Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 2 December 2003, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Assent to the following bills reported:

Transport Legislation Amendment (Safety and Reliability) Bill
Constitution Amendment (Governor's Salary) Bill
Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust Amendment Bill
Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill
Podiatrists Bill
Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment Bill
Courts Legislation Amendment Bill
Coroners Amendment Bill
Independent Commission Against Corruption Amendment (Ethics Committee) Bill
Police Legislation Amendment (Civil Liability) Bill
Appropriation (Health Super-Growth Fund) Bill
Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Amendment Bill
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Family Law) Bill

Mr BOB CARR (Maroubra—Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [2.19 p.m.]: On 17 September this House voted to extend the trial of Australia's only medically supervised injecting centre. The Federal Government was formally advised of this legislation. I was, therefore, surprised to receive a letter on 4 November in which the Prime Minister claimed the trial could breach international treaty obligations and that this could result in sanctions being imposed by the International Narcotics Control Board [INCB]. The fact is that there are approximately 60 injecting centres around the world: in Switzerland, Germany, Spain and The Netherlands. There are around 13 centres in Germany alone. The Canadian Government recently approved a facility in Vancouver which opened in September.

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

Mr BOB CARR: In the light of these developments the INCB's special interest in New South Wales is puzzling. I am advised that no other injecting centre has been as thoroughly researched and monitored as the one in Kings Cross. As at 31 October this year 2,405 referrals had been made for treatment, health and social services and 824 critical incidents relating to drug overdoses had been managed, with no deaths. The New South Wales public understands that the injecting centre is a small part of a wide-ranging drug program, our total drug budget being worth $130 million a year. In fact, our multifaceted approach to the drug problem is held up as a model. The injecting centre is not a solution to illegal drug use; it is simply one approach that has shown some promise.

The New South Wales Government works closely with the Commonwealth on many aspects of our drug program, such as law enforcement and rehabilitation. In the scheme of things, this is a small disagreement. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has chosen to make threats instead of defending the right of the elected members of the New South Wales Parliament to make decisions on behalf of their community. This is a legitimate, tightly controlled trial, confined to one area. It has been, and will continue to be, carefully monitored and thoroughly researched. In 1999 the Council of Australian Governments adopted a collaborative approach to drug abuse between the Federal Government and the States.

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

Mr BOB CARR: I urge the Prime Minister to maintain that spirit of bipartisanship as we continue our joint efforts to tackle the problem. I table the Prime Minister's letter and my response for the information of members.
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [2.24 p.m.]: Next weekend New South Wales will host the Australian Writers Muster, another first for our State. As the name suggests, the festival is aimed at writers and will bring film, television, fiction and non-fiction, theatre, documentary, journalism, poetry, science and song writers together from Australia and overseas. The event is supported by the Carr Government and the Commonwealth, and our support has gathered both national and international experts. Today I welcome to Sydney Billy Sind, the Emmy award winning writer of that terrific political drama The West Wing to Sydney. Mr Sind helped write those two memorable episodes "The Debate" and "The Inauguration". Mr Sind will hold a workshop at next weekend's Australian Writers Muster at the University of Sydney. The muster is about supporting our writers. The key to our film and television success is fostering and creating Australian scripts. On Thursday Mr Sind will meet with the New South Wales Premier, who is also our Minister for the Arts. I am sure that they will have much to talk about: in his previous life Mr Sind was a political media consultant. He has also worked on campaigns in the United States of America, Bermuda and Brazil.

[During notices of motions]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair acknowledges that the notice of motion of the honourable member for Lachlan is worthy of debate in this House. However, I ask him to consult with the Clerks about rewording the motion as it contains a certain amount of debate.

Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Professor Yan Li Hooh, a professor at Honan University, who is the guest of the honourable member for Camden.

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of the Auditor-General's performance audit report entitled "Disposal of Sydney Harbour Foreshore Land", dated November 2003.

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to section 10 of the Legislation Review Act 1987, of the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No 7 of 2003", dated 1 December 2003.

Petition opposing the restructure of Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture at Yanco, received from Mr Peter Black.

Petitions opposing the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from Mr Thomas George, Ms Katrina Hodgkinson, Mrs Judy Hopwood, Mr Malcolm Kerr, Mr Steven Pringle, Ms Marianne Saliba, Mr Ian Slack-Smith, Mr Andrew Tink and Mr John Turner.
Petition praying that any rezoning of the White City site be opposed, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition opposing development of the current Water Police Pyrmont site, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petitions requesting a right turn bay on Windsor Road at Acres Road, received from Mr Wayne Merton and Mr Michael Richardson.

Petition opposing the proposal to add a two-lane drawbridge next to The Spit Bridge, and calling for a responsible and holistic solution to the transport, traffic, and freight needs of the area, received from Mrs Jillian Skinner.

Petition opposing the blanket 50 kilometre per hour speed limit and requesting that the Mitchell Highway and other main arterial roads revert to previous speed limits, received from Mr Russell Turner.

Petition requesting the implementation of a community midwifery program in Cessnock, received from Mr Kerry Hickey.

Petitions opposing the abolition of CountryLink rail services and their replacement with buses in rural and regional New South Wales, received from Mr Greg Aplin, Mr Peter Draper, Mr Thomas George, Ms Katrina Hodgkinson, Mr Ian Slack-Smith, Mr George Souris, Mr John Turner and Mr Russell Turner.

Petition requesting improved bus services in Redfern and Surry Hills, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition requesting the development of a transport blueprint for public transport as an alternative to private vehicle use, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition praying that the Government urgently improve bus service 311 to make it more frequent and more reliable, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition opposing the proposed cut to the CountryLink rail service between Tamworth and Armidale, received from Mr Richard Torbay.

Petition opposing the merger of shires into the proposed Capital City Regional Council, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.
Petition opposing the merger of the north-western part of the Yass Shire local government area into the proposed Southern Tablelands Council, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

Petition opposing the Local Government Amendment Bill 2003, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

Petition requesting that the social program policy subsidy be extended to residents in the Hawkesbury local government area, received from Mr Steven Pringle.

Petition praying that the House end the unnecessary suffering of wild animals and their use in circuses, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition requesting the total ban of sow stalls, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Mr JOHN BROGDEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. Did the Minister refer to the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] allegations that he received by email on 25 November 2002 from one of the whistleblower nurses from Camden and Campbelltown hospitals reporting that patients' notes were being shredded and records tampered with following the announcement of the Health Care Complaints Commission inquiry on 18 November 2003?

Mr CRAIG KNOWLES: The Opposition is concerned with the details so let us have a few details. Everyone understands that I initiated that inquiry. I met with the nurses and a brother lawyer who represented them in my electorate office. Immediately at the conclusion of that meeting I dictated a memo that I forwarded directly to the Director-General of NSW Health. That is a matter of fact—documented and clear as a bell. From that time, to the best of my recollection, any matters were forwarded to the Health Care Complaints Commission. If I remember correctly, based on evidence given in the upper House estimates committees in the past week or so, the police, the Coroner and, I think, the Independent Commission Against Corruption were notified.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. What is the latest information on the maritime future of Port Botany?

Mr CRAIG KNOWLES: I am sure that the honourable member for Heffron and other honourable members are aware that Port Botany has played a vital role in the nation's economy for generations. It is Sydney's largest seaport facility. The movement of cargo through Port Botany accounted for almost 60 per cent of the total economic output of Sydney's ports, or approximately $25 billion in trade value, in 2001-02. More than 4,000 people are employed directly at Port Botany, with about 6,000 people employed indirectly through port-related industries. The airport, fuel and bulk liquids and container facilities at Port Botany underpin much growth and prosperity for both the State and the nation.

Any decision to expand Port Botany will always have significant implications for the State's social, environmental and economic fabric. That is why the current proposal to expand the bulk container terminal will be the subject of the most rigorous scrutiny. As the Premier has already indicated, any expansion of Port Botany will be strictly in line with the environmental constraints laid down by an independent commission of inquiry, and it will be the last expansion. The independent commission of inquiry will be the final determination on the port's growth. After that the next chapter in major container port growth will be written at Newcastle and the Illawarra—which is good news for the regions—and will be landlocked in the Hunter to allow coal, grain and mineral exports in the short term and container trade in the long term.

Port Botany currently handles in excess of one million containers every year. It is our busiest port by far and it is predicted that additional capacity will be required by 2010. Should this proposal proceed, Port Botany would have the capacity to handle three million containers annually, with 1.6 million of these attributable to the new container terminal. The proposal by the Sydney Ports Corporation consists of a new container terminal located on the north-eastern edge of Botany Bay, with approximately 57 hectares of reclaimed land. It will have an additional wharf to allow for up to five shipping berths, dedicated road and rail access and support infrastructure. The capital investment in that package, if it is approved and proceeds, is about $580 million. That is $580 million worth of new investment in the port, subject of course to the findings of an independent commission of inquiry. Construction will take approximately seven years.

Associated with the development will be the creation of a new public boat ramp and car park with direct access to Foreshore Road. This will replace the existing boat ramp at Penrhyn Road. New works include restoration and enhancement to Foreshore Beach and the Penrhyn Estuary. The independent commission of inquiry and the environmental impact assessment process for the development application will run concurrently. This will mean greater certainty and transparency. All submissions made on the development application will be provided to the inquiry, giving everyone who makes a submission either on the development application or to the inquiry the opportunity to have their concerns addressed independently by the commissioner. The commissioner will be supported by experts in key specialist areas. It is expected that the inquiry will be conducted in the first half of next year, with the exhibition of the proposal taking place from late January.

