Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 4 December 2003, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Thursday 4 December 2003
______

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

Mr Speaker tabled, pursuant to section 52A of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the report entitled "Auditor-General's Report—Financial Audits—Volume Six 2003".

Ordered to be printed.

COMMUNITY PROTECTION (CLOSURE OF ILLEGAL BROTHELS) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Ms PETA SEATON (Southern Highlands) [10.01 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I introduce this bill on behalf of the Opposition. The bill continues to push the case for much-needed reform and gives the Carr Government a chance to get it right this time by voting for it. The Government will probably say we do not need to change and that all is well. The Government is wrong. On 27 October the Daily Telegraph outlined a very difficult issue experienced by residents in Baulkham Hills, where an illegal brothel had been set up in medium-density development, next to residences. The Daily Telegraph reported:

The article outlined similar problems experienced in a number of Sydney council areas, including Newtown and Marrickville. On the North Shore, Willoughby City Council was forced to hire a private investigator to obtain evidence on an illegal parlour. Those are examples and evidence of why the Government must support this bill. The Government has made all sorts of excuses in the past and claimed that things were fixed, that everything is well, but clearly it is not. On that same day the Daily Telegraph editorial stated:

Referring to Baulkham Hills the editorial continued:

The Coalition agrees; this is totally unacceptable and that is why we have introduced this bill today in an effort to do what councils have wanted the Government to do for some time. Councils want those loopholes closed and they want to be able to close down illegal brothels speedily, efficiently and at minimum cost to ratepayers. As a result, and with the steady flow of concerns flowing in from councils, local residents and police, it is urgent that we try, again, to fix this problem. I ask the Government to support us on this initiative, and help make a difference. Supporting this bill would mean that families will get their neighbourhoods back, mothers will be able to let their children play outside in places where now they are afraid to let their children see the trade that can be going on next door in a suburban block of flats.

The bill will restore to owners of strata title properties some control over what goes on in their buildings, when certain people try to operate an illegal brothel out of a flat. I acknowledge the support for this bill by the Institute of Strata Titles Management; it knows the bill will make a difference to the people it represents. The bill will restore control to councils over what goes on in their area, without costing resident ratepayers an arm and a leg in legal fees while their council is forced into months of litigation under present laws to prove that a brothel is illegal and not an escort agency. The bill will help protect underage girls and young men who can easily fall prey to unscrupulous illegal brothel operators who offer a young homeless person a roof over their head, at huge human cost. I am sure that the honourable member for Vaucluse would agree that this bill would give police the support they are seeking.

Mr Peter Debnam: Much-needed support.

Ms PETA SEATON: Absolutely. The police are very keen to see reform in this area. The Leader of the Opposition introduced a very similar bill in the last session of Parliament, and argued strongly, especially on behalf of councils, for the adoption of the bill. I commend him for that. He consulted widely with councils, received enormous support and encouragement, and proceeded with the bill. What did the Labor Party do? It voted it down. Well, we are going to try again and will not be deterred. The underlying principles are to recognise the danger to public health and safety that is caused by the operation of illegal brothels in inappropriate locations within the community. Accordingly, the objects of the bill are:

(a) to protect the community from the operation of illegal brothels,

(b) to encourage the restriction and regulation of brothels under instruments and policies made or adopted by local councils, and

Schedule 1 to the bill sets out some of the main objects of the bill and explains that presently under section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the principal Act, local councils may give a person an order to do or refrain from doing specified things in certain circumstances. Schedule 1 [3] amends the table to section 121B of the Act to specifically provide for the giving of an order under that section to cease using premises for the purposes of an illegal brothel, that is, in certain circumstances where the use of the premises as a brothel is prohibited under an environmental planning instrument or where development consent is required but has not been obtained. The order may be given to the owner of the premises or the person by whom the premises are being used as a brothel.

Schedule 1 [1] will change the term "brothel" in the principal Act to the same meaning as in the Restricted Premises Act 1943, namely, premises habitually used for the purposes of prostitution, or that have been used for that purpose and are likely to be used again for that purpose. Schedule 1 [2] excludes development for the purposes of a brothel from the operation of the State environmental planning policy [SEPP] 1, Development Standards. This is a very important provision, because in the past it has been very difficult for councils to defend themselves against arguments by proponents that they should be given consent for a brothel under SEPP 1. This makes it clear that SEPP1 cannot be used for that purpose. The additional provision inserted by schedule 1 [4] entrenches the underlying principles and objects of the proposed amendments in the principal Act. Schedule 1 [5] inserts a provision that certain requirements under the principal Act relating to the giving of orders under section 121B will not apply to an order to cease using premises as an illegal brothel.

For example, it will not be necessary for a council to give advance notice of the proposed order or to allow representations to be made concerning the proposed order. That will give councils the essential element of surprise, which is essential in catching these fly-by-night illegal brothel operators. Schedule 1 [6] inserts a provision that if a council gives a person an order to cease using premises as an illegal brothel, then the order must require compliance with its terms within 48 hours. At the moment it can take a council up to two years to successfully close an illegal brothel. This will give councils control and the ability to close a brothel within 48 hours.
If a council is satisfied that an order referred to above is not being complied with, the change made by schedule 1 [7] will authorise the council to take action to prevent persons from entering the premises to which the order relates. A council will be able to recover any reasonable costs that it incurs in taking that action. Also, a council will be able to recover from the person required to comply with the order certain other costs incurred by that council in making the order. This is another important provision because if it is necessary for a council to move in and change the locks, board up an entrance or do some such work, or to undertake other investigation or security related assistance, it is important that ratepayers be protected from those costs. They are not reasonable costs for ratepayers to have to bear in the process of following up and enforcing compliance on illegal brothel operators.

The regulation of brothels has had an interesting history, and the operators of legal brothels are not the subject of this bill. There is a clear role for the legal and regulated sex worker industry, and it is to be commended for the reforms it has made which ensure greater health and safety for workers in the industry in appropriately situated and properly regulated premises. This bill seeks to deal with illegal brothels. I also acknowledge that this bill addresses only one aspect of the illegal sex industry, which is a burden to many business owners who fear the effects of unregulated street sex worker activity and the lack of control by councils over where sex work activities can take place.

The Disorderly Houses Act 1995 made it legal to operate a brothel in New South Wales, provided development consent had first been obtained from the local council. This moved planning control from the State Government to councils, and the Coalition supported this approach in 1995. However, a number of deficiencies were evident, including many difficulties for councils in telling the difference between what was an escort agency and what was a brothel. There are difficulties also in forcing council inspectors or hired private detectives to virtually play the role of a client in order to prove the real nature of a brothel. There were costs to ratepayers in terms of thousands of dollars spent on lengthy court processes in the Land and Environment Court to get an illegal brothel closed down.

All this effectively forces some councils to turn a blind eye to the problem, because the process of closing down an illegal brothel is simply too difficult and costly, and councils simply cannot afford the court case or resource the compliance functions. Despite having development control plans in place, which would avoid school, church and residential proximity, councils still cannot control brothel locations when operators defy the rules. Under the present system, applicants can use SEPP1 to avoid council's planning decisions, with more court costs to ratepayers. There are dangers, too, and exploitation of sex workers under the current system. For example, in the Port Kembla area we have all heard recently of allegations about the activities involving underage prostitutes. Apparently there are no illegal brothels in the Wollongong council area and a man is facing charges for hiring underage girls at the Southern Belles brothel. Many women have been working in the street and living in cardboard shanties in alleyways.

The Leader of the Opposition recognised all of these problems two years ago and drafted a new bill to address these concerns. He introduced the Community Protection (Illegal Brothels) Bill 2001 as a private member's bill. This bill sought to amend SEPP1 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. He gave notice in June 2001, introduced the bill in September 2001 and second read it. The bill lapsed on 20 February 2002 and was restored to the same stage on 12 March 2002. At the time the Leader of the Opposition said:

But on 20 June 2002 the Government voted down that bill. So in the face of new evidence of the continuing problem in many local government areas in Sydney, and the Government's arrogant indifference to the problems, I have introduced this bill today. Areas such as Baulkham Hills, Port Kembla, Willoughby and Newtown are still struggling with Labor's lazy, arrogant approach, because Labor simply will not make the necessary tough decisions to give powers to councils to control their areas. This bill will deliver a clearer, cheaper, fairer and safer planning system. It will enable councils to shut down suspected brothels within 48 hours. It will reverse the onus of proof so that brothel operators must prove they are legal, rather than councils having to prove the opposite.

The bill will halt the use of SEPP1 for brothel applications. It will provide local councils with powers to issue an order specifically directed against illegal brothels, to circumvent the normal lengthy process by which an order is made and to ensure swift compliance with an order against an illegal brothel. When council has issued an order for the closure of an illegal brothel and the order is ignored the council can act with any necessary assistance from the police to prevent entry to the premises the subject of the order. The bill enables councils to recover costs incurred in making an order to close a brothel, and strengthens legal brothels and sex workers rights and protection. That is important.

If we are to uphold legal brothels and sex workers who work legally in the system and who enjoy all of the improvements that have been made to occupational health and safety by these reforms, it is important that we ensure that we close down and deal properly with illegal brothels. These are commonsense, practical measures to give councils the power to act quickly, decisively, fairly and in the interests of their residents and ratepayers. The Carr Government was clearly embarrassed by the Leader of the Opposition's initiative and, rather than do the sensible thing and support our bill, it scrambled to cobble together something that would give the impression that it was doing something about this problem.

In 2002 the Government introduced the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Servitude) Bill, which the Coalition supported. In fact, it was introduced across all States and deserved bipartisan support. However, it was not aimed at fixing problems that I have described today, although it targeted necessarily an appalling practice about which there was no disagreement in this place. In 2002 the Carr Government also introduced the Disorderly Houses Amendment (Brothels) Bill which brought in tighter rules of evidence to help councils close down illegal brothels but still require the same lengthy court processes, including the Land and Environment Court processes. The Government had the chance to fix the system but did not do it properly, because under the Government's legislation councils must still go through months of legal action and detective work to do what should be done in only a couple of days.

The Government also did what all lazy governments do when they run out of ideas: it announced the establishment of a Brothels Planning Advisory Panel in 2002, chaired by our old friend Vic Smith as an independent chair. The Coalition's bill will help councils to quickly and effectively shut down illegal brothels in neighbourhoods that are increasingly being abused by shonky fly-by-night illegal brothel operators who take advantage of the Carr Government's slack laws on illegal brothels. This legislation will give councils the power to shut down illegal brothels within 48 hours. Councils and communities should have the right to control what happens in their local areas. No-one should have to be fearful in their neighbourhoods and keep their children indoors because an illegal brothel is flourishing unchecked in a residential area.

Under the Government's current laws councils are forced to spend thousands of dollars of ratepayers' money on lengthy Land and Environment Court actions to close an illegal brothel. That must stop. There are more disturbing aspects to this whole murky business of illegal brothels—something that I would have thought every Labor member would have wanted to stop. I refer to the alarming events that have occurred in recent times in Port Kembla. On 20 November the family and friends of Ms Maria Scott gathered at her funeral. Ms Maria Scott was a sex worker who apparently was murdered. She was the third woman who was apparently murdered in similar circumstances in the region in recent times. A local woman who spoke at her funeral said, "You have to show compassion. This is somebody's daughter or somebody's sister." She went on to say, "Maria never caused problems on this street. It was always, 'How are you going, mate?' Nobody deserves be killed. I had a lot of time for Maria."

I tried in this Parliament to draw attention to the plight of these women but I was met with an orchestrated attempt at a cover-up by the honourable member for Kiama and other Labor members. I hope that, following these tragic events in Port Kembla, every Illawarra Labor member will vote with Opposition members on this bill as a first step towards cleaning up this scourge of illegal brothels and helping women in these situations into other healthy and positive opportunities in life. A cardboard shanty in an alley is not good enough. Let us go back a few months to see where this issue began, as that is the time that we saw the first signs of a cover up of the problem. Illawarra Mercury investigative reporter Jenny Dennis began to follow up community concerns about local street workers and suspicions of illegal brothels operating in Wentworth Street.

The work of Jenny Dennis on this was so good, accurate and courageous that last week she was given the Walkley award. I commend Jenny Dennis on the steps that she took to highlight this filthy trade and to expose the grubs that ply it. I commend her for getting to the truth of the situation, not because it was salacious but because at its centre was the welfare of two young, under-age girls who were allegedly working in an illegal brothel. It concerned issues to do with the question of the appropriateness of individuals, many of whom were members of the Labor party at the a time, holding office in the local chamber of commerce when one had been the subject of allegations to do with the running of an illegal brothel. And another individual, Mr Martin Pitt, the secretary, purportedly had known at the time that he had encouraged Mr Neville Hilton to stand for the position of junior vice-president that he had been the subject of such allegations.
Mr Hilton, a former Shellharbour deputy mayor and a former union boss, has been a long-term president and office bearer in the Australian Labor Party, including holding the role of president of the Throsby Federal Electorate Council and the Albion Park branch, which I understand is the electorate of the honourable member for Kiama. He is part-owner of the Southern Belles brothel in Wentworth Street, Port Kembla. Mr Hilton was charged on 5 September 2003 with two counts of an owner permitting premises to be used for child prostitution, two counts of an owner obtaining benefits from child prostitution and two counts of inciting acts of child prostitution.

Mr Hilton has strenuously denied the charges. He denied knowing that two girls, one aged 13 and one aged 14, were under age, telling reporters, first, "Jesus, is that true?", which was reported in the Illawarra Mercury on 29 August 2003 and, according to the Sydney Morning Herald on 31 August 2003, "They both told me they were old enough. I may have supervised them from time to time but I want to make it clear it wasn't me who hired them." He also said, "That's what they told me. They've obviously fully filled out." Those statements were reported in the Illawarra Mercury on 16 September 2003. I understand that Mr Hilton's wife works for the new Labor leader Mark Latham.

This is all relevant to this bill because at the time of the revelations in the Illawarra Mercury it was reported that there was confusion of the status of brothels in the region. One councillor said that it was common knowledge where they were. Another councillor, Australian Labor Party Councillor Kiril Jonovski, was reported as stating that he did not know there were any brothels in town. Yet the council has made it clear that no licences for legal brothels have been issued in the area, although an application was approved for an escort agency in 1993. Escort agencies are not approved for the purpose of on-site sex. It is this loophole that makes it difficult for councils to crack down on so-called escort agencies that are offering the services of a brothel because they have to commit resources to prove the difference between an escort agency and a brothel and then face months in the Land and Environment Court.

So many illegal sex businesses are operating. Port Kembla Chamber of Commerce President, Janette Bryant, raised this issue with me and asked the Liberals and me to consider it when we are considering further reform. I have given her a commitment to meet with her and discuss these practical problems with a view to seeing what more can be done. Ms Bryant wrote to me on 31 October 2003 after having heard me speak about this bill on ABC Illawarra local radio. She wrote:

I listened with interest to your interview this week on ABC Illawarra regarding proposed legislation you are seeking to enact to deal with illegal brothels and strengthening local government powers. While Port Kembla has received publicity on this issue our biggest problem relates to legislation dealing with sex worker activities and its impact on commercial activity within Port Kembla's Wentworth Street. Legislation regards street sex work as lawful as long as it is not within view of a school, church or residence.

