Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 7 May 2002, Corrected Copy)

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Mr Speaker tabled, pursuant to the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, the report entitled "Complaint by Student A and His Father Against the Hon. John Aquilina, MP, Mr Walt Secord and Mr Patrick Low", dated 7 May 2002.

Ordered to be printed.

Assent to the following bills reported:

Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Drug Addiction) Bill
Courts Legislation Amendment Bill
Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill
First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill
Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill
Road Transport (General) Amendment (Operator Onus Offences) Bill

Mr Debus tabled the report entitled "Report by the NSW State Coroner into Deaths in Custody/Police Operations 2001".

Mr Aquilina tabled variations of the receipts and payments estimates and appropriations for 2001-2002, under section 26 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, arising from the provision by the Commonwealth of specific purpose payments in excess of the amounts included in the State’s receipts and payments estimates.

Mr Aquilina tabled variations of the payments estimates and appropriations for 2001-2202, in terms of section 24 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, flowing from the transfer of functions between the Attorney General’s Department and Treasury (Office of State Revenue).

Mr Speaker announced, pursuant to section 31AA of the Ombudsman Act 1974, the receipt of the report entitled "DOCS—Critical Issues: Concerns Arising From Investigations into the Department of Community Services", dated April 2002.

Ordered to be printed.

The Clerk announced, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the receipt of the following Performance Audit Reports:

State Debt Recovery Office—Collecting Outstanding Fines and Penalties, dated April 2002
Roads and Traffic Authority—Managing Environmental Issues, dated April 2002

Petitions asking that the House join with the Federal Government in lobbying the Government of France to stop development of land occupied by Commonwealth War Cemeteries containing Australian war graves, received from Ms Meagher and Mr O'Farrell.

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

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

Petitions praying that the House retain the existing exemptions applying to religious bodies in the Anti-Discrimination Act, received from Mr Brown, Mrs Chikarovski, Mr Cull, Mr George, Mr Gibson and Mr Tink.

Petition asking the House to amend legislation in relation to the regulations governing the burning off of hazardous material, received from Dr Kernohan.

Petition asking that the National Parks and Wildlife Service be directed to redress the injustice suffered by the Bacic family and to ensure that future prosecutions under the National Parks and Wildlife Act are properly and responsibly based, received from Mr Rozzoli.

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 seeking reversal of the decision by Sydney Ferries to stop JetCat services to Manly at 7.00 p.m., received from Mr Barr.

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

Petition praying that pedestrian traffic signals be installed at Raleigh Plaza on Miller Street, Cammeray, and that the 1997 traffic study be implemented, received from Mr Collins.

Petition asking that Oallen Ford Road, a major thoroughfare between the Hume Highway at Marulan and the M92 already under construction, be upgraded, received from Mrs Hodgkinson.

Petition asking that the Tumbarumba to Jingellic section of State Road 85 be sealed, received from Mr Maguire.
Petition praying that the Government review the design of the ventilation system for the M5 East tunnel and immediately install filtration equipment to treat particulate matter and other pollutants, received from Mr J. H. Turner.

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

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

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

Petition praying that Queenscliff be reinstated as a suburb by the Geographical Names Board, received from Mr Barr.

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

Petition asking that airconditioning be installed in all demountable classrooms at Currans Hill Public School, received from Dr Kernohan.

Petition asking the House to review current limited police presence and availability in Ardlethan, Riverina, received from Mr Armstrong.

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

Petition requesting increased police numbers at Casino and that the police station be manned 24 hours per day, received from Mr George.

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

Petition asking that any move to scale back or close Wentworthville Police Station be opposed, received from Mr Tink.

Petition asking that a police officer be appointed to frequently patrol rural areas of the Monaro and surrounding regions, received from Mr Webb.
Mr BROGDEN: My question without notice is to the Premier. How does the Premier justify his position in publicly endorsing Ken Moroney for the position of Commissioner of Police when he has responsibility for ensuring the process is independent of government? Is the Premier, as the Director of Public Prosecutions said this morning, potentially corrupting the process?

Mr CARR: A remarkable question! The appointment of the Commissioner of Police by the Government is independent of government? I have news for the inexperienced Leader of the Opposition. The Government appoints the Commissioner of Police. Who else appoints him—the Vatican, the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Mr Knowles: The Dalai Lama?

Mr CARR: Or the Dalai Lama?

Mr Knowles: The Grand Lodge Master?

Mr CARR: Or the Grand Caliph? No. We are the Government of New South Wales and—surprise, surprise—the Government appoints the Commissioner of Police. That has always been the case.

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

Mr CARR: What a remarkable proposition! In fact it is totally contradicted by his shadow Minister. Let me quote what the shadow Minister for Police said on 20 April when he was asked about this. He said:

I don't think it’s a big deal. They're not saying—

that is me and the Minister for Police—

that Mr Moroney will be the next police Commissioner.

Mr Souris: He is not in charge of appointing him. You are.

Mr CARR: That is what the shadow Minister is saying. When asked about this very matter on 20 April by a reporter from the Australian the shadow Minister for Police said:

I don't think it’s a big deal. They're not saying that Mr Moroney will be the next police Commissioner. Given the recent events they would want to be giving the impression that they are prepared to work with the new Commissioner and until then the acting Commissioner.

I could not have put it better myself.

Mr COLLIER: My question without notice is to the Premier. What is the latest information on public liability in New South Wales?

Mr CARR: Today I released the Government's draft Civil Liability Bill. This bill will implement stage one of the tort law reforms I announced on 20 March. The bill tightens controls on the calculation of damages. It fixes the maximum amount of damages for pain and suffering and for loss of earnings. It prohibits the award of interest on damages for non-economic loss. It provides for the reduction of damages for economic loss to better take into account the uncertainties of life. It prescribes a more realistic rate for damages and prohibits the courts from awarding exemplary or punitive damages.

Mr Tink: Point of order: The Premier is clearly making a ministerial statement. He is talking about what the Government will do. He is anticipating Government policy. He is making a ministerial statement and it should be done as a ministerial statement so that we have the opportunity to respond.

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

Mr CARR: The only members of the Opposition who are smiling are the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai and the honourable member for Baulkham Hills. They have all gone glum. The shadow Minister for Police should let the Leader of the Opposition know, before his leader asks those questions, that they are contradicted by what the shadow Minister said.

Mr Tink: Point of order: The Premier does not understand that support for the Acting Commissioner of Police in his present job should not be confused with endorsement of him for the job of Commissioner of Police. That is the difference. That is why what I said is okay, and what the Premier says is corrupt.

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

Mr CARR: As my old friend Golda Meir used to say, "If you've got to explain, you've lost already." The bill introduces greater consistency across all categories of damages for personal injury. The bill also imposes additional requirements on lawyers to ensure they are punished if they encourage unmeritorious claims. The bill prohibits barristers and solicitors from providing legal services to a plaintiff if they have no reasonable grounds for believing that the claim could succeed. A breach of this prohibition could constitute professional misconduct. Plaintiffs' lawyers will be required to certify that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the claims could succeed before they lodge the claims.

The bill also limits the costs plaintiffs' lawyers are allowed to charge for smaller claims. This will stop over-servicing on small claims. It will prevent legal costs forming such a large proportion of small claims and driving up insurance costs. The Government recognises the importance of achieving as much national consistency in this area as possible. Today I wrote to my counterparts in all other States, the Territories and the Commonwealth. I have sent each of them a copy of the Government's bill. I have encouraged them to adopt as much of the bill as is relevant to their jurisdictions.

The Treasurer will also distribute the Government's bill through the consultation process arising from the forum held on 27 March and endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments. A number of stakeholders have already made important contributions to the development of Government policy. They include the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Chief Judge of the District Court, the Law Society, the Bar Association, the Insurance Council of Australia and the Local Government and Shires Association. We have sent them each a copy of the Government's bill. The Government will introduce the bill, taking any comments into account, in the next sitting week.

As I said last week, the reforms in the bill will apply from 20 March—the day I announced this package in the Chamber. I warned the ambulance-chasing lawyers not to go around bustling to get people to sue, in some imagined window of opportunity, between the announcement and the enactment of the legislation. I warn them again that they will be wasting their time. Go to the New South Wales Government homepage and read the bill. They will see that these reforms apply to all claims commenced on or after 20 March. The Government's bill is only stage one of our tort law reform program. As I announced on 20 March, we will be pursuing broad-ranging reforms to the law of negligence in the next session.

Mr Hartcher: Point of order: Mr Speaker, rulings from the Chair, and your own rulings earlier, indicate that announcements that are predicated on future Government initiatives and future Government legislative response to problems are ministerial statements. They are your rulings. I would ask, in the interests of consistency from the Chair, that you rule the answer given thus far by the Premier to be a ministerial statement, and therefore capable of attracting an appropriate response under the standing orders.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford has selective amnesia about my earlier rulings. There is no point of order.

Mr CARR: The Government's bill is only stage one of our tort law reform program. As I announced on 20 March, we will be pursuing broad-ranging reforms to the law of negligence in the next session. Every day we are seeing further evidence of the law being distorted. We have got far-fetched claims against schools, government and non-government. People are being invited to go back and sue the school system—sometimes years after the event—for anything that went wrong while they were at school.

As I said last week, all of us could think of things that were deficient in our schooling. But we cannot unravel the past—least of all with cash payments. We are also seeing serious problems in health care, with medical negligence claims apparently one of the causes of the collapse of UMP. As a community, we cannot allow unrealistic judgments and huge-quantity payouts to undermine health services that we need today. So the Government will be pursuing a principled approach to restore sense and balance in litigation, in the law of negligence in particular. We need broad and sensible principles that will apply across the full range of claims.