The inquiry's terms of reference are straightforward. It will consider the justification of the proposal; the terrestrial and marine environments; the hydrodynamics of Botany Bay; the acoustic environment; air and water quality, including groundwater; safety, in terms of both shipping navigation and the operations of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport; local and regional traffic road and rail networks; and local and regional infrastructure, including the implications for container movements and growth within New South Wales. The inquiry will also consider recreational opportunities in and around Botany Bay, particularly at Foreshore Beach and the reserve. It will consider the cumulative impacts of the proposal in the context of the total port environs, taking into account any relevant strategy for Botany Bay; and the social and economic implications of the development, including the implications for the State of not proceeding.

As most honourable members know, the independent commission of inquiry process is the best forum in which to consider such an important project. It will involve rigorous technical assessment and anyone who wants to have a say will be able to do so. It is a public process that is highly transparent. I urge anyone who wants to participate in the consideration of this major proposal to become involved in this important process.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. How can the Minister have confidence in the Health Care Complaints Commission inquiry into Camden and Campbelltown hospitals given that the commission has refused to investigate allegations that some of the whistleblower nurses were offered payments in return for signing deeds of release and that nurses were asked to lie about the number of beds available in the paediatric ward?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC] is established by statute to investigate allegations—by people who work in the system as well as by people who access health services—about the quality of health services. That is why the HCCC was established. That is why it is independent of the Government, and that is its role. The HCCC is currently coming to the conclusion of its year-long investigation into a whole range of allegations in relation to Campbelltown and Camden. Its work is near completion. I will respond to the report of the HCCC—

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order is in relation to relevance. My question was about Commissioner Adrian's refusal in writing to investigate serious allegations about cover-ups—money being offered to pay to these nurses to be quiet and to lie about the number of paediatric beds. She has refused to investigate those allegations! It is not about your inquiry.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There is no point of order. They Minister should be given the opportunity to answer the question.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I will respond to that report. I will repeat the remarks I have made consistently in this House and in public in relation to that report, should the final report confirm what was in the draft report. I will address my remarks and comments about the HCCC when it concludes its report and hands it down. In relation to additional allegations, to the best of my recollection a couple of weeks ago I was informed that additional matters were forwarded to the HCCC about patient care at Campbelltown. When the final report is handed down there will be a comprehensive response on all of the issues raised in that report and the allegations therein.

Mr JOHN MILLS: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. What is the Government's response to the outcomes of the Australian Health Ministers conference held on Friday?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Last Friday State and Territory Health Ministers met with the Commonwealth Minister for Health, Tony Abbott. The meeting commenced on a positive note in the sense that we actually had someone from the Commonwealth turn up. It is real progress. The Commonwealth Health Minister's attendance at the conference of the nation's Health Ministers was significant progress, compared with what occurred with his predecessor. The call by all of the States for the past 12 years had fallen on deaf ears. The previous Commonwealth Minister for Health either refused to turn up or simply refused to engage the States in any meaningful negotiation to do with a better deal, a better health plan for the nation and a better health care agreement.

The three key areas that all the States, led by New South Wales, and the nation's leading clinicians identified were: aged care reform, better arrangements between general practitioners and our emergency departments, and the establishment of a national approach to our work force problems, which the Commonwealth had refused to engage. I am pleased to say that following last Friday's meeting we finally have some form of engagement from the Commonwealth in relation to these issues. In particular we know that we have an ageing population, a decline in bulk billing and a scarcity of clinicians in our hospitals. The Commonwealth's own intergenerational report outlined in precise detail the implications for our health system of Australia's ageing population.

I am pleased that Tony Abbott has responded to the calls of the States and the clinicians and recognised the seriousness of the challenges that this poses for us. It is fair to say that New South Wales in particular, when it comes to general practitioner clinicians and our emergency departments, and attempting to take the pressure off those emergency departments, has been at the forefront of the call for greater integration between primary health care and tertiary and secondary level care in our hospitals. To be fair to Tony Abbott, on Friday he agreed in principle to the model of co-location of the general practitioner clinics—

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister needs no help from the Opposition.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Let us be clear about Denman. Denman was a multipurpose service centre, not a general practitioner clinic in an emergency—

Mrs Jillian Skinner: Also Maitland.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes, Maitland, which has been an outstanding success. It has caused a 60 per cent drop in attendance in the emergency department and for three years we have been urging the Commonwealth to work with us to roll out the model across the State, not just have one pilot operating in one hospital in one town in New South Wales. We would like that excellent model of co-operative federalism rolled out across the States. We would like the Maitland model, the Maitland experience and the Maitland success operating not just at Maitland and Belmont, John Hunter, Newcastle East, but also at 48 other places across the States—for instance, at Concord, Shoalhaven, Manly, Wyong, Ryde, Hornsby, Gosford, Lismore, Tamworth, Griffith, Port Macquarie and the list goes on.
On Friday, finally, three years after attempting to get the Commonwealth to work with us to roll out these clinics across our health system, we got an agreement in principle from a Commonwealth Health Minister who deigned to turn up and agreed to examine each application case-by-case for co-location. The Commonwealth has agreed to work with the States and the local divisions of general practitioners to roll out this model across our health system to try to take the pressure off our emergency departments caused by the collapse in bulk billing.

On Thursday at Tweed Heads and Lismore hospitals I saw some interesting figures about bulk billing. Lismore has one of the lowest bulk billing rates in the country, 47 per cent. What has been the effect on Lismore's emergency department? In five months attendances have shot up 12 per cent in categories four and five. A few years ago Tweed Heads used to have about 26,000 attendances at its emergency department each year. When bulk billing crashed from 65 per cent in March, to 61 per cent in the latest quarter the attendances at Tweed Heads shot up to 36,000 from 26,000. There is no doubt that the collapse in bulk billing adds to the pressure on emergency departments. For three years the Commonwealth has simply refused to even engage in a discussion. The Maitland model was implemented three years ago. It was successful and should be applied right across our health system. The good thing is that Tony Abbott is prepared to listen and have a go. Good on him.

Friday's meeting also decided to allocate $2 million for a priority-driven research program to support the establishment of national work to address our work force shortages. Ministers also agreed that clinicians should continue to help work on developing the national reform agenda. These agreements alone are a breakthrough. The meeting also agreed that Minister Abbott would sponsor a delegation of State and Territory Health Ministers—Tony Abbott again embracing co-operative federalism—to meet with Brendan Nelson the Commonwealth Minister for Education, Science and Training, and urge him to allow for more applications into our medical and nursing schools.

The current quotas are simply unacceptable: they are too few in number, they are not in the right places, and they will do nothing to arrest the long-term and short-term shortages in our work force. In New South Wales there were 6,700 applications for nursing positions. Brendan Nelson funded 2,579—meaning that more than 4,000 young people in New South Wales who wanted to become nurses are unable to do so, because Brendan Nelson will not let them. Charles Sturt University, in Bathurst, had 2,500 applications, and Brendan Nelson would fund only 250. On Friday Tony Abbott was saying: Let's go and see Nelson and see if he will change that position. We hope the meeting will bring a period of collaboration and co-operation between the Commonwealth health Minister and the nation's health Ministers to ensure that our work force shortages do not cripple our health system in the years ahead.

I have mentioned the progress that has been made on the co-location of general practitioner clinics in our hospitals. The third essential element of reform—which Tony Abbott has agreed to progress—is finally to address a better deal on aged care for senior citizens who are in an acute care public hospital bed but who should be in a nursing home bed or some other form of transitional care. The 900 senior citizens who are in our public hospital beds but who should be in a nursing home deserve a better deal. On Friday Tony Abbott agreed to work with the States to try to address that further critical area of reform.

Mr JOHN BROGDEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. What action does the Minister intend to take against the Director-General of Health, Robyn Kruk, for her decision to refer the allegations by a whistleblower nurse about documents being shredded at Camden and Campbelltown hospitals to the Health Care Complaints Commission when quite clearly under section 11 (2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act she is required by law to send matters she believes are corrupt to the Independent Commission Against Corruption?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The director-general has referred a number of matters to an independent statutory body established to investigate allegations within the health system. The Director-General of Health has acted in an appropriate manner right the way through, from the time—

Mr John Brogden: Point of order: The Independent Commission Against Corruption Act is clear. A principal officer of a public authority must refer complaints of corruption to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The director-general has acted always appropriately in relation to this matter and all other matters since I took over this portfolio.

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

Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General. What is the latest information on victim impact statements in the District Court?

Mr BOB DEBUS: The Carr Government has done more than any previous government to recognise and promote the legitimate role of victims of crime within the justice system. We have worked closely with victims and their families and with victim support groups such as Enough Is Enough, the Homicide Victims Support Group and the Victims of Crime Assistance League, known as VOCAL, to identify the services and resources that victims most need. Our earliest and most significant achievement in this area was the passing of the Victims Rights Act in 1996. That landmark legislation, which came into force in April 1997, amongst other things established the Charter of Victims Rights. That charter has been vital in alleviating the sense of helplessness that so many victims of crime had felt in trying to navigate the criminal justice system.

The charter enshrined in law the principles for the treatment of victims of crime and demands compassion and respect for them by government agencies. The charter also clarifies victims' rights to access information about the cases with which they are concerned. For the first time, the Victims Rights Act gave victims of serious violent crime in New South Wales the right to tell a judge in the Supreme and District courts of the personal impact that the crime, for which the accused had been convicted, had had on their lives. Victim impact statements have already assumed a very important role in the criminal justice system. In most cases, a victim impact statement is a written description of the personal harm suffered as a direct result of a crime. Tragically, in some cases, it is a statement describing the impact of the death of a loved one, the primary victim of a crime, by immediate family members.

