodthirsty massacres of sheep by wild dogs. Perhaps these critics will then think twice about criticising provisions which have the ability to contribute to the control of these feral animals. I suggest that green groups devote their energy to condemning the Carr Government for its incessant policy of locking up land without providing sufficient resources for its management rather than attempting to thwart potential solutions to problems facing rural and regional New South Wales.

It appears that the Government drafted the Game Bill with good intentions, as is evidenced by its commendable objectives. But somewhere in the drafting process the bill has lost much of its value. The Coalition will attempt to improve the value of the bill by addressing some of the problems that the National-Liberal Coalition raised tonight through the introduction of amendments in the other place. I thank those Coalition members who will speak tonight in debate on this bill. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee has already spoken in debate, but the honourable member for Barwon, the honourable member for Monaro, the honourable member for Burrinjuck, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and other speakers will also speak in debate on this bill. I thank my staff member Jared Doyle, who has been working in this policy area for a considerable time.

Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [9.28 p.m.]: I support the Game Bill. At the outset I wish to correct some of the misinformation espoused earlier by the Leader of the National Party. He referred to research that had been conducted in relation to the feral animal control issue. Obviously some of that research was a bit flimsy or the Leader of the National Party has deliberately decided to muddy the waters. The Leader of the National Party referred also to the impact that this legislation might have on leases under the Western Lands Act. I refer the Leader of the National Party to a press release issued by the Minister for Agriculture on 15 March. It states:

The New South Wales Farmers Association has asked me—

that is, the Minister—

to ensure that leases issued under the Western Lands Act 1901 are not adversely affected by the bill. I will take steps to ensure that that is the case.

That clarifies that issue. I agree with some of the comments that were made earlier by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, in particular in relation to the campaign being run by some environmental groups. Obviously, they are not in the same business as Opposition members of automatically bashing environmental and green groups. However, in this case some of their comments have been quite over the top. The demonstration that was held outside Parliament House today must have been a bit of a non-event, because I did not realise that it had taken place until the honourable member for Murrumbidgee spoke about it in this place tonight. Obviously, the demonstration was not well supported.

I would also like to take up the case for the shooters. The electorate of Bathurst has one of the largest memberships in New South Wales of the Sporting Shooters Association, with some 600 or 700 members. The members of that group, which is well run by Wayne Sonter and Kath Brennan, are very responsible people. Like most shooting groups, they have been upset by the legislation that was introduced by the Howard Government post Port Arthur and the complementary legislation that was introduced in all States around the country.

[Interruption]

Members opposite seem to have forgotten that the impetus for that legislation came from the Prime Minister post Port Arthur, and that all States then introduced complementary legislation.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! The honourable member for Barwon will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate at the appropriate time.

Mr MARTIN: All responsible shooters have taken that legislation on board and worn it responsibly. In fact, the legislation has resulted in a dramatic increase in the membership of organisations such as the Sporting Shooters Club in Bathurst. That club is now a great recreational outlet for the shooting community in my electorate. They have taken the legislation on board. They are not running red at the proposed legislation, although perhaps they would like some of it refined. However, I would like to defend them against some of the irresponsible comments that have been made by some of the green groups.

The Hon. Richard Jones, a member of the upper House, spoke about members of these clubs, whom I and other members of this House represent. The Hon. Richard Jones said that he had an R-rated video made by recreational shooters that very clearly indicates why this Game Bill was exciting bloodsports enthusiasts. The video showed the disgusting cruelty involved in recreational shooting of animals. For example, it showed a pig hunter stabbing a pig in the stomach while sitting astride the squealing animal—fairly emotive stuff. If the Hon. Richard Jones thinks that that is representative of the recreational shooters that I and other members of this House represent, I suggest he is very wrong indeed. A press release issued by the Total Environment Centre reads:

The recent introduction of foxes into Tasmania is a prime example of how recreational hunters devastate native wildlife. They do not help preserve it, as the Premier seems to believe.

The centre suggests that the sighting of foxes in Tasmania is the result of a deliberate act by the shooting organisations: Put them in a sugar bag, take them over there and let them multiply. But the reality is that the foxes have got across to Tasmania on the ferry. So, rather than being introduced by irresponsible shooters, as the Total Environment Centre seems to suggest, the foxes have been freeloaded on ferries. I know that the Tasmanian authorities are taking steps to have the foxes eradicated and probably will introduce a bounty system. It is important that we place on record that the attacks on responsible shooters in relation to this legislation are, in the main, ill-founded. I certainly support the responsible shooters in my electorate.