She went on to state:

Port Kembla's retail traders have suffered this problem for long enough. I want the current legislation changed only enabling street sex work activities to lawfully take place in light industrial areas. There is no place for street sex work activities within central business districts or general business zonings.

I am looking forward to discussing this further with Ms Janette Bryant at a mutually convenient time in the future. Ms Bryant was so concerned about the situation and about the welfare of women who work as street workers that she sent me photographs of their appalling and dangerous living conditions. The tragedy of the situation is made worse by the fact that Labor members tried to prevent those photographs being seen when I raised the issue in Parliament. As long as illegal brothels continue to be able to operate in ways that defy councils' will and resources to shut them down, women—including young, under-age women—will continue to find themselves prey to people who own illegal premises and promise them a roof over their heads and a bit more security than a cardboard box.

On 16 September 2003 an article appeared in the Illawarra Mercury that referred to two under-age girls allegedly working in the Southern Belles brothel, which is part-owned by Mr Hilton, in a lease agreement with Mr Dino Rossetto. The article stated, "The girls had wanted to work indoors where it was safe and secure". That is the crux of this issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not wish to interrupt the member's second reading speech. However, I should like to sound a note of caution. The Chair is unaware whether the matters now being referred to by the honourable member may come before a court and whether her comments may prejudice any court proceedings. I should also say that it is a longstanding practice that this Chamber cannot accept the veracity or accuracy of media articles.
Ms SEATON: Thank you Mr Speaker. It is not my wish to prejudice any legal proceedings. I am able to furnish to any member in this House copies of any of the media reports to which I have referred. Illegal brothels, which councils are powerless to shut down, make it easy for unscrupulous people to prey on the vulnerability of homeless young women who need shelter, wherever that may be in this State. Why has there been so much resistance by members in this place to taking the necessary steps to enact legislation that will help councils close down illegal brothels? I cannot help but feel uneasy about why the bill was voted down when the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Pittwater, introduced it two years ago.

Members of the Labor Party voted down this legislation two years ago—legislation that would make it easier to close down illegal brothels and which are known to many councils to be illegal. Why is it so hard for certain members in this place to get tough on illegal brothels? Extraordinary events occurred in the lead-up to the annual general meeting of the Port Kembla Chamber of Commerce this year. According to media reports, at a meeting on 26 August Mr Hilton was elected as a junior vice-president of the chamber and Mr Harry Pitt was elected as secretary. Questions were raised by concerned chamber members, and reported in the public media, that Mr Pitt had been aware of allegations before and at the time of his nomination for this position. He has been reported in the media as saying, about his knowledge of these allegations, that "It was nothing to worry about."

On Wednesday 2 September an extraordinary meeting was held to consider Mr Hilton's role as a junior vice-president. He stepped down at that point in the face of local business concerns. Another member of the executive and former chair of the main street subcommittee, Mr Neville Despotovski, was also reportedly facing charges relating to a number of offences after raids on a local hotel in February.

Pursuant to sessional orders debate interrupted.

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AMENDMENT (PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 May.

Mr NEVILLE NEWELL (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.30 a.m.]: This is not the first time that the Opposition has attempted to establish a parliamentary committee to oversight the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP]. The bill before the House is almost identical to the bill that was introduced by the Opposition in 1995, in 1997, and again in 2001. As with the previous bills, the current bill is fatally flawed and cannot be supported by the Government. The object of the bill is to establish a parliamentary committee that will recommend, annually, the amount to be appropriated out of the Consolidated Fund for the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and comment generally on the budget of that office. It is proposed that the committee will have power to veto the proposed appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions and to monitor and review the exercise by the Director of Public Prosecutions of his or her functions under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 and any other Act.

The bill provides for powers, functions and procedures of the proposed joint committee that are similar to existing joint committees under the Ombudsman Act 1974, the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 and the Health Care Complaints Act 1993. In addition to the powers of those committees, it is proposed that this committee will have the functions of recommending appropriations out of the Consolidated Fund, commenting on budget and requesting reasons for certain decisions. Proposed section 30B (3) of the bill provides that most of the functions of the committee are to have retrospective effect. Under proposed section 30J (2) the committee may require the DPP to furnish reasons for a decision not to institute a prosecution, proceeding or appeal, a no bill determination or a decision that no further proceedings be taken.

The Opposition's proposal is unacceptable to the Government. It strikes at the very independence of the DPP. The notion of making the DPP accountable in the same way as the Ombudsman and the ICAC is totally misconceived. The functions of the DPP are different from those of the Ombudsman and ICAC. The DPP represents the State in criminal prosecutions, whereas the Ombudsman and ICAC report to Parliament on the operation of executive government. A further significant difference is that ICAC and the Ombudsman have been given coercive investigative powers, which means they have the power to interfere in the free enjoyment of the rights of individuals. On the other hand, the DPP has no such coercive powers, and in the conduct of litigation operates very much the same way as any firm of solicitors. The Opposition's proposal represents a direct interference with the DPP's independence in conducting criminal prosecutions.
Proposed section 30B (1) (a) provides that the committee will be able to recommend the sums to be appropriated out of the Consolidated Fund for the recurrent services and the capital works and services of the DPP in respect of any financial year of that office and to comment generally on the budget of that office. If implemented, this proposal has the potential to control the operations of the DPP, to guide the direction of its work and to reduce its ability to function effectively and independently by influencing the funding provided to the office. Again, this proposal is an attack on the independence of the DPP.

At present, the DPP is required to submit his response on budget estimates through the Minister, who after due consideration and approval submits it to the Treasurer for determination. The DPP is fully accountable for its budget through the Auditor-General and review by the estimates committee. Under proposed section 30B (1) (b) the joint committee will be able to monitor and review the exercise of the director's statutory functions. This proposal constitutes a direct attack upon the independence of the DPP's office. It clearly undermines the intention of the Act that decisions about prosecutions must be made completely independently of political influence. In his second reading speech, the honourable member for Epping indicated that the powers of the committee would not extend to recommending that the DPP make a decision that relates to the institution or cessation of prosecutions or proceedings in a particular case, or to reconsidering any such decision. However, the bill will give the committee specific power to require the DPP to furnish reasons for his prosecutorial decisions and it is proposed that the committee will review such decisions and may recommend that the Attorney General ask the DPP to reconsider a decision.

The DPP and his officers make dozens of decisions every day, many of which displease someone, and under these proposals they could be made the subject of complaint to the committee. Often the reasons for discontinuance of a case may be very sensitive. It may involve the evidence of informers. Yet the committee's proceedings are proposed to be held in public and there is no requirement for the committee to grant the DPP a private hearing or a direction for confidentiality in such instances. The honourable member for Epping likens the monitoring and review function of the committee to the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. The review of the Crown Prosecution Service by the Rt Hon. Sir Iain Glidewell in 1998 notes that the DPP appears before various parliamentary committee, and states:

I note that any attempt by members in United Kingdom select committees to ask questions about a specific case is promptly stopped in its tracks. The independence and integrity of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, a body the honourable member for Epping likens to the DPP, is even further entrenched by the relevant legislation. The honourable member's bill provides that the joint committee is not authorised "to recommend that a decision be made or to reconsider a decision to institute or not institute a prosecution or proceeding or to direct that no further proceedings be taken, in a particular case." However, nothing in this section prevents the joint committee from inquiring into the conduct or the investigation of a particular case. There is nothing to prevent the interference of the joint committee other than that regarding the institution of prosecutions or proceedings.

In contrast, the powers and functions of the ICAC parliamentary joint committee, which the honourable member holds up as a parallel, provide much more protection for ICAC's independence and integrity. In section 64 (2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the joint committee is specifically not authorised to "investigate a matter relating to particular conduct"; to "reconsider a decision to investigate, not to investigate or to discontinue investigation of a particular complaint"; or to "reconsider the findings, recommendations, determinations or other decisions of the commission in relation to a particular investigation or complaint". This legislation makes it quite clear that ICAC cannot be asked about individual cases at all, whereas the current bill would allow unprecedented interference with the independent operations of the DPP.

Paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) of proposed section 30B (1) relate to the power of the joint committee to report to both Houses of Parliament on any matter appertaining to the director or connected to the functions of the director. These provisions are unnecessary, given that the Attorney General, to whom the director is responsible for the due exercise of his functions, already performs this role and will continue to do so. Proposed section 30D will enable the joint committee to veto the proposed appointment of a person as Director of Public Prosecutions. The bill contains consequential amendment to delete the existing power to veto such an appointment which presently exists in the committee on the office of the Ombudsman pursuant to section 4A of the Act.
The honourable member for Epping contends that the creation of a parliamentary committee will create a forum for the DPP to comment on criminal justice issues and matters of public policy pertaining thereto. In reality, the DPP already performs this vital role outside the proposed parliamentary committee structure. The only effect that creating a parliamentary committee would have would be to create further bureaucratic checks on the performance of the DPP's prosecutorial role and to undercut the independence of the office. It is appropriate that the Minister, and through him Parliament, should oversight the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the general conduct of the office. However, the proposals by honourable members opposite to intervene in prosecutorial decisions are anathema to the concept of an independent DPP. The Government opposes the bill.

Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [10.41 a.m.]: I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak briefly about this issue, which concerns not only members in this House but most members of the community and certainly every member of the New South Wales police force. The Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] has been a great concern to this House for many years. We all wonder why so many decisions of the DPP and his office go so badly wrong. Yesterday I sought to applaud a magistrate who had refused to impose bail conditions on a police officer who was before the court. I explained to the House why I wanted the Government to vote with the Opposition on that motion, which provided an opportunity to support front-line police in their work protecting the community and to give them a general show of support. However, the Government ultimately refused to do that. I also sought an expression of concern from the House about the DPP and the way in which he has handled a number of cases. Yesterday I raised the particular case of a ram raider who received a slap on the wrist and a good behaviour bond.

Over the years we have watched the antics of this particular DPP on many issues, not just when supposedly doing his job but as a social activist. We are all concerned about many of the issues that he has pursued given that he is supposed to work for the community. I am not sure at times exactly whom he is working for. I will refer later to this month's Police Association newsletter—it was published in the past few days—which outlines some concerns about the DPP. The House must ask: What has the DPP been doing and what is the Government going to do about the DPP? The Premier has flip-flopped on this issue over time. Sometimes he stands up in this place and speaks theatrically about the need to rein in the DPP but at other times he bows to the left wing of the Labor Party and says that he will protect the DPP. We must ask why the Premier is protecting the DPP.

The DPP's actions in many cases are a concern. While obviously not wanting to focus on particular cases, every honourable member must express concern at what this gentleman has done over a number of years. I pointed out yesterday that the DPP seems to be out of touch with what is happening on our streets. He seems to be out of touch with gun crime on our streets, the gang wars on our streets and with the wave of robberies we are suffering. The DPP seems to be out of touch with the reality of crime and intimidation on our streets and also with the concerns of the community. Media commentators and members of Parliament frequently raise issues that touch upon the role of the DPP because they are very concerned about the criminals in this State and their activities. There is no doubt that in our so-called justice system in New South Wales many of those criminals receive second, third and fourth chances. However, I remind honourable members that front-line police officers do not get second chances, and they certainly do not get the benefit of the doubt. It seems that the criminals do.

Members of Parliament and media commentators are certainly not "bottom feeders", as described by the DPP. The DPP needs to get in touch with exactly whom he is representing. Media commentators and members of Parliament understand that they are representing the community but I am not sure whom the DPP is representing. This is a sovereign Parliament and, as the seat of democracy in this State—although one wonders about that at times under this Premier—it is intended to be a clearing house for community concerns. I applaud the shadow Attorney General for introducing the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee) Bill, which addresses a major community concern: the DPP, his office and what Parliament will do about them.

As I said yesterday, the DPP has demonstrated an ability to make good and bad decisions. But somehow he seems to make more bad decisions. Perhaps it is an issue of resources. Perhaps it is a question of management ability or perhaps it is philosophical; I do not know. However, I think it is time to take a close look at that office and that individual, and the shadow Attorney General's proposal is one way of doing that. I mentioned the Police Association newsletter. This month's editorial is entitled "Greater scrutiny of DPP". I will refer to only two paragraphs, which state:

They are very good questions. The Attorney General has great difficulties with the Police Association, but I would like to hear his response to those points.

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [10.47 a.m.]: I oppose the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee) Bill. It is misconceived in theory and utterly malevolent in intent. I had not intended to speak in this debate until I listened to the quite provocative contribution from the honourable member for Vaucluse, who indicated precisely why this bill is such an incredibly bad idea. The principle of the independence of the prosecution is critical to our system of government and the institutions that govern our lives. It is absolutely abhorrent and horrific to think that politicians could determine who will or will not be prosecuted. That is what is at stake in this legislation. There is no doubt that this bill is nothing other than an attempt to stifle the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] and allow politicians to interfere in decisions about who will or will not be prosecuted. I cannot imagine anything more calculated to destroy the liberty of ordinary citizens than allowing politicians to decide who gets to go to gaol. I cannot imagine a more evil way of running a society than allowing some of the people in this Chamber to decide who goes to gaol.

Ms Clover Moore: It harks back to earlier administrations.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: That is an interesting comment. It actually harks back to 200 or 300 years before we had responsible, democratic government. It is a medieval concept that would allow the Government to imprison people. Sometimes in this Chamber I hear rhetoric from the other side about the Bill of Rights. It is not this side of the House that is trying to turn back the Bill of Rights. It is a quite extraordinary proposition. The Opposition is trying to interfere with prosecutorial discretion, to interfere with who makes the decisions about who is or who is not to be prosecuted. The evidence is obvious in what happened in this House yesterday and in the speech from the honourable member for Vaucluse a couple of minutes ago. It is absolutely clear from his contribution to this debate and his comments yesterday that he and the Opposition want to interfere with individual cases and make a decision about who gets prosecuted and thus who goes to gaol. That is why I say that this bill is utterly malevolent in intent.

Two aspects of the bill strike directly at the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Proposed section 30B deals with the financial independence of the office. There is no more effective way of bringing a body to heel, getting it to do what you want it to do, than by controlling the purse strings. That is precisely what the bill proposes to do. The joint committee would have extraordinary scope to intimidate the Director of Public Prosecutions, to harass him and to inquire into the intricacies of individual cases. While the bill prohibits a particular decision being overturned, it has no other restriction on what might be inquired into by the committee in relation to individual cases.