But there was more work to be done. Amendments to the victim impact statement regime, which commenced in early 1998, expanded the circumstances in which those statements could be given, for the first time allowing them to be given in Local Courts in very restricted circumstances—in cases involving death. The Government has continued to listen to the very real stories and very practical advice of victims of crime, their families and their advocates, and through those efforts many issues have been identified and a range of potential solutions have been examined. Earlier this year the Government built further upon the gains made in victims rights. The Victims Legislation Amendment Act 2003—which passed with unanimous support earlier this year—further enhanced the regime by giving victims eligible to present a victim impact statement to the Supreme and District courts the right to read their statement aloud in the courtroom before an offender was sentenced. That reform, which was designed to give victims of serious crime a stronger voice, of course also forces offenders to directly face the harm that they have caused.

The Government has already given a commitment to victims of crime to build further on the reforms passed earlier this year. The Premier announced in August at the Ebony and Ivory Ball, organised by the Homicide Victims Support Group, that plans were being developed to expand significantly the use of victim impact statements in the Local Court. The proposed change would enable Local Courts to receive victim impact statements for a specific range of offences that result in either actual physical bodily harm to any person, or involve an act of actual or threatened violence or an act of sexual assault. Once the Local Court has received a victim impact statement, this would also entitle a victim to read out the statement following the conviction, but before sentencing, of an offender.

Offences like malicious wounding, maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm, aggravated indecent assault and dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm will be included. The Chief Magistrate has requested this change to assist magistrates in imposing appropriate sentences. Victim impact statements in those sorts of cases would provide a reminder at a timely point in proceedings, after conviction but prior to sentencing, of the objective seriousness of the offence concerned. Victim impact statements provide an opportunity for victims of serious violent crime to express their feelings about the harm they have suffered as a result of a crime and allow for proper public respect to be paid to those feelings. They have a positive and appropriate place in the criminal justice system of this State.
Mr ANDREW STONER: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Health. Does he endorse misleading public statements by the chief executive officer of the Mid North Coast Area Health Service that Kempsey District Hospital is operating at level 4 service standards when internal documents show that only 6 out of the 61 services operate above level 3, with 11 others, including mental health, at or below level 2?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: This Government has provided significant investment in the new mental health unit at Kempsey and substantial investments right up the North Coast not only in mental health facilities but also in public health facilities generally. But the Leader of The Nationals would rather have us spend money on advertising than front-line services. He is quoted in the local newspaper saying that we should not try to cut back on advertising and put it into front-line services. Not once has he acknowledged the substantial investment we have made in resources and the development of facilities, particularly on the North Coast.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The actions of those on the Opposition frontbench are nothing less than disgusting. The constant calling out and interrupting of Ministers' answers demeans the dignity of the House and all of its members. Members should ensure that they conduct themselves with proper decorum. We all enjoy a lively debate, but constant, banal calling out serves no purpose whatsoever and does those responsible no credit.

Mr SPEAKER: I call the honourable member for Mount Druitt.

[Interruption]

Mr RICHARD AMERY: For a moment there, I did not think I was going to get it.

Mr Ian Armstrong: You never have, Richard!

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

Mr RICHARD AMERY: He would not have done that if he knew how much shoe polish I had to eat to get it. My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police. What is the latest information on traffic policing across the State of New South Wales?

Mr JOHN WATKINS: Today I am pleased to inform the House that an appointment has been made to one of the most important senior positions in New South Wales Police, head of traffic services. The position involves programs that protect hundreds of thousands of lives every year on New South Wales roads. I am pleased to advise that Superintendent John Hartley has won that position. Yesterday the Commissioner informed Superintendent Hartley about the appointment. He is a hard-working, tough and practical police officer who will able to fill the driver's seat left vacant by veteran highway patroller Ron Sorrenson, who retired early this year.

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: Whilst acting in the position Superintendent Hartley has already tackled a number of major issues involving traffic management and road safety. He has overseen the deployment of new equipment and increased police powers. John Hartley joined the New South Wales Police in 1979. He worked in general duties in Maroubra, Young and Wagga Wagga. John was operations manager at the former city east region, which later became the inner metropolitan region, before his move to the traffic branch. Whilst working at city east and inner metropolitan between 1997 and 2002 John Hartley was heavily involved in planning and overseeing many significant and successful events, including the city's biggest ever New Year's Eve celebrations, the Centenary of Federation, and, of course, the central business district's Olympic festivities. He has already been involved in the planning and execution of major road campaigns during this year

He has helped to deliver other important initiatives, including the deployment of 600 sets of road spikes in local area commands that have been used to stop more than a dozen high-speed pursuits in the past six months. He has been involved in extending powers for New South Wales police to enable the immediate roadside suspension of licences for reckless driving, which has been used more than 80 times since August this year. He has worked with New South Wales cycling and triathlon groups to ensure the future of those sports on local roads. In coming weeks Superintendent Hartley will oversee Operation RAID—remove alcohol-impaired drivers—a combined highway patrol effort by New South Wales, Victorian and South Australian police forces. There is also Operation Road Safe, the $1 million Police and Roads and Traffic Authority enforcement campaign, throughout Sydney's northern beaches, the lower North Shore, city, eastern suburbs, southern suburbs and the inner west, and Operation Safe Arrival, the upcoming holiday safety campaign.

Last night I spoke to Superintendent Hartley who told me he was looking forward to continuing the challenge of reducing fatalities and making the roads safe for all users. He said that the upcoming holiday road safety campaign would involve high visibility policing of the State's roads to ensure that drivers remain under the speed limit, take regular breaks and drive to the prevailing conditions. He has called on motorists to drive with consideration for fellow road users. The Government congratulates John Hartley on his appointment, and thanks him for his ongoing commitment to protecting the New South Wales community. I am sure that every member of this House wishes him well. His success will benefit us all.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. Why are Lismore and Maclean hospitals still waiting for the promised arrival of the shared vascular surgeon that his predecessor said he had appointed on 30 January this year?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I had quite a pleasant visit there on Thursday. I will investigate the precise details of the clinician the honourable mention mentioned. However, I seem to recall from Thursday's visit and our discussions that three cardiologists were in town ready to go if we could provide the diagnostic and intervention facilities which the area is in line for. At the moment the department has a submission for those services.

Mrs Jillian Skinner: Not a vascular surgeon.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I undertook to take up the member's question in that regard. I will repeat today what I told the honourable member on the day of my visit: the master plan for the redevelopment of Lismore hospital is well advanced. We saw a very good projected slideshow from the area health service. Meetings have taken place about the $90 million redevelopment of Lismore hospital, which will be a staged redevelopment. I am examining the parts of that redevelopment that can be brought forward and the aspects of the hospital that will be involved in the staged redevelopment. Obviously, particularly following the visit, things like the Richmond clinic and mental health services will be a priority, as will the emergency department because of its somewhat less than desirable design.

Mr STEVE WHAN: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. Has the Premier met with miners to receive their concerns about the Opposition's intentions to frustrate the Clyde Waste Transfer Terminal (Special Provisions) Bill?

Mr BOB CARR: I had a most interesting meeting with miners in the last two hours in my office. I want to spell out the position they find themselves in, and the bleakness of their Christmas, if the Opposition succeeds in its new position on this legislation. I say "new position" because during the last sitting week of the Parliament when I outlined our plan and legislation for Woodlawn, the Leader of the Opposition got up, came to the table and said, "The Premier has our support." I thought: strong leadership. I thought: decisive. I thought: clear cut. But it now transpires that, as a result of lobbying, the Opposition will vote at the very least to delay the legislation until after Christmas and at the very worst vote it down in the upper House. This leaves the honourable member for Burrinjuck in a very curious position. I want to read some of the things that she has been saying on this matter, but only after I share with the House what former employees of the Woodlawn mine told me. One of them stood up and said, "I've got a mortgage. I've got three children. I would get, if the entitlements are paid, $100,000."

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

Mr BOB CARR: He said it would make all the difference to his family's Christmas to know that that money is on the way. And why would it not? Another worker who had been at that mine for 20 years said that he needs the money to retire.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have already said that there has been quite enough disruptive behaviour during question time. Those members who have been called to order are now deemed to be on three calls. I warn members that if they are removed from the House it will not be merely for the duration of question time and the debate on the motion for urgent consideration.

Mr BOB CARR: Another worker stood up at this meeting and said he had become a single parent of two young daughters since the mine closed. He stands to get $60,000—a large sum of money for a person in his position.

[Interruption]

They are his worker's entitlements. That is what he is entitled to. How dare the honourable member for North Shore say that that should not count. How dare she! It might not mean much to the honourable member for North Shore, but it meant a lot to him.

Mrs Jillian Skinner: Point of order: I take great exception to the threatening manner of the Premier, who insulted the member for North Shore when you, Mr Speaker, were not watching. Please observe this House! Call the Premier to order.

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

Mr BOB CARR: Another worker who has now retired on a pension stands to get—but only if this legislation passes—$70,000, but will not get it if this legislation fails to pass. Another worker told me that he has three children and he stands to get $35,000. He said that the money will go towards his children's education. The Opposition has now decided, as a result of lobbying by a commercial competitor, to block the legislation. The Leader of the Opposition should stand up and say that he supports the legislation, as he did during the last sitting week. During the last sitting week the Leader of the Opposition said that he supported the legislation. This week he does not.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr BOB CARR: During the last sitting week he said he would support the legislation, but this week, as a result of lobbying by a commercial competitor, he says he will not. Another worker is owed $80,000. He said the money would start his retirement fund.

Mr John Brogden: That is half your salary.

Mr BOB CARR: The Leader of the Opposition does not understand. This is the worker's entitlement.

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

Mr BOB CARR: This is the worker's entitlement that the former company will not pay.

[Interruption]

That is right: he earned that money. This is quite hilarious to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Another worker is entitled to $43,000.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The joke is that the Premier spends $3 million a year on media monitoring.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is on three calls to order. His behaviour is grossly disorderly. I ask the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms to remove him from the House.

