Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 25 September 2002, Corrected Copy)

______

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Mr Speaker tabled, pursuant to section 38E of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the Performance Audit Report entitled "e-Government-Electronic Procurement of Hospital Supplies", dated September 2002.

Ordered to be printed.

Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendments.

No. 1 Page 3, Schedule 1. Insert after line 12:

[3] Section 12 (2)

Insert at the end of section 12 (2):

In appointing Commissioners, the Minister should ensure, as far as practicable, that the Court is comprised of persons who hold qualifications across the range of areas specified in this subsection.

No. 2 Page 3, Schedule 1 [3]. Insert after line 16:

(2B) A person appointed as a part-time Commissioner is guilty of misbehaviour if, during the term of his or her appointment, the person appears as an expert witness, or acts as the representative of any party, in proceedings before the Court.

No. 3 Page 7, Schedule 1. Insert after line 8:

[10] Section 39A

Insert after section 39:

39A Joinder of parties in certain appeals

On an appeal under section 97 or 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Court may, at any time, on the application of a person or of its own motion, order the joinder of a person as a party to the appeal if the Court is of the opinion:

(a) that the person is able to raise an issue that should be considered in relation to the appeal but would not be likely to be sufficiently addressed if the person were not joined as a party, or

(b) that:

(i) it is in the interests of justice, or

(ii) it is in the public interest,

that the person be joined as a party to the appeal.

No. 4 Page 13, Schedule 2 [6], line 18. Insert "by sending written notice to the last address known to the council of the objector or other person" after "modification".

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt-Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Corrective Services) [10.01 a.m.]: I move:

That the Committee agree to the Legislative Council's amendments.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford-Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.01 a.m.]: These amendments were moved by the Hon. Richard Jones and supported by the Coalition in the Legislative Council. It is important that the processes of the court are seen to be impartial, and the role of the commissioners and the duties they discharge are seen to be performed in an impartial way. Accordingly, the Coalition supported the amendments then, and it also supports the amendment relating to joint parties.

Motion agreed to.

Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt-Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Corrective Services) [10.04 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 was commenced in 2001 after a long period of consultation with the boards regarding the regulations and the memorandum of understanding between the New South Wales Department of Agriculture and the State Council of Rural Lands Protection Boards. The new legislation represents a new era in the operation of the rural lands protection board system, which is unique to this State. The 48 boards now have a statutory body, the State council, to provide them with centralised services and to enable them to be represented at all levels of government. An important event is taking place as I speak. It is the general election of directors of the 48 rural lands protection boards. The new directors are to take up office on 1 October following a nomination period and a postal ballot that closes on 25 September. This is the first general election of boards for five years and the first to take place under the new Act.

Significant changes have been implemented in an effort to gain a greater representation of the different cross-sections of the population who are board ratepayers. Each board consists of eight directors, except for the Central Tablelands board, which has nine. Under the former Rural Lands Protection Act the person who lodged the annual land and stock return was the person who was entitled to be nominated to stand for election as a director. In most cases, this was the farmer, who was most often the man of the family. In addition, in order to qualify to stand for election, the person had to reside in the district. This disadvantaged many owners of land who resided elsewhere. A concerted effort has been made to encourage, in particular, more women to vote and to stand for election. In this regard, recognising that often the family farm is held in the name of both spouses, each holding has been given two votes at the general election. In addition, there is no automatic enrolment system. The annual land and stock return can be used to nominate two persons to be enrolled in respect of the holding or a separate enrolment application can be lodged with the board.

The qualifications that apply to persons who are eligible to stand as a candidate for election have been simplified so that now it is only necessary that the person is an occupier or owner of rateable land within the relevant electoral division of the board's district. I am particularly pleased to hear from the State council that out of 42 boards canvassed, 72 women have been nominated to stand for election as directors at this election. Attention is being paid to the needs of minimum ratepayers. These persons are holders of land that consists of the smallest area or carrying capacity to which the rating provisions apply. They are being encouraged to stand for election as directors and their concerns regarding the services that they receive from boards are being addressed through a national competition policy review that is being conducted next year. When the results of the election are published next week, I look forward to hearing how many women and minimum ratepayers were elected as directors of the 48 boards.

The amendments before the House today arise from the use of the new Act since its passage through the Parliament. Amendments are proposed to enable the State council to conduct postal ballots of boards in respect of urgent issues. The State council is responsible for the implementation by the boards of the general policies for the protection of rural lands and the operation of boards that are determined from time to time at State conferences. An annual State conference of boards takes place in June. All the boards are represented and can vote on resolutions moved at the conference. The purpose of the conference is to determine general policies to be implemented by boards and to determine primary policies to guide the State council in carrying out its functions. The State conference also must determine the annual budget of the State council. The State council must then operate for the following 12 months to implement these resolutions.

However, if there is an urgent matter that arises or if the State council needs clarification or additional guidance regarding a resolution, at present there is no mechanism by which it can convene an urgent meeting of the State conference. The amendments propose that the State council may conduct a postal ballot in order to resolve urgent issues. The postal ballot may be conducted amongst all of the boards or only amongst the boards about whom the issue is concerned. In this way the business of the State council does not need to be stalled for want of guidance from the boards. Another issue of concern to boards is the need for clarification regarding their power to recover outstanding rates left owing by an outgoing tenant or owner of land. Under the Act, the occupier of the land is liable to pay the rate to the board. In some cases, the occupiers of the land may change frequently and the outgoing occupiers may leave the district, making it difficult for the board to recover unpaid rates.

The Act needs to state clearly that the current owner always remains liable for the rates left owing by an outgoing owner or tenant. Any person is entitled to apply under the Act to a board for a certificate that sets out the amount of any outstanding rates, charges or other amounts owing in respect of a particular parcel of land. This means that an incoming owner, or an owner whose tenant is about to vacate the land, can easily find out whether any charges are owing to the board and can negotiate with the outgoing tenant or vendor of the land for settlement of the outstanding amount. Generally, vendors and purchasers of land, and landlords and tenants have access to good information about each other and therefore may have a better opportunity than a board to enforce outstanding debts.

The Act also creates a strong incentive for outgoing owners and occupiers to settle debts relating to the land. Section 68 maintains the right of an owner or occupier who pays the rates left owing by someone else to recover the amount from that person. This provision mirrors the law under the Local Government Act with respect to rates owing at the time that a vendor of land sells to the purchaser. This bill will also allow flexibility to boards in setting fees for the use of travelling stock reserves and public roads for grazing and walking stock. At present the Act requires that a board must charge a drover the exact fee that is set by the regulation for a permit to use a travelling stock reserve or public road. The proposed amendment will enable the boards to set a fee that is lower than the maximum amount set in the regulation. This is particularly important in times of drought when travelling stock reserves and some public roads are in great demand as an alternative source of feed for stock. The quality of feed available on roadsides and travelling stock reserves will vary greatly depending on circumstances such as the amount of grazing that occurred previously on this land. Boards will therefore want to vary the fees they charge in accordance with the conditions.

The bill clarifies the situation with regard to the recovery of money from boards for work that is undertaken to eradicate insects from the land. At present uncertainty surrounds section 172 as to whether I can charge a board for work that has to be carried out by the Australian Plague Locust Commission for eradicating a locust plague in another district. It is clear that plague locusts can travel vast areas of land in a short space of time, destroying crops, pasture and native vegetation in its wake. The swift eradication of a plague in one board's district is of great benefit to all of the boards' districts into which the plague may have travelled. It is therefore equitable that all boards whose district may play host to such insects should contribute to the cost of any eradication procedures carried out in the State. This amendment will make it clear that I can recover the eradication costs for action taken in a board district within the State from any or all of the other boards.

Under section 207 of the Act, all proceeds of penalties payable under penalty notices imposed for offences committed under the Act are payable to the board in whose district the offence took place. When police officers issue penalty notices under the Act it is difficult for them to ascertain easily in which of the 48 rural lands protection board districts the offence occurred. In addition, the Infringement Processing Bureau requires a separate code to be written into a penalty notice to designate the board district to which payment of the proceeds must be made. This adds to the complexity of the administrative process. Rather than have 48 different Infringement Processing Bureau codes, it is proposed that any penalty payable under a penalty notice issued by a police officer under the Act be paid to the State Council.

Once the State council receives the proceeds from the penalty notice, it is to be distributed across all boards by reducing the amount that each board must pay annually to the State council. The State council is to calculate the total amount it receives from the proceeds of all penalties paid to it under clause 106 (2A) over the year. The benefit that each board receives is to be calculated the same way that each board's annual contribution to the State council's budget is calculated. This will ensure an equitable distribution of the benefit across the State.

Finally, the bill makes certain amendments to the election process. The amendments concern information contained on the electors roll, the appointment of persons to fill casual vacancies that occur during postponement of a general election and the removal of a requirement that the authorised officer of a board must choose persons to be enrolled for a holding when the ratepayers for that holding have failed to make the election themselves. These amendments are designed to assist the boards to run more efficiently and thereby provide a better service for their ratepayers in the management of travelling stock reserves and stock watering places, eradication of vertebrate and invertebrate pests and the provision of animal health services.

The boards provide a vital disease surveillance role throughout the State. I note that the boards played an integral role in the recent Operation Minotaur, which was a simulation designed to test the ability of the States and the Commonwealth to respond effectively to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Their efficiency needs to be enhanced so as not to compromise these important functions. To this end, I note that the Government recently pledged a further $3.5 million to upgrade the information technology systems used by the boards. This will assist them with their recording, reporting and communication needs. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the introduction forthwith and progress up to and including the Minister's second reading speech of the City of Sydney Amendment (Electoral Rolls) Bill.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr WOODS (Clarence-Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [10.16 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill reflects the Government's continuing commitment to providing a transparent and effective legislative framework for the administration of local government in New South Wales. The Government is committed to ensuring that local government remains representative of the community and that the governing legislation is clear and workable. The amendments in this bill will ensure that clarity is given to an essential democratic process at this important level of government in the State's premier city.

The bill amends the City of Sydney Act 1998 in relation to the preparation of electoral rolls for the purpose of elections for the council of the City of Sydney. The general manager of a local council usually prepares electoral rolls for the purpose of local council elections. The City of Sydney Act specifically gives this function to the State Electoral Commissioner. The purpose of the amendments to the City of Sydney Act is to clarify the procedure used by the Electoral Commission for the preparation of the non-residential roll and the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees for the elections for the council of the City of Sydney. The necessity for this amendment arises from an ambiguity as to what data the Electoral Commissioner is to use to prepare the rolls.

Section 18A of the City of Sydney Act presently requires the Electoral Commissioner to prepare the non-residential roll and the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees for elections for the City of Sydney council. The Electoral Commissioner is also required by section 18A (3) to send a letter to persons on each such roll at least three months before the closing date for an election, informing them that they are electors. However, the operation of the provision is unclear. Section 3 of the City of Sydney Act provides that the Act is to be read as if it forms part of the Local Government Act 1993-the principal Act. Sections 299 and 300 of the principal Act provide that the non-residential roll and the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees lapse after the election for which they were prepared.

The essential question of interpretation is whether section 18A overrides the principal Act, and therefore whether the rolls lapse or continue to exist from election to election. The status of the rolls is critical to the responsibility of the Electoral Commissioner under section 18A to write to electors on a roll. The lack of clarity in the present position may jeopardise the result of any elections for the City of Sydney. It is therefore necessary that the operation of section 18A be clarified in sufficient time before the next ordinary elections in September 2003.

The Electoral Commissioner has expressed particular concern about the present provision in view of the contentious nature of elections for the council. As the 1999 local government elections were the first time the non-residential rolls had been prepared under section 18A, the issue of the lapsing of the roll from a previous election did not then arise. Uncertainty in the provisions relating to the preparation of electoral rolls may leave the entire electoral process for the council open to legal challenge by persons who disagree with the Electoral Commissioner's approach to discharging his or her duties. The Electoral Commissioner has obtained advice from the Crown Solicitor that has highlighted the uncertainty of the interpretation of section 18A.

It is proposed to insert a provision to clarify that the non-residential roll and the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees lapse after the election for which they were prepared, as it does for all other local government elections. The policy intent of the proposal is also to ensure that non-resident electors and electors who are occupiers and ratepaying lessees are provided with every opportunity to claim inclusion on the roll for elections for the City of Sydney. The proposed amendment will allow information on the rolls prepared for the previous election to be used by the Electoral Commissioner to send enrolment information by letter to persons who may wish to seek inclusion again on the non-residential roll and the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees.

The purpose of the enrolment information letter is to provide all electors with the best opportunity of becoming enrolled for council elections. The letter will provide notice of the requirements for claiming inclusion on the rolls and information on the availability and lodgment of claim forms. The letter will be sent at least 60 days before the closing date for an election for the council to allow persons adequate time to claim enrolment and to prevent the duty to send the letter from clashing with the Electoral Commissioner's State election duties. Because the roll for the council elections must close at the end of July-40 days prior to the election-the Electoral Commission would have to start preparing the roll in April, clashing with his duties involved in the State election. That is why it has been altered to 60 days.

This also brings the provision into line with the 60 days that general managers have to prepare the rolls for all other council elections under the Local Government (Elections) Regulation 1998. All persons must lodge a claim of enrolment with the Electoral Commissioner so that no favourable franchise is created for any group of electors. The proposed amendment also retains the independence of the Electoral Commissioner as the Electoral Commissioner is not required to make judgments about the interpretation and method of implementation of section 18A. It is critical to the effective operation of elections for the council that the Electoral Commissioner is perceived by the community to be independent in the enrolment process.

The present difficulty of section 18A may be attributed to a series of amendments made to the Government's initial proposal during parliamentary debate on the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Elections) Bill 1998. The majority of members of the Legislative Council then supported the principles that non-residential electors should be required to apply for enrolment at each election and that the roll should lapse after each election. These principles are maintained in the proposed amendment. The defeat of the Government's proposal in 1998 may be attributed to other features of the bill, such as the preparation of the rolls by the General Manager of the City of Sydney, now the Electoral Commissioner, and the date by which the letter must be sent. That bill had proposed one month prior to the closing date for enrolment; it is now 60 days. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Debate resumed from 17 September.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [10.23 a.m.]: The object of the bill is to enact food laws that have uniform application across the country. It is the result of an agreement between the Commonwealth, the States and Territories, and New Zealand, and it is a culmination of many years of work, which date back to the 1970s. The bill is based on draft model food provisions approved by the Council of Australian Governments in November 2000, and it has been available for the public, particularly interested parties, to take note of. The model provisions were drafted in two parts-annex A and annex B. Annex A contained mandatory provisions and annex B contained provisions that jurisdictions could choose to introduce should they so wish. This bill contains most of the provisions in annex B, as well as provisions not contained in the model legislation. I will return to that later.

The main initiatives of the legislation are obviously to provide guarantees of safety in food handling and sale. Although this is not covered in the bill, I note that the Parliamentary Secretary, in his second reading, pointed out that an attempt has been made to make regulation less arduous for the retail sector, and that is important to note. Those who are in the business of processing, manufacturing and selling food are there to do just that and not to be overburdened with regulation. However, it is also extremely important that when they do all those things they keep in mind public safety, which is the main purpose of this bill. The bill creates new offences relating to food handling, including handling food in an unsafe manner, misleading conduct in relation to food and the sale of unfit equipment, packaging or labelling material for use with food.

The bill increases quite substantially the penalties for food-related offences. It increases the penalty of $3,300 to $5,500 for all offenders in the 1989 Act to between $40,000 and $100,000 for individuals and between $200,000 and $500,000 for corporations. The bill sets out more detailed inspection and enforcement powers of authorised officers, who I understand will be employed by industry bodies. In other words, they will have a self-regulating role. The bill introduces a registration system for any food business that is required by the regulations to be registered, and it provides for the auditing of food businesses in accordance with food safety plans that businesses will be required by the regulations to prepare. Auditing is to be undertaken by private auditors approved by the Director-General of Health. The role of local government in policing food businesses will continue in the same form as under the Food Act 1989.

The benefits of this legislation speak for themselves. The bill provides a national uniform approach to food safety standards, which all jurisdictions have agreed is an important way to go. As I said, the initiatives were agreed to at a national level in 2000. I should like to raise several matters. The question arises as to the capacity of local government food inspectors to take on what presumably will be a greater workload. I have one question for the Government in that regard, to which perhaps the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary could respond. Will funds be made available to local government that are appropriate to any increased burden on local government food inspectors in terms of their role in policing the Act?

I also had a question relating to part 3, emergency powers. The provisions in part 3 are substantial and were part of the model legislation. Part 3 provides for the making of orders and the publication of warnings, a prohibition on the cultivation, harvesting or obtaining from a specified area of a particular food or type of food, a prohibition on a particular food or type of food being advertised or sold, a direction that a particular food or type of food consigned or distributed for sale or sold can be recalled, and so on. Under this part of the bill, special provisions relate to recall orders, compensation and penalties for failing to comply with an emergency order. The question then arises as to why the bill contains, in proposed section 141, under the heading "Other regulations modifying the Code", provisions that are not contained in modern legislation. That section primarily duplicates those provisions under the emergency powers section of the Act and states:

(1) Regulations may be made for the purposes of this section that contain provisions that are in addition to, or in substitution for, one or more of the provisions of the Food Standards Code …

It seems to me that that is already provided for. It also states:

(2) A regulation made for the purposes of this section must not be made unless the Minister has certified that such a regulation does not have a significant impact on the implementation and enforcement of uniform food laws in Australia.

(3) A regulation made for the purposes of this section may be made only with the approval of the Premier.

It strikes me, and these concerns were also raised in discussion with the Commonwealth, that this may be a redundant section, given that the powers under the emergency powers section of the Act seem to provide that capacity. That said, the Coalition does not oppose the bill but we would seek clarification from the Government in relation to those matters.

Mr GREENE (Georges River) [10.31 a.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to speak to the Food Bill. There can be nothing more important than regulations which ensure that the food we eat and the food we feed our children meets our regulatory standards so that standards of health in this State can be protected. This bill will update and strengthen the regulatory framework for food production, distribution and sale in New South Wales. The Food Act 1998 will therefore be repealed.

The intergovernmental agreement to implement nationally consistent food regulation notes that there is a need to implement a cooperative national system of food regulation to achieve the following objectives: to protect public health and safety; to reduce the regulatory burden on the food sector; to facilitate the harmonisation of Australia's domestic and export food standards and their harmonisation with international food standards; to provide cost-effective compliance and enforcement standards for industry, government and consumers; to provide a consistent regulatory approach across Australia to recognise that responsibility for food safety encompasses all levels of governments and a variety of portfolios; and finally, to support trans-Tasman efforts to harmonise food standards, which was referred to in the second reading speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, the honourable member for Heathcote, and in the contribution of the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for North Shore.

That said, the legislation of each State and Territory is not uniform and need not be uniform. The legislation is, nonetheless, consistent. It applies consistent standards and consistently adopts the food standards code, subject to amendments to recognise local conditions, which promotes and facilitates its effective application in each jurisdiction. Nationally consistent legislation and standards will facilitate interstate and international trade in food and therefore promote economic development in food producing areas of both the State and the nation as a whole. The bill is drafted in line with the draft model food provisions provided by the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] in November 2000. States and Territories have committed to introducing legislation based on the national provisions.

The model provisions were drafted in two parts, annex A and annex B. Annex A contains those provisions that are agreed to be mandatory, and annex B contains those provisions that jurisdictions could choose to introduce, and with whatever amendments it considered appropriate. Queensland and Victoria have amended their existing Food Acts to implement annex A of the model provisions and certain parts of annex B. South Australia has passed a new Food Act 2001, which has not yet commenced. That Act implements annex A and much of annex B. The bill reflects the provisions of the Food Act 1989 with the following major amendments.

A number of new offences relating to food handling and sale have been introduced, including handling food in an unsafe manner, misleading conduct with relation to food and the sale of unfit equipment or packaging or labelling material for use with food. The honourable member for North Shore referred to the changes in the monetary penalties. The maximum monetary penalties for food-related offences have been increased from those contained in the 1989 Act-which were in the range of $3,300 to $5,500-to between $40,000 and $100,000 for individuals and between $200,000 and $500,000 for corporations. It is noted that the 1989 Food Act also provided for a penalty of up to six months imprisonment for many offences, and this penalty has not been replicated in this Food Bill.

The Minister will undertake various processes to ensure that these standards are implemented and the development of food standards is undertaken by Food Standards Australia New Zealand which must notify its decisions to the Ministerial Council. A single member of the Ministerial Council is able to require that Food Standards Australia New Zealand undertake a review of its decision. Following that review, the decision is to be returned to the Ministerial Council for further consideration and a majority of the members of the Ministerial Council-that is six out of 10-may require that a second review be undertaken. Following the second review a majority of the Ministerial Council may vote to reject the decision.

Therefore, jurisdictions have the overall control of the acceptance or rejection of new food standards or amendments to food standards. An example of the involvement and control of the Ministerial Council in the development of food standards is Standard 1.5.2, which relates to food produced using genetically modified ingredients. I understand that one of my fellow speakers will refer to that in their contribution so I will not take that matter any further. It is worth noting that with regard to labelling and composition standards it is appropriate that labelling and composition are dealt with on a national level, and these matters are therefore dealt with by the Food Standards Code, which is adopted by the bill.

The labelling of food products is comprehensively dealt with by part 1.2 of the Food Standards Code. Composition of food is comprehensively covered by chapter 2 of the Food Standards Code, which comprises 10 parts, each covering a category of food products. As I indicated, the Director-General of Health will have the power to order a business to undertake a recall of unsafe food. The inspection and enforcement powers of authorised officers are set out in greater detail in this bill. The bill introduces a registration system for any food business that is required by the regulations to be registered. There are no plans at the moment to require the registration of any class of businesses.

Part 7 of the bill provides for the auditing of food businesses in accordance with food safety plans that the businesses will be required by the regulations to prepare. Auditing is to be undertaken by private auditors approved by the Director-General of Health for that purpose. The role of local government in policing food businesses will continue in the same form as under the Food Act 1989. In preparing the model food provisions, COAG, via Food Standards Australia New Zealand, consulted widely with stakeholders, including consumers, manufacturers and businesses. That is why there is general agreement and an acceptance that the Food Bill 2002 is indeed approaching the regulation of food standards most appropriately.

In developing the Food Bill the Department of Health has sought the input of SafeFood New South Wales, which supports the bill. I am pleased that the honourable member for North Shore has indicated that the bill also has the support of the Coalition. As I indicated earlier, there cannot be many matters more serious than ensuring that the food we eat and the manner in which it is served are regulated appropriately and meet national standards. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [10.39 a.m.]: I join my colleagues in debate on the Food Bill. The object of the bill is to repeal the Food Act 1989 and enact new food laws as a result of a very laudable agreement between the Commonwealth, States, Territories and New Zealand to implement uniform food laws. All honourable members would recognise that contaminated food does not recognise international or State boundaries. It has always been very difficult to achieve uniform legislation on a whole range of matters in Australia, but this bill represents a very serious and possibly a very successful attempt to do so. Each business will be required to develop a food safety plan. Critics may say that this is another case of overregulation, but it will be up to individual businesses to develop their own food safety plan. A major hospital would have a very different plan to that of a local delicatessen, but essential criteria will be standard practice irrespective of the size of the food outlet.

The bill provides for the auditing of food safety plans. As honourable members who preceded me in this debate have said, the auditing will be carried out by suitably qualified and accredited inspectors who have been appointed by the director-general. These officers will not be administrative officers and will be required to meet specific qualifications standards to perform the audits. It is not intended that the bill will take over the role of local government, which for many years has carried out inspections of food premises. Local government will still respond to complaints received from consumers and will carry out regular inspections, but the auditing of food safety plans is recognised as a specialist field and the provisions of the bill clearly set out the standards that have to be met. It is interesting to note the way in which the model provisions were developed.

A thorough review of food regulations was carried out under the auspices of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council, the ministerial council, and the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, which is now known as Food Standards Australia New Zealand. The model provisions were prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel's Office under instructions from the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council with input from the Australia New Zealand Food Authority. They were based largely on the current New South Wales Food Act 1989, which has stood the test of time. As result of changes in circumstances, this bill is designed to enhance the Act and improve standards of public health.

The model provisions were drafted in two parts, annex A and annex B. Annex A included provisions that all jurisdictions agreed to implement without amendment, other than to reflect drafting conventions. Annex B included provisions that jurisdictions were at liberty to adopt or not, as they saw fit, or to amend as considered necessary. An intergovernmental agreement was signed in November 2000 committing all jurisdictions to work towards the implementation of food legislation based on the model provisions. To date the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia have passed new legislation based on the model provisions, and Queensland and Victoria have amended their existing Food Acts to implement the provisions of annex A and some of the provisions of annex B.

This bill implements all the provisions of annex A and the vast majority of the provisions of annex B. A legitimate concern expressed by all honourable members who have participated in this debate is related to the effect that this bill will have on food businesses. To a significant extent this bill has been based on the Food Act 1989, and to a large extent businesses will notice little change. Since 1991 jurisdictions have adopted the food standards that have been developed at a national level and this has been continued most recently by the Food Regulation 2001, which adopts the Food Standards Code. The matter of notification and registration would be of interest to businesses. The bill incorporates a requirement for food businesses, as required by various regulations, to notify their existence and details to the Department of Health.

While this provision does not exist in the Food Act 1989 notification requirement, it is required by Food Safety Standard 3.2.2, which is part of the Food Standards Code that is adopted and enforced by Food Regulation 2001. Food Regulation 2001 also makes provision for the administrative functions relating to notification to be undertaken by local government authorities. The Food Safety Standards and the food regulations may exempt businesses in a particular class from complying with the notification requirements. Food Regulation 2001 already exempts certain charitable and fundraising exercises from the notification requirements when there is no risk to public health-a very sensible policy.

The bill also imposes a requirement on any business that is prescribed by the regulations to register with the department. At this stage there is no intention to require food businesses, other than those already registered by SafeFood New South Wales, to obtain registration. All honourable members know the controversy surrounding genetically modified foods which are regulated under the Food Standards Code. There are two essential elements, namely, a mandatory pre-market safety assessment and a labelling requirements. The labelling requirements involve labelling of genetically modified food in circumstances when the novel DNA or protein is present in the final food and when the food has altered characteristics.

These requirements have been fully operative since 7 December 2001 and the provisions of this bill will certainly provide people in the community who are concerned about the impact of genetically modified foods with a degree of confidence. The addition of monosodium glutamate [MSG] to food is also a matter of concern to consumers because many people believe that it has a deleterious effect on health by triggering allergic reactions. Mandatory labelling requirements will enable consumers to identify packaged foods that have had MSG added during their production. In the case of restaurant or takeaway food, which is the subject of many complaints, the Government is currently considering a regulation to ensure that menus must state when MSG has been added to food prepared on food outlet premises. That is a very good market ploy for restaurant and takeaway food businesses because consumers want that information. That regulation will enable consumers to avoid foods that have MSG added during their preparation. That is a measure that will also give consumers confidence in their food purchases. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GIBSON (Blacktown) [10.48 a.m.]: I support this very important bill. There is an old saying: You are what you eat. I am certain that if we all knew exactly what we were eating and that the food is totally safe, we would be confident about the decisions we make. It is great to live in a nation which ensures that food is safe. Those of us who are lucky enough to travel know very well that many holidays are ruined because food that was considered to be safe has made people terribly sick. People who come to our great nation cannot make that complaint.

The bill will update and strengthen the regulatory framework for food production, distribution and sale in New South Wales. The Food Act 1989 will be repealed. The bill is drafted in line with the draft model food provisions approved by the Council of Australian Governments in November 2000. States and Territories have committed to introducing legislation based on the model provisions. The modelled provisions were drafted in two parts, annex A and annex B, with annex A containing those provisions agreed to be mandatory and annex B containing those provisions that jurisdictions could choose to introduce or not and with whatever amendments they considered appropriate.

This bill reflects the provisions of the Food Act 1989 with the following amendments. A number of new offences relating to food handling and sale have been introduced, including handling food in an unsafe matter, misleading conduct with relation to food, and the sale of unfit equipment or packaging or labelling material for use with food. As was mentioned by most honourable members who have contributed to this debate, the penalties have been substantially increased, to be more in line with standards applicable today. The penalties provided under the Food Act are being increased to between $40,000 and $100,000 for individuals and between $200,000 and $500,000 for corporations. It is of note that the 1989 Food Act also provides for a penalty of up to six months imprisonment for many offences, and this penalty is not replicated in the Food Bill.

The Director-General of Health will have the power to order a business to undertake a recall of unsafe food. These are great changes to the Act. The shadow Minister for Health raised concerns about the role of local government. More pressure will be placed on local councils to conduct inspections to ensure that foods meet the higher standards. I am certain most ratepayers and taxpayers would be only too willing to meet the increased costs necessary to ensure that the food that they and their families eat is safe and suitable for human consumption. I compliment Dr Bill Blair for much of the work that led to the introduction of this bill. In 1997 Dr Bill Blair was appointed chair of the Food Regulation Review Committee, which was charged with making recommendations on the safety of food in this State and nation.

The Blair report noted that the Australian system of food safety management is complex and fragmented and imposes unnecessary costs on business. However, the report also noted that the system is effective in delivering safe food to consumers. I would like to speak about a number of other aspects of the bill. The honourable member for Bathurst spoke about the provisions of the bill relating to the addition of monosodium glutamate [MSG] to food. I have a friend who often goes out with us to dinner, and sometimes we have had to take him to hospital because he has eaten food that contained MSG. On those occasions the menu did not warn him that the food contained MSG. Many people are adversely affected by MSG. The addition of monosodium glutamate to food is a matter that concerns many consumers. Mandatory labelling requirements allow consumers to identify those packaged foods that have had MSG added during their production.

This bill is a step in the right direction as far as food prepared by restaurants is concerned. In the case of restaurants or takeaway food outlets, the Government is currently considering a regulation to require that where MSG has been added to food prepared on the premises, menus must state that fact. My friend and people like him will be pleased about that. Monosodium glutamate can cause death where people have serious reactions to that substance. I am sure we all know of places in our suburbs, towns and cities that have been visited by inspectors and the proprietors have been prosecuted. But if you return to those places the next day you will see the same rack of lamb being sold. It might have been taken out the back and trimmed a little, but these unscrupulous people try to flog off this unhealthy food.

This bill provides for the seizure and destruction of food and equipment, and compensation. The bill provides that food and equipment may be seized by an authorised officer where there is evidence of the commission of an offence or where the food or equipment does not comply with the Act or regulations, or is packaged in a way that does not comply. The authorised officer may destroy the seized food if it is putrid, decaying or filthy or represents an immediate risk to public health. It is important that officers be empowered to destroy food that is in such an unhealthy condition. I am sure all honourable members could instance cases of such condemned food causing a lot of trouble when it has been sold at a later stage.

The last point I want to make about the bill is that it provides protection of the State from liability. The duty of care must be appropriately placed, having regard to insurance premiums today, to obviate stupid insurance claims such as are being made at the moment. While the State has a clear responsibility to exercise its regulatory functions diligently, it is not appropriate to seek to imply that the State is responsible for an injury or illness to a person where that injury or illness arises from unsafe food. Clearly, the party responsible for any injury or illness caused by unsafe food is the person who supplied or prepared that food. It is not appropriate to seek to imply a responsibility to the State in order to recover compensation. Similar provisions should be included in bills that deal with matters that enable people to lodge insurance and compensation claims. This is a great step in the right direction. I compliment the Minister for Health for having the foresight to bring this bill before the House. I fully support it.

Ms HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [10.56 a.m.]: I note that the object of the Food Bill is to repeal the Food Act 1989 and to enact new food laws as a result of an agreement between the Commonwealth, States, Territories and New Zealand dealing with the implementation of uniform food laws. I note that the Federal Parliamentary Secretary for Health, the Hon. Trish Worth, is satisfied that New South Wales has adopted the majority of recommendations from the Commonwealth's model bill. The bill before the House has been drafted in line with the draft model food provisions approved by the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] in November 2000. Those provisions were drafted in two parts, annex A and annex B. Annex A contained mandatory provisions-which the bill before the House adopts-and annex B contains provisions which jurisdictions can choose to introduce. I note that New South Wales is adopting the majority of those provisions.

The main parts of the legislation relate to creating new offences relating to food handling, including handling food in an unsafe manner, misleading conduct in relation to food and the sale of unfit equipment, or packaging or labelling material for use with food. I am sure all honourable members would acknowledge the need to ensure that food offered for sale to the general public is both safe and suitable for human consumption. I am reminded of a recent experience at a sandwich bar. The girl serving behind the counter was wearing plastic gloves, but unfortunately she also had a cold. I watched her scratching her nose and scratching behind her ears before making a sandwich. I left that line and went to another. That probably happens in many places. It is important that those businesses recognise that gloves are worn for a reason and ensure that food for sale is suitable for human consumption.

Botulism, food poisoning, is quite a serious problem that can affect anyone. I was certainly affected last year. After attending a function I spent a few days in Royal North Shore Hospital. Though I was hospitalised as a result of eating poisonous food, the experience at Royal North Shore Hospital was something else. That hospital is in need of desperate attention. It is understaffed with nurses, and doctors were hard to come by. The doctors did a wonderful job, and I commend them for that, but the rooms were ratty, the floors were dirty, and the cleaners were grumpy. The whole of the hospital system, but particularly Royal North Shore Hospital, needs a complete overhaul. In saying that I would like to emphasise that the nurses were overworked but were very hard-working. So what I say is no slight on them in any way, shape or form. Towards the end of last year I bought a sandwich from the Parliament House cafeteria that contained a spider. It can happen anywhere, even in Parliament House.

The bill includes increased penalties for food-related offences. The fines will be increased from $3,300 to $5,500 for all offences under the 1989 Act to between $40,000 and $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 to $500,000 for corporations. The bill sets out more detailed inspection and enforcement powers of authorised officers who will be employed by industry and be self-regulating. It introduces a registration system for any food business that is required to be registered under the regulations. I have some concerns about that. This is a further impost on small business. I would like the Minister to address how the Government will assist small business in implementing that part of this legislation. Small business is expected to comply using its own resources and funding. Will the Government assist those affected by this amended legislation?

Another issue that has been brought to my attention relates to community groups such as the Country Women's Association, the local gardening club, Red Cross, Legacy and so on. Every Saturday morning in towns and villages across my electorate of Burrinjuck-I am sure the same is true across the rest of New South Wales-various groups hold street stalls to raise funds. One can usually buy home-cooked jars of jam, fruit and sweets, and home-baked biscuits and cakes. I enjoy purchasing them and sharing them with my family and friends. Not only do I get a freshly home-cooked product but, in the process, I support a local charity. What will happen to those groups that do such wonderful work for the community when this legislation is enacted? I would appreciate the Minister's addressing that issue in his reply. Will bottles, Vacola jars and other recycled, boiled jars be banned under this legislation? How will charity groups survive as a result?

Questions arise about policing these provisions. The number of Department of Health food inspectors is limited and this legislation will presumably lead to a greater workload for council inspectors. Is this just another example of cost shifting from the State to local government? Clause 141 of the bill provides that regulations may be made containing provisions in addition to or in substitution for one or more of the provisions of the Food Standards Code. A regulation will be able to be made with the certification of the Minister and approval by the Premier. Other clauses have caused concern to some groups, particularly those dealing with a ban on the use of monosodium glutamate. I have received correspondence from various groups about that issue, including the Dietitians Association of Australia. I request that the Minister address the concerns I have raised about this bill.

Mr CAMPBELL (Keira) [11.05 a.m.]: My friend and colleague the honourable member for Blacktown commenced his contribution by stating that we are what we eat. I will not pursue that point. Nevertheless, I support this bill. I thank the Minister for that little chuckle; sometimes it is helpful to send oneself up a bit. The overview of the bill states that its object is to repeal the Food Act 1989 and to enact new food laws as a result of an agreement between the Commonwealth, States, Territories and New Zealand dealing with the implementation of uniform food laws. It was unfortunate that the honourable member for Burrinjuck strayed so far from the content of the bill by talking about Royal North Shore Hospital. She neglected to inform the House that the Government has announced a commitment to rebuild the hospital at a cost of $452 million. It is always important to correct those things in debates such as this. The expenditure on that hospital is part of a rolling program that the Government has put in place. One would be confident in saying that most hospitals in the State have had substantial capital injections or plans are in train to rebuild them and to reinvigorate the public health system. I congratulate the Minister on that.

The model provisions of this bill are the result of a thorough review of food regulations carried out under the auspices of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council, the Ministerial Council and the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, which is now known as Food Standards Australia New Zealand. The model food provisions were prepared by the New South Wales Parliamentary Counsel's Office under instructions from the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council, with input from Food Standards Australia New Zealand. The model provisions are based largely on the New South Wales Food Act 1989. As we have heard, they were drafted in two parts. Annex A included those provisions which it was agreed all jurisdictions would implement without amendment, other than to reflect drafting conventions. Annex B included those provisions that jurisdictions were at liberty to adopt or not as they saw fit and to amend as necessary. An intergovernmental proposal was signed in November 2000 committing all jurisdictions to work towards the implementation of food legislation based on the model provisions.

It is worthy of note that to date the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia have passed new legislation based on the model provisions, and Queensland and Victoria have amended their Food Acts to implement the provisions of annex A and some provisions of annex B. This bill implements all the provisions of annex A and the vast majority of the provisions in annex B. I am pleased to share with the House that the development of the model food provisions has been the product of extensive consultation undertaken over a lengthy period at a national level with input from all jurisdictions and key stakeholders. Substantial consultation was undertaken during the development of the model provisions and this bill. In 1998 the Australia New Zealand Food Authority produced three discussion papers on the development of uniform Food Acts for Australia and New Zealand, and in 1999 a regulatory impact assessment on the development of uniform Food Acts for Australia and New Zealand was published. Extensive discussion and debate has taken place over many years to develop this bill, which is extremely important if we are to protect public health and have confidence that when we buy food, whether it be packaged or from a fast-food outlet, it is not contaminated and will not lead to ill health.

Many people wonder why we need uniform legislation. The intergovernmental agreement to implement nationally consistent food regulations notes that there is a need to implement a cooperative national system of food regulation to achieve a number of objectives. They include protecting public health and safety; reducing the regulatory burden on the food sector; facilitating the harmonisation of Australia's domestic and export food standards and their harmonisation with international food standards; providing cost-effective compliance and enforcement standards for industry, government and consumers; providing a consistent regulatory approach across Australia; recognising that responsibility for food safety encompasses all levels of government and a variety of portfolios; and supporting trans-Tasman efforts to harmonise food standards.

The legislation from each State and Territory does not need to be uniform. There must be some flexibility for local conditions. Nonetheless, the legislation is consistent, it applies consistent standards, and it consistently adopts the Food Standards Code subject to amendments to recognised local conditions that promote and facilitate its effective application in each jurisdiction. I refer to how this bill will impact on genetically modified food, which is regulated under part 1.5.2 of the Food Standards Code. That standard has two essential elements: first, a mandatory pre-market assessment and, second, a labelling requirement. The labelling requirement involves the labelling of genetically modified food when novel DNA and/or protein are present in the final food and when the food has altered characteristics. Those labelling requirements have been fully operative since 7 December 2001. This bill reinforces what has been in place in relation to the labelling of genetically modified food-an important component in this bill. As many food services are provided by small businesses it is important to touch on how this bill impacts on those businesses. Often family businesses are sole traders who are working hard to make a living. Those people make a significant contribution to our economy. I note that the Minister for Small Business, who is in the Chamber, also encourages people in that sector.

I refer to the impact that this bill will have on food businesses. The drafting of this bill was based to a significant extent on the Food Act 1989, so there are not huge changes to the legislation. Most businesses will note little change upon the implementation of the new Act. Since 1991 jurisdictions have adopted the food standards developed at a national level. That has been continued most recently by the Food Regulation 2001 that adopts food standards. The bill incorporates a requirement for food businesses, as required by the regulations, to notify their existence and details to the Department of Health. While this provision does not exist in the Food Act 1989 it is required by Food Safety Standard 3.2.2, which is part of the Food Standards Code adopted and enforced by the Food Regulation 2001. The Food Regulation 2001 also makes provision for administrative functions relating to notification to be undertaken by local government authorities. Food safety standards and food regulations may exempt businesses in a particular class from complying with notification requirements. The Food Regulation 2001 already exempts certain charitable and fund-raising exercises from the notification requirement when there is no risk to public health.

The bill also requires any business prescribed by the regulations to register with the department. There is no intention at this stage to require that food businesses, other than those businesses already registered by SafeFood New South Wales, to obtain registration. So there will not be a significant impact on small business as a result of the introduction of this bill. The bill makes reference to auditing. The introduction of auditing for food businesses will require those businesses to comply with food safety programs and be audited for that compliance. There is a degree of flexibility in the frequency of auditing, so that businesses that are diligent in complying with the program may be audited less frequently than those that do not take their obligations as seriously. I have tried to touch on some of the information and provisions that are contained in this bill. The most important issue is that there is no significant change as a result of this legislation. In many respects it is a collaborative approach-one that was developed after consultation with other jurisdictions over a long period. There must be a consistent approach in this regard. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr WEST (Campbelltown) [11.15 a.m.]: One of the great things about Australia is our relaxed lifestyle. That is one of the things that makes Australia such an international tourism icon. Part of our strength lies in the cafes, the restaurants and the takeaways that provide for us our culinary delights. The food industry prides itself not only on its service and taste but also on its cleanliness. By and large, New South Wales businesses are safe and reputable places. They take it as a personal reflection on themselves and on their families-as often they are family concerns-if the food is not of the highest standard possible. This bill will be welcomed by most businesses that are already abiding by the high standards that New South Wales set in the past to protect consumers. This bill will cement their clean international image and give even greater assurance to consumers that the food is prepared in accordance with the highest standards. It will help to eliminate that minority of businesses that do the wrong thing and it will provide opportunities for the increased auditing of food premises.