I draw the attention of honourable members to a speech on the law of negligence given by the Chief Justice of New South Wales on 27 April. The speech is available on the Supreme Court web site. The Chief Justice points to a number of problems in the law of negligence. The Attorney General has had discussions with the Chief Justice about these problems, which we will address in stage two of our reform package. The Chief Justice points to the 1967 decision of the Privy Council in a New South Wales case as the most likely "single point of departure for the imperial march of the tort of negligence". This decision, arising from an oil spillage in Mort Bay, has been followed by Australian courts and has caused many problems. The Privy Council's decision has been used to suggest that only the most far-fetched risks could be disregarded. This has led to very remote risks being held sufficient to establish a duty of care.

Whatever the words used by the courts, the reality is that it is no longer enough to avoid reasonably foreseen risks. Now, we are all expected to avoid every conceivable risk, no matter how unlikely the risk really is. If we could have avoided the incident that actually occurred without too much expense, the law requires us to do so. It is no excuse that the incident was incredibly unlikely. It does not matter that it would have cost a fortune to avoid a thousand other conceivable but equally unlikely incidents that might have occurred. This whole drift in the law—the invitation of judges to act as Santa Clauses, the invitation to lawyers, that noble profession, to act as ambulance-chasers, and the invitation to clients to throw money on the roulette wheel, as it were—is unsustainable. We cannot allow the law to judge an incident with the benefit of hindsight, ignoring likelihood and ignoring probability. This is a problem for local government. We will address this in stage two of our reforms.

A number of others will be included in stage two. We will ensure that risk warnings can operate as a good defence for risky entertainment or sporting activities. A risk warning is enough to establish a credible defence. If people choose to participate in dangerous activities for fun, they should do so at their own risk. They should not expect the rest of the community to pick up the tab when the obvious danger leads to injury. We will address the test for professional negligence, including medical negligence. It should not be sufficient for a plaintiff to show that there was some other possible way the procedure could have been performed that might not have caused the plaintiff's injury. Rather, if the doctor or other professional acted reasonably in the circumstances, then the plaintiff must fail.

Stage two of the reforms will also ensure that public authorities have a good defence to a negligence claim if they comply with standards set for the particular activity. Stage two will include special protections for good Samaritans. Stage two will also stop people claiming special consideration because they were drunk when they were injured. It will stop people suing for injuries they sustained while committing a crime. We will also address structured settlements and a wider range of options for damages awards.

The stage one reforms extend the health care liability provisions for structured settlements to all personal injury cases. We will expand on this in the stage two reforms. The Commonwealth has promised to fix its tax laws so that they no longer penalise structured settlements. New South Wales will continue to push for this change to be introduced as quickly as possible so that Commonwealth laws will not undermine our reforms in this area. This bill will introduce important tort law reform. It complements what the Government has already done in restricting lawyers' advertising. It builds on the Government's work with the insurance industry and other jurisdictions to find solutions for people affected by the public liability crisis. I look forward to introducing the bill in the next sitting week. I look forward to introducing stage two of the Government's reform program in the next session.

Mr Debnam: Too late!

Mr CARR: You are an idiot. You were quoted in the paper yesterday as saying the legislation would not be seen till June.

Mr Debnam: Too late for small business and too late for the community.

Mr CARR: We are ahead of every other jurisdiction in Australia. What a pathetic performance by someone who purports to be the shadow Treasurer. He makes the former member for Hornsby look a dynamo. I repeat: I look forward to introducing stage two of the Government's reform program in the next session.

Mr SOURIS: My question is directed to the Premier. Why did the Premier refuse to meet farmers at last Tuesday's Cabinet meeting at Evans Head and instead sneak into the meeting place by a side entrance when they sought to inform him of the extent of their concerns about his anti-farming legislation, which threatens the whole community?

Mr CARR: What a ridiculous question! In the first place, I entered by the front door of the school. In the second place, the Minister for Agriculture had a meeting with the farmers.

Mr Souris: Why did you not meet them?

Mr CARR: I understand the Minister for Agriculture did, and they did not convey that wish to me. The little stunt of the Leader of the National Party failed to dampen the spirits of the entire Evans Head community, delighted as they were with the Cabinet of the Government of New South Wales meeting in their community and choosing to meet in their brand new community school. Was that not a great initiative when Cabinet goes to rural New South Wales? As we did at Dubbo, we met at Evans Head in the splendid school that we gave them. We built the school at Dubbo. We built it; it was constructed as a result of our initiative, but now the Opposition wants to rewrite history.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to order. I call the honourable member for Barwon to order.

Mr CARR: I have to say that the only person who is being grumpy about that community consultation, which is what the Evans Head Cabinet meeting was, is the Leader of the National Party.

Mr McMANUS: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. What is the latest information on the issue of medical indemnity?

Mr KNOWLES: I thank the honourable member for his question. I advise the House that yesterday I met with Mr David Lombe, the provisional liquidator for United Medical Protection [UMP] and its insurance arm, AMIL. The purpose of the meeting was to obtain a sense of the options that the liquidator may have in dealing with obviously complex issues. The purpose of meeting with the liquidator of Australia's biggest medical insurance company—which I would have thought would be matter of some importance to the House—was to discover, if possible, what the liquidator intended to do with a complex range of issues. It is fair to say, and he would agree, that time is not on his side. The Commonwealth Government's last-minute undertakings to the medical profession run out on 30 June. Certainly, if stability has not been restored by then, it is fair to say that the medical profession will inevitably move down the path of chaos.

There are a number of fundamental issues. I was advised yesterday that the liquidator is required to maximise assets and minimise the liabilities of United Medical Protection and there is a need for him to consider whether to establish a further call on UMP's membership to increase revenues. Of course, that would mean increasing doctors' premiums. I want to be very clear. Yesterday I advised the liquidator that if that were to occur, it would almost certainly lead to doctors walking away from their profession, especially those in the upper end of the risk categories. In simple terms, many doctors are presently paying unaffordable premiums following a call by UMP a little over a year ago. A further increase by way of a second call is simply and frankly unsustainable. Equally, if the liquidator seeks to minimise liabilities—that is, cut down on the payouts they make by not paying claims covered by UMP's discretionary arrangements as distinct from insurance policies issued by AMIL—the doctors who are the subject of those claims will be left highly exposed.

Mrs Skinner: Point of order: This is a very serious issue, and this is a ministerial statement. I believe that it is appropriate for the Opposition to have an opportunity to place on the record its position in relation to this matter and to particularly draw attention to the fact that this Minister told doctors in March that he knew that UMP was insolvent.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Mrs Skinner: He thought of pulling the plug in February but did not, because of obvious political ramifications. This Minister is avoiding that question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for North Shore will resume her seat.

Mr KNOWLES: The Opposition wants to place its position on the record. Members opposite have not been heard of for the past three weeks while this has been going on. Again I make the point that if the liquidators issue a call—that is, increase premiums—doctors will walk. If the liquidators also seek to minimise liability to the creditors by not paying claims for compensation under the discretionary component of UMP's portfolio, equally doctors will be left very exposed. Yesterday I spoke to a western Sydney surgeon who is considering the transfer of his assets to his wife—that is, removing all of his assets away from himself to somebody else. That occurs in America, and I think that it would be a tragedy if the Australian medical profession went the same way.

The other fundamental issue is the matter referred to as the tail—the historic liability for occurrences that have not yet become reported claims. They are commonly known in the industry as incidents but not reported [IBNR]. Inevitably in this matter, the Commonwealth Government will most certainly need to intervene. When the liquidators determine the amount of the IBNR exposure, they will know the size of the problem. But the practical effect of an indemnity provider being unable to cover the liability tail means that doctors must work with the uncertainty of claims being made against them for their past work in private hospitals. Of course, unless someone picks up the tail, those doctors will remain entirely exposed. I remind the House that the New South Wales Government picked up the tail—the past, present and future liabilities for a doctor's public work in the public system—just before Christmas.

None of the other medical defence organisations [MDOs] that are currently seeking to pick up business as a result of the collapse of UMP are offering full and comprehensive cover for the tail. Although I am aware of discussions with some MDOs that are offering very limited coverage of the tail back to 1 January 2001. Given the uncertainty associated with potential claims which in some cases possibly extend back 20 years—for example, in obstetrics—the vast majority of MDOs will be unwilling, for obvious and necessary prudential reasons, to take on that part of the business. Or, alternatively, they will have to price their products to a level that they will be unaffordable and unacceptable for the medical profession. That leaves doctors very exposed and very nervous. It is the reason why many organisations have been calling for the Commonwealth Government to work with the liquidator and other organisations to keep the existing structure of UMP intact and to take it through the transition from a discretionary mutual organisation to a properly controlled and prudentially regulated entity.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will remain silent.

Mr KNOWLES: By all means it is essential to reform the management and to do whatever is necessary to ensure that there is stability and continuity beyond 30 June because, for the 32,000 doctors who are insured with United Medical Protection, there are currently few alternatives. Also, it would be dangerous to allow the health system of this country to take the route of allowing smaller medical indemnity organisations to cherry pick the lower end of the risk category specialties, for example, by offering lower priced premium packages for non-procedural general practitioners or low-risk doctors. While it may be good for business and good for the low-risk specialties, it would leave high-risk specialties, such as neurosurgery, obstetrics, orthopaedics and now vascular surgery it would seem, in very exposed circumstances, and they will be more exposed in the future than they are presently. While we in this State have regulations in place designed to discourage that kind of commercial conduct, this is a national issue and must be monitored carefully. The liquidator and the Commonwealth Government must watch the issue very carefully.

If the Commonwealth fails to act beyond 30 June, it will mean more of what we saw last week. Doctors will either refuse to work in the private system, where they will be exposed to possible claims, or doctors will transfer their work to the public system, where they are covered in this State. Either situation is unacceptable. Loading up the public system from the private sector because doctors are not confident of getting coverage in the private area makes an absolute mockery of the Prime Minister's efforts to build a private health insurance system. Approximately $2.5 billion of taxpayers' money has been spent on a private health insurance system. Statistics show that 46 per cent of people carry private health insurance.