[The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai left the Chamber, accompanied by the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms.]

Mr BOB CARR: Another worker is entitled to receive $43,000 and he said he would use the money to get his family out of debt. There are other workers who stand to benefit, but what did our old friend the honourable member for Burrinjuck say about this legislation and the workers' cause? She said as recently as 17 November—hardly ancient history:

It is of concern that the Land and Environment Court—

[Interruption]

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

Mr BOB CARR: The honourable member for Burrinjuck told the Goulburn Post on 17 November:

It is of concern that the Land and Environment Court rejected the Clyde Transfer Station, putting at risk what is generally recognised as an environmentally responsible project.

She went on to say that she had discussed with her parliamentary colleagues the actions necessary to get the Collex proposal back on track, and had made them aware of the importance of the project, not only to the local region but also to the metropolitan area. She went on to state:

The NSW Coalition has announced that it will be happy to look at any approach that the Government takes to achieve a solution to the problem caused by the Land and Environment Court decision.

That was stated as recently as 17 November, but now she betrays 158 people in her electorate. She has betrayed them—158 families.

Mr John Brogden: Point of order: If the Premier has nothing to hide, send it to a committee.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr BOB CARR: The workers want to know before Christmas whether they will get their money. They do not want the news shunted over to next year. In their trusting naivety, until today these workers believed the Leader of the Opposition when he said during the last sitting week of this Parliament, "The Premier has our support." In their trustworthiness they were prepared to believe their local member, who said on 17 November that the Government would have her support. The money they stand to receive from an environmentally sound project is now in doubt. In the electorate of the honourable member for Burrinjuck, 158 families have been undercut by the position struck by her colleagues. All through my answer today the Opposition has scorned the interests of workers who believe that $60,000 to help a worker educate kids—

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 137, concerning rules for questions. The Premier is deliberately misleading the House. The Opposition supports the employment of the workers.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat. The House will come to order.

Mr BOB CARR: Paying workers' entitlements is not a taxpayer responsibility; it is a business responsibility, and that has always been so. No responsible person would say that when a badly managed company goes under it is the taxpayers who have to pick up workers' entitlements. No-one in the Opposition has proposed another way of assisting those 158 mining families in the Burrinjuck electorate that she is now condemning to a miserable Christmas. She stands condemned. All I can say is, shame, Brogden, shame!

Mr Michael Richardson: Point of order: The Premier has misled the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for The Hills will resume his seat.

Mr CRAIG KNOWLES: Earlier in question time I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition about an email received by my office on 25 November 2002. In general terms I indicated that having commenced the inquiry I believed, to the best of my recollection, that such matters would have been referred to the Director-General of Health for transmission to the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC]. I now confirm that such action did occur. In a covering letter dated 27 November, the email was indeed forwarded to the HCCC by the director-general, with a copy sent to the complainant.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I have a supplementary answer to the question asked of me by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the Director-General of Health. On 18 November last year the director of audit for the Department of Health provided the director-general with an interim report based on a series of discussions and interviews held between the department and the complainants. The Director-General of Health advised the Minister that the matter should be referred to the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC], the independent statutory body that is responsible for investigating allegations and complaints about the health system. The Minister agreed. The matter was referred to the HCCC on 18 November 2002.

At the same time the Director-General of Health formally advised NSW Police, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Coroner of the allegations and actions taken by the department in referring the matter to the HCCC. That is in accordance with normal procedures, and the information I have given was given in the estimates committee proceedings on Tuesday 25 November. It was also referred to in a media release by the honourable member for North Shore on 22 November, which stated:

I understand the Department of Health has also recommended that the allegations be referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

So it is a matter that she knew about.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: On 18 November the Leader of The Nationals asked me a question. On that day the Opposition attempted to use this House to criticise NSW Police, and, once again, it has been caught out. The Leader of The Nationals tried to denigrate the efforts of the northern region police and Operation Nightsafe. He tried to suggest that those hard-working police had rostered only one car to duty.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: I draw attention to Standing Order No. 82. The Minister, in answering a question, is seeking to impute improper motives to the Leader of The Nationals. The standing order is quite clear, it is specific, it does not make a general statement, and I draw your attention and that of the Leader of the House to it.

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

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will resume his seat. I place the honourable member for Gosford on three calls to order. I have not heard sufficient of the Minister's reply to be able to rule on the point of order. I will hear further from the Minister.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The Opposition was caught out again, because on 22 November in the Coffs Harbour newspaper the Advocate—

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will resume his seat. I remind him that he is on three calls to order.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The Advocate ran a story entitled "Highway patrol claims 'wrong'" in which Senior Sergeant Malcolm Read of the Northern Region Traffic Services sent a clear message to the Leader of The Nationals. The article stated:

"Nightsafe began in February when it became apparent that a great number of heavy vehicles had abandoned the New England Highway in favour of the upgraded Pacific Highway", Snr Sgt Read said.

"Four patrol cars are supplied by each of the area commands to patrol the highway, and additional vehicles are working out of Newcastle and the Central Coast."

The Leader of The Nationals should be careful, because untruths like that will simply make him less popular than the honourable member for Vaucluse.
Mr IAN ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [3.38 p.m.]: Earlier today I gave notice of a motion relevant to a Japanese flag from World War II, which was commemorated at Grenfell last Saturday. You indicated, sir, that you were going to ask the Clerks to rewrite the notice of motion on the basis that it contained debate. I put it to you that every word in that notice of motion is part of Australia's war history. I am prepared to substantiate every aspect of it. I find that my privilege has been abused in recording the inference that my motion is not accurate. It is dead accurate, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair did not intend to imply that the notice of motion given by the honourable member for Lachlan was in any way inaccurate. However, the motion was rather longwinded and, in the view of the Chair, contained matters of debate. I requested the honourable member for Lachlan to consider rewording the motion, with the assistance of the Clerks. I reiterate that the Chair in no way intended to denigrate or diminish the importance of the motion.

Mr BOB CARR (Maroubra—Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [3.41 p.m.]: My motion is urgent because Australian and United States of America negotiators are rushing to complete the free trade agreement by the end of January and there is little time left to protect Australian culture.

Mr JOHN BROGDEN (Pittwater—Leader of the Opposition) [3.42 p.m.]: My motion is urgent. The Government continues to make it clear, through its estimates committee hearings and through the ramblings of its former Minister, its current Minister, the director-general, and Jennifer Collins, who came out of hiding and fronted a parliamentary committee yesterday, that this is a sordid and dirty little affair. Clearly the Premier, the Hon. Bob Carr, is happy to spend $204,000 on his chief of staff; $178,000 on Walt Secord; $158,000 or more on Amanda Lampe; $3.2 million of taxpayers' funds on Rehame Australia media monitoring, a service that is performed on a regular basis; and $800,000 worth of funds for 9.5 staff to perform media monitoring in his office—yet whistleblower nurses in Camden and Campbelltown hospitals have not been paid for months.

The Premier is happy to look after his Labor mates like Jennifer Collins and to transfer her from Camden and Campbelltown hospitals into the Central Area Health Service on a $165,000-a-year non-senior executive service [SES] job—a look-alike SES job, as Dr Horvath told the estimates committee last week. The Premier is happy to look after Jennifer Collins, Walt Secord, and Rehame, and he is prepared to pay millions of dollars to look after the Labor organisation—

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: The Leader of the Opposition has rattled off a lot of names but he has not once mentioned the word "urgency". He should be directed to state why his motion is more urgent than the motion of the Premier.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not heard sufficient from the Leader of the Opposition to rule on the point of order. The honourable member for East Hills will resume his seat.

Mr JOHN BROGDEN: My motion it is urgent because only yesterday the Parliament heard from Jennifer Collins, a former Australian Labor Party member who for a long time has been cleaning up the mess that was left by the former health Minister, the Hon. Craig Knowles, on the Campbelltown and Camden hospitals issue. Only yesterday did Jennifer Collins front up at the estimates committee hearing and only then did we establish the full level of fraud and deceit in relation to this matter. In May 2003 NSW Health appointed Vern Dalton as mediator for whistleblower nurses, yet it took until 20 November 2003 to advise them—

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: I repeat my earlier point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is not establishing why his motion is urgent. He is debating the issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he must establish why his motion should have priority over the motion of the Premier.
Mr JOHN BROGDEN: This motion is urgent. This is the first opportunity that we have had in a week to discuss this matter, which is urgent because of further ongoing revelations. Whistleblower nurses in the Macarthur Area Health Service are not being paid, but Jennifer Collins is being paid $165,000. Whistleblower nurses are not being paid but Walt Secord, the Premier's spin doctor, is getting $180,000 a year. Whistleblower nurses are not being paid, but the Premier's chief of staff is getting $204,000. What is the view of Government backbench members about the fact that the Premier's chief of staff is being paid twice as much as they are being paid?

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: The Leader of the Opposition has rattled off what he alleges are the salaries being paid to staff of the Premier. That has nothing to do with this motion. The figures to which he referred cannot be substantiated. He should be asked to state why he believes his motion is more urgent than the motion of the Premier.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I again remind the Leader of the Opposition that he must establish why his motion should have priority. He should not debate the substance of the motion.