The objects of the bill are to ensure that the food for sale is both safe and suitable for human consumption, to prevent misleading conduct in connection with the sale of food and to provide for the application in New South Wales of the Food Standards Code. This bill does not apply to primary food production, which is covered by other Acts. It is important to note that this is a national approach. It has been approved under the auspices of the Council of Australian Governments. Both South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory have passed new food Acts and Queensland and Victoria have passed amendments to existing food Acts based on model provisions. This legislation brings New South Wales in line with that code. This bill will provide increased penalties for those in the minority who do the wrong thing. There is now a distinction between the penalties that may be applied to an individual and to a corporation. Penalties have been increased, in the case of an individual, from $3,500 and $5,500 in the old bill to $44,000 and $110,000 and up to two years imprisonment and, in the case of a corporation, a maximum fine of between $220,000 and $550,000.

Emergency powers have also been given to the Director-General of Health, as the relevant authority, and those powers are to be used to prevent or reduce the possibility of a serious danger to public health or mitigate the adverse consequences of serious danger. However, when such an order is made on inadequate grounds, there is also provision for compensation for a person who has suffered loss in those circumstances. Importantly, for those honourable members who, over time, have been active in charitable organisations, this bill has been modified to exempt charitable, community and fund-raising events such as local church fetes or a football club sausage sizzle where the food that is sold is not potentially hazardous or is to be eaten immediately after thorough cooking. There is also a free Internet-based system for food businesses to notify their existence as well as the more traditional means, such as pen and paper. This bill will enhance the reputation of Australian restaurants and protect consumers. So regardless of whether New South Wales consumers are having damper or a croissant, pasta or a pavlova, they can say "Bon appétit" with safety.

Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [11.18 a.m.]: Honourable members must understand why there is a need for uniform legislation. This legislation is not just being introduced in New South Wales; it is being introduced across Australia. I will not bore honourable members by reiterating what has already been said in debate on the Food Bill. The honourable member for Campbelltown said that Australia has a good reputation for the quality of its food and the production of food on farms and in country areas. When that food arrives in Sydney or in major suburban and country areas it must be of the highest quality, and must in no way present a problem to public health and safety. As honourable members would be aware, about 22 years ago there was a great scare amongst oyster farmers on the Georges River when the oysters were found to be bad. The entire oyster industry on the Georges River, which was renowned for its world-class oysters, was virtually crippled.

Mr Rozzoli: They are second to the Hawkesbury River oysters.

Mr ASHTON: As the honourable member for Hawkesbury reminds me, the Georges River oysters are second only to the Hawkesbury River oysters. At any level, the production, care and distribution of food is essential in modern society. Therefore, as part of the Australiawide approach across many areas, there was a need for uniform legislation to ensure consistency in legislation relating to the preparation of food. New South Wales food standards are similar to those in South Australia, Western Australia and other States. The standards are approved by the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council, which notifies its decisions to the ministerial council. Clause 140 of the Food Bill provides that emergency regulations may be made amending the Food Standards Code in its application in New South Wales if the Minister certifies that such regulations are necessary as they relate to an issue of public health and safety. I believe that is one of the most important aspects of the bill. Honourable members may recall that some years ago smallgoods produced by a South Australian company-whose name I will not mention because I might get it wrong-were found to be infected. Indeed, children lost their lives after eating the smallgoods products.

Such an occurrence further illustrates the need to have an up-to-date and accurate Food Bill, to guarantee to people-as well as can be guaranteed by legislation-that cooked and prepared food is safe to eat. Quite a deal of attention is paid to the information provided on food labels. I recall that some years ago I bought tinned seafood that was produced in Thailand. I recall that at the time I wondered whether the quality of the food would be as good as we might normally expect in Australia. I took the risk, bought the tin of mixed seafood, put it on a pizza base, cooked it up, thought it looked pretty good and ate it. In my life I have never been as sick as I was that night and the next morning. I am sure it was not the Australian pizza base but the tinned Thailand seafood that caused me to be sick. I have never forgotten that occasion. Hopefully, Madam Acting-Speaker is not going to advise me that the Consul General of Thailand is in the gallery! It is extremely important that if we see the label "Product of Australia"-not just assembled in Australia, or partly made in Australia, which has been corrected through the Australian national standards-on a food product we can be certain that it is of the highest quality.

Another aspect that concerns me-because I think I am allergic to it-is monosodium glutamate [MSG], which is added to food. I believe people need to know that MSG is often added to food as a flavour enhancer, particularly in Chinese and Asian restaurants. Of course, the product has quite a deleterious effect on people who are allergic to it. As the Minister for Tourism knows, people can get quite sick if they eat too much MSG. With regard to restaurants and takeaway foods outlets, the Government is currently considering a regulation to require that when MSG has been added to food prepared on the premises all menus must state that fact. Currently most good restaurants might include such a notation on their menus, and people can sometimes say they do not want MSG on their food. However, it would be much better if the legislation required that it be done.

In conclusion, the Food Bill is a welcome addition to attempts in this State to take action against anyone who feels that the production of food is not important. Food cannot be cooked, left to lie around for hours, and then simply served up to people. People can get dangerously ill when that occurs. I often eat in one of the more popular restaurants in my electorate. When I ask for, believe it or not, simply toast and a plate of chips, I like to ask for a fresh plate of chips to be cooked, rather than receive the chips that might have been sitting there for half an hour or so. I believe that most of us know that if food is fresh and has been properly cooked it is safe to eat. The Food Bill goes a long way towards ensuring that.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [11.25 a.m.]: I have a particular interest in the Food Bill because before becoming a member of Parliament I owned and managed a family cafe for 4½ years and I became an excellent short-order cook. Many people like me go into the food industry without any specific training. During an interview on the ABC recently about restaurants, a food connoisseur and expert pointed out that although he had been a cook and chef's assistant he was never a chef, but people presented him as a chef. Indeed, some of the advertising that was done in regard to him presented him as a chef. However, he prepared the order because, as we all know, chefs have a certain status. As I have said, most people in the industry, as occurred when I was in the industry, do not have professional training in food preparation. However, there is the assumption that because you can cook in the home-

Mr R. W. Turner: A lot of cooking goes on in the Parliament.

Mr McBRIDE: I agree that a lot of cooking goes on in this Parliament. However, not a lot of it involves food. As we have seen in the last couple of weeks, there are a lot of problems on the other side of the House because of what is cooking there at the moment. Members can rest assured that a lot of nervous people opposite are not sure what they will be fed in the next few weeks. The Food Bill provides for uniform food quality throughout Australia. The bill was drafted in line with the draft model food provisions approved in November 2000 by the Council of Australian Governments.All States and Territories have committed to introducing legislation based on those provisions. Importantly, a number of new offences relating to food handling and sale have been introduced, including handling food in an unsafe manner, misleading conduct in relation to food, and the sale of unfit equipment, packaging or labelling material for the use of food.

From my experience in the family cafe, I am aware that food regulations are managed by council and that if a food facility is not registered with council no system is in place for council to inspect the facility. I will cite an example. Many sandwich shops are not registered with council as food facilities. Originally, sandwich shops provided soft drinks, lollies, confectionery and other prepackaged products over the counter. However, as the community requested gourmet sandwiches and wanted more food prepared freshly on the spot, sandwich shops were not regulated. Also, because they were not registered with council, they were not inspected. However, a registered cafe or restaurant was inspected by council.

Throughout the food industry there was a movement from food outlets providing packaged food to providing fresh food. Regulations applied to a number of aspects in the provision of fresh food, including the cooking of food, how it was stored and the temperature at which it was stored. Of course, there are always fads in the food industry. I recall that at one stage it was said that food outlets could not use wooden chopping boards because of issues associated with bacteria and so on. However, I am sure everyone would be aware that for thousands of years wooden chopping blocks have been used in butcher shops.

Mr Fraser: How long?

Mr McBRIDE: Members of the Opposition are on the chopping block at the moment. I remember arguing with a local government food inspector. I said, "We have been doing this for 5,000 years." I was a butcher's boy at one stage, so I understood the process. The honourable member for Canterbury was a butcher, so I consulted with him about it. At the end of the day the wooden chopping block was scrubbed with a wire brush. That is the way I have always done it at home. My grandmother taught me to do it that way. Regulators in the food industry decided that the chopping block had to be plastic. Anyone who has used a sharp knife on plastic knows it leaves a groove in the plastic. Within a few weeks there will be grooves in the chopping block that you cannot get out. If you use a wooden block that can be scrubbed away. In the butcher's shop the chopping block is curved and contoured because all the cuts have been removed with a wire brush.

The regulation provided that proprietors had to do away with wooden cutting boards and introduce plastic. Within three years that changed. In other words, I had to replace everything with plastic and then I had to go back to the wooden chopping board. What is interpreted as correct practice changes over time, and regulations then change. There is always a risk if food is not prepared properly. That risk carries over to consumers. Many party hire firms now provide catering in one's home. Often those firms are not subject to regulation by council because they are not registered in a fixed location. Only a couple of years ago at a wedding in Wyong some 35 people got food poisoning from one such firm. At the moment one of my younger boys works in such a business doing outside catering. There is little or no regulation about the quality of food, how it is prepared and how it is inspected, because the firm does not have fixed premises.

The type of catering service is increasing, particularly in luxury homes and throughout the eastern suburbs. Companies providing that sort of catering service are not inspected, regulated or checked on. Having been involved in the industry, I believe it is important that this regulation be introduced but regimes must be introduced to go with the regulation so that correct outcomes are enforced and food preparation standards are lifted. The honourable member for Kiama successfully ran a restaurant in Wollongong for six years. We have talked about these issues: the need for uniform regulation and, most importantly, the need for regimes that effectively implement the regulation and provide the quality required by consumers.

Ms NORI (Port Jackson-Minister for Small Business, Minister for Tourism and Minister for Women) [11.33 a.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I will address several of the points that have been made. The subject of local government officers was raised. The Department of Health has allocated significant funding for the training of local government food inspectors so they are able to perform their duties under the Food Act. Additional requests for funding by local government will be considered by the department during the implementation of the legislation. Emergency powers contained in part 3 of the bill are designed to allow the Department of Health to respond in a timely manner to any situation that represents a serious danger to public health. That includes an order for the closure of a food business or the recall of certain foods.

Clause 141 will allow for the making of regulations to modify the operation of the Food Standards Code. That is not designed to provide a mechanism to respond to emergencies but, rather, to allow a considered approach to applying the food code in this State. For example, an application may be made to modify the Food Standards Code in so far as it requires the notification of the existence of a food business. The Minister for Health has already made a regulation under the Food Act to exempt small community-based fund-raising exercises from the notification requirements of the code. A similar regulation will be made under section 141 of the new Food Act.

The honourable member for North Shore claimed that authorised officers will be employed by industry. That is not the case. Authorised officers will be employed by the Department of Health through local public health units and local government. However, food auditors will be employed by industry following approval by the Department of Health. The Department of Health has undertaken an extensive education campaign to assist small business to understand and comply with its obligations under the legislation. It is clear from all the contributions that food safety is a matter of considerable concern to honourable members and to the public in general. None of us wants unsafe food. The illnesses that result from the consumption of unsafe food can have significant, and in some cases lifelong, impacts on individuals.

It is appropriate that food safety and the control of the production and retail of food have a high priority. This bill, together with nationally developed integral food safety standards, will create the regulatory framework that will deliver assurances to the community that governments are taking practical steps to ensure food safety. As Minister for Tourism I am able say that one of the reasons that people love coming to Sydney is the great diversity of eating experiences that can be had here. This might sound unreasonable, but it happens to be true: the use of the incorrect food safety standards in our restaurants will have an impact. Word travels fast. It is very important. It is my great pleasure to commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 17 September.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [11.37 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on this legislation, which we do not oppose. We believe it is good legislation. The Surveyors Act 1929 currently regulates regulatory and disciplinary issues relating to land surveyors in New South Wales. That legislation was subject to National Competition Policy review, and in large part the bill is the result of the recommendations made as a result of the National Competition Policy review. The most significant aspects of the legislation arising from the recommendations of the review were, firstly, the retention of the system of registration of land surveyors as being in the public interest. That is a good recommendation. We need to maintain standards.

The bill also broadens the scope of the board to include surveyors involved in coalmining, metalliferous mining and other extractive industries. New South Wales has roughly 1,000 land surveyors and approximately 150 mining surveyors. Whereas in the past they have been separated, this legislation brings them together. In keeping with that arrangement, there are changes to the membership of the board to include representatives of coalmining, metalliferous mining and extractive industry surveyors, the land or cadastral surveyors and the broader spatial information industry. There will also be a community representative.

The bill also removes the restrictions on advertising by registered surveyors and the naming of survey practices. In addition to those significant recommendations, which came out of the National Competition Policy review, the bill contains other amendments, including a provision to change the name of the Board of Surveyors to the Board of Surveying and Spatial Information. This legislation consolidates a number of Acts, including the Surveyors Act 1929, the Survey (Geocentric Datum of Australia) Act 1999 and the Survey Marks Act 1902, into a single piece of legislation.

Essentially, this legislation is about implementing some of the recommendations that came out of the National Competition Policy review. In the bill the Government has taken the opportunity to consolidate into one piece of legislation all those aspects that deal with surveying and spatial information. There have been many changes in the spatial information industry in the past decade in particular, and I believe it is good that we are looking at consolidating all aspects of the surveying profession and integrating them with other spatial information providers. The Opposition does not see any great difficulties with this legislation. We have consulted the Institution of Surveyors New South Wales, which supports the legislation. I have not found anyone who opposes the legislation and, accordingly, the National and Liberal parties will not oppose it. Indeed, as I said, we believe this is good legislation.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hickey.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to provide for up to 11 private members' statements forthwith.

Mrs HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [11.41 a.m.]: A few weeks ago I visited a wonderful establishment, the Wahroonga Nursing Home, and had the pleasure of addressing a meeting of the residents committee. I was the invited speaker and spoke to the residents about the area in which they live-and, in many cases, have lived for a very long time-and the various aspects of life in the electorate of Hornsby. The democratically run committee meets regularly to receive information, as well as to talk about issues, whether these matters are related to the nursing home itself or to wider community concerns. Lea Ireland, the Occupational Health and Safety Officer, is the instigator of the residents committee meetings, and the initiative has been extremely successful. She is a very hard worker and is committed to her work at the nursing home.

Today I address the House about the value of the elderly in our society and how we must cherish and support them. When I visited Wahroonga Nursing Home I was alarmed to find that they had asked for a concessional entry permit to visit some of the parks in the vicinity of Wahroonga-Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, Lane Cove River National Park and Garigal National Park. During the meeting a letter from the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service was read out to the group that denied them access to these parks-our parks, which are currently under the care of the National Parks and Wildlife Service-with concessional entry permits, after they had requested such a permit. It appears that a handful of the residents were not pensioners so concessional entry permits could not be granted. The letter stated:

As your nursing home has membership open to non-pensioner concession card holders your application is therefore denied.

I am left almost speechless at this bureaucratic decision. The residents of this and other nursing homes have contributed a great deal to our society and surely deserve unconditional entry into any National Parks and Wildlife Service parklands. The fact that the pension cardholders would have had to carry their cards to prove concessional entry and others without such cards-self-funded senior citizens-would have to pay is beyond understanding and very uncaring. The end result of the answer from the National Parks and Wildlife Service was that the residents would not bother with the trip to the parks. The insult to them was palpable. It was almost as if they were being viewed as likely to include non-senior citizens and non-residents of the nursing home in the bus. The letter also stated:

Bus entry is charged on a per person basis and therefore any person who has a full pension concession card (blue) or a TPI pension card with them has free entry into Ku-ring-gai Chase, Lane Cove River and Garigal national parks. A Senior Card is not eligible for concessional entry.

The letter is nothing short of appalling in its tone. It thanks residents for their interest and appreciates their desire to share national parks with others, yet does not give them due respect for their standing in our society. I must ask: What difference would it have made if a bus load of people, some of whom may not have had blue pension concession cards but all were elderly and resident in a nursing home, had entered the National Parks and Wildlife Service environs to enjoy what we own? I put it to the House that it would have made no difference, and now there will be no bus trip. The attitude to these people sends a poor message to our society about how we value our older members. Surely the National Parks and Wildlife Service is not so bureaucratic that it could not waive the rules and allow a bus full of senior citizens into the parks.

To be made to show a pension card drives a wedge down the middle of the group when they receive equal recognition for their standing in the nursing home in their day-to-day activities. To visit some of our beautiful park areas would have given them a wonderful journey out of their usual home, and for a minimal cost of $10 that would have paid for the bus. Now they have to change their plans. Another area that I believe could be less bureaucratic relates to a specific request to the National Parks and Wildlife Service to grant entry to one park in the metropolitan area. I had a request from the parent of a disabled boy who lived near a national park and who wanted entry into this one park for his son. He did not need or want to enter other parks because he could easily access the nearby park with his son, and he wanted to do this on a regular basis for the benefit of the boy.

This man's request to be allowed to pay for entry into one park in Sydney was also denied; he could only buy a multi-parks pass. The man would not have used such a pass to enter any other park except the park near his house. Have we become so bureaucratic that we overlook the individual needs in our community? What damage would it have done if a bus full of elderly people had been allowed to enter one or more of our national parks on a concessional entry permit, and the father of a disabled boy had been allowed to pay for entry into only one park?

Mr BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [11.46 a.m.]: When I was a boy I lived in Silsoe Street in Mayfield, Newcastle. To many people, including the rest of Australia, Newcastle was BHP, and to the people of the Hunter, Mayfield, which is in my electorate, was BHP territory. Mayfield has been hurt emotionally, socially and economically over the past few years by the closure of BHP. The central business district [CBD] is struggling. In many ways, the suburb of Mayfield lost its identity because of the removal of BHP from its vicinity, and it is in a process of rebadging. I congratulate Newcastle City Council on recognising that hurt in the Mayfield community, because it is running a project called 2304 Mayfield: Soul Guts Spirit.

Mayfield has a proud tradition. Much of the wealth of New South Wales and Australia came from the sweat and blood of the industrial factories of Mayfield. Stories were told of three generations of the same family losing their lives on the same day in a BHP accident. The grandfather, father and grandson all died in the same accident. There was a lot of blood on the floor of the BHP factory. Since BHP has gone, Mayfield has also been hit with the closure of bank branches. The relocation of the supermarket from in the town to just outside the CBD has threatened the viability of the existing CBD. The 2304 Mayfield: Soul Guts Spirit project is an attempt to bring the community back together and to give it a badge by which it can revive itself. It is a renewal process and it is good for the soul. It is recognition of the guts, blood and sweat of previous generations. Spirit is still part of the Mayfield character. Those who have been and are still involved in working in the Mayfield community make it a caring place for inhabitants.

The Mayfield program has five different parts. Forty communications students from the University of Newcastle are currently undertaking an extensive gathering of the oral history of Mayfield by interviewing the living treasures of the area. A community choir has been established through a singing and sound project for people both with and without disabilities. The choir sang at the opening of the launch of 2304 Mayfield: Soul Guts Spirit. There is also an indigenous performance group and a schools visual arts group in which a local artist works with local schoolchildren. I hope to attend a function associated with that group on Friday. During the twilight of 23 November at Dangar Park, the project will culminate when all the works I have described will be displayed and the community will come together. I encourage all the people of Mayfield to become involved in any of the segments I have mentioned and to join in the 2304 Mayfield: Soul Guts Spirit project.

It has often been said, for many reasons, that Mayfield is a Labor stronghold. Why would it not be? When BHP closed $10 million from the Commonwealth Government and $10 million from the State Government was put into job creation in Newcastle and the Hunter. When the Federal member for Paterson, Bob Baldwin, received more than $100,000 of the funding that was supposed to go into job creation, it hurt. People in Mayfield have long memories and they are cynical about Federal and State politicians who do not deliver for Mayfield and its surrounding areas. It sticks in the craw of Mayfield residents and Labor representatives when funds are diverted from projects. Mayfield boys do not forget, and neither do their families. I commend 2304 Mayfield: Soul Guts Spirit.

Ms HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [11.51 a.m.]: There has been a significant growth in the number of mothers seeking employment in the Tumut, Batlow and Gundagai areas. The flow-on jobs from the Visy mill, the opening or expansion of several tourist accommodation centres and the Southcorp winery have all created an expectation that jobs can be found. Many mothers are making the decision that now is the time to return to the work force. The State Government should be actively assisting them to do so, but it seems that the Department of Community Services [DOCS] is doing its best to make the transition in my electorate as difficult as possible. Working women and men with young children need guaranteed access to long day care.

I spoke recently with representatives from four long day care centres: Tumut Forest Tops, Tumut Capper Street, the Gumnut Childcare Centre at Gundagai and the Batlow Apple Tree Learning Centre. All those long day care centres have significant problems attracting suitably qualified staff. All have long waiting lists of parents wishing to place their children in the centres. That is a significant problem that affects almost every long day care centre in New South Wales. The Government could, however, take effective action to address the problem. New South Wales is the only State in Australia that requires the employment of early childhood teachers in long day care centres. The Minister for Community Services requires, by regulation, that long day care teaching staff must have completed a university degree in early childhood studies. Traditionally this profession is dominated by women, but there not enough appropriately qualified teachers who live in, or are willing to move to, rural areas. That places an incredible strain on staff recruitment.

Those who have an Associate Diploma in Childcare and several years of experience might be employed as teaching staff, but only with the special approval of the Department of Community Services. Because of staff recruiting problems, the Gumnut Child Care Centre in Gundagai recently had to reduce the number of places it offered from 39 to 29. Before that the centre had a waiting list of about 20 working women. The reduction was forced on the centre by the Department of Community Services. The Tumut Forest Tops Centre has 59 places for children and, according to the regulations, needs two early childhood teachers. The centre has none. However, three of the centre's staff have attained associate diplomas and the centre is seeking special approval for those staff to be employed as teachers. Taken together, Tumut Forest Tops, Tumut Capper Street and Gumnut in Gundagai are short of five early childhood teachers. The Batlow Apple Tree Learning Centre is short of two teachers.

It is in the process of advertising for those desperately needed staff that the government bureaucracy creates further problems. Centres are required to advertise in a national newspaper. I have been informed that not one of these centres has ever had a single response from an advertisement in a national paper. That is simply a government-mandated waste of scarce funds. A typical advertising campaign would go like this. The centre advertises for a university qualified early childhood teacher for two to three weeks. No response is received and the centre then employs a TAFE-trained person and seeks special approval from DOCS, which then requires the centre to advertise for a further two months before it will begin the process of approving the unqualified teacher. Once begun, the approval process takes at least a month. The long day care centre is in the position of having to employ an unqualified staff member for a period of at least three months with no guarantee that that staff member will be able to stay after the approval process is completed.

That has a unsettling effect on the children, parents and the staff member, and is a significant factor in the high turnover rate of staff in long day care centres. The Tumut and Gundagai centres I have referred to are part of the same group which recently placed one advertisement for five teachers for its three centres. The process was completed and special approval was sought for unqualified teachers. The group was then told by DOCS staff that the advertisement was not suitable because one combined advertisement has been placed for the three centres, not three separate advertisements as DOCS requires.

After three months of attempting to recruit staff, the group was told to go back to square one and start again. Effectively, the group was forced by the department to operate unregistered for at least five months because of a bureaucracy that seems to thrive on excessive nitpicking. If a TAFE qualification is good enough for the rest of Australia, why is it not good enough for New South Wales? Why does New South Wales have to have such a high qualifications requirement when it only has the effect of restricting the access of working mothers to child care in rural New South Wales? There are solutions to these problems. As there are so few university-trained early childhood teachers in rural areas, the qualifications required could be relaxed to an associate diploma combined with an appropriate level of experience. I understand that the qualifications required are currently under review. I urge the Minister to ensure that a realistic standard is set that will improve the ability of long day care centres to recruit staff, particularly in regional and rural New South Wales.

Mr STEWART (Bankstown-Parliamentary Secretary) [11.56 a.m.]: It is timely to provide the House with a report on the Carr Government's achievements in the Bankstown electorate. I am proud to inform the House that, during the term of the Carr Government, the Bankstown electorate and surrounding areas have fared extremely well. My electorate now has community focal points that did not exist prior to the election of the Carr Government. That pattern will continue because it is planned to allocated more resources to my electorate in the future. During this speech I will highlight the emphasis that the Carr Government has placed on getting things done in Bankstown. The Bankstown railway station received an upgrade at a cost of $3.48 million. Station facilities were improved and a closed-circuit television security system was provided for the benefit of commuters. An amount of $1 million has been allocated for an upgrade of station facilities at Lakemba railway station. New covered walkways are being constructed at Punchbowl railway station at a cost of $100,000, and $100,00 has been allocated. Wiley Park railway station has been allocated $100,000 for facilities that will improve passenger comfort.

The Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital has been rebuilt at a cost of $77 million and provides emergency services, maternity services, general medicine, surgery, critical care and paediatric services. It is now a great hospital and serves the community extremely well. The Canterbury Hospital, which would have been closed if a decision by the previous Coalition Government to knock it down and bulldoze it had been implemented, has been saved and rebuilt by the Carr Government at a cost of $70 million. The hospital has 208 beds and provides emergency, maternity and critical care services.

Bankstown courthouse is about to undergo a rejuvenation, with the planning involved being to the tune of $500,000. That involves the building of a $16 million state-of-the-art court complex to service the needs of the Bankstown community. The M5 East, built at a cost of $794 million, provides a great service to the people of the Bankstown region. Not only has it made Bankstown more accessible to other communities, particularly affording the opportunity to access the central business district quickly and safely, but more importantly it has resulted in quite dramatic increases in the value of properties in the Bankstown region. A good deal of that is attributable, as real estate agents tell us, to the fact that the M5 East is a corridor to the Bankstown area.

I mention also that the Bankstown Community Health Centre is now a one-stop shop in the middle of Bankstown, at a cost of $4.1 million. It was recently commissioned and open by the Minister for Health, the Hon. Craig Knowles. I thank the Minister for his focus on efforts to improve health services in the Bankstown electorate. This state-of-the-art facility provides opportunities for the people of Bankstown to access community health services at the one location. Previously those services were located in different areas of Bankstown, making it difficult for users of community health services to access those services. All those services are now in the middle of Bankstown, and very accessible. That is a great achievement of the Carr Government.

Stacey Street North has received a $15.6 million upgrade. Stacey Street is a major arterial road, linking the northern and southern sides of Bankstown. For more than 50 years people in the area have been arguing for an upgrade of that road. I am very pleased to report that it was the Carr Government that delivered $15.6 million for that upgrade. But there is more; it does not stop there. Recently $270,000 was spent on upgrading guttering along Stacey Street, something that the residents have been seeking for 30 years. This Government provided the funding for those upgrade works. Very importantly, new traffic lights have been installed at the intersection of Greenacre Road and Stacey Street, at a cost of $1 million. Those lights were not programmed for installation for a long time. Again it was the Carr Government that made this possible. Our great Minister Carl Scully ensured that service was delivered as quickly as possible. I commend the Carr Government on its record of servicing the people of Bankstown. The electorate has received unparalleled resourcing opportunities-in stark contrast to services that the Coalition Government did not deliver for the people of the electorate of Bankstown.

Mr PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [12.01 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to raise a matter of serious concern to my constituents Mrs and Mrs Davis. The issue of home owner warranty has received a lot of attention throughout New South Wales, particularly in this Parliament. Mr John and Mrs Kerri Davis of Darlington Point have suffered owing to the vagaries of the home owner warranty issue. Quite a number of builders have approached me about the difficulties they have had of obtaining home owner warranty insurance, particularly after the collapse of HIH Insurance. But probably more significant, and certainly more devastating, has been the impact of the issue on persons whose home owner warranty insurance suffered when HIH Insurance went into administration. The Davises are among those persons.

Construction on the Davis house commenced under Hotondo Homes, but Hotondo Homes itself went into liquidation, leaving the Davises stranded. They are now covered for home owner warranty insurance by Royal and SunAlliance Insurance, a company based in Victoria. About two years ago construction of the Davis house ceased, and they are still waiting for completion of its construction. I have a substantial file on this matter of correspondence which I have written to the Minister for Fair Trading, replies I have received from the department, as well as correspondence with the insurance company. But it has all been to no avail. To this very day Mr and Mrs Davis remain dissatisfied with the way in which they have been treated by the Department of Fair Trading and their insurance company.

At the moment Mr and Mrs Davis are paying off the mortgage on their house. They are also paying rent on a house that they have been forced to live in because their new house has not yet been finished. That leaves them and their three children living in a one-bedroom house. This will be the third Christmas that they have been in this mess. They are also paying storage costs for their furniture. All the paperwork has been signed for a new builder to finish off the house, but the Davises are still awaiting insurance company permission to start the job. This matter is taking a very long time to settle. That is no fault of the Davises. They are caught in the middle of a dispute between the insurance company and the Department of Fair Trading.

I have previously written and asked the Minister for Fair Trading to intervene in this matter and do whatever he can to resolve it. I am told that the Davises' 14-year-old daughter is sleeping in the lounge room with one or two of their other children. She has well and truly had enough. At 14, she is at high school, and her grades are suffering as a result of this unsatisfactory accommodation. She is talking about leaving home. The position is quite serious. It has been quite concerning for me to watch these people suffering at the hands of insurance companies and bureaucracy. I understand that these things take time, but three years is much longer than it should have taken to resolve the issues. I hope the Minister for Fair Trading will intervene personally in this matter to have it sorted out. The Davises are in a really desperate state. Three years is more than enough for them to wait. I hope they will get the assistance they require from the Department of Fair Trading. The very reason we have such a department is to assist people like the Davises when they get into these predicaments. This family is in dire circumstances. I urge the Minister to intervene and do something to assist them.

Ms ALLAN (Wentworthville) [12.06 p.m.]: Today I want to talk about heritage and in particular Holroyd City Council. Two weeks ago in Newcastle, Holroyd City Council-which administers one of the areas in the electorate of Wentworthville-won the New South Wales Heritage Office Keep Australia Beautiful award. This was part of the Metro Pride awards for Keep Australia Beautiful, of which I happen to be chair. I can assure the House that there was no active intervention on my part to ensure that Holroyd City Council won that award. Holroyd City Council has enjoyed a very prominent reputation in more recent years on heritage. It won the award because of the number of its outstanding activities in this regard.

Specifically, Holroyd City Council arranged for a survey and listing of heritage items. Currently it has identified 78 items of heritage significance protected under the Holroyd local environment plan. The Holroyd City Council has actively pursued the conservation of a major industrial heritage site, the 1884 Goodlet and Smith Brickworks. For those who have not visited the area, the remains are being retained and conserved as part of a joint venture with a private residential developer. The brickworks site eventually will be open to public use. Since 1994 the council has run a heritage advisory service, providing free advice to all owners of heritage items in the Holroyd area and a professional service to the council itself. The council has actively pursued with the community the retention of the historic 1891 Linwood House as a community facility. Quite recently the State Government made a quite welcome announcement that that would be retained as a community facility.

Holroyd City Council has been actively involved in the adaptive reuse of the 1880s Lower Water Canal, which runs from Prospect Reservoir to Merrylands, part of which runs through my electorate. This linear landscape contains some of the best stands of remaining Cumberland Plain forest and will be used for recreational purposes. Council has also undertaken a number of major conservation and enhancement works throughout its local government area. I congratulate Holroyd City Council, in particular the former mayor Councillor Mark Pigram, and welcome the new mayor, Councillor Malcolm Tulloch, both of whom joined me in Newcastle two weeks ago to receive the award. Even though I strongly support and applaud Holroyd City Council's record on heritage management-now recognised through the Metro Pride awards-it is fairly obvious that not all the residents of Holroyd City Council share the same enthusiasm as does the council on this issue.

On Monday I had a meeting with one of those members of my community. Chris Patsides is a Greek Cypriot migrant. He came here in about 1950 and for a significant period since then he has been living in Wentworthville. He owns a house at 32 Garfield Street, Wentworthville. His problems typify the heritage protection and management problems facing my electorate. His house is in a marvellous heritage precinct. It is a superlative area and thoroughly deserves its heritage recognition. Even though it is very fine, Chris's house is not significant as a heritage building, unlike many of the surrounding properties. Of course, it is still being considered for heritage listing by Holroyd City Council. Chris and some of his neighbours and friends are very upset about this situation.

On 5 August he took the opportunity offered to him by Holroyd City Council to address the council and expressed his heart-felt objections to the proposed listing of his home, which the council is considering. I have undertaken to convey his thoughts to the council and, if possible, to mention his case in Parliament. Like many of his neighbours, Chris has lived and worked in the area for many years. He is so upset by what is occurring that when he spoke to the council he likened its actions to the actions taken by the Nazis in Germany during the Second World War. He feels very strongly and emotional about his house being listed. The message for Holroyd City Council, the Parliament and the New South Wales Heritage Office is that we must communicate as succinctly, directly and informatively as possible with local residents. There must be some flexibility in the system. I will approach the council to establish whether it can accommodate Mr Patsides' concerns.

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes-Deputy Leader of the National Party) [12,11 p.m.]: I would like to address concerns raised by the occupational health and safety committee of the Chatham Public School. Over the past four years the school has experienced a 20 per cent increase in enrolments. It now has 21 students with disabilities in regular classes, three of whom have severe mobility problems-they are wheelchair bound. The number of paid support personnel working in the school has also increased from one to 12. These changes have led to two major problems; that is, occupational health and safety issues and emergency evacuation of staff and students, and the lack of educational facilities to support programs within the school.

An emergency drill was recently conducted at the school during which some disturbing safety issues emerged. The school's library and computer laboratory are on the first floor of the main building, up a double stairway. During the emergency drill one of the wheelchair-bound students was in a library lesson. He is a large boy and movement other than by wheelchair is very difficult. He and his aide use a stair walker, which means they are very slow in getting to and from the library and the computer laboratory. The occupational health and safety committee discussed the matter and concern was expressed about the ramifications during an emergency.

I intend to raise the condition of the library and the need for a new facility in respect of priority two, which relates to the lack of educational facilities to support programs in the school. A number of issues arise under this heading, including the staffroom, toilets, meeting rooms for parent groups, the Aboriginal room, an interview room, support programs, executive office space and teacher preparation areas. On any one day the 70-square-metre staffroom can cater for up to 40 staff. That renders it virtually useless. The area also has only one toilet. Complaints have been lodged with the occupational health and safety committee and something must be done immediately. Although the three toilets in the area concerned are deemed to be adequate under the occupational health and safety code of practice, their position is inconvenient.

Queues are a regular occurrence, particularly at recess times, and that is unsatisfactory. The school does not have adequate space to accommodate a meeting room for parent groups. Therefore, its underlying philosophy of recognising the importance of parents in a community partnership cannot be implemented. The school uses the office of one of the assistant principals to conduct interviews, and that causes problems for that assistant principal. Numerous support programs have been implemented at Chatham Public School. It has three learning-difficulty programs running concurrently, a gifted and talented students program, a reading recovery program, a community helper reading program and two intensive Aboriginal reading programs.

A converted storeroom is used to accommodate those programs. Again, that is not satisfactory. The occupational health and safety committee has told me that a demountable library should be located in the school grounds as an in-bound area. That would allow the existing library facility to be used for executive offices, as a teacher resource centre, for student support groups, and as an Aboriginal education assistance room, a withdrawal room and a quality working space for teachers. That would also assist with disabled students on the first floor, which obviously creates a problem in emergency evacuation situations. It would allow the existing staffroom facilities to be used to accommodate an educational room and a ground floor computer laboratory.

Ms BEAMER (Mulgoa) [12.16 p.m.]: I congratulate Erskine Park High School on its Education Week celebrations. Like other members of Parliament, I have enjoyed attending various Education Week functions. Erskine Park High School's celebrations typify the events occurring in the State school system. As it has done in previous years, the school decided to hold a multicultural event that celebrated the diversity of students in the school. The tolerance and mutual respect that they show each other and the harmony in which the community lives highlight much about Australia itself.

This year the school dedicated the day to sports and pastimes around the world and held demonstrations of various pastimes. Thanu Abayaratna, a year 7 student, demonstrated his karate skills. Malaysian kite flying was demonstrated by two year 7 students, Nathan Carroll and Nathan Sammut, who showed us the various techniques employed and the types of kites used in Malaysia. Two year 10 students, Bradley McBride and Steve Allen, introduced the art of juggling. However, the highlight of the day for many students was the Philippine martial arts group, which did an outstanding demonstration. Unlike many martial arts demonstrations, watching this demonstration was akin to watching a Bruce Lee movie.

Students described this day as "an amazing day" and they said, "We hope that we can do these kinds of things again." It was a great experience that was shared by the whole school. It was great to participate in the lunchtime activities-amusing activities that students came up with to highlight the various cultures represented at that school. For example, the mini Olympics were organised by Greek students in the personal development, health and physical education faculty and Indian students organised the playing of chess. However, it was interesting to note that the pastime of Australian students was gumboot throwing. There might be a bit of gumboot throwing in Australia, but I do not see it as a huge pastime. However, that event was immensely popular with students who saw it as some sort of discus event.

Di Hennessey, principal of the school, fosters mutual respect in the community, which transcends all national, racial and language barriers. Student leadership teams, which comprised students from Sri Lanka, the Philippines and New Zealand, demonstrated that microcosm in our society. Lunchtime activities, which were well attended, included things such as line dance demonstrations and dog tricks. Whilst I did not participate in the line dance demonstrations, I was a lousy gumboot thrower. It was noted that I was more dangerous than practical at that event. All the parents and students deserve to be congratulated on the way in which they helped that school celebrate Education Week in a practical way-in a week when they were remembering the events of September 11.

Students would have liked to say to the world, "We are able to demonstrate how various cultures at our school and throughout Australia can get together." They saw it as a way in which they could demonstrate to the world that we could live in harmony. During Education Week each year this school demonstrates its commitment to multiculturalism and to having students from different schools participating in different events. I congratulate teachers and all those involved at the school.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [12.21 p.m.]: Child care is a major issue in my electorate. The proportion of children aged nought to 12 in my electorate-19.4 per cent-is one of the highest in the State. Kellyville, one of the fastest growing areas in Australia, should be renamed Kiddyville. It is a suburb in which the most common sound is that of children playing. Families in The Hills electorate are upwardly aspirational. They have come to enjoy our great lifestyle and excellent schools and many of them-particularly, but not exclusively in the new estates-have large mortgages to service. Consequently, both partners work and there is an extremely high demand for child care places, not just in Kellyville but throughout the electorate.

For example, a resident of West Pennant Hills rang my office today. His company had just transferred him from Queensland and he wanted child care for his son, who has special needs. He eventually succeeded in getting a place at North Rocks, which is scarcely convenient, but beggars cannot be choosers. This family highlights a real problem-that of families with children who move into the area rather than families whose children are born after they have moved. My office recently surveyed child care centres in Kellyville and discovered that every one of them had a waiting list. A typical example is the Beaumont Hills Child Centre, a 30-place long day care centre catering for three-year-old to five-year-old children which has a waiting list of 40 and no vacancies for this year or next year.

Kellyville preschool, which looks after 40 children a day, has a waiting list of 160. Parents are literally in tears because they cannot get their children into that centre. Clearly, there is a market for new preschools and child care centres. But the Department of Community Services appears to be doing everything that it can to discourage the establishment of new facilities. The licensing system for a new child care centre is so cumbersome that the department recommends hiring a consultant to help you through the red tape. The department also advises that it will take up to 12 months to set up a child care centre, so even if some far-sighted entrepreneur seized the opportunity to establish 10 or 12 new child care centres today, the first centre would not open until September next year.

All honourable members should read the Carr Government's Centre Based and Mobile Child Care Services Regulation No. 2 of 1996. It is a model all right-a model of everything that is wrong with bureaucracy around the world. No fewer than 12 clauses govern the changing of nappies. Each centre must have 3.25 square metres of unencumbered play space for each child and one cot for each child under the age of two. Staffing ratios vary with age: 1:5 for nought to two-year-old children and 1:10 for three-year-old to six-year-old children. The trouble is that the children's ages do not remain constant; like all of us, they are growing older by the day. So a centre that starts off the year conforming to the regulations might find that it is operating outside its licence by the end of the year.

Grace Russo of Gracelands Child Care Centre in Kellyville wrote to me recently asking whether the number of placements in her facility could be increased from 89 to 100. The need is certainly there. That facility, which only opened in 1996, could certainly accommodate the extra children. However, under the regulation, once a centre exceeds 89 children it requires an additional early childhood teacher. Not only is that almost prohibitively expensive; the teachers simply are not available. A degree in early childhood teaching qualifies a woman to work in either a child care centre or a primary school. Unfortunately, schools pay better and the hours are shorter, so they are ending up with most of the graduates. Mrs Russo subsequently wrote to the Minister for Community Services, the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, about the visit by licensing staff from the Department of Community Services. The letter points out:

Gracelands Child Care Centre is a quality establishment providing a superior level of care that has placed us in the highest of community regard. This fact is substantiated by our burgeoning waitlist and our low turnover of children. We were visited by two Children's Services Advisers on 21st August for our third licensing inspection.

As a result of that visit, Mrs Russo was presented with a seven-page Children's Services Risk Action and Compliance Plan to be completed and returned by 20 September. The key issues include: first, that the nappy change facility does not have a separate hand-washing facility. However, it was licensed and approved by the Department of Community Services in 1996 and re-licensed in 1999 without any problems in that area. The facility complies. It has a deep stainless steel basin in its nappy changing area with temperature-regulated hot and cold water and appropriate drainage. Placing another basin in that area will reduce the space available, to no good purpose.

Second, the service has 14 children aged nought to two, 25 children aged two to three and 50 children aged three to five. The maximum capacity of the service is 30 children aged nought to two and 60 children aged two to six. The differential is a function of the ageing process to which I referred earlier. Most of the children who come into Gracelands as babies end up staying with the service until they go to school. Having to balance numbers in this way by age is bureaucracy gone mad and it is not in the best interests of my local community. The department also complained that the service does not have four early childhood teachers.