We now have to ask the question: If we carry private health insurance to use in the private health system and doctors are unable, because they cannot get coverage, to work in the private health system, what is the point in having private health insurance in the first place? What is the point of $2.5 billion of taxpayers' money going into health insurance company coffers to prop up the private health sector when doctors are unable to work in that sector? This policy dysfunction at a national level needs to be addressed. Yesterday I undertook to give all assistance possible at a State level to the liquidator. As I said earlier, the liquidator has a tough job and a short time within which to do that job. Inevitably he will require further support from the Commonwealth Government beyond 30 June.

If there is a further call on doctors, if the tail is not covered and if the reinsurers of United Medical Protection choose, because of the appointment of a liquidator, not to renew their insurance or indeed withdraw it, the problems that we saw last week with doctors downing tools in the private sector will again occur. It occurred right across the State—it was not a political push; doctors were just very anxious about whether they were covered. If those matters are not addressed in triple quick time and without a plan beyond 30 June, what we saw last week will be minuscule in comparison to what will happen from 1 July.

Mr BROGDEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, the former Minister for Education and Training. In view of the revelations in the Privacy Commissioner's report, which was tabled today, which prove that the Minister's actions breached the privacy of the student at Cecil Hills High School last year, will he now apologise unreservedly to the student and resign from the ministry?

Mr AQUILINA: I reiterate an apology which I made in this place on 29 May last year in which I said, among other things, the following:

I wish to apologise to the student and his family on my own behalf and on behalf of the Government for any distress caused by the release of incorrect information contained in my statement.

That apology was in addition to a number of separate apologies, both public and private, about these events. On my behalf and on behalf of the Government I once again apologise to the student and his family. I regret any hurt that the incident has caused the student concerned and his family. I have made apologies as follows: On 20 April last year a public apology when I was in London; on 3 May last year a public apology by way of media statement and press conference; on 7 May last year a public apology by written statement to the student and his family; on 29 May last year a public apology in this Parliament; on 23 August last year a personal apology and a visit to the family by me; and on 18 October last year a personal apology during a conciliation meeting with the student and his father.

It needs to be noted that the Independent Commission Against Corruption has already investigated this matter and issued a report in August last year. The Independent Commission Against Corruption made no findings that any person engaged in corrupt conduct in relation to this matter. I acted at the time in a way that I thought was right, based on information I received from my senior media adviser, which I believed at the time to be correct. The Independent Commission Against Corruption found that I was entitled to rely on the information I received. On the Crown Solicitor's advice, the New South Wales Government rejects the conclusion that the State Government impinged on the student's privacy or breached privacy guidelines.

At no time did the Government or a member of ministerial staff name the school or the student either on the record or at off the record briefings. The Government rejects the assertion that the student was constructively identified. The Crown Solicitor, in advice to the Privacy Commissioner, advised that he had "insufficient basis to conclude that the Minister had violated or interfered with the privacy of the student by merely referring to a 16-year-old male removed from a New South Wales high school". In fact, the Privacy Commissioner, on page 31 of the report, acknowledges:

There is no evidence that Mr Aquilina, Mr Secord or Mr Low provided the name of the school to the media.

In January 2002 the Deputy Director-General, Dr Alan Lachlan, announced changes to the reporting of serious incidents, including streamlining the decision-making on which reports would be sent to the State office from the various districts. The director-general of the Premier's Department indicated that he would give due consideration to providing information or facilitating training for ministerial staff on the issue of privacy. The State Government rejects the Privacy Commissioner's recommendation that he be given more power and that he should be able to investigate third party complaints. In conclusion, I also ask that members of the media respect the Privacy Commissioner's request that they restrain from directing further attention to the student and his family.

Mr GIBSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. What is the latest information on Windsor Road?

Mr SCULLY: I am happy to oblige the honourable member for Blacktown by updating the House on the upgrading of Windsor Road. Honourable members would be aware that, just over a year ago, the Premier, on behalf of the Government, committed $323 million to upgrade Windsor Road. I would like to report on the progress. A year into this five-year commitment we have finished a quarter of the work. Approximately $74 million worth of projects have been completed or are under construction. Planning has started on much of the remaining sections of Windsor Road—projects worth $249 million. I am happy to inform the House that by 30 June this year the Government will have spent about $45 million.

I know that the Minister for Land and Water Conservation was pleased to hear—I told him a short while ago—that I have approved additional expenditure in the coming financial year to take that up to $56 million for the old Windsor Road corridor. We are getting on with the job. On 26 March the Minister for Land and Water Conservation opened the recently completed 2½ kilometre section of dual carriageway on old Windsor Road between Sunnyholt Road and the Windsor Road intersection at Merrivale Road. Let me put that into context. How do the comments of members of the Opposition fit in with their record and the record of this Government? I think the House should be aware of that. The honourable member for Baulkham Hills said in the Sunday Telegraph of 7 January:

Its roadworks on the drip-feed and $200 million over 10 years is simply inadequate.

What was the record of the former Coalition Government? In one year we spent on one project roughly three times what the former Coalition Government spent in its last three years in office.

Mr Merton: Point of order: The Minister is misleading this Chamber. The money for the upgrade of Windsor Road is coming from the developers of the north-west sector who are paying $35,000 per hectare for land. The money is not coming from this Government.

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

Mr SCULLY: John Fahey obviously had the same problem. Where do you start and finish with the honourable member for Baulkham Hills? No wonder the Leader of the Opposition got rid of him. The notion that $323 million is being raised by developer contributions is absolute and unadulterated garbage. The honourable member for Baulkham Hills believes that I am misleading the House, but he has just told the biggest porky I have heard in a long time. Yes, the developers are making a contribution, but it is only a very small contribution; it is not even a minor percentage—

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

Mr SCULLY: When the whole of the north-west is developed, it is probably in the order of about $70 million, if we are lucky—and that does not take into account the extra money we are spending on the transitway in the north-west, which, as the honourable member for Blacktown knows, will add up to about $600 million. So do not let the honourable member for Baulkham Hills tell us that $70 million is paying for a $600 million development.

The honourable member for Baulkham Hills tells us that the $200 million commitment we made before the last election was chickenfeed, that it was inadequate, that it was appallingly low. So I checked the records. What did the former Coalition Government spend on capital works along Windsor Road in 1993? Nothing; not a cent! What did it spend on capital works in 1994? Nothing! What did it spend on Old Windsor Road traffic management in 1992? Nothing! What did the former Coalition Government spend on Old Windsor Road maintenance in 1992? It spent $1,500.

As members will be aware, the budget papers show three noughts at the top. I thought, "It has to be $1.5 million," but no, it was $1,500. It is insulting. Local members on the other side of the House released thousands of home sites. One wonders how this could have happened. There are three possible explanations. They had Tony Packard, with all his problems, so that explains that seat. Then they had Michael Richardson. Enough said. Then there is the honourable member for Baulkham Hills, who has spent all his time running his legal practice, apart from the nine months he spent in Cabinet. Then there is Kevin Rozzoli, who has lived in Bowral for the last 20 years and would not know Windsor Road if you gave him a Gregory's street directory.

We rebut the Coalition's claim that we have not done the right thing by the people along the Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road corridor. We are spending more funding on one project in one year than the former Coalition Government spent on all of its projects in three years. We are getting on with the job. The recently opened Sunnyholt Road to Windsor Road section features new traffic signals at Windsor and Old Windsor roads, divided carriageways, and a higher road surface to prevent flooding. I would be happy to take the honourable member for Hawkesbury on a tour of Windsor Road in his electorate, to demonstrate all the things we are doing.

[Interruption]

Where is he? He is still in the Southern Highlands. I am told he loves the M5 East. When he departs this place on a Thursday afternoon, it cuts 20 minutes off the journey to his home in Bowral. The Old Windsor Road upgrade will improve traffic flows and safety, particularly during peak periods. Work is under way on the Old Windsor Road and Seven Hills Road intersection, and on the Merriville Road to Schofields Road section of Windsor Road. Work is also under way on the Henry Road to Curtis Road section of Windsor Road. Planning is well advanced on another 15 kilometres of upgrades. We have started even more work. Road pavement construction and intersection upgrade work started on 10 April on the next major project, a $10 million construction of a new northern carriageway between Norbrik and Celebration Drive on Old Windsor Road. This means that the entire length of Old Windsor Road will be four lanes by the end of this year. I think that is a terrific achievement.

The honourable member for Londonderry, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, and Minister for Fair Trading, and the honourable member for Blacktown have strongly advocated the need to not let the Coalition get away with the appalling planning decision it made when in government to simply draw a big circle on a map of the north-west and release it for housing, without due regard to the transport infrastructure that needs to be put in place to ensure that people have a good quality of life and are able get to work and get their kids to school safely. We are doing it right—unlike the former Coalition Government. One project has been completed, another project is under way, another contract has been awarded, tenders are open on yet another project, and the transitway planning is well under way. We are doing for the north-west and for Liberal Party constituents what the Coalition parties could not do when they were in government.

Mr R. H. L. SMITH: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Will the Premier now apologise to the 17-year-old cadet journalist from the Eurobodalla Sun newspaper for allowing his office to falsely accuse the cadet journalist of making up a statement by the Premier that the Mogo charcoal plant was "going ahead—end of story", when evidence of a statutory declaration and a witness shows that the Premier did make such a statement?

Mr CARR: No.

Mr HICKEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. What is the Government's response to a Federal Government proposal to shift funding for exceptional circumstances onto the State and Territory governments?

Mr AMERY: Last week a ministerial council meeting of Agriculture Ministers from around Australia was held in Hobart and chaired by the Federal Minister for Agriculture. Country Labor should take note of the fact that the agenda included issues such as exceptional circumstances, our preparation for foot and mouth disease, a progress report on ovine Johne's disease, and egg industry labelling. If Country Labor has any idea about talking to rural media and rural communities about the priorities of the National Party, particularly the National Party leader, it may be interested to know that the question of which gate the Premier went through when he attended the last Cabinet meeting was not on the agenda of the primary industry Ministers conference held in Hobart last week. So much for the priorities of the National Party and the issues that are confronting rural New South Wales.