The oversight committees for the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] and the Police Integrity Commission and the Ombudsman do not have the power to overturn particular decisions. They nonetheless have very wide powers to bring people to account, including the use of those powers against the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP], be it the current occupant of the position or a subsequent occupant. Those powers could be used to intimidate that person and to get the result that various politicians want. Can one imagine a more insane system than one in which politicians make decisions about who is prosecuted and who is not? I note that although notice of the bill was given some time ago it has been brought on for debate by the mover only today. On a number of earlier occasions he has rejected the opportunity of debating it. That underlines how politically cynical this exercise is. It really is about interfering in particular cases. It is a cynical and malevolent attempt to distort the institutions of our State, institutions that relate to our heritage. I note that last time we were here—

Mr Chris Hartcher: You of all people talk about preserving the heritage when you want to overturn it.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: That interjection from the honourable member for Gosford shows the typical hypocrisy and intellectually inadequate drivel that he comes out with all the time. On the last private members' day in this Chamber the honourable member for Gosford and his ideological soul mates on the other side of the Chamber gave us long lectures about the heritage that we have to defend. They got stuck into the honourable member for Bligh and other people who wanted to get rid of the royal coats of arms on the basis that we have to defend our heritage. For once could he be consistent? For once could the honourable member for Gosford be other than the rank hypocrite we know he is. For once he should live up to the rhetoric he goes on with and defend his heritage and the independence of the prosecution services, because that is also a part of the heritage that he claims to support.

The truth is that when it suits him he supports heritage; when it does not suit him he is delighted to overturn the protections for individual citizens that are a proud part of their heritage. There are some very positive things about the English tradition of the common law. Protection of the individual is one of those things, but the honourable member for Gosford has managed to ignore that part. He writes out of history things that he does not like. That is symptomatic of the intellectually inadequate approach he usually adopts. He is indeed a byword for intellectual inadequacy, and likewise a byword for utter and rank hypocrisy. There has also been an attempt—once again intellectually inadequate—to draw a comparison between the DPP and the Independent Commission against Corruption and the Ombudsman. They are absurd and stupid comparisons. The functions that those bodies carry out are very different from the functions carried out by the DPP and it is extremely weak to rely upon that to justify this bill. As I said, this bill will be rejected. It is misconceived in theory and utterly malevolent in its intent.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.54 a.m.]: The issue before the Parliament is whether government officers discharging a public function should be accountable to the community through the Parliament. The precedent for that is with the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC], the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General, who all report to the community through a parliamentary committee. This bill seeks to ensure that the prosecutorial functions of the State, which are independent of the Government since the creation of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP], are made accountable to the community. The bill does not allow for individual cases to be examined, but it does allow for the policy and principles motivating the operation of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to be advised to the parliamentary committee and, through that committee, to the community whom the Office of the DPP represents. There is nothing groundbreaking about the bill. As everybody knows, the United Kingdom House of Commons has similar legislation. If ever there were going to be an office that might not be accountable to the Parliament it would surely be the office of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. It is responsible for investigating—and even as we speak is actively investigating—members of Parliament. Yet there is still a parliamentary committee to oversight that office.

The DPP has no specific role in relation to public officers; the role of the DPP relates to criminal conduct throughout the State, no matter who breaches the law. There is nothing objectionable in theory or in practice in asking for the policy that motivates the decisions of the DPP to be explained to a parliamentary committee. That is all that this bill does. It is consistent with other legislation, such as that for the ICAC and the Ombudsman. For members opposite now to contend that this is a destruction of the heritage of Western civilisation when they themselves spend most of their time trying to undermine the heritage of Western civilisation is simply rank hypocrisy. For the honourable member for Liverpool, who more than any other is Castro's spokesman in the Parliament, who pleads El Gramma's case almost every day—

Mr Paul Lynch: Point of order—

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: If El Gramma has not—

Mr Paul Lynch: I have two points of order. By not sitting down when another member rises to take a point of order the honourable member is demonstrating his contempt for the heritage of this place. The second point of order is that the matter before the Chair is not a motion about Fidel Castro or anyone else. He really should come back just occasionally to the leave of the bill.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair is reluctant to invoke Standing Order 138. I ask the honourable member for Gosford to return to the leave of the bill.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I will speak to the bill, but the interjections of the honourable member for Liverpool cannot go unanswered. I take my hat off to Mark Latham. That must have been a wonderful preselection back in 1989 when he and the honourable member for Liverpool—but I digress. What is at issue here is very important, because so many people in the community feel aggrieved about the policy that underlies the decisions of the DPP. Many people whose loved ones have been murdered or cruelly abused in the most disgraceful sexual cases feel that the sentences imposed by the courts have been inadequate. The DPP has declined in many cases to appeal against those sentences. People wish to know why those sentences have not been appealed against.

What are the DPP's policies? Surely the community is entitled to know. I have seen letters written to aggrieved families in which the DPP has said, "I am not obliged to give you reasons for my decision." That is correct in law: he is not obliged to give reasons for his decision. But if he is discharging a public function—after all, that is what he is, the public prosecutor—he is there to ensure that the public interest is protected. If he has that responsibility, if he is publicly funded, paid from the public purse, surely his policy is publicly reviewable and publicly accountable. That is all that the Coalition parties are asking for. One would think that any person of goodwill would support that. The whole community has an interest in serious crime, not just the DPP, so the community should have a voice in determining how the policy is carried out.

I have the highest respect for a number of the DPP staff. My public criticism of the DPP is well known: he and I have exchanged insulting press releases about each other over some years but, unlike the honourable member for Liverpool, I accept the umpire's decision. I will say now as I have said on other occasions that in many respects the DPP acts like the high priest of a religious cult. He is unaccountable and beyond the reach of the people and the Parliament, and nobody should query or question the motivation for his decisions.

Nobody questions his competence: he is a very competent person. Nobody questions his intelligence: he is a very intelligent person. Nor do I question his integrity: I believe he is a person of integrity. None of those personal attributes is questioned, but that is not the issue, and that is where a debate of this nature goes off the rails. We are not questioning his integrity, his intelligence or his competence, but we are questioning his accountability. We are saying that, in the discharge of his office, the community is entitled to know how he comes to make certain decisions, and whether those decisions should be his precedent for future decisions. That is the role of a parliamentary committee.

The parliamentary committee proposed to be established by the bill will be able to call the DPP before it and review his budget, policy, and programs, just as parliamentary committees do for the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Ombudsman, and the Auditor-General. A mischievous person will misrepresent what the Coalition is trying to do, but the bill speaks for itself. I commend the shadow Attorney General for bringing it before the House again. I urge any member who is interested in ensuring that the public prosecutorial role of the DPP is public and accountable to the public to support this bill.

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [11.01 a.m.]: The contributions of the Opposition in respect of this bill are in many respects simply breathtaking. It is astounding that those opposite feel able so casually to challenge some of the most fundamental understandings of the way that our law—our judicial system and our system of criminal justice—actually works. They appear not to understand that it should be cherished, especially with respect to its fundamental principles, above most other things. Perhaps members of the Opposition should spend a little time examining how the criminal justice system operates in other countries of the world and consider whether they can suggest honestly, even for a moment, that ours is not superior, that ours does not have a level of integrity that has to be the envy of most—not all, but most—of the other countries.

I find it extraordinary that there can be so little concern shown by members of the Opposition, especially by the honourable member for Vaucluse, for fundamental notions such as the separation of powers and the need for an independent judicial system—an independent system of prosecutions, a system of checks and balances that is implicit in our concept of the separation of powers on the one hand and our concept of appeals through the courts system on the other—to ensure we have a system of justice that is fair, can be relied upon for fairness, and stands us, as the honourable member for Liverpool has suggested, in good stead for many generations. It is important to point out—because this notion appears to have entirely escaped members of the Opposition—that the DPP is different from the ICAC, the Ombudsman, or the Police Integrity Commission [PIC].

The DPP is not an institution that can be directly compared with institutions that have parliamentary oversight committees. The crucial difference is that the Parliament has given specific powers to the ICAC, the Ombudsman and the PIC—powers of investigation and royal commission-like powers. It has given them powers to coerce a response from an individual in respect of whom those bodies choose to exercise their investigators powers, and it has given them the power to issue search warrants. But the DPP has none of those powers. The DPP is in the same position as a lawyer—an ordinary solicitor, in effect—because the DPP operates with the same powers with respect to litigation as does an ordinary solicitor. He calls witnesses, but he has no power to coerce them in the way that the oversight bodies to which I have already referred, which have royal commission-like powers, are able to coerce them. This difference is crucial when one is discussing circumstances in which the Parliament may oversight an organisation that it has established.

The full extent of the hypocrisy of the Opposition is demonstrated by the honourable member for Gosford, who, in a radio interview on 2UE on 15 February 2001, advanced the kinds of arguments that I have just put. He was on the radio warning of the possibility of political interference that would arise if a committee of the sort proposed by the bill were set up. The honourable member for Epping would do well to read the transcript of the radio interview of the honourable member for Gosford. Presumably it is pointless for the honourable member for Gosford to read it himself: he must be aware of his own hypocrisy.

No more proof is needed of the Opposition's intention that the committee provided for in the bill will politicise the prosecution process than the words of the honourable member for Vaucluse, who made it clear—and the longer he spoke, the clearer it became—that his exact interest was in the creation of a committee that could interfere in individual cases. What is the point of raising the issues he raised about individual cases unless he wants that committee to interfere and question the DPP about individual cases? To the degree that that committee could possibly influence those kinds of decisions by the DPP, this bill is entirely to be deprecated.

How could any citizen have any confidence in a prosecution process that can be manipulated for political purposes? The system that is proposed in this bill is simply pitted with risks. It gives rise to the risk that the justice system can be hijacked by an ambitious or desperate politician who is willing to employ blatant political point-scoring tactics to lift his or her public profile, heartlessly manipulate victims, and play on the fear of victims. The honourable member for Vaucluse has been doing exactly that, or has been attempting to do that, in recent days. Just think how much more malevolent his manipulations might have been if he could have extended them from this Chamber into some process of cross-examining the DPP and his representatives under parliamentary privilege in a committee of the type proposed by the bill. The kind of action and proposals provided for in the bill would simply present opportunities for corruption to flourish if decisions about how to proceed against an accused could be dictated by whom the accused know, and whom they do not know.

The DPP handles perhaps 18,000 cases every year. Where the DPP is of the view that valid grounds exist to lodge an appeal in a particular case, that is done. At the present time all such decisions are made on the facts, without fear or favour. That is why the DPP—notwithstanding the apparently gratuitous insult offered to the current holder of that office by those opposite—is responsible for what has to be acknowledged to be one of the most rigorous and respected prosecutorial processes in the common law world. It is manifestly superior to the criminal justice systems in most other countries.

I wish to emphasise that the Opposition, in its eagerness to compare the DPP with watchdog agencies like the Ombudsman and the ICAC, ignores fundamental distinctions that can be made between them. The DPP decides whether to pursue a criminal prosecution. The ICAC and the Ombudsman do not. In fact, they refer any evidence they have acquired to the DPP and ask the DPP to decide whether there should be a prosecution. The Opposition may as well move on from the DPP and, for instance, seek to oversight the decisions of the Legal Aid Commission—and ask the Legal Aid Commissioner why the commission granted aid in a particular case. Why does not the Opposition seek the oversight of the Police Prosecutions Branch? That would make just as much sense: 98 per cent of criminal prosecutions take place in the Local Court. Most of the relevant decisions to prosecute in the Local Court are made by police prosecutors.

I repeat: it is vital to our system of justice that the DPP be free from political pressure and interference and be seen to be free from political pressure and interference. We could hardly hold up our heads as a modern, democratic jurisdiction within the Westminster system if we were to pass the bill that the Opposition has put before us. I find it a complete disgrace.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [11.12 a.m.], in reply: It has to be stated that the contribution by the Attorney General—in what was for him a rare animated performance—was unfounded and on the face of it demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of what the bill is about. The Attorney General spoke about the Westminster system. Of course, it is in the originating Parliament of the Westminster system where one finds parliamentary oversight by—in that case—the Crown Prosecution Service, the equivalent of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] in New South Wales. The Attorney General has either totally misconceived—if one gives him credit for making an honest contribution—what happens in Westminster itself, or he is lying and misleading the House about the true nature of the Westminster system. Either way, his was an extremely regrettable performance, particularly as he accused members of the Opposition of taking liberties in this debate.

The First Law Officer of the State has a responsibility to state properly and accurately the legal position and the associated parliamentary process that bears on legal matters. If the Attorney General is deficient in his knowledge—and one trusts he knows at least enough to know when he has a proper knowledge of a system and when he has not—he should seek a proper briefing to enable him to accurately put the technical side of the debate to the House. Otherwise, people could be misled. What the Attorney General just said about the Westminster system was wrong and misleading. And I suspect, given that he probably knows what he is talking about, it was a lie. The position under the Westminster system is properly stated by the Home Affairs Committee of the United Kingdom Parliament. The remit of the Home Affairs Committee is thus:

That is the current remit of a joint parliamentary committee of the United Kingdom Parliament to look at the English equivalent of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the Attorney General knows that, he just lied to the Parliament on a matter on which he should be providing proper advice to the Parliament. If he does not know that, he should not open his mouth in this Chamber until he is properly briefed.

This bill is along the lines of the legislation that relates to the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC], the Ombudsman, and other related bodies, in respect of which joint parliamentary committees—as the honourable member for Liverpool knows—do good work. The honourable member for Liverpool did himself no credit this morning in his contribution by alleging that this type of parliamentary committee would be rorted. Effectively, he cast aspersions on the good work that bipartisan parliamentary committees have done and are doing in their very important function of oversighting the ICAC and the Ombudsman.

I perceive that the honourable member for Liverpool has done some reasonably good work as a member of parliamentary committees. It is therefore a shame that he has seen fit to make a contribution in this debate which effectively casts a shadow over the capacity of members on both sides of Parliament to do a good oversight job on a bipartisan basis. As chair of one of those committees, it would be within his knowledge that the work they do is good, reasonable and balanced. It does the honourable member no credit to suggest in this debate that this Parliament is not up to doing this type of job. That was his implication—when, from his own direct experience as a member and chair of committees, he knows better.