Some months ago a constituent of mine who lives on acreage at Yetholme, between Lithgow and Bathurst, phoned my office to express his concerns about the Game Bill. Whilst he was genuinely supportive of it, he was concerned about its impact on hunters of pest animals on private land and the possible inconvenience for hunters arising from the game hunter licensing system proposed in the bill. I was able to advise my constituent that under the bill people hunting pest animals on private land will not need to hold a Game Council licence. In fact, the majority of people hunting on private land will be totally unaffected by the proposed licensing system. The Leader of the National Party expressed a very different view on that provision.

A licence will not be required, for example, to hunt feral pigs, dogs, cats, goats, rabbits or foxes, or any other non-game species that can currently be legally hunted on private lands. Hunters would, however, require a licence to hunt deer, duck, certain quail, pheasant, hare, peafowl and turkey on those private lands as these are the designated game animals under the bill. Once again, the comments of the Leader of the National Party on that aspect were incorrect. He either deliberately misled the House on this issue or he was simply deliberately muddying the waters. In relation to land access, permission to access private land currently rests with the private land-holder, who can always contact a rural lands protection board if he or she is concerned that hunting might compromise an established feral animal control program. Also, permission to access public land currently rests with the New South Wales Government department responsible for managing those lands. These land access rules do not change under the bill.

The Game Council would, however, be a point of contact for a rural lands protection board or State Government department if it decides that hunters could play a useful role in a pest control program. Hunters are used very successfully in this way elsewhere in Australia. We heard of the example in South Australia with regard to Operation Bounce Back. The Game Bill also creates a point of contact for hunters wanting to be involved in feral animal control, native animal protection and threatened species recovery programs, but does not give the Game Council or individual hunters control of those programs. I was also able to advise my constituent, on advice from the Minister's office, that the bill does not greatly change the existing hunter permit and duck hunting licensing systems. A licence is currently required to hunt ducks, which are protected fauna under the National Parks and Wildlife Act and can be hunted only in limited numbers after a land-holder has obtained an occupier's permit. Permits are also currently required to hunt in State forests and on Crown lands.

However, the bill requires all people hunting on public land and people hunting designated game animals on private land to comply with a new hunter code of practice which focuses on safe, responsible and humane hunting. Although the Hon. Richard Jones and others made accusations that this would unleash devastation on animal cruelty, the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act will still apply and will not be altered by the bill. People who do not comply with the hunter code of practice could lose the right to hunt designated game animals anywhere in the State. There are currently no such incentives for hunters to act responsibly. Because of this, opportunities to actively promote ethical and humane behaviour among hunters who are not active members of hunting or shooting clubs are limited. Once again, we have to cast the net a little wider than organisations such as sporting shooters clubs, which we all know are largely made up of very responsible people who follow their recreational sport.

It is also important to note that because the bill does not seek to make changes to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act it does not outlaw any form of hunting that is currently legal. Nor does the bill seek to change existing gun control laws. Any proposed changes to those laws will come under the current review of the Firearms Act. Of course, the hunter code of practice will not rid us of irresponsible hunters. Unfortunately, as in most areas, there is always a small minority of irresponsible people. However, we should bear in mind that some sections of the broader community are very concerned about the animal welfare impacts of hunting, and that any hunter who damages the public reputation of hunting puts the activities of all responsible hunters at risk. I commend the bill to the House. We have heard that the Opposition intends to move amendments in the other place. However, I believe that it is responsible and well-considered legislation that is a step in the right direction.

Mr SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [9.39 p.m.]: The Coalition does not oppose the Game Bill, the objects of which are to provide for the effective management of native and introduced species of game animals and to promote responsible and orderly hunting of those game animals on public and private land and of certain pest animals on public land. At the outset I point out that for far too long in regional and rural New South Wales we have had a huge problem with pest animals encroaching on not only private land but also national parks, with the devastation caused by foxes and cats. I specifically refer to those two animals because the devastation has been horrific. Foxes and cats are perfect killing machines. They are predators from the time they are born, and since their introduction they have decimated native species of animals throughout New South Wales.