An issue that is confronting rural New South Wales is the exceptional circumstances program —or perhaps, as far as this State is concerned, the lack of success in having any of our events declared by the Federal Government as exceptional events. The Exceptional Circumstances program aims to provide financial support to primary producers who have experienced serious and sustained impact on the viability of their farming enterprise as a result of an exceptional event, such as sustained drought, severe flooding or severe bushfires, such as those that occurred in the Crookwell area a couple of years ago.

Primary producers in New South Wales have experienced several exceptional events in recent times, the most severe being the Newcastle disease outbreak at Mangrove Mountain in 1999. Applications by those primary producers for exceptional circumstances assistance were rejected by the Federal authorities after an extremely protracted delay—and, I might say, after the local community was encouraged by various Federal Ministers to lodge applications for exceptional circumstances assistance. The New South Wales Government has argued for reforms to the exceptional circumstances package to eliminate such a state of affairs recurring in the future. A working party has been developing proposed reforms that would improve the package significantly. However, the Commonwealth Government has also proposed that the States be required to pay more for the important business support part of the program. This provides a subsidy of some 80 per cent on borrowings.

The Federal Minister for Agriculture has demanded that the States' contribution increase from 10 per cent to 50 per cent overnight. Like several of the other States, New South Wales is strongly opposed to the Federal Government's plans. As I said, the issue was raised at the ministerial council meeting in Hobart last week. The Federal Minister made it extremely clear at that meeting that there would be no negotiation from the Commonwealth on the issue and that he would be writing to State Treasuries to get an increased contribution from the States. As I said to the meeting last week, now is hardly the time for the Federal Government to try to squeeze more funding from the various State governments.

This follows the recent news that the Federal Minister wanted more co-operation from the States and more money, and the other recent news that New South Wales will pay an estimated 37.6 per cent of national GST collected by the Commonwealth but that Canberra will hand back only 30.5 per cent of the GST revenue. On those figures we will be handing over $2,556 million by way of subsidy to the other States. In addition, the Commonwealth announced in March that grants to the States would be cut by $166 million next year—with New South Wales' cut being something like $55 million. As I say, it is hardly the time for the Federal Government to seek co-operation from New South Wales and also expect an increase in funding for the Exceptional Circumstances program.

After ripping millions in funding from all the States, the Commonwealth has the nerve to send Agriculture Minister Warren Truss to the Primary Industry Ministerial Council meeting with no authority to negotiate an outcome with the States on exceptional circumstances [EC] funding—just a demand to increase our funding. This is particularly disappointing, given that a number of workable reforms are on the table that could make the EC program far more acceptable for everyone. These reforms include shorter processing times of applications, buffer zones to ensure that no deserving primary producers are left out, and a greater emphasis on consultation. In any event, the interest rate subsidy is scheduled for a review in the coming months. This means that any decisions on EC funding would be premature.

The Commonwealth's position on EC is completely at variance with the working group's recommendations. Honourable members may be aware that a similar recent approach by the Commonwealth to National Heritage Trust funding has also been vigorously opposed by the States. It is time that the Commonwealth ceased abrogating responsibility for such programs to the States and used some of the windfall gains from its taxation regime to assist rural and regional areas in times of severe hardship. I thank the honourable member and Country Labor for their interest in this program. I call on the Federal Government to give rural communities a better shake when assessing these applications in the future.

Mr TINK: My question is directed to the Premier. How does he explain that 30 per cent of the officers featured on the most recently published Police Service resignation list are probationary constables with less than one year's experience?

Mr CARR: I will seek advice and report to the House.

Mr TINK: I ask a supplementary question. When will the Government provide adequate support and supervision to ensure that these most junior police officers stay in the service?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a supplementary question.
Mr BLACK: My question without notice is to the Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs. What is the latest information on State Government assistance to create jobs in Macksville, Batemans Bay and the Riverina?

Mr WOODS: The New South Wales Government is working hard with regional businesses right across New South Wales to help them to expand. Under our range of programs, including the regional business development scheme, we have been able to support many new business ventures across the State and we have been able to help existing businesses to expand. I want to inform the House of three new projects that we have been pleased to support.

The first is Ultimate Off Road Campers in Batemans Bay. There was a real chance that this company would relocate to Queensland, but with the assistance of the regional economic transition scheme the company has invested $1 million in the Eurobodalla region. Currently, Ultimate Off Road Campers employs 24 people, building high-quality trailers complete with lounge, king size bed, wine racks and refrigerator. It is building two of these trailers each week. There is a six-month backlog and the company is confident that it will have to increase its work force to 70 by 2005. That will create 50 new full-time jobs. The company has outgrown its current factory and has leased a second site nearby.

Another company we have assisted is Swanbank Joinery, which is now called Glen Gray Furniture Company. It produces prestigious redgum furniture. In 2001 the company relocated from Edenhope in Victoria to Barham, west of Deniliquin, and it is now part of the Bonum Sawmill. This has meant local jobs for Barham, which has a population of under 1,000 people. In a smaller venture we have provided assistance to a dental products company in its relocation to Macksville in the Nambucca region. The move is creating seven new jobs in Macksville. Erskine Dental has developed its own range of goods for distribution in Australia and is currently seeking export markets into the United States.

Finally, I would like to update the House on a project I related to the House in 2000. At that time the Minister for Mineral Resources officially signed the lease for a new multimillion-dollar tin mine in the Riverina town of Ardlethan. The company is now expanding the Ardlethan tin project by 140 per cent of its original design capacity. This will mean increased employment in a township of 400. Currently 26 people are employed on the site, and a further 20 are engaged in construction. The tin is exported to Malaysia. It is a great result for Marlborough and the people of Ardlethan.

Questions without notice concluded.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville—Deputy Premier, Minister for Planning, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for Housing) [3.26 p.m.]: Today I am pleased to inform honourable members that Parliament House has been officially added to the State Heritage Register. As I have said before, our Parliament House is rich in history and is a heritage icon. While we inherited our parliamentary system from England, New South Wales was a trailblazer in the democratic traditions we take for granted. We had universal manhood suffrage in New South Wales in 1858. This was not granted in England until 1914. The secret ballot was also introduced in 1858, while voters in England had to wait until 1872.

Women have enjoyed the right to vote in New South Wales since 1902, but women in England had to wait until 1918. However, it was not until 1925 that the first woman was elected to the Legislative Assembly. Millicent Preston-Stanley, whose portrait we see in this building, was a strong feminist who campaigned on issues such as women's mortality in childbirth, child welfare, care for the mentally ill and custody rights in divorce. The first two women were appointed to the Legislative Council in 1931. Catherine Green and Ellen Webster were both Labor representatives at the time of the Lang Government.

Members of the New South Wales Parliament served their country with bravery and distinction in both world wars. Two members gave their lives at Gallipoli in 1915—Sergeant Edward Larkin, the Labor member for Willoughby, and Lieutenant-Colonel George Braund, the Liberal member for Armidale. During World War II, more than 100 members and future members served in the armed forces. Our Parliament House has witnessed the likes of key political figures such as Sir Henry Parkes, Jack Lang, Sir William McKell, Neville Wran and now the ascendancy of the Carr Government. We have a wonderful building in which to serve the people of New South Wales. Today we can celebrate our parliamentary history and this important addition to the State Heritage Register. I am pleased to advise the House that this listing brings the number of items on the State Heritage Register to 1,615. 1 conclude by thanking the presiding officers, the Hon. John Murray, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, and the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann, the President of the Legislative Council, for their support and assistance with this historic listing.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [3.29 p.m.]: The Opposition is pleased to give its bipartisan support for the addition of Parliament House to the State Heritage Register. As the Minister said in March, that is important to the history of this State. This building has seen a great deal: it housed the first Parliament in Australia. And the New South Wales Parliament is the longest continuously operating Westminster-style Parliament on the planet. In fact, the building is also significant—the Minister may not know this—to Aboriginal Australians because it was the first building in Australia to be dedicated as a parliament.

As many members may know, the history of this Parliament goes back to 1812. The first section of this building was constructed between 1812 and 1816 but not for parliamentary purposes. The building was not used for parliamentary purposes until 1829, when the first Legislative Council met in a room just off this Chamber. The Legislative Assembly Chamber was built in 1843. In 1856 the Legislative Council moved into a new Chamber at the other end of the building, and since that time New South Wales has had a bicameral parliamentary system. One interesting feature of this Chamber is the royal coat of arms that hangs above the Speaker's chair, which is the result of the Chamber's brief occupation by the Legislative Council. Most lower Houses in the Westminster parliamentary system do not have a coat of arms on display.

The Opposition is keen to support the addition of Parliament House to the State Heritage Register. It acknowledges the manner in which the heritage of the front section of the building has been preserved and maintained. When the new section was added to the rear of the parliamentary precincts, much of the work was done by the Liberal Minister for Environment Control, Jack Beale. The mid to late nineteenth century character of the front of the building has been preserved. One moves through the foyer area into the newer section of the building. The preservation of the building and its rich history are important to the history of this State, and I am pleased that Parliament House has been acknowledged in this manner.

Mr KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Health) [3.31 p.m.]: This week the Director of the New South Wales Centre for Mental Health, Professor Beverley Raphael, was awarded another distinction. The University of Newcastle presented her with an honorary Doctorate of Psychiatry. This latest accolade for Beverley is evidence of the tremendous regard in which she is held by her professional and academic colleagues in Australia and internationally. The people of New South Wales are blessed to have a scholar of Professor Raphael's prodigious capacities. She is one of the leading psychiatric experts in the world today. She is also a great humanitarian who has devoted her life to easing the suffering caused by mental illness.