Mr JOHN BROGDEN: This motion is urgent because this is the first opportunity we have had to discuss and debate this matter since further and serious revelations last week. We need to discuss the clear relationship between Jennifer Collins, the Labor mate who is being looked after, and Amanda Adrian, the Health Care Complaints Commissioner. We established last week that they are work colleagues who worked together in the Department of Health, and that they socialised together—yet under the Labor Party the Health Care Complaints Commissioner is to investigate Jennifer Collins. It appears as though former Australian Labor Party members are looked after. We must urgently debate this grubby and corrupt matter. Time and again the Premier has refused to answer questions about this issue. He is standing by an incompetent and corrupt Health Care Complaints Commission—the body that should be properly investigating this matter. [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Maroubra be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Bartlett Ms Beamer Mr Black Mr Brown Miss Burton Mr Campbell Mr Carr Mr Collier Mr Corrigan Mr Crittenden Ms D'Amore Mr Debus Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mr Greene

Ms Hay Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Mr Iemma Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr Knowles Mr Lynch Mr McBride Mr McLeay Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Mr Morris Mr Newell Ms Nori Mr Orkopoulos Mrs Paluzzano

Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Mr Price Dr Refshauge Ms Saliba Mr Sartor Mr Scully Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Mr Tripodi Mr Watkins Mr West Mr Whan Mr Yeadon Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Mr Aplin Mr Armstrong Mr Barr Ms Berejiklian Mr Brogden Mr Cansdell Mr Constance Mr Debnam Mr Draper Mr Fraser Mrs Hancock Mr Hazzard Mr Kerr

Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Hopwood Mr Humpherson Mr Kerr Mr McGrane Mr Merton Ms Moore Mr Oakeshott Mr Page Mr Piccoli Mr Pringle Mr Richardson Mr Roberts

Ms Seaton Mrs Skinner Mr Slack-Smith Mr Souris Mr Stoner Mr Tink Mr Torbay Mr J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Tellers, Mr George Mr Maguire

Ms Burney

Mr Hartcher

Question resolved in the affirmative.


Mr BOB CARR (Maroubra—Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [3.53 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that more than 70 per cent of film-making in Australia takes place in New South Wales; and

(2) calls on the Federal Government to protect the Australian film and television industry during the current US-Australia free trade negotiations.

I am a strong supporter of a free trade agreement [FTA] with the United States of America. So are all the Australian Premiers and the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party. However, it now appears that the Federal Government is wedded to a different interpretation of the protection of Australian culture. The Federal Government reassured us that Australian culture would be nurtured following an FTA and we were assured that protective mechanisms for film and television production would remain in place. However, the film and television industry wants guarantees regarding the new quickly developing digital media.

Think back to the 1940s. If a comparable agreement had been negotiated at that time it might have provided protection for Australian content on radio but it would have offered no such protection for television, which arrived in the mid-1950s. Such protection would not have been allowed because the agreement would have said that no future legislation could protect that part of the Australian industry. That is analogous with our current position. The Australian Government is saying that it will not protect Australian content in the quickly developing new digital media. This means that technological breakthroughs such as video coming direct to television screens and all that digital technology promises will be open slather for the United States. Under the terms of the FTA it would be impossible to say, "Look, in these areas we're going to legislate for Australian content, as currently occurs with Australian television and film."

No-one can deny that the Australian market is open to American products. About 250 feature films are released into the Australian market each year, 70 per cent of them from the United States. Only 10 per cent of the films that we see are Australian. Last year 94 per cent of movie tickets sold in Australia were for films made in the United States. The story is similar in television. Between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of Australian prime-time television comes from the United States. In fact, more than 75 per cent of new television programs launched between September 2002 and April 2003 were foreign. In contrast, in the United States only 4 per cent of new television programs are foreign. Many would argue that the balance has been tipped too far in the direction of Hollywood. For example, George Miller recently said:

My kids know more about American culture than they do about our own, simply because of the onslaught of American culture.

That is a comment from one of our best directors. We can certainly say that the United States gets a fair deal in Australia. This means that any move by the Howard Government to scrap or cap Australian content rules is unnecessary. Two weeks ago at the Australian Film Industry Awards Geoffrey Rush said that the FTA would: leach the soil that nourishes and eventually produces this celebrated flowering.

That is the flowering of Australian talent. He was referring to Nicole Kidman, Russell Crowe, Baz Luhrmann, Naomi Watts, Cate Blanchett, Heath Ledger and the many other stars who have given our film industry international stature in the past decade. The Federal Minister for Trade has openly admitted that there will be a trade-off of local content, not necessarily affecting current technologies, such as free-to-air television and big-screen cinema, but certainly imperilling new technologies, such as video on demand, which may well become the main way that we view movies at home in the not too distant future. That would be disastrous.

Imagine a stand-still agreement signed in the 1920s that would have protected silent movies but not the technology to come—talkies. Imagine an agreement signed in 1940s that would have protected radio but not television. We cannot have an agreement that protects the current but not the future technology. We cannot afford to have any erosion of local content when production of Australian feature films has fallen by one third, from 30 to 19, in 2002-03. Expenditure on feature film and drama production is also down by 23 per cent to $513 million. We cannot afford for the industry to take any further blows. That is why this side of politics is calling on the Federal Government to take the same intelligent approach it took to the Singapore free trade agreement, which was signed earlier this year. That agreement contains an exclusion clause protecting cultural products. It states:

Australia reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure relating to:

• the creative arts, cultural heritage and other cultural industries, including audiovisual services, entertainment services and libraries, archives, museums and other cultural services

• broadcasting and audiovisual services, including measures relating to planning, licensing and spectrum management, and including:

1. Services offered in Australia

2. International services originating in Australia.

That is in the FTA between Australia and Singapore. It protects Australian culture. In particular and specifically, it protects our right to legislate to protect Australian content in future technologies. Let us see an exclusion clause for all present and future cultural content in any free trade agreement with the United States of America. Let us bear in mind that the Americans reportedly want to use the expression of cultural content in this FTA as a model or template for future free trade agreements elsewhere. That is not a big issue to them in terms of what they do in the Australian market, or what they will get, but it is a big issue to them because the Australian FTA will be a template for future FTAs that America might settle with bigger countries, for example, China.

That is why America attaches a high priority to this, and that makes it all the more important that we resist it: not only to protect out culture but to stake out the argument that we want to seek cultural diversity right around this planet. The Iranians, Pakistanis, and Chinese, among all the other peoples of the earth, are entitled to project their own culture through all the future technologies that will become available. There should not be a single culture dominating the world, emanating from Hollywood. That is what this is about: it is a huge issue of cultural diversity and cultural conservation. Culture is not just another economic product like cars or computers. It cannot be traded away as a mere bargaining chip.

As I said at a press conference with Australian actors earlier today, Sea Biscuit is not the story of Phar Lap. Stories like Phar Lap's ought to be told in the future and not just subsumed in movies like Sea Biscuit. We want to project our own stories. We want our creative people to be able to tell Australian stories to the world. That is fundamental to our sense of identity. It is about who we are and our place in the world. We have a movie industry and a television industry only because of those protective mechanisms. It is always cheaper to import the Hollywood product. We have Australians doing well overseas because they were nurtured in our industry. Nicole Kidman was in Australian television before she got a chance to be in big movies made in Los Angeles. Let us have a free trade agreement, but not at the price of our culture. As someone said at the Australian Film Industry awards a fortnight ago:

We're not talking about inanimate objects. We're talking about the way we express ourselves, our hearts and our minds… and you can't sell that. You can't sell out.

I commend the motion to the House.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore) [4.03 p.m.]: I absolutely agree with the Premier and that is why I compliment the Commonwealth on its position in relation to the outcomes of the Australia-United States of America free trade agreement for making sure that the Government's ability to regulate for cultural and social objectives now or into the future is not undermined. It is very rich of the Premier to jump on the latest bandwagon when he has been absolutely silent on all matters to do with the arts for as long as he has been the Minister for the Arts.

The Coalition has nurtured the arts in this State, and the Federal Coalition Government has done that throughout Australia. The most acclaimed Arts Minister in this State was Peter Collins. I can assure honourable members that in the latest round of discussions about the free trade agreement [FTA] the Commonwealth Government made it quite clear that it has no intention of jeopardising the future of Australia's film industry. In fact, the Federal Government is on record saying that it recognises that flexibility is needed in existing media—film, media and so on—and in new media. The Hon. Mark Vaile, the Federal Minister for Trade, said:

We will ensure that our capacity to support Australian culture and national identity, including in audiovisual media, is not watered down in the negotiations.

That could not be clearer and I do not understand the motivation of the Premier in moving this motion, except to make mischief. The Federal Government has clearly recognised both the importance of existing policy interventions in the audiovisual sector and the challenges posed by new media and technological developments. The Federal Government is factoring those considerations into the negotiations. The commitment is spelled out in the Federal Government's statement of objectives for the FTA. It is a shame the Premier did not read those objectives before he moved his motion and scared people in the arts community about something that was obviously never on the agenda.

It is quite extraordinary that the Premier has ignored the fact that this year the Howard Government budgeted $133 million for the film industries, in contrast with the Federal Labor Government commitment of $104.56 million in its last year in office, 1994. The most ludicrous aspect is the State Government's commitment to the film industry, as reported in 2003-04 Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 1, at page 2-135. There the operating statement for the New South Wales Film and Television Office, which is funded by the Minister for the Arts, who is none other than the Premier, records that last year the Government allocated $9.853 million to the Film and Television Office and that this year it has cut that allocation by 2.9 per cent to $9.57 million. According to the budget papers:

The New South Wales Film and Television Office promotes, encourages and facilitates film and television production, invests in script development, provides grants for industry and audience development and new media and offers a liaison service between filmmakers and locations owners.

Today, the Minister for the Arts, the Premier, in a sanctimonious manner, called upon the Federal Government to protect the industry free trade agreement, when he has betrayed the industry by reducing its real funding this financial year. That is the most hypocritical approach to a very important aspect of our life in Australia because everybody in this country recognises the wonderful job that Australian film-makers have done in recent times. That includes people involved in all sectors of film-making, including performers, directors, cameramen, costume designers and those involved in animation. One of my children trained in the arts and has worked in theatre, and a friend of one of my children works in the animation sector of the film industry in Australia and has been lucky enough to work on animation in movies like the Mad Max series.