As far as I am concerned, the sooner we eradicate cats and foxes from the landscape the better off we will be. Many species have been decimated by these predators—for example, the pygmy possum and a number of ground-dwelling birds that are virtually extinct. The Hon. Richard Jones in the other place claimed that this was a result of farming, but that is not the case. It is simply that the animals have been decimated by predators, namely, foxes and cats. Although many other pest animals, particularly wild pigs, in rural New South Wales need to be controlled, that is not happening at present.

I congratulate the Minister on organising a simulated exercise of what would happen if there were an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in New South Wales. It will be held in September, which is fairly late in the day. Many people on the land are concerned about the wild pig population because of the spread of diseases. Pigs rapidly spread not only foot and mouth disease but also cryptospirosis, red water fever, brucellosis, tuberculosis and many other diseases. Considering the simulated exercise relating to foot and mouth disease, the introduction of this bill is timely. I would like the Game Council to be involved in the virtual containment of a certain area to be stipulated at a later date.

Professional shooters must be represented on the Game Council. Accredited and dedicated shooters destroy animals in a humane fashion. I have received complaints—indeed, they are virtually orders—not only from animal liberationists and animal welfare groups in New South Wales and, indeed, Australia but also from people in the United States of America who oppose this bill. As the Leader of the National Party said, let us remove emotion from the debate and examine the practical situation. If these people consider that the bill will result in the inhumane treatment of animals, I suggest they simply watch documentaries on the National Geographic channel on Foxtel, Austar or Optus to see how cruel nature can be. Game animals will be hunted and destroyed in more humane ways than people see in the wild. The people who oppose this bill should consider the reality.

The Hon. Richard Jones should go back to his hole and use commonsense. It is rather nice that the honourable member opposes this bill because he makes us all look good. He has lost all credibility on this matter. The Opposition has discussed the Game Bill with the New South Wales Farmers Association, the Sporting Shooters Association of New South Wales and rural lands protection boards, and it is consulted extensively on it. I refer to the hard work of Jared Doyle. This bill is not perfect but it goes a long way towards what we want. The Opposition in the other place will move amendments to the bill. As the Leader of the National Party said, there should be a two-year trial of hunters controlling pest animals in national parks in New South Wales, with the National Parks and Wildlife Service monitoring the trial if it so wishes.

Mr McManus: There is a trial, with deer in the Royal National Park.

Mr SLACK-SMITH: It is good that deer in the Royal National Park will be controlled. A trial to control introduced species of animals is commonsense. The deer in the Royal National Park are destroying the habitat of native animals. That same thing is happening throughout New South Wales. The deer in the Royal National Park have no right to be there and should be humanely culled and destroyed. I have no problem with that. Wild dogs are causing huge problems in some national parks. A two-year trial should be conducted to find out whether the number of wild dogs can successfully be reduced. It is a pity that the 6.7 per cent of New South Wales covered by national parks is not covered by this bill. Whenever a national park is declared the value of the private land adjacent to the national park is automatically devalued, simply because national parks have a reputation as breeding grounds for feral animals, namely, pigs, goats, wild dogs and many other animals.

I shall give a typical example. Sadly, the kangaroos in Warrumbungle National Park near Coonabarabran, which borders my electorate, are starving themselves out. The number of kangaroos has not been controlled; consequently, the kangaroos are dying because of overpopulation. Although the National Parks and Wildlife Service controls Warrumbungle National Park, the lack of control of kangaroo numbers is irresponsible. The service must realise that its role is to manage the land. It must come on board and use some commonsense. Instead, it simply has a wishy-washy idea that it must listen to animal welfare groups and so on. The service is destroying some of our precious species of native animals.

In the other place the Opposition will move an amendment to remove the general game licence required for the hunting of game on private land and replace it with a provision to allow appropriately licensed firearms owners to hunt game on private land with the permission of the landowner. An amendment will be moved to the occupiers licence for the hunting of protected game to require that either the hunter or the land-holder—not both—be required to possess a licence. If a person entering my land to hunt game animals has a licence, I do not believe I should be required to have a licence. The Opposition will also move amendments to further define the powers of entry of Game Council inspectors so that they may only exercise their powers when they suspect that an offence has been committed and to consolidate the Game Council restricted licence and the occupiers licence to allow licence holders to hunt on declared public land and to hunt protected game animals on private land with the permission of the land-holder. I am aware that the Minister is considering a similar amendment to the bill.