This bill proposes a new section 30B (2), which very specifically excludes the proposed committee from becoming involved in particular cases. It is there in black and white that the joint committee is not authorised "to recommend a decision be made, or to reconsider a decision, to institute or not to institute a prosecution or proceeding, or to direct that no further proceedings be taken, in a particular case". That is hands-off for particular cases. In fact, it is a much more specific hands-off provision than the one that governs the bipartisan committee of the Westminster Parliament that oversights the equivalent of our DPP. That provision is specific, and it is in the bill in black and white. It says: hands off individual cases. The Government has flip-flopped around this issue. I note that in his latest contribution, on 13 November 2003, the Premier said that as far as he was concerned:

That refusal to countenance a committee is a backflip on the Premier's position in October 1997, as reported in an article in the Daily Telegraph:

Apparently, somewhere between October 1997 and November this year the Premier has done one of his legendary backflips, and decided that he no longer wants to embrace such a committee—although, by the way, he is actively canvassing putting the DPP on a seven-year fixed term. Having regard to the events that have occurred in the intervening period, I am at a loss to understand how the Premier can say objectively that there is now no case for oversight of the DPP, when he said in 1997 the case for such oversight was growing. I think, if anything, the case is now stronger than it ever has been for oversight of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr Cowdery and I have conducted an interesting exchange in the pages of the Australian Financial Review over a number of weeks. I have no problem with Mr Cowdery writing to the Australian Financial Review and being part of the debate. Indeed, I would encourage the DPP to be involved in these debates and to use this committee as the appropriate forum. That is the experience in the United Kingdom. Matters that are ventilated with respect to the procedures and policies of the DPP office encourage greater public awareness. Debate on all sides would be improved if people were informed about the procedures in the DPP's office and if steps were taken to address the issues that should be ventilated in the public forum.

I well remember the DPP being severely castigated by the then Attorney General, Jeff Shaw, when he had the temerity to appear before a parliamentary committee that was considering legislation on sentencing. The DPP should be welcome in the Parliament to talk about matters that relate to his office and the administration of the law. The Government should not seek to prevent him from ventilating issues in the proper parliamentary forum. Perhaps the Government is fearful of what the DPP might say if given the opportunity. Indeed, Mr Cowdery has clearly expressed his concerns. In the Australian Financial Review of 8 August he stated:

Such a committee is supported in principle and is workable in Britain. I also believe it will prevent the DPP from being bullied into not airing his views. He further stated:

No doubt that is true, but New South Wales does not have a procedure to consider policy and administrative issues that will result in a better outcome for the administration of justice. There is a level beyond mere consideration of particular decisions that is not adequately covered by the Attorney General reporting to the Parliament—often in a way that causes embarrassment to him; nor can it be covered in annual reports, which traditionally are bland and non-specific. Quite frankly, there is little interaction between members of Parliament and departmental agencies of the sort one finds with questions and answers before committees. Mr Cowdery further stated:

That argument has no weight when one considers the experience of other parliamentary committees. The ICAC does not grind to a halt when the commissioner comes before a parliamentary committee; neither does that happen with the Ombudsman's office or the English DPP office. That argument has no basis in fact and does not present any practical problems. There is precedent for the way in which these committees work.

Mr Cowdery expressed concern that at times members of Parliament may trespass on matters outside the leave of the bill. From time to time certain questions do relate to sensitive areas. From time to time I read committee transcripts and where a concern is raised the chairman will confer with committee members and invariably the committee agrees not to canvass the issue. Members on both sides of this House have a demonstrated track record of being practical and sensible when such jurisdictional issues arise. They are handled in a mature manner by moving on to a different subject matter. It is also not a practical problem for the United Kingdom committee. When from time to time judges have warned DPP officers that their questions have been inadmissible, the DPP's office has not fallen apart and trials have not been aborted. At the end of the day reason prevails.

I shall now refer to three relatively current and notorious cases to demonstrate the need for an oversight committee similar to the model in the House of Commons. The matters to which I refer relate to the competence of particular prosecutors. I shall quote from the transcript of the minutes of evidence of the Select Committee on Home Affairs of the United Kingdom Parliament on Tuesday 26 February 2002. All members of the committee were present and the witnesses included Mr David Calvert-Smith, QC, Director of Public Prosecutions; Mr Richard Foster, Chief Executive; and Mr Steve Przybylski, Head of Resources and Performance Division. The transcript states:

That is a refreshing exchange between members of Parliament and the Director of Public Prosecutions about the competence of barristers briefed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I regret to say that in a number of recent cases in this jurisdiction the competence of officers of the DPP has been called into question. I quote from a letter to the honourable member for Mount Druitt from the Attorney General, dated 26 June:

Crimes Act

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

COUNTRY TOURISM AND RAIL TRAVEL

Mr IAN ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [11.30 a.m.]: I move:

(1) notes the dramatic and detrimental effect that adverse publicity about rail safety in New South Wales has had on confidence in touring by rail.

(2) asked the Minister for Tourism to seek a minimum of $1 million from the Minister for Transport Services to fund a campaign to restore confidence in rail travel for country tourism.

Debate on this motion has been a long time coming. On a couple of occasions it has been adjourned at the request of the Minister. I am pleased to be able to speak to it before Christmas. It goes without saying that tourism is one of the great industries of New South Wales and Australia. It is one of the great generators of the economy and has unlimited potential to promote Australia overseas. It is often forgotten that tourists with experience in any part of Australia are potential walking promotional agents in their home countries. Spreading the good reputation of Australia may well lead to improved commercial results and improved international relationships. Tourists talk about food, clean accommodation, safe travel, friends and experiences.

Over the years we have been fortunate in protecting our excellent reputation for international-standard clean and green food. Our food stands unchallenged throughout the world as the cleanest, the best prepared and the safest. The other industry in which we excel is wine. Casella wines, or Yellowtail from Griffith, account for more than 30 per cent of the total imported wine sales into North America. That is an unbelievable achievement in only seven years. Casella, like many other Australia companies, has managed to create a product that is attractive, competitive in a large market, and of undoubted quality.

Tourists come to Australia for an experience. According to the Labor Party's tourism development—"Welcoming the World"—tourism is a $23 billion business in New South Wales alone. The plan, which is eight or nine months old, claims that the tourist industry supports 306,000 jobs. Some 10 per cent of all people employed in the State are employed in the tourist industry. I understand that Government expenditure on tourism has increased from $36.6 million in 1995 to $54.1 million, a 48 per cent increase. The Carr Labor Government developed Australia's first tourism master plan, which consists of a three-year, whole-of-government plan with industry. New South Wales' share of international visitors has increased from 58 per cent in 1998 to 60 per cent in June of last year. Our nearest competitor is Queensland, with 44 per cent of international visitors.

Bearing in mind that only 2 per cent of tourists visit country areas, and acknowledging that tourism is a $23 billion industry in New South Wales, that tourist numbers in this State have increased considerably, that more than 70 per cent of tourists come into Australia via Sydney, and that New South Wales' share of international tourists has grown from 58 per cent in 1998 to 60 per cent in June 2002, I started to wonder why more tourists do not visit country areas. Tourists are all about travelling. How did they travel from A to B, be it from their home to our shores or when they get here? They have a number of options: they can hitchhike, walk, ride a bike, take an aeroplane, get on a bus, hire a car or get on a ferry. But historically throughout the world some of the most exciting tourism programs have been based around rail transport, for example the Orient Express.

In recent years, most honourable members would have seen advertisements, particularly in the Sunday papers, for extraordinarily wonderful train trips through Africa, from St Petersburg across to Moscow and from the southern States of North America to the Canadian border. Tourists can travel by train from Switzerland down into Italy. The famous zigzag trains go up into the Scandinavian countries. Those marvellous trips are popular with tourists, and their popularity is growing. Our glamour train in northern Queensland, which has been quite successful, is privately funded. Recently, the long-term plan for the completion of the Alice Springs to Darwin link has come to fruition. Although that link was initially predicated on freight, it certainly will be a major tourist attraction.

I looked through "Welcoming the World" from the front page to the back page and I could not see the word "train" mentioned at all. There is no mention of train transport. Tourists can walk, ride a bike, hire a car, get on a bus, but trains do not count in New South Wales. We know that because Professor Tom Parry, who recently released a report on train travel in New South Wales, which he presented to the Government and which has now become a public document, recommended taking away the remaining vestiges of train services and replacing them with buses. He recognised that the train system is so run down, and the carriages, the service on trains and the ability to access trains are so archaic that passenger numbers are falling dramatically.

How would backpackers who come here from Scandinavia and want to stay in Sydney for three or four days and then go to Cootamundra and Young, down to the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area to go fruit picking and perhaps cut asparagus get there? Anywhere else in the world they would go to the railway station, look at the timetable, get on a nice, clean, comfortable train and go. Try doing that in New South Wales! If you go to the tourist office train travel will not be mentioned. "Welcoming the World", Labor's plan to develop tourism, ignores trains altogether. If one were to go to Central Railway this afternoon it would not be difficult to get there, but it would be difficult to find out where the hell the trains go. Then you would have to find a reliable train on which the toilets are not overflowing, as they have done a number of times in recent weeks on the southern line.

We are neglecting the opportunity for tourists to travel by train. I suspect that the Government recognises this and is complicit in it. If it were not, its policy document that talks about inland marketing would promote the variety and quality of the tourism experience in country New South Wales—everything from bush walking to fine dining and hot air ballooning to art galleries. Tourists could travel by hot air balloons. I can just see next year's fruit pickers travelling by hot air balloons! I note in passing that most of the hot air is on the Government benches.

According to "Welcoming the World", the Government plans to work with regional tourism organisations to develop innovative marketing and development activities; to build on and implement strategies for booming regional tourism sections such as Farmstay, bed and breakfast and caravan and camping tourism enhance the visitor information centre development program to ensure a consistent, high quality level of service for tourists across the State; and to implement the new tourist signposting policy which includes an updated manual for tourism stakeholders. Not one signpost in Sydney advises tourists that they can get a train to Gosford, Murwillumbah, Tamworth, Leeton, Griffith, Albury or Young. Train tourism in New South Wales is vacant. The document mentions hot air ballooning, but not once does it mention trains, because the Government and the Minister know—

Ms Sandra Nori: You are the only one who doesn't know! You are a dinosaur.

Mr IAN ARMSTRONG: I travel by train. Twice in the past couple of weeks I have taken a train from Goulburn and Newcastle. I assure the Minister that travelling by train is one of the most different experiences one can possibly have in New South Wales. The Government also plans to assist in initiatives to leverage tourism opportunities from regional industries such as aquaculture and agribusiness, for example, market products and tours showcasing the fishing and dairy industry on the South Coast. The South Coast? What incentive is there for tourists to go by train to the South Coast? Trains do not go beyond Gerringong. The South Coast offers marvellous tourism facilities, Bega cheese is superb, the countryside is pretty and unspoilt, but we cannot get there by train.

There is nothing in the document about encouraging people to try to do so. The document talks about increasing the depth and breadth of information available on Chinese language Tourism New South Wales web sites. Imagine 300 Chinese arriving here this afternoon and asking, "How are we going to get to central New South Wales?" and being told "Go by train"! The Minister knows as well as I know that that will not happen. We have a problem, because there is no train tourism, and she does not acknowledge that within her document. [Time expired.]

Ms SANDRA NORI (Port Jackson—Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Women) [11.40 p.m.]: I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. It is good to know that he is taking an interest in tourism—at least to the extent of moving this motion. However, I propose to move an amendment. I move:

The reason I called my friend the shadow Minister a dinosaur—albeit a nice one—is because he does not realise that the rail site and rail information for tourists is linked on the web site, particularly through the backpackers' site. The shadow Minister would not know that, and I do not blame him. I know how old he is, so he is forgiven. I understood what he was trying to say. Unfortunately, his well-intentioned contribution was fundamentally flawed. I know he is only new at the job, and he certainly would not have received any insight from his predecessor. His contribution was flawed because 86 per cent of travel in this State has traditionally been by car. As far as I can tell from research, that will continue to be so. That is the niche market for New South Wales: it is the touring-by-car State. New South Wales led all the marketing on this concept through the Drive New South Wales and Feel Free campaigns.

Tourism New South Wales has evolved a range of campaigns and is into the second or third iteration of them—and they are growing. Other States, particularly Victoria, are finally catching on. The market can be led to some extent in relation to tourism marketing, developing product and running co-operative campaigns with the industry. However, it would be a game tourism marketing organisation that tried to create a new market from scratch, going against the natural trend. The great market advantage of tourism in New South Wales is that the State is regarded as a touring-by-car State. In many circumstances what tourists want to do in this State are more easily done by car. The shadow Minister spoke about going to the South Coast. The Government runs a hugely successful program of delivering tourists to the South Coast—not only out of Sydney but also out of Queensland and Victoria. It is even better to have Victorian dollars rather than Sydney dollars go to the South Coast. Most of the nooks and crannies along the New South Wales coastline and mountain ranges that people like to visit are more readily visited by car. It would be difficult to tour New South Wales by train to the same extent as one can by car.

Mr Ian Armstrong: Agreed.

Ms SANDRA NORI: I know the shadow Minister mentioned that. We are going with the market advantage, but we are not ignoring rail links. We have a co-operative project with CountryLink, particularly for backpackers. The project is the "Backtracker New South Wales Guide to Travelling in Regional New South Wales on the CountryLink Rail/Coach Network". That project supports the use of the backpacker rail pass to encourage backpackers to explore suggested regionalised itineraries using the CountryLink network. The shadow Minister talked about the Parry report. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] report identified two rail links that it considered should be reviewed. IPART does not make the decisions. It undertakes the reviews; governments make the decisions. Those identified rail links were the Tamworth to Armidale and the Casino to Murwillumbah lines.

I am speaking as Minister for Tourism. Each day 400 people get on or off trains between Casino and Murwillumbah. Of those, 219 are either connecting to or from coaches into or out of Queensland. Each day fewer than 10 people travel locally in those areas. The Tamworth-to-Armidale line costs about $6.4 million every year—that is $17,000 a day—for one train carrying an average of 68 people in each direction. On average, only eight people per train pay full adult fares on that line. Even if we assume that those eight people are tourists, that still means that not many tourists travel to those areas. The shadow Minister said that we are not creating a European-style train experience for visitors. Again, that reflects his lack of knowledge and detail. An enormous number of significant train journeys can be taken within the State.

Mr Ian Armstrong: Name them!

Ms SANDRA NORI: How long do we have?
Mr Ian Armstrong: Another four minutes and 17 seconds.

Ms SANDRA NORI: Very well. There is the Cockatoo Run, which costs $85.

Mr Ian Armstrong: Where does the Cockatoo Run go?

Ms SANDRA NORI: Where do you think it goes? I know where it goes.

Mr Ian Armstrong: You are telling the story.

Ms SANDRA NORI: That is right. It goes to the South Coast. Tourists can go to Opera in the Vineyards, the Steamfest at Maitland, the Katoomba Scenic Railway and much more. I will give the shadow Minister this list so he can study it in great detail. It is a little unfair to compare New South Wales to Europe; it is an entirely different experience. As the honourable member knows, villages and townships in Europe are usually only between five and 20 kilometres apart. New South Wales has a different—and I believe better—experience to offer. We do not need to compare our State to Europe. We are well and truly beyond that.

I want to repeat something I have said a number of times when answering questions in question time—and it is a lot more difficult to be heard then. I can only rely on empirical data to judge whether our campaigns are working. On any account the period after the end of 2002 would have been one of the worst years for the tourism industry, because it carried over the impact of September 11 the year before, the war in Afghanistan, the coming war in Iraq, the drought, and the Bali bombing. In that year the tourism figures for New South Wales went up at the expense of both Victoria and, to a lesser extent, Queensland.