Many recognise the tremendous contribution that Australians have made to the development of the international film industry, and all would want to ensure that that contribution continues. But that demands that we all work together—the Commonwealth Government, the State Government and people in the industry—and not play these silly games of blaming people, when no-one is to blame. The Carr Government, if it got real on this issue, would provide adequate funding to enable organisations like the New South Wales Film Office to get on with the job. The Federal Government has done much to secure a solid future for the Australian film industry. A 12.5 per cent film tax offset has been allowed for qualifying large-budget film productions—an initiative that brought producers to Australia to make films such as The Matrix sequels, Peter Pan, Star Wars 3 and Stealth—big budget films that are strengthening our film industry's infrastructure. If the Premier were genuinely concerned about negotiations in relation to the free trade agreement he would take note of the comments made by the Australian trade Minister, the Hon. Mark Vaile, and the Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard. Mark Vaile was reported by the Australian Financial Review of 21 November this year to have said:

The US has been very clear that they are not seeking substantive changes in the laws Australia has in place to ensure Australian viewers continue to see Australian stories told in Australian voices. The government's direct support for Australian culture—including for film production—will not be affected in any way by these negotiations.

The Prime Minister, when interviewed on radio 3AW in Melbourne on 21 November, said:

We're not willing to give up the existing local content rules. we think they're worth preserving.

Finally, I quote Senator Rod Kemp, who said, when interviewed on ABC on 24 November:

The Government simply will not allow the outcomes in the United States Free Trade Agreement to undermine our capacities to deliver on fundamental cultural objectives, and quite clearly one of our fundamental cultural objectives is to have a healthy and vibrant film sector.

On this matter, which we had to discuss urgently, there is absolute agreement: there is no risk to Australia's film industry, because the Commonwealth Government gave guarantees that there will be no such risk. It is distressing that the House is using its time debating this subject when we could have been debating an urgent matter affecting the lives of the people of New South Wales—nurse shortages and the maladministration of the health system. That matter has an immediate impact on people's lives. I am sure some Government members, because they have no flair and insufficient ability to speak without prepared speeches, will read from prepared material. They will not mention the fact that there is no risk to the Australian film industry. This House could have been discussing an urgent motion proposed by the Leader of the Liberal Party about nurse shortages, the maladministration of the New South Wales health system and the circumstances in which patients are dying in this State. [Time expired.]

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [4.13 p.m.]: I share the very real concern expressed by the Premier that the Federal Government may sacrifice our film and television industry as it continues to negotiate a free trade agreement. The New South Wales Government has supported the efforts of the Federal Government to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States of America. On 12 November this year I met with senior Australian negotiators to discuss the progress on this agreement. I sought and received assurances that Australia would not surrender the right to support and promote our culture in films, television and new media. On that basis, on the same day I outlined in this Chamber the Government's support for the free trade negotiations. Frankly, I was shocked when only nine days later, on 21 November, the Federal Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, did a backflip on this key issue. On that day Australian Associated Press reported that Mr Vaile now believed that local content may be sacrificed for economic benefits. Mr Vaile said:

Australia may be willing to settle for less local film and television content ...

I am not sure which Australians Mark Vaile claimed to be speaking for, because I do not know any Australian who would support a sell-out of Australian culture in the way he suggested in those quotations. I note that the honourable member who spoke for the Opposition is of the same view that I have just expressed. Leading lights of the Australian film and television industry have eloquently expressed their fears for the future of our culture if Prime Minister Howard and Federal trade Minister Vaile use it as a bargaining chip. I find it particularly ironic that Mr Vaile has said this is an issue where we need to be creative. The Federal Government seems prepared to stomp on the ability of others to be creative to ensure Australians can watch their own stories on television and the big screen in their own country. It is also ironic that part of this argument is about the future of great Aussie actors—the next Nicole Kidman, Heath Ledger, Mel Gibson or Geoffrey Rush. Where would Hollywood be without them? Australia has been a breeding ground of great talent—talent that has been gleefully grabbed by the United States of America, talent that has generated vast sums for the United States economy.

Mark Vaile is the Deputy Leader of the Federal Nationals. Recently the Leader of The Nationals in New South Wales joined with me in this place to sing the praises of the film and television industry as an economic boon for regional New South Wales. At that time I told honourable members how feature and documentary production had injected more than $10 million into regional New South Wales in the past five years. That spending created more than 3,000 country jobs. In reply, the Leader of The Nationals spoke enthusiastically about the importance of the film industry to New South Wales. I must ask the question: What is he doing to make sure his Federal counterparts support this industry, instead of selling it out?

In the past few months I have been fortunate enough to join two tours of film-makers and location scouts through regional New South Wales. This Carr Government project introduced more than 20 film and television industry experts to the Northern Rivers, the Illawarra, the South Coast and the Southern Highlands. A previous tour to the Hunter and Broken Hill resulted in the production of six projects, injecting about $600,000 into the local economies. The most recent tours received rave reviews from the participants. Some had never been to those regions before and were impressed by the quality of information they received, and the warm welcome. There is every indication the tours will result in substantial spending in those regional areas, spending that regional New South Wales cannot afford to lose.

The Federal Government must be firm with the American negotiators to ensure the Australian audiovisual industry as we know it today and might imagine it in the future can reach its full potential. Our film and television industry is minnow-like compared to America's. Just two weekends ago Phillip Adams wrote in thee Australian that the United States of America takes about $92 of every $100 that Australians spend at the box office. Our future audiovisual industry will be much more than television and movies. It is possible to negotiate a free trade deal that caters for a changing industry. The agreement that Australia signed with Singapore earlier this year contained these words:

Australia reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure relating to:

• the creative arts, cultural heritage and other cultural industries, including audiovisual services, entertainment services and libraries, archives, museums and other cultural services

• broadcasting and audiovisual services, including measures relating to planning, licensing and spectrum management, and including:

1. Services offered in Australia

2. International services originating in Australia.

As I have said, it is possible to negotiate an agreement that will protect these vital cultural industries. I urge the Federal Government to replicate this in our agreement with the United State of America.

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield) [4.18 p.m.]: I would like to read a short film script. It is based on a potentially true scenario. The working title is John Howard Trades Off Australia's Film Industry for Daffy Duck.

SCENE 1. INTERIOR – DUSK

Set in the near future. A suburban lounge room. A family watch TV.

Daughter: Cowabunga! Dad. Can we go to Disneyland?

Dad: Sorry, honey, Disneyland's in Los Angeles. That's a very long way to go.

Daughter: Hey! Can we go to Neverland?

Dad: How about we go to Sydney Aquarium in the holidays?

Daughter: Dad, where's Sydney?

Dad: Struth! It's the capital of New South Wales.

Daughter: Hel-lo! Dad! Washington is the capital.

Dad: No, dear; that's in America.

Daughter: Whatever. Do the fish talk at the aquarium?

Dad: No, fish don't talk. They just swim around and blow bubbles.

Daughter: All the animals talk on TV, Dad—Ninja Turtles, Donald Duck, Big Bird.

Dad: Struth! Is there anything decent to watch on TV tonight, luv, except all these reruns?

Dad picks up TV remote. Cut to close-up of a television screen flicking through channels: baseball league, commercial, Temptation Island 15, commercial, Donald Duck, American evangelist, commercial, Bad Boys 6. Cut to dad: throws the remote on the lounge. Door opens, son enters limping, wearing baseball cap and carrying the usual skateboard.

Mum, to son: Honey, what happened to your leg?

Son: I busted out, did a super fast hard flip, popped up high, then my shoe slipped and I racked my butt. The whole crew laughed. Man, it burned me. Dad, I gotta get some shoes.

Mum: Sorry, honey, we can't afford new shoes. Your dad lost his job at the film studio today.

Son: I'll see you on Wednesday, unless you catch a spray, that went astray, from my A-K.

Son limps out of the door.

Dad, staring wide-eyed at mum: What the hell did he say?

Mum: Said he will be home for dinner, Wednesday.

FADE OUT.
That fictional scene could be closer to reality if Mark Vaile uses our film and television industries as a bargaining chip in the up-coming free trade negotiations with the United States. The Australian audiovisual industries play a vital role, not only in affecting our culture, dreams, aspirations and anxieties but also in forming them. If we run our industries purely on globalised market principles we might have world industries, but will they provide content that relates specifically to Australian audiences and talks specifically about Australian themes? The United States of America already has a major share of the Australian feature film and television market. Some 75 per cent of new television programs launched from September 2002 to April 2003 were foreign to Australia, compared to 4 per cent in the US. Australian audiences are already seeing the world through an American lens. We do not want our market share to decline; we want it to grow.

We are not the only ones with this problem. Many countries around the globe believe they are under siege in a cultural sense. The strength of our community lies in its diversity: our differences make us who we are. Television content and cultural representation go to the heart of Australia's national identity. We do not want to become just another satellite State of America. Our cultural production maps our lives and offers a mirror into which to gaze, a place where we can recognise ourselves with all our faults and strengths. We cannot allow this to be treated as an economic issue because framing the debate in such a way is like selling Australia's very soul. Recently I spoke with Richard Harris from the Australian Screen Directors Association, who emphasised the need to differentiate our cultural industries from others affected by the negotiations. The impact of any deregulation on our culture may be difficult to measure, but it has the potential to be devastating.

I also spoke to Jonathan Mills, New South Wales Branch Secretary of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. Like Jonathan, I believe passionately that the standstill option is unacceptable. If these negotiations had taken place 50 years ago how could negotiators have anticipated the introduction of television, pay TV and FM radio? It is simply too difficult to predict how audiovisual technology will develop. We should retain the right to determine, author and potentially strengthen cultural regulation. If we cannot determine future local content provisions and provide focused strategic financial support, Australian stories will not be told. Productions like Kath and Kim, Mad Max, Neighbours, The Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert and Babe will not be possible. Our extraordinarily talented actors will have no audience, our inspirational writers will have no-one to produce their plays and our outstanding musicians will have no listeners.