With regard to amendment No. 6, it is important to include a provision that the Game Council recognises additional species as game or pest animals, because it is a moveable feast. Animals that may not be considered as pests or game animals today may need to be included at some time in the future. The honourable member for Bathurst mentioned western lands leases in response to comments by the Leader of the National Party. It is interesting to note that they were the subject of a press release but were not referred to by the Minister in his second reading speech. In my view we must tighten the definition of public land to ensure that western lands leases are not included as public lands. As set out in the proposed amendments, the Opposition will seek to increase the number of members on the Game Council to 16. In the other place the Opposition will seek to ensure that the Chief Veterinary Officer of the Department of Agriculture is appointed as one of the board members.

Instances of animal cruelty or inhumane acts against animals in New South Wales become the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture Veterinary Service or the rural lands protection board [RLPB] district veterinary officers. The Chief Veterinary Officer of the Department of Agriculture is the person responsible for all of that, and the Opposition believes he should be included on the Game Council. I agree with the proposed amendments to definitions to make the terminology consistent with the Rural Lands Protection Board Act 1998. Changing "feral dogs" to "wild dogs", and "pest animals" to "nuisance animals" is simply a matter of housekeeping.

I believe the Minister has also agreed to an amendment that provides that when a number of people are assisting in a cull only one person will require a licence, for example, in the case of a RLPB undertaking a pig shoot from a helicopter. If that amendment has not been included, the Opposition will make sure that it is dealt with in the other place. We do not want a whole stack of people to be required to have licences when only one person is doing the culling. Of equal importance is the requirement for persons to carry licences when hunting and for persons hunting on private land to carry written permission from the land-holder. That is important because there have been many instances of people trespassing on private land. When approached by police they simply say that they have permission. Nine times out of 10 they do not. It is essential that a person hunting on private land should have written permission from the land-holder.

The bill could go a long way in dealing with an issue that we have been concerned about in recent years, that is, the huge increase in feral and disease-carrying animals. Such animals destroy the livelihoods of land-holders and crop growers. They destroy the habitat of native animal species. The bill is a start on the way to getting our country back into balance. I would hate to see the day when we lose any more of our small-species mammals and ground-dwelling birds. I believe I have identified virtually all the introduced animals and animals that can breed quickly, especially in environments created by human occupation, that is, water storage areas and artificial wetlands. The numbers of those animals has increased dramatically and they cause a tremendous amount of damage. Wild pigs, dogs, cats, goats, rabbits and foxes are an ongoing problem, and the bill will go some way towards arresting the problem they create. As I said earlier, I believe the bill's greatest failing is that it excludes national parks.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [9.54 p.m.]: I strongly oppose this bill and share the view of Katherine Rogers, Vice-President of the Animals Societies Federation (New South Wales):

Progress towards more a compassionate, safe and responsible society cannot be made when Government promotes the killing of animals for pleasure.

The reported reason for this bill is the need to manage native and introduced species of animals causing problems on public land in New South Wales. If that is the aim, why have environmental and animal welfare groups been marginalised from the process and from the Game Council that will be established by the legislation?

[Interruption]

I listened in silence to the appalling words I have heard, and I hope I will be treated with the same respect. The bill is strongly opposed by all leading environment, animal welfare and gun-control organisations, including the Total Environment Centre, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Animal Liberation, Gun Control Australia, the Wilderness Society, Animals Societies Federation (New South Wales), the Nature Conservation Council, Friends of the Earth, the National Parks Association of New South Wales and the RSPCA—to name only a few of the more well-known organisations. I share the concerns that this bill will not solve the pest animal problem. It will increase animal cruelty and gun use and misuse. I support the concerns of Jeff Angel of the Total Environment Centre, who said:

The Bill fails to provide any benefit to the environment and will facilitate a massive expansion of poorly regulated game hunting in NSW. It will legitimise a dangerous, inhumane and environmentally damaging shooting regime on public and private lands. It will have a counter-productive effect on the control and elimination of pest animals.