We have promoted a number of campaigns in the marketplace, not only the new and latest iteration of the Drive New South Wales campaign. We have promoted, for example, post-bushfire campaigns. We do not need bushfires to run campaigns but those campaigns resulted in people visiting different parts of New South Wales that were ravaged by the bushfires. The Farmstay, Farmhand and Telstra campaigns on television resulted in people going into the bush, particularly to the Far West of New South Wales. I rather suspect that the campaign did more than encourage people to participate in the Farmstay program. By including in our campaigning the words "regional New South Wales" and "Go and help the farmers", we got people into the bush. They might not have chosen to participate in the Farmstay program, but at least visited those areas. A critical mass of campaigning in Sydney and in interstate marketplaces resulted in much greater visitations to those areas.

New South Wales is the only State that can project and envisage growth in domestic tourism over the next few years. There is always room for improvement. We cannot stand still when it comes to marketing a product, whether it is Coca-Cola or New South Wales. We are constantly looking for the next campaign iteration, the next niche market, the next opportunity and the next way of saying the same thing differently so that our customers return. There is always room for that kind of improvement and evolution. New South Wales is well and truly on the right track. At an appropriate time I will inform the House and, indeed, the shadow Minister about some exciting plans to be implemented in the next few months, leveraging off the Rugby World Cup internationally, that will market this State and this city. I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution and commend him for his interest in this matter, even though most of what he said was wrong.

Mr Ian Armstrong: You are a greenie.

Ms SANDRA NORI: The shadow Minister insulted me by calling me a greenie. That is an insult. He should be asked to withdraw that remark.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am sure that the honourable member for Lachlan will comply.

Mr Armstrong: I certainly withdraw that remark but I make the point that the colour that the Minister is wearing reflects her persona. It is most attractive.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! A withdrawal will be sufficient.

Mr STEVE CANSDELL (Clarence) [11.50 a.m.]: I commend the motion moved by the honourable member for Lachlan and welcome this opportunity to talk about rail and tourism. The Indian Pacific, which runs across the Nullarbor, is a well-promoted, well-known and well-supported service. Everyone who visits north Queensland takes the scenic rainforest trip from Cairns to Kuranda. The train travels through scenic areas that contain rainforests, mountains, waterfalls and wildlife. Once it reaches Kuranda people visit the markets, which is an experience on its own. People do not know about the Cockatoo Run, the Steamfest at Maitland or the scenic rail trips that are available in New South Wales, as they are not promoted.

Three years ago my wife and I travelled on the train between Grafton and Sydney, something that we had not done for about eight or nine years. It was fantastic trip; it was nice and relaxing. We could see everything during the day, and we could get up and go for a walk if we needed to do so. I admit that the train needed some upgrading but, in general, the feeling of travelling by rail was wonderful. However, that trip was not promoted in the newspapers and no brochures were available to inform anyone of the availability of that service. People are not encouraged to tour this State. Earlier the Minister said that we should encourage people to tour New South Wales by car. People are not encouraged at the moment to tour New South Wales either by rail or by car. Most visitors to New South Wales fly into Sydney.

We could promote train trips from Sydney to Grafton. People could then hire a car and drive from Grafton to Yamba or Iluka where there is great surf and beautiful weather conditions. They could travel from there up to Nymboida for white-water rafting and from there up to Eungai. They could then take the car back to Grafton, jump on the train and travel up to Murwillumbah. From there they could catch a bus to Armidale and then travel by train from Armidale to Tamworth, if one is still available. The Glenreagh historic rail project, which is located just outside Grafton, is nearing completion. That will be another great tourist attraction. If the Government were serious about promoting rail it would combine the Cockatoo Run, the Steamfest at Maitland and the Glenreagh historic rail project as a scenic drive-rail or rail-drive route.

New South Wales is lagging behind other States in promoting its tourist areas. The motion moved by the honourable member for Lachlan highlights the fact that we have a dilapidated rail service that needs upgrading and promoting to make it attractive to tourists. Many of the tourists who come to Australia travel by rail or by bus. They jump on the train and go to Western Australia or to Queensland. They use the services in Queensland because those services are promoted through the media. The Queensland Government supports its rail services and upgrades them to make them attractive and welcoming.

The New South Wales Government underpromotes and underservices rail in this State. We need to link those services to tourism so that we do not miss out on tourism opportunities. I said earlier that more should be done to promote travel, but we have already had a great many deaths this year on the Pacific Highway. If we encourage more people to use bus services by cancelling rail services it will do nothing for tourism. If anything, it will scare tourists away from New South Wales. We must upgrade our train services and promote the option of travelling by train. That will encourage more tourists to New South Wales. I commend the motion.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [11.55 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the honourable member for Lachlan, which highlights the fact that tourist attractions in New South Wales could be better promoted. I join the Minister in congratulating Tourism New South Wales on the work it has done in rural and regional New South Wales. However, much more can be done in that area. The motion of the honourable member for Lachlan refers in particular to rail services. I thank the honourable member for his earlier comments relating to the Tamworth to Armidale rail link, an issue that was referred to also by the Minister for Tourism.

In regional and rural areas such as the Northern Tablelands a number of hard-working community groups regard rail services as an important part of tourism promotion. The Northern Tablelands contains magnificent gorge country and many tourism opportunities that have been detailed in business plans by organisations such as the Friends of the Northern Railway Inc. and New England Railway Inc. They have said that those wonderful tourism opportunities can assist in maintaining the viability of country rail services, support tourism, promote country New South Wales and promote rural and regional Australia. The honourable member for Lachlan is right on the mark in moving this motion today.

The Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation touched upon the Parry report, as did the honourable member for Lachlan. Rural communities and committees hotly dispute the figures being promoted regarding rail patronage. The solutions committee established by the Minister for Transport Services, of which I am fortunate to be a member, is working constructively through these issues. I acknowledge that the Minister had the courage and the courtesy to attend the recent protest rally at the railway station in Armidale and address the more than 3,000 people present. There has been a great deal of commentary and disagreement about this issue, but we are working constructively towards a resolution. The message from the community is clear: Hands off our rail services. As the honourable member for Lachlan said, the Government should consider investing further in our regions and providing tourism opportunities and other flow-on benefits to our communities. In his famous speech at Tenterfield Sir Henry Parkes spoke about rail services.

Mr Peter Draper: Your predecessor.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: The honourable member for Tamworth is right: Sir Henry Parkes was the member for Tenterfield.

Mr Ian Armstrong: There's a certain resemblance.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: I thank the honourable member for Lachlan; I feel very distinguished. It is important to acknowledge that in the late 1800s, before Federation, Henry Parkes commented on the need for a national rail plan. We did well establishing the Commonwealth but we are still struggling to realise his vision of a united rail service that would open the entire country. An efficient countrywide rail service is still talked about but it has never been established. There are ongoing efforts in this regard and I hope that we will seize every opportunity to extend rail services, provide more opportunities for tourism and leverage other benefits from those services. We must view such efforts as an investment in our future. We must not cancel country rail services. As the representative of the Northern Tablelands, I remember how we lost our local rail services once before—and Tenterfield and Glen Innes never got them back.

Mr Steve Whan: Who did that?

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: I accept the challenge from the honourable member for Monaro: It was the Greiner Government. However, the CountryLink rail service to Armidale is now under threat from the Carr Government as a result of the Parry report. I am hoping for a constructive outcome to this debate that will involve providing more opportunities for country rail in the future and no service cuts.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [12.00 p.m.]: It has been said many times in this place that the future success of western New South Wales depends on several industries, one of which is certainly tourism. The tyranny of distance has always been a problem in Australia—I am sure that well before European settlement of this country our indigenous peoples had similar difficulties. We have not yet fully resolved that problem in 2003. That is why rail services are so important to tourism in New South Wales. Several rail services, particularly the Tamworth to Armidale rail link, are under threat as a result of the Parry report. The Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation cited some figures regarding rail patronage and said that last year only eight full fare paying passengers used the service each day. Those statistics are questionable. Even if they are correct, they should pose a question for the Minister. Rather than using those disputed figures to justify closing the line, the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation, the Minister for Transport Services, and the Premier should ask why those services are not patronised more.

That question goes to the heart of the motion of the honourable member for Lachlan. If rail transport were promoted more effectively, particularly to international tourists who are accustomed to rail travel in North America and Europe, patronage of our country rail services would increase. The Parry report provides an opportunity for the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation to use her department's budget to increase patronage not just on the Sydney to Tamworth to Armidale rail link but across the network. The Minister referred to the increase in domestic tourism following the September 11 attacks and other terrorist events around the world, and the collapse of Ansett. International uncertainty is prompting Australians to see more of Australia. This State has a great opportunity to attract tourists, particularly Victorians who travel through New South Wales to Queensland. There is a rail link between Melbourne and Sydney and links to other destinations in New South Wales. It is time to take advantage of the increase in domestic tourism and the movement of Victorians, particularly during the winter months, and put them on trains. When we persuade tourists to travel by rail to Albury, Wagga Wagga and Sydney we will increase the level of patronage, reduce the need for the New South Wales Government to subsidise rail services—the great bane of any government—and secure a more certain future for rail transport in country New South Wales.

We must do much more to promote tourism in western New South Wales. I am afraid that NSW Tourism is about promoting tourism just in Sydney and in the Hunter Valley. The rest of New South Wales generally receives only lip service. My electorate borders Victoria—some of my colleagues whose electorates border Queensland may have had a similar experience—and I see how the Victorians promote country Victoria. There are beautiful, bright, colourful signs saying, "Love every piece of Victoria". We do not have anything like that sort of strategy in New South Wales. When people cross the Murray River they see ugly brown signs pointing them to various tourist attractions. I have raised this issue with NSW Tourism, but it will not change the signs. Much more must be done to promote tourism in New South Wales, particularly rail tourism.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [12.05 p.m.]: I support the amendment moved by the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation to the motion of the honourable member for Lachlan. Tourism is very important in the region that I represent in this place, as is the local rail service. I have the pleasure of representing an electorate that includes most of the New South Wales alpine areas, and NSW Tourism works very well with local tourism organisations to promote the south-east. Following the bushfires earlier this year, NSW Tourism launched a promotional campaign to enhance winter tourism. Coupled with good snowfalls, it produced one of the most successful tourist seasons in recent years.

The campaign included the promotion of car travel in the Snowy Mountains region and the recent very successful motorcycle promotion, which encouraged people to tour the mountain roads by motorcycle and visit the area's terrific tourism destinations. In that area currently, tourism is going very well, but of course we need to keep working with Tourism New South Wales and the local communities to make that continue. I agree that CountryLink has a great role to play in tourism in the area. People used to be able to travel by rail to Cooma and access the mountains, but the rail line ceased under the Greiner Government in 1989.

I look forward to the Minister taking up Country Labor's seven-point plan to save country rail services. The plan was presented to the Minister yesterday. If the plan is implemented, that will result in the continuation of train services. Two weeks ago in this House I expressed my very strong support—indeed, my determination—to ensure that CountryLink rail services continue to Queanbeyan and Canberra. As a representative of the area, I will not back down on that issue. I will continue to press the case strongly because very cogent reasons exist for the retention of country rail services in my electorate and the surrounding areas, as I have been saying for some months. It is important to support the part of Country Labor's seven-point plan that includes the reform of the ticketing system and better promotion of the rail system. The CountryLink services to Queanbeyan and Canberra can be used to promote trips to events such as Floriade.

There are a number of extremely important events and festivals that that can be linked by rail in my electorate and surrounding areas. CountryLink services could be better promoted to attract people to the region. Tourism promotion is enormously important. Emblazoned on my mind is the contribution that The Nationals tried to make to the promotion of tourism in the region earlier this year. The current Leader of The Nationals issued a press release urging people not to visit the Snowy Mountains. He attacked the National Parks and Wildlife Service for promoting the region for visitation. It was a highly embarrassing moment for The Nationals, but it shows how out of touch they are with the region.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service was promoting the Kosciuszko National Park after the bushfires and suggesting to people that there was a great deal to see, as there is, and that they had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to observe the recovery of the park after the fires. The Nationals saw a political opportunity and attacked the idea. We have seen a great deal of hypocrisy from The Nationals about promoting regional tourism. Areas surrounding the electorate I represent have some wonderful natural assets which allow people to see some of the best that country New South Wales has to offer. The area has been promoted worldwide by Tourism New South Wales, which has done a terrific job in that area. I look forward to working with groups such as Tourism Snowy Mountains, Capital Region Tourism and other local groups to ensure that the region continues to derive benefits from tourism.

Mr IAN ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [12.12 p.m.], in reply: I will have to speak a little louder than usual to drown out the local government protesters who are marching against the Government in Macquarie Street. I hope honourable members will understand that I am speaking rather loudly to ensure that the message of country train travel gets through to the Carr Labor Government. The honourable member who preceded me in this debate, the honourable member for Monaro, mentioned some type of Country Labor plan for State Rail that was presented to the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Women yesterday.

He must be having a hell of a problem because the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Women, who is responsible for opposing this motion today, did not even mention it. It appears that there is not much liaising between so-called Country Labor and the Labor Party—or has the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Women rejected the plan already, out of hand? The Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Women referred to the touring by car campaign and extolled its virtues and successes. Why did she not talk about a campaign on touring by rail?
Mr Tony Stewart: She did.

Mr IAN ARMSTRONG: She did mention that, but she could not identify one campaign that the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation, under her direction, has undertaken to promote touring by rail in New South Wales. The Minister endeavoured to talk about some of the specific rail ventures that may be undertaken in New South Wales and she referred to Katoomba. The Katoomba rail system is a closed rail system, just as is the Zig Zag Railway on the Newnes Plateau and the Lachlan Valley Railway at Cowra. The only problem with the Lachlan Valley Railway at Cowra is that the engine cannot be moved out of that zone because the track can take only up to 19 tonnes and the engine is heavier than that. State Rail has allowed the track to become so run down between Blayney and Harden that the train cannot be moved out of that zone. The railway has been condemned for safety reasons.

The Minister must recognise two important factors: the first is that we have an ageing population, and the second is that if every Australian spent only $10 dollars extra on one additional night at a tourism destination each year, domestic tourism expenditure would increase by $10.2 billion per year. Why can that not be promoted in New South Wales to see if we can generate another $4 billion or $5 billion in tourism activity in this State for our tourism operators? The amended motion refers to 49,000 international visitors using long distance trains for holiday and leisure purposes during the year ending June 2003. In the Minister's own propaganda, it has been stated that when the International Lions Conference is held in Sydney at the end of next year, there will be 25,000 Lions attending, yet we can attract only 49,000 international visitors in a full year to tour by rail. That is a disgrace. The Minister is citing mickey mouse numbers.