That observation is correct, but the service is advertising for early childhood teachers and it is finding it extremely difficult to find anybody to employ. It does have three staff members with diplomas and another is soon to graduate. In November another graduate teacher will be joining staff at that facility. I ask the Minister for Community Services not only to look favourably at Gracelands' request for an increase in the number of placements available, which is important for my community, but also to overhaul the red tape involved in licensing child care centres.

Mr WEST (Campbelltown) [12.26 p.m.]: I refer this afternoon to the St Vincent de Paul Society Macarthur doorknock appeal, which has been held over the past two weekends. Around 400 volunteers have given up time with their families and friends to go doorknocking for St Vincent de Paul in the Campbelltown, Camden and Wollondilly areas. This is only the second year in which this doorknock appeal has taken place. Once again it has proved to be a great success. It is a success not only because of the volunteers who go out, work behind the scenes, draw up maps and deliver collection buckets and the like; it is a success because of the generosity of local people who dig deep into their pockets and who willingly help Vinnies to help people.

When I was out on Saturday I was once again reminded of the generous community in which I live. At a time when the weather lent itself to gardening, barbeques or relaxing, locals were good-natured and willing to dig deep into their pockets and help. Something that I have always enjoyed about Campbelltown is the way in which people get behind things and quietly lend a hand. I am told by people who come from other parts of Sydney that that quality has sometimes been lost. Despite the fact that the St Vincent de Paul Society goes about its business quietly, it has a fine reputation for helping people in the Campbelltown and Macarthur area since 1950, and worldwide since 1883 when it was founded by Frederick Ozanam. Organised into local and regional groups, members of the St Vincent de Paul Society work within their own community, living their Christian faith by giving practical help and support to people experiencing tough times.

Since its establishment in Macarthur in 1950, the society has grown to become the largest local provider of crisis assistance to families in need and the largest local provider of housing for homeless people. The society is actively working to encourage people to take greater control of their destiny, believing that people not only need help on a day-to-day basis but also need to be provided with skills for the future. Each year the St Vincent de Paul Society in Macarthur assists 9,500 families and individuals with food, financial help, clothing and furniture-the total value of this assistance being $360,000. The doorknock appeal that was held last weekend is expected to raise more than $45,000 through the work of the more than 500 volunteers. The society provides housing for up to 104 homeless people every night, working with these people to break the cycle of homelessness. Each year the society assists thousands of people to address underlying problems such as alcohol and drug addictions, financial management and social isolation. It supports residents of local public housing estates to work for and achieve the changes they want, to create a better community for their families.

I was pleased to be able to assist the society in its fine work in the Airds and Claymore communities with a grant to the tune of many tens of thousands of dollars to continue the animation project in the area. I congratulate the workers in that field on the work they have done with locals in helping them solve their problems. The St Vincent de Paul Society has for many years relied on support from other communities in New South Wales to keep it going. However, this source of funding is diminishing as demands are being placed on these organisations within their own communities, and on a large number of charities. That is why the St Vincent de Paul Society has set up a doorknock appeal. The society is appealing to the Macarthur community for help, and the Macarthur community has responded generously. The people of Macarthur have once again got behind the society that locally works quietly to help them. I congratulate the St Vincent de Paul Society on its efforts, and I thank the people of Campbelltown and Macarthur for their support. I also make special mention of the diocesan president, Brian Murnane and Paul Power, who worked quietly behind the scenes coordinating the effort. Once again, congratulations on a successful doorknock appeal.

Mr TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [12.31 p.m.]: I am delighted to take this opportunity to support regional universities. Given the comments of the Minister for Education and Training on the Nelson review, I felt it appropriate to make a contribution about the significant impacts of regional universities on our communities. Universities make significant contributions to State economic development through their provision of advanced learning and professional training; their research capacities and role in the advancement of knowledge; and the generation of high value adding and employment. I have been honoured to have a direct involvement with the University of New England for more than 20 years. It is a wonderful organisation, which makes a substantial contribution to the New England district. The value-adding impact of the University of New England on its regional community has being estimated at $277 million. A recent survey conducted by the Department of State and Regional Development states that the university also generates 6,903 full-time equivalent jobs. The university has a higher impact on its region than any of the other four regional universities in New South Wales, and the estimated figures shown in the report reflect only the minimum estimates of the total economic benefits.

The impacts of regional universities on their communities are particularly important. They are major employers in the towns where they are located; they inject substantial expenditure into local and regional economies; they attract export income from overseas students; they carry out high value-adding activities; they raise the educational achievements and aspirations of regional communities; they provide the skills, knowledge, infrastructure and creativity to stimulate local industry and new business ventures; and they contribute to regional economic planning, local government, and social and cultural development initiatives more generally. Currently five universities are located in regional New South Wales. As at March 1999 these universities had 79,000 students enrolled and directly employed more than 7,600 staff. The Department of State and Regional Development estimates that regional universities in New South Wales inject just under $600 million in expenditure directly into regional economies each year.
This direct expenditure generates per annum approximately $820 million direct and flow-on value-adding in New South Wales regional economies, and 20,550 direct and indirect full-time equivalent jobs in regional New South Wales. The value adding generated by the expenditure of the five universities accounts for just over a quarter of the contribution by the education sector-including schools, TAFE colleges, universities and so on-to regional New South Wales economies, and 1.6 per cent of New South Wales gross regional product per annum. The 79,000 students enrolled in regional universities in 1999 accounted for 36 per cent of all New South Wales university enrolments, both internal and external. Of these students, around 7,500 were from overseas. A year later, the number had grown to 10,125. The general impacts of these enrolment patterns include retaining a youthful population in New South Wales regions, bringing not only social dividends for local communities but also the benefits of retaining expenditure in regional economies, and attracting students from outside the region, including overseas, resulting in increased demand for accommodation, consumables and services.

The Department of State and Regional Development estimates that university students spend around $230 million in New South Wales regional economies each year through their daily living expenditure. Regional universities also bring a number of highly significant dynamic benefits to regional New South Wales. Apart from their obvious role in skills formation, they also provide the expertise, knowledge, infrastructure and creativity to stimulate local industry and the new business ventures that sustain local communities. Southern Cross University and the University of New England have recently pooled their expertise to open a Maritime Research Centre in Coffs Harbour. I note the presence in the Chamber of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. I am aware of his support for the project. The University of New England has set up outreach centres at Tamworth and Taree. Through visiting fellowships, partnerships and other reciprocal arrangements with interstate and overseas universities, many regional universities also act as gateways through which regional communities acquire valuable new skills and expertise. Let us hope that this review produces positive outcomes for regional universities.

Private members' statements noted.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr WEST (Campbelltown) [12.37 p.m.]: As we have heard, this bill removes certain restraints on competition which existed in the Surveyors Act 1929 and consolidates legislation relating to land survey in New South Wales. I welcome the amendments that have been placed before the House. The objectives of the bill are fundamental to the production, safeguard and maintenance of a spatially referenced cadastre in New South Wales. Surveying is the basis for our land tenure-notably, where our neighbour's fence goes, but it affects roads and businesses, and it is fundamental to a successful State. Surveying also reminds me of the days of exploration, when whole continents were unknown and explorers set out to map and survey, and often conquer, what they found. Mitchell, Sturt and Leichhardt all etched in imagination in Australia. When I think of this, I am reminded of the poem written by Keats entitled On First Looking into Chapman's Homer, which reads in part:
Keats illustrates why it is important to get surveying right. For, not only is it a great image but it is the wrong location. I am indebted to the University of Toronto for the information. I think Keats had in mind Balboa, not Cortez, who first crossed the isthmus to the Pacific. Of course, Cortez looked at Mexico City. One can see that getting a location wrong can have long-lasting consequences. The use of the term "land cadastre" has changed slightly over the years. Originally the term referred to an official register of the quantity, value and ownership of real estate. In New South Wales these registers have been maintained largely by the Registrar General and the Valuer General, and in part by the Department of Land and Water Conservation. To paraphrase the International Federation of Surveyors 1995 "Statement on Cadastre", a more modern definition is:

A parcel based, and up-to-date land information system containing a record of interests in land … It usually includes geometric description of the land linked to other records …

The bill recognises the importance of expanding the old definitions and limitations by incorporating mining surveyors, members of the spatial industry and other interested professions on the Board of Surveying and Spatial Information. Through the regulation and qualification of land and mining surveyors and the provision of information standards the Board of Surveying and Spatial Information will continue the sound work already undertaken by the Board of Surveyors by ensuring that sound, secure spatially referenced information is available to the State. Increasingly it is important to be able to spatially reference by location such information that may be held in a variety of agencies. A prime example of this is in an emergency services context. It is important that persons fighting fires have the best available information, not only about the ownership of land and the terrain but about the location of bridges and water supplies.

The foundation for this work is a sound referenced framework such as the State control survey network. The inclusion of other members of the spatial information industry on the board will provide the opportunity for further discussion, improvement and innovation in this area. Technology is providing new ways of processing and increasing efficiency. Already Land and Property Information New South Wales has begun a pilot scheme with some surveyors to lodge plans electronically. Honourable members will recall that legislation was passed earlier this year to facilitate electronic plan notification. Through forums such as the Board of Surveying and Spatial Information this can be further enhanced. The amendments contained in the bill will ensure the continued production, maintenance and quality of spatially related information in the State, safeguarded by the Board of Surveying and Spatial Information and key agencies such as the Department of Information Technology and Management.

Mr ANDERSON (Londonderry) [12.41 p.m.]: The Surveying Bill was initiated by the national competition policy review of the Surveyors Act 1929. As a result of that review a number of recommendations were made, many of which are being addressed through this legislation. There are, however, three matters that have not been addressed in the bill before us. I would like to outline to the House the background to these matters. Two of the national competition policy review recommendations concern the removal of prescriptive elements of the Survey Regulation 1996 and the removal of restraints upon naming. Both of these recommendations will be managed through the regulatory review process. The Department of Information Technology and Management is continuing to work with a small working group of stakeholders-including representatives of the survey profession, the spatial information industry and other government agencies-to finalise the new regulations incorporating the national competition policy recommendations and the changes that will result from the passing of this bill.

A further recommendation concerns educational and professional training requirements. These aspects will involve ongoing consultation between the new Board of Surveying and Spatial Information, the education sector and the survey profession to ensure that the educational processes are streamlined and continue to ensure that a high level of competency is retained by the profession. As honourable members may be aware, to become a registered surveyor currently an applicant must undertake four to five years of tertiary study through a university or TAFE and then undertake a further period of practical skills development under the supervision of a registered surveyor and an examination or professional training agreement overseen by the current Board of Surveyors. The board's examination tests practical skills in four different areas: cadastral surveying in regional areas and in urban areas, a design for a substantial engineering work and a development proposal. This practical examination process may take a further three to four years for student surveyors to complete, depending upon their commitments.

As an alternative to the examination process, candidates can enter into a professional training agreement under the supervision of a registered surveyor. These agreements take a structured learning approach to competency development, where student surveyors gain practical skills incrementally over a two-year time frame, depending on aptitude. This approach is gaining acceptance as an alternative way of ensuring highly competent surveyors. Discussions have already commenced with educational and training providers to include some aspects of the practical examination in the study of the degree. This would reduce the lengthy study period for potential surveyors but ensure that competency levels are retained. The discussions concern education and the continuing education of trained professionals to keep them abreast of changes in practice regulations, and the profession generally will continue to adapt. Educational requirements have not been detailed in legislation in the past. It is not necessary that the information be reflected in the current legislation. It will continue to be an administrative arrangement.

Finally, but importantly, the current bill embodies the intention "to produce, safeguard and maintain a state cadastre of spatially referenced information through the regulation and qualification of cadastral surveyors". Although this objective has not been specifically stated, it is inherent in the terms of the bill. Another honourable member has already spoken on this matter. I will not labour the point further, but to say that this is a worthy and important objective. Reliable, quality spatial information data is an important aspect of the State's information infrastructure. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains-Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [12.46 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable members representing the electorates of Ballina, Campbelltown and Londonderry for their contributions to this debate. As the honourable members have outlined, this bill is a response to the national competition policy review of the Surveyors Act 1929. Importantly, the bill retains the system of registration of land surveyors in New South Wales because it is seen to be in the public interest. The bill contains a range of provisions that will ensure the ongoing quality and integrity of land, mining and spatial information for the community; remove certain restrictions on the survey profession, providing the opportunity for further innovation and competition; and encourage fresh perspectives and improved communication across the spatial information industry. There has been extensive consultation with the surveying and spatial industry on the proposed changes, and they have indicated their support for the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 12.48 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains-Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [2.15 p.m.]: Today the New South Wales Rural Fire Service [RFS] has declared a total fire ban over an extensive part of the State, with many areas facing extreme weather conditions conducive to heightening bushfire risk. The Rural Fire Service Commissioner has warned that without significant rain this spring we are facing another extremely serious bushfire season. Since 1 July the RFS has recorded nearly 3,000 bush and grass fires, with some 140 becoming major bushfires requiring intensive firefighting efforts. This is shaping up to be a particularly long and difficult bushfire season. Following updated advice from the Bureau of Meteorology, the Rural Fire Service Commissioner has today declared total fire bans in the following districts: Sydney Metropolitan, Illawarra, Northern Tablelands, Northern Rivers, North West Plains, North West Slopes and the Hunter.

This is the first time this year that total fire bans have been imposed in the greater Sydney, Illawarra and Hunter areas. The weather forecast for these seven districts is for very high temperatures, low humidity and moderate to strong winds. These are similar to the conditions we experienced last summer. This weather is conducive to bushfires. The community is urged to take particular care because the fire danger in these areas will be either extreme or approaching extreme. A number of large bushfires are burning around the State today, including in the Wingecarribee shire, in the Richmond valley and one that has recently been contained in the Castlereagh area of Penrith. I remind the community that these fire bans mean that no fire of any kind may be lit in the open. I urge the community to take every sensible precaution to prevent fires and to protect themselves and their property in the event of fire.

Mr STONER (Oxley) [2.18 p.m.]: Last week's natural disaster declaration resulted from high winds on the South Coast. We are again seeing extreme weather conditions courtesy of the El Niño weather pattern. At 11.30 this morning the Bureau of Meteorology issued a New South Wales fire weather warning. Hot, dry and windy conditions are expected to cause very high to extreme fire danger in the following weather forecast districts today: Northern Tablelands, North West Slopes, North West Plains, the Hunter, Illawarra and Sydney Metropolitan. Consequently, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service Commissioner totally banned the lighting of fires until midnight tonight in those districts. The Opposition supports the declaration of the total fire ban, and calls on all citizens to observe this ban by not lighting fires outdoors. In the case of bushfires, an ounce of prevention can save the loss of millions of dollars of property and the devastating impact this can have on people's lives. All indications are that this will be a very long and dangerous bushfire season. Responsible citizens must support volunteer firefighters by observing fire bans and other restrictions on the lighting of fires during this period. I also urge members of the community to be vigilant for possible cases of arson. Sadly, these conditions seem to bring out criminals, who should be dealt with under the full force of the law.

Mr YEADON (Granville-Minister for Information Technology, Minister for Energy, Minister for Forestry, and Minister for Western Sydney) [2.20 p.m.]: Today I inform the House about how solar energy is being used in our schools. Solar in Schools is a fantastic program. It is part of the New South Wales Government's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases and to promote renewable energy technologies. Through practical demonstration, the program teaches children, their parents and their teachers about how solar energy helps to protect the environment. It is about capturing the clean energy from the sun and converting it into electricity. As everyone knows, global climate change is one of the most serious environmental problems we face. One of the biggest contributors to climate change is energy-energy that comes from sources such as coal. Indeed, from memory I think electricity generation nationally constitutes some 64 per cent of this country's greenhouse gas emissions, which is a very large component. Burning coal produces gases such as carbon dioxide which contribute to climate change. The New South Wales Government is working with the community to find local solutions to this global problem. Solar energy is one of the answers-a clean power source that produces no gases such as carbon dioxide.

There are already 28 solar schools in the State, and in the next year many more will become solar powered. Recently I announced 10 of those when I went to the Berala Public School with the honourable member for Auburn to help that school join the solar club. That was a fantastic day and it demonstrated the benefit of this program. Today I inform the House that an additional 10 schools in country New South Wales will join the solar club. Under the $100,000 Solar in Schools Program, the following schools will receive solar panels: Bowral Public School, Durrumbul Public School in Mullumbimby, Edward Public School in Deniliquin, Naradhan Public School, Nimbin Central School, Nulkaba Public School in Cessnock, the Riverina Environmental Education Centre in Wagga Wagga, the Rocky River Public School, Wentworth Public School and Walcha Central School.

Another $72,000 will be spent on providing panels for four schools in southern Sydney and the Illawarra, namely, Helensburgh Public School, Menai High School, Otford Public School and Warrawong Public School, which is in the southern suburbs of Wollongong. Through this program, kids in places like Walcha and Deniliquin will learn first-hand of the benefits of this renewable energy technology. I thank the Department of Education and Training for its initiative and support in this program, the Sustainable Energy Development Authority for its promotion of the use of renewable energy technologies in New South Wales and EnergyAustralia for buying a lot of the excess solar power that is generated from the system. Many people might think that renewable energy is unusual or some type of futuristic technology. Clearly, that is the view of the Opposition.

Mr Hazzard: No, we think you have run out of energy. We think you are a tired Government.

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

Mr YEADON: No. Members opposite are a backward-looking, archaic Opposition. As we know, the Opposition has just stymied the Lithgow silicon smelter.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that honourable members do not emulate the honourable member for Wakehurst by interjecting. The honourable member for Wakehurst has had an unfortunate week in the House, and he has already been called to order.

Mr YEADON: I will follow your sound advice, Mr Speaker. As honourable members know, the Opposition has just stymied the Lithgow silicon smelter.

Mr Souris: Rubbish!

Mr YEADON: It is not rubbish. Everybody knows what you have done.

Mr Souris: You are the Government. You are in control; you are in charge of planning. Wake up to yourself!

Mr YEADON: Everybody knows the role the Opposition has played. The Opposition is antidevelopment. Importantly, that silicon smelter would have produced material for solar cells I am talking about.
Mr Souris: Who lost it?

Mr YEADON: The State Opposition lost it. It is on the record.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the National Party is becoming a little excited, and question time has not yet begun. I ask him to settle down. If he does so he will be more likely to remain in the House for the whole of question time.

Mr YEADON: That is the sort of intellectual ratbaggery that we hear from the Opposition about this issue. It is impossible to go forward and introduce technology such as solar photovoltaic cells without the production of silicon. This is an industry that companies such as British Petroleum and Shell are saying will soon become the biggest in the world. The Solar in Schools program clearly demonstrates that solar power is here now. New South Wales is leading the way in the generation of solar energy; it generates more than one-third of Australia's total solar energy. Solar energy can be a part of everyone's everyday life, both at home and at school. The installation of solar panels at schools will generate approximately 2,000 kilowatt hours of electricity every year and will meet the needs of running 17 computers for an entire year at each school[H]Should there be some indication here that the Deputy L/O interjected? AM.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order. The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr YEADON: Over the guaranteed life of the system that will be installed, the schools will save more than $4,000. In total, this program will prevent more than 85 tonnes of harmful greenhouse gas emissions being released into the atmosphere every year.

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

Mr YEADON: While schools will be saving on their electricity bills, our children will be learning about how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help to stop global climate change.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [2.28 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the use of alternative energy sources in generating electricity. It particularly supports solar energy, wind-powered energy and other forms of thermal energy. All honourable members would acknowledge that greenhouse gases are a by-product of fossil fuel combustion, particularly coal, but also oil and gas. The Opposition supports the Solar in Schools Program. It is important for the younger generation to appreciate that solar power is a cleaner source of energy than energy generated by traditional methods. However, it is important to correct one point made by the Minister. The production of solar cells creates greenhouse gases and the production of silicon for photovoltaic cells requires the production of substantial amounts of carbon, which in turn creates carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. The Minister clearly got that wrong in the early part of his statement.

We support the Solar for Schools Program. We welcome its expansion to all parts of the State. The production of silicon on the east coast of New South Wales and Australia is a viable industry, as was stated yesterday by Australian Silicon Limited. We also note that the proponents of the proposal, Australian Silicon, are not pulling out of Lithgow, as has been claimed. We also note that yesterday afternoon on 2UE Mike Carlton, in response to the comments made by the Premier, said those comments were "simply not true". What the Premier said was not accurate. He got it wrong.

Mr WOODS (Clarence-Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [2.30 p.m.]: I want to update the House on the Department of Local Government's investigation into Warringah Council. As honourable members would recall, I announced the formal investigation in late January, following a raft of complaints about the northern beaches council. Last year Warringah had the dubious honour of being the most complained about council in New South Wales, with allegations of corruption, breaches of pecuniary interest, potential conflicts of interest, a break down in meeting procedures, administrative problems and a lack of proper process.

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

Ms Moore: Point of order: I ask you to request the Minister to start again because we have not heard what he has been saying.

Mr WOODS: I will start again. I want to update the House on the Department of Local Government's investigation into Warringah Council. As honourable members would recall, I announced the formal investigation in late January, following a raft of complaints about the northern beaches council. Last year Warringah had the dubious honour of being the most complained about council in New South Wales, with allegations of corruption, breaches of pecuniary interest, potential conflicts of interest, a break down in meeting procedures, administrative problems and a lack of proper process. Senior Department of Local Government officer Jim Mitchell, who was formerly the Deputy New South Wales Auditor-General, has carried out the investigation. Mr Mitchell interviewed more than 50 people, including councillors, and also studied thousands of pages of documents.

I was advised earlier this week that the council's nine councillors and general manager received the draft report on a strictly confidential basis as the final round of natural justice provisions. The council now has 21 days to consider the draft report and provide its corporate response to Mr Mitchell. Following due consideration of all comments and submissions from council, Mr Mitchell will then forward to myself and the Department of Local Government Director-General the final report with its recommendations, as required under the Local Government Act. At the same time, the final report will also be delivered to council and, as required under the Act, tabled at its next council meeting. The council will then have 40 days to respond to me on how it is to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations.

Depending on the report's recommendations and council's response to them, I have the power to institute a formal public inquiry that can lead to the dismissal of the council. That is not a step that I take lightly. However, I will act against any council which has failed in its responsibility to residents and ratepayers and which has failed to maintain the confidence of its community. As evidence of that, I have dismissed two councils in the past four years.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt-Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Corrective Services) [2.33 p.m.]: I would like to advise the House that this morning the Federal Government signed a sugar industry support agreement with the Queensland Government. Although the package was hailed as a national rescue package, there has still been no consultation whatsoever with my office or my department in relation to this package. I say again that the Federal Government has ignored New South Wales sugarcane growers at every turn. I quote what was said by the Premier at the Country Labor conference in Cooma:

I want John Anderson and Warren Truss to remember Queensland isn't the only State with a sugar industry. We've got 630 cane growers along the Clarence, Richmond and Tweed rivers.

Today, I put the Federal Government on notice. We have a sugar industry, too. We insist on our fair share.

I would expect some support from the New South Wales Coalition on this issue. That was 11 days ago, and we are still awaiting. Last week in this House I detailed how the Federal Government's proposed package might affect New South Wales sugarcane growers and New South Wales sugar consumers. Under the package, New South Wales consumers pay $33.6 million and our sugarcane growers receive only $3 million. It is little wonder then that the Federal Government ignores our sugarcane growers and refuses to consult with our Government. Obviously, the Federal Government is ripping off our State once again. I have instructed my department to work with our growers to keep them in the loop, despite the Federal Government's efforts to keep them in the dark. In conclusion, once again I call on the Federal Government to remember the New South Wales sugarcane growers and ensure they get their fair share of assistance. I repeat: The package is for $33.6 million for consumers and only $3 million for the farmers.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [2.35 p.m.]: I appreciate this opportunity to respond to the Minister's announcement. Only a month or five weeks ago I met with a number of New South Wales sugar industry leaders at the Condong sugar mill, accompanied by Mr Thomas George, the honourable member for Lismore. I said to those industry leaders, "I am the new shadow Minister. You might tell me what your major concerns are." For the record, they said, "Our biggest problem is the Native Vegetation Conservation Act of New South Wales." I am happy to take the Premier up there next time I go so that he can hear for himself. Then he would know. The sugar industry leaders said, "That Act inhibits us totally from undertaking any further development of sugar lands, because we will be required to identify trees that may become hollow trees in the future, and we are not allowed to remove a tree or introduce new technology or new machinery." That was their first complaint.

The second complaint, believe it or not, is that they want to get into-I am sure the Minister for Energy will be interested in this one-the production of Bogas. They want to contribute to the New South Wales energy system. However, they are inhibited by the Government because they will not get assistance for, or indeed recognition of, the fact that they will need to cart sugarcane trash. They are not getting assistance and access to roads to do that, nor are they getting assistance to store their gas because once the gas is manufactured during the season it is taken off and stored and then brought back for burning to put back into the system. The Government is working against them.

So the two things the industry wants are, first, commonsense and practicality on native vegetation conservation. That legislation is also restricting increases in the value of their land, thereby increasing the encroachment of urbanisation. Farmers cannot compete with urbanisation because the Government has put this blight on their land with this native vegetation conservation legislation. Second, the industry wants to be a contributor to conservation of the environment and to do the right thing by energy in this State. It wants to help the Government, but the Government is working against it.

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

Mr AQUILINA: Yesterday the honourable member for Vaucluse asked a question about home warranty insurance. I seek leave to provide further details.

Leave not granted.

Ms NORI (Port Jackson-Minister for Small Business, Minister for Tourism, and Minister for Women) [2.28 p.m.]: I do not normally raise international issues in this Chamber unless they relate to trade or exports. However, as the Minister for Women I believe it would be remiss of me not to bring to the attention of the House the fate threatening a 30-year-old woman, Amina Lawal, in the northern Nigerian State of Funtua. Sharia law has been introduced in some 12 northern States in Nigeria in the past two years and is being applied in an unprecedented fashion that appears to relate to the local political environment. Under these laws, Ms Lawal was sentenced in March this year to be buried up to her neck and stoned to death for having a child more than nine months after divorce. If Amina had never been married, the charge would have been different and the maximum sentence would have been 100 lashes. Last month the Funtua appeal court upheld Amina's sentence, but an appeal to a higher court is pending.

Just as we live in a time of global economics, surely we also live in a time of global human rights. As part of that, we hold dear the principle that women are free and equal individuals with a right to control their own lives. We also hold dear the principle that that applies regardless of a woman's background, chosen lifestyle and what she chooses to wear, whether it be a mini skirt or a religiously prescribed scarf or robe. It is important in this country and, indeed, in the international community that we raise our children to respect the basic human rights of all women. Here in Australia we are lucky. We live in a multicultural society in which, by and large, the rights of men and women are respected. However, even here, antidiscrimination and antivilification laws can go only so far. The rest is up to us as individuals. As parents we have a responsibility to raise our girls to be strong and assertive about their rights and to raise our sons to respect those rights.

The sentence handed down on Amina is clearly a violation of her human rights as a woman. I congratulate the Prime Minister on raising this issue when he met with President Obasanjo of Nigeria earlier this week. We as Australian parliamentarians should do everything we can to help ensure that the sentence is not carried out. I refer honourable members to an Amnesty International web site-www.mertonai.org/amina-which contains suggestions on how to support this campaign. I have written to the Nigerian President seeking his intervention on Ms Lawal's behalf. I am happy to pass on details of that web site to any honourable member who wishes to join the campaign. International outrage has already saved Safiya Hussaini, the only other Nigerian woman to receive the same sentence as Amina. There is a good chance that the weight of world opinion can also save Amina, given that her sentence is not supported by Nigerian national law. In the cases of both Safiya and Amina, the male partner was set free. Although pregnancy of itself is a sign of guilt for women, a man must either confess or be seen committing the offence by four witnesses.

I note that the Nigerian branch of the International Federation of Women Lawyers [FIDA] states that the implementation of Sharia law at the local level has been particularly unfavourable to women. There is strong debate in Nigeria about the legal and constitutional issues that this raises. According to FIDA, the Attorney General has written to the Governors of the States concerned describing the introduction of Sharia law as unconstitutional. It is now reasonable to expect the Nigerian President to take the next logical step on Ms Lawal's behalf. This should not be left to chance. I applaud the strong campaign being run by human rights organisations such Amnesty International and BOABAB, an African organisation dealing with women's human rights. I urge all honourable members to support this campaign.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove) [2.45 p.m.]: The Opposition does not often agree that it is appropriate for the Government to raise an issue of international significance in this place. However, on this occasion we agree absolutely with the Minister for Women. As she has correctly pointed out, this is a question of our having an international conscience. As members of Parliament, we are in a position to influence public opinion. We have an opportunity that many others in the community do not have, that is, to ensure that our voices are collectively heard. In this instance we have an obligation to one of our international sisters.

The application of Sharia law to Nigerian women is a matter of concern not only to Nigerians but also to anyone who is concerned about human rights. The concept of stoning a woman to death because she has had a child out of wedlock must be regarded as totally unacceptable. Honourable members would do well to use some of their time and energy to ensure that our protest is heard around the world. I join with the Minister for Women in congratulating John Howard. He has taken the opportunity to raise this issue at the highest possible level. He has expressed his concern as an individual and as the leader of our country about will happen to this poor woman.

It is not often said, but it seems that somehow compassion has been lost. That is what we should be talking about in this instance. This Parliament has an opportunity to express that in its own way so that this poor woman does not suffer this horrendous fate. I am sure the young people in the gallery would not tolerate any thought that this country would sit back silently and allow this to happen. I am sure they would not accept that we as members of Parliament should do nothing. We have a obligation to our community, and that includes our international community. I commend the Minister for Women for raising this matter. I urge all honourable members to contact her office, as she contacted me, to get the web site address and to send as many letters of protest as possible, in the strongest words possible, to stop this horrific sentence being carried out.

Mr SPEAKER: I draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of members of the Parliamentary Accounts Committee of the Malaysian State of Perak. I welcome them to the New South Wales Parliament.

Petition objecting to the installation of a telecommunications tower and antennas at 87 Harbord Road, Harbord, received from Mr Barr.

Petition opposing construction of telecommunication antennas at Allambie Heights Oval, received from Mr Hazzard.

Petition requesting reform of planning controls by gazettal as a legal document, oversight by the Department of Planning, public benefit assessment of variations, and a ban on development-related donations to political parties and elected officials, received from Ms Moore.
Petition praying that the Government grant New South Wales nurses an increase in salary to help overcome the shortage of nurses, received from Mr Barr.

Petition requesting urgent maintenance and increase of funding for mental health services, received from Ms Moore.

Petition requesting that Queanbeyan District Hospital be upgraded, received from Mr Webb.

Petition praying that the House reject legislative proposals that would detract from the exercise of freedom of religion, and retain the existing exemptions applying to religious bodies in the Anti-Discrimination Act, received from Mr Stoner.

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 requesting additional commuter parking facilities at railway stations in the Hornsby Shire, received from Mr Tink.

Petitions seeking extension of the exhibition period of the draft Richmond Regional Vegetation Management Plan, received from Mr Fraser, Mr George, and Mr D. L. Page.

Petition requesting that the House ensure that an achievable plan to put aerial cables underground is urgently implemented, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that consideration be given to the permanent protection of old-growth forests and all other areas of high conservation value, and to the implementation of tree planting strategies, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that the decision to close Hunters Hill High School be reversed, received from Mrs Chikarovski.

Petition praying for opposition to the suffering of wild animals and their use in circuses, received from Ms Moore.

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

Petition asking that the House ensure that State Government authorities and local councils meet their obligations under the Companion Animals Act, received from Ms Moore.
Petition requesting further legislative changes to reduce graffiti on private and public property, received from Ms Moore.

Petition asking that homeless services funding be increased urgently and maintained until no longer needed, received from Ms Moore.

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

Petition praying for increased police resources for the Rose Bay Local Area Command, received from Ms Moore.

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

Petition praying for increased police presence in the Kings Cross area, received from Ms Moore.

General Business: Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 102 [Gaming Machine Entitlements in Leasehold Hotels] withdrawn on motion by Mr Souris.

Mr BARR (Manly) [2.56 p.m.] I move:

That General Business Order of the Day (for Bills) No. 11 [Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Illegal Backpacker Accommodation) Bill] have precedence on Thursday 26 September 2002.

The object of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Illegal Backpacker Accommodation) Bill is to make it easier for councils to close down illegal backpacker operations. This bill is important for two reasons. First, up to 500,000 backpackers a year visit our shores. We want to ensure that they have safe and secure accommodation, just as we would like our children to have safe and secure accommodation when they go overseas. We do not want a repeat of the Childers incident. Second, we want to ensure the protection of the amenity of all beachside suburbs in which most backpacker operations are located. There must be no illegal activities that affect people's enjoyment of their locality. Summer is nearly upon us and many backpackers will be coming to our shores. This bill, which I believe has the support of all honourable members, is not complicated. It allows for circumstantial evidence to be used to demonstrate that premises are being used for unlawful backpacker activities. I ask that my motion be given precedence.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove) [2.57 p.m.]: Whilst I acknowledge that the bill of the honourable member for Manly is particularly worthwhile, a number of other bills that are equally worthwhile are ahead of his bill on the notice paper. I make a personal plea in relation to a matter that I know is near and dear to the heart of the honourable member for Manly-that is, the Freedom of Information Amendment (Open and Accountable Government) Bill. We have been working together on that bill. The honourable member for Manly has suggested a number of amendments to the bill, which have been accepted by the Opposition.

Freedom of information is important for this State, because this Government is addicted to secrecy. This Government is refusing to tell the people of New South Wales how it governs, why it governs, and the cost involved in governing. More money is being spent on refusing freedom of information applications than is being spent on allowing those applications. It is a common practice of this Government to produce a bill for some thousands of dollars for a simple freedom of information request. That is not good for open government. As was pointed out in the Sydney Morning Herald over the weekend, this Government is good at keeping from its citizens information that is needed to assist them in making a judgment about how well it governs. It uses commercial in confidence, the cost of obtaining information and how much manpower it will take to produce that information.

The Government does not want us to know how it is governing because it is not governing this State very well and it is doing so at great cost. People in New South Wales are being taxed more than ever and are receiving the worst services that they have ever received. Hospital waiting lists keep getting longer. We would love to know what is going on in the education and transport areas. Ron Christie wrote a report about what is occurring in the transport area, but this Government will not release that report.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection in the Chamber.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: Whilst I am very sympathetic to the honourable member for Manly about his bill, I ask him to understand that for the greater good of the people of New South Wales we need to have the Government on the record voting against-

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

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: The Government might surprise us; it might actually vote for open government. It would be a huge surprise for the people of this State if it did. However, we need to have the Government on the record with that vote. For that reason, I ask the honourable member for Manly to defer his bill, to allow the Freedom of Information Bill, which has now been on the notice paper for two years, to take precedence tomorrow and be voted upon. In the interests of good, open government and accountability, we need to have the Freedom of Information Bill debated and voted on tomorrow.

Question-That the motion be agreed to-put.

The House divided.

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

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

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

Mr Armstrong Mr Brogden Mrs Chikarovski Mr Collins Mr Cull Mr Debnam Mr George 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 Piccoli Mr Richardson Mr Rozzoli Ms Seaton

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

Ms Harrison	Mr Glachan
Mr Scully	Mr D. L. Page

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater-Leader of the Opposition) [3.07 p.m.]: I move:

That the General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) given by me this day [Self-funded Retirees Benefits] have precedence on Thursday 26 September 2002.

Last Friday, in conjunction with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the National Party, George Souris, the Coalition announced that if elected to government next year, the Coalition will extend to more than 100,000 self-funded retirees in New South Wales who hold the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, a number of benefits presently received by pensioners. We recognise that self-funded retirees who, like pensioners, work hard all their lives but put themselves into a situation where they are fully self-funded, should receive a similar entitlement to that of pensioners. Indeed, a Liberal-National Coalition government will extend to self-funded retirees free registration for a single motor vehicle, a yearly rebate of $112 on electricity bills per household, discounts of up to $250 a year or 15 per cent on council rates, whichever is less, and utilities-

Mr Ashton: Where's the money coming from?

Mr BROGDEN: The honourable member for East Hills wants to know where the money is coming from. It is coming out of his advertising budget. Of the $104 million that he wastes on government advertising, we will put $25.7 million back into self-funded retirees who deserve it. The response from the Government was to send out the wet lettuce leaf, the Deputy Premier, on Friday afternoon with a withering attack that self-funded retirees did not deserve anything more. What a disgraceful position from this Government! The Deputy Premier thinks the Federal Government should pay for it all. What he did not know when he made his comments was that Geoff Gallop was about to sign on the dotted line with the Federal Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Government members will remain silent. If the Leader of the Opposition directs his remarks through the Chair, he will attract fewer interjections.

Mr BROGDEN: A Coalition government will have a black and white policy difference from the Labor Party at the next election. We will extend to self-funded retirees a series of pension benefits that we believe they have worked hard to earn. This Government does not believe they deserve it. The Deputy Premier slapped them in the face and treated them in a shabby, arrogant manner. After eight years this Government is very arrogant and out of touch with the needs of the people. The Coalition will extend to self-funded retirees who are holders of the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card a number of important benefits in recognition of their hard work.
Question-That the motion be agreed to-put.

The House divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr Barr Mr Brogden Mrs Chikarovski Mr Collins Mr Cull Mr Debnam Mr George Mr Hartcher Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Hopwood Mr Humpherson Dr Kernohan

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Glachan	Ms Harrison
Mr D. L. Page	Mr Scully

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [3.17 p.m.]: I move:

That the General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) given by me this day [Underground Cabling] have precedence on Thursday 26 September 2002.

I ask that the House agree to the reordering because this is a very important issue for all honourable members. There was unanimous support last November when I moved a matter of public importance calling for power cables to be put underground. There was unanimous support at the recent Local Government and Shires Association conference. Indeed, the motion was moved by a Liberal and seconded by a Labor member. Last November the Premier said he wanted the Minister for Energy to come back to him with an achievable plan to remove overhead cables.

Mr Yeadon: And I did. I came, I saw and I conquered.

Ms MOORE: No, you did not. You came, you saw and you failed. The Minister was asked to come up with a plan. He has failed the Premier and he has failed his duty to the State. He should have come up with a plan to remove overhead cables, as the Premier said last November.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. It is difficult to hear the honourable member for Bligh.

Ms MOORE: Last November the Premier said that putting overhead power cables underground-and I quote from his media release-will "reduce power failures following storms, network maintenance costs, electrocutions, bushfire risks, car accidents with poles". He also said that Western Australia is planning to provide at least half of Perth's houses with underground power by 2010, and that we should similarly be able to work towards a target. What the Minister for Energy said last Thursday virtually reneged on the commitment made by the Premier. He was depending on the report of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART], which was flawed.

Sydney Cables Down Under has done the work that IPART should have done. It has come up with a proposal that shows credible funding alternatives, that addresses the Government's stated concerns, including exempting pensioners and those who already have underground cabling, and shows that the benefits of underground cabling outweigh the costs in the longer term. I ask the Government to look at the matter again, and I ask the Premier to honour his commitment. This matter is important not only in our cities but in country areas. I urge all members to support the reordering of business.

Motion agreed to.

Mr BROGDEN: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Will the Premier follow the lead of the Premier of Western Australia, Geoff Gallop, and enter negotiations with the Federal Government to sign on to the Commonwealth's package for self-funded retiree benefits, or will he support the Deputy Premier's view that they do not deserve it?

Mr CARR: Under the proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, retired members of Parliament-for example, Nick Greiner and Neville Wran-would pick up $800 worth of concessions. They would walk away with $800 worth of concessions on local council rates, water and energy bills, transport fares and vehicle registrations. To put it another way, self-funded retirees-

Mr Brogden: Point of order-

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Opposition will recall that I placed them all on three calls to order yesterday when they chose to shout across the Chamber at the same time. I will take the same course of action if that behaviour is repeated today. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition does not lead his colleagues in interjecting while the Premier is attempting to answer the question.

Mr Brogden: Point of order: I simply want to make a point of clarification for the Premier. If you expect us to believe that Neville Wran earns less than $80,000 a year you are an idiot. You haven't read our policy!

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

Mr CARR: That is what the Leader of the Opposition said on Friday. To put it another way, a self-funded retiree earning $80,000, and perhaps with unlimited assets, would receive concessions but a family on $40,000 a year, bringing up kids, would receive nothing from that investment of public money. That is the equity consideration here. This simply shows the inexperience of the Leader of the Opposition in moving in to say, "I will pick up Commonwealth responsibilities." Treasury has put the cost of extending concessions to Commonwealth seniors health card holders at $80 million a year.

Mr Brogden: Rubbish!

Mr CARR: That is Treasury's costing. By the way, one should look at the Brogden spendometer, because the Leader of the Opposition has been making spending commitments that now total $4.1 billion.

Mr O'Farrell: Point of order: For how much longer will you allow the Premier to flout the standing orders and use props before you pull him up? You have made successive rulings about the use of props in this Chamber. You have threatened Opposition members with immediate eviction if they use props, yet you allow the Premier to do it on every occasion. Can we have some fairness?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Premier has the call.

Mr CARR: The Treasurer has announced the list of Opposition spending commitments. I released this list on 17 September.

Mr Souris: Point of order-

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the National Party will not be given the call if he behaves in that way.

Mr Souris: The Premier has sought to table a spendometer. I seek leave to table a wasteometer of the Labor Cabinet which totals $10.4 billion. Have a look at that!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the National Party is obviously seeking to stop the proceedings of the House. The Premier has not sought leave to table any document. The actions of the Leader of the National Party are out of order and I place him on three calls to order. I warn the Leader of the National Party if he again attracts the attention of the Chair I will ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to escort him from the Chamber.