Total Environment Centre natural areas campaigner Fran Kelly stated that the bill is:

equivalent to handing over public land management to the tens of thousands of gun owners and recreational hunters out there and creating a Department of Hunting and Shooting with Agriculture Minister Richard Amery as its head. The Bill undermines pest management programs, encourages animal cruelty, amends and wakens other Acts and agencies, and puts the powers, control and regulation of hunting opportunities in the hands of hunters.

Why is the brutal slaughter of wild animals being actively promoted by the New South Wales Government through the Game Bill? The bill legitimises hunting for sport and pleasure. It provides public funds to recreational hunters for the promotion of gun use and the slaughter of animals. The real aim of this bill appears to be to appeal to hunters in the lead-up to the 2003 election, to allow the inhumane slaughter of animals, and to promote the use of guns as a sport in New South Wales. The title of the bill immediately points to the real aim by defining animals as game, to be hunted and killed. Robert Brown, Chairman of the Federation of Hunting Clubs, states:

The Game Council will be run by hunters … What this Bill says is that the NSW Government supports hunters and hunting—in probably the most up-front way possible … It sets in stone the State's recognition of hunting as a thing of importance.

John Tingle of the Shooters Party, in a newsletter last December, also stated:

… this was put together by hunters, for hunters. Hunter organisation numbers effectively will control the Game Council _ the chairman must be a hunter; and any money derived will be used to benefit the hunters.

I strongly support key concerns about this bill that have been raised by environmental, animal rights, and gun control groups. The bill encourages animal cruelty and promotes the killing of animals with no strategies to ensure animal welfare. It allows the hunting of some native animals, some ducks and quails that are generally not available to be hunted. It allows the use of any object or animal to capture, kill or harm an animal. The approach of this bill is particularly shocking following last year's barbaric culling of brumbies in Guy Fawkes River National Park. In response to community outcry, there was to have been a permanent ban on the aerial culling of horses in all national parks and reserves.

I am told that the slaughter of Rusa deer in the Royal National Park continues despite strong evidence that the number of deer do not warrant it, that the claims of damage by the deer in the park are in doubt, and that the claimed competition with native animals for food is highly questionable. I am also told that one of the weapons being used, a.22 long rifle, has been criticised by a forensic pathologist, weapons expert and deer hunters as being inadequate for the task and liable to produce horrific injuries rather than a clean kill. The Game Council established by the bill will be controlled by hunters. Eight members of the 16-member council will be nominees of hunting organisations. The chairperson will be one of those persons and will have a deciding vote. The council will not include significant environmental and animal welfare representation. The hunter-controlled council will approve, issue, monitor and inspect all hunting licence activities.

I am particularly concerned by the Minister's comments in a letter of 12 March to Jeff Angel, in which he states that including representatives of environmental and animal welfare groups on the Game Council might not allow the Game Council to "realise its statutory obligations". The bill provides no independent oversight. There will be no genuine independent monitors, regulators or authorities to ensure that hunters do not abuse the extensive powers provided. Shooters will largely police themselves. The Game Council, which will be controlled by hunters, will appoint inspectors. National Parks and Wildlife Service staff will no longer have the ability to monitor or prosecute for harm to some protected animals. The responsibility of other agencies such as State Forests and the Department of Land and Water Conservation will also be undermined.

The bill will not protect the environment. The promotion of game hunting is in conflict with co-ordinated pest management and eradication strategies. It is in the interest of hunters to increase the numbers and types of potential game animals in hunting areas, rather than effectively and humanely solve the problems. Feral animals such as pigs and deer have been deliberately introduced for hunting purposes. Hunting dogs escape to create future feral animal problems. Pest hunting disperses animals into other areas where they create additional problems or are harder to control. I am also informed that slaughtering animals creates spaces that are quickly filled by migrating animals or by animals that would otherwise have starved. For more than 100 years, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and other authorities have been killing non-native animals and it has not made a difference in the long term.

The bill does not address the problem of environmental damage caused by hunters on public and private bushland. The bill will result in serious safety problems. Game hunting on public land poses a serious danger to visitors, particularly as it will become more difficult to determine if hunting is authorised in certain areas. Accidental injuries and deaths will increase as the numbers of hunters and the use of firearms increase. I share the concern that the safety provisions in the bill are limited, unlikely to be totally effective, and will not counteract the increased gun use promoted by this legislation. I strongly support the concerns of Gun Control Australia that this bill gives control to hunters, who love to kill with guns. The bill winds back the progress of gun control in recent years and will lead to a worsening of the shocking figure of more than 45 Australians who died in gun accidents in 2000. The role of hunters on the Game Council will give hunters more legitimacy than animal welfare experts and environmentalists.