We need a Prime Minister who will not roll over to the Americans. The Howard Government should exclude cultural content from any free trade agreement with the United States, consistent with the free trade agreement negotiated recently with Singapore. With the greatest respect to the honourable member for North Shore, she must be living in "Neverland". It is obvious from her comments that she does not understand what the negotiations are all about.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [4.23 p.m.], in reply by leave: The seriousness with which the Opposition regards the film industry is demonstrated by the fact that it could find only one member to speak to the motion. That is disappointing. The single Opposition speaker supported the motion, but one would have thought that more than one member of the Opposition would be interested in the creative arts and would have taken the opportunity to speak to the motion. The Government knows the importance of the film industry to the economy of the State generally and to regional areas particularly. Indeed, films, television shows and commercials have been made on the North Coast and in the Far West.

The Government has made a commitment to encourage film scouts and production houses to look at opportunities in the regions. I note that the honourable member for South Coast is in the Chamber. Only a few weeks ago film scouts examined locations in her area. The Government has established the Regional Film Fund to support filming in regional locations. During free trade negotiations with the United States we must ensure that the cultural industries of our State, particularly the film industry, are given the opportunity to continue to thrive. It is important for this Chamber to support this urgent motion, particularly the paragraph that calls on the Federal Government to protect the Australian film and television industry during the current United States-Australian free trade negotiations. Apparently, comments have been made that that may not be so.

Mrs Jillian Skinner: The Federal Government agrees. What is the problem?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: It is important to have on record that the honourable member for North Shore is giving an absolute commitment, by way of interjection, on behalf of the Federal Government, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade that that will be the case. As recently as 21 November Australian Associated Press reported that protection for our industry may be traded away. That is why the motion was moved. A week or so ago I made a ministerial statement about the $50 million production Stealth which is currently in preproduction and will start production at Fox Studios early next year. Sets have been constructed at Alexandria. Many times the Premier has spoken about the importance of the film industry to the State. We will continue to put in place initiatives like the Regional Film Fund to ensure that movies like Danny Deckchair, which was made in Bellingen, can continue to be made in regional centres. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.


Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [4.29 p.m.]: I ask the House to note as a matter of public importance the impending official opening of the University of Wollongong's second campus in Dubai. I speak on this topic with enormous pride, not only as an Illawarra resident and as the member of Parliament whose electorate includes the university's main campus, but also as a member of the Council of the University of Wollongong.. The importance of the United Arab Emirates [UAE] as an export destination for New South Wales and the rest of Australia cannot be overstated. The University of Wollongong recognised the UAE's importance as far back as 1992 when it sent its Vice-Principal, International, James Langridge, to Dubai for the first of what would be many visits. A year later the University of Wollongong opened the Institute of Australian Studies in Dubai. In 1999 it became the first western university to operate a campus in the United Arab Emirates. This was a revolutionary push into a brave new world at a time when other western universities were pushing into Asia.

I cannot praise the university enough, particularly the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Gerard Sutton, and Mr Langridge for their visionary approach to offshore operations. Some would say the decision to set up in the UAE was a courageous one, but it has paid off handsomely. It has reinforced the reputation of the University of Wollongong as a place of forward thinking, a place where academics and managers think outside the box. That sort of innovative thinking is behind the university's innovation campus, which is being established with State Government support in Fairy Meadow. The innovation campus is the future face of Wollongong. It is a drawcard for high-technology industries, including information and communication technology, to join forces with the university in one convenient location. The campus underscores the university's commitment to collaborating with business and industry and to work with the corporate world for mutual benefit. The enhancement to its already powerful research capacity will be tremendous.

In Dubai the University of Wollongong's student numbers have grown as more and more people realise that they have access to a western-style university. The degrees earned at the University of Wollongong in Dubai carry the same value as if they were earned at the main campus in the electorate of Keira. The UAE is a thriving business centre which had a gross domestic product of more than $US76 billion in 2003 and real growth of more than 3 per cent. It is a significant trading partner with Australia and New South Wales. Australia's export trade with the UAE during 2002-03 was worth $1.2 billion. New South Wales exports to the UAE in the same period were worth $A65 million. The UAE is a developing market as it imports more than 90 per cent of its total annual requirements and offers New South Wales exporters opportunities in almost every industry sector. Consider the demand for what are known as elaborately transformed manufactures—cars, industrial machinery and ships, to name just a few—which comprised barely 7 per cent of Australia's total exports to the UAE in 1990-91 but grew to account for more than 36 per cent of exports in the past financial year.

In recognition of these opportunities, the New South Wales Government organised four general trade missions and two industry-specific market visits to the UAE. The first of these was held in May 1999. As I speak, 11 New South Wales companies are taking part in our State's display at the Big 5 building and construction industry exhibition in Dubai. Another trade mission is scheduled for March 2004. I have every confidence that it will be as successful as previous ventures. To date more than 80 New South Wales companies have taken advantage of the opportunity that has been provided by the Carr Government to meet with potential buyers and business partners in this exciting and dynamic part of the world. The UAE is undergoing phenomenal growth. There is the $US4 billion Westside Marina project; the Palm Islands project, which is also worth $US4 billion; Health Care City in Dubai, costing $US2 billion; and Dubai's International Finance Centre, which is also worth $US2 billion. The New South Wales Government is committed to ensuring that our businesses are best positioned to take advantage of this booming region.

There are more than 4,000 Australian nationals and 80 Australian companies in the UAE covering diverse industries, including architectural services, banking, construction materials and equipment, agricultural supplies, industrial minerals, oilfield supplies and, of course, education services. Boral Plasterboard, Clipsal, Foster's, Hawker Pacific, Morgan and Banks, Multiplex, Rydges, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and Woods Bagot, along with the University of Wollongong, to name a few, are hard at work in the UAE. New South Wales exports to the UAE will be worth more than $A65 million in 2002-03. That will increase because of the diverse demands of those living in the UAE. The UAE's population is rapidly increasing. More and more expatriates want to work in the region where the UAE is the hub. The UAE's population stands at 3.6 million, which is an increase from 2.6 million in 1997, and it is predicted to double by 2010. Almost 80 per cent of the population are expatriates from 220 countries. That obviously has a big impact on purchasing patterns. Consumers in the UAE are looking for a diverse range of products and services, and that offers great opportunities for New South Wales businesses.

The UAE depends on imports. More than 90 per cent of its requirements are imported. Australia's exports to the UAE have been growing by 20 per cent a year. That represents an incredible opportunity for our exporters of goods and services to expand their markets. In fact, about one-fifth of the cars in the gulf are from Australia, and it is a burgeoning market for car accessories. One of the inventions that has been a hit in the UAE is a tyre deflator for desert driving. Supermarket shelves are stocked with Australian products, including staple products such as Vegemite and Nutri-Grain. First-time exporters find the UAE a welcoming new market. Australian cherries found their way onto the shelves in Dubai only a week after the grower expressed an interest in the market. The New South Wales Government was able to assist the grower to approach Austrade to get into the UAE.

Australian companies working in the UAE are involved in a wide range of endeavours, including the supply and servicing of building and construction equipment, water and waste water technology, oil and gas production equipment and services, food and food-processing equipment, irrigation equipment, education and training services, health services and much more. I make the point, in the context of education and training services, that the University of Wollongong's contribution is a significant one. It illustrates how all this happens. One firm or one organisation establishes itself in a country and starts to build contacts and provide advice, and it goes on from there. That is the benefit of the hard work of ensuring that businesses in New South Wales obtain access to markets such as the UAE. It is all about learning by experience and levering off each other.

Australian companies that are involved in the construction industry in Dubai and the UAE have a reputation that is second to none in one of the country's most important sectors. Our tourism links are growing as well. A third of all Middle East tourists to Australia are from the UAE. That figure should continue to increase with the continuing expansion of air services between Australia and the UAE. Anecdotal comments by people on the main campus at the University of Wollongong reveal that people who have studied at the Dubai campus take the opportunity to visit Wollongong and New South Wales as tourists to inspect the university's main campus. A sense of tourism has developed from the educational presence of the University of Wollongong in the UAE, and that is particularly important. All this comment merely serves to show how smart it was for the University of Wollongong to position itself in such a market. It was ahead of its time then, and it is ahead of its time now as it prepares to open its second campus in Dubai.

The university deserves much praise and all good wishes for future success as it continues its work as an Australian trailblazer in a dynamic part of the world. It is an Australian trailblazer in exporting services, particularly educational services. All too often in this country we refer to exports in terms of minerals, agricultural products and manufactured products, but is important for us to recognise that the export of services is a significant, untapped component of the economy. In September, in my capacity as the Minister the Small Business, as part of Small Business September I was pleased to launch a kit for exporters of services. The kit consists of a compact disc prepared by the New South Wales Government showing the opportunities provided by the export of services, such as education, architectural and other professional services. That component of our economy can make a real contribution to the export performance of New South Wales and Australia. In the context of this matter of public importance, I again take the opportunity to acknowledge the university's contribution and congratulate it on the efforts it has made. The University of Wollongong has been twice named Australian University of the Year.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore) [4.39 p.m.]: The Coalition joins with the Government in congratulating the University of Wollongong, particularly its international arm, the Illawarra Technology Corporation [ITC], on its success in this venture in the United Arab Emirates [UAE]. It is particularly rewarding to note that this second Dubai Campus of the University of Wollongong was 18 months in the planning; the first campus was established nine years ago. On behalf of the Coalition I join the Minister in congratulating the Vice-Chancellor of the university, Professor Gerard Sutton, on this achievement. In an article in the Australian on 26 November Professor Sutton stated that the involvement of Mr Mark Vaile, the Federal Minister for Trade, in the launch was significant and an indication of the Federal Government's support for the venture.