Mr CARR: Treasury has put the cost of extending concessions to Commonwealth seniors health card holders at $80 million a year. The Commonwealth has offered to pick up a mere $30 million, leaving $50 million a year for the New South Wales budget to pick up. We are proud of the fact that we provide $670 towards concessions for older citizens in this State, and we are proud of those concessions on local council rates, water and energy bills-

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

Mr CARR: -transport fares and vehicle registrations. These unfunded spending commitments signed up to by the Leader of the Opposition in a mere five months-

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

Mr CARR: -will wipe out this State's triple-A rating. As members opposite demonstrated yesterday, they have no regard whatever for good economic management.

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

Mr CARR: To put a budget of $33 billion a year-the New South Wales budget-in the hands of a man who wasted $50 million on Luna Park and in the hands of a leader who makes spending commitment after spending commitment, now totalling $4.1 billion, would be ruinous for the interests of the people of this State.

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

Mr MARTIN: My question without notice is to the Premier. What is the latest information on gold production and investment in New South Wales, and related matters?

Mr CARR: I would not want a day to pass in this House without my being able to highlight the band of prosperity that this Government has helped to create in the central west of New South Wales.

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

Mr CARR: Gold production is one great measure of that prosperity. This Government has worked hard to bring goldmining on a huge scale to the area around Orange.

Mr Hazzard: Lake Cowal?

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

Mr CARR: I will come to Lake Cowal. The result is that income levels in the Orange area are $10,000 a year above the average for regional New South Wales. It was a lot of hard work to achieve the outcomes. Some $60 million a year is being spent on exploration in this State, providing a database for the mining sector that is much appreciated.

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

Mr CARR: The honourable member for Wakehurst mentioned Lake Cowal. Recently I had occasion to release a letter written by the Leader of the National Party stating that he is opposed to the development of that $340 million goldmine at Lake Cowal.

Mr Souris: Point of order: Mr Speaker, you have previously ruled on many occasions about the use of props and documents. This is a false document. I have represented my constituents' view to the Premier. The Premier has misused that correspondence and now seeks to table such correspondence. He is a disgrace to this Parliament. It is misrepresentation.

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

Mr CARR: Not for a moment was I seeking to table the letter that the Leader of the National Party wrote opposing Lake Cowal. If he insists, I will produce the letter.

Mr Souris: Point of order-

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last two points of order taken by the Leader of the National Party were out of order. I hope this point of order complies with the standing orders.

Mr Souris: The overall purpose of standing orders is to infuse advocacy and probity into the proceedings of this Parliament. This Premier ignores them.

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

Mr CARR: It is not a prop. My good people went up and got the letter, and I have it. I do not know what the Leader of the National Party wants me to do with it, but the fact is that he made representations opposing the development of Lake Cowal which would have injected $340 million into the area.

Mr Souris: It would not.

Mr CARR: He has now accepted it. He is no longer objecting.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the National Party knows that if he wishes to object to what the Premier has said he may seek the call at the appropriate time to make a personal explanation, but this is not the time. The Premier has the call.

Mr CARR: It is a $340 million project and this Government supports it, but, as all honourable members are aware, the Leader of the National Party is opposed to it. By the way, I do not want to suggest that we have created some type of, shall we say, El Dorado in New South Wales, but an examination of the figures of gold production under this Government show that it is up by a remarkable 275 per cent! That is forecast to increase by another 5,000 tonnes next financial year. It is no wonder people are saying that this is a Government that gets jobs, by running pro-investment policies-so unlike what was revealed as having happened yesterday.

By the way, let me place on the record-regarding the Lithgow smelter project, which would have made a great contribution to prosperity in the region-that I was rather interested to read that on Saturday the Leader of the Opposition said, "I will not let this go ahead if elected in March." But this morning at 11.10 a.m. on Bathurst radio, he said, "Clearly, if the project was up and running by the time we came to government we wouldn't close it down." People in the gallery and in the House are reeling with incredulity. Let me put it this way: Last weekend he said that the Opposition would close the facility down if it came to power at the next election. But what did he say today when asked about this on Bathurst radio at 6.00 a.m., thinking that we were not listening? When asked if a Coalition Government would close the plant down, he said, "No. Responsible government's can't do that."

Mr Fraser: Point of order: I draw attention to Standing Order 55, which states that the Speaker shall maintain order in the House. Twice today and yesterday you called all members of the Opposition to order and put them on calls to order. In the past two minutes there have been three uproars from members of the Government, yet you have not opened your mouth. I ask for fairness and equitable treatment.

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

Mr CARR: Before the rally on the South Coast last Saturday the Leader of the Opposition disclosed, "I will not let this go ahead if elected in March." On Bathurst radio, talking to the people of the central west this morning, it was, "Clearly, if the project was up and running by the time we came to government we wouldn't close it down." In another interview this morning the Leader of the Opposition said, "Bombala was always an alternative site."

Mr Brogden: Yes, what about Bombala?

Mr CARR: Why did he not ask me about Bombala?

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

Mr CARR: On 7 February 2002 the managing director of Australian Silicon Operations wrote to the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Mr Brogden: He wrote the letter to me?

Mr CARR: No. The Leader of the Opposition wrote "I will close it down", but then on Bathurst radio today he said, "No, we would never do that."

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. I call the honourable member for Bega to order.

Mr CARR: Speaking on behalf of Australian Silicon Operations, Peter Anderton said, "Be assured Bombala has been considered." He went on to give no fewer than eight reasons why the plant could not have been located in Bombala. First, softwood timber is not suitable for charcoal production, although extensive volumes of softwood timbers are available in the Bombala area; second, ongoing supplies of residual hardwood timber is contracted to a third party and are not available for charcoal; and third, the southern regional forest assessment [RFA] encompasses the area north, south and west of Batemans Bay and the facility to process residual timber must be located in the centre of gravity of the timber industry; next, it is not commercial to transport timber for any distance outside the Bombala RFA area.

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

Mr CARR: The next reason is that to transport timber from the southern RFA area to Bombala is totally uncommercial and impractical; next, a more appropriate option to Bombala is Cann River, where residual timber in adequate quantities of the right species is available at indicated commercial rates; next, a suitable site which can support the environmental impact statement [EIS] process has not been identified outside the area where they wanted it to go. The letter then gives another eight reasons why the site at Mogo was appropriate.

So there are no excuses for the original position taken by the Leader of the Opposition. He was struggling badly. This was the original position struck at the weekend, not the position he invented on Bathurst radio this morning. There is another point or two I would like to make about silicon. The Leader of the Opposition said on Bathurst radio, "Oh, the Government didn't work hard at getting the development." Let me reveal to the House that Dr Col Gellatly, the head of the Premier's Department, reported this to me this morning. The list of meetings between Government officials and the proponents of the Australian Silicon project number 100. That is 100 meetings since the proposal was first advanced.

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

Mr CARR: Government assistance covered the following: planning and approval, payroll tax rebates, land identification, the availability of land, the electricity distribution levy, a timber supply agreement, and plantation development-all hard work by the Government.

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

Mr CARR: As the proponents were forced to say in this statement yesterday to the Australian Stock Exchange, they could not proceed with a development-

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

Mr CARR: Did the Leader of the Opposition lie to Bathurst radio or did he lie to the rally on the South Coast? Did he lie when he said he would block the development, or when he said he could not block the development? There was, after all, a gap of only four days between those incompatible statements. Back to gold production. The pro-investment climate we have created-which is benefiting the central west of New South Wales, and Orange in particular-and which would have been enhanced by the silicon smelter in Lithgow, continues to be very promising. We are told that the central west of New South Wales will take from Kalgoorlie the title of the gold capital of Australia. A lot of hard work went into giving those mines development approval and all else that they required to get up and running.

By the way, if you think of Ridgeway and Cadia-those huge gold mines that have conferred prosperity on the central west of New South Wales-could you believe they would have gone ahead if there had been a Coalition Government in New South Wales? They cannot be trusted, and they cannot be trusted with economic management. The blowout in debt and the huge deficits that occurred under them bear that out. The beneficiaries of Labor's hard work and commitment to good economic management are the people of the central west. The mines we won for them represent, according to the latest economic data, $47 million a year in the local economy, 1,200 flow-on jobs, and $453 million in economic flow-on through the central west. That is why what the Coalition did with the silicon smelter is such a tragedy, because if that silicon smelter had gone ahead-as it would have without the comments of the Leader of the Opposition-there would have been more prosperity, more investments and more jobs in the central west of New South Wales, with the families of Lithgow having their full share.

New South Wales, by the way, has the lowest gold production costs in Australia. We have economic competitiveness built into this. The costs are $238 an ounce here in New South Wales compared to the national average of $573. Ridgeway, only a few months old-there because of our hard work and our careful planning-is producing some of the lowest-cost gold in the world. At the heart of this success is our pro-investment policy for regional New South Wales, but also the skills of the work force. As Mr Tony Palmer from Newcrest said, the success of Ridgeway is due to the dedication of those local workers. He calls the project and operating staff based in the Orange region the best in Australia.

[Interruption.]

They do not know who their member is. They have never heard of him. Looking at examples of good economic management and weighing that against what has been lost by clumsy ineptitude from the Opposition, the case is made for the economic management-

[Interruption.]

He said today on Bathurst radio he could not have stopped it-contradicting what he said last weekend. When was he lying? It is all a game to the Leader of the Opposition. It is all Young Liberal sport. The people of Lithgow are not sharing the humour, John. The people of Lithgow do not think it is the great joke you regard it as. An Opposition leader who will do and say anything is a threat to the economic prosperity and good economic management that this Government has produced in the great State of New South Wales.
Mr SOURIS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. With large public meetings across the State, similar to the one at Grafton attended by 500 people last Friday night, rejecting his draft regional vegetation management plans, will the Minister now authorise an extension of time to rewrite the management plans and reorganise the vegetation committees to ensure a more equitable rural representation?

Mr AQUILINA: Where communities have sought extensions of time I have been pleased to grant them. But let me put the detail of the meeting at Grafton last Friday. That meeting sought a deputation. I arranged yesterday for the Director-General of the Department of Land and Water Conservation to go to Lismore, where he met the deputation. I was told by the honourable member for Lismore just before the start of question time today that they were well received and that they were happy with the outcome.

Mr HUNTER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Local Government. What is the latest information on dog attacks in New South Wales and related matters?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair could not hear the question because of interjections. I ask the member to restate the question.

Mr HUNTER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Local Government. What is the latest information on dog attacks in New South Wales and related matters?

Mr WOODS: Honourable members would recall a vicious attack earlier this month on six-year-old Dylan Siviour in Adelaide. His mother described the horror when her son was set upon by two red heeler crosses at a birthday party. She said his forehead had been peeled back. New South Wales has the toughest dog attack legislation in Australia. We have introduced new penalties that include, for the first time, a gaol sentence for owners of dangerous dogs involved in serious attacks. Those penalties include possible life bans on owners of dogs, penalties that can be issued by the courts.

Unfortunately, we cannot stop dog attacks from occurring, although I must stress they are relatively rare. I recognise that most dog owners are responsible owners. What we need to do is target the minority who are not, and ensure that the penalties meet community expectations. In New South Wales there was a spate of dog attacks in August, including that on four-year-old John Kelly, who was attacked in Dapto. He underwent surgery at the Sydney Children's Hospital for facial injuries. The Department of Local Government's February-March survey showed that there were 64 dog attacks, many of which occurred in public places. Police are sometimes not immune to dog attacks.

A Central Coast woman was charged in January this year when her bull mastiff allegedly attacked police officers. My colleague the Minister for Police has raised a number of areas that could be improved. I am considering requests to make it easier for our police to track down the owners of dogs that attack. The community wants the police to be able to find these irresponsible owners and to ensure that their dogs cannot attack again. Honourable members will recall that I outlined in the House in June a number of measures the Government was developing as a result of dog attacks earlier in the year. The Government will establish an intergovernmental agency dangerous dog control task force comprising representatives from my department, NSW Health, the New South Wales Police Force and the Attorney General's Department.

The task force will consider, among other things, examining police powers to enter someone's home to seize a dog. At the moment, police can enter a property but not necessarily a house. If a dog has just attacked a child, the police should be able to get into a house to seize the animal and to protect other members of our community. On occasion, police officers are thwarted by owners who remove dogs from the premises or keep them in the house to avoid seizure. The task force will also examine the time constraints imposed on police and council rangers when searching for an owner whose dog has been involved in an attack. They currently have only four hours in which to undertake a search. It will also examine existing police powers to seize an animal even if it has calmed down. I am advised that police need to ensure that the dog is taken out of harm's way and dealt with by the council, or even a vet in certain circumstances.

The task force will also examine amendments to the companion animal regulations to ensure that councils, police and the courts work more closely together on the issue of dangerous dogs. It will be made mandatory for courts to let councils know that a dog has been declared dangerous by the court or the police. As I said, attacks are comparatively rare when one considers that we have a million dogs or more in New South Wales. When dog attacks occur they have tragic consequences. We must do all we can to protect the community and to avoid attacks such as that on John Kelly. When the legislation was introduced, the Government promised a review after five years. That review is scheduled for the first part of next year. I invite members of the community and interested stakeholders to make submissions to that major review.

Mr HAZZARD: I direct my question to the Premier. Will the Premier explain why, after almost eight years of his Government, a disabled pensioner caring for a 14-year-old girl at the request of the Department of Community Services is so frustrated that she has made a statutory declaration recording advice from the Grafton DOCS office that she cannot expect any support because it has enough resources to care only for children at risk aged under one year of age?

Mr CARR: The House is aware of what happened last time the honourable member and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition, raised a DOCS case.

Mr Brogden: You attacked the child.

Mr CARR: We most certainly did not attack the child. That is absurd. The House can judge the full report I gave on that occasion. I gave a very full answer.

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

Mr CARR: The Secretary of the Public Service Association, Maurie O'Sullivan, was able to judge it. I received a letter from him after he read pages 43 and 44 of Hansard dated 18 September. He stated:

I want to thank you for the splendid way you stood in Parliament to promote the good work that your officers in DOCS do every day of every week of every year.

By the way, it should be noted that the Opposition's commitment on DOCS is shrinking by the moment. Only a short time ago the Leader of the Opposition made an ironclad commitment in the House, "We will employ an extra 200 frontline workers in the Department of Community Services." A month later it has become a plan to employ an extra 100 DOCS workers. In three months, the Opposition's commitment has halved.

Mr Hazzard: Point of order: I am fed up with the lies of this Premier. The simple fact was that his Government said it had already appointed 100 DOCS officers. Our commitment was 200. We have another 100 to come. He attacked that child. He is the colossus of this State and he attacked a child. The Premier should tell the truth, just for a change. The Opposition is committed to DOCS officers. The Premier lies every time he comes into this place. He should commit the necessary resources.

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

Mr CARR: He also raised an issue on Saturday afternoon. He alleged that DOCS was responsible for a murder that had already been dealt with in the courts and for which the sentence had been handed down. It was a terrible crime.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Wakehurst on three calls to order. He often behaves in a volatile way in the House and on some occasions in the past the Chair has overlooked that. I will overlook his behavior on this occasion, but I will not do so for the remainder of question time.

Mr CARR: The shadow Minister alleged on Saturday afternoon that the young murderer had been a ward of the State when he committed the horrific crime. I am advised that this offender ceased being a ward when the Supreme Court granted an adoption order in June 1993.

Mr Hazzard: Point of order: I refer to relevance. I asked the Premier about a 14-year-old child-

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst is making a personal explanation.

Mr Hazzard: No, I am not.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member is making a personal explanation during question time. I will give him the call to do so at the appropriate time.

Mr CARR: The transcript states that the shadow Minister for Community Services, Brad Hazzard, said that the boy was a ward of the State and that DOCS should have been checking on him. The honourable member is then quoted as saying that such children should be checked on particularly when they are wards of the State. He ceased being a ward of the State in 1993. An absolute falsehood is being peddled by the shadow Minister. It was demonstrated in the House last week; he spouted falsehoods about these tragic DOCS cases. On Saturday afternoon he came out with more falsehoods, citing a hideous murder and peddling the lie that it was a DOCS responsibility because the murder was committed by a ward of the State. He said that the boy should have been oversighted by DOCS.

Mr CARR: That is in the transcript. DOCS advises that that offender ceased being a ward of the State when the Supreme Court granted an adoption order in June 1993. I wish to make one final point. The great mentor of the Leader of the Opposition is, of course, former Premier Nick Greiner.

Mr Stoner: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The question that was asked was about a lady seeking help from the Department of Community Services. She has been advised by the Department of Community Services that it cannot assist her as it does not have resources for children other than those who are under the age of one year. The Premier is flagrantly abusing the standing orders of this place. I ask you to ask him to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Wakehurst refrained from interjecting the Premier would be less tempted to digress from his answer. The Premier has the call.

Mr CARR: The Opposition's great mentor in public policy is said to be Nick Greiner. Nick Greiner's first decision as Premier was to slash 1,000 positions from the Department of Community Services and to close one-quarter of its offices.

Mr HICKEY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. What is the Government's response to growing community concerns about private medical indemnity insurance and the decline in the services of general practitioners?

Mr KNOWLES: I again want to use the record of this House to send a cautionary warning to Canberra to-

[Interruption]

Let the record show, first, that Opposition members have no interest in medical indemnity insurance problems and no interest in the decline of general practitioners. Let us get that on the record first. This parliamentary forum is an appropriate place to put on the record the concerns that are being expressed by medical communities right around this State-indeed, around the country-about the decline in services being provided by general practitioners and the growing alarm about the uncertainty associated with what the Commonwealth proposes to do about medical indemnity insurance. I have spoken in this House before about the decline in the bulk billing of services-it is now a matter of fact-the lack of after-hour services, the knock-on effect and the pressure that that has placed on emergency departments in the public hospital system. I can report to the House that that is getting worse.

The Rural Doctors Association reports that two-thirds of rural doctors intend to drop their private procedural insurance and only undertake work in a State public system if they have the security of government indemnity. That change will have a profound effect on the way in which care is provided for all Australians. First, it will mean that people in many towns-especially in rural parts of Australia-will no longer receive private obstetric care. Let the record show that when I reported to the House that the Rural Doctors Association said that more than two-thirds of doctors are ceasing private practice, the honourable member for Gosford laughed. With declining numbers of general practitioners on the Central Coast-the area that the honourable member for Gosford represents-I am staggered that he would laugh about that issue.

Mrs Skinner: Point of order: The Minister is misrepresenting the position of Opposition members in this House. That is partly because we cannot hear-and I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you cannot hear-what he is saying. He turns away from and does not address the Chair. I cannot hear what he is saying because he is mumbling. I ask you to remind him of the rules of this House-that is, that he is obliged to address the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore has asked the Minister to stop mumbling.

Mr KNOWLES: As more and more general practitioners stop delivering babies, stop administering anaesthetics and stop performing minor surgery, particularly in country towns, more pressure will be placed on the public system. It will result in a fundamental shift in the way services are provided. As an aside, it also makes an absolute mockery of the nearly $3 billion that John Howard now puts into private health insurance. If a doctor will not treat a patient as a private patient, what is the point of taking out private health insurance? It will also mean an enormous cost shift from the Commonwealth to the State. Earlier this week I attended a constructive meeting with the Leader of the National Party and with representatives of the Scone community. Doctors in Scone have decided that they will no longer treat patients as private patients. They will book them into Scone private hospital only as public patients because of their fear about coverage under private medical indemnity insurance, their relationship with United Medical Protection, and uncertainty in the future about the Commonwealth guarantee.

In Scone that means a direct cost to the public system-a cost shift from Medical Benefit Scheme payments paid by the Commonwealth to the State system-of in excess of $800,000. The same thing is happening in Moree. Dr Les Woollard, among others, has decided to do the same thing. The honourable member for Wakehurst and the local member know that. That cost shift from the Commonwealth to the State in that relatively small town of Moree will cost $700,000 per annum. That is happening in every town. The Commonwealth Government might think that it can get away with politics and political debate in a cost shift between the Commonwealth and the State. In fairness, that sort of game has been going on since Adam was a boy.

That is why we are leading debate on the national reform of the Australian health care agreement undertaken with the collaboration of all States and the cooperation of Kay Patterson. The Commonwealth Government can argue about cost shifting, but one thing that it will not be able to argue about is when doctors leave a town as it is no longer viable for them to stay their because they cannot obtain sufficient income from private patients. They are not covered to treat those patients. When doctors lose private patient revenue they lose their income. That is at the heart of the problems that are facing John Howard and the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth Government will have to decide what to do after 31 December-the period until which John Howard extended the guarantee on medical indemnity.

Doctors are now making choices about whether they will continue in private practice after 1 January next year. If honourable members in Sydney, the Illawarra, the Central Coast and the Hunter think that they have until December to fix up these problems, they are wrong. Doctors are making decisions now-they have to make those decisions before the end of September-about whether or not to sign up with United Medical Protection for next year's subscription. Doctors require the certainty of the plan of the Commonwealth Government. Last week, two-thirds of the doctors represented by the Australian Medical Association and the Rural Doctors Association decided to no longer continue procedural practice, particularly in rural communities. Those doctors are now making rational decisions to no longer practise private health care. In the short term we will see what is happening at Scone. Doctors will simply punt patients into the public system and no longer treat them as private patients.

The honourable member for North Shore can cackle as much as she likes, but the Leader of the National Party is nodding in agreement-he attended the same meeting that I attended, he heard the statements made by local doctors, and he knows that what I am saying is correct. The honourable member who represents the Moree area knows that the exact same thing is happening in his electorate. The honourable member for North Shore can cackle as much as she likes but, in the short term, she will see a transfer of doctors treating patients as private patients in the public system. In the not too distant future-at the start of next year-those doctors will simply make some choices. If they cannot earn sufficient income and live in a country town, they will no longer practice.

Mrs Skinner: They walk out of our public hospitals.

Mr KNOWLES: The honourable member for North Shore said that doctors are walking out of our public hospitals. I refer her to the lead article in today's Bulletin. If she picks up that article and reads it she might understand just how tough it is for old-fashioned local general practitioners, especially those who are practising in rural communities. The honourable member for North Shore makes an absolute fool of herself by suggesting that there is no problem in relation to general practice in this country.
Mrs Skinner: Point of order: The Minister is misrepresenting the facts.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for North Shore to stop mumbling and address the Chair.

Mrs Skinner: I will speak a little louder. The Minister said that doctors are not walking out of public hospitals. I refer him to the number of anaesthetists at Dubbo. There are supposed to be seven and there are only 2.6. This Minister has done nothing to address problems that are keeping these doctors out of public hospitals and making them walk.

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

Mr KNOWLES: I will send the honourable member for North Shore a copy of the article to which I referred earlier-a pretty accurate article that states one thing: Doctors are waiting for John Howard to tell them what he intends to do in relation to medical indemnity insurance. They need to know by the end of September, not by the end of December. The Leader of the National Party heard that himself just a couple of days ago.

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

Mr KNOWLES: Opposition members do not like to hear this, but by the end of this month-in five or six days time-the Prime Minister will have to do one of a couple of things. He will have to either extend that guarantee beyond December-but he will have to make it for both claims incurred and claims made, a technical term that I will not bore the House with; watch it when he makes the announcement-or, alternatively, he will see doctors walk away from private practice in Australia. Fundamentally, this is about the wellbeing of the community. Our local general practitioners provide primary care and preventative care. They are part of the family health framework that is essential to a healthy Australian community.

If they disappear from the landscape and all that is left is the acute system, we as a nation will have a poorer health system as a result. National leadership compels John Howard to give doctors the certainty they need-by the end of the month. In March this year, when United Medical Protection was collapsing, I said that there was a train on the track heading right for John Howard; everyone could see it coming and he needed to do something about it. The train ran right over the top of him in March, and it has come right around again and it is heading straight back at him. If John Howard does not do something quickly he will be in for one hell of a shock: doctors are getting very anxious. The Government has placed it on the Hansard record, so the Coalition cannot say it has not been told.

Ms HODGKINSON: My question is to the Minister for Education and Training. What action will the Minister take to protect the agricultural enterprises of the 120-hectare Hurlstone Agricultural High School, which provides a first-class education to young future farmers but is being whittled away by encroaching development to the detriment of productivity and educational opportunities?

Mr WATKINS: Hurlstone Agricultural High School is an outstanding school. I am willing to discuss those matters with the honourable member for Burrinjuck to see what we can do to further support the school.

Mr W. D. SMITH: What is the latest information on the government school improvement plan?

Mr WATKINS: Today I can announce, as part of the Government's four-year school improvement plan, $23 million worth of projects for the current financial year. Funded in the 2002-03 budget, they are part of this Government's commitment to improving conditions in public schools across the State. Demountable buildings are an important part of the capital works plan of the Department of Education and Training. However, they can also cause concern if the school is left with them for an extended period. That is why in March 2001, as part of the $1.1 billion school improvement plan, $50 million was allocated to replace demountable buildings in our public schools over four years. Today I can announce the next round of funding under this program. This year $14.1 million has been allocated to replace 50 demountable buildings in 23 schools, from Lavington Public School in Albury to Banora Point Public School in the Tweed.

As I am sure the honourable member for South Coast is aware, Falls Creek Public School-which currently has no permanent classrooms-will receive $480,000 to start building them. Under the plan, classrooms, libraries and administration offices will be replaced with permanent buildings. Other schools to benefit from the program include Lavington Public School, with $600,000 for a permanent library; Mount Terry Public School, with $850,000 for four permanent classrooms; and Temora West Public School, with $510,000 for two permanent classrooms. I can also inform the House today that a further 180 schools will benefit under the Government's four-year airconditioning plan. This year we have focused primarily on airconditioning demountable buildings in schools. We have done this to ensure that if schools have demountables they are as comfortable as they can be, for both students and staff.

Around 570 demountable classrooms will be aircooled under this program this financial year, at a cost of $6.9 million. It is planned to have the airconditioning program completed in time for the first day of school next year, the hottest part of the year. This year's funding means that demountables in schools that have a mean maximum January temperature of 27 degrees Celsius-that covers huge swathes of the Sydney area, as well as much of country New South Wales-will be airconditioned. Suburbs such as Greenacre, Picnic Point, Lindfield and Pennant Hills will have their demountables cooled for the first time. Areas outside Sydney to benefit for the first time include parts of the Hunter, such as Cardiff and Wallsend.

Finally, I can also announce today an important occupational health and safety initiative. In a recent disturbing case, a young child's finger was severed when the door of a demountable building slammed closed. Departmental experts have since advised me that, with an investment of $1.7 million, we can modify existing demountable doors and install door-closing units. This will make them much safer, and significantly reduce the risk of a similar accident occurring in the future. Primary schools and central schools will be the first to have the external doors modified; high schools will follow. The Carr Government is working hard to improve the learning environment for students and teachers in New South Wales schools. Students perform better and teachers are more effective when their surroundings are as comfortable as possible, especially in the hotter months. Today's announcement is the next step in achieving that goal.

Mr HUMPHERSON: My question is to the Minister for Information Technology. Will the Minister explain why, even after Labor mate David Hill has been paid more than $140,000 in consultancy fees to get the integrated broadband telecommunications program back on track, the Minister still does not have a timetable for the connection program for 2,600 schools and 180 hospitals, which was promised by the Premier in June?

Mr YEADON: This is such an inexperienced Opposition. If members opposite paid a modicum of attention they would know that we have advertised for expressions of interest for that broadband rollout. Indeed, it is occurring right now, as we speak. Yes, David Hill has been employed on that project.

Mr Brogden: How much?

Mr YEADON: I am not sure. I do not know the amount of money that goes to every individual within the department.

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

Mr YEADON: The great thing is that this project is going to see unprecedented bandwidths rolled out to our schoolchildren and our health system, which will be of great benefit to all the people of New South Wales. Yes, David Hill has played a role in determining that policy.

Mr HUMPHERSON: I ask a supplementary question arising from the Minister's answer. Will the Minister advise the House how many schools will be connected to a rate of 10 megabytes per second by 22 March next year?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. The honourable member for Davidson, a member of the Opposition frontbench, has asked a supplementary question and the Minister is entitled to be heard in silence.

Mr YEADON: The Leader of the Opposition is not only in the Young Liberals-judging by the way he carries on, he has catapulted back to primary school. This inexperienced Opposition does not understand that the Government is taking an innovative approach to rolling out broadband technology to our schools and hospitals. We are saying to those private sector tenderers: Here is our State-owned infrastructure, we are the first government in this country to manage its own State-owned infrastructure and there has been a better outcome for our broadband delivery. We are telling the private sector to come forward and show us innovative ways of making the final connection.

That is important, because that is where the Federal Coalition has failed to get action or determination: people sit on a narrow band as a result of the Federal Government's telecommunications policies. The State Government is seeking to short-circuit the unfortunate Federal situation by using our State-owned infrastructure. The number of local loops in schools and the capacity we will provide will depend, of course, upon advice from the private sector about the last local loop. Honourable members can be assured that the Government will have the best broadband capability for its schools and hospitals of any State in the country and they will get it at the cheapest possible rate.

Mr AQUILINA: Yesterday, the honourable member for Vaucluse raised the issue of Mr Hoyle and his application for home warranty insurance. At 4.00 p.m. yesterday a member of my staff tracked down Mr Hoyle in Darwin and spoke to him about his projects. She advised him of the support that is available from the Department of Fair Trading. At that stage Mr Hoyle had not availed himself of this service. Staff have worked till late last night and early this morning to assist Mr Hoyle. This morning my office was advised by HIA Insurance Services that the application by Suburban Constructions for home warranty insurance for two multiunit projects has been referred today to Royal and SunAlliance for underwriting review and approval.

HIA Insurance Services has also advised that today discussions have taken place with Mr Michael Gremmo, a director of Suburban Constructions, to progress the application as a matter of priority. Mr Gremmo has indicated that the insurance application is progressing and that he is satisfied with the help that is being offered. I urge any builder who is having difficulties to contact the hotline so that trained staff from the department can assist the builder and liaise with insurers. The hotline number is 1800 678 588.

Questions without notice concluded.

Mr HAZZARD, by leave: During question time the Premier, when answering a question, accused me of misrepresenting the truth in regard to two different episodes that I have brought to the attention of the House in the past few weeks. Unfortunately, the Premier is a very good liar-

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst knows that the Chair does not allow the use of that word.

Mr HAZZARD: That is what the Premier accused me of.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! In the eight years I have been in the chair I have not allowed members to use that word. The honourable member for Wakehurst should use some other description.

Mr HAZZARD: When the Premier has accused me of that, it is difficult when I am not allowed to identify that that is what he did during the answer. Nevertheless, in regard to the specific allegation by the Premier against me in relation to the 13-year-old boy who was left at the Dee Why police station, we recounted the other day that he was taken from Great Mates at Newcastle and left without appropriate accommodation. The Premier accused me of misrepresenting the facts in relation to that. The facts I gave were accurate and at this moment, despite the Premier's undertaking to this House that the boy would be provided with immediate permanent accommodation, he is still running around the streets of Manly.

Admittedly, he comes back to the Department of Community Services [DOCS] office on most occasions once a day, but the DOCS office has been unable to provide him with the accommodation that the Premier said he would provide. Clearly, I was not misrepresenting the truth in relation to that boy. I spoke to his grandmother the day before yesterday and she confirmed again that what I said to the House was true. Unfortunately, the Premier took the opportunity to behave as the colossus of politics to squash David-
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have allowed the honourable member for Wakehurst a degree of latitude. When making a personal explanation he must explain how his standing in the community has been maligned. He is now entering into a general dialogue about where the Premier is at fault.

Mr HAZZARD: It is hard to defend myself.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not responsible for the standing orders. However, they are the standing orders and the honourable member for Wakehurst must comply with them.

Mr HAZZARD: I am happy to accept your direction, Mr Speaker. The fact is I was misrepresented and I can tell the House the truth to show that I was misrepresented. To see former Minister Lo Po giggling and carrying on in the Chamber is inappropriate. She would be better off getting out, because she bears a fair degree of the responsibility for this. The Premier would not be in the position he is in now if she had handled her ministry properly.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member's speaking time has expired.

Mr HAZZARD: There is no time limit, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The patience of the Chair has expired.

Mr HAZZARD: The Premier attacked me over two issues.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst has made his point.

Mr HAZZARD: No, I have not. The Premier attacked me over two separate issues. I have addressed one issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member should address the other issue now.

Mr HAZZARD: The second issue relates to the boy described as SLD in the recent Supreme Court proceedings in which he pleaded guilty to the murder of a three-year-old girl on the Central Coast. Today the Premier suggested that last Saturday I made some comments in relation to that boy. First of all, let me make it clear that I said nothing about this boy last Saturday. The Premier's briefing notes appeared be totally out of date. He is certainly mendacious. Only a few weeks ago I did make a comment about that boy. I suggested almost what the Premier said today, but he has managed to twist and turn what I said. I said that DOCS should have taken more responsibility in relation to the first offence, when the boy attacked the other child on the North Coast.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair has given to the honourable member for Wakehurst sufficient latitude. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr HAZZARD: That never happens when Government member are having their go. It only happens when I am having my go. I am arguing about children for whom DOCS is responsible. Mr Speaker, you are unfair to me. You are unfair when it comes to DOCS issues and you are fair about protecting the Premier when he is failing the children of this State.

Mr SOURIS, by leave: The Premier has misrepresented the position I have taken and I believe that my reputation has been impugned. It is the standard role of members of Parliament, and has been since the New South Wales Parliament existed, to represent the views of their constituents by forwarding those views to the Premier, to Ministers, or to government officials, irrespective of whether the members agree with those views. I have always said to my constituents that I represent everyone equally, whether they voted for me or whether I agree with their point of view. In relation to the particular issue about which the Premier misrepresented my views, I have a letter from the Mudgee District Environment Group, on whose behalf I made representations to the Premier. Amongst other things it thanked me for doing so and said:

We also very much appreciate your putting forward our views even though they may not coincide with yours. That is really representing the voters in your electorate.

I have been misrepresented. My view has never been anything other than 100 per cent support for the Lake Cowal goldmine. That is also the view of my party and of the Coalition. I have never varied from that view, even though-as all members of Parliament do, perhaps a thousand times a year- forward standard representations on behalf of our constituents, whether we agree with them or not. I pride myself on the fact that on many occasions I have stridently disagreed with my constituents, but I have never denied them the right to forward their correspondence to the Minister. I also believe that my reputation has been impugned because the correspondence I forwarded on behalf of my constituents has been given by the Premier to the honourable member for Bathurst, and that raises a question of confidentiality.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those remarks are outside the ambit of a personal explanation.

Mr WATKINS (Ryde-Minister for Education and Training) [4.38 p.m.]: My motion is urgent because the Federal Minister is currently preparing his submission to Cabinet on dramatic reforms to the higher education sector. These reforms, if the discussion papers are to be believed, will have catastrophic impacts on our regional and rural universities and consequently on regional communities and families. The higher education review contains a number of ways to downgrade regional and rural universities, and this House needs to be aware of the dire consequences of any such action.

Mr TINK (Epping) [4.29 p.m.]: My motion seeking parliamentary support to extend Commissioner Urquhart's tenure to complete his Operation Malta report is urgent because during the Malta inquiry Judge Urquhart heard from 49 witnesses over 72 sitting days between 19 March 2001 and 18 March 2002. My motion is urgent because on 29 June 2001 both sides of Parliament agreed to extend Judge Urquhart's term for the period necessary for him to conclude his Operation Malta report. The motion is urgent because on 17 July 2001 an Act to extend Judge Urquhart's term by one year from 18 August 2001 was assented to. The motion is urgent because that term expired on 18 August 2002. The motion is urgent because at the beginning of this year counsel assisting the Police Integrity Commission, Terry Budden, was appointed to the Supreme Court and replaced by Brian Donovan. The motion is urgent because the current Commissioner of the Police Integrity said in evidence to a parliamentary committee on 20 September 2002:

Judge Urquhart is not writing [the Malta report] and may have little to do with the actual construction of the report … Brian Donovan will and has already contributed largely to the process …

The motion is urgent because Judge Urquhart is the only person to have heard all the evidence and seen the demeanour of all the witnesses. It is urgent because the reputations of many witnesses will be determined by the findings in the report. In all these circumstances Judge Urquhart, having heard the matter, is the only person who can resolve any conflicts of evidence. The motion is urgent because, in extending Judge Urquhart's term last year, Parliament intended the extension to be for the period necessary for him to conclude his report. The motion is urgent because that was stated clearly by the then Minister for Police in a press release, which I strongly supported. It was also indicated clearly by me in Hansard when the bill extending Judge Urquhart's term was before the Parliament last year. The motion is urgent because the precedent has been set by the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC]. In that regard, section 96 of the Police Integrity Commission Act is equivalent in substance to section 74 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act. For example, although the inquiry into the unauthorised release of government information was undertaken by the Hon. Adrian Roden, the report was presented to Parliament under the hand of Commissioner Temby. Commissioner Temby said:

The Hon Adrian Roden QC has been the Assistant Commissioner in charge of this investigation since its inception. He has worked on it, almost continuously and in a remarkably assiduous and effective manner, for a period of two years. He was responsible for preparation of the Report.

The motion is urgent because, in my respectful submission, this is the appropriate way for the Operation Malta matter to proceed from here to its conclusion. The person who signed off on the report for presentation to Parliament is the current commissioner, but the person who must prepare the report is the person who heard the evidence, and that is Judge Urquhart. With 72 sitting days, 49 witnesses and a change of counsel assisting the Police Integrity Commission when the hearings were substantially over, only one person has heard it all. Only one person sat there looking at the witnesses, hearing their evidence and testing their demeanour, and that is Judge Urquhart. I think this is one of the most important matters I have ever raised in this House. I believe that we need to extend whatever needs to be extended to Judge Urquhart in terms of jurisdiction to allow him to write this report.

I have great respect for Mr Donovan; he is a very fine counsel. However, the fact is that he was not present for the majority of the hearing of this matter; counsel assisting was Mr Budden. I do not believe that Mr Donovan, fine council that he is, can do justice to evidence he did not hear. The one person is Judge Urquhart, and I believe it is his responsibility to do this job. The precedent for that is Mr Roden's involvement in the ICAC in the information exchange report when Mr Temby presented the report to Parliament. Mr Roden not only heard the evidence-it was the most complex hearing the ICAC ever undertook-but also wrote the report. There were severe conflicts in the evidence given by the 49 witnesses. I will not go into that in detail-I do not think it is proper to do so. Obviously it is a matter of record. To do justice to all those people, the person who heard the evidence and ran the hearing should write the report. It is as simple as that.

Question-That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Ryde be proceeded with-put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Mr Iemma Mrs Lo Po' Mr Markham Mr Martin Mr McGrane Mr McManus Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Mr Moss Mr Newell Ms Nori Mr Oakeshott Mrs Perry

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

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

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

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

Ms Harrison	Mr Brogden
Mr Scully	Mr Glachan

Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow an additional four speakers for five minutes each to the motion for urgent consideration.

Mr WATKINS (Ryde-Minister for Education and Training) [4.44 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) condemns the Federal Government's proposals to downgrade rural and regional universities;

(2) expresses concern about their potential impact on rural and regional communities across New South Wales; and

(3) calls on the Federal Government to adequately fund the higher education sector rather than increase the financial burden on students, universities or State governments.

The Federal Government is again moving to undermine the fundamentals of good education. That move is manifested in the Commonwealth Government's current review of higher education. As I stated previously in the House in response to a question asked by the honourable member for Newcastle, the review has proposals which threaten to entrench higher education as the preserve of the wealthy city-dwelling elite. It is no use denying it: it is there in black and white. The review clearly illustrates the plan for students in rural and regional areas to be marginalised into a second tier of tertiary education and permanently locked out of quality higher education. It is proposed to extract the research funding component from university operating grants, to open that component up to competitive tender, and to concentrate research in the so-called world-class institutions.

Proposals are clearly on the cards that will downscale the role of rural and regional universities from fully-fledged universities to undergraduate-only institutions, or to community charter institutions. I urge honourable members to look at the original "Higher Education at the Crossroads" paper that the Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training began with. On page 38 the so-called charter institutions are canvassed. Honourable members should be aware that these ideas look suspiciously like a United States model where charter institutions are in fact teaching- only institutions. While being deliberately ambiguous in wording, the outcome clearly means that there will be no guaranteed research funding, no higher degrees and no pursuit of excellence.

In other words, these proposals could relegate rural and regional universities to second-class institutions that are unable to compete with their wealthier metropolitan counterparts. Other universities would not survive, and the residual role with which they would be left will affect their viability. The attractiveness of those universities not only to local students but international students- for example, the large number of international students at the University Wollongong-would be compromised. Prospective employers would be prejudiced against the graduates and an entrenched elitism would once again prevail in higher education.

I will examine the source documents. The Federal Minister's paper entitled "Varieties of Excellence" contains arguments which contend that the number of rural and regional campuses is unsustainable. The Federal Government's clear agenda is stated. Its policy is market driven and will lead to a reduction in the number of campuses. Our rural and regional economies are vulnerable, as all honourable members know. Universities are also vulnerable to market-driven reforms. It is a fact that the newer regional universities rely heavily on public funding and have less capacity to diversify funding sources. These universities are also beacons for regional learning. They provide opportunities for excellence outside the traditional centres and must be protected from any attack that will erode their role.

In the past week the Federal Minister has been all over the countryside-in regional areas, where the Federal Government now has zero credibility-denying that there is an agenda to erode regional universities, despite having clearly canvassed the issue in the Federal Government's current policy papers. Let us be clear: Many of these universities are soft targets. They are more recently established and have a lower resource base than metropolitan universities. Rural and regional universities often have relatively high operating costs that are related to the distance between campuses. They also have associated high transportation and telecommunications costs. They do not enjoy the same economies of scale as metropolitan universities because the campuses tend to be more dispersed. I might add that that is necessary to ensure the broadest delivery of education to their communities.

Critically, rural and regional universities must accommodate the more intensive learning needs of the high proportion of their students who are traditionally underrepresented in higher education, particularly students from less well-off backgrounds and indigenous students. Given the challenges already being faced by rural and regional communities and their universities, and the funding cuts they have been subjected to over the last few years, it is not just disappointing, it is astounding, that the Commonwealth can ignore these facts and at the same time propose deregulation.