The bill provides for hunting in almost every part of New South Wales. There is no public exhibition period or need to advertise the declaration of public lands for hunting prior to announcement. The only type of land excluded from hunting is national parks. Tonight honourable members have said that national parks should be included and I understand that there is intense lobbying from hunting interests, as well as members opposite, to remove even that limitation. The bill fails to provide for progressive, humane alternatives. It is particularly disturbing that the bill fails to progress humane alternatives to gun use. Animal Liberation tells me that there has been considerable success in Australia with fertility control of kangaroos by vasectomy; with the capture, injection of vaccine and release of koalas; and with trap, neuter and return programs for colony cats. Animal Liberation also reports that remote contraceptive control is available in the United States of America to control populations of wild horses and deer.

They ask why the State Government is not consulting with Professor Jay Kirkpatrick, Director of the Science and Conservation Centre in Montana, who has worked with fertility control of wild and captive animals for 20 to 30 years and is now successfully engaged in it for a large number of species. When will the Government pursue these humane alternatives to managing problem animal populations, rather than declare open season on them and allow them to be hunted? Why is the notion of fertility control of wild animals dismissed in threat abatement plans in favour of expensive lethal control? The Minister has introduced a raft of minor changes to this legislation since it was introduced into Parliament last year. Those amendments purport to respond to environmental, animal welfare and gun control concerns. These changes do not even preserve the hard-fought-for standards in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Weapons Prohibition Act, and they fail to deal with the fundamentally offensive philosophy of this bill.

Ms Hodgkinson: Point of order: It would appear that the honourable member for Bligh is reading a speech verbatim. The rules of this House dictate that while a member may refer to notes from time to time, speeches not be read verbatim.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Beamer): Order! I am sure the honourable member for Bligh is merely referring to copious notes.

Ms MOORE: In conclusion I say that this legislation is a retrograde step. It is depressing to have to explain to this House why it should reject it. It seems to me that I will be the only member in this Chamber to do so. I strongly oppose this bill and, echoing T. S. Elliott, I finish where I began with the words of Katherine Rogers, Vice-President of the Animals Societies Federation (New South Wales). I echo her words as a proud member of this Chamber on a night of shame:

Progress towards a more compassionate, safe and responsible society cannot be made when Government promotes the killing of animals for pleasure.

Mr R. W. TURNER (Orange) [10.07 p.m.]: Following a great deal of false information from the previous speaker I speak on the Game Bill. Like my National Party colleagues before me, I support the bill. The overview of the bill states:

The objects of this Bill are:

(a) to provide for the effective management of native and introduced species of game animals, and

(b) to promote responsible and orderly hunting of those game animals on public and private land and of certain pest animals on public land.

The principal features of the Bill are as follows:

(a) Game animals for the purposes of the Bill are:

(i) native and introduced species (namely, deer, duck, quail, pheasant, partridge, peafowl and turkey), and

(ii) certain pest animals (namely, pigs, dogs (other than dingos), cats, goats, rabbits, hares and foxes living in the wild).

I am pleased that hares have been included in this bill. Unlike the honourable member for Bligh, I was previously a land-holder and I have personal experience of the problems that most of these animals cause. I am not a shooter. I have always said that I have one gun with a rusty barrel. In the past I have preferred to let other responsible shooters on to my property who were more accurate and could kill animals more humanely than I could. I did not enjoy having to control the wild animals on my property. Like other land-holders, I have used various forms of poison over time. It is a pity that the honourable member for Bligh is not in the Chamber because I am one of the first people to admit that myxomatosis was cruel. The rabbit took about three or four days to virtually starve to death because it was blind and could not eat or drink. However, it did an enormous job and got rid of millions of rabbits that were ravaging properties and decreasing their carrying capacity.

The gun, whilst distasteful to some, is certainly a lot more humane way of disposing of rabbits than myxomatosis. The next cycle in pest control was 1080 poison, which again was very effective. It killed the animal, especially rabbits, very quickly. More recently we have had the introduction of the calicivirus, which has been very effective in some areas and of rather doubtful benefit in others. On my property I have had bow hunters and people who used ferrets. Invariably, the ferreters would have to come back to the property the next day to find their ferrets, which would go down into a burrow, have a feed and go to sleep.

At times I have had too many rabbits, hares and foxes on my property. There were occasions when I purchased tags in an attempt to reduce the kangaroo population. So I have been through all of those processes. But all of those measures were a bit like firefighting. This season large aircraft and helicopters were used to fight fires, but despite all the poisoning and other systems used to control feral animals we still must have shooters and other animal hunters come in to get the animals that have not been poisoned. I am glad the honourable member for Bligh is in the Chamber, because it gives me the opportunity to tell her first-hand about the cruelty of some animals to other animals.

I doubt that the honourable member has ever seen wild dogs rip lambs and young calves and leave them lying in agony in the paddock. Has she ever seen crows pick out the eyes of an innocent, newborn lamb? Does the honourable member suggest that we should not have lambs and calves, or that we should not have controls to save those poor young animals from such cruelty? No, she has never seen that. It is a pity that she is not prepared to come out to a property and see first-hand what happens so that she will understand the issues that we are discussing tonight.

The bill provides for the following game hunting licences and licensing system. They include a general game hunting licence, which authorises the hunting of game animals on private land. A game hunting licence will not be required for the purpose of hunting certain pest animals on private land, for hunting on a person's own land and in other specified circumstances. My property and many other properties around the Orange area are bounded by State forests, Crown lands and national parks. I, like others who have spoken in this debate, believe that someone should have been authorised to go into national parks to reduce the number of feral animals there, especially in the perimeters of parks. As we all know, feral animals breed in national parks. Like the fuel that fed the recent bushfires, feral animal numbers build up in national parks, break through the barriers of those parks and cause serious damage to land and a lot of heartache for landholders in proximate land.

We all know that animals and bushfires do not respect boundary fences; they go straight through those fences, and they have no respect for what is outside them. Landholders adjoining national parks have enormous difficulties with feral animals that breed in and come out of national parks. They have problems with weeds blown from the parks and blackberries brought out of the parks by native birds and deposited on the properties of private landholders, who are then charged with the responsibility of getting rid of those blackberries and weeds at their own cost. In many cases, local government must spend considerable sums of money eradicating weeds, blackberries and so on introduced from national parks and other Crown lands, especially in the Orange area, where blackberries are virtually out of control in State forests.

Many of those blackberries are spread by seeds carried by creek waters or by birds that eat the berries and then deposit the fertilised, ready-to-grow seeds on landholders' properties. Others have mentioned the little native animals that have been destroyed by wild dogs and foxes, the quantity of grass consumed by rabbits, and so on. Yes, some of those animals were introduced for game purposes, but with the arrival of the first settlers it was considered absolutely necessary to introduce rabbits and other animals to Australia purely and simply as a food source. Unfortunately, those introduced species spread and their numbers got out of control, and we have the legacy of that today.

I would like to make brief reference to the Game Council and its constitution. Clause 8 provides that the Game Council is to consist of 16 members, being eight persons appointed on the nomination of prescribed hunting organisations; a person appointed on the nomination of the State Council of Rural Lands Protection Boards; a person appointed on the nomination of prescribed Landcare organisations; two persons who are wildlife management scientists; a person appointed on the nomination of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council; a person appointed on the nomination of the Minister administering the Forestry Act; a person appointed on the nomination of the Minister administering the Crown Lands Act; and a person appointed on the nomination of the Minister administering the proposed Act. All in all, a good cross-section of people will be appointed to the Game Council. If we later consider that the Game Council is lacking in a certain area, we might support an amendment to the council at some stage further down the track. I note also that the regulation will be subject to review in five years.

As I have said, the Coalition supports the bill. However, we will be seeking certain amendments to it in the upper House. I hope that honourable members of that place will give those amendments due consideration. Whilst some individuals and organisations are against this bill, and specifically against the Game Council because they are concerned with the cost of running the council and believe that the present legislation is working reasonably well, most believe that they can work and shoot within the regulations of the new Game Bill. The Opposition will support the bill but will seek to amend it in the other place.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr McManus.