Beverley is a towering figure who, in my view, ranks with Fred Hollows and Victor Chang as heroic contributors to caring for cruelly afflicted people and alleviating their suffering. Beverley is an Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry with the University of Queensland and holds professorial appointments at the University of Sydney, the University of New South Wales and the University of Newcastle. She is a fellow of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, a fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences of Australia and a fellow of the American College of Psychiatrists.

Professor Raphael was appointed as Director of the Centre for Mental Health in January 1996. She has worked on the world stage from this position with the production of a mental health training manual for the 2000 Olympic Games to equip mental health workers to deal with disasters or terrorism. The manual was adopted and used in America following the events of September 11. She has been a consultant to the World Health Organisation and an invited consultant to the American Government for the National Institute of Mental Health and the American Department of Defence on mental health responses to mass violence.

Throughout her career Beverley Raphael has worked to improve the understanding and care of people with mental health illnesses. She has contributed extensively to mental health research in bereavement, psychological trauma, disasters, child and adolescent mental health, HIV-AIDS, depression, domestic violence and mental health aspects of physical illnesses, including respiratory disease, cancer and stroke. She entered psychiatry in 1964 after five years in general practice. She was the foundation Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Newcastle from 1978 to 1986. She then became the Professor of Psychiatry and Director of Mental Health Services at the Royal Brisbane Hospital in Queensland.

Professor Raphael was awarded an AM in 1984 and a top 10 Australian achievers Australia Day award for her work in 1994. She has delivered numerous orations and keynote addresses to distinguished national and international groups. She has more than 200 scientific publications and has published two books and edited three others. I am sure I speak for the entire community and the Parliament in offering my heartfelt congratulations to Professor Raphael on behalf of the New South Wales Government and all the people of this State.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [3.34 p.m.]: I join with the Minister in congratulating Professor Beverley Raphael on receiving an honorary doctorate from the University of Newcastle. I contacted Professor Raphael in relation to a mental health matter in my electorate; she was most helpful, and I am extremely grateful for that. Professor Raphael has a great deal of academic credibility and a great skill in the field of psychiatry. The only thing I would ask of Professor Raphael is that she co-operate fully with the Legislative Council inquiry into mental health, because to date the material and data provided by her in her capacity as the Director of the Centre for Mental Health has been wanting.

That is probably a reflection of the Government's failure to keep adequate records relating to the shortage of mental health services in this State, and particularly the tremendous shortfall in bed numbers, including non-acute beds for people with psychiatric illnesses. It is probably a reflection also of the Government's failure to provide sufficient resources to meet desperate needs in the community for a range of mental health services in psychiatric hospitals, psychiatric wards, general hospitals and the community sector.

A person of the stature and standing of Professor Raphael would find it difficult not to provide information to such an important committee so that members of this Parliament are able to make some serious and considered recommendations about the way ahead. That would mean that we would no longer hear heartbreaking stories about patients and their families not being able to access treatment, and about mental health patients who are admitted to hospital and then discharged in the middle of the night, sometimes many kilometres from home, without any reference to a family member or support person and usually without the proper support and community-based mental health care they need to survive in the community.

The Coalition congratulates Professor Raphael on her academic achievements. On a personal level, I thank Professor Raphael for her assistance in relation to the constituent matter relating to mental health. Shame on the Government for not providing Professor Raphael with resources to enable her to provide services for those who so desperately need them in New South Wales. I hope Professor Raphael has better luck in being allowed to provide such information to the committee in the future.

Mr WATKINS (Ryde—Minister for Education and Training) [3.37 p.m.]: Yesterday all State schools began a three-week campaign to build on the relationships they forged with the newly independent East Timor some two years ago. Last week the New South Wales Teachers Federation and I issued a joint memorandum inviting schools and TAFE colleges to join in the fundraising campaign, which will continue until 20 May, East Timor's Independence Day. To coincide with independence, we cannot forget the pressing education opportunity needs of the young people. In this context I have re-established as a joint initiative with the New South Wales Teachers Federation the Helping our Neighbour: East Timor Education Fund.

The events leading up to the independence of East Timor have highlighted the desperate need of the East Timorese people. Nowhere is this more apparent than the urgent needs of the education system. During the recent conflict the university was destroyed and extensive damage was done to many primary, secondary and technical schools. Many secondary teachers have departed, leaving the secondary school teaching force seriously depleted. However, progress has been made in reconstructing the education system. Since November the drive to rebuild the education system has been led by Father Filomeno Jacob, the first East Timorese Education Minister, and his successor, the current Minister, Dr Armindo Maia.

Much remains to be done. Many schools are repaired only to a basic level. Many students do not have chairs or desks, and teaching materials are few and far between. In 2000-01 the Department of Education and Training placed two highly skilled English language teachers in Dili. They worked intensively with East Timorese high school English teachers, and they also helped with the establishment of the department of English in the new university. In co-operation with the New South Wales Teachers Federation, three shipping containers of education equipment and a bus for use by the university were delivered to the education authorities in Dili. I take the opportunity today to acknowledge the work of Angelo Gavriolatis from the New South Wales Teachers Federation, who continues to work energetically to improve educational facilities and teacher training in East Timor.

Under the original Helping our Neighbour-East Timor Education Fund, established in October 2000, public schools in New South Wales—with the support of the Teachers Federation and its members, principals, and most importantly the students in our schools—contributed $70,000. The money was directed to the partial refurbishment of an Agricultural High School at Natarbora on the Southern Coast of East Timor. The rebuilding of the school was identified as a priority by the East Timorese. It has now been re-opened.

I must also say that assistance to education in East Timor has been given co-operatively across the whole education community in New South Wales. For instance, the Department of Education and Training, the New South Wales Teachers Federation and the Independent Education Union [IEU] have worked together to deliver education equipment to Dili. Teachers from our government schools and from Catholic schools have worked on secondment for varying periods over the past two years. Their employing authorities and their unions have supported them. The Australian Catholic University donated $5,000 through the Minister's Fund for the new University Library. Hundreds of emergency classroom kits were assembled from Catholic schools. They were delivered by the New South Wales Independent Education Union [IEU] to schools in East Timor. Patrick Lee, from the IEU, the East Timor Project Officer, has been of great assistance in identifying areas requiring assistance from funding sources such as the previous campaign.

This effort is to the very great credit of our educational community. Yesterday's commencement of activity to re-establish the fundraising, in conjunction with the election of an independent government in East Timor, provides a perfect opportunity to build upon the relationships forged in the past two years between school and TAFE communities in New South Wales and the people of East Timor. This activity has the endorsement of the following organisations: the New South Wales Teachers Federation, the Independent Education Union, the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales, the New South Wales Federation of School Community Organisations, the New South Wales Primary Principals Association, the New South Wales Secondary Principals Council, and the New South Wales Student Representative Council. A component of the activity will also include support from the Professional Teachers Council for teachers in East Timor. The precise application of funds raised will be determined after consultation with the Minister, the Director General Dr. Domingos Sousa, and the East Timorese Teachers Union in Dili.

It is a privilege for us to be in a position to assist East Timorese students in these devastated areas. I have further authorised the New South Wales TAFE system to contribute to the development of vocational skills as appropriate initiatives are identified. The department will also continue to support the delivery of educational equipment to Dili, in partnership with the teachers and their unions. There is much to be done but this House should recognise and strongly support the efforts that the New South Wales educational community is making to secure a better educational future for our East Timorese neighbours. I also take the opportunity today to announce I have approved a contribution of $10,000 from my Discretionary Fund to kick-start the 2002 fundraising efforts.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [3.42 p.m.]: In my capacity as Coalition spokesman on education I support the remarks of the Minister. The history of East Timor is both sad and courageous. In 1974 the Portuguese Government decolonised East Timor. On 7 December 1975 Indonesia invaded East Timor and the fight for independence was born. The history of that fight, by a people fiercely seeking their independence, is on the public record. During that long struggle many institutions in East Timor were destroyed, most significantly the educational institutions. The New South Wales Parliament is the oldest continuous democratic Parliament in the western world. In the Jubilee Room of this Parliament the words "Knowledge is the mother of wisdom and virtue" are inscribed. We should reflect upon and contemplate those words, for they should be the driving force for everything we and the people of East Timor do to recreate the educational and learning environment in East Timor.

Great efforts have been made by many people in the past few years to try to bring first a sense of independence, then actual independence and an ongoing capacity to preserve that independence, to East Timor. Today the Minister talked about the efforts of the New South Wales Teachers Federation and government schools in the Helping our Neighbour Fund, which was commenced in October 2000 and raised $70,000. Today the Minister also announced a much bigger and broader campaign in which government and non-government schools, the Teachers Federation, representing teachers in the government system, the Independent Schools Association and many other groups will together raise funds to buy necessary equipment and support education in East Timor.

The rebuilding of East Timor has been and will continue to be a huge community effort. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition informed me that Catholic parishes in New South Wales are busy raising funds to support East Timor and to restore the holy images that were taken during the occupation. Each of us can make our own small effort to restore a sense of a future to the East Timorese. A democratic system is based on sound education. Nothing safeguards democracy more than empowerment of people through education. For that reason the New South Wales Liberal and National parties are extremely supportive of this initiative announced by the Minister today.

We are glad that our young people will support the young people of East Timor. We are also grateful that so many leaders within the education system will use their leadership roles to raise funds and collect equipment for East Timor. Rotary and many other groups in New South Wales have been raising funds and doing good work to provide support and to secure an independent future for East Timor. The New South Wales Opposition supports all those groups. We look forward to continuing in a partnership of peace with the people of East Timor as they progress to a strong and independent future.

Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [3.47 p.m.]: Earlier today I gave notice that I would ask the House to consider the urgent matter of an increase in the price of postage stamps because Australia Post has just submitted details of its proposed new pricing structure to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC], which will carry out an inquiry. The House should discuss this matter now and send a message about it, because the ACCC has set the wheels in motion.