It is very unusual in this House for two matters to be discussed consecutively in relation to which the Government and the Coalition both congratulate the Federal Government on its attitude and thank Mr Mark Vaile. While the Carr Government might want to talk about the impact of this venture because of its relationship with New South Wales, it is largely a Commonwealth Government involvement. Many years ago I was working in the Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs when education was identified as having the potential of being one of this State's greatest export products. The Dubai Campus, offering a university education, is a great example of that, but education could be exported at all levels.

Mr David Campbell: New South Wales TAFE does a great job.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: TAFE does a fantastic job. Schools are establishing links with other countries, particularly South-East Asia. Recently I made a personal visit to Singapore and visited personnel in its Ministry of Education. I was interested to note Australia's involvement in education in Singapore. The 1,600 students at the Dubai Campus of the University of Wollongong comprise 62 nationalities; it is a relatively big campus for a new facility. The ITC chief, James Langridge, said that students chose Wollongong's Dubai Campus because they could study at a Western university without leaving their country. That is a very great selling point for students in the Middle East. They are attracted to learn through a Western facility, because sometimes leaving their country might be difficult or prohibitive.

That University of Wollongong is the only Western university with a campus in the UAE, and brings in $16 million each year in student fees. Earlier I said that education is an export product, and this campus is a clear demonstration of that export. Mr Langridge, the chief executive of the Illawarra Technology Corporation, said that postgraduate education would continue to be the focus of the University of Wollongong in the provision of services to the UAE. It offers masters degrees in business administration and quality management; something I would have thought to be useful and very much in demand in those countries. Mr Langridge said also that postgraduate education would continue to be the focus, as there were already 21 local universities offering undergraduate programs. Another attractive feature of Wollongong is its links with international universities, which enable postgraduate study overseas. The article concluded:

… the university hopes to boost student numbers to 5000 in the next five years and is increasing the amount of satellite operations in other parts of the UAE.

This is a very important investment for the University of Wollongong and a very successful project for New South Wales and Australia. It should become a model for investment in education services overseas. It is important that we support the Commonwealth Government and recognise the very valuable contribution that it makes. Given that this Parliament often debates motions condemning our Federal colleagues, it would be very generous of the Minister to put on the record his congratulations and compliments to Minister Vaile, as has the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Wollongong, Gerard Sutton, to whom Minister Campbell earlier referred. Obviously this is a very worthwhile project that we should all encourage, and we should never be reluctant to praise and give thanks for the work that has been done.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong) [4.45 p.m.]: As another proud Illawarra-based member of Parliament, I share the Minister's delight at the University of Wollongong's continuing success in the United Arab Emirates [UAE]. It is very exciting to know that in a few days the university will open its second campus in Dubai, just four years after becoming the first Western university to establish a campus in the UAE. The University of Wollongong remains the only Australian university operating within the UAE. The University of Wollongong in Dubai is run by the university's corporate arm, the Illawarra Technology Corporation Limited [ITC]. Its director is Professor Rodney Hills, formerly the Australian High Commissioner to Tonga and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Papua New Guinea. Other western universities run courses such as Master of Business Administration by distance education to the UAE but the ITC continues to manage the only offshore campus.

Students from Dubai can transfer to Wollongong to undertake further studies as similar programs are offered from the main Wollongong campus and in Dubai. This year both campuses of the University of Wollongong in Dubai had enrolled almost 1,600 students for its spring session; a 20 per cent increase on the number enrolled for the same session in the previous year—an amazing growth of 500 per cent since 1999. The university's Dubai campuses are truly international with students from 62 nationalities. The academic teaching staff has grown to 35, with the total staff approaching 100. Undergraduate degrees offered by the University of Wollongong in Dubai include a Bachelor of Commerce specialising in marketing, management or economics, Bachelor of Business Administration, Bachelor of Internet Science, and Bachelor of Computer Science. It offers also masters degrees in business administration, international business, and quality management.

The University of Wollongong in Dubai began teaching certificate and diploma programs for the United Kingdom-based Institute of Financial Services in October 2002, following accreditation by the institute. Its library doubled in size during the year with the provision of computer study spaces and two quiet study rooms. The major appeal for students in the UAE is that they can attend a western-style university without leaving the country and be assured that the degrees carry the same value as if the students were attending the University of Wollongong in Australia. The soaring student numbers are a clear indication that more overseas students are becoming aware that they can gain a quality education through an Australian-run institution. Student numbers are expected to soar from 1,600 this year to 5,000 in five years. Finally, I too extend my congratulations to Professor Sutton and Mr Langridge, who is quite rightly regarded as the founding father of the University of Wollongong in Dubai. Their foresight is taking Wollongong to the world.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [4.50 p.m.], in reply: I spoke earlier in debate about the trade missions run by the New South Wales Government to the United Arab Emirates [UAE]—missions designed to help our companies capitalise on the almost endless opportunities offered by this rapidly growing economy. Among the companies that participated was PCWI Pty Ltd from Cardiff, which designs and manufactures high voltage test instruments that detect porosity or pinholes in various coatings on metal and concrete surfaces that have been applied to eliminate corrosion. Talking about the Department of State and Regional Development, PCWI's General Manager, Laurie Sullivan, had this to say:

Our participation in these programs has been a vital factor in the company's success in new international markets and I have no doubt that without the department's partnership and support we would not have progressed in markets such as China and the Middle East.

Yamba boat builder Bill Collingburn, of Yamba Welding and Engineering Pty Ltd, who was part of a trade mission to the UAE in April last year, said:

This was a focused and intense business trip in which we achieved huge exposure and as a result we are already quoting on several projects in the area, including a $3 million contract.

He continued:

The DSRD team are to be congratulated for their business-like and effective use of funds, providing us with the best possible introduction to this market.

Geotechnique Pty Ltd from Penrith was also on that trade mission. That company offers a range of services including testing soils prior to any construction activity to gauge compaction and load-bearing capacity. The company representative on the mission had this to say:

The department organised a business marketing survey for us, identifying suitable companies and then arranged a series of appointments with these organisations.

That company, which is now moving into the UAE, is concentrating on environmental engineering. Another participant in the April 2002 trade mission to the UAE was Edmonds Products (Australia) Pty Ltd of Brookvale, which specialises in the design and manufacture of ventilation products with an emphasis on energy efficiency. Managing Director Alan Ramsey said that the mission to the UAE enabled him to make essential high-level contacts. He had already been to the region but had been unable to gain a foothold until the April 2002 trade mission. Mr Ramsey said this of the mission:

The principal achievement was to gain not one, but two, visits to the general headquarters of Military Works—notoriously difficult to get into. We were invited back after meeting the Brigadier to present a seminar to designers and project engineers.

Mr Ramsey said that it was a "wonderful opportunity" and that it was "marvellous" to get that crucial door opened. A year earlier, food manufacturer Cerebos sent a representative on a State Government trade mission to the UAE. Its verdict was that Cerebos achieved "excellent exposure amongst decision-makers by being invited to functions attended by government Ministers, business leaders and others in the local hierarchy". I acknowledge the contribution of my colleague the honourable member for Wollongong in debate on this matter of public importance. Although she was only recently elected as a member of this Parliament, I know from discussions with her that she is a strong supporter of the University of Wollongong and its endeavours at its main campus and satellite campuses along the South Coast and in the Southern Highlands. I know that she strongly supports its joint venture at the Loftus TAFE campus.

I thank the honourable member for Wollongong for her contribution to this debate. I acknowledge the support that was given earlier by Opposition members and by the honourable member for North Shore. While the honourable member for Wollongong was speaking earlier the honourable member for Albury indicated by way of interjection that he had been on a visit to the UAE and had visited the campus. As a former resident of Wollongong I am sure that the honourable member for Albury would be delighted to know that the university has that presence in the UAE. He would also be delighted to know that it is expanding and establishing a second campus. A number of the issues that I spoke about earlier related to trade delegations led by the New South Wales Government. When those trade missions go to other countries such as the UAE, Japan, India, or other locations, the Federal Government body Austrade lends its support. There is a bipartisan approach to ensure growth in the export performance of Australian and New South Wales companies. I congratulate the University of Wollongong.

Discussion concluded.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! It being before 5.15 p.m., with the consent of the House I propose to proceed to the taking of private members' statements.

Mr PAUL GIBSON (Blacktown) [4.55 p.m.]: This evening I refer to a function that I and other members of Parliament attended on Friday night—the twentieth anniversary of the Schools Spectacular. The show, which is by far the best entertainment in Australia every year, depicts young people having fun. That is exactly what happened on Friday night. The Schools Spectacular is a feelgood show and a real pick-me-up. I inform those who were not fortunate enough to see the show that it will be televised next Sunday evening. It was the greatest display of talent that could be found anywhere in the world. Anyone who believes that there are problems in education in New South Wales should watch the televising of that show—a great demonstration of the fact that the State education system is alive and well. I am proud of public education in this State and I am proud of those young and talented artists who danced and performed on the night. I pay tribute to Mary Lopez, Director of the Schools Spectacular, who has been running the show for the past 20 years.

Mr Sartor: She is very good.

Mr GIBSON: She is very good and she is a great lady. Mary's wish is that the Australian entertainment and music industry continues to provide platforms for young Australians to entertain. Mary Lopez, almost single-handedly, has changed the entertainment industry in this nation. She has given talented young people a stage on which to strut their stuff. Some of those young people have gone on to become great performers. Nathan Foley and a number of other performers all started at the Schools Spectacular. I refer to some of the great young artists who performed on the night and who I am sure will be household names in the future. Chloe Skipp from Bulli High School sang Diamonds are a G