Allowing universities to charge a higher student contribution for courses in strong demand would limit the resource base of some rural and regional universities. Those universities generally do not have the capacity to charge market rates, given their high proportion of disadvantaged students. Conversely, many metropolitan universities that do have the capacity to charge a HECS top-up could increase their revenue base and pull further ahead of regional universities. The Commonwealth says it will compensate universities that choose not to charge market rates, but it has not yet quantified that compensation. Nor has the Commonwealth indicated how it will hand out those funds. It is not clear that this compensatory funding will be sufficient to meet the higher costs faced by rural and regional universities.

This House must consider the impacts that deregulated fees would have on rural and regional students. The likely scenario is that students in those areas would be faced with a choice-either attend a second-class institution close to home, or face higher HECS debts and living costs to study in the city. For those considering the city option the additional costs could be very high. If a 25 per cent top-up was introduced, the additional HECS charge per annum would be between $900 and $1,500. When the HECS repayment threshold is taken into account, currently at $23,242, students would be faced with the prospect of repaying a substantially higher HECS debt soon after graduation.

The significant financial burden on students and their families, combined with the inadequacy of income support arrangements, are substantial deterrents to study for rural and regional students. Forcing them to go to a city university to get a decent education is a backward step. It erodes confidence in rural communities, creates a divide that has only recently been breached, and is essentially unfair and inequitable. The merit principle is being swallowed up by the Commonwealth's all-encompassing desire to raise revenue from higher education at whatever cost. Either that or the Commonwealth Minister is just confused about how much higher education students pay.

A recent study by the Centre for Comparative and Global Studies in Education at the University of New York showed that when tuition costs and living expenses were taken into account, Australia was ranked second in the world for independent students and third for those living at home with their parents. This leads me to what should be the centrepiece of the higher education review-equity. Consider these statistics: The average enrolment of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds across all Australian universities is 14.8 per cent. Rural and regional universities consistently exceed that figure. The University of Newcastle enrols 26.2 per cent, and the University of New England 18.5 per cent.

Rural and regional universities are taking a leading role in breaking down the barriers to participation in higher education by poorer students and those from families or geographic areas with no tradition of university study. Indigenous students are also a higher proportion of enrolments at rural universities. Critically, this is at a time when indigenous participation in higher education is on the decline. In the year 2000, university enrolments by indigenous people declined by 15.2 per cent. Commonwealth cuts to Abstudy are the root cause. In 2000, indigenous students at New South Wales universities comprised 0.91 per cent of domestic enrolments.

At regional universities, such as Charles Sturt, Southern Cross and New England, the proportion was considerably higher. Downscaling the role of rural and regional universities to second-tier teaching-only universities would undermine the significant gains they have made in providing access to and improving educational outcomes for indigenous students. I congratulate the rural and regional universities on their efforts, given the great support needs of those students. It is telling that the Commonwealth conceives of its funding responsibility in its discussion papers as a provision of a subsidy. In fairness, it is an essential part of the nation's ethos. It is embodied in the concept of regional universities; it is exemplified in their role.

Rural and regional universities raise the overall educational level of their communities and encourage students to study and settle in their local area. They provide educational and cultural hubs-magnets attracting skilled people to the regions. In short, they provide the focus for equity, fairness and growth in rural areas. Fine examples of this equity role are the access centres or integrated campus networks in regional universities, for example, the University of New England. What the Federal Government has planned for rural and regional universities is totally unacceptable. I appeal to the Federal Government and the Federal Minister to do the right thing by rural and regional universities, which add so much to our regional economies, providing educational opportunities that otherwise would not be available for people living outside metropolitan New South Wales.

Mr O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai) [4.54 p.m.]: When the Minister departed from his prepared speech in the last 30 seconds he said nothing that I object to: that is, that rural and regional universities play a great role within this State and in the higher education sector. But the speech that the Minister read for the previous 9½ minutes consisted of terms like "on the cards", "canvassed", "suspiciously like", "any attack", "not clear" and "planned". The reality is that none of the proposals enunciated by the Minister for Education and Training in this State are proposals. There is no final statement in relation to higher education in this country. The Minister knows that because he attended the July conference of other Minister for higher education.

Mr Martin: You should be talking to your Federal mate, not standing there apologising for him.

Mr O'FARRELL: I have no problem dealing with the asinine interjections of the honourable member for Bathurst, but we listened to the Minister in silence and I expected the Chair to maintain that courtesy for members on both sides of the House.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): Order! The honourable member for Bathurst will restrain himself.

Mr O'FARRELL: The point I make is that what we have heard from the Minister is an account and explanation of creative fantasy, which is fabricated or contrived, either to delude himself or to delude others. It is a nonsense. It is a deceit. It is designed to outwit and deceive. I commend honourable members to the fourteenth word on page 289 of the third edition of the Macquarie Dictionary-a word that I would not use in the House, but a word characteristic of what the Minister has just said in this place. I want to test the bona fides of the Minister for Education and Training. If the Minister is so concerned about rural and regional universities, will he please do something about the $27.6 million ripped out of regional universities through payroll tax imposed by his Government.

Mr Martin: That's the Commonwealth.

Mr O'FARRELL: Another asinine interjection from the honourable member for Bathurst. Apparently the honourable member for Bathurst thinks that Commonwealth governments levy payroll tax. Most in this Chamber know that the State Government levies those taxes-because this Government was elected on the basis that it said it would reduce payroll tax. But that is not happening. I have great admiration for the centres of learning within the electorate of the honourable member for Bathurst, but unfortunately he is no advertisement for those centres of learning. I make the point that Charles Sturt University, with campuses in Wagga Wagga, Albury and Bathurst, each year has $6 million in payroll tax taken from it by this Government.

I make the point that Southern Cross University, with campuses in Lismore, the Tweed, Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie, has $3 million taken from it in the form of payroll tax. I express my disappointment that the honourable member for Port Macquarie would vote with the Government on this matter. He ought to pay more attention to the lies being peddled by the Minister for Education and Training before he rushes into this Chamber late and takes part in a division. The University of New England has $4.4 million taken from it, the University of Newcastle has $8.4 taken from it, and the Wollongong university has $5.8 million taken from it, all in payroll tax.

Mr Martin: Talk about education.

Mr O'FARRELL: I am talking about education.

Mr Martin: You have not done your homework.

Mr O'FARRELL: Just think about the $27 million ripped every year from those regional universities. Think of the number of academics that that kind of money could employ. Think of the improvements to university libraries that that sum of money could make. Think about the reduction in class sizes that funding could deliver. The honourable member for Bathurst ought to go back to his work again before he or his colleagues come into this Chamber and talk about plans that are not plans, and proposals that are not proposals. He ought to get his own house in order and ensure that this State Government supports rural and regional universities. The best way that the Government could support rural and regional universities is by withdrawing the burden that it imposes on them every year by way of payroll tax-$850 million ripped out of regional and rural universities since the Carr Government was elected. That has an enormous impact upon those who rely upon universities.

I seek to table the document drawn from the universities' annual reports that not only details $27 million taken from regional universities, but indicates that every year from the State's entire university structure $100 million is levied in payroll tax. Honourable members should think of the benefits that could provide students in the higher education sector. The Minister referred to an issues paper entitled "Varieties of excellence: diversity, specialisation and regional engagement" published by the Federal Government. Page two of that issues paper states:

There is no suggestion of a return to a simple, bifurcated model of "research" and "teaching" institutions. Rather, the paper explores options for a wide variety of specialisations along a spectrum of institutional diversity, within which each university can develop its "selective excellence".

The fundamental difference between this Government and the Federal Government is that when the Federal Government examines an area it is prepared to look at all the issues openly, to consult everyone and to seek their views and then to make a decision. The Minister knows that is the case, because he attended the meeting of the Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs [MCEETYA] in July, at which he was told by the Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training that the allegations he was making were simply untrue. However, this Minister continues to peddle those lies. We understand that truth is the first casualty of war and that the campaign for the next election has started. However, it goes a long way towards explaining the situation when for two weeks in a row the Minister for Education and Training in this House has been prepared to lie on the basis of the MCEETYA meeting held in July, that consultations will be held in October and that there are no firm proposals in this area.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): Order! The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai has tested the patience of the Chair by accusing the Minister for Education and Training of lying. I have extended a degree of latitude to him but the tolerance of the Chair is exhausted.

Mr O'FARRELL: I endorse your encouragement, Mr Acting-Speaker. The Minister has falsified the record time and again. He has deceived, fabricated and sought to outwit people on the basis of a tissue of lies. There is no firm proposal that any honourable member can say is before the Federal Government or has been decided. I move:

That the motion be amended by:

(1) leaving out the words "Federal" and "rural and regional universities" in paragraph (1) with a view to inserting instead "State" and "inner city schools";

(2) leaving out the words "rural and regional" and "across" in paragraph (2) with a view to inserting instead "inner city" and "in"; and

(3) leaving out the words "Federal", "higher" and all words after "sector" in paragraph (3) with a view to inserting instead "State" and "public."

The purpose of amending the motion is to get the Minister for Education and Training to explain what is going on in the public education sector in this State. He should explain to the people of New South Wales those things for which he is responsible and the firm proposals for which he is responsible and which he is undertaking, not the fantasy issues or the fourteenth word on page 289 of the third edition of the Macquarie Dictionary. We need to know from the Minister why Erskineville Public School is being closed. We must compare the State Government's approach with that of the Federal Government. We must explain to the people of New South Wales that, rather than having an open, accountable and transparent process with the "Building the Future" document, this Government sought to deceive, fabricate and mislead communities across New South Wales. As a result we will get a diminished public education sector.

The Minister must respond to the issues raised by Professor Vinson, who is patiently waiting for me so that he can brief me on his reports. The Minister should explain why public education is underfunded in this State, why we have the highest class sizes and why Integral Energy-a State Government instrumentality that employs the University of New South Wales each year to conduct literacy and numeracy tests-has discovered a decrease in the level of literacy and numeracy in applicants for apprenticeships. The Minister must explain why stress among teachers is out of control and why money is being wasted. At last count, more than $50 million has been wasted on school security, but not a cent has been able to stop $20 million worth of computers walking out of our schools. They are the responsibility of the State Minister for Education and Training. They are real proposals and they require real answers. We do not require this sort of fabrication from the Minister for Education and Training. [Time expired.]

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): Order! I ask the member for Ku-ring-gai to hand his amendment to the Clerks. I will seek their advice.

Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [5.04 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Minister for Education and Training. The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai referred to a word but did not tell us what it was, but the appropriate word for what we have just heard is "pathetic". Charles Sturt University represents the quintessential regional Australian university. The achievements of this important regional university confirm that, with vision, perseverance and a commitment to quality, such regional institutions can flourish, despite often adverse conditions. There has been an education presence at the site of Charles Sturt University for some time. It was formerly Mitchell College, a college of advanced education. As fine an institution as that was, it has long since graduated to being a fully fledged university. There is no going back.

Rapid growth of regional universities has been accompanied by the distribution of skills, expertise and infrastructure across the State. Charles Sturt is now operating not only in Bathurst but also in Albury, Wagga Wagga, Dubbo and other locations such as Goulburn. Honourable members opposite would be wise to remember that presence in their local communities. I am sure the honourable member for Dubbo does not take that presence for granted. He will stand up and support his local campus, but what about the Opposition members? Will they capitulate to their friends in Canberra at the expense of their local communities?

Charles Sturt University has expanded and become a major provider of higher education to students in regional New South Wales. Through its five faculties it delivers more than 300 courses to about 35,000 on-campus and distance education students in Australia and overseas. The university has also become a leader in developing innovative responses to the social and economic changes facing regional communities. In fact, Charles Sturt was named the university of the generation and received the University of the Year award in 1997 for substantial achievements in a competitive and changing environment. However, as a result of the Federal Government's funding cuts the university is under great pressure and these achievements are endangered.

Charles Sturt, like the other rural and regional universities, is particularly vulnerable. These universities have a greater reliance on public funding than the so-called sandstone or older universities and less capacity to diversify their funding sources. They also face higher cost structures and an inability to achieve the same economies of scale as larger universities due to factors such as distance, multiple and dispersed campuses, and the greater learning needs of their students, who often come from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Charles Sturt plays a very important role in the social and economic development of the State, and in the general wellbeing of rural New South Wales. In 2001 Charles Sturt University enrolled more than 38,000 students-24 per cent from its designated regions, 13 per cent from other non-metropolitan regions, 43 per cent from metropolitan Australia and 20 per cent from overseas.

Its programs currently enable more than 14,000 regional students to participate in higher education without having to relocate to metropolitan areas. Equally significant is the fact that on average 64 per cent of regional students who study at Charles Sturt University remain in regional Australia to work. The university is the main provider of graduate teachers for western New South Wales. In fact, without Charles Sturt we would have great difficulty staffing schools west of the Great Dividing Range. The university has experienced a 29 per cent increase in first preferences for teaching courses in 2002. The tragedy is that although there were 3,464 first-preference applications, due to the Federal Government's inadequate funding for teacher education the university was able to offer fewer than 600 places. Similarly, first preferences for the graduate diploma of education totalled 1,034, but only 271 offers were made-once again because of the stinginess of the Howard Government.

Given the current need for new graduate teachers and the need to attract teachers to inland areas in New South Wales, it is critical that rural and regional universities in particular are properly funded to meet this demand. Charles Sturt University has had to overenrol to meet demand, but it has been funded by the Federal Government only at the marginal rate. The New South Wales Government is playing its role. It has developed a number of strategies with regional universities to promote teaching in rural schools. The Government, together with a number of universities, has put in place a range of accelerated teacher training programs for people with industry backgrounds. However, we need to do what Charles Sturt University has done-campaign against the Federal Government, which is seeking to withdraw funds for university research. These universities will be downgraded at the expense of people in regional and rural New South Wales.

[Debate interrupted.]

Motion by Mr Gaudry agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to postpone the taking of private members' statements until after the consideration of the motion for urgent consideration and the matter of public importance have been concluded.

[Debate resumed.]

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove) [5.11 p.m.]: I am absolutely astonished at the hypocrisy of the Minister for Education and Training. He had the audacity to condemn the Federal Government for its failure to support public education. But he is the man who is closing high schools and primary schools. He is condemning the Federal Government although he is closing Hunters Hill High School and Erskineville Public School, against the wishes of those communities. Those communities want these schools to stay open. The Minister had the temerity to come into this House and state that the Federal Government is not doing enough for education. The Minister should look in his own backyard before he starts to attack anyone. I remind honourable members of this Government's record in the education area. Earlier this year figures were released by the Ministerial Council of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs-a council of which the Minister for Education and Training is a member. That council stated:

Capital works expenditure in New South Wales secondary schools in 1999-2000 was just $249 per student, 36 per cent below the national average. The figures for capital works in primary schools in 1999-2000 was $252 per student, 24 per cent below the national average.

The Minister for Education and Training, who had the temerity to attack the Federal Government, is ensuring that education in this State is underfinanced and underresourced. As a consequence, kids are leaving public education at a great rate. I state for the benefit of the honourable member for Keira, who is shaking his head in disagreement, that in the four years from 1998-99 to 2000-2001, 8,000 kids left the public education system. That is because this Government has no commitment to public education. I remind honourable members of the figures released by the Productivity Commission, which stated:

Primary public schools in New South Wales receive less money than other schools in other States and have the biggest classes.

Annual spending on primary schools in New South Wales was just $5,535 per student, well below the national average of $5,712 per student. It is no surprise that New South Wales falls behind Victoria, which takes primary education seriously. Victoria spends $5,666 a year. Queensland, which also takes education seriously, spends $5,800 a year. One of the biggest problems confronting our public education system is that too many kids are being taught by too few teachers. New South Wales has the highest student to teacher ratio in the country with 17.7 students to every teacher compared with 16.9 in Victoria and 16.7 in Queensland.

The Minister for Education and Training, who suggested in this House that there was a problem with the Federal Government, would be better off spending his time and energy ensuring that he is looking after public education in New South Wales. Instead of wasting the time of this House he should take the time to visit Hunters Hill High School and talk to students, teachers, parents and people in the community who do not want him to close that school. He has time to move a motion in this House condemning the Federal Government but he has not been able to find the time to visit Hunters Hill High School. He has not found the time to visit Erskineville Public School, but he managed to find time to attend all the ribbon-cutting ceremonies. When it comes to confronting people who are hurt most by his decisions, which is what really counts, he refuses to find the time to do that.

The Minister used some expressions in his speech to which I would like to refer. He referred to the actions of the Federal Government as "totally unacceptable". What Minister Watkins is doing to public education, to Hunters Hill High School and to Erskineville Public School in this State is totally unacceptable. The Minister said that the Federal Government was not providing educational opportunities that should be made available. The Minister for Education and Training is closing down schools and he is ensuring that educational opportunities that are available to other students will not be available to students at Hunters Hill High School and Erskineville Public School. This Minister had the temerity to come into this House and attack the Federal Government. It is breathtaking, particularly when what he said was lies. I inform the Minister of this statement made by Brendan Nelson:

I informed Minister Watkins along with other State and Territory Ministers in July that Australia will not be returning to a two-tier university system with some teachers teaching only in universities.

[Time expired.]

Mr CAMPBELL (Keira) [5.16 p.m.]: What a pathetic performance from the last two Opposition speakers. The motion moved by the Minister for Education and Training condemns the Federal Government's proposals to downgrade regional and rural universities. The last two Opposition speakers simply ignored that motion. That reflects the difference between the Government and the Opposition. The Government has an interest in looking after the whole of New South Wales, whereas the Opposition is city-centric. Not one member from regional and rural areas has spoken in debate on this urgent motion. I am delighted to support the motion moved by the Minister. I also support the University of Wollongong-an institution that will face difficulties if the policies proposed by the Federal Government are implemented.

Honourable members should be aware that the University of Wollongong, a lighthouse university, is a consistent winner of awards for excellence. For the last three years the Good Universities Guide has recognised the University of Wollongong as Australia's most successful university for two pivotal categories-educational experience and graduate outcomes for students. The University of Wollongong was named University of the Year in 1999 for excellence in undertaking research and development and again in 2000 for its leadership in preparing graduates for the electronic world. The university's mission statement makes it clear that its operations are underpinned, among other important considerations, by applying human and technology capacity for the benefit of its regions, the nation and the international community.

The university is a driver of economic development and the expansion and diversification of the economy in the Illawarra region. The university is in partnership with the New South Wales Government, the private sector and Wollongong City Council to create a new technology precinct at Brandon Park over the next 10 years. The innovation campus will become home to information technology, communications, film, television and multimedia companies. The New South Wales Government has committed-and contributed, I might add-$24 million to the innovation campus, a real demonstration of this Government's commitment to the Illawarra and to the University of Wollongong.

The higher education review makes the point that rural and regional universities have a specific community charter. The University of Wollongong is clearly involved with the local and broader community. Under the Commonwealth Government's proposals, universities such as the University of Wollongong, which have lived up to their community service obligations, are at risk of being penalised financially for doing so and they are at risk of being reduced to the status of second-class institutions.

The people at the Batemans Bay, Southern Highlands and Shoalhaven campuses of the University of Wollongong will be pleased to hear that the Government has moved this motion, but they will be perplexed and disturbed that the Opposition does not see fit to support regional and rural universities. The University of Wollongong has about 13,000 to 15,000 students. However, only about 50 per cent of those students come from Wollongong; the remaining 50 per cent are overseas students, which ensures that the university contributes to the broader national economy. Importantly, many of the students who come from areas outside of Wollongong come from the southern suburbs of Sydney. I am sure that the people of the Sutherland shire would be interested to know that the Opposition does not support the University of Wollongong as an institution of excellence and learning, and that it contributes so significantly to the regional, State and national economies.

The regional economic experience and the preparation of young people as graduates will be in jeopardy if we do not support regional universities. I am delighted to say that I strongly support the University of Wollongong. I am delighted to serve on the board of the University of Wollongong Foundation. I am very proud that-fingers crossed and exams passed-one of my sons will graduate from that university at the end of this semester. Importantly, the University of Wollongong has a joint arrangement with TAFE with respect to hospitality and nursing graduate opportunities. I urge the House to support the motion moved by the Minister. [Time expired.]

Ms HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [5.21 p.m.]: I support regional and rural universities, and I acknowledge that they provide great opportunities for country students, particularly those in my electorate. Indeed, that is one of the reasons I formed a working group to establish a university campus in Goulburn. Last April I put the proposal to Goulburn City Council, with the intention of gathering as much community support as I could possibly get. I wrote to all universities in New South Wales seeking their interest in pursuing the establishment of such a facility in the Goulburn district. I received several responses, which I will refer to in a moment. In June this year I visited the Dubbo campus of Charles Sturt University, on the recommendation of one of the university's professors with whom I had been discussing the proposal. We discussed whether Charles Sturt University might be a suitable model for a Goulburn university. Admittedly, the proposal is in the early stages.

My visit to the Dubbo campus was extremely interesting, and I thank the manager for showing me around the campus. I held my second meeting of the Goulburn university working group on 30 August. A professor from Charles Sturt University addressed the meeting in a commendable and bipartisan way. I thank Charles Sturt University for its assistance. As I said earlier, I wrote to all the universities in New South Wales and I received the following responses. The University of New England stated that it was interested in using the facilities once they are established. I received a very positive response from the University of Canberra, which stated that it would value further discussions with the local community before the development of specific plans. The University of Wollongong stated that it was not interested, but wished us well-and I thank it for that. Southern Cross University stated that it was not interested in pursuing the option of a large campus at this stage, but it was interested in providing external study programs. This may provide another model for consideration by the Goulburn university working group.

The University of Newcastle did not wish to put forward an expression of interest at this time, but stated it was interested in future opportunities in health programs, which is pleasing. The university senate of the Australian Catholic University had not formally considered my proposal, but the vice-chancellor provided an initial response that the university did not wish to become involved in running a campus in Goulburn. However, the vice-chancellor made an offer of help in an advisory capacity, and I thank him for that. The University of Western Sydney stated that Goulburn would be an attractive setting for a campus, but that the university would not be expressing interest at this stage. The University of Technology Sydney provided a negative response. Several universities have said they will be interested in pursuing the option of a campus in Goulburn, or will be interested in providing advice. I thank all those universities for their most productive responses to my representations to them.

I congratulate all of those who have come onto the board of the working group. I particularly thank the Lilac Time Committee, the various high school principals and primary school principals, the head of TAFE in Goulburn, the Mayor of Mulwaree Shire Council, the General Manager of Crookwell Shire Council, the Mayor and General Manager of Goulburn City Council, the Manager of the Southern Tablelands Education Centre, Rotary and other community organisations. I particularly thank the Goulburn Post and radio station 2GN for their support in this matter. They are obviously interested in positive development in Goulburn, as I am. I have discussed the matter with officers of the Federal Minister for Education and Training, and I have prepared a submission to the crossroads inquiry. I envisage for Goulburn a diverse campus. It will obviously take a long while to establish; university campuses are not established overnight and it takes a whole community to establish such a facility. If it is to be done properly, it needs to be done well and the whole community must be behind the proposal, and that is my aim.

I raise the matter in this House this evening as part of this debate, and also to bring it to the attention of the State Minister. I trust that the Minister will support my quest to have a university campus established in Goulburn in the near future. A university campus in Goulburn will provide an opportunity for students who have just finished year 12 and also mature-age students to physically attend the university. It is a very exciting concept for many people in my electorate. Many students currently travel to Canberra, Wollongong and Bathurst to attend university. It has been extremely trying for the parents of those students to afford the travel and accommodation costs associated with their attendance at university. Many computers have very slow Integrated Services Digital Network times, which means that distance education can be frustrating. I hope the Government will support this proposal. [Time expired.]

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle-Parliamentary Secretary) [5.26 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Burrinjuck, who I believe spoke in strong support of the Government's motion. The honourable member clearly advocated the need for university education to be provided in regional and rural settings without being hindered by the potential downgrading and defunding of university education. The University of Newcastle is a proud university that plays a pivotal role in education, not only for Newcastle and the Hunter Valley but for the whole of the north and north-west of the State. Of the 10 public universities in New South Wales, the University of Newcastle could be one of the worst affected by the proposals arising from the Commonwealth Government's higher education review. The question must be asked: How could this happen to such a successful university? An explanation for this lies in the success of the University of Newcastle. The university's mission statement makes it clear that its operations are underpinned, together with other important considerations, by equal opportunity, access, affirmative action, and participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The higher education review makes the point that rural and regional universities have a specific community charter. That is so, but it is vital that they continue to be funded as fully-fledged universities which acknowledge both a national and local role. Under the Commonwealth Government's proposals, universities such as Newcastle which have lived up to their community service obligations may be penalised financially for serving their communities properly, and they are now at risk of being reduced to the status of second-class universities. The University of Newcastle has a history of recognising and acting on its regional responsibilities. The university serves a community of around one million people in the Central Coast and Hunter regions. Many are from disadvantaged communities. The average enrolment of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds across all Australian universities is 14.8 per cent, whereas the University of Newcastle enrols 26.2 per cent. It provides the opportunity for people from low socioeconomic communities to achieve access to university education and, from that, greater participation in the community, in the professional classes, and in all areas of business endeavour.

The university's performance in relation to access, participation and retention rates for indigenous students in 2002 is higher than national indicators. I remind honourable members of the impact of the closure of the BHP steelworks on Newcastle and the surrounding region. Newcastle has had to build a new economic base and forge a new identity. The role of the university has been critical in this process. Since 1996, in an attempt to offset its funding cuts, the Commonwealth has imposed higher and higher student contributions. These funding changes are being proposed in the context of a Federal Government that has already introduced differential rates for the higher education charge scheme [HECS]. It introduced full fees for post-graduate students. It allowed universities to charge full fees for a proportion of domestic students. The people of Newcastle are tired of the user pays message to their community and surrounding communities. Once again, this is what the Federal Government is saying for the new funding regime it is proposing in the higher education review.

The cost of higher education is already imposing a growing debt burden on students and raising barriers to participation by groups that are traditionally underrepresented in higher education. The university has a large contingent of education students, 1,942 in 2001, and nursing students, 811 in 2001-both comprising more than 13 per cent of New South Wales education and nursing students. I agree with the honourable member for Lane Cove that this is a great need. This university is fulfilling and providing for that need, and any cuts to funding or imposition of higher charges must impact dramatically on access to those very important courses by the more disadvantaged people in our community. I oppose any such changes being brought forward by the Federal Government. I am sure I will enjoy the support of all honourable members in this Chamber. [Time expired.]

[Debate interrupted.]

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit an additional five speakers for five minutes each to the motion for urgent consideration.

[Debate resumed.]

Mr MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [5.32 p.m.]: As a member with a regional university, Charles Sturt University, in my electorate I am disappointed in the antics of the Minister for Education and Training. His motion is quite clearly fabricated. The Minister, through this motion, is causing real concern within universities and towns in New South Wales. The Minister is spreading fairy dust. The Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training's press release states quite categorically:

I informed him … along with other State and Territory Ministers, in July that Australia would not be returning to a two-tier university system with some becoming "teaching-only …"

The Minister for Education and Training is the king of spin. He stands condemned. The Government, in trying to put the spin on this debate, is at the edge of hypocrisy. The Government takes out of our universities, including Charles Sturt University, a total of $97 million. An amount of $27.5 million is extracted in payroll tax from rural universities alone. We all agree that universities are the holders of knowledge and wisdom, and we all want people from overseas and from Australia to have the opportunity to improve themselves with higher education. I have no doubt whatsoever that by the Federal Government talking about the issues that confront regional universities it intends to help other people access education and teaching facilities. The press release I have states clearly in black and white that this Minister has been told on a number of occasions that the motion he has moved today and the terms that he has been referring to in statements in this place are categorically wrong.

The Minister is misleading the public and he is playing around with people's emotions. Government members have talked about proposals, about the Minister putting forward what appear to be concrete proposals for the universities. That is not the case. This Government talks about issues and provides white papers for discussion. The Federal Government will consult with the public and with the providers, and it will ensure that we have the best outcomes for universities. Charles Sturt University was created by the former member for Wagga Wagga, the Hon. Joe Schipp, when it was a teachers college. The university was created under the Greiner Government. Honourable members should not tell me that we do not support regional universities. On Monday, as I flew to Sydney, I sat next to and spoke with David Green from Charles Sturt University. We discussed a myriad of issues affecting our university and how I could assist to provide better facilities for overseas students and the very best in educational facilities.

This Government relies on cost shifting. State governments shift costs. At the moment I am trying to provide more nursing studies in the university. The State Government keeps insisting that the courses must be Commonwealth funded, but why does it not put its hand in its pocket and start to contribute more dollars and cents to nursing? That has not happened. We have been working for 12 months to put forward a proposal with Charles Sturt University and TAFE to ensure we have more nurses for our hospitals. This Government has not come to the bargaining table to assist the university. The university could provide more nurses for our hospitals and more teachers for our schools. I spoke with the Minister last week about the inadequacy of teacher training proposals that he put forward for the University of Newcastle. Country people did not have access to those courses. People are falling through the net because the Minister has not addressed their concerns. [Time expired.]

Mr NEWELL (Tweed) [5.37 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Minister for Education and Training. Members from both sides of the House are using emotive language in this debate. I remind honourable members, particularly Opposition members, that we have to take note of the language being used, particularly in the discussion paper that gave rise to this motion, and the angst being felt in regional universities around New South Wales. Language that describes teaching and learning as core functions in all universities has set off alarm bells. People heard the promises made by John Howard and his Federal Government prior to the last election. However, they have been shocked and disappointed to hear John Howard refer to core and non-core promises-that is, things he is prepared to institute as part of his policy and things that he is prepared to disregard.

This discussion paper uses similar language-it describes learning and teaching as core functions and others as peripheral. Honourable members who have any understanding of teaching institutions and pedagogy will understand that teaching, learning and research are intertwined within universities as part of the learning environment, part of staff responsibilities, part of staff development, and part of the learning and development of students to improve the skills they have when they graduate. We must take that language on board because, as I said, it is causing some alarm across New South Wales.

The idea that universities can pare back their course range or undergo specialisation in terms of the courses they offer is ludicrous. While there might be some economies of scale and financial savings, when it comes down to it, regional universities will suffer. If the administration of universities is centralised, and if they are restricted in the courses they can offer, the courses that university students will be able to undertake will be narrowed down, thereby reducing the appeal of regional universities to potential students. Also, centralisation of procedures would mean that regional universities are unable to provide courses that might be required in a particular area. Certainly, Southern Cross University on the far North Coast-it is based mainly at Lismore but has campuses in Port Macquarie, Coffs Harbour and Tweed Heads-is able to respond to local needs and address issues by developing courses that are pertinent to the local community, and to attract funding for research.

The talents and skills of the staff enable them to develop courses and to pass on those skills to their students. That means that we have graduate students who are well versed in specific areas and who have specific skills that are not only necessary and relevant to the local community but also, in terms of the quality of graduates from Southern Cross University, well and truly required and accepted across Australia. In terms of access to courses and other areas, Southern Cross University has done a tremendous job in structuring its courses to appeal to regional students. Some 61 per cent of its non-overseas students-a high percentage of overseas students attend Southern Cross University-come from rural and isolated backgrounds. I can indicate that Southern Cross University is able to target its courses. Indeed, it does a great deal in terms of assisting people from regional backgrounds to attain a university education, which is something we all want. [Time expired.]

Mr TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [5.42 p.m.]: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak about regional universities, and I commend the Minister for Education and Training for giving us this opportunity. Earlier today I made a private member's statement in which I highlighted the significant contributions of the University of New England [UNE]. The honourable member for Wallsend shares a position on the UNE council with me and other members, and he will be aware of the tremendous contribution that the university makes to economic development through its provision of advanced learning and professional training, research capacities, its role in the advancement of knowledge, and generation of high-value adding and employment. As I said earlier, the value-adding impact of the University of New England on its regional community has been estimated at $277 million and it generates 6,903 full-time equivalent jobs, according to a recent survey by the Department of State and Regional Development.

I hope that people will read what I said in my private member's statement. I shall devote the remainder of my time to the comments of the honourable member for Wagga Wagga. He suggested that the Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training had not intended the review to have a negative impact on regional universities. He must have forgotten to mention that to a Liberal Party representative in the electorate of Northern Tablelands, because an article appeared in my local newspaper headed "Time is running out to speak out for regional universities". The article in the Armidale Express of Friday 6 September stated:

Failure to respond to a Federal Government review of tertiary education could prove costly for the University of New England and in turn the regional community, a local political figure has warned.

Scot MacDonald from the Liberal Party has urged regional representatives, civic leaders and residents to have their say on the "Higher Education at the Crossroads" issues paper …

Mr MacDonald, president of the Northern Tablelands branch of the State Electorate Conference, said the theme for the Federal Government review could be summarised as an argument for greater specialisation …

"The bottom line is, if our community and its representatives continue to be complacent, we will end up with a UNE shaped by Canberra's guidelines with little local input," he said.

Clearly, as the Liberal Party representative he was raising concern about what the Commonwealth Government may do. The article further stated:

Employment, student numbers, research, economic activity and course availability could all be radically changed in the proposed models …

If it's only Professor Moses-

Mr MacDonald is referring to the university's vice-chancellor speaking out-

then the Minister will view this as just another vice-chancellor pushing his or her own barrow …

The deadline will come and go, the review will come and go, and I fear that we will be saddled with the outcome.

I urge all honourable members to read the article, because the contributions from members on this side of the House suggested that the Federal Minister never intended to harm regional universities and the massive contribution they make to their regional communities. The Liberal Party representative referred to the press release by the Federal Minister. But did anybody tell the Liberal Party representative, who said, "Time is running out to speak out for regional universities"? I am happy to support the motion moved by the Minister, because the Liberal Party is telling me that I must be concerned about the impact of the review and how it could radically affect the University of New England.

I scoff at the suggestions made by Opposition members, when it is the Liberal Party representative in my area suggesting that his Liberal Government may rip the guts out of regional universities. It is appalling. If Liberal members condemn anyone they should condemn their own representative-the stated Liberal Party representative in my area-for suggesting that his Federal Liberal Government could make radical cuts that have a negative impact on the University of New England. That is appalling. If reassurances are given they should be published by the Liberal Party. Members on this side of the House should not be suggesting that the Federal Minister is using fear tactics, scaremongering and so on. Somebody should tell the Liberal Party representative in my area- [Time expired.]

Mr McGRANE (Dubbo) [5.47 p.m.]: I support the motion before the House. One reason I support the motion is because I am seeking clarification of the true situation. I listened to my colleague the Independent member for Northern Tablelands quote a newspaper article in which a Liberal person is quoted as saying that rural universities are in danger of being downgraded. If this comes from the Liberal Party, it is also coming from all sectors in my community in the city of Dubbo. Earlier the honourable member for Bathurst referred to the Charles Sturt University campus in Dubbo. I endorse the sentiments he expressed about the development of the university in Dubbo. Since Charles Sturt University established a campus in Dubbo six years ago it has gone from strength to strength. I was the mayor at the time the council negotiated a deal with the then Vice-Chancellor of Charles Sturt University, Cliff Blake, to sell the university a large parcel of land on the outskirts of the city of Dubbo on which to develop a campus.

In the process of the development of the university a parcel of land was sold to the New South Wales Department of Education and Training to establish a super campus for public high school education for years 10, 11 and 12. That was the first time the concept of a super campus had been suggested in regional New South Wales. Other public schools in Dubbo educate students up to year 9 and those students are then enrolled at the super campus, which is adjacent to the Charles Sturt University, for years 10, 11 and 12.

The Charles Sturt University has given Dubbo something that it lacked in the past. It has made Dubbo an educational mecca for students from the western and northern areas of New South Wales, and even for students from Queensland. The Charles Sturt University has brought education to the people; they do not have to go to Sydney or Canberra or other cities along the coast. Dubbo has the newest regional university in Australia, and that university is an example of the great concept of bringing universities to the people. It is one of the best things that has happened to Dubbo in the past 20 years. Since the establishment of the university, the super campus and two other educational facilities have been built.

The development of education resources in Dubbo could be likened to a snowball rolling down a hill. Education has been gathering momentum in the city of Dubbo; it has brought major benefits not only to Dubbo but to surrounding areas. Dubbo has a population of 40,000 people but serves a region of 160,000. Those people now have a university that they can call their own. Any move to downgrade funding for regional universities would have a detrimental effect on the regions. The policy of the Federal Government is antiregion and I believe that the Federal Government should seriously consider its actions. Universities such as the Charles Sturt University have played a fantastic role in developing regions across Australia. If any reduction in funding adversely impacts such universities that will be to the great detriment of regional development in New South Wales and other States.

Mr Price: We have a theological college associated with the Charles Sturt University in the Maitland electorate, so the university's role is indeed widespread.

Mr McGRANE: It is. As I said earlier, the Charles Sturt University is an education mecca and its establishment has led to the setting up of ancillary educational facilities in the Dubbo area. The university is a wonderful education facility and represents a positive aspect of regional life in Australia. I do not want any level of government-State or Federal, but particularly Federal because the Federal Government is the major provider of funds for higher education-to withdraw funding. It is imperative that the Federal Government's position be clarified.
Motion by Mr Oakeshott agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Amendment negatived.

Mr OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [5.54 p.m.]: I move:

That the motion be amended by the addition of the following paragraphs:

(4) calls on the Sate Minister and the Department of Education and Training do all in their power to facilitate the delivery of a university presence in Port Macquarie as a matter of urgency; and

(5) calls on the Federal Minister and the Federal Department of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs to fund the delivery of 30 full-time student places for a Port Macquarie university presence as a matter of urgency.

Port Macquarie has been in a disgraceful position over the past decade as far as university services to the mid North Coast are concerned. At both a State and Federal level, there was agreement that the Southern Cross University would be the university presence for Port Macquarie and would deliver universities services to the entire North Coast. Unfortunately, six months ago the university announced that it intended to pull out of Port Macquarie and service only the Tweed area. That was a disappointing decision for students and for the whole mid North Coast community. There is no question that the people who live on the mid North Coast and in Port Macquarie deserve a university presence in their local community. The people in my electorate have been waiting for a decision by the State Government or the Federal Government on what can be done to deliver tertiary education services to the Port Macquarie area.

Discussions are taking place with the University of Newcastle in an attempt to build a relationship with a substituted tertiary institution. As recently as a week and a half ago I attended a meeting with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Newcastle, Roger Holmes, and the Director of the North Coast Institute of TAFE, Neil Black. That meeting held great potential for re-establishment of university services in Port Macquarie. However, the critical part of the equation is the Federal funding that will have to be provided to enable memorandums of understanding to be signed.

All the goodwill in the world exists between the North Coast Institute of TAFE, the Port Macquarie community, the University of Newcastle and the Newcastle community, but the whole proposition is contingent upon the provision of Federal Government funding. I have moved an amendment because funding is desperately needed. At the end of this year, Port Macquarie will lose the Southern Cross University and students and those who intended to enrol as students will be left without any university services on the mid North Coast. More students leave the mid North Coast than anywhere else in Australia to attend tertiary education institutions. Port Macquarie also has the highest figures for entrenched unemployment and the highest youth unemployment figures of any town in Australia.

That combination of circumstances highlights the great need for tertiary education to provide opportunities for the future, not only in education but also in the work force. To summarise, I hope the Government and the Opposition support my amendment. I urge the State Government to do all in its power to facilitate the delivery of a university presence in Port Macquarie as a matter of urgency. I encourage all honourable members of this House to support the Federal Government delivering funding for 34 full-time student places post haste. I call on the House to support my amendment.

Mrs Chikarovski: Point of order: The House was not given the opportunity, as the Opposition were seeking, to divide on the amendment of the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai. That did not happen because there was confusion in the Chair. That confusion was probably fairly convenient because it meant the Government did not have to divide on an issue on which it is clearly embarrassed. That is the issue of public education under the New South Wales Government. It is clear that the Government did not want to divide on that amendment because it did not want to have on the record the fact that it is not prepared to support public education in this State.

More children are leaving public education than ever. We have less funding for public education than ever. We have less spent on capital expenditure in comparison with any other State. This State has more problems with public education. The reason the Government did not want a division is that it does not want on the record the fact that this House is not prepared to take cognisance of the fact that public education under this Minister has gone from bad to worse, and will continue to worsen until the Minister is prepared to acknowledge the problem. The Minister refuses to acknowledge the problem and did not want a division because that would have put on the record that he voted against public education in New South Wales.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr WATKINS (Ryde-Minister for Education and Training) [6.02 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. It is clear that what is being planned by the Federal Government is an outrageous attack on our rural and regional communities. Today's debate has made that very clear. I understand that has been made clear in one regional newspaper in the north-east of the State.

Mr Torbay: The Armidale Express.

Mr WATKINS: In the Armidale Express. Mr Scot MacDonald spoke about time running out to speak out for regional universities.

Mr Torbay: The Liberal representative.

Mr WATKINS: I am informed the Liberal representative is saying that. It is true that time is running out for our regional universities. Unless we are united in voicing our opposition to these crazy plans that the Federal Government has in store for our regional universities, those universities will be downgraded and become teaching-only universities. Their research capacity will be ripped from them. They will, subtly if not overtly, become a second tier of universities. This will have a major impact on the regional economies of New South Wales in which our universities play a critical role in attracting investment and providing jobs. That downgrading will have a major adverse impact on the social infrastructure of regional towns, like Armidale and Lismore.

This downgrading will impact detrimentally on students in rural and regional New South Wales. No longer will they be able to choose a first-class institution in their local community. They will have to make the awful decision whether to disrupt their social life and live in Sydney or some other capital city to get a decent education. No student today should have to make that decision, especially when we already have a network of regional and rural universities that are world-class. That status must be maintained by the Federal Government. I fear that it will not do so. In all my discussions with the Federal Minister he has said one thing to me in private and the opposite in public. An example of that was on the Higher Education Contribution Scheme [HECS] charges on TAFE. The Minister told me that was not the Federal Government's plan. Weeks later we read in the paper that not to put HECS on TAFE would be unfair to those paying HECS on full university degrees.