The Minister also referred to backpacking, which is the fastest-growing mode of travel throughout the world currently, and it will continue to be so. The Minister claimed that one of the reasons why there were so many problems with rail tourism is that that there are only 400 passengers per day between Casino and Murwillumbah. The honourable member for Tamworth referred to the Tamworth rail line, and the Minister claimed that only eight people per day use that line. Why does the Government not begin to address the problems by acknowledging the failure of the system? If only eight people per day are using a rail service, that means that the system is not attracting passengers—and that happens when a rail service is run down, antiquated, not attractive, not promoted and is darned difficult to get on because people cannot obtain information. I know of people who have sat on the Cootamundra railway platform in winter for three or four hours and there was no public address system and no communication about when the train was arriving.

Mr Peter Draper: If you try to book, they won't take your booking.

Mr IAN ARMSTRONG: They will not take bookings, and people have to buy their tickets two or three days ahead of the journey and take delivery of their tickets. The Minister also referred to reliance on empirical data only, but why does somebody not go and talk to the travellers? Why does not somebody go down to the big local backpackers hostel in Alexandria and ask travellers what they want? Why does not somebody go along to the local Probus club, the local chamber of commerce, the local regional tourism operators in Cowra, Young, Temora or west Whalan and ask them what they need to make rail travel once again attractive to tourists? The Minister also said that promoters cannot stand still when marketing a product, and I agree. She is right, but why is she frozen solid and not moving one centimetre to promote rail? Rail is the forgotten mode of transport in general in New South Wales and in particular for tourism. It has been ignored by this Government. The Government talks about its promotional projects, but it does not talk about rail. The Opposition rejects the amendment outright.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 46

Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
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 Morris
Mr Newell
Ms Nori
Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Paluzzano

Mr Pearce
Mrs Perry
Mr Price
Dr Refshauge
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon

Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin

Noes, 30

Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Mr Barr
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Draper
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hazzard
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson
Mr Kerr

Mr McGrane
Mr Merton
Ms Moore
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts
Ms Seaton

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

Pairs

Ms Allan	Mr Brogden
Mr Gibson	Mr Constance
Mr Mills	Mr Fraser

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

GUNNEDAH SOUTH PUBLIC SCHOOL HALL

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [12.28 p.m.]: I move:

I raised this issue on 30 April in the Parliament. While it has taken some time to come to the fore, the issue certainly has not diminished one little bit. I have just come back from the launch of the Country Music Awards at the Opera House.

Mr Alan Ashton: Did you win one?

Mr PETER DRAPER: I was in the running. It was very pleasing to see the Premier there to launch the awards, because the Government recognises the contribution that country music makes to our society. But it is a great pity that the Government does not recognise the importance of a hall for the Gunnedah South Public School community. They have been waiting patiently for more than a decade now for the construction of a hall that has been promised them time and time again. With more than 570 students, the Gunnedah South Public School is now the largest school in this State without an assembly hall. I am once again raising the issue in Parliament because I want the school community to have certainty about the date of construction for this desperately needed facility. Gunnedah South Public School has beautiful playgrounds, striking ovals and well-tended trees and gardens. It has a dedicated and dynamic staff, and their enthusiasm for the education of children who attend the school is obvious.

The entire school community participates in school activities but the school does not have the one basic facility that most schools take for granted—a hall. For the past decade school assemblies have been held outside, where students are exposed to the elements. When the weather is inclement the only covered area available for use is the school library but, unfortunately, it is not large enough to accommodate all the students, and some assemblies have to be split. In addition, every time the library is used for assembly functions, debates and other activities that would normally take place in a school hall, all the tables, chairs and shelves of books must be stacked and put to the side. It is a ridiculous situation.

During the years of the former Coalition Government, Gunnedah South Public School was part of the north-west education region. The region had a priority list of schools requiring halls, and over the years Gunnedah South Public School slowly moved until it was the number one priority of the properties division. It was the clear understanding—and a straightforward one—that when the next funds became available Gunnedah South Public School would be the first school in the north-west to have a new hall constructed. Along with the change of government to Labor came the inevitable departmental restructure. The ground rules were changed and no longer is there an official priority list for projects such as this.

Gunnedah South Public School is no longer a priority on a list and nobody within the school community has any idea where they stand. For many years the Gunnedah South school community has actively pursued this project. It has raised funds in excess of $90,000 to assist with the construction of the hall. Former Ministers for Education and Training have made public commitments to construct the school hall. One commitment was given in this very Chamber on 16 October 2001 when my predecessor, Tony Windsor, delivered his valedictory speech. When Mr Windsor questioned approval for the Gunnedah South Public School hall project, the then Minister for Education and Training, now the honourable Speaker of this House, interjected, "It will be done." The school community was overjoyed that the long-awaited promise to provide a hall would finally be a reality.

Since that commitment two State budgets have been handed down and not one cent has been allocated for the construction of the hall. Although no finances have been allocated, architects from the Department of Public Works and Services, as well as property officers from the Department of Education and Training, met early in 2002 on site at the school to finetune the siting and construction details for this elusive hall. The school community was led to believe that funding would be allocated in the 2002-03 State Budget, but it was not forthcoming. Recently the Deputy Premier, in his role as Minister for Education and Training, said:

Although I welcome this approval from the Minister, he has merely reiterated what his predecessors have said for the past decade, and the school community is sick of hearing that the hall will now be considered along with other priorities as part of the Government's capital works program. These comments are extremely disappointing and do nothing to give the Gunnedah South Public School community any hope that they are one iota closer to seeing the first brick laid. I note with great interest a fax from the Minister to Greg Traynor, the Secretary of the Gunnedah South Public School Parents and Citizens Association, dated 24 September. However, the document was only faxed to Mr Traynor on Monday 10 November, the day before I was originally scheduled to speak on the motion. In the fax the Minister said, "funding will be provided during the current term of the Government".

I welcome that commitment from the Minister but, once again, the only thing lacking is a date. The school community has heard these promises many times before and they have been disappointed many times. I urge the Minister to stop the rhetoric about how the funding will be considered in the context of future capital works priorities. I urge him to listen to the pleas of the school community, consider the children, who are still being disadvantaged by the lack of this facility, and give some certainty to the school community by announcing a firm commitment and an actual commencement date for the project.

Muswellbrook South Public School is not in my electorate but it falls within the education district of Tamworth. This school has a student population of slightly more than 430 and its school hall was constructed just over 12 months ago, yet Gunnedah South Public School, which has a pupil enrolment of more than 570, is still waiting for a concrete commitment from the Government. Even Boggabri Public School, which has a student population of only 98, has a hall. Newling Public School, a significantly smaller school in the electorate of Northern Tablelands, has received a commitment from the Government for the construction of a school hall, yet Gunnedah South does not have a similar commitment.

Why are Gunnedah South children continually being disadvantaged? What have they done wrong to be so savagely cut from the Government's agenda, despite continued pleas from prominent people within the community—the school body, parents and citizens association, parents, and children. The community cannot do anything more active than physically raising more than $90,000 to assist the Government with the construction of the hall. This request is not unreasonable. Students should not be continually denied a basic facility that the vast majority of schools in this State take for granted. If the community were given a firm date for construction, I have no doubt that the school community and the wider Gunnedah community would rally behind this project once again with renewed vigour and put more money on the table. They would actively fundraise if that were the impetus needed by the Government to give a commitment for the construction of the school hall.

In 2005 Gunnedah South Public School will celebrate 50 years of public education, and that would be an appropriate time for the new hall to be opened. I urge the Minister to consider the historic significance of 50 years of public education at Gunnedah South Public School and acknowledge the contributions made by the many teachers and graduates, as well as their present contributions to the social fabric of the Gunnedah community. I plead with the Minister to favourably consider the pleas of the community for funding to construct the hall. The school has been waiting for many years and it has been severely disadvantaged. It is time the Minister listened to their entreaties and gave a concrete date for the construction of the hall.

Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.37 p.m.]: I move:

That the motion be amended by omitting all words after "That" with a view to inserting instead "this House notes that the Government has announced a new $1.7 million school hall for Gunnedah South Public School which will be built during this term of office.

I thank the honourable member for Tamworth for raising this matter and I acknowledge his keen interest in education in his electorate. The Government's spending on Education and Training now stands at a record $8.7 billion, a 50 per cent increase on what was spent when Labor came to office in 1995. Our public schools lead the world in literacy, numeracy and science, and we should be proud of that. Our world-class system is supported by more than $1 billion in capital works expenditure over our third term of government—another record. Over the next four years the Government will spend $329 million to reduce class sizes in the first three years of school. That major achievement will have a profound impact on the future of young people. This major election commitment will benefit kindergarten, year 1 and year 2 students across rural, regional, and metropolitan schools alike. Recently, 670 schools received a $34 million funding package to carry out improvements to enhance their overall facilities.

Gunnedah South is a large primary school that has a current student enrolment of 576. On 1 May the Minister for Education and Training announced that a $1.7 million hall would be built at Gunnedah South Public School. This is a firm commitment to be delivered in our third term of government. When completed, the $1.7 million project will include a new state-of-the-art hall, a canteen and a covered outdoor learning area. Planning work is now being undertaken for the development of this new facility. The department is consulting with the school community in this planning phase, but it takes time. I am fortunate to have a new school hall planned for Bankstown Public School, which is in my electorate, for about the same cost. But it has taken some time for the planning and consultation process to get it right so that the school has genuine ownership of the finished product.

The Government is committed to providing our students with quality learning environments It has allocated nearly $22,000 for the replacement of floor coverings at the school. As the honourable member would be aware, the State budget was handed down last June. The budget is subject to deliberations by the budget committee, and it is not possible to pre-empt what may be included as capital works projects in next year's budget. The Minister for Education and Training will advise honourable members as soon as decisions are made. He looks forward to visiting Gunnedah and turning the first sod during this term. I am sure Gunnedah South Public School will have a great facility for our kids today and for the future. The Government is about investing in our future. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore) [12.41 p.m.]: I support the honourable member for Tamworth, who advises me that he is happy with the amendment. He regards it as a win, for which I am very pleased. The school community of Gunnedah South has been waiting a very long time for a school hall. School funding is one of the things that encouraged me to become involved in politics in the first place. I was a member of the parents and citizens at Neutral Bay Public School for nine years. From as early as 1979 the parents raised money and agitated for a school hall, and in 1994 I had the great privilege of opening the school hall, which is an indication of how long it takes to get these things off the ground when the government is intransigent, which is what has happened in this case.

Mr Tony Stewart: That's unfair, particularly with the amount of work we have done in your electorate.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: No, it is not unfair. I am sure the honourable member for Bankstown is strenuously trying to defend his Government, but the truth is that Gunnedah South was on the top of the priority list for capital works in 1995 and the current Government took it off the list. It is only now that the Government has made a commitment to put it back on the list sometime in the next four years, which does not mean it will happen next year. I assure the students, teachers and parents of the school at Gunnedah South, the broader community, and the honourable member for Tamworth that I will lend my weight to any pressure they need to apply to ensure that the money for the hall is allocated in the budget. Prior to the last election the Coalition promised to allocate the money for the building. I note that the honourable member for Tamworth has acknowledged the friendliness and success of the school, its wonderful teachers, and its supportive parents. It is in a lovely setting, as one would expect in that part of the world.

It is sheer neglect on the part of the Government that a school with a student population of more than 500 does not have a hall. The school should not have had to wait this long and it certainly should not have to wait another four years. The money should have been allocated in this year's budget. If the Government is really committed to building the hall, the school should not have to wait until 2006. The students of Gunnedah South deserve better. All members in this Chamber—and I refer particularly to the crossbenchers—should consider the capital works and maintenance requirements of their schools. The Auditor-General's report released today reveals a backlog of $124 million worth of maintenance, which is why we have so many reports of leaky roofs, blocked gutters and drains, et cetera. The Government must make a much bigger commitment to the maintenance of our schools.

To avoid schools being given false hope, honourable members should support the schools asset register bill, which I introduced. The bill would require the Government to establish a register of all schools, in which it would provide details of forward planning, including funding, as to when buildings will be erected or upgraded. School communities would be satisfied if they at least knew when the Government was going to do something. But in this case, and in so many others, false hopes have been raised because of commitments made but not met.

The honourable member for Tamworth stated that the previous member for Tamworth was told in 2000 by the then Minister for Education and Training that the school hall would be built. It is possible that it will not be built until 2006. I join with the honourable member for Tamworth and the school community in continuing to lobby to ensure that funding for the school hall will be provided in next year's budget. During the last election campaign the Coalition committed $1.7 million to enable the school hall to be built this year.

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [12.46 p.m.]: I support the amendment moved by the Parliamentary Secretary. I congratulate the honourable member for Tamworth on his motion. It highlights the hiatus between the long period of political survival in the seat of Tamworth by Tony Windsor and the previous member for Tamworth. Tony Windsor did very well, particularly out of the Labor State Government—he may have done reasonably well out of the Coalition Government—because he was an Independent and he continually exerted pressure to achieve his goals. If the Gunnedah South Public School has suffered at all in the past 15 months, it was probably because the member for Tamworth—a member of the National Party—did not lobby for the hall at all. It has probably been back on the political agenda since the current honourable member for Tamworth was elected in March. I congratulate the honourable member for Tamworth on the terms of his motion:

His approach is much smarter than that of Opposition members, who would normally condemn the State Government for not doing something immediately, last week, or last year, even though they would not have done it when they were in Government. He has kept the lines of communication with the Government open in an attempt to improve the conditions at Gunnedah South Public School. More than 500 is a large number of students at a primary school. Obviously they deserve the very best facilities they can get. As the honourable member for Bankstown stated, schools in his electorate will receive extra funding, but many schools do not have that many students. Unfortunately, maintenance has to continue. Many facilities, even in small schools, have to be improved. There is no doubt that there is a good case for carrying out works in a large school. The amendment moved by the Parliamentary Secretary is:

During the budget debate honourable members spoke about how much money would be spent in the Education budget in the next financial year. But it is important to realise that the Minister for Education and Training made a firm commitment in his announcement on 1 May that this $1.7 million hall would be delivered in our third term of government. The honourable member for Tamworth wants the school hall to be provided as soon as possible, and for work to begin after Christmas. However, all honourable members know that budgetary processes take a little longer than that, especially when $1.7 million is involved. The completed project will include a hall. The electorate of East Hills was established in 1952 and some schools there do not have a school hall, a permanent canteen—some schools have a canteen in a demountable building—or a covered outdoor learning area. In my electorate the school communities have to fund half the cost of a covered outdoor learning area and apply for a grant for the remainder. I have helped school communities in my electorate run trivia nights to raise funds for facilities.
If I could get a commitment from the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister for $1.7 million I would be very happy. The Minister has said that he looks forward to turning the first sod, which is his right, with the honourable member for Tamworth when work begins on the Gunnedah school hall. Even if the work begins immediately, or as soon as possible, it will take some time to complete. The amendment to the motion states that the school hall will be built during this term of the Government and will be finished. That is not a commitment by the Minister for Education and Training that the building will be commenced in the last couple of weeks of this term, or that it will take two years to build. The commitment is that the hall will be built.