Mr TINK (Epping) [3.48 p.m.]: My motion is urgent because of comments made by the Director of Public Prosecutions this morning on radio that statements by the Premier and the police Minister demonstrate clear and unequivocal support for one candidate and that influence over any other candidate is potentially corrupting the process. My motion is urgent because Mr Moroney is the only one of three declared candidates for the vacant commissioner's job who works under Minister Costa. The motion is urgent because Mr Costa's support for Mr Moroney, publicly declared before the job was advertised on 19 April, may have deterred other strong internal police candidates who also work under Mr Costa from applying.

The motion is urgent because when the present legislation covering the appointment of senior police was introduced into Parliament on 13 November 1996 as part of royal commission reform the then police Minister told Parliament that it will give the service no excuse for not selecting from the widest possible pool. What is Mr Costa's excuse now? Mr Moroney and the other declared contenders have all had long experience and would be strong contenders in any pool of candidates. The motion is urgent because that pool must be the widest possible.

I have supported Mr Moroney in the very important job that he is doing as acting commissioner. I am happy to say again, in Parliament, that I support him. He would be a strong candidate in any field and is an outstanding officer. My saying that, however, is very different from the Premier and the Minister for Police endorsing Mr Moroney for the job that is currently under consideration. That is the problem. What the Premier and the police Minister have done specifically breaches a number of ICAC guidelines for public sector recruitment that were released about a month ago.

All of those guidelines talk about maximising the pool of applicants, ensuring applicants are not discouraged from applying, ensuring that managers and supervisors do not make statements about the competitiveness or lack of competitiveness of applicants, ensuring that potential applicants are not deterred because of any perceived partiality to internal applicants, and ensuring that no-one gives internal applicants any expectation of success or failure or deters potential applicants because of perceived partiality. Those are the ICAC principles. This motion is important and urgent because both the Premier and the police Minister have breached those principles. No less than the Director of Public Prosecutions has indicated his personal concern about this turn of events. The Director of Public Prosecutions also said publicly this morning:

To have people at the top of government, the top of a particular portfolio expressing strong views of endorsement must at least be seen to be potentially influencing the conduct of the independent panel selected. I think that's unfortunate indeed.

I understand there is a panel of three. I understand that one is Dr Gellatly, who reports to the Premier. Another is Mr Tree, who reports to Mr Costa. So a majority of that panel already are, under current arrangements, reporting to two people who have expressed a public opinion in favour of one candidate. And, of course, Dr Gellatly and Mr Tree rely for their performance reviews on the Premier and Mr Costa respectively. The second point made by the Director of Public Prosecutions also has extremely strong merit and ought to be of serious concern to this House.

We want the best and widest possible field from which the Government may choose the Commissioner of Police. We do not want a situation where comments made by the Minister particularly, and the Premier too, to a substantial extent warn off internal candidates from applying for the job. Indeed, the Premier's comments in the Daily Telegraph of 26 April talk about Mr McKinnon's application being "helpful in the selection process," suggesting that in some way Mr McKinnon is a pacer in the field against which to measure Mr Moroney. That is demeaning. It is a ridiculous proposition, and it is one that the Premier should not enter into. There should be no pre-emption of this process. The process was totally lost in Mr Costa's headlong rush to endorse a particular candidate before the advertisements were even placed in the newspapers. No wonder no other internal police candidates who report to Mr Costa put their hands up when Mr Costa said, before the advertisements appeared in the newspapers, "Mr Moroney is my man." [Time expired.]

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

The House divided.

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

Mrs Grusovin Ms Harrison Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Mr Iemma Mrs Lo Po' Mr Lynch Mr Markham Mr Martin Mr McBride Mr McManus Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Mr Newell Ms Nori Mr Orkopoulos

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

Mr Armstrong Mr Barr Mr Brogden Mrs Chikarovski Mr Collins Mr Cull Mr Debnam Mr George Mr Glachan Mr Hartcher 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 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

Question resolved in the affirmative.
Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [4.02 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes Australia Post recorded a record net profit last year of $274.5 million; and

(2) calls on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to defer Australia Post's plan to increase the price of the basic postage stamp from 45¢ to 50¢—an 11 per cent rise.

On Friday 26 April Australia Post announced that it would seek approval from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] to increase the price of the basic postage stamp from 45¢ to 50¢, which is an 11 per cent increase and well above the prevailing rate of inflation. This increase will raise a whopping $90 million in additional profit for Australia Post. Immediately upon hearing the news, Country Labor members called on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to delay Australia Post's application for a 5¢ rise in the price of a basic postage stamp. At this stage I point out that no explanation was given by Australia Post for the increase but its rationale is that there has not been an increase in the cost of postage stamps since 1992.

One could deduce from that statement that over many years the standard postage stamp has been very much overpriced. Australia Post did not allude to any intention to expand services and people know very well that over the past six years Australia Post, in common with many corporatised government organisations, has been contracting its services, particularly those provided in regional and rural areas. In the absence of any credible reason for additional revenue raising to the tune of $90 million, the announcement certainly sent shock waves through the New South Wales Labor Government, particularly Country Labor members.

Apart from a basic grab for additional revenue, what is the reason for the increase in price? It must be remembered that Australia Post recorded a whopping net profit for its most recent financial period of $274.5 million, and Australia Post is not a corporatised government organisation that is in financial difficulty. If the increase is approved, it will be rural and regional families who will be hardest hit because they rely on postal services much more than do city people. The permeation of email and electronic forms of communication has occurred to a lesser extent in the bush and country areas than in city areas. Moreover, the use of electronic communication services linked to telephone services involves additional expense in country areas. For those reasons, the alarm bells went off in the heads of Country Labor members when the increase in the cost of postage stamps was announced.

Christmas time is when country families in particular use the postal service for communicating with families and friends, and the increased cost of postage at Christmas time and other festive periods will spike the already costly communications burden that is borne by country and rural families. In the light of the record profit announced by Australia Post of $274.5 million for the previous financial year, the proposal to increase the cost of postage cannot be justified. Australia Post cannot cry poor, and the increase cannot be justified by Australia Post saying that the standard postage rate has not been increased for a decade. Those arguments are simply not sustainable. Members of the New South Wales Labor Government, particularly Country Labor members, are realists. We acknowledge that the price of a standard postage stamp cannot remain fixed forever.

However, ACCC should contemplate an increase only when Australia Post's financial circumstances change to the extent of justifying an increase, or when Australia Post can place on the public record its plans for an expansion of services which will require an increase in capital. Certainly under the direction of the current Federal Coalition Government, it does not seem likely that justification will be provided. The essence of the argument advanced by the New South Wales Labor Government is simply that now is not the time for an increase of 11 per cent in the cost of the standard postage stamp. The Federal Government, especially the Federal Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston, has refused to criticise the planned increase, which indicates the Federal Government's implied acceptance of and support for the intentions of Australia Post's management team.

That can mean only that the Howard Government is 100 per cent in favour of the increase. The failure of the Federal Government to argue strongly against the increase—the silence is deafening—is proof that the Federal Government is failing people who live in regional and rural areas of Australia. It is those failures that have set off alarm bells in the minds of Country Labor members. The majority of people who will be affected by the price increase are pensioners and families in receipt of low incomes—the people who can least afford the increase. I argue that they constitute the socioeconomic group that relies more on the postal service for communication than does any other sector of society.

The major reason why Labor members are incensed at the proposal by Australia Post to increase the cost of stamps is that Australia Post has claimed it needs the increase to offset an annual $200 million loss in the reserved letters business. Why should private citizens subsidise the big end of town? It is not small businesses that have caused the loss in reserved letters business but, rather, the megabusinesses that use bulk mail and mail discounting packages. Australia Post has been condemned by its own statement: it is imposing the increase to subsidise the big end of town and to meet the competition created by private mail service providers and junk mail distributors. This loss has not been created by small businesses, which will be hit with an average increase in costs of approximately $350 annually if the 11 per cent increase is approved.

The Australian group manager of letters, Mr Gary Lee, has stated on the record that, despite the proposed increase, "deep discounts would continue to apply to business mail". As I said earlier, for "business" read "big business". The proposal is outrageous. I am sure that members opposite will support the passing of this motion. Mums, dads and pensioners should not be forced to carry the can. First and foremost Australia Post must provide a service for families because that is the whole basis of its community service obligation. These families should not be used to subsidise bulk mail for big business; it is as simple as that. Australia Post cannot justify this increase. In June the ACCC will release an issues paper and hold public meetings across the nation, with a decision due in September. Country Labor members will attend meetings and put forward their view. I urge everyone in this House to do likewise. The Australian of 27 April carried an interesting story about various people and their initial reaction to the proposed increase. The article stated:

The Coalition will not oppose Australia Post's application for a 5c increase in the price of a basic stamp—but it hopes to ensure the rise does not cut mail competition.

Honourable members can read into that statement what they will. The article continued:

Although the federal Government said it will "closely consider" any rise, Communications Minister Richard Alston did not criticise the application.

It appears that the Coalition Government in Canberra is happy for this increase to go through. I contrast that statement with the statement made by Opposition communications spokesman, Lindsay Tanner, who said:

The ACCC should look closely at the application because it was hard to justify. Domestic consumers should not be used to subsidise bulk mail for business.

That point should be made time and again. Once again, we are talking about domestic consumers subsidising big business, which is the rationale behind Australia Post's proposal. How will the increase affect Mr and Mrs Average? A Sydney nun, Mary Constable, was quoted in this article as stating that she buys about 100 stamps a month and many more at Christmas and that she would certainly feel the pinch. As I said earlier—and this might sound a little emotional—this price hike comes at a time when country people and all those who use Australia Post's services can least afford it. The message that must go back loud and clear to Australia Post is that New South Wales Parliament opposes this increase. That is the message we will take to the ACCC. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [4.12 p.m.]: I believe that the urgent motion moved by the honourable member for Bathurst has some merit. When I was a kid our mail was conveyed by the travelling post office to sidings in lead-sealed mailbags. We had to ride four miles to the siding to collect our mail. The cost of a postage stamp, 45¢, has not changed for at least 10 years. Labour-intensive systems such as mail sorting and delivery are now automated. One would not think that the more efficient use of automation is the reason Australia Post wants to increase the price of a postage stamp to 50¢. I believe that the present cost of 45¢ to post a letter is quite enough.