We have to keep the Federal Government on notice. We have to shine the light on its plans. What it is planning for our higher education sector across the board is disastrous. The Federal Government already has ripped $3.5 billion from the sector. No wonder university classes are overcrowded and students are carrying more of the financial burden. No wonder fewer students from lower socioeconomic groups are now attending university. These are deliberate policies of the Federal Government. If we do not say loudly, "No more, leave our rural and regional universities alone," the Federal Government will start to take them apart piece by piece, playing one institution against another, covertly removing the resources of one university and pretending that that is being done for some other purpose.

A number of issues were raised by honourable members who spoke in this debate. Interestingly, the Federal Minister, as has been reported here again today, has dared to criticise the State governments because they take payroll tax from universities. In fact the New South Wales Government, in kind and in grants, offers approximately $200 million to our university sector. That is far in excess of any level of payroll tax. It is interesting that the Federal Minister has been telling vice-chancellors from regional and rural universities to approach the State Government and ask for payroll tax relief. In other words, to ask the State Government to assist in the funding of universities.

Why is the Federal Government doing that? It is because the Federal Government has ripped $3.5 billion from the sector. The universities, which are being put under great pressure, are looking for assistance. The body that should be funding our regional and rural universities properly, protecting them into the future, is the Federal Government. It is the responsibility of that Government. That has been accepted in the history of Australia. I appeal to the Federal Minister to do the right thing, to protect our regional and rural universities and, therefore, the communities that they serve.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Pursuant to resolution business interrupted.

Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [6.07 p.m.]: With a growing sense of anger I address the House about the announcement yesterday by Australian Silicon Ltd that it was cancelling its planned $150 million silicon plant for Lithgow because of problems getting the charcoal plant approved at Mogo on the South Coast. In a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange, Australian Silicon Chairman George F. Jones said the main reason was "the overall risk to the project based on statements attributed to State Opposition members and candidates about its future treatment under a Coalition government." Mr Jones went on to say:

The New South Wales State Opposition have been reported as publicly stating that if elected to Government they would shut down the carbon reductant facility and thereby the silicon project.

That backed what Australian Silicon Managing Director Peter Anderton said, as reported in the Illawarra Mercury, on Saturday 22 September:

The charcoal plant is one part of a very large project and unless we sort it out the project can't go ahead.

I remind the House of the cost of losing that project: 250 construction jobs in Lithgow, gone; 120 new permanent jobs for Lithgow, gone; 12 new jobs in the quarry at Cowra, gone; 53 new jobs in the Eurobodalla shire, gone; 20,000 hectares of tree plantings in the Murray-Darling Basin, gone; an industry which would be worth more than $4 billion overall, gone. The derailment of this important high-technology industry is a cruel blow to regional New South Wales and the people of the Lithgow area. It comes down to a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, John Brogden, as reported in the Illawarra Mercury on 23 September 2002:

I will not let this go ahead if elected in March.

He repeated that theme yesterday when he said on Radio 2ST:

I'm opposed to Mogo. I have been opposed to Mogo … from the outset even before I was Leader, as the shadow Minister for Planning back over eight months ago.

That comment was contradicted on Radio 2BS Bathurst today, when a flustered Mr Brogden said he probably would not have the power stop the project. A disappointing feature of this whole business has been the lack of bipartisanship. The Carr Government has approved the silica quarry at Cowra, the silicon plant at Lithgow and the charcoal plant at Mogo. It has worked with the company for four years to get the project going. I can attest to that because I was the mayor of Lithgow when the company was attracted to using our minerals processing park in conjunction with State Government departments and Pacific Power. The 130 conditions placed on the Mogo plant, which was the controversial part of the project, contain strict environmental requirements to ensure the project's credentials. The company accepted those conditions, and it did so in the knowledge that the project would have to be undertaken properly.

Members of the New South Wales Coalition, and the Leader of the Opposition in particular, through their deceitful political point scoring have now derailed this $150 million project. The end product is environmentally friendly and would have been used in a range of industries, in particular in the manufacture of silicon panels for solar heating equipment. Peter Anderton, the Managing Director of Australian Silicon Ltd, said on 2BL this morning that unless New South Wales can develop a bipartisan approach to projects such as this no-one will invest in them. His company, which is based in Western Australia and has a good track record, had arrived at the last hurdle but the cheap political opportunism indulged in by the Leader of the Opposition in his chase for green preferences has derailed the project.

Honourable members might wonder how he would be able to do that. As a result of the limiting of the Mogo project and the creation of uncertainty the company has decided not to take the risk that the Leader of the Opposition will be Premier of this State in March. The Leader of the Opposition is now trying to recant because the people of my electorate are pointing the finger squarely at him. We must develop a bipartisan approach if we want serious job creation in regional New South Wales. Let this be an example. I appeal to members opposite to work with regional communities. That point was reiterated by my colleague the mayor of Lithgow, Mr Neville Castle, on the ABC news this morning. We want these projects in the bush and the Government is prepared to approve them if they meet the strictest tests. I ask members of the Opposition to think seriously about the damage they have done to job creation in New South Wales.

Mr MARKHAM (Wollongong-Parliamentary Secretary) [6.12 p.m.]: Obviously the member for Bathurst is disappointed by yesterday's announcement. He worked hard to secure the project and is concerned about jobs in the Lithgow area. I appreciate him raising this issue and expressing his deep disappointment about what has happened.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby) [6.12]: I bring to the attention of the House, particularly the Minister for Education and Training, a turf war that has erupted between Willoughby Girls High School and Willoughby Public School in my electorate. The oval that abuts the high school and the public school is clearly visible and is one of the landmarks of public education in my electorate. It is easily seen and is well known to local residents, and even better known to the students who attend the schools. The oval is the property of the Department of Education and Training and is maintained by Willoughby City Council. Until November last year access was available to students at the public school, which my older sons-Ben and David-both attended in the 1980s. The school now has some 700 students.

The oval used to be available for planned events, fitness and physical education lessons and lunchtime play sessions on most days. It was resurfaced and subsequently it has been used by Willoughby Public School during the latter half of that school's lunch hour. It was beneficial to all age groups. I am referring to young, active children and a school with strong enrolments. Access to this open, sunlit, grassed area instead of an asphalt playground, which is the only other option, was a major benefit to the students. For example, the incidence of bullying has reduced in the area as a result of that access. Access was always harmonious and priority was always given to Willoughby Girls High School, which is in nominal charge of the oval.

However, since November 2001 the public school's access to the oval has been restricted. Attempts have been made this year-headmaster-to-headmaster or principal-to-principal-to resolve the issue. One would think it would be a simple matter. This is a valuable public education resource close to several hundred children at the public school and the high school. Surely it is simply a matter of sharing the oval. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Willoughby Public School has been excluded and Willoughby Girls High School has had exclusive use of the oval during the lunch hour in recent months. Some 20 to 70 high school students use the fringe area; they sit around, chat and eat their lunch.

Willoughby Public School is overcrowded and has inadequate playing areas and children suffer as a result of insufficient recreation space. It is unfair to have what is essentially a community resource denied to several hundred primary school students who want to run around and play games under the supervision of teachers. I have great respect for both of the principals involved in this situation: Sandra Marsh at Willoughby Public School and Suzette Young at Willoughby Girls High School. Despite an oval committee being established to resolve the problem and the fact that the matter has been brought to the attention of the Minister for Education and Training, this problem has not yet been resolved. As late as today another attempt has been made to resolve the issue, but the outcome was totally inadequate.

The Willoughby Public School community is enraged by this situation. They correctly believe that both schools and their resources are community assets and that they should be sensibly managed in a way that benefits all students. The Minister should put an end to this debacle. I mentioned this issue to him outside the Chamber-he is otherwise detained at the moment-and pointed out that it must be resolved. The problem has gone on for too long. The primary school students have been deprived of this terrific open space, which should benefit both schools. The Minister should intervene and say that enough is enough and introduce some commonsense. The Willoughby Public School community wants the access restrictions reduced so that its students can use the oval during the latter part of their lunch hour, that is, from 1.20 p.m. to 1.50 p.m. [Time expired.]

Mr GIBSON (Blacktown) [6.17 p.m.]: I speak about insurance and the insurance industry. Our way of life in this country is changing dramatically because of problems in the insurance industry. Unless the Federal Government can do something to resolve this issue, the situation will only get worse. The State has played its role, but there is more to do. Taking the kids to soccer, rugby league, netball or basketball on a Saturday morning will become a thing of the past if we cannot overcome these insurance problems. Just recently a number of senior citizens, ranging in age from 80 to 90, came to see me. The insurance company with which they have been dealing asked them for over $100,000 to cover them for accidents. Those senior citizens, who attend an exercise class once a week, pay a total of $2 a week to participate in that class. That gets them out of the house and keeps them fit, and they really look forward to attending that class. As I said earlier, those senior citizens have been asked for at least $100,000 to cover them in case of an accident. I am sure that everyone would agree that is a joke and something must be done about it.

Over the past week we have debated in this Chamber the problems confronting the building industry. People who are building homes or any other structure are experiencing great difficulty in obtaining insurance coverage. These issues must be resolved. Most insurance premiums have gone through the roof-some have increased by 1,000 per cent. It is hard to get figures from insurance companies but the total pay-out over the past five years is less than 1¢ in the dollar. Federal and State governments must assess whether these huge increases in insurance premiums are justified. I inform honourable members that it is lucky I am with AAMI. Recently somebody backed into my car, which was parked at Parliament House. I thought it would be a simple thing to get my car fixed. I telephoned AAMI-as I said earlier, it is lucky that I am with AAMI-and I was told to obtain two quotes, in my time and at my expense.

I was also told that if I wanted to take my car to a panel beater that I knew I had to obtain three quotes. I then had to take those three quotes to the central body at Seven Hills which would assess the quotes and determine where I should have my car fixed. Years ago if a car was smashed in an accident the insurance company would pay a visit to the owner of the car and assess the damage. That is not the position today. Everyone who has a policy with insurance companies today has to do the hard work for those companies. Policyholders have to obtain the quotes and insurance companies make the decisions. I have been told by insurance companies that, in nearly every case, the job will be given to the cheapest repairer. Forget about quality of work or being fair to the policyholder. In my case I was told that I had to take my car to Pendle Hill, which is about a 25-minute drive from my office at Blacktown.

The first quote that I obtained was from a fellow whose business is located at the rear of my office. He was prepared to pick up my car, repair it and bring it back, but because the other repairer was $20 cheaper AAMI said that I had to have my car repaired at Pendle Hill. My car cost just $700 to repair, but I had to pay the $450 excess. I paid most of the costs to get my car repaired after the insurance company told me that because it could save $20 I had to take it to a repairer who was a 25-minute drive from my office. That was totally inconvenient. I put up such an argument about this issue that the insurance company paid me out. It gave me a cheque for the difference, but it gave me $20 less than what it cost to repair my vehicle. Federal and State governments must have another look at the policies of insurance companies, which are robbing the people of this State. As I said earlier, it is lucky I am with AAMI!

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [6.22 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the need to build a multipurpose centre [MPC] or school hall at both Ballina primary school and Lennox Head primary school. Both halls are much needed. This evening I will refer to the need for a hall at Ballina primary school, and I will refer to the needs of Lennox Head primary school on a future occasion. Currently 437 students are enrolled at Ballina primary school, a disadvantaged school that is on the priority school funding program. There are 78 Aboriginal children at the school and a special Aboriginal resource unit is designed to support Aboriginal students and their parents in achieving the best possible educational outcomes.

Furthermore, every child at the school studies music at some stage. They all have an opportunity in years 3 to 6 to be part of the school stage band or concert band. They also have an excellent computer room, thanks largely to the efforts of the parents and citizens association. This school has an enthusiastic and capable principal in Dr Max Gartner, a dedicated and motivated staff, and a strong and supportive parents and citizens association. In short, this is an excellent school. When I visit that school I am always impressed with both students and staff. However, the school has no school hall in which to hold school assemblies or other major school events. That has posed a serious problem for the school, especially as Ballina has a high rainfall, in particular between January and June each year, and it experiences high temperatures in the summer. Children need a proper multipurpose unit so that they are not exposed to the rain, the wind and the sun and to ensure that students realise their full potential in both curricular and extracurricular activities.

As the school was established in 1861 most of the buildings are old. If this school were being built today an MPC would be automatically incorporated into its facilities. A new school would have a versatile and useful multipurpose centre as a matter of course. Why can Ballina primary school not have an MPC as well? I believe that Ballina primary school and others like it are being discriminated against because they are older schools. That is not acceptable. Back in 1994 an MPC for Ballina primary school was the local top priority on the capital works program but, with the change of government in 1995, the school hall program was abandoned and that project lapsed. I am aware that $80 million has been allocated to construct school halls across the State.

I have asked the Minister on several occasions when Ballina primary school and Lennox Head primary school halls will be built and what priority they will be given to access some of this money. To date I have had no commitment from the Government. Last April I took the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, who was then the shadow Minister for Education and Training, to both Ballina and Lennox Head primary schools. She was most understanding of the need to build MPCs at both schools. The Coalition recognises the need to build multipurpose centres at these schools and it will do something about it if it is elected next March. I have already asked the new shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai, to inspect these schools. He agreed to do so as soon as his diary permits.

Ballina primary school is a split site. Infants schoolchildren are located on one side of Martin Street and primary schoolchildren are located on the other side. Several years ago the school, which was supported by me, tried to have that small part of Martin Street closed so that an MPC could be built on the road. In the process the school would have become a single-site school rather than the split site that it is now. Despite obvious safety benefits to students who have to cross Martin Street in order to gain access to the other side of the school, council refused to allow that section of Martin Street to be closed. I am advised that that was for traffic flow reasons and due to issues associated with access to infrastructure in Martin Street.

Notwithstanding that fact, the school has elected to locate the proposed multipurpose centre on the primary side of the site near the two-storey building near Martin Street. There is sufficient land to locate an MPC on that site. That site is preferred to the Martin Street site because of the problems associated with closing that section of Martin Street. The bottom line is that the school desperately needs a multipurpose centre. It has the land on which to locate such a centre and it is determined to obtain results. I strongly support the school's push for a multipurpose centre. I call on the Carr Government to give priority to this project for the benefit of current and future students and staff at Ballina primary school.

Ms SALIBA (Illawarra) [6.27 p.m.]: Tonight I bring to the attention of honourable members an event that took place in the Illawarra region last Friday and Saturday, that is, the Southern Stars Supernova 2002. The Southern Stars is the southern region's equivalent of the Schools Spectacular. Over 2,300 students and their teachers were involved in that event, which was the most brilliant display of talent I have ever seen. Many young people sang, danced and acted at the Wollongong Entertainment Centre. It was brilliant. I would like to recognise all those people who worked hard to ensure that Supernova 2002 was a success.

In particular I acknowledge the efforts of the 2,300 students who were involved in the event. Stan Warren, the executive producer of the event, is also the principal of Austinmer Public School. This is the second year the Southern Stars Supernova has been held, and Stan has been very much involved in ensuring its success. Caroline Chant, the director, is also the training and development/curriculum coordinator for the Batemans Bay district. Andrew Lyons, the musical director, is also a teacher at one of our high schools. Greg Thompson, the costume designer, is a teacher at Bowral Public School. Chris Gorrie, Lindy Sharp and Pauline Langenegger were vocal directors for the event.

Many other people were also involved in the event, and they are all to be commended. Ina Melkerts-Smith, Jenny Ferguson and Ann Clifton were choral directors. Sonia Ashford was the dance coordinator, Sharne Sjostedt was the drama coordinator, Michael Barkl was assistant musical director, and Glenn Craft was the stage band manager. Heather Pulsford, a former teacher, was the promotions manager, and Kate Schmich was the stage manager for the event. Dave Stretton, from radio station i98FM, compered the event.

The Southern Stars Supernova would not have been such a success without its sponsors. BHP Steel was a principal sponsor of the event. Segment sponsors included Wollongong City Council, the Illawarra Mercury and the Illawarra Institute of TAFE, which was involved in preparing the backdrops for the event. My husband, who is a TAFE teacher at Wollongong, was involved in making a very large quarter moon which was used as a prop during performances. Integral Energy also sponsored the event. Media partners were WIN TV, the Illawarra Mercury and radio station i98FM. Supporters of the event included Dion's Bus Service, Kiama Council, Shellharbour City Council, the Shoalhaven Arts Board, and Shellharbour Workers Club as a donor. Without the support of all those sponsors the event would not have taken place.

The Southern Stars Supernova 2002 was a display of the students' abilities; it was a celebration of their educational opportunities. A number of schools from my electorate were involved, namely Dapto High School, Farmborough Road Public School, Figtree Public School and Figtree High School. In fact, a delegation from Figtree High School visited the Parliament today. The students told me that 20 students from the school were involved in backstage activities. It was the largest group of students and teachers from one school to be involved in the event.

Other schools involved included Hayes Park Public School, Lakelands Public School, Koonawarra Public School, Lake Illawarra High School, Mount Brown Public School, Mount Keira Demonstration School, Oak Flats High School and Unanderra Public School. To give honourable members an understanding of how the event was put together, the students practised in their own local areas and only got together shortly before the production. The teachers involved in the event are to be commended for all their work and effort. It was a great event, and my family and I thoroughly enjoyed it. [Time expired.]

Mr STEWART (Bankstown-Parliamentary Secretary) [6.32 p.m.]: I join the honourable member for Illawarra in congratulating the Illawarra local community on their participation in Southern Stars Supernova 2002, which is a celebration of the talent of our young people and a showcase for public education in this great State. I can relate to this, because in the last year or so the Bankstown community enjoyed the Bankstown Buzz, which also involved a number of schools getting together to showcase their talents. I can assure honourable members that the event resulted in a great deal of prestige for the area, and improved self-esteem, understanding, camaraderie and support amongst the students who got together from different schools, which is what public education is all about.

It is obvious that the honourable member for Illawarra has been able to work in close cooperation with her school community, the teachers and the supporters of the event through sponsoring. The event not only showcases the students, but it demonstrates clearly that teachers can make a real difference in the work they do. They work very hard over long hours to achieve events such as this, and I strongly commend them for their efforts.

Ms SEATON (Southern Highlands) [6.33 p.m.]: Before I raise a very serious developing crime and safety issue in Mittagong in my electorate I wish to acknowledge a special project that our local police, particularly Picton police, led by Greg Smith, were involved in late last week during the lead-up to the Special Olympics, which were launched last weekend by the Commissioner of Police. I am sure many members of this House would be familiar with the project. We were very lucky that the Flame of Hope was carried through Picton by a number of very fit local police officers who said they had been training on a diet of fast food. However, that did not slow them down, and they joined many local young children who are involved in the Special Olympics in rhythmic gymnastics, bowling and swimming.

A reception for the event was attended by Mark Rattenbury, the local area commander; the Mayor of Wollondilly, Col Mitchell; Mr Khan, the owner of the Picton supermarket and sponsor of the event; and the school captain of Mater Dei School. It was a wonderful event. I acknowledge the fact that police were involved in that community activity even though, in the half hour or so preceding it, they had been called to the scene of a particularly traumatic event. However, they professionally regrouped and made the event a very special occasion for the young children involved in the Special Olympics.

Of more concern are some events that have been unfolding in Mittagong, where a number of local businesses have been the subject of vandalism and break and enter offences. Late last week I was contacted by Michael O'Halloran, the proprietor of Jojangles Dance Studio, a long-established and well-respected dance studio in Mittagong. Michael O'Halloran reported to me that his studio had been vandalised about six weeks ago, spotlights had been kicked out in the car park, the signage outside the studio had been damaged and the exit signs had been broken, and that two weeks later his premises were broken into. He was robbed of stereo equipment, video equipment, cash and confectionery, as well as some fairly sophisticated backstage communication equipment, which he fears might allow those who broke into his studio to communicate with each other from concealed locations before preying on other businesses.

Michael O'Halloran said that in the last four weeks he had spoken to people at the Shell service station at Braemar, the Mobil service station at Mittagong, the BP service station at Mittagong, Mittagong caravan park, the Quilt Shop at Mittagong, Mittagong Real Estate Agency, the nursery at Braemar, the mower business near Grayco Foods, and all of those businesses had suffered some sort of break and enter, vandalism or crime event in the previous four weeks.

I spoke to Michael O'Halloran again last evening. Today he brought me up to date and told me that very recently the Echo Cafe, the Bay Tree Cafe and Absolutely Flowers had also been broken into. This is a very disturbing state of affairs in Mittagong. Michael O'Halloran does an enormous amount of work in our community, and he would probably be embarrassed to know that I am saying this. However, one of the things that makes me so upset about what has happened to his business is that he volunteers an enormous amount of time and effort to the children at Tangara Special School in Mittagong. Last year he hosted the school's end-of-year celebration and prize giving, and he spends a lot of time teaching the children dance and music skills, which is very much appreciated by the children and their parents.

Michael O'Halloran tells me that he does not want to be a whinger, that he is not a whinger, and that he greatly appreciates the time and help that local police have given him and other businesses, but there are simply not enough local police to do all the follow-up work that is required to ensure that Mittagong is a safe place and that business owners can feel confident that their business premises will not be broken into. In fact, Michael O'Halloran singled out a particular officer who caught an offender involved in some of the recent events, and stated that the officer is doing a great job informing the business owners of the occurrences.

I know that Michael O'Halloran is out at 4 o'clock in the morning doing his own surveillance and other people spend their evenings keeping an eye on businesses and making sure that they put as much pressure on these criminals as possible. We need more local police. I will be joining Michael to carry out a survey of local businesses to get a better feel for the number of people affected by these sorts of events so that we can make a case, on behalf of local police, to the police commissioner and the police Minister for more desperately needed police resources in the Southern Highlands. [Time expired.]

Mr PRICE (Maitland) [6.38 p.m.]: Tonight I congratulate the Government on recognising the 1st Dungog Scout Group and its request for assistance to upgrade its hall. I am happy to advise that the Government made $10,000 available to the group to improve the general amenity of the scout hall, which included rebuilding both male and female toilets, constructing a new store room, completely refurbishing the kitchen and also undertaking some work with the internal lighting of the hall, the external fabric of the hall and the grounds. It has been a great boost to a small group that I first met at the jamboree in 2000-01, the first event of the Australian centenary celebrations. I followed the progress of the group very well.

It is interesting that the group leader, Mr Andrew Evans, is also the general manager of Dungog Shire Council. He has swung into the local community in a major way. I was very happy to be able to advise the group of the support. Dungog is a town with some 2,000 residents, which, in municipal terms, is pretty small. Organisations like the scouts and the guides have a great social impact. The guides share this hall with the scouts and, with the new amenities, they may be even more enthusiastic about cooperating in its management. That would save them having to find a home of their own and would make better use of the facility. The value of youth organisations is highlighted in the provincial cities.

Young people in Dungog tend to leave town once they have completed their year 12 studies. They go off to university or come to Sydney or Newcastle for work. That makes a significant break in the community spirit. It helps if they have something to link up with when they are away from home, either through a Rover scout group or an Adventurer scout group. It is important to note that the parliamentary branch of the Baden-Powell Guild makes annual donations to both the scouts and guides on an alternate year basis to help them to keep fees down and maintain groups in other areas. The Clarencetown group is unique. It has care, control and management of the local public hall at a little village called Glenn Oak.

In conjunction with the primary school-which has just been provided with a new covered outdoor learning area, covered walkways and tanks for its water supply-it provides all the civic amenities for people in the Glenn Oak region. The scout group at Clarencetown has also obtained some funding to provide new toilets and a septic tank, and it has been able to undertake some renovations to the hall. While the hall is on private property, it is maintained as the local community hall, and the scouts contribute by looking after it and making it available for birthday parties and wedding parties. It is a pleasure to be involved in assisting these groups and their voluntary committees to ensure that the money is well spent-and from my experience it is doubled because of the volunteer input and the generous donations of local providores and suppliers of materials.

I congratulate the Government on its recognition of the need for support for these groups, particularly in depressed areas of my electorate. I also congratulate the various scout groups on their initiatives and the community spirit in the way they are prepared to generously share those amenities with other organisations and the community at large. If we could introduce some of that country-style cooperation into some of our larger metropolitan centres I am sure we would all have happier lives and there would be a much more beneficial use of the dollar. [Time expired.]

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [6.43 p.m.]: Tonight I appeal to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation on behalf of the Temora Shire Council, the community of Temora and Ms Elisabeth Kirkby, one-time leader of the Democrats in the upper House. Ms Kirkby is a councillor on Temora council and a farmer. She chose to come to Temora because of the red soil and the very good local member.

Mr Fraser: Who is the local member?

Mr ARMSTRONG: Modesty prevents me from responding to that interjection. The appeal to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation is to ensure that Temora gets a replacement for a very valued officer, Jim Salmon. I stress the need for the guidance and advice that he gives to Landcare groups and to local government to aid their adoption of environmental legislation. Ms Kirkby writes:

In recent months, new legislation has been introduced to cover water use and storage, preservation of flora and fauna and rehabilitation of native vegetation.

To ensure that this legislation is complied with without delay, Landcare groups, Environment Officers for Local Councils and landholders need timely advice and support.

It is often difficult to work out the detail of such legislation and on occasion there is inbuilt resistance to change, particularly where water rights are concerned.

If stakeholders can draw on expert advice from an experienced soil conservation officer with the knowledge of the catchment in which they live, they are more likely to follow the provisions of new rules and regulations.

Visits from an officer from another town with inadequate local knowledge make landholders suspicious and they resist the changes needed.

There are many real problems in Temora Shire. Land to the south of the town is threatened with salinity. Past over-clearing of native vegetation has resulted in areas of erosion and many farm water storages are inadequately supervised.

The good work done over the years when Jim Salmon gained the respect and trust of landowners resulting in wise conservation practices must not be put in jeopardy.

The Landcare groups in the shire are active and dedicated but still need guidance and support.

I trust that the Minister will see the wisdom of building on the improvements achieved over the years and ensure that a replacement for Jim Salmon is appointed as a priority.

To share an officer from another area will negate all the good work of the past. It will not be an economy but could cost a significant sum in the long term.

It is signed "Elisabeth Kirkby, Bellendale, Temora". That is a totally unsolicited letter by someone who has been in the district for, give or take, a decade. She took on a farm that was run down in the environmental sense, and has made a great success of it. One reason for that success was the advice of Jim Salmon. I support totally what councillor Kirkby said. Temora is unique. It is not a river town. Its water service comes from the Murrumbidgee River via pipelines. The town has always had a strong local economy and, most importantly, a very strong Department of Agriculture presence through the wheat breeding research station. Some of world's greatest wheats have been bred at Temora. Similarly, Temora has one of the oldest soil conservation research stations and facilities in New South Wales. In days gone by it was a fragile farming district, with a lot of fragile soils, but with good advice and good farming Temora has become one of the most efficient and highly reputable farming areas in Australia today.

I cannot overemphasise the necessity to have a resident land and water person doing soil conservation in Temora in order to continue the work already being done, to continue the scientific research and to continue to advise some of the most efficient farmers with some of the best technology in Australia in that district. Temora is home to the second largest dealer in international harvester company case equipment in Australia. It adopts new technologies and new management practices, and it has the financial wherewithal to put them in place. In the interests of commonsense, the environment, the community and further improvement in soil conservation knowledge, I appeal to the Minister to replace Mr Jim Salmon with another officer based in Temora.

Mrs PERRY (Auburn) [6.48 p.m.]: I was privileged to attend and launch the Children's Happy Garden on Saturday 21 September. This is a new community garden for children in a precinct between Perry Way and Alphonsus Way in Auburn. As the member for Auburn and as the mother of three children, I can appreciate what a wonderful role this garden will fulfil in the community. My Federal parliamentary colleague Mr Laurie Ferguson was also in attendance on the day. Both he and I were most taken with the beautiful welcome by some of the local residents in the area. We were treated to a beautiful Fijian ceremony performed by Albert Namakadre and other members of his family. What has been particularly pleasing about this project is the way the community and government have been able to come together and build a garden that will truly enhance the local community.

The garden provides a safe place for young children to come and play with their families. Childhood is indeed a precious time of our lives. It should be a time for learning, growing, socialising and having fun. It is important that we cherish our children now by providing facilities such as this garden so that they are able to grow into fine upstanding citizens. After all, the children of today are the leaders of tomorrow. I congratulate those involved on the wonderful features and facilities of the garden. The fruit trees, which will ultimately produce fruit, are a great idea for encouraging healthy eating habits. The bird-attracting trees will help to attract native birds to the garden, particularly from the Auburn botanic gardens. This in turn will help children to appreciate our area's natural beauty. Compost bins will help to encourage sustainable lifestyle practices. Also, some beautiful murals have been painted on previously graffitied walls. These are just a few of the wonderful features of the garden.

The New South Wales Government has a long and fruitful relationship with the local community, and projects such as the Happy Garden continue this trend. In May this year the Department of Housing's Community Development and Resource Grants Scheme awarded the Auburn Community Development Network $6,500 for the Happy Garden project. On Saturday I saw the wonderful results of that grant. The grant is not only an investment in community facilities but also an investment in the community. I particularly extend my sincerest gratitude to those who made the project possible. The project was the brainchild of Kerryn Valentos of the Auburn Community Development Network. Angela Denham, Tara George, Therese Khoury, Rocco Esposito and John Paszek from the Department of Housing were instrumental in planning and facilitating this project. The Royal Botanic Gardens, through Mr Stephen Paul, supported the garden committee and provided vegetable and herb seedlings.

Auburn Council supplied compost bins and offered bird-attracting plants to encourage native bird life into the garden, Bunnings Warehouse donated paint for the mural, and the Ethnic Communities Council provided information on composting in numerous languages. Most importantly, I thank the residents, children and other volunteers who worked tirelessly to build the garden. Most of the residents who participated reside in Perry Way, Alphonsus Way and Mary Street. The children worked hard, particularly on weekends and during school holidays. This garden is truly a great example of the fruits of community cooperation, and I am extremely proud to be associated with the garden. As the name Happy Garden suggests, I am certain that the garden will be a happy place for all who use it.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [6.53 p.m.]: Tonight I urge the Government to meet the responsibilities of its urban consolidation policies by preserving open space on Paddington's White City site, without unacceptable overdevelopment that devalues remaining open space and affects local amenity. Woollahra Municipal Council is exhibiting a draft local environment plan [LEP] and development control plan [DCP] to rezone White City with increased development, in exchange for land dedicated for public recreation. Tennis New South Wales has argued that massive additional development is needed to meet its financial commitments to the State Government and to recover income lost through the proposed dedication of public open space. While Tennis New South Wales has no legal right to benefit from a rezoning, the Government has a clear responsibility to meet the obligations of its urban consolidation policies. The Government must provide increased and adequate levels of open space, but not at the cost of overdevelopment.

In the 2001-02 financial year the State Government reaped $3 billion in stamp duty revenues-$900 million more than estimated. In the previous year $2.3 billion was collected. Much of this is from booming inner-city development. While urban consolidation is bringing additional people to live in the inner city, the Government is not ensuring that revenue collected is directed to ensure that this is matched with increased facilities, especially public open space. A fundamental rezoning issue for the White City site is whether the area can afford to lose its open space. In 2000 I called on the Minister for Planning to undertake a regional open space audit as a vital and responsible prerequisite for any rezoning. It is more than 20 years since the then Department of Environment and Planning, with Premier Carr as the then Minister, documented "Open Space in the Sydney Region, 1982". This was at a time when inner Sydney was losing population.

That trend is now reversed, with the inner city bearing the brunt of high-density redevelopment. In areas surrounding White City-such as Rushcutters Bay, Kings Cross, Paddington and Edgecliff-numerous former government, church and commercial sites have undergone residential redevelopment. While no regional open space review was carried out by the State Government, a local audit by Woollahra council identified an urgent need to supplement existing low levels of open space. There are few opportunities for increased open space in densely developed inner Sydney. White City provides one opportunity. However, if this land is developed it will never be available again. Although the Government has failed to plan for the greatest possible public benefit on the White City site, it is involved in determining the future of this site.

The 4.5-hectare White City site has been largely unused since 1999 when Tennis New South Wales took up its rent-free, 40-year lease on new headquarters in the Sydney Olympic Tennis Centre at Homebush. Although $30.4 million of public money was spent on Tennis New South Wales' new facilities at Homebush, no provision was made for an Olympic legacy in the form of public open space on the White City site. It has been reported that one reason for the extent of development proposed for White City is that the site's owner has a debt to the State Government as a result of facilities at Homebush Bay. It is particularly disturbing that development controls prepared after years of planning and public consultation were abandoned for a deal between council, Tennis New South Wales and the State planning department, without community input.

The draft DCP-LEP now on public exhibition is 42 per cent over the controls set by council in April 2002, prior to State intervention, and based on proper process, community consultation and expert consultants. I have been advised that the recent intervention by the director-general to facilitate a deal between Tennis New South Wales and the council is contrary to the director-general's role under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. There is a conflict of interest in that Tennis New South Wales has a financial obligation to the State Government which can be met as a consequence of overdevelopment of the White City site. Rezoning the site increases its commercial value, at the expense of public benefit.

Therefore, I call on the Premier to explore three initial options to preserve open space on the White City site: purchase open space on the site so that its preservation is not part of a development bonus that permits damaging overdevelopment on the remainder of the site, purchase development rights on the site so that any private development is limited to the levels endorsed by the local community, or dissolve or reduce debt owed by Tennis New South Wales in relation to the Olympic facilities at Homebush Bay so that pressure for damaging overdevelopment is removed. I call on the Government to use windfall incomes from inner-city development stamp duties to provide a vital legacy of increased public open space that meets its obligations to address the impact of its urban consolidation policies.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [6.58 p.m.]: Last Saturday it was with great pleasure that I attended the thirty-eighth annual parade of the cadet unit at Coffs Harbour. I have been told by Captain Terry Titmuss, who is the commanding officer of the unit, that the unit comprises up to 70 cadets, and last Saturday 46 of them turned out for the annual parade. Lieutenant Colonel Max Neal was the reviewing officer and he is now based in Sydney, but he was one of the original commanding officers of the unit. It was a very warm afternoon when Lieutenant Colonel Neal reviewed the cadets on parade. They were absolutely magnificent and are a credit to the officers of the unit and to their mums and dads. He then gave a brief speech-thankfully, because the young men and young women were standing in the hot sun. The cadets marched the flag with a guard unit, and the five men of the guard unit gave a tremendous demonstration of drill with army rifles.

I have been attending cadet unit parades for as long as I have been the local member of Parliament, and perhaps even for a number of years before that. It struck me that it is peculiar for a group of cadets on a parade ground to be performing drill work without rifles. It absolutely amazes me that, because of Commonwealth and State laws, cadet units are not allowed to march on to a parade ground with a rifle. The young people from three cadet units in my electorate, the Army, the Air Force and HMAS Vendetta, bemoaned to me, the commanding officer of the air cadets, Toby Tyson, and Frank King of the Navy cadets-who was a recruitment officer and who still takes a very active interest in the naval cadets and in HMAS Vendetta-the restrictions on the use of rifles. During our discussions we remarked that in just about every trophy cabinet of each of the cadet units there is evidence of awards being made for rifle shooting. The cadets used to go out to the rifle range and to the gun club at Friday Creek, but they are now not able to do so. Many cadets pursue a career in the services and are expected, as part of their skills, to know how to use a firearm.

I am not suggesting in any way, shape or form that we should train young people to be killers. A lot of people seem to think that that is the case when this matter is discussed, but I point out that these children love the Army, Navy and Air Force cadets. Part of the excitement and part of growing up and growing into the unit is the utilisation of a firearm and knowing how to use one properly and safely. They are educated about how dangerous firearms are, but cadets used to be able to use rifles as part and parcel of their annual parades. The five young men who performed the drill with rifles gave an absolutely superb display, but they had to obtain special permission and borrow the rifles from the Reserve unit for the occasion. I thought that was absolutely appalling. I call on the State Government and the Federal Government to re-examine the matter because I know that it is a common problem in cadet units Australiawide. These young men and women would like to use rifles in their ceremonies and they would like to learn how to use a weapon safely, but because of the changes that have been made to the laws they are unable to do so.

Restrictions on the use of rifles have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. If young cadets join the armed services they will need to be able to use rifles. They should be given the opportunity to obtain careful instruction on the use of a rifle. That would add a little more excitement to their cadet life, which would be absolutely fantastic. It would also add a degree of experience, should those cadets pursue a career in the armed forces. I commend all commanding officers in all the cadet units in my electorate. They do a fantastic job. They turn out for street parades and for every Anzac Day ceremony. They make me feel very proud to be part of those ceremonies, and we owe them something in return. Parliamentarians, regardless of political party membership and at both State and Federal levels, should return the use of weapons to cadets.

Private members' statements noted.

Assent to the following bills reported:

Health Records and Information Privacy Bill
Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Interlock Devices) Bill

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Lynch) left the chair at 7.04 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to postpone the consideration of the matter of public importance standing in the name of the honourable member for Myall Lakes [Grafton Bridge] until 12.45 p.m. on Thursday 26 September 2002.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield-Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Carr [7.31 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In 1999 the public of New South Wales was forced to use the largest ballot paper ever for a Legislative Council election. Between 1995 and 1999 the number of parties contesting the election jumped from 27 to 81. Further, at that time it had become well known that the electoral system for the Legislative Council allowed at least one or two candidates to be elected virtually by chance. Legislative Council elections became a lottery, where parties were formed and people contested the election under a catchy party name in the hope of winning the prize of election to Parliament. Complex preference arrangements between parties meant that the individual voter would have little understanding of where his or her vote might end up. In light of the community concern regarding this situation, the Government took decisive action to rule out the lottery approach. This included measures to tighten the minimum requirements for registration as a political party to ensure that only those parties with a level of community support could contest elections.

As a result of the Government's amendments of 1999, the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 now provides that in order to be registered a party must be able to demonstrate that it has 750 eligible members. Declaration forms from each member need to be submitted. Finally, parties must be registered for 12 months before they can effectively contest an election. Since the reforms these requirements have applied to all existing parties and to all new parties applying for registration. To ensure that the minimum 750 members identified by parties were in fact members, the Electoral Commissioner established a practice whereby he wrote to 300 of the 750 minimum members submitted by the party applying to be registered. The Electoral Commissioner asked that each of the 300 members confirm their membership by returning in a stamped addressed envelope a form to confirm that they are indeed members of the relevant party. If the Electoral Commissioner received confirmation from 225 of the 300 members-being a 75 per cent response rate-the registration process would proceed. The Electoral Commissioner applied this test for the first time following the reforms.

Save Our Suburbs [SOS] applied to be registered as a party in November 2001. By early 2002, because of the requirements that parties be registered for at least 12 months before they can contest an election, it became critical that parties satisfy the Electoral Commissioner's test quickly. If they did not do so, they would not be registered in time to contest the 2003 election. At the cut-off date for registration in order to contest the election, the Electoral Commissioner had received confirmation of party membership from only 215 of the 300 members for the party. As a consequence, the party was not registered in time to endorse candidates for the 2003 election. The party commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court. The judge found that the commissioner was not entitled to apply a test to verify membership involving direct contact of individual members. The judge was of the view that any doubt about the construction of the Electoral Commissioner's powers should be resolved in favour of the party because it involved the abrogation or suspension of a fundamental freedom-that is, the right to participate freely in elections.

The Government agrees that the right to participate freely in elections is of fundamental importance. However, it is the Government's view-and it was Parliament's view in 1999-that to ensure elections are fair, voters need to know that any party that gains registration is a genuine party. To achieve this objective the Electoral Commissioner needs to have appropriate powers to check the eligibility of parties seeking registration. It was never the intention of the Government that the commissioner would be forced to take the application of a party at face value. The Government does not believe that this was Parliament's intention either. However, this is the effect of the court's decision and as such it cannot be left to stand. Item [2] of schedule 1 to the bill, therefore, expressly authorises the Electoral Commissioner, on receipt of an application, to conduct preliminary tests and inquiries for the purpose of determining if the party is an eligible party, or if the application for registration is duly made. The commissioner will have a broad discretion to determine what tests and inquiries are appropriate.

Item [5] of schedule 1 to the bill makes it clear that the test already developed by the Electoral Commissioner of requiring a fixed percentage of any or all members to verify they are in fact members of the party is appropriate. As well as authorising the specific test already applied by the commissioner, the bill will specifically allow the Electoral Commissioner to adopt any other test for verifying membership of the party or to make other inquiries. This provision will ensure that the commissioner can take necessary steps to establish whether persons nominated as members are really members. Item [7] of schedule 1 will also allow the commissioner to require a member of a party to provide a statutory declaration to verify membership.

Item [3] of schedule 1 will clarify that the requirement to advertise the application pursuant to section 66DA of the Act can be delayed while such preliminary tests are carried out. This will ensure that resources are not wasted on the advertising of applications that fail to meet the criteria. The bill also makes it clear that these tests can be used by the Electoral Commissioner to establish if the party is entitled to ongoing registration. A failure to meet the test in these circumstances could provide grounds for cancellation. Either the current test or any new test developed by the Commissioner can be applied for this purpose. This will ensure that the register of parties is kept under active and ongoing scrutiny. There are a number of transitional provisions in the bill that need to be explored in detail. First, item [8] of schedule 1 validates the specific test already applied by the Electoral Commissioner in assessing applications lodged prior to the March 2002 cut-off date to contest the 2003 election.

The practical effect of this is that a number of the applicants that failed to meet the Electoral Commissioner's test will be stopped from taking legal action to gain registration. The Government is firmly of the view that the policy adopted by the commissioner was fair and appropriate to ensure that only eligible parties obtain registration. The Electoral Commissioner's acceptance of a 75 per cent response rate-rather than requiring a 100 per cent response rate-is not onerous. As I said, all parties in this Parliament have satisfied it. All applicants were notified as early as possible of the requirement and were warned about the cut-off date for registering to contest the 2003 State elections. The validation of the commissioner's policy will not, however, affect the order of the Supreme Court to register Save Our Suburbs.

So that the party can contest the 2003 election, the bill specifically provides that registration is to be taken to have been effected on 1 March 2002. This backdating of the party's registration has been made necessary because there is currently no power in the Act that would allow this to be done. While the judge accepted that he had no power to order registration from an earlier date, he suggested that there may be scope to register the party and then amend the register to backdate its registration. The Solicitor General has advised the Government that there is currently no power in the legislation that would enable the register to be amended in such a way. Proposed subsection 66FA (5) will put this question beyond doubt. The amendment is being made for the avoidance of doubt. Without the amendment the Electoral Commissioner would be in an uncertain position if a party made an application to amend the register to backdate the date of registration. This is not the appropriate way to address the problem arising from circumstances where an act of the commissioner is found to have inappropriately delayed registration, and that delay has the effect of preventing a party from endorsing candidates at an election.

There may be other cases where the commissioner fails to process an application through inadvertence or misadventure. As such, an express power to backdate a party's registration has been included. This power is closely confined so that it can only be used when the application was wrongly delayed. Proposed section 66FA (4) makes it clear that the power to backdate cannot be used to backdate a party's registration once the election has been held. This provision is necessary so that a party denied registration before an election cannot delay the commencement of proceedings until after that election, thereby creating uncertainty if it is found the party should have been registered so that it could contest the election. In summary, this bill will ensure that there is no repeat of the table cloth ballot paper that occurred in 1999. It will provide certainty and will ensure that people are not misled into voting for parties that are not genuine. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Debate resumed from 3 September.

Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [7.41 p.m.]: I advise honourable members at the outset that the Opposition will not oppose the Fair Trading Amendment (Employment Placement Services) Bill. The objects of the bill are to repeal the Employment Agents Act 1996 so as to remove provisions relating to the licensing of private employment agents and to amend the Fair Trading Act 1987 to include an offence of demanding or receiving a fee, charge or other remuneration from a person seeking employment for the provision of employment placement services to the person; and to enable regulations to be made prescribing information standards for employment placement services. The bill also makes a number of other consequential amendments.

The bill stems from the Carr Government's obligations under national competition policy to review all legislation that has restricted competition. In this context the Government has undertaken a review-not without some heartache-in an attempt to reach a conclusion. Given that difficult review process, we do not disagree with the proposal to amend the legislation in this fashion and we will not oppose the bill at this stage. However, I must make several points. This is a significant change in the regulation of this industry, and the Department of Fair Trading has a sad history when it comes to the oversight of regulation in various industries. This is most notable in the area of home warranty. I draw that parallel again.

Mr Aquilina: That's nonsense.

Mr DEBNAM: We have only to return to question time yesterday when the Opposition referred to the case of another builder who is in dire straits as a consequence of the Home Warranty Scheme administered by the Minister for Fair Trading. The Minister was forced into an embarrassing admission today that the builder in question was not some schemer from a corner of the State who was trying to do in the Government but a genuine tradesman having great difficulties with the scheme that the Minister is supposedly managing.

The reality is that in the five years since the honourable member for Penrith announced the privatisation of home warranty insurance the Carr Government has not done its job as a regulator of the building industry. My message for the Minister at the table is: We will be watching him. For the next six months we will watch everything the Minister does in relation to this bill because he may make the same mistakes in this industry as he made in the home building industry. While the Opposition does not oppose the bill, we are serving notice on the Minister that he must do a far better job regulating and overseeing this industry than he has done with regard to home building and home warranty. We have consulted with a number of industry players about this bill, and people are generally supportive of this change-subject to seeing how the Government implements and manages it. In summary, the Opposition will not oppose the bill but we will be watching the way in which the Government manages it.

Mrs PERRY (Auburn) [7.45 p.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I speak in support of the Government's reform of the employment agents industry. The effect of this bill is to repeal the Employment Agents Act 1996 and to incorporate important consumer protection mechanisms for job seekers within the Fair Trading Act 1987. One of the issues raised in submissions concerned unethical practices of agents operating in migrant communities, specifically the Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese communities. This is an important issue in my electorate as the Asian community constitutes the largest proportion of people from non-English speaking backgrounds in the Auburn area. These job seekers were charged membership fees and deposits-as high as $300 and, in some cases, non-returnable-to be referred to jobs that were often either not available or not as advertised.

Women migrants are an especially vulnerable group and the most disadvantaged by such practices. This is due mostly to the lack of information available to them about their rights and responsibilities and methods of redress. That type of exploitation of ethnic communities will no longer be possible under this bill. The provisions of the bill establish information standards outlining job seekers' rights, including prohibiting the charging of fees to job seekers. It will impose a penalty of $5,500 for agents who disregard this provision and will introduce methods of redress if job seekers are charged a fee illegally. I welcome such measures as a member of this Government and on behalf of my community.

These standards will be reproduced in multilingual brochures that will be made available to all job seekers, regardless of their race or gender. The bill will require employment placement services to communicate this information to job seekers. This will ensure that job seekers go forth armed with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions. Information standards will also act as a deterrent to agents who may entertain the idea of exploiting job seekers. I am pleased to report that the bill has also received the in-principle support of industry. I congratulate the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, and Minister for Fair Trading and the Government on their role in reforming the employment agents industry. These reforms will ensure high ethical standards throughout the industry and make sure that consumers' rights are protected adequately.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone-Minister for Land and Water Conservation, and Minister for Fair Trading) [7.48 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Auburn for her brief but relevant and pertinent contribution to this debate. The honourable member for Vaucluse, who led for the Opposition, made only one point about monitoring the implementation of the new legislation. He made some unsavoury remarks about the Department of Fair Trading, which has an enviable record and history in terms of both legislation and the way in which it has served the consumers of this State in a forthright and able manner.

As I said in my second reading speech, this legislation has had a very extensive period of review and public consultation. The review took place during the year 2000 and, in accordance with National Competition Policy agreement, was examined with a view to assessing the need for regulation of employment agents in this State. During the review the legislation experienced extensive consultation with industry participants and consumer groups, as it did in the preparation of the report and the exposure draft legislation. Those papers were publicly released for further comment in May this year. So there already has been a period of extensive consultation, including with the New South Wales Labour Council and various employment agencies. We probably have got it as right as it can be. Nevertheless, I undertake to further monitor these provisions over the next 12 months. We will continue to consult with industry, consumers and government agencies during the drafting of the regulations and the development of information standards.

During his very brief and mostly irrelevant contribution, the honourable member for Vaucluse made some comments about the issue of home warranty. Clearly he did not know what he was talking about. The amendments to the home warranty legislation introduced earlier this year have improved substantially the atmosphere in which home warranty is able to be granted to New South Wales builders. Also, some changes to deregulation have increased the number of licensed builders and contractors from something like 155,000 to 157,000 over the past 12 months, enabling the number of new homes to increase substantially, by about 9.7 per cent.

The honourable member for Vaucluse made some remarks also about a particular person who had some difficulty obtaining home warranty insurance. Again, that was a matter totally irrelevant to the bill. One wonders why he raised it, other than to try to denigrate the hardworking members of the Department of Fair Trading. Those officers put a lot of work into ensuring that legislation they put forward, and recommendations they make to me and the Government, have been subjected to the utmost scrutiny, both from a public viewpoint as well as from a legal viewpoint. I thank those people for working so hard on this legislation. I thank my colleagues in the Government who also have subjected this legislation to close scrutiny. Once again I give the undertaking to monitor the implementation of the new legislation, particularly over the next 12 months as we move along the path of drafting and introducing the regulations and developing the information standards. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 17 September.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [7.53 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on this bill. I indicate at the outset that we will not be opposing this legislation. In general terms, we believe it clarifies the relationship between park owners and casual occupants by providing a standard written agreement to cover their relationship, and in so doing providing more security for casual park occupants. Having said that, I should indicate to the Government that I have been contacted by the two major interest groups, the Recreational Home and Van Owners Association and the Caravan and Camping Industry Association of New South Wales. Both organisations have indicated that they had input to this legislation, but indicated also that they did not see the bill until I sent them a copy of it.

As a consequence of that, whilst I think the legislation is generally good, I am concerned that the two main interest groups have sent me letters, which I have passed on to the Minister's staff, in one case a nine-page letter outlining some concerns, and in the other case a three-page letter that gives quite a bit of detail and raises 23 separate items relative to the legislation. It would have been helpful if this legislation, or at least the draft bill, could have been given to the main interest groups prior to its introduction in this Chamber. Whilst I agree with the principles of the bill, I am concerned about the number of issues raised by the two main interest groups. I will discuss that matter later in my remarks.

The object of the bill is to set out the basic rights and obligations of long-term casual occupants of holiday parks, that is, caravan parks and manufactured home estates, to install their own movable dwellings on a site in the park. The proposed Act applies only to agreements made with an occupant who has a principal place of residence somewhere other than the holiday park. The Residential Parks Act 1998 applies to people whose principal place of residence is a holiday park, which is called a residential park in that Act. It is important at the outset to make the point that the legislation before the House is not about a landlord and tenant relationship; it is about a contractual arrangement under the consumer protection legislation. I would not want anyone to be confused, and in particular I would not want casual occupants covered by this legislation to think that somehow or other they are tenants in the sense of the Residential Parks Act. They are not.

Quite clearly, the Residential Parks Act confers rights and obligations on permanent residents of caravan parks and similar establishments where that is their primary place of residence. That legislation does not extend to those who place their vans on a long-term basis for casual or recreational occupation during the course of the year, where those vans are not their principal place of residence. This legislation deals with that situation. These people have a permanent home elsewhere but use their vans for holiday purposes. There are believed to be about 10,000 long-term casual occupants in New South Wales.

While casual occupants have long-term relationships with a park owner, prior to the introduction of this legislation they have not had any codified rights. They can be subject to immediate dispossession, immediate fee increases without notice, and unfair treatment by a park owners without any means of redress. Most casual occupants in such parks do not have any written agreements. A few may have, but generally casual occupants do not have written agreements. The reason that the Opposition is supporting the legislation is that it seeks to redress that issue by making the terms and conditions of occupancy quite plain, and in so doing provides a measure of protection to casual occupants-protection that has not been afforded them to date.

It is very important that it be understood that this legislation does not confer tenancy rights; it gives basic consumer protection to occupants. It clarifies that relationship between park owners and casual occupants, provides a standard written agreement for all occupancies, and importantly provides flexibility to cater for local issues. The legislation provides that flexibility because parks vary according to their location in the State. Some parks, in the Snowy for example, might have quite different conditions from those that apply, for example, in my electorate or in other coastal areas. If I might raise an issue in relating to Crown parks administered by the Department of Land and Water Conservation.

Some people have asked me whether this legislation will cover those parks. From my reading of the bill, it will. This bill, in a sense, overrides any arrangements that the department might happen to have with long-term casual occupants. That is, the standard agreement provided for by this bill will override any other agreement. However, the Department of Land and Water Conservation, as the park owner, has the right to include any special clauses it wants in that agreement. I see the Minister's advisers nodding, so that must be correct. That issue has been raised with me by my colleagues and by other people in discussions about the bill. The bill applies only, of course, to casual arrangements for twelve months or more. People in arrangements covering a shorter period will not have the protection of this legislation.

The legislation requires park owners to disclose information in advance about the conditions of occupancy. It is important that people go into these arrangements with their eyes open and that park owners have an obligation to set out clearly the conditions of occupancy. The bill also requires park owners to give three months notice to terminate an occupancy when there has been no breach of the agreement. That is fair. Obviously, if the agreement has been breached, either party has an opportunity to terminate it. However, if the agreement has not been breached and the park owner simply wants to terminate an arrangement with a casual occupant, it is only fair that that occupant be given three months notice to move on. The casual occupants' representatives are not happy about that clause; they would like a longer period of notice. However, we must draw the line somewhere and three months is probably reasonable. Again, I stress that that applies only when an agreement has not been breached. If the agreement has been breached, obviously the terms of the agreement will apply.

The legislation also requires park owners to give 30 days written notice of an increase in occupancy fees. That has been an issue because park owners have been able to increase fees at will and casual occupants have not been able to do anything about it. Concern has been expressed by casual occupants' representatives that there is no form of redress in response to increases in occupancy fees. Even though a dispute can be heard by the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, that tribunal does not have the power to amend a rate increase. Occupants are keen to have increases limited to no more than consumer price index increases. That limitation is standard in residential tenancy leases. However, we are not talking about residential tenancy leases; we are talking about a more casual arrangement. The important point is that the legislation requires park owners to give 30 days written notice of an increase in occupancy fees. As I said, disputes are heard by the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, not the Residential Tenancy Tribunal.

Park owners will not need an order from the tribunal to take possession. However, they must follow a procedure or face heavy fines of up to $5,500. If that procedure is followed, they will not be fined. However, if the procedure is not followed the park owner will face significant fines. The tribunal will not have the power to rule that a fee increase is excessive. The casual occupants believe that there should be a limit on fee increases. They also raised the issue of fee increases during peak holiday times. These are essentially private arrangements between casual occupants and park owners, and the parties do not enjoy the benefits that might accrue in a landlord-tenant scenario.
The legislation also provides that a consultative committee involving casual occupants may be set up in a park. That is fair. However, the point has been made that many people move into parks on an irregular basis. Whether they would be interested in or capable of being members of a consultative committee is a debatable point. The Caravan and Camping Industry Association of New South Wales and the Recreational Home and Van Owners Association Inc. have raised a number of concerns with me. Mr Rod Wooding, the Secretary of the Recreational Home and Van Owners Association, wrote:

I have highlighted the relevant Clause and our recommendation … for your perusal in the hope that it may provide supporting argument to the Government in that a significant number of consumers affected by the Bill will be left vulnerable to unscrupulous operators if this Bill is not workable in its implementation and operation.

He went on to say that the association has not been able to examine the final version of the bill, but believes that it is half-baked, to use the association's word. It is worth making the point-I am sure the Government will do so-that the legislation may not be perfect, but it is a big improvement on nothing. The letter from the Recreational Home and Van Owners Association covers nine pages. I will not go through it in detail. However, I will mention some of the concerns raised. The association is concerned about higher occupancy fees being charged during holiday and peak times. It would prefer fee increases to be linked to the CPI and is concerned that no process exists to challenge excessive fee increases.

Even though park owners are required to give three months notice to remove a casual occupant, the association points out that no compensation is payable. It also wants to know who will pay the cost of relocation within a park if the relocation is at the request of the park owner. Some vans are not easily moved. For example, many vans do not have wheels or tow bars. They can be moved, but only with a crane or some other device. The association also raised park rules, the duration of agreements and what happens when agreements end. As I said, I have given the Minister's staff a copy of this correspondence and I have been led to believe that the Minister will address those issues in his reply. A letter I received from the Caravan and Camping Industry Association of New South Wales dated 23 September stated:

We have raised several issues with the Government on the Bill, which includes matters of drafting that we see as being too interventionist for consumer legislation.

The first three issues raised by the association relate to definitions in the Act. A particular issue is the definition of "moveable dwelling" and consistency with the Local Government Act 1993. Those points are fundamental. If there is a problem with them, surely that problem can be addressed in the other place. As I said earlier, the Caravan and Camping Industry Association of New South Wales raised 23 points in the letter that it addressed to me, but this is not the appropriate time to go through all those issues. However, I will touch on a couple of them. At point No. 7 the association stated:

This should make it clear that if an agreement is transferred by the occupant without the consent of the park owner both the transfer and the original agreement are void. This should be read in conjunction with Schedule 1, clause 24 at page 37. If the agreement is transferred without the park owner's consent it should not place a responsibility on the park owner to serve a notice of breach, wait for the notice period to expire and then act on the breach notice. Effectively, the wrongful act by the occupant in transferring without consent should void both the agreement and the transfer.

The association also states that it should be clarified and confirmed whether the method of payment is by direct debit, authority to debit, credit card, or whatever. Some of those sorts of technical issues are raised. The association refers also to an issue relating to the park manager, which is worth mentioning. It stated:

The definition of park manager at page 3 should be amended by deleting the words "employed or". It is our view that without this amendment there could well be several persons employed as a park manager. Effectively, because of the special status given a park manager, including receiving notices, that person's specific appointment for the purposes of the Bill should be a matter for the park owner.

The association also stated:

The reference to a Consultative Committee should be deleted. There is no justification for having such a requirement, even if it isn't mandatory, in the Bill. This type of provision would give some people an undeliverable expectation that they need to or must be involved in a Consultative Committee at the park. This is particularly aggravated with long term casuals whose only visit to the park is to have a holiday, not to be involved in some Consultative Committee... in the park.

I refer to two other points that were referred to in this lengthy letter. Point No. 17 stated:

There is no justification for placing limits on the way in which fees and charges or taxes can be passed on to an occupant, so long as these charges are described in the agreement. This clause in its present form will ensure that fees are kept to a maximum to take account of increases in rates, taxes and other charges during the agreement. Again, we reaffirm that this legislation is consumer legislation regulating contractual arrangements and not tenancy rights protecting a person's shelter.

Point No. 20 stated:

The reference to "site" should be removed from line 28-

this is in clause 29 of schedule 1 at page 37-

and the words "At the commencement of the agreement" added so that the clause reads: The park owner agrees to make sure that at the commencement of the agreement everything provided with the site for use by the occupant, and the common areas of the holiday park, are reasonably clean and fit to occupy or use. This will confirm that the obligation only arises at the beginning of the agreement and does not refer to the site being clean but only to those things provided with it.

The association is stating that there is an obligation to present a clean site at the beginning of the occupancy period, but not on a regular basis. I know the Government has copies of this letter because I provided them. I hope the Government will address these issues. If they cannot be addressed this evening I hope that they will be addressed prior to debate on this legislation in the upper House. The Coalition has no significant opposition to this legislation. I have raised some concerns that have been raised with me. This legislation, which is a big improvement on earlier legislation, clarifies the obligations of park owners and casual occupants. It certainly provides a measure of security for casual occupants in holiday parks-much more security than they have had in the past.

Mr BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [8.15 p.m.]: During holiday periods in the 1960s and 1970s the roads were always full of caravans travelling backwards and forwards to camping grounds along the foreshores of Port Stephens. Port Stephens was the holiday destination in the Hunter region for miners and people from BHP and for people working in manufacturing industries in Newcastle. Nowhere near that number of caravans is being produced today. As the wealth of the Hunter region increased workers started to leave their caravans on site. The Holiday Parks (Long-term Casual Occupation) Bill gives consumer protection to casual occupants who leave caravans or manufactured homes in caravan parks and it affords them rights they never had before.

The bill provides consumer protection to the occupants of caravans who leave their vans on site but who own premises somewhere else; the caravan is not their main place of abode. The object of the bill is to set out the basic rights and obligations of long-term casual occupants of holiday parks- that is, caravan parks and manufactured home estates-who install their movable dwelling on a site in the park. The bill is different from the Residential Parks Act, which came into effect on 1 March 1999 and which provides appropriate rights for permanent residents of caravan parks. The bill does not afford rights to persons who are not full-time residents of caravan parks.

The Minister said that this legislation will apply to about 10,000 long-term casual residents in New South Wales. I thank Nicole Smith from Port Stephens Council for the information she has supplied to me. There are about 15 caravan parks in the Port Stephens electorate. There are three permanent residents at Fingal Bay Holiday Park and there are 316 holiday vans. Those figures reflect the number of people who leave their vans at caravan parks. I am referring to facilities that are owned by council. There are three permanent residents at Halifax Holiday Park, another Port Stephens council park, and 43 holiday vans. There is only one permanent resident at Shoal Bay Holiday Park, the third of the four holiday parks owned by Port Stephens council, and 30 holiday vans.

Those figures represent about 400 casual vans in council caravan parks as opposed to 10 permanent residents. The bill addresses the concerns of some of these long-term casual occupants. Some of the people who have had vans in Port Stephens for 20 years or more go on holidays every year but they do not use their vans to the extent that they did in the 1960s and 1970s. Park owners will have to disclose information in advance on conditions of the occupancy. There will be a standard written agreement for all occupancies with flexibility for local issues to be catered for. Park owners will now have to give three months notice to terminate an occupancy when there is no breach of the agreement. There will have to be 30 days written notice of an increase in occupancy fees.

Disputes will be heard in the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, a measure that is probably long overdue. Park owners will not need an order from the tribunal to take possession, but will face a penalty of $5,500 for not allowing the correct procedures to take place. Importantly, the tribunal will not have the power to rule that a fee increase is excessive. Those who occupy a site for no more than 180 days a year-if they have the time and they are not fishing or surfing on the beautiful beaches of Port Stephens-can form a consultative committee of casual occupants who set up in the park. The bill enhances the Government's record in consumer protection with regard to both permanent and casual occupiers of caravan parks and mobile home parks, and provides consumer protection for casual occupants of the parks. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [8.20 p.m.]: I support the bill in general terms. Prior to becoming a member of this place I leased a caravan park for some six years from the then Department of Lands. I understand that the legislation binds the Crown. At one time there was a great deal of consternation about anyone who leased a caravan park or land from the Department of Lands being unable to enter into an arrangement for permanent caravan park residency. That allowed a few strings to be pulled, which meant that residents who should not have been permanent residents remained in the park-probably illegally. I ask the Minister to clarify that the legislation will apply to those parks. Parks such as Sawtell caravan park and Park Beach caravan park are on Crown land and are run by council trusts on behalf of the Department of Land and Water Conservation. Many people already utilise their vans in those parks. Some of them come across from Armidale, or they might come from Bellingen or Glenreagh and leave their vans on site. I know the legislation will not address every anomaly. The explanatory note to the bill states:

Clause 5 provides that the proposed Act applies to occupation agreements under which the occupant installs the occupant's own moveable dwelling on a site, is permitted to occupy a site for no more than 180 days a year and (with the agreement of the park owner) has been or agrees to be an occupant for at least 12 months. The Act applies only where that occupant has a principal place of residence somewhere other than the site in the holiday park.

I ask what will happen if the occupant occupies a site for 182 days, for example. On the North Coast family groups often occupy a site for longer than that. They utilise a site for the school holidays and long weekends. There is a caravan park on the river at Repton, and quite a few people from Coffs Harbour put their vans on site there. The caravan park in Morgo Street is another reserve in Urunga. It used to be in my electorate; it is now in the electorate of the honourable member for Oxley.

There is a large number of vans in that park, and the people have had a longstanding arrangement with the trustees to pay a nominal rent for the site. They put their vans onto the back of their vehicles and tow them onto the site. I do not want those people to be disadvantaged in any way simply because they might occupy a site for a day or two longer than the 180 days. As I said, it is not possible for the legislation to be perfect. However, a lot of the Department of Land and Water Conservation reserves on the North Coast only survive because the trust or the licensee allow fairly loose arrangements. Indeed, nine times out of 10 that does not create problems.

One of the matters I am concerned about is the number of times and the way in which a person can be evicted from a park. For example, a young son or daughter who has finished university might get sick and tired of looking at mum and dad and decide to live in the van for a month or six weeks, perhaps looking to stay there longer, and that can create problems. If the problems cannot be resolved, I understand that under the legislation 30 days notice of eviction must be given and the tribunal then hears the matter. From experience I can assure members that merry hell can result if some lout who has been living in a park is asked to leave, and he then goes off to a tribunal after being given 30 days notice of eviction. He may ruin the showers, block the toilets, ruin the sinks and washing machines, and so on. I am concerned about whether the owners or licensees of the parks have sufficient protection with regard to that issue. I am also concerned about occupation fees being paid in advance. Clause 22 (1) provides:

A person must not demand or require another person to pay, as occupation fees in advance under an occupation agreement, more than 3 months' occupation fees.

A fellow used to leave his van in the park I leased. He would stay for four or five months during winter. At the end of every winter he would simply write out a cheque and say, "Here is the site fee; I will give you 12 months in advance." It was not really a site fee but a fee to look after the van. Twelve months later he would turn up, we would settle the account just in case he had come up for a weekend, and we would keep a running account. It was an amicable arrangement. A friend of mine has a van at Repton. I know he pays his fees twelve months in advance. I would not want to have five penalty units imposed on someone because of an arrangement between the park owner and the owner of the van.

Clause 17 prevents a park owner from being paid any costs in relation to the preparation of an oral occupation agreement. When I was the chief clerk of an insurance company many years ago in Newcastle and a new girl started-you would probably get hauled over the coals for doing it these days-we sent her out to get us a verbal agreement form. She came back three hours later after being to every newsagent in town looking for a verbal agreement form. To include such a provision in the bill is somewhat amusing to me. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on that aspect. In general, the legislation is needed, both for tenants and park owners. As other speakers have said, on the North Coast it is great to be able to put a van on site and use it when you have a weekend free, a week off work, or to send your children down there for a week to do a bit of fishing. Whilst there may be some burrs in the legislation, in the long-term it will do the industry good and provide protection for all those who wish to utilise these agreements.

Mr NEWELL (Tweed) [8.28 p.m.]: I am pleased to join my colleagues on both sides of the debate in supporting the Holiday Parks (Long-term Casual Occupation) Bill. I wholeheartedly support the bill, which will, for the first time, give genuine consumer rights to that unique band of New South Wales citizens-in my case Queensland citizens-who spend many of their recreation and holiday time in their movable dwellings on rented sites. As previous speakers have indicated, it is very much an Australian way of life, and my remarks will be along the same line. It involves families getting away from the hurly-burly of city and suburban life to the tranquillity of the van on the beachfront or the lakes whenever there is a spare weekend or holiday period. The great advantage is that everything you want is already there waiting for you when you arrive.

People invariably arrive on Friday night after work, they can move into their van or tent, turn on the power, and they are in their own little hideaway which is there to be enjoyed. All they have to take with them is their food and fishing tackle. The beds, fridge, stove and even spare clothes are there for them. They are only an hour or two from home and in their own personal paradise. Many of the people who take advantage of those permanent spots within the Tweed electorate, and undoubtedly a little further south, are seeking refuge from the Gold Coast and the working suburbs of Brisbane. They travel down in droves, particularly now that the new Chinderah to Yelgun freeway is open, and they will probably go even further, into the electorate of Ballina.

Casual park occupation has always been an attractive lifestyle to retired people and those on limited incomes. Not only do people come from south-east Queensland to towns like Murwillumbah, but I also get visitors from Sydney and particularly Victoria for longer periods during the winter months. It has always been an affordable option for the average person although, with the increasing development pressures on land traditionally used for caravan parks and the like, it is a little uncertain how many more years sites will remain affordable in some of the State's most desirable locations. It is important to ensure that fundamental consumer protections are in place for long-term park casuals and that a framework is provided for dealing with disputes.

In my electorate there is already pressure to upgrade the more desirable locations from caravan parks and temporary dwellings to something more up market. That debate is taking place at Kingscliff at the present time. The caravan park at Kingscliff has been in operation for many years, and some people there are probably third generation long-term casual occupants. There is some concern that the changes that Tweed Shire Council is putting in place will result in many of those desirable locations, particularly on the beachfront, being lost. That is to be regretted. While we cannot stand in the way of progress and change, caravanning is a way of life. People come back to the parks year after year and consider them as something they can hand on to the next generation.

The bill does not pretend to provide perpetual occupation rights for long-term casuals; that would be inappropriate. After all, many parks are situated on Crown land, some of which was set aside for public use a century ago. The whole community should have access to those parks, so a person with a casual occupancy arrangement could not expect to remain there indefinitely. What is important is that the nature of the agreement between a park owner and a long-term casual be made clear so that both parties understand the extent of the agreement, the obligations it places on the parties and the benefits it provides.

The provision in the bill for a standard form of contract is a major step forward, and this initiative alone will be of great benefit in clarifying where the occupant and the park owner stand in the issues surrounding most of their dealings with each other. I understand that it has been common practice for the only documentation given to a park casual to be the receipt for the yearly fee, with no further paperwork to clarify the conditions of the agreement, the park rules and the notice periods that apply to fee increases or termination. This is totally inadequate and unacceptable.

The fact that a written agreement and its main contents are clearly spelt out in this bill will be the one provision that will prove to be of great and lasting benefit to both occupants and park owners. No longer will it be the word of one person against the other. The terms and conditions will be laid out from the beginning, and disputes therefore will be minimised. In the event that a problem does emerge, and the parties have to go to the tribunal for an answer, a written contract will make the problem much easier to deal with. No-one could argue that the landscape will not be significantly improved by the use of standardised agreements across the industry.

The other obvious major improvement is the provision of a dispute-resolution process through the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. At the moment it can be a bit of a lottery if casual park occupants have a dispute and try to take action to pursue what they hope are their rights. It is more than likely that they have no rights and that any court or tribunal action is doomed to failure. The provision in the bill for access to the tribunal is to be welcomed. It will help both parties by giving them access to an inexpensive and quick means of resolution. The Residential Parks Act 1998, which commenced on 1 March 1999, provides adequate rights for permanent residents of caravan parks and other establishments. It does not extend to persons who do not live in a park as their principal place of residence, hence the need for this bill.

The group of people who place caravans and other movable dwellings in parks on a long-term basis for casual recreational occupation come under the umbrella of this bill. As other honourable members have indicated, there are 10,000 long-term casuals in New South Wales. At times I feel that I have the whole 10,000 in my electorate, with caravan parks from Tweed Heads to Fingal Head, Kingscliff, Hastings Point and Cabarita Beach all providing visitors with an idyllic weekend recreational spot, in many cases right beside the ocean. Other caravan parks in my electorate that take casuals extend from Murwillumbah as far as Kunghur. Different parks have different attractions for people, and they look forward to being protected by coming under the umbrella of this bill.

The bill addresses the main concerns of long-term casual occupants. It does not provide tenancy rights for casual occupants but gives them basic consumer protection and removes uncertainties in the relationship between occupants and park owners. Casual arrangements of at least 12 months will be covered. Certainly park owners will have to disclose information in advance on the conditions of the occupancy, with standard written agreements for all occupants, and with flexibility for local issues to be catered for. Park owners will have to give three months notice to terminate an occupancy where there is no breach of agreement, and 30 days written notice for an increase in occupancy fees.

Also, park owners will not need an order from the tribunal to take possession but will face a penalty of $5,500 for not following the correct procedures. There is every incentive for park owners to follow correct procedures. This bill deserves the support of all honourable members. It is commonsense and logical legislation to remove uncertainties in long-term casual park occupancies and support ongoing arrangements of this type.

Mr STONER (Oxley) [8.38 p.m.]: No doubt honourable members are aware that the electorate of Oxley has a number of coastal towns in which caravan parks are very much a feature. They benefit not only the community but the local economy as many tourists visit these parks in beautiful areas such as Crescent Head, Hat Head, South West Rocks, Scotts Head, Nambucca Heads and Urunga. In my younger years friends of the family, Mark and Joan Moule, had casual occupancy of a caravan park at Kingscliff, in the Tweed electorate. I often visited and stayed with them at that park. It was the quintessential Aussie holiday to stay in a caravan park.

Mark and Joan Moule kept their van there throughout the year. Generally they visited only at Christmas time but their van was kept there under a permanent or semi-permanent arrangement. Their friends had similar arrangements. Every Christmas, and sometimes at Easter and on other holidays, they would get together and have a wonderful holiday. They would socialise; they would put the collapsible furniture around the van and have drinks, dinner, barbecues and so on, together. It was a great Aussie holiday by the beach. That is the case not only in my electorate of Oxley. As the honourable member for Ballina, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the honourable member for Tweed said, caravanning is alive and well and part of our Aussie tradition and culture.

The Residential Parks Act 1998 provides appropriate rights for permanent residents of caravan parks and similar establishments. However, that legislation does not extend to people who place their vans on a long-term basis for casual recreational occupation during the year and when these vans are not their principal place of residence. Certainly that was the case with the friends of the family, Mark and Joan Moule, to whom I referred earlier. These people have a permanent home elsewhere and use their van for holiday purposes. I understand that there are about 10,000 long-term casuals in New South Wales. While casuals generally have a long-term relationship with a park owner, they have no codified rights and as such, unfortunately and depending on the park owner or lessee, they can be subject to immediate dispossession, fee increases without notice and unfair treatment by park owners without any means of redress.

It is worth noting-and this was noted by previous speakers-that most casuals do not have written agreements. Although the Holiday Parks (Long-term Casual Occupation) Bill does not provide tenancy rights as such for casual occupants, it gives basic consumer protection to occupants. It clarifies the relationship between park owners and casual occupants. The bill, which applies to casual arrangements of 12 months or more, provides for a standard written agreement for all occupancies with some flexibility for local issues to be catered for. It requires park owners to disclose information in advance on the conditions of the occupancy, and to give three months notice to terminate an occupancy and 30 days written notice of an increase in occupancy fees.

There are provisions for disputes to be heard in the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. Park owners will not need an order from the tribunal to take possession but they must follow a set procedure or face fines. The tribunal will not have the power to rule that a fee increase is excessive. The bill provides for a consultative committee involving casual occupants to be established in a park. These are commonsense and much-needed provisions to protect long-term casual occupiers of caravan parks and the like. As indicated by the honourable member for Ballina, the Opposition does not oppose the legislation. Indeed, it welcomes the provisions in the bill. The honourable member raised a number of concerns or points of clarification that I hope the Minister has taken on board and will address.

With 10,000 or so casual occupants of caravan parks and similar establishments throughout New South Wales, and with the popularity of this not only inexpensive holiday but great Australian holiday, generally by the beach, it is time to have legislation that provides basic consumer rights to longer-term casuals in caravan parks. In summary, this legislation will benefit long-term casual occupiers and in so doing will be good for coastal electorates, including Oxley on the mid North Coast.

Ms ANDREWS (Peats) [8.45 p.m.]: The object of this bill is to set out the basic rights and obligations of long-term occupants of holiday parks-that is, caravan parks and manufactured home estates-who install their movable dwellings on a site in a park. The proposed Act will apply only to agreements made with an occupant who has a principal place of residence somewhere other than the holiday park. The Residential Parks Act 1998 applies to people whose principal place of residence is a holiday park, which is called a "residential park" in that Act. This is the third piece of major legislation that the Carr Government has introduced to provide protection to members of the community who previously had little protection in the way of basic rights. I refer to the Retirement Villages Act 1999 and the Residential Parks Act 1998 as they relate to permanent residents.

The Retirement Villages Act was much-needed legislation that provided protection for thousands of people who live in retirement villages around the State. Many people in my electorate of Peats are in that position. That legislation was well received. Now we have the Holiday Park (Long-term Casual Occupation) Bill before the House. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Fair Trading on introducing this legislation. As a member representing a coastal electorate, I support this bill with much enthusiasm. It sensibly caters for an enjoyable and popular way of life in this country. There would hardly be a family that has not experienced the simple pleasure of a weekend or a longer break in a van by the beach or in the bush.

The practice of towing a van to a choice site and leaving it there for occupation when the opportunity arose is well known to all of us. I am glad that this way of life has been recognised, and this bill shores up the position of long-term casual occupants without unreasonably interfering in any way in the right of park owners to operate their businesses. For many years long-term casual occupants have been a reliable source of income for park owners. The regular fee instalments paid by casuals have helped to see park owners through off-peak periods when the tourist trade has been quiet or climatic conditions unfavourable. In some parks there has been a long family tradition of casual park occupancy, and a practice started by a pair who enjoyed the outdoor life afforded by occupying a van on a park site has often been passed on to their children, and later to their grandchildren.

The healthy pursuits of swimming, fishing, walking or simply reading under the shade of a tree have been made available to so many of us through having access to vans located on a rented site in a caravan park or similar establishment. I would like to see future generations being able to enjoy this type of life, and that is why I strongly support this bill. I am pleased that the bill takes into account the fact that with the agreement of the park owner the family and friends of the actual casual occupant can also make use of the occupant's van. This will enable others to share in the pleasures of the park lifestyle without taking away the right of the park owner or manager to run the establishment as he or she sees fit. I notice that, in line with other fair trading legislation involving accommodation transactions, this bill will require the park owner to set out in writing in advance the main aspects of the agreement and important factors about occupation of the park.

The requirement to disclose information is a positive move-one that will help to avoid misunderstandings and disagreements before they occur. If a casual occupant knows in advance that the fees will change during peak times, such as Christmas and school holidays, or what the rules are regarding the selling of a van within the park, there is less potential for problems to arise at a later stage. The three-month period required for park owners to give notice of termination at the end of a fixed term is fair and reasonable. It gives the occupant a decent period in which to make the necessary arrangements to move the portable home, or perhaps to sell it. All in all, my view is that this bill is unquestionably balanced and fair. It does not go too far by overregulating casual park occupancies but removes the current uncertainties over this rather unique type of property transaction. Many people all along the coast and in the inland areas of New South Wales will benefit from this bill. I encourage all honourable members to support it.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone-Minister for Land and Water Conservation, and Minister for Fair Trading) [8.50 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this quite historic legislation-the honourable member for Ballina, who led for the Opposition, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, the honourable member for Oxley and other Opposition members, as well as my colleagues the honourable member for Port Stephens, the honourable member for Tweed and the honourable member for Peats. Generally speaking, I thank them for their comments, which were very positive and in many ways illustrated the importance of this legislation in preserving-indeed, enhancing-one of Australia's great pastimes, namely, the long-term casual occupation of caravan parks by caravan owners. I am very grateful to honourable members for their general comments.

The honourable member for Ballina raised a number of specific issues that were forwarded to him, as they were to the Government, by representatives of the Caravan and Camping Industry Association as well as by the Recreational Home and Van Owners Association. I was somewhat surprised by his comments that these organisations felt they had not been given sufficient time in which to examine the bill in detail. I announced that I would be introducing the legislation when I conducted the official opening of the annual display and conference of the Caravan and Camping Industry Association in May this year. It was at the conference breakfast, part of the official opening ceremony, that I indicated I would be introducing this legislation, and since that time consultation has taken place with that organisation on the detail of the legislation.

Indeed, the association's legal counsel, Bob Browne, has been given full details on the impact of this legislation, as indeed has Norton Whitmont, the president of the association, whom I have known for many years. He has played a key role in this industry for more than 1½ decades. I am sure that all honourable members realise that it is just not possible to adopt all of the suggestions that have been made by both the Caravan and Camping Industry Association and the Recreational Home and Van Owners Association because in some instances they conflict. It is important to seek the middle ground in relation to some of their proposals, and some of their proposals relate more closely to the tenancy style of legislation.

During my second reading speech and on other occasions I have made it clear that this bill is not designed to be of a tenancy nature. I note that the honourable member for Ballina and other honourable members have acknowledged that. This bill is general fair trading legislation that is aimed towards clarification of the rights and obligations of the parties, removal of uncertainties, and the provision of some fundamental consumer protection. The bill applies to what is recreational accommodation, and some of the comments that have been made appear to have been made from a tenancy perspective. I reiterate the point that this bill is about recreational accommodation, not issues that relate to tenancy matters of a more permanent nature.

The honourable member for Ballina referred to the definition of "moveable dwelling" and I point out that the bill's definition is in line with the definition in the Residential Parks Act. The Local Government Act's definition has not been used because it refers to tents, which are not moveable dwellings for the purposes of the bill. The bill provides a clear definition, but if there is any need for removal of uncertainties over definitions, that can be dealt with by the next statute law bill. The term "relocatable home" is used only once in the bill in the context of dealing with abandoned goods. I do not consider that the definition poses any difficulties to the application of the bill, but any uncertainties will be able to be dealt with in a statute law bill which one would expect will be passed before commencement of the Holiday Parks (Long-term Casual Occupation) Bill.

Clause 24 in schedule 1 refers to the transfer of occupancy, and I make the point that in an agreement between the park owner and the casual occupant there will be a breach of agreement if the occupant transfers the agreement to somebody else without the park owner's prior consent, but the transfer will also be null and void. In those circumstances, the new person would have no status with the park owner. Clause 23 (4) deals with receipts not being required for electronic payments. The fact that the park owner is not required to provide receipts for a direct deposit arrangement is considered to extend to other arrangements such as BPAY and credit card debiting facilities. An issue raised by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour concerning payments relates to this issue.

It is important to point out that while any caravan owner may make payments to a park owner 12 months in advance, or indeed at any time in advance, under these provisions the park owner is not able to demand payment from a caravan owner during a three-month period before the caravan site is required. On the one hand caravan owners will be able to make payments as far in advance as they like, and on the other hand the park owner cannot demand payment in advance for a period greater than three months. In relation to rent under a casual agreement, the bill does not limit such agreements to 12 months, as some people seem to think. The agreements can be for as long as the parties negotiate for, and 12 months is simply the minimum period covered by the bill.
The honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the honourable member for Ballina referred to the fact that this legislation will bind the Crown. That is, of course, correct. On this point I find myself, as the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, and Minister for Fair Trading, with a slight conflict of interest. On the one hand, as the Minister for Land and Water Conservation I am the landlord of approximately 10,000 casual caravan park sites, and on the other hand, as the Minister for Fair Trading, I am now bringing in the rules and regulations under which I will be able to negotiate with various caravan owners as the landlord. Although a conflict of interest exists, I make it quite clear that this legislation will bind the Crown as much as it binds any private caravan park owner.

Another issue raised by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour related to the limitation on the period that casuals can occupy a park. He made reference to 180 days. Of course, that is not a provision of this bill. A provision of the Local Government Act limits the stay in a caravan to 180 days in any 12-month period. That stipulation of the Local Government Act, which has been in force for a long time, prevents what is a caravan tenancy from becoming a pseudo long-term residential tenancy. The bill deals with issues not covered by legislation of this type before. It is, in that sense, historic legislation in that it provides rights that are legally binding. Those rights apply not only to caravan owners but also to caravan park owners.

This is brand new territory. With the passage of time other matters may emerge. We acknowledge and accept that. The Government will monitor the effectiveness of the legislation. If changes are needed later on, they will be made. The views of both park occupants and park owners will be taken into account in any future refinements. I thank the honourable member for Port Stephens, the honourable member for Tweed, the honourable member for Peats, the honourable member for Ballina, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the honourable member for Oxley for their contributions to this debate.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 18 September.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter-Leader of the National Party) [9.01 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Totalizator Agency Board Privatisation Amendment Bill. I advise that the Opposition does not oppose the bill, the object of which is to increase the maximum shareholding in TAB Ltd from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. I understand that TAB Ltd is supportive of the amendments to the legislation, and I thank the Managing Director of TAB Ltd for his briefing on this issue. The Coalition does not oppose this bill because an adjustment in the maximum shareholding in TAB Ltd to 10 per cent should lead to an increase in shareholder value, while it will not allow individual shareholders to obtain control or significant influence over the TAB. It is envisaged that shareholder value will be enhanced through increased demand and greater liquidity in the market.

Demand will increase as institutional investors, particularly those with shareholdings at or close to the current 5 per cent limit, may seek to increase their holdings of TAB Ltd shares. Domestic institutional investors will be able to act on pent-up demand, while larger institutions, particularly those based off-shore, will have a heightened interest as minimum investment-size parameters are met. Such an increase in demand for TAB shares will add to the liquidity of the market and therefore further enhance the attractiveness of TAB shares to investors. The Coalition believes that an increase in shareholder value is a desirable outcome for the many people, especially small investors, who own TAB shares. This amendment will also make legislative restrictions on TAB Ltd shareholdings more consistent with those of comparable gaming companies such as TABCORP in Victoria, TAB-Q and Jupiters in Queensland, and Burswood in Western Australia.

Increasing the maximum shareholding in TAB Ltd to 10 per cent will ensure that TAB shares are no less attractive to investors than those of other Australian gaming companies. The 5 per cent shareholding limit on TAB Ltd shares has been in place since the privatisation of the TAB. I note that the Managing Director of TAB Ltd, Mr Warren Wilson, said the 5 per cent ceiling on TAB shareholdings had served its purpose and that it was now time for a controlled relaxation of those restrictions. The Coalition will not oppose the relaxation of the shareholding restrictions through this bill in view of the support of TAB Ltd for an increase in the maximum shareholding, the potential benefits of the increase to existing and future shareholders, and the fact that a 10 per cent maximum shareholding will not allow individual shareholders to control TAB Ltd. I commend the bill.

Mr FACE (Charlestown-Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [9.04 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Leader of the National Party for his contribution to this debate. As he said, the proposed amendment is aimed at enhancing the attractiveness of TAB Ltd. As one might understand, that is in the best interests of racing. The share market, by attracting institutional investors, thereby increases the liquidity of TAB Ltd in the market. Small shareholders should not be disadvantaged as the changes have the potential to increase the price of TAB shares. The proposed upper limitation of 10 per cent is in line with that in other Australian jurisdictions, in particular with that of Victoria, which recently increased the shareholding limitation in TABCORP to 10 per cent.

I will make a few other comments to address concerns raised by country racing about the benefits of this legislative measure and how Government racing policy has delivered benefits to country racing. I do so on the basis that the Leader of the National Party is present in the Chamber. The Government has made significant reforms for the benefit of the racing industry, and country racing in particular. Foremost, the arrangements flowing from that privatisation of the TAB have delivered increased revenue streams to the racing industry-contrary to the suggestions made by some people from time to time that those revenue streams have not increased or in fact have decreased. Every year since privatisation there have been increases in TAB Ltd payments to the racing industry.

I indicate to the House that in the 1996-97 financial year-the year before privatisation of the TAB-TAB payments to the racing industry amounted to $123.5 million. Every year since they have increased. The most recent payment to the racing industry, for the 12 months ending 30 June 2002, was $191.9 million. That is a significant increase of more than 60 per cent in a relatively short period. I make that statement so that race clubs, especially country race clubs, will realise that they have not been shortchanged and they may spend a lot more of their time getting on with trying to come to terms with what is a difficult climate, rather than dwelling on assertions that there have been decreases or no increases in TAB payments.

The Government has also restructured the controlling bodies of racing to provide for autonomy in relation to its strategic and commercial governance. This is something that I have done on the basis that the industry really did have to come to terms with its own strategic plans and commercial liabilities. This is something that the racing industry desired-not something that came completely from me-to enable it to manage its future viability. The Government has also restructured the boards of the controlling bodies of racing to provide for greater participant representation. I might say, to the credit of those on the other side of the House, this was a matter of unanimous agreement. That restructure includes, most recently, the country racing representative on the new commercial boards of the harness and greyhound racing industries.

Such restructuring has also encouraged the participation of independent chairpersons for those two boards-in line with my restructuring of the Thoroughbred Racing Board [TRB]-who have an appropriate level of management skills and business acumen, and who can lead the racing industry towards a prosperous future. The Government has not only recognised the needs of country racing-and no-one recognises those needs more than I do as I move around the State-but, I assure the House, it has acted on many occasions to ensure that country racing is well represented on the controlling bodies. It follows then that when resources are allocated by such bodies, country racing receives its fair share.

Another matter raised privately with me relates to the shareholding limit proposed by the bill and the New South Wales Thoroughbred Racing Board acquiring equity in TAB Ltd. The proposal provides for the prohibited shareholding limit in TAB Ltd to be raised from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. Such a course of action is open to all interested parties, including the TRB as part of the New South Wales racing industry. It effectively doubles the opportunity available to the racing industry. Last year the TRB, in its submission to the five-year review of its Act, asked on behalf of the racing industry for the ability to be able to acquire up to 25 per cent of the equity in TAB Ltd. That aspiration, I believe, was given a fair run in the media. The TRB in particular, and the racing industry in general, have been given autonomy to make strategic and commercial decisions in the best interests of the industry.

However, the TRB submission was inappropriate in the sense that the shareholding limits are contained in the Totalizator Act, and not the Thoroughbred Racing Board Act. The five-year review of the Totalizator Act has now been put in train. The TRB submission to the Totalizator Act review states that it "supports retention of the Act in its current form". It is understood that the TRB took the position in full knowledge of the proposed increase from 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the shareholding limited in the Totalizator Act. Once again, I thank the Leader of the National Party for his contribution. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains-Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [9.11 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Drug Court has been a successful pilot project, which has benefited the community and many program participants. It is this success that has influenced the Government's decision to extend the project for a further two years. Honourable members would by now be aware of the positive results of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research evaluation of the New South Wales Drug Court. It represents-I am told-the first cost-benefit analysis of a crime and punishment program in Australia. The bureau found the Drug Court program has been more cost effective for the community than imprisonment. The number of drug-related offences was reduced, illicit drug use was significantly reduced throughout the program and the health of court participants improved, thereby lessening the burden on offender and health system alike. This is a significant inroad into drug-related crime. When one considers that a significant number of people in our prisons are there at least in part as a result of drug-related crime, the Drug Court performs a significant community service.

Another benefit is that participants remaining on the program showed clear and sustained evidence of improvement in their health and social functioning. This reduces the burden on our health system, and improves the amenity and safety of our communities. While the Drug Court offers offenders an alternative to conventional custodial sanctions, an offender who breaches this program is basically blowing his or her last chance. The program is the last stop before a full-time prison sentence. There is a clear incentive for participants to reject their habit and improve their quality of life. The benefits of the Drug Court program are not restricted to the graduates. Indeed, the Government's advice is that nearly all of those who participate in the program are costing the community less and are less likely to commit another crime. The Attorney General's Department convened a senior working party in May 2001 to provide advice to Government on future Drug Court activity in New South Wales. This bill introduces a number of the recommendations of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research evaluation and the senior working party. The bill has also been informed by the practical experience of the Drug Court.

I now turn to the amendments. The bill proposes that section 3 of the Act be amended to reflect the role of the Drug Court in reducing drug dependency in adult offenders, promoting their reintegration into the community and thereby reducing their need to resort to criminal activity to support that dependency. Section 3 of the Act sets out the object of the Act-namely, "to reduce the level of criminal activity that results from drug dependency". This stated objective suggests that the only issue facing Drug Court participants is their drug dependency. The experience of the Drug Court is that participants have a range of health and social deficits, not only drug dependency, that needs to be addressed to achieve rehabilitation. The proposed amendment acknowledges the broader role the Drug Court plays in reintegrating participants into the community. The bill proposes that the maximum period for which an offender can be committed to a correctional centre for detoxification and assessment under section 8A of the Act be extended from seven to 21 days. This is a largely procedural and commonsense change, which acknowledges that the period required for detoxification and assessment can exceed seven days.

The bill proposes that section 8A of the Act be expanded to cover participants who are held in custody awaiting the commencement of a suitable treatment plan. This relates mainly to offenders who are waiting for a Drug Court-funded bed within one of the contracted residential rehabilitation service. These places are limited, and even if a bed is available it may not be suitable for the individual needs of the offender. Therefore, many offenders spend several weeks waiting for their Drug Court program to commence. The amendment would allow this to occur without additional court appearances. The bill proposes that the Act specify the range of conditions that may be imposed upon a participant in the course of a program. In the same way that section 16 of the Act outlines the range of sanctions and rewards that may be imposed upon an offender, the Act should outline the range of conditions that may be imposed upon an offender during the course of a program.

It is important that offenders are made aware at program entry of the possible conditions to which they may be made subject. This will include attendance at treatment, requirements to undergo case management supervision, requirements to undergo judicial supervision and testing for drug use. The bill proposes that the Drug Court Act incorporate the concept that, should the Drug Court be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that having regard to the objects of the Drug Court Act the offender has substantially complied with the program, the Drug Court may terminate the program. Currently participants need to choose to leave the program, and while the court actively encourages them to do so this amendment would support those people exiting the program more quickly. It needs to be made clear that this amendment cures an anomalous situation. In effect, it empowers the court to make the same decision to terminate participation in the program as is available to the program participant.

Upon a termination decision by the Drug Court for substantial compliance, it is the case that stern conditions will often apply, including the imposition of a custodial sentence. The bill proposes that section 10 (1) (b) be deleted and amended so that if the Drug Court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender is unlikely to make any further progress on the program or that the offender's further participation in the program poses an unacceptable risk to the community that the person may re-offend it may decide to terminate the program. Currently, the court cannot terminate the program of an offender who has been charged with an offence involving violent conduct after entering the program unless the court is also satisfied that "no useful purpose is to be served" by the offender's further participation in the program. The proposed amendment would allow the court to act decisively to terminate the participation of an offender not deemed to be making suitable progress in the program, and allow that program place to be immediately allocated to a new participant.

As I have stated, the court is presently required to be satisfied that there is "a useful purpose" to further participation-thereby allowing people who are making no effort to continue with a program if there remains a benefit that could be achieved. The amendment means that those who are not benefiting will not be available to avoid serving their sentence. The proposed amendment should substantially increase the cost-effectiveness of the program. The bill proposes that the protection afforded by section 31 (3) of the Act be extended to include reports in relation to a client's general progress on the program, and communications made by members of staff of the Drug Court to other members of staff at the Drug Court in the course of any pre-hearing discussions. This amendment would ensure that the regular reports submitted by service providers have the status of protected information. The bill proposes that section 58 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 not apply to sentences imposed under sections 7 and 12 of the Drug Court Act.

Section 58 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 provides that in particular circumstances a local court may not impose a new sentence of imprisonment to be served consecutively with another sentence of imprisonment. This provision creates a difficulty when a participant on the Drug Court program commits a further offence after commencing the program. I am advised that in some cases an additional penalty cannot be imposed by the court for an offence committed while on the program. This amendment addresses that concern. The bill also proposes that matters that are the subject of an ex parte conviction be able to be taken into account by the Drug Court when imposing a sentence under section 7 of the Act. The practice of the court is to call in all outstanding charges against an offender and sentence them under section 7 for all offences outstanding as at the date of their entry into the program. It is the case that offenders who appear in the Drug Court may be the subject of outstanding warrants that have been issued as a result of their failure to attend other proceedings in the local court.

Sometimes the local court has convicted the offender ex parte and issued a warrant for his or her arrest. However, once an offender has been convicted, such matters cannot be dealt with on indictment or cannot be taken into account on sentence in the Drug Court. All outstanding matters should be able to be dealt with by the Drug Court at the time a person is sentenced prior to commencing the program. So that they can be taken into account, it is proposed that matters the subject of an ex parte conviction be capable of being placed on a form 1 and be taken into account by the Drug Court when sentencing.

The bill proposes that the Act be amended to provide that that suspension of a sentence under the Act does not result in the suspension of any mandatory period of disqualification under the road transport legislation. The bill proposes that an order placing an offender on the Drug Court program not be made unless the court is satisfied that any person with whom the offender intends to reside, or continue, or resume a relationship during his or her time on the program has consented in writing to any accommodation plan. This is an appropriate safeguard. This bill makes a number of changes that will add to the efficiency and effectiveness of the Drug Court. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendments.

No. 1. Page 16, Schedule 1 [37], lines 23-27. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(6) If the Director-General decides to prepare a recovery plan for a vulnerable ecological community, the recovery plan is to be prepared within 5 years after that decision is made. The time limit referred to in subsection (5) also applies if the plan is also to contain provisions relevant to an endangered species, population or ecological community, or a vulnerable species.

No. 2. Page 18, Schedule 1. Insert after line 6:

[41] Section 59 Contents of recovery plans

Insert after section 59 (f):

(f1) state performance indicators that are to be applied to measure whether the actions identified in the plan are being implemented and are successfully promoting the recovery of the species, population or ecological community, and

No. 3. Page 18, Schedule 1. Insert after line 16:

[43] Section 65 Approval of recovery plan by Minister

Insert after section 65 (2):

(3) Without limiting subsection (2), the Minister may refuse to approve a plan or refer it back to the Director-General for further consideration on the basis that the plan does not comply with the requirements of this Act.

No. 4. Page 18, Schedule 1. Insert after line 16:

[43] Section 66A

Insert after section 66:

66A Advice of Scientific Committee to be included in plan

The recovery plan approved by the Minister must include a summary of any advice given by the Scientific Committee with respect to the plan, details of any amendments made to the plan to take account of that advice and a statement of the reasons for any departure from that advice.

No. 5. Page 24, Schedule 1. Insert after line 15:

[52] Section 96 Publication of licence application

Omit the section. Insert instead:

96 Publication of licence application

(1) The Director-General is to keep a register of licence applications made under this Act.

(2) The Director-General must, within 7 days after receiving a licence application, cause a copy of the application to be placed on the register.

(3) The register is not to include any information the disclosure of which would contravene the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998.

(4) Copies of the register are to be made available for public inspection (free of charge) at the principal office of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and on the internet site maintained by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

(5) If the licence application is accompanied by a species impact statement or a species impact statement is provided in response to a notification from the Director-General that a statement is required, the Director-General must cause to be placed in a newspaper circulating throughout the State a notice:

(a) outlining the nature of the application, and

(b) specifying the address of the place at which copies of the species impact statement may be inspected or purchased, and

(c) inviting written submissions within a period of not less than 28 days after the date of the notice.

No. 6. Page 25, Schedule 1. Insert after line 2:

[53] Section 101 Conditions and restrictions to licence

Insert after section 101 (2) (after the note):

(3) The Audit and Compliance Committee established under section 9 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 is to monitor the conditions attached to licences by the Director-General, for the purpose of overseeing the compliance of the Director-General with his or her obligations under this Act.

No. 7. Page 25, Schedule 1. Insert after line 2:

[53] Section 103 Notification of licence determination

Insert at the end of the section:

(2) The Director-General must give a copy of the reasons for his or her determination of a licence application:

(a) to the applicant, and

(b) to any person who asks for it (either free or for a reasonable charge (determined by the Director-General).

No. 8. Page 25, Schedule 1 [55], lines 17-19. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

[55] Section 113 Director-General may accredit persons to prepare species impact statements

Omit "assessment reports on" from section 113 (1).

[56] Section 113 (3A)

Insert after section 113 (3):

(3A) Without limiting subsection (3), an accreditation is to include conditions that require a species impact statement to be prepared in accordance with survey standards approved from time to time by the Director-General by order published in the Gazette.

No. 9. Page 26, Schedule 1 [56]. Insert after line 14:

(2) In determining whether to approve a property management plan, the Director-General must take into account such matters as may be prescribed by the regulations.

(3) The Minister is to endeavour to ensure that regulations are made for the purposes of subsection (2) within 6 months after the commencement of that subsection.

No. 10. Page 27, Schedule 1. Insert after line 17:

[58] Part 7, Division 3

Insert after Division 2 of Part 7:

Division 3 Conservation agreements

126A Conservation agreements

(1) A conservation agreement relating to land that is entered into under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 for the purpose of the conservation of critical habitat or the conservation of threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, may make provision for assistance in connection with the following:

(a) maintaining and promoting sustainable farming practices and achieving the objects of this Act,

(b) implementing the requirements of a recovery plan that relates to the land (if appropriate),

(c) ensuring the continued and appropriate agricultural use of the land by the owner of the and.

(2) This section does not limit section 69C of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

No. 11 Pages 30 and 31, Schedule 1 [70], proposed section 146A, line 14 on page 30 to line 10 on page 31. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

146A Decision not to disclose other information

(1) The Scientific Committee may make a written recommendation to the Minister that the following matter should not be disclosed to the public:

(a) information provided to the Scientific Committee relating to the location of threatened species, populations or ecological communities,

(b) information provided to the Scientific Committee that may identify any individual who made a nomination under Part 2 or made a submission in respect of a nomination.

(2) The Minister may, by notice in writing:

(a) accept the recommendation of the Committee that the matter should not be disclosed to the public, or

(b) reject the recommendation of the Scientific Committee.

(3) The Minister may accept a recommendation referred to in subsection (1) (a) only if the Minister is of the opinion that the public interest requires that the matter not be disclosed.

(4) The Minister may accept a recommendation referred to in subsection (1) (b) only if the Minister is of the opinion that the matter should not be disclosed:

(a) in the interests of the safety or welfare of the individual who might otherwise be identified, or

(b) to protect that individual against intimidation, harassment or other unwarranted reprisals in connection with the nomination or submission.

No. 12 Page 32, Schedule 1 [75]. Insert after line 10:

9 Accreditation arrangements

The Director-General is to ensure that the arrangements referred to in section 113 (1), as amended by the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment Act 2002, and the survey standards referred to in section 113 (3A), as inserted by that Act, are instituted or approved within 18 months after the date of assent to that Act.

No. 13 Page 39, Schedule 2.1. Insert after line 15:

[14] Section 112D Matters to be considered by Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife as concurrence authority

Insert at the end of the section:

(2) Before the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife or the Minister administering the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 decides to modify a concurrence in respect of an activity under section 112C he or she must:

(a) give notice of the proposed decision to any person who made representations under section 113 concerning the species impact statement in respect of the activity, and

(b) provide the person with an opportunity to make submissions with respect to the proposed decision within a period specified in the notice (being a period of not less than 28 days after the date of the notice), and

(c) have regard to any submissions made to him or her in accordance with the notice within the period so specified.

No. 14. Page 46, Schedule 2.3, lines 11-12. Omit "has determined should not be disclosed to the public under section 146A of that Act". Insert instead "has recommended to the Minister should not be disclosed to the public under section 146A of that Act and the Minister has accepted that recommendation".

No. 15. Page 46, Schedule 2.4, lines 15 and 16. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

Omit section 10 (1) (p1). Insert instead:

(p1) land that is the subject of a conservation agreement

No. 16. Page 46, Schedule 2.5. Insert after line 26:

[2] Section 9 Audit and compliance

Insert after section 9 (2):

(2A) The Audit and Compliance Committee has such other functions as may be conferred or imposed on it by this or any other Act.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains-Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [9.23 p.m.]: I move:

That the Committee agree to the Legislative Council's amendments.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [9.24 p.m.]: The Liberal and National parties will be voting against this bill on the basis of amendments that were passed in the Legislative Council and on the basis that three critical Opposition amendments were not passed in the Legislative Council. Proposed section 146A involves a relationship between the Minister and the Scientific Committee. Opposition members believe that the Scientific Committee should be accountable to the Minister. We also believe that a socioeconomic committee should be established to advise on the impacts of proposed listings and that landowners should be recognised as having compensable rights if adversely affected by a listing or action under the Act. I am disappointed that the amendments that were moved by the Opposition in the upper House, which were not unreasonable amendments, do not form part of this bill. It is not unreasonable to have some level of accountability between a Scientific Committee and a Minister of the Crown. Under the Westminster tradition everyone is accountable to somebody.

In the view of members of the Liberal and National parties it is totally unacceptable to have a Scientific Committee making determinations without any accountability. By way of example, I indicate that the Scientific Committee has already made three determinations that have the potential to impact greatly on agricultural activities. It determined, first, that structures in rivers were a key threatening process to fish. That will have a serious impact on the irrigation industry. Once a determination is made that a key threatening process exists, under this legislation a threat abatement plan automatically has to be put in place. A threat abatement plan can and does override all sorts of other plans, for example, water sharing plans and other plans that might be developed. The argument that has been put forward from time to time that routine agricultural activities are safe is not a valid argument. In relation to this example-that structures in rivers that impact on fish are a key threatening process-it is not part of a routine agricultural activity. I am concerned about where this legislation is leading us.

The Scientific Committee, which has a job to do, is not accountable to anyone. Its job is to make scientific recommendations. I have no argument with that. However, at the end of the day it has to be accountable to somebody, for example, a Minister of the Crown. Land clearing has been identified as a key threatening activity. If that is the case, where do native vegetation plans sit in relation to a threat abatement plan that is automatically put in place as a result of a determination by the Scientific Committee? Recently the Scientific Committee determined that the collection of wood was a key threatening process. That will impact significantly on the ability of people to collect firewood. Opposition members are not really asking for something that is unreasonable. We want the Government to ensure that, at the end of the day, the Scientific Committee is accountable to someone for what it does. We believe that the appropriate person is a Minister of the Crown. A socioeconomic committee must be provided for in this statute. The Scientific Committee is making recommendations and nobody knows what are the implications of those recommendations. We sought in the upper House to include in the statute the necessity for a socioeconomic committee.

No doubt the Government will state, "We appointed a socioeconomic committee to look at all these issues." That may be so, but that committee will operate very much at the whim of the Minister of the day. If a subsequent Minister decided that he did not want to look at socioeconomic impacts, he would have the power to get rid of that committee. We want to include that socioeconomic committee in this legislation so that it can assess the impact on land users and on the community generally of determinations that are made by the Scientific Committee. So those committees will be running in tandem. We are not saying the Scientific Committee should change its role. It can play its clearly identified role but it must be accountable to someone. We need to know what impact the determinations of that committee will have on the community. If it is evident that there will be social and economic impacts as a result of this committee's findings, it seems to me quite reasonable-there is a legal precedent for this in the Water Act-that those people who are adversely affected in a private sense by a determination to protect the public good should be offered compensation.

That is the situation in relation to water sharing plans. If, after a water sharing plan commences, an individual has a water entitlement taken away from him or her, the legislation provides that compensation will follow. Yet we do not have any of those sorts of provisions in this legislation. I have become aware of the public utterances of people like the honourable member for Murray-Darling and I have read press releases relating to his criticism of the threatened species legislation. I suspect that, at the end of the day, he will vote with the Government and not support the amendments or the issues about which I am arguing at this stage.

It must be said that the honourable member for Murray-Darling is probably more intellectually honest than the rest of the Country Labor members. They ought to be in this Chamber saying the sorts of things that I am saying, which I am sure the other member for Coffs Harbour and the honourable member for Tamworth will also say. The Opposition is not asking for anything unreasonable. We simply say that the Scientific Committee has a role, that that committee ought to be accountable to a Minister of the Crown, and that the committee's recommendations should be assessed for their social and economic impact. If that impact is negative, compensation should be paid. That is a reasonable argument. The Coalition will not support this legislation because it does not contain the three key elements that we insist are so important to make it work effectively.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [9.30 p.m.]: I support the remarks of the honourable member for Ballina, the shadow Minister for Land and Water Conservation, on this issue. I make a last-ditch plea to the Minister and the Government to stop taking advice from bureaucrats with a green tinge, get out of their offices and see how this sort of legislation is affecting people on the land and in regional and rural New South Wales. As I have said before, and will continue to say, the sad thing about the Government is that it finds a problem in Sydney that it believes needs to be addressed and it fixes the problem in the bush. It does not encroach on the freedoms and rights of Sydney people but insists on encroaching on the freedoms and rights of the people in regional and rural New South Wales.

I know I am digressing a little here, but I look at the recommendations on coastal policy and I ask the simple question: Why is the coastal policy applicable to regional New South Wales but not applicable to Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong? As the honourable member for Ballina said, the Coalition simply seeks accountability-nothing more and nothing less. Three weeks ago last Friday a constituent of mine saw the advertisement for nomination of key threatening processes for a collection of deadwood, firewood, and so on. He forwarded a fax to the Scientific Committee's office-I apologise to the House for not having it with me tonight to read onto the record-asking who constituted the Scientific Committee. This fellow is an environmental engineer and he did not get any names, addresses or anything else. He got a list of people from the Act, and he sent the list to me with a note saying what a laugh it was because those people are bureaucrats.

One of the members of the committee is an officer of the Australian Museum. My constituent's question to me was-and I believe he reflects what the community is saying-"How can people in Sydney make decisions on a matter as simple as collecting deadwood for firewood when we know the need for it?" We do not want a slash-and-burn mentality. He said, "How can they assess that without coming out and having a look at it? How can they assess the impact on rural and regional communities that that decision will have, without first coming out and talking to people, without first assessing how that will affect people's rights to manage their own land? This is an infringement on the freedom of management."

A couple of weeks ago I spoke to a couple of sensible people in a hotel here in Sydney. They expressed the belief that forests were being clear-felled on the North Coast. That belief arises from the extreme green nonsense which suggests that every time a person applies for hazard reduction burning on their property, whether they burn it or not, it is regarded as a total clearing. Jack Thompson is doing advertisements on the North Coast in which he is telling us that every 17 seconds or so a football field is cleared. That is not true, yet the concerns from Sydney mean that restrictive legislation such as this bill is introduced. When we try to amend the legislation to provide some accountability, to provide some future and some hope to the people of regional New South Wales, the Government will not accept it. Because of this threatened species legislation, people in regional areas cannot sell their properties. Those people have their future and livelihoods at stake. They have properties that are ready for sale, but people will not buy them because they are unsure of the impacts of threatened species legislation.

I will cite another example of misunderstanding. The Department of Planning, on the advice of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, asked the council to put "habitat" right across the local environmental plan. There was such an uproar in Coffs Harbour that the Labor Party held a conference in Coffs Harbour which was attended by 300 or 400 people. Eventually the Department of Planning and the National Parks and Wildlife Service backed off, and the habitat hatching across all the maps and the local environmental plan [LEP] was taken out. However, land was still included as 7A. Guess what? I copped some 7A on my property. When I bought the property, the majority of it was flooded gum regrowth on a creek. The creek had 30 feet of lantana and other rubbish on it. We cleaned it all out and made it into a nice little creek, a pristine area. The cattle go down to the creek and take water, but it has now been classified 7A and has environmental protection. I rang the council and asked what that means. The council told me, "Under a 7A classification you can do whatever you like. All you have to do you is apply to the council. If you want to take a tree out for a fence post or something else, you can do it."

A fellow at Bonville who has an area next to Pine Creek State Forest adjacent to Bongil Bongil National Park has regrowth of young tallowwood and flooded gum growing on his property. The property is classified 7A. He wants to take out an area large enough to build a house on the property. It is an ideal spot on which to put a house. He gave a written assurance and a guarantee to replant flooded gum and tallowwood, but the council told him, "Sorry, because of threatened species legislation, because it is adjacent to a State Forest and a national park, we will not let you take out trees on your own land covering the size of a house block." I regard that as unfair and unacceptable. It has devalued his properties severely. It has devalued his ability to manage his property with freedom, even though he has provided the guarantees. A further amendment provides that a social and economic committee should be formed to examine the effects of this legislation and the payment of compensation to any landowner who is affected by decisions it makes, yet the Government has rejected that amendment. We ask the Minister to include such a provision in the legislation.

A social and economic committee could advise on the impacts of the legislation. I ask the Minister whether he has done an economic study on the key threatening process involved in the collection of firewood. Does he know how much money is made out of the State forests in northern New South Wales? Does he know how much money is made by State Forests, and how much money is value added to that when State Forests take out the heads of trees after a logging operation, split the wood and sell it to people in Sydney and other places who need firewood? I do not think such a study has been done. We simply ask that the Government conduct such an economic study, and if it is found that there is an effect on that community, either individually or collectively, compensation should be paid. I do not think that is a lot to ask. If someone's livelihood is affected by legislation and regulations that are introduced to fix a perceived problem for people in Sydney, why should the people of regional and rural New South Wales pay for that-financially, physically and emotionally?

I wonder whether the people of regional and rural New South Wales will reach the stage where they blockade Sydney, where they say that, as of tomorrow morning, there will be no fresh fruit, milk, or meat. Perhaps we could let Sydney go for a week without access to the commodities we all need every day. That would let people see in a real way that this legislation can have a long-term effects and farmers will not be able to farm. An opportunity exists to make the Scientific Committee accountable to the Minister so he will have some commonsense decision-making or overriding power. The social and economic committee can advise the Minister as to the real effects of the bill, and landowners and the community, if affected financially, can be compensated. I do not believe that is a lot to ask. I beg the Government to accept the amendments proposed by the Coalition in the upper House and to send a signal to the farmers that it cares. If the Government does not, this bill will turn around and bite the Government, as the regional vegetation plans have, come the election on 22 March next year.

Mr CULL (Tamworth) [9.40 p.m.]: The Opposition is concerned about the implications of the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment Bill and the far-reaching impacts it will have on rural communities. Rural communities are presently struggling with the impact of the Native Vegetation Conservation Act and the introduction of the regional vegetation plans. Little do they realise that the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment Bill will have a far greater impact than the Native Vegetation Conservation Act on the way they are allowed to use their land. The practical implications of this bill have not been thought through and, as a result, farmers will adopt practices designed to avoid being caught by the legislation instead of concentrating on conservation techniques.

Mr Debus: This Act has existed for seven years.

Mr CULL: The implications of the bill are only starting to sink in.

Mr Debus: The Act has operated for seven years.

Mr CULL: The Minister should listen and he might get an understanding of way the bill will impact on local communities. I draw to the attention of the House the consequences of a determination by the Scientific Committee established by the Threatened Species Conservation Act on endangered ecological communities. The Scientific Committee supported a proposal to list the native vegetation on cracking clay soil in the Liverpool Plains as an endangered ecological community. That community occurs on cracking clay soil, referred to commonly as black earth, within the Liverpool Plains catchment area. However, it also occurs throughout the Brigalow Belt South and Nandewar bioregions. Generally, this native vegetation is grasslands which are dominated by plains grass, Queensland bluegrass, green panic and other native species. These communities can be declared endangered ecological communities if only a seed or seeds are present in the soil with no above-ground individual plants present.

The ramifications of this determination on the communities and farmers who use the soils for agriculture are enormous. That has been highlighted by a recent case in the Gunnedah region where a farmer who wishes to auction his property was hampered by the implications of the Threatened Species Conservation Act. When the farmer became aware of the provisions of the Act he contacted the National Parks and Wildlife Service in Dubbo to try to get a determination of the effect of this Act on the sale and value of his property. The answer from the department was something to the effect, "We will make a determination when we are ready." This farmer is in the process of auctioning his property early next month. When prospective purchasers look at his property they cannot make a true determination of the impact of the Act on his property.

The property lies in the Liverpool Plains and is covered by cracking clay soils. Prior to 1992 the property had a long history of farming. In 1992 or 1993, as a result of poor crop prices, the farmer converted his land back to cattle grazing. He did that by leaving his paddocks in fallow and, over a period of time, the natural pastures regenerated. The farmer was environmentally conscious. He used this as an opportunity to rejuvenate the fertility of his soil. He did not do so with the intent of never farming the property again. After a period of time some native vegetation regenerated on the soil. That made him subject to the Threatened Species Conservation Act, because he has native threatened species there.

As the Act provides no time frame at all, he cannot get a determination as to whether potential purchasers can farm the land and return it to a farming property or whether it must be retained in its present state solely as a grazing property. That is a good example of the Threatened Species Conservation Act working against the farmer's ability to adjust his farm management plans in the best interests of sustainable agriculture. He decided to rejuvenate his land, which was in the best interests of sustainable agriculture, by leaving it fallow for a period. Because of the provisions of the Act and not knowing whether he will be able to farm the property in the future, the land will probably have a much reduced value when it is auctioned.

The Act in its current form threatens the conservation policies that the farming communities want to adopt. The social and economic impacts of this Act have not been taken into account, and in its present form the Act is having a serious impact on the way farmers are using their land. It is also having a serious impact on sustainable agriculture within the vast agricultural region of this State. The Opposition is extremely concerned about the provisions of the bill, the lack of consultation between the key stakeholders and the fact that the Scientific Committee has absolute power and, once a determination is made, the director-general must act on that determination. I note also that the New South Wales Farmers Association has supported our recommendation that an independent social and economic committee should operate in parallel with the Scientific Committee.

The Coalition opposes this bill because our three key amendments were not agreed to. Our amendments sought to incorporate three key principles in the Act. One was that the Scientific Committee should be accountable to the Minister. The second was that a social and economic committee should be established to advise on the impact of proposed listings and the third was that landowners should be acknowledged as having compensable rights if adversely affected by a listing or other action under the Act.

Mr PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [9.48 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I wish to move three amendments to the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment Bill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Price): Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee is out of order. I suggest that he seek advice of the Clerk.

Mr PICCOLI: Nonetheless, I would like to make a few general comments. The Threatened Species Conservation Act in its current form has had a significant impact on many farming and rural communities throughout New South Wales. If I had my way I would abolish the Act. The Act has had far-reaching implications not only for individual farmers but for the communities that rely on those farmers. That is because some of the recommendations made by the Scientific Committee have been preposterous. Indeed, the basis upon which those recommendations have been made may not have been transparent, they have not been made following consultation and they certainly have not been made with the support of the communities in which these threatened species are found.

I draw the attention of honourable members to the recent listing of the lower Murrumbidgee River and the Murray River systems as endangered ecological communities, with the follow-on consequences of that listing for recreational fishing, irrigation and other uses of the rivers and their waters. At no stage did the committee that recommended that listing inspect either the Murray River or the Murrumbidgee River. I believe that the committee was located in Brisbane, which is quite some distance from the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers. There was a huge public outcry at the time of the listing. In my electorate office I have petitions with about 4,000 signatures of people who were concerned about the listing at the time. They were not only concerned that those river systems were listed as endangered ecological communities, they were also angered by the process.

The implications of the listing on recreational fishing were not considered, because none of the many fishing clubs along the Murray River and the Murrumbidgee River had been consulted. Clearly, the process, including the listing of land clearing and water diversions as threatening processes, is flawed. In the western part of the Murrumbidgee electorate and in the southern part of the Murray-Darling electorate the plains wanderer is listed as an endangered species. That is perhaps one of the most advanced listings under the Threatened Species Conservation Act, because a recovery plan has already been put in place. The community is concerned that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on mapping and the like. The implications of the listing of the plains wanderer have been significant for farmers who have plains wanderer habitat on their property.

Farmers were not consulted before the plains wanderer was listed as a threatened species. I do not think the farmers appreciated the consequences of the Threatened Species Conservation Act when it was enacted. The experience of farmers in relation to the plains wanderer when the whole process began, as opposed to what is occurring now, is indicative of the failures of this legislation, because it has turned farmers away from participating in the process. Years ago when the plains wanderer issue first arose departmental officers, birdwatchers and the like visited the Conargo and Jerilderie regions and asked farmers if they could enter their properties to do a bird count and to inspect the plains wanderer habitat. At that time the farmers, who are fairly reasonable and easygoing, as most farmers are, invited these people onto their properties. The farmers said, "We would like to be part of the process if it saves an endangered species."

Unfortunately, in many cases that goodwill has cost the farmers because their properties are now essentially locked up in terms of further development. There are opportunities for some properties in the Conargo region to develop relatively small amounts of irrigation. I am talking about 300 or 400 acres of irrigation development on perhaps a 10,000-acre property. Farmers who have submitted applications to develop their land have been knocked back because a plains wanderer habitat on their properties means that the two-kilometre area around the habitat cannot be used for irrigation. That has forced farmers to remove themselves from the process. Any person visiting farmers in that area of New South Wales and asking to enter their properties to look at the habitat or to undertake a bird count will almost certainly be denied entry because the farmers have been misled in this whole process.

The threatened species conservation legislation has been used as a heavy-handed tool to protect native species at the expense of farmers. That is why the amendments moved by the Opposition in the upper House and the amendments I sought to move earlier are important. One of those amendments would have required landowners to be recognised as having compensable rights if adversely affected by a listing or action under the Act. On many occasions farming properties have been adversely affected by the listing of the plains wanderer as a threatened species. It is only appropriate that compensation be a consideration because many farmers have invested heavily in developing their properties, only to be told that they are not entitled to compensation under the legislation.

I understand that trout will no longer be stocked in some streams in New South Wales because they are a threatening species. The trout industry is worth something like $70 million in the Snowy area alone. It is ridiculous to have trout listed as a threatening species. I am sure the honourable member for Monaro and/or the honourable member for Burrinjuck can advise the House which persons, who would be adversely affected by the listing of trout as a threatening species, were consulted about that listing. On the basis of the history relating to the listing of the plains wanderer and other species, and the Murray River and the Murrumbidgee River, I am sure there was little consultation with the people on the ground who could provide real time, real life information. Therefore, serious amendments need to be made to the Threatened Species Conservation Act.

The Coalition in the upper House moved amendments to this bill. One of those amendments provided that the Scientific Committee would be accountable to the Minister. That would make sense because, as the Scientific Committee is making decisions that are not based on accurate, real-time information on the ground, the Minister should be able to override recommendations, a power that the Minister does not currently have. Another eminently sensible amendment rejected by the Labor Government provided for the establishment of a socio-economic committee to advise on the impacts of proposed listings. Not only does the listing of trout as a threatening species have an impact on the $70 million trout industry; it has an impact on jobs, on livelihoods, on kids at school and on tourism and potential tourism. Basically, that listing will result in cutting out one option available to the communities in the Snowy area.

It is unfortunate that the Coalition's amendments were not supported in the upper House, because the Threatened Species Conservation Act certainly needs to be amended. The listing of the Murrumbidgee River and the Murray River as endangered ecological communities has had an impact on significant areas of the Murray-Darling electorate. Funnily enough, the plains wanderer also has habitat in that electorate, so the consequences for that electorate have been significant, as they have been for many other Labor members who represent country electorates. Unfortunately, the Labor members representing country electorates sided with city Labor members and decided that farmers and rural communities must pay the price for this legislation. As a responsible member of Parliament I am sorry about that.

Mr WEBB (Monaro) [10.00 p.m.]: Tonight is the first opportunity I have had to address the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment Bill simply because it went so quickly through this place to the other place. Opposition members have been waiting to consider a number of Legislative Council amendments, but has three further amendments which it would urge the Government to incorporate into this legislation, even at this late stage. The first amendment is designed to make the Scientific Committee accountable to the Minister. That is currently not the case. Other Opposition members have spoken at some length about the powers of the Scientific Committee to launch headlong into so-called environmental preservation at all costs.

The second amendment is designed to establish a social and economic committee to advise on the impacts of proposed listings. The failure of the Government to recognise the significance of socioeconomic considerations is the nub of Opposition concern over the operation of the current Threatened Species Conservation Act. That is why the Opposition is adamant that this key amendment should become part of the legislation. I will elaborate on that matter at a later stage. I support the Opposition's amendment to ensure that landowners are recognised as having compensable rights if they are adversely affected by a listing or action taken under the Act.

It is absolutely imperative for private property rights, water rights and rights attached to permits or licences that have been granted by this Government or other levels of governments to be preserved to enable landowners to carry out their activities and enjoy the use of their land and the benefits from agricultural production that may result from the use of their land and their investments. If those rights are taken away by a simple Act of Parliament-as has happened under the Threatened Species Conservation Act, the Native Vegetation Conservation Act, the Water Management Act and other Acts of this Parliament-that will be a travesty.

If the Government waves its wand and does away with existing entitlements and outlaws traditional practices that have been endorsed in the past-as it has with licensing arrangements for fishing industry cooperatives along the coast and a declaration in the Government Gazette that fishing grounds are no longer to be used by commercial fishermen-the livelihood of primary producers will be threatened by controls exercised by the Department Land and Water Conservation, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the local government development approval powers. Many examples can be cited of basic property rights being eroded in New South Wales.

That restriction has curtailed the ability of farmers to stay abreast of change, keep pace with technology, invest in their industry, keep track of commodity price fluctuations and stay ahead of the costs, charges and rates that have steadily increased throughout New South Wales and become an increasing burden on landowners. Agricultural producers are able to deal with those exigencies and are happy to accept change, but they should be placed in a position whereby they are able to manage their land within the bounds of reasonableness and fairness, confident in the knowledge that all relevant matters have been debated in Parliament and steps have been taken for legislation of this type to be implemented reasonably. That is not what has happened in the past.

Scientific committees, which are constituted basically by faceless people, can nominate almost anything as a threatened species, a threatening process or a critical habitat, to the detriment of everything else. Once a declaration is made, the Minister's hands are tied. The Minister's only recourse at that stage is to introduce reclamation and recovery plans, because the Minister has little or no rights to canvass a nomination of the Scientific Committee. There have been many examples of this type of problem in the past, and the honourable member for Murrumbidgee referred to some of them earlier in the debate. He gave the example of trout which had been listed as a key threatening species to the existence of frogs in New South Wales.

Earlier this month I referred in the House to questions I had asked of the Minister for the Environment about the impact of the chytrid fungus on the populations of the southern corroboree frog and the Booroolong frog. No-one is arguing about whether they are a threatened species, but the statement by the Scientific Committee that the trout are threatening those species of frogs, and the imp