I congratulate the honourable member for Tamworth on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I congratulate the Deputy Premier on giving the commitment that the hall will be built during this term. I look forward to the honourable member for Tamworth opening that hall with the Minister this term. I look forward to the member continuing to look after the interests of the people of Tamworth, particularly the students at Gunnedah South Public School, long after the next election.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [12.51 p.m.]: I also congratulate the honourable member for Tamworth on moving this motion. I acknowledge the amendment moved by the Government, which the honourable member for Tamworth has indicated he will support, and I will support it. This is a good win for the school and for the Tamworth electorate. When elected to the Tamworth electorate, the honourable member went out to his community and asked them what important issues he needed to take up on their behalf. My electorate shares the same media footprint with the Tamworth electorate, and I saw mentioned time and again the need for a school hall at Gunnedah South. The honourable member for Bankstown, the honourable member for East Hills and other members indicated that the hall will be built during this term, and I congratulate the Government on that commitment. However, I remind the Government that there is a similar commitment for a school hall at the Newling Public School, in the Northern Tablelands.

Mr Tony Stewart: It will be delivered.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: The Parliamentary Secretary said it will be delivered, and I appreciate that commitment. If it is delivered, the honourable member for Tamworth and I will be able to celebrate together in the New England area. The Government also gave a commitment for a covered outdoor learning area for Kellys Plains Public School. The shadow Minister commented on capital funding. It is acknowledged that there is a lot of catch-up to be done with capital funding for schools. In the four years prior to my election to this House in 1999, capital funding for schools was $2 billion. In the four years from 1999 to 2003 it was more than $5 billion. That was a significant increase in capital funding, but we are still catching up on the backlog. I have visited all 55 schools in the Northern Tablelands electorate and with the Government's contribution and the massive support from parents, teachers and students many of them are looking fantastic.

Recently I attended the 125-years celebration of the Gilgai Public School in my electorate, which was a wonderful event. It is important that we continue to acknowledge the significant role that public education plays in our communities, particularly in regional and remote areas. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government also on an initiative at Ashford Central School. Years 11 and 12 have been added to that remote local school, and the results have been stunning. Students would not have had the opportunity of completing years 11 and 12 if that program had not been introduced. Previously, indigenous students from that community could not go on to years 11 and 12 because they were not available. Now there is a retention rate of 90 per cent of students going on to year 11 in that remote community. At Ashford school people who had left school more than 15 years previously are undertaking studies. People are coming back to education, and the positive effects in that community have already being felt. That community has seen more than its fair share of hardship.

In education there is always a lot to be done: there is more to be done in many area. The honourable member for Tamworth has had some good news, and I know how hard he pushed this issue. I hope the capital projects in the Northern Tablelands will be completed sooner rather than later. I acknowledge that resources are finite, and we will continue to push very hard for them because the benefits are not only to education but also to the flow-on social effects and the strong community sense to perform in difficult times. I congratulate the honourable member for Tamworth and the Government on this good outcome.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [12.56 p.m.], in reply: I support the amendment, I applaud the announcement by the Government, and I congratulate the Minister, who has received many representations on behalf of the Gunnedah South Public School community. I have made a number of representations and I know that in years past many other representations have been made. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary, as well as the honourable member for North Shore, the honourable member for East Hills and the honourable member for Northern Tablelands for their contributions to this debate. The honourable member for Northern Tablelands raised the very valid point that when I decided to campaign in the Tamworth electorate I spent a lot of time in Gunnedah knocking on doors and listening to people. One clear message I received time and again was the importance of getting a hall for the school community.

I was overwhelmed by the passion within the community and the wide-ranging support from businesspeople, taxi drivers, truck drivers and coalmine workers. Everyone supported the concept of giving the young children of Gunnedah the facilities they deserve for school activities. I very much applaud the confirmation that the hall and the associated covered walkway and canteen will be completed this term. That is wonderful news for me to take to the Gunnedah community, which has been aware since early November that I was scheduled to speak on this motion today. The community has kept in close contact with me and my office, eagerly awaiting any developments. We now have confirmation that it will happen!

After I gave my inaugural speech, I took the first opportunity to lodge this important notice of motion and to ask in question time when the school hall would be completed. I am delighted that it is now happening. I am a very strong supporter and advocate of public education. I am a member of the Nemingha school council, and when parliamentary activities allow I make as much contribution as I can to that community. The school is important to me, because my son attends it, and my daughter will attend it next year. My father was a public primary school principal and my grandmother was a public primary school principal. I am married to a teacher, so I have a close association with the education system.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: You think you would learn after a while.

Mr PETER DRAPER: I do not think that one learns; one just moves with the flow. I have a strong appreciation of the contribution that teachers make to our education system. We all know the difficulties that they are facing at the moment and we support their endeavours. I recognise the willingness of the Government to commit to building this school hall and I again thank the Minister. I am looking forward to going to the site with a shovel and assisting the Minister in turning the first sod.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the consideration forthwith of a motion for the establishment of a Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE AND ETHICS

Establishment

Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.02 p.m.]: I move:

That notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders:

1. A Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics (referred to as "the Committee") be appointed to consider and report upon any matters relating to privilege which may be referred to it by the House.

2. The Committee is the designated committee for the purpose of exercising the functions in part 7A division 2 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, relating to parliamentary ethical standards including the review of the code of conduct.

3. The Committee consist of the eight members being: five members nominated by the Premier, two members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and one member nominated by Independent members. Nominations for membership of the Committee are to be in writing to the Clerk of the House within seven days of the date of this resolution.

4. (1) The Premier is to nominate the Chair of the Committee in writing to the Clerk of the House.
(2) The Deputy Chair of the Committee will be elected by the Committee.

(3) The Deputy Chair is to act as Chair when the Chair is absent from a meeting.

(4) In the absence of both the Chair and Deputy Chair from a meeting, a member of the Committee is to be elected by the members present to act as Chair for that meeting.

(5) The Chair, Deputy Chair or other member acting as Chair at a meeting has a deliberative vote and in the event of an equality of votes a casting vote.

(6) Any five members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum.

5. The Committee have power to make visits of inspection within New South Wales and elsewhere in Australia.

6. The Committee have power to confer with any similar Committee appointed by the Legislative Council.

7. A member may raise a matter of privilege suddenly arising relating to proceedings then before the House. The matter will be determined in accordance with Standing Order 101.

8. Except as provided in paragraph 7 and in paragraph 8 (e), a matter of privilege shall be brought before the House as follows:

(a) A member desiring to raise a matter of privilege must inform the Speaker of the details in writing.

(b) The Speaker must consider the matter within 14 days and decide whether a motion to refer the matter to the Committee is to take precedence under the standing orders. The Speaker must notify his decision in writing to the member.

(c) While a matter is being considered by the Speaker, a member must not take any action or refer to the matter in the House.

(d) If the Speaker decides that a motion for referral should take precedence, the member may, at any time when there is no business before the House, give notice of a motion to refer the matter to the Committee. The notice must take precedence under Standing Order 127 on the next sitting day (unless the next sitting day is a Friday sitting).

(e) If the Speaker decides that the matter should not be the subject of a notice of referral, a member is not prevented from giving a notice of motion in relation to the matter. Such notice shall not have precedence.

(f) If notice of a motion is given under paragraph 8 (d), but the House is not expected to meet on the day following the giving of the notice or the next sitting day is a Friday sitting, the motion may be moved at a later hour of the sitting at which the notice is given with the leave of the House.

As indicated in the second reading speech on the Independent Commission Against Corruption Amendments (Ethics Committee) Bill, the Government is moving this motion to establish a Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. The committee, which will have a similar role to the role of the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics, will advise on matters involving members' ethics and standards and conduct education on members' ethics. It will also have the power to examine and deal with contempts of Parliament and to consider issues relating to the control of proceedings and the publication of parliamentary debates and reports. The motion is slightly different from the draft motion tabled during the second reading speech. It now takes into account concerns raised by the Opposition and by the Clerks of the Legislative Assembly. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai) [1.05 p.m.]: As indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary, this motion has been amended to reflect some of the concerns that I expressed when the Independent Commission Against Corruption Amendment (Ethics Committee) Bill was debated in this Chamber. The motion has been amended to ensure that members of Parliament are not restricted from raising matters of privilege in any other way whilst they are being considered by the Speaker. The original proposal provided that members could not refer to or otherwise raise matters which they thought affected their privileges whilst the Speaker was considering a matter. This motion has been remedied to maintain the status quo and also to place a 14-day time limit on the Speaker when considering matters of privilege.

I want to make two other points. What has not been addressed in this motion—and I acknowledge that it was as a consequence of the passage of the legislation both through this House and the upper House—is the fact that community members will no longer form part of this committee. That situation has been in place since the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Ethics was established as a result of the amendment to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act. It was one of those things that set the Standing Committee on Ethics in this place apart from the privileges committee in another place.
I thought that one of the better things about the way in which the committee did its work was that it allowed members of the community to be involved. I realise that members of the community will continue to be involved when the members code of conduct is being considered, but I still think that this is a retreat from the accountability and transparency that previously existed. I continue to raise my eyebrows at the fact that, although we are constituting a committee of ethics and privileges, the issue of citizens' rights of reply, the instrument established by the Government following its election in 1995 to give citizens an opportunity to respond to members' statements in this place, is not to be administered by this committee.

An ethics and privileges committee clearly ought to have a capacity to handle citizens' rights of reply. That matter will continue to be dealt with by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, a committee that rarely meets, and will not operate in the way that this motion seeks to ensure by the appointment of a parliamentary committee on privileges and ethics. There could be no greater need than for a committee of this type to continue to operate. It must operate strongly. It must continue to ensure that members of Parliament are guided in their actions, that they are accountable and that they are transparent. One needs only to look at the honourable member for Wentworthville and the issues with which she is faced to understand why that is necessary.

Motion agreed to.

[Madam Acting-Speaker (Ms Marianne Saliba) left the chair at 1.07. p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

TOTALIZATOR LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Bill received and read a first time.

Second reading ordered to stand as an order of the day.

MINORS FALSE IDENTIFICATION

Ministerial Statement

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing) [2.20 p.m.]: As we approach the holiday season a concerning trend involving fake identification [ID] has become apparent. In recent weeks at least 60 fake IDs have been confiscated from young people in the northern beaches area. I warn operators of licensed venues in that area and in other areas across the State to look out for licences that have been tampered with and to examine all identification carefully. In some cases the last digit of the date of birth on licences has been altered to show the minor to be over 18 years of age. The licences are then relaminated with plastic. At a glance, the identification appears to be identical to the original. However, on closer inspection, the altered ID may not have a sharp edge, the photograph may not be clear and the plastic film may be peeling away from the licence.

The Government is taking steps to protect young people and to deter this practice. Inspectors from the Department of Gaming and Racing and licensing police are conducting joint operations. They are working specifically with staff from late-night trading venues in the northern beaches area. Department inspectors and police will visit venues in the coming weeks to raise awareness of the practice and seize any fake IDs. Inspectors will scrutinise carefully new club memberships and examine identification that has been tampered with. The Department of Gaming and Racing is not limiting its focus to the northern beaches area. Officers are assisting police and licensees throughout the State to identify fake IDs and those that have been tampered with. Our licensing laws are designed to protect young people and we must ensure that those laws are upheld.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [2.21 p.m.]: The Opposition supports this timely warning as we approach the summer holiday season. This is a period when school leavers are sometimes tempted to obtain fake identification. Over recent years the incidence of this practice has increased. The Minister has alluded to the availability of professional fake identifications. However, it would be wrong to ascribe the total burden of addressing that issue to club and hotel licensees. I regret that the Minister did not announce that the Department of Gaming and Racing and NSW Police will redouble their efforts over the pre-holiday period to undertake a public awareness campaign to deter young people from adopting this practice. I feel confident in stating on behalf of club managers and hoteliers throughout the State that the last thing they would want to do is inadvertently admit to their premises an under-age person. If they did so, they would risk losing everything and fail in their duty to responsibly serve alcohol. I endorse the sentiments expressed by the Minister and offer the Opposition's support for the proposal.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of a visiting parliamentary delegation from the Bundestrat of the Austrian Parliament. I trust that their stay in Australia is both fruitful and enjoyable.

PETITIONS

Gaming Machine Tax

Petitions opposing the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from Ms Gladys Berejiklian, Mr Andrew Fraser, Mrs Judy Hopwood, Mr Malcolm Kerr, Mr Steven Pringle, Mr Ian Slack-Smith, Mr George Souris, Mr Andrew Stoner, Mr Andrew Tink and Mr John Turner.

Red Rock-Corindi Surf Life Saving Club

Petition requesting that Crown land be used to establish a clubhouse for the Red Rock-Corindi Surf Life Saving Club, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

Coffs Harbour Pacific Highway Bypass

Petition requesting the construction of a Pacific Highway bypass for the coastal plain of Coffs Harbour, received from Mr Andrew Fraser.

Windsor Road Traffic Arrangements

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

CountryLink Rail Services

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 Andrew Fraser, Mr Andrew Stoner and Mr John Turner.

Casino to Murwillumbah Branch Rail Line

Petitions requesting the extension of the Casino to Murwillumbah branch line to south-east Queensland, received from Mr Thomas George and Mr Donald Page.

Tamworth and Armidale Rail Services

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

COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION

Reports

Mr Paul Lynch, as Chairman, tabled the following reports:

Seventh General Meeting with the Police Integrity Commission, Together with Transcript of Proceedings and Minutes, dated December 2003
Eleventh General Meeting with NSW Ombudsman, Together with Transcript of Proceedings and Minutes, dated December 2003.

Ordered to be printed.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

_________

CHILD INDECENT ASSAULT SENTENCE

Mr JOHN BROGDEN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Will the Attorney introduce special legislation to overturn a court decision, which he has admitted is wrong in law, to allow the retrial of a man acquitted of indecently assaulting an 11-year-old girl because the judge wrongly accepted the argument that the man did not intend the indecent assault because he was drunk?

Mr BOB DEBUS: This is indeed a most distressing case that is raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and my own deep concern about it is a matter of record. I point out as well that there are in existence independent bodies to investigate allegations of misconduct by judicial officers and by legal officers. This case is in the hands of those bodies now, and has been for some time. The Government will, of course, explore every possibility for correcting the outcome of this particularly distressing case. That is a matter that I have under close consideration at the moment. On the other hand, I think it is reasonable to point out that under the principles of the famous case of Kable, decided in the High Court several years ago, there are very great difficulties in passing a retrospective law of the kind that the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting.

Mr John Brogden: It didn't stop you for Gretley.

Mr BOB DEBUS: In response to his interjection, I point out that the legislation passed very recently by the Parliament in the so-called Gretley case was one merely to correct a procedural problem. It was not one aimed—

Mr John Brogden: What do you call a judge making a mistake?