The honourable member for Bathurst referred earlier to discounts for bulk mail. If Australia Post did not offer such big discounts for bulk mail there would be no need for this postage stamp price increase. It is reasonably expensive to post a letter in country areas. I believe that Australia Post would make a large profit in the Sydney area if it increased the price of its postage stamps. Last year it made a profit of $274.5 million, which is not too bad. At least Australia Post is not running at a loss. However, if it increases the cost of a postage stamp to 50¢ we should demand a much better service than we are getting at present.

In many country areas Australia Post guarantees delivery of express post articles the next day, which is a load of rubbish. That has never been my experience. Often it takes longer to deliver express post in country areas than it does to deliver normal post, which is quite unacceptable. We are paying more money for the express post service, but we are getting less service, which is totally unacceptable. Because of automation and other efficiencies achieved by Australia Post, now is not the time to increase the price of postage stamps. Earlier the honourable member for Bathurst said that members of Country Labor will attend a summit and express their point of view.

Country Labor did not have one representative at the rural doctors summit held in Tamworth recently. The honourable member might be making another false promise—something that Country Labor members are pretty good at. The National Party had seven representatives at that summit, and there were two Independents, but there was not one representative from Country Labor. One Minister who blew in and out was like a wet lettuce when he made his presentation. I would like to see members of Country Labor attend those summits and make a bit of noise about this proposed postage stamp price increase.

In country areas Australia Post does not have any competition. There are couriers in some areas in Sydney, but they are expensive as well. I believe that the price of a postage stamp should remain at 45¢. As I said earlier, Australia Post made a big profit last year. There is no reason to increase the price of postage stamps, unless Australia Post is planning huge improvements to mail delivery services in country areas. Post offices in many rural areas have been closed. In some small country towns post offices have either been put into private hands or they have been closed altogether because of the size of the population in those towns. Mail services should be available to everyone throughout Australia.

If the price of a postage stamp increases to 50¢ we should request much better services than we receive at the moment in many areas. Things have changed. As I said earlier, when I was much younger the mail was delivered by steam train and the mailman would get through to some country towns only once or twice a week. Stan Holland, a good friend of mine at home who was the mailman, used a pack horse and did a 12-mile run twice a week from Merah north along the middle route. Mail services have changed since then. He used to deliver the mail in the rain and at times of flood. Today, even though we have cars and everything else, we do not receive our mail when it rains, which is a shame. Often the efficiency of the mail service is determined by the weather and the state of some of our country roads.

I support the urgent motion moved by the honourable member for Bathurst. However, I do not believe that an 11 per cent rise in the cost of a postage stamp in Australia is acceptable. There have not been vast changes to the consumer price index since the price of postage stamps was increased to 45¢. I believe that Australia Post's proposal is a huge money grab. I want to know what improvements Australia Post is making to its country mail service. If the price of a postage stamp is increased to 50¢ it will cost $1 to post two letters. I can remember when it cost only fivepence to post a letter.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] should defer the plan by Australia Post to increase the price of a postage stamp. The honourable member for Bathurst referred to discounts for large businesses. Members of Parliament send mail out to many constituents and receive a discount for bulk mail. But even allowing for that discount, Australia Post still makes a profit. We take the mail to the post office in special boxes that are marked with the relevant postcodes, and all Australia Post has to do is remove the mail from the boxes. With today's fully automated mail sorting, a lot of the hard work and time-consuming effort that previously went into the mail system has gone.

The Federal Government should delay this proposal unless Australia Post is able to show that postal services will be improved or that it will run at a loss in future. Given last year's profit of $274.5 million, unless something drastic happens over the next few months Australia Post will make much the same profit as it made previously. Regardless of where people live, Australia Post's mail system is an important part of our way of life and it is important that it should run at a profit. However, if it is to make a net profit of more than $200 million and it is not intended that that money will be put back into delivering better postal services to people in regional, rural and metropolitan parts of the State, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission should be asked to defer the plan by Australia Post to increase the price of a postage stamp from 45¢ to 50¢.

Mr W. D. SMITH (South Coast) [4.22 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the motion moved by the honourable member for Bathurst, and I am pleased that the Opposition also supports it. The honourable member for Barwon and I have disagreed in relation to many urgent motions, but I am pleased that on this occasion we are at one. There is no doubt that country families will suffer most if Australia Post is allowed to increase the price of a postage stamp. Country people rely on postage much more than city dwellers. City people have the luxury of being able to readily access banking services and to pay a bill across the street or over the Internet.

However, that is simply not the case for country people. Recently in my electorate, unfortunately, three banks were closed. Thus services for the residents of my electorate were reduced. Australia Post is now seeking to hit country people again, this time with a cost increase in the price of a postage stamp. Country people have to contend with the tyranny of distance and the tyranny of our geography. Access to Internet and other communications services in the country still has a long way to go before it can compare with city access. Country people cannot always simply click onto a web site and do their banking or pay a bill by BPay.

I am particularly concerned about elderly people in country electorates. My electorate has a high proportion of self-funded retirees and retired pensioners who have had a lifetime of writing letters, licking stamps and plonking them on envelopes. That is the communications system they have been used to ever since day one. Many elderly people do not understand new technology, many do not feel comfortable using it, and many simply do not want to know about it. Those people now face the possibility of being hit with an increase in the price of stamps. Over the Christmas period many elderly people like to touch base with long-time friends, relatives and acquaintances by sending out as many cards as possible. The impost of a further 5¢ on each postage stamp would have a severe impact on those people.

Country people need postal services for both general communication and to conduct their day-to-day business. Clearly, there is no justification for the price of a postage stamp being increased from 45¢ to 50¢. There is certainly no problem with Australia Post's bottom line. It made a whopping $274 million profit last year alone. This 5¢ increase would add a further $90 million to that profit margin. This year's Federal budget will probably come in with a handsome surplus, and I therefore believe this proposal is callous and thoughtless. It seems that corporate greed has taken over at Australia Post, and now it is up to the ACCC to decide whether people should pay an extra 10 per cent for a postage stamp. Country Labor has called on the head of the ACCC, Professor Allan Fels, not to grant this price increase.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, we do not have the support of the Federal Government on this issue. Instead, it once again took the opportunity to raise the deregulation of Australia Post. In a media statement Senator Richard Alston blamed Labor for stopping its so-called "sensible postal reforms". That is an accusation that I am sure my Federal Labor colleagues would proudly admit to, as these reforms are far from sensible; they simply hurt people in country New South Wales. I am proud to say that Country Labor played a large role in preventing the deregulation of Australia Post; we stood up for rural and regional New South Wales.

When Senator Alston's deregulation idea first reared its ugly head, Country Labor immediately opposed it. In fact, the Minister for Regional Development was joined by the honourable member for Murray-Darling and the honourable member for Cessnock in condemning the idea of deregulating Australia Post. Again, country people would inevitably suffer most if postal services were deregulated and opened up to competition. The fact remains that we have one of the most efficient and profitable postal services in the world. There is simply no justification for tinkering with something that does not need to be fixed. The service is running extremely well, it is very efficient, and it is making a profit. An increase in the price of a stamp from 45¢ to 50¢ would impact severely on people in country New South Wales. It is simply a matter of fairness that needs to be addressed here.

Mr PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [4.27 p.m.]: Debate on urgent motions such as this give the Opposition a great opportunity to expose the hypocrisy and lack of intelligence of the Labor Party. The proposed increase by Australia Post in the price of a basic postage stamp by 5¢, or 11 per cent, is an issue for Federal Parliament, so I do not know why it is being raised in this House. The Labor Party is using this motion to attack the Federal Government. It claims it is sympathetic that the Aussie battler has to pay extra for his postage stamp. Of course, we are all sympathetic about cost increases; no-one likes them. But it is hypocritical for the Labor Party, particularly the pretenders in Country Labor, to whinge and moan about an11 per cent increase. Let us look at some of the cost increases that have been foisted upon the people of New South Wales by the Government.

I am sure most members of Parliament, including Government members, have received numerous complaints from young New South Wales residents who have had to pay $35 for the privilege of doing their test for a learner's licence. If they fail, they have to do the test again, and pay another $35. When they do their final driving test, they have to pay another $35, and if they fail they have to pay again. They even have to pay for a handbook from the Roads and Traffic Authority. The Labor Party increased the Sydney Harbour Bridge toll by 80¢. What about the promised cuts to the tolls? The Labor Party talks about the battlers in Western Sydney. When the Premier was Leader of the Opposition, he promised to cut the tolls on the M5 and the other motorways in western Sydney, but he did not do so. That has imposed a huge cost on Labor electorates in western Sydney, because the Premier not only failed to reduce the toll; he actually increased it. Metropolitan newspapers have also reported on the revenue raised by speed cameras, the double dipping by the Government on stamp duty and the increase in tip fees.

Public transport affects almost everyone in Sydney. The cost of using public transport has increased 48 per cent since Labor came to government. If members on the Government side are worried about an increase in the price of a stamp, surely this urgent motion should have addressed the implications for ordinary Australians of a 48 per cent increase in the cost of public transport, a huge cost for any Sydney family. Fishing licences and national park entry fees have been increased. One Country Labor member was bleating about the impact of this increase on those in the more remote areas of New South Wales, yet his Government increased distance education fees by $750 per student for families who can least afford it.