Mr BOB DEBUS: Be quiet!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting and allow the Attorney General to answer the question.

Mr John Brogden: It was a mistake, an error in law.

Mr BOB DEBUS: It was not one that was directed to overturning the decision of a criminal court about an individual.

Mr John Brogden: Point of order: The point of order relates to relevance. I specifically asked the Attorney whether he would overturn the decision with a special piece of legislation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Attorney General was specifically replying to the question.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Had the Attorney General completed his answer?

Mr BOB DEBUS: Yes, Mr Speaker.

STROKE SUFFERERS CARE

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health. What is the latest information on efforts to reduce the incidence of strokes in New South Wales?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Honourable members will be interested to hear of the enormous strides that have been made in the care of stroke sufferers in New South Wales in the past twelve months. Stroke is a condition that touches nearly everyone in our community at some stage of their lives. More than 48,000 strokes occur in Australia every year. On average, a stroke will occur somewhere ever 11 minutes, and in New South Wales around one in four men and one in five women over the age of 45 years will suffer from a stroke. It is the third leading cause of death and the leading cause of disability for older people in western countries. And for every person directly affected by a stroke, four or five family members are indirectly affected in a number of ways.

Stroke is a condition where the blood supply to the brain is impaired. Often, the sufferers will be unaware that they have been afflicted. But what is known and accepted is that for the best possible recovery to occur, fast access to a skilled team of clinicians is essential. The Government Action Plan of Health relied on input from over a thousand health care professionals. In 2001, the Greater Metropolitan Transition Task Force—a clinician-led working group—was established to put that action plan in place. It immediately identified a number of key specialty areas that could be improved by a plan involving the networking of services and ideas. They include cardiac services, brain injury rehabilitation, severe burns services, spinal cord injuries, and stroke.

Significant funding from this Government has backed the plans in each case. In the case of stroke, funding started in October last year, with $10 million in recurrent funding and more than $2 million in capital to support the establishment or enhancement of 18 specialised stroke units; dedicated four-bed units with specialty staff and monitoring equipment that take patients out of general wards; more than 100 new clinical positions created to support the plan; co-ordinated access to allied health facilities and staff, including physiotherapists, dieticians and speech pathologists; and networked educational programs for staff across New South Wales to improve pre-hospital emergency and post-acute care for stroke sufferers.

The specialty groups have been established in the following places: Bankstown, Blacktown, Campbelltown, Concord, Gosford, Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai, John Hunter, Liverpool, Manly, Nepean, Prince of Wales, Royal North Shore, Royal Prince Alfred, St George, St Vincent's, Sutherland, Westmead and Wollongong. The first of those units became operational in November last year at Prince of Wales, and when Nepean Hospital's stroke unit became operational last month the initial roll-out of these vital units was complete. The case for their establishment was simple. Overseas research indicates that stroke units significantly increase the survival rates of sufferers and lessen the effects of long-term disability. In Sweden, where stroke units have been available for several years, the mortality rate from stroke is around 10 per cent. But in certain regions of Russia without these units, it is as high as 50 per cent. In Australia, prior to the New South Wales stroke initiative, the average mortality rate from strokes was 20 per cent.

I can report today that results in New South Wales from the first 12 months are very encouraging. In the Illawarra a recent audit of stroke mortality revealed death rates significantly below national and international benchmarks since the Greater Metropolitan Transition Task Force plan began. Mortality rates in this area have dropped to less than 10 per cent, in line with the world's best results. In the Hunter the proportion of stroke patients discharged with minimal disability has increased from 46 per cent to 57 per cent since the opening of the stroke unit at the Hunter. Just last week at St George Hospital the Joe Enis stroke unit was formally opened, named after its first director, who played a key role in the development of a wider network stroke plan. The St George unit was first established in February 2001. It has received progressive enhancements to its resources—

Mr Ian Armstrong: Point of order: My point of order is to note that one-third of the State, in the country, does not have a stroke unit.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Lachlan to order. He should know better than to take a point of order such as that.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I made reference to an initial roll-out. Obviously, the honourable member for Lachlan did not hear that. The unit at St George ensures that the people of St George can expect world-class integrated care for stroke sufferers. It is a story that is being repeated right across the greater metropolitan area and beyond. It is one of the unique achievements of the Greater Metropolitan Transitional Taskforce process, a process that has relied on the pooled input and dedication of health professionals, who have better patient outcomes as their primary objective. That is a process that this Government will always support and always back.

SOUTHERN AREA HEALTH SERVICE BUDGET

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Why has he underfunded the Southern Area Health Service to the extent that Young Hospital has had to enter an arrangement to pay off its phone bill, couriers will not pick up or deliver packages because they have not been paid and, at Goulburn District Hospital, the fire hydrants did not work for 10 months and the plumber who eventually fixed the hydrants is still waiting to be paid more than $10,000?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I am pleased that the Leader of The Nationals has asked this question because it ends the week. Today he will give the next instalment of a weekly run of where he has either misled the House or simply got it wrong through his lazy attempts at useless research. For the record, the budget of the Southern Area Health Service is $158 million, an increase of 9.5 per cent. Not once this week has the Leader of The Nationals got anything right. On Tuesday he accused the chief executive officer [CEO] of the Mid Coast Area Health Service of attempting to deceive his constituents over the level of services they offer at his local hospital, despite the fact that the Leader of The Nationals on 6 November received a copy of a letter from the CEO with an attached list of tables outlining the services given out at that hospital. That is hardly the type of document that a CEO would use to deceive someone. That was the first instance of the Leader of The Nationals getting it wrong. It did not stop there. He followed up the next day—

Mr Andrew Humpherson: Point of order: I draw your attention to rulings by former Speaker Kelly, a person well known to and respected by you, who on three occasions ruled that it is not proper for a Minister to develop his answer to a question in such a way as to debate the matter raised. The Minister is debating the matter and is not responding to the question. For consistency you have no option but to direct him to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. The honourable member for Davidson will resume his seat.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: This record funding of $158 million, a 9.5 per cent increase, includes rebuilding Queanbeyan Hospital. On Wednesday the Leader of The Nationals asked a question about the Midwest Area Health Service. On Tuesday he tried to suggest that the service had stopped recruiting for allied health professionals in the mid west. A whole range of advertisements were placed in the Sydney Morning Herald of 30 October for allied health professionals—an occupational therapist at Bathurst Base Hospital, an occupational therapist for Forbes Community Centre and a social worker for Orange Base Hospital, with the closing dates for application on 21 November. The area that the Leader of The Nationals claims has put the skids on allied health occupations has filled seven positions in the past two months.

On Wednesday he stated that the area health service had stopped recruiting allied health professionals yet the Sydney Morning Herald of 30 October includes a number of advertisements for allied health workers and in the past two months the area health service has filled seven positions, including four occupational therapists, a physiotherapist, a psychologist and a speech pathologist. On top of that the Midwest Area Health Service is currently advertising for 16 allied health professionals. Seven positions were filled in two months. And another 16 positions are being advertised currently, yet the Leader of The Nationals asserts that the area health service is not recruiting. Whether it is Kempsey District Hospital and its redevelopment—

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Point of order: The question relates directly to Goulburn Base Hospital. I ask that you direct the Minister to answer that question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will continue his answer.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I am merely putting on the record how the Leader of The Nationals always gets it wrong, wrong, wrong.

Mr Andrew Humpherson: Point of order: The Minister is entitled to make some preliminary comments, as you would well acknowledge. I draw your attention to a ruling by former Speaker Ellis on 31 August 1967 stating that it is out of order for Ministers to make personal attacks upon the character and conduct of members when answering questions. That is what the Minister has done for the past five minutes. You should make him answer the question or sit him down.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought the honourable member for Davidson was a little less sensitive than that.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Whether it is the Mid North Coast Area Health Service and the redevelopment of his hospital, the level of services out of his hospital, the recruitment of staff or—

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: Standing Order 138 requires that answers given be relevant to the question. The Minister does not seem to know what part of the State he is talking about. The question relates to the Southern Area Health Service and Young District Hospital not paying its phone or courier bills and about Goulburn Base Hospital not paying its plumber's bills.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. The Minister may make passing reference to as much of the State as he wishes.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: No matter what area health service the Leader of The Nationals talks about, he cannot get his facts right. This week he established an outstanding record of getting things wrong, wrong, wrong, because the budget of the area health service has increased by 9.5 per cent, and includes rebuilding Queanbeyan District Hospital and I think also rebuilding Young District Hospital.

SCHOOL SECURITY

Ms MARIE ANDREWS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. What is the latest information on efforts to improve security and safety in schools?

Dr ANDREW REFSHAUGE: I thank the honourable member for her keen interest in schools, particularly the safety of schools and students. New South Wales schools are one of the safest places in the community, and we are ensuring that they remain so. In this financial year alone we spent some $20 million on school security through a wide range of strategies to make our schools even safer.

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

Dr ANDREW REFSHAUGE: Since 1999 we have installed 250 school security fences at a cost of $37 million, and another 200 security fences at a cost of $20 million will be completed by 2007. The fences are working: vandalism has dropped by 76 per cent, illegal entry has fallen by 81 per cent and fire incidents have reduced by 100 per cent. More than 1,500 schools have been fitted with security alarms and another 30 selected high-risk schools have been equipped with video surveillance, which is monitored by the security directorate's unit. The security directorate provides 24-hour mobile guards patrol services, including intensive security patrols in high-risk regions during school holidays. Break-ins in areas covered by intensive security patrols dropped by more than one-third last Christmas.

More than 44,000 school computers have been fitted with lock-down devices, and all new computers are fitted with lock-down devices upon delivery. The Crimes Amendment (School Protection) Act has been bolstered with strong new penalties for anyone entering school grounds to assault, intimidate or harass those who are legitimately on the premises. NSW Police has laid more than 60 charges under the new legislation. Last month I announced a range of measures to help schools deal better with incidents such as violent behaviour, intruders on school grounds and emergencies. I announced that the How to be a Safer School Kit would be sent out to all primary and secondary schools across the State. This simple, easy-to-read guide for principals and teachers shows them how to better protect their schools and students.

The safety and security directorate was established to support staff and students with safety concerns. It operates a 24-hour hotline to give schools real-time advice and support in managing serious incidents. It also works with schools on local school plans to improve safety and security measures. The department's security directorate is doing excellent work. Last month its director, Ike Ellis, presented the Government's school security initiatives to the 2003 OECD Conference on School Safety in Europe. The New South Wales Government initiatives were not only well received, but they were taken up by the State of New York, which believes that we are leading the world. New York wants to take on board what we are doing and introduce it into their schools.

A new crime prevention agreement—Schools and NSW Police Memorandum of Understanding [MOU]—will, for the first time, mean that all New South Wales schools, private and public, share critical information on serious incidents with the police. We expect that the agreement will prevent cases of arson, solve crime and ensure that drugs stay out of our schools. The school culture is already strongly anti-drugs. Now, with greater police presence, schools will be even more drug-resistant. The agreement will provide faster flow of information between schools and police, give schools advice on how to handle and secure confiscated items such as weapons or illegal drugs, enable Catholic and other non-government sector schools to share information with police for the first time, and help police to prevent, reduce and solve crimes.

A report late last year by Professor Andrew Gonzci of the University of Technology, Sydney, found that schools remain safe places for children. He found an average of only 1.6 serious incidents per school per year, with many schools having no serious incidents at all. Although schools remain one of the safest places in the community, they are sometimes affected by crime. The MOU will enable schools to give police early and accurate advice on incidents, thus increasing the safety and security of the entire school community. The MOU builds on the work done by the security and safety directorate to improve dialogue between principals and police, and better protect our schools. Already we are seeing an improved police presence in State schools with a 43 per cent increase in the number of times police have visited schools in the past year from 426 occasions in 2002 to 612 occasions to date.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Dr ANDREW REFSHAUGE: The increased police presence in schools is helping to deal speedily with incidents that can sometimes affect the entire school community, and keep them as safe places. NSW Police, the Department of Education and Training, the Association of Independent Schools and the Catholic Education Commission have signed the MOU. It has been examined in detail and endorsed by the Privacy Commissioner. It sets out ways in which the sectors agree to share and exchange information to improve the safety and security of schools, and prevent, reduce and resolve crime in and around our schools. All members of the school community have a right to expect schools to be a safe place in which to learn and work. The MOU will ensure that our schools remain safe and provide even safer conditions in our schools.

CHILD INDECENT ASSAULT SENTENCE

Mr ANDREW TINK: My question is addressed to the Attorney General. Given that he just said to the Leader of the Opposition that he was exploring all options, and that he had written previously to the honourable member for Mount Druitt that, unfortunately, the decision to acquit X cannot be overturned on appeal, who is he misleading, the honourable member for Mount Druitt or this House?

Mr BOB DEBUS: It is true that the decision cannot be overturned by the court on appeal, but I am investigating, with the assistance of the Crown Advocate, what other legal remedy there may be to deal with the circumstance.

RESPONSIBLE SERVICE OF ALCOHOL TRAINING PROGRAM

Ms ALISON MEGARRITY: I address my question to the Minister for Gaming and Racing. What is the latest information on the mandatory responsible service of alcohol training program?

Mr GRANT McBRIDE: There has been a strong focus on the impact of alcohol abuse in our community this year, especially since the recent Alcohol Summit. It is clear that the community wants additional measures to reduce alcohol-related incidents in our State. A key part of the fight against alcohol abuse is the training of staff involved directly with the supply of alcohol. Tomorrow new regulations come into effect lifting training standards across the State's 12,000 licensed venues. The changes will ensure that everyone involved directly with the supply of alcohol in New South Wales completes responsible service of alcohol training [RSA]. The RSA training scheme has been very successful in reducing alcohol-related incidents in pubs and clubs. Clearly the program should be extended.

Under the changes to come into effect tomorrow all licensees and permanent staff will be required to undergo RSA training by the end of this year. All casual staff will have until the end of June next year to complete the course. The regulations will apply to staff in pubs, clubs, restaurants and all other leader outlets. They will apply also to volunteers, promotional staff and cellar-door salespeople at wineries. It is just as important for this group of people to be trained as it is for people working in pubs and clubs. Importantly, the new regulations have been developed with industry and community involvement. Industry representatives have seen the value of the responsible service of alcohol training, and they have supported measures to extend the program to all permanent and casual staff.

These new regulations represent a significant step forward. The changes will lift standards across the industry, reduce demand on police, and minimise the number of alcohol-related incidents. The RSA program helps staff to identify and manage patrons who have had too much to drink. Training includes information on responsible serving laws, strategies for different venues and information on the effects of alcohol. Staff will be trained to ensure that alcohol is not served to minors. They will be required to check identifications consistently, and they will develop a thorough understanding of liquor laws and penalties.

The RSA training will be invaluable for licensees and staff in the weeks ahead as we approach Christmas. Thousands of people will celebrate the festive season, and I am sure this training program will help to reduce alcohol-