Other increases include the Sydney parking space levy. Land tax has been a huge revenue boon for the Government. Workers compensation premiums have gone through the roof. That is affecting both businesses and employees. It is having a direct impact on the number of people businesses can employ and it is sending businesses broke. The price of a postage stamp is one of the things the Government should be least worried about. In the past five years the total revenue of the Government has increased by 30 per cent, and that excludes revenue derived from the GST. Members of the Labor Party, particularly those in Country Labor, should be ashamed of themselves for increasing all those fees and taxes on ordinary Australians.

Mr COLLIER (Miranda) [4.32 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the motion by Country Labor. One of Australia's icons, Australia Post, has joined the ranks of the corporate greedy and the corporate predators. A 10 per cent rise in the price of a basic postage stamp, from 45¢ to 50¢, simply cannot be justified. Australia Post is not struggling to make a crust; it is not struggling to make ends meet or being crushed by rising paper and ink prices. Australia Post has just announced a record profit of more than $274.5 million. Australia Post is what economists would call a natural monopoly. It has no competitors; there are insurmountable barriers to entry by potential rivals. Australia Post enjoys massive economies of scale and it has a captive market. Raising the price of a postage stamp is nothing more than a greedy grab for cash. Australia Post has admitted that the price freeze on stamps does not affect its profit margins. The Chair of Australia Post, Linda Nicholls, said:

As we go into the ninth year of the price freeze, the surge in mail volume says that the model works.

She is saying that growth in volume alone is profitable in this captive market. Who is the biggest winner out of this? It is not the mums and dads, not the pensioners or the self-funded retirees, and it is not the large number of small businesses I have in my electorate. The winner is the Federal Government. It likes the idea of raising the cost of a basic stamp because its cut of the record profit of Australia Post is around $100 million. This is the same Federal Government that lost $5 billion on shonky foreign exchange deals. Now it wants to put the boot in and slug families with the cost of a basic postage stamp. What a shame!

It is good to hear that the honourable member for Barwon supports the Country Labor motion, but we do not know where the honourable member for Murrumbidgee stands. He never said whether he opposed the motion or supported it. All he did was take the opportunity to take a rather ridiculous swipe at the State Labor Government. He should be telling his mates in Canberra that he does not support Australia Post's greedy grab for profit. It is high time the Federal Government realised it is in office to serve the people, not to make profits. Sadly, like the banks, the Federal Government and Australia Post have both forgotten their community service obligations.

Australia Post is not a private multinational company; it is the people's company. It should act accordingly: It should act in the interests of all those who use its services, whether they are from the city or from the bush. This price increase could have serious consequences not only for the householder but for small business as well. The volume of postage generated by small business is obviously much higher than that of the average household, so the cost incurred will be greater. The increase is bad for business, bad for consumers and bad for country families. It only seems to be good for the Federal Government's bottom line. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee should be ashamed to talk about the social reform agendas of the State Labor Government or previous Federal Labor governments. It is the Government of his colleagues that is refusing to pay the relevant portion of the increase in wages for those who work in places like the Handicapped Children's Centre, the Southern Sydney Therapy Centre, Meals on Wheels and institutions for homeless kids. The State Government has offered to pay its share but the Federal Government has not done the same.

As for the GST, the honourable member has forgotten one simple fact. The State Government collected 37 per cent of Australia's total GST. How much does it get back? It gets back 30 per cent. We will get even in 2007. So the honourable member is wrong again. The honourable member should look at history. He will learn that from Whitlam onwards it is the Australian Labor Party that has undertaken the most sweeping social reforms in this country—not the Federal Government, not the Howard Government, but the Australian Labor Party. He mocks Country Labor but its members—not the National Party members—are out there listening to their constituents, the people of the bush. The National Party is a party in name only. The real party supporting country people is the Australian Labor Party in the form of Country Labor.

Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [4.37 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who have participated in debate on this urgent motion. From this side we have heard excellent contributions from the honourable member for South Coast and the honourable member for Miranda. I congratulate the honourable member for Barwon on his bipartisan approach. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for the honourable member for Murrumbidgee because, as has been pointed out, he did not address the issue at all and in his normal bovver-boy style he decided to use the debate to kick a few heads. That is what we have come to expect from the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, but deep down even he would support the honourable member for Barwon, who made an important contribution.

I disagree with the claim by the honourable member for Barwon that if the increase to 50¢ goes ahead we will get better service. Nowhere does this application from Australia Post talk about better service. It is all about increasing revenue. It says it wants this $90 million out of the ordinary people to subsidise bulk mail for big business. That has nothing to do with increasing service. Nowhere does Australia Post talk about expanding the number of post offices. Like banks and other service providers, hundreds of post offices have been closed across Australia. Nowhere does Australia Post talk about increasing the range of services, particularly in regional and country areas. This increase is purely about maximising profits.

Australia Post argues that the price of stamps has not increased for 10 years. That is true, because the increase has not been warranted. One can only assume that people have paid too much for their basic postage all that time. It is important that we reinforce that message and take those arguments to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission inquiry. I know the honourable member for South Coast and the honourable member for Miranda will join us in doing that. Country Labor will certainly be making a submission. It is important that we work together. If both sides of politics are singing the same song, I think the ACCC will listen. We have reasoned arguments but Australia Post does not. It is all about Australia Post subsidising part of its business by whacking consumers. That has no merit in terms of community service obligations. I would think it is a hypocritical stance for Australia Post to take.

Mr W. D. Smith: It is the people's company.

Mr MARTIN: As the honourable member for South Coast says, Australia Post is supposed to be the people's company, so it should be acting in a manner that supports people. This grab for an 11 per cent increase is totally unjustified. If Australia Post wants to argue for an increase, it should put up some concrete arguments that we can look at objectively and say yea or nay to. It is not good enough for Australia Post to say that the cost of a postage stamp has been held at the same level for 10 years and it is time it was increased. Australia Post can only justify the increase if it needs the capital or is running at a loss. However, it has made a profit of $274.5 million.

The Coalition in Canberra has been silent on this matter because it knows it will get its hands on part of that profit as a dividend from a Commonwealth-owned corporation. Senator Alston, by his silence or implied lack of criticism, is saying, "We see this as raising revenue not only for Australia Post but also for the Federal Government." The 11 per cent increase in postage is not necessary to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Australia Post or to deliver better services to people throughout Australia. For that reason I ask honourable members to support this motion and send a very strong message to the ACCC.

Motion agreed to.

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [4.41 p.m.]: I ask the House to note as a matter of public importance Hoxton Park Airport and the surrounding suburbs. Hoxton Park Airport is located within my electorate and it is the subject of considerable controversy. Both in terms of the safety of residents living around it and in the amenity of their neighbourhoods, a substantial number of people have been calling for the airport's closure. The suburbs surrounding the airport include Cecil Hills, Green Valley, Hinchinbrook, Hoxton Park and West Hoxton. I have called for the closure of the airport on previous occasions, and I restate that call today. I have raised this matter on a number of occasions in this House. Indeed, I debated an urgent motion on the matter in 1999. It is appropriate to raise the matter again today because only several weeks ago there was a further accident at the airport.

Hoxton Park Airport is a general aviation airport. It covers 85 hectares and has one sealed runway that is 1,098 metres in length. It is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. However, circuit training is restricted to between 6.00 a.m. and 11.00 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays, 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 6.00 a.m. to one hour after last light on Sundays. It caters to both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft, that is, planes and helicopters. It is usually busier on weekends than on weekdays, which says something about the people who are using the airport to train. As I understand the evidence, an average of about six or seven planes are in the air around the vicinity of the airport at any given time.

The airport was originally constructed in about 1942 as part of a group of airfields to be used as aircraft dispersal fields in anticipation of a Japanese air attack. Others included Menangle, Bargo, the Oaks, Wallgrove, Fleurs, St Marys, Castlereagh, Pitt Town and Ettalong. Interestingly enough, none of those airfields is currently operating as an airport. RAAF pilots also used Hoxton Park Airport for training purposes and the like. After the war the airport was leased to the Hardy Rubber Company for use as a tyre test track. Eventually its use as an airport was resumed, but its current use is very different to what it was then. It is now used overwhelmingly for training purposes.

Training schools, which are private businesses operated for profit, predominate the airport's current usage. Some 90 per cent of its air traffic is training aircraft. This has a number of consequences. One is that much of the use of the airport is for circuit training, that is, planes and helicopters often fly around the same course continually and repetitively. Another consequence is that a significant proportion of the planes are flown by inexperienced people. As a matter of commonsense, that must dramatically increase the likelihood of things going wrong. After all, if all the pilots were perfectly experienced and perfectly capable, why would they need to train?

The amount of air traffic involved is significant. Indeed, Hoxton Park airport is the busiest airport in Australia without a control tower or radar. It is the busiest uncontrolled airport in the country. There seems to be no likelihood that a control tower will be installed, despite my calls for one. A control tower was constructed temporarily for the Olympics. As I have had occasion to say before, it is extraordinary that the aviation industry and authorities were prepared to provide a control tower for the Olympics but display such contempt for the people who live in my electorate that they will not have one for non-Olympic periods. Another interesting aspect is that the aviation industry itself—those who use the airfield—want the airport to remain uncontrolled. That is their preference; they oppose the installation of a control tower.

There has been a series of accidents and incidents at Hoxton Park Airport. I am aware of a number of them which have been reported in the media, and I understand that a number of other incidents have not been reported publicly, which obviously makes the situation more severe. The most tragic events have been those in which life has been lost. In recent times there have been two of these accidents, resulting in three fatalities. The first accident occurred on 6 June 1998 and involved a mid-air collision between two aircraft. One of the aircraft, a single engine Piper Tomahawk, left Bankstown Airport to go to Hoxton Park to do some training. Two people were in that plane. Another plane, a Piper Archer, left Hoxton Park for a private flight by way of Camden and Bankstown and return to Hoxton Park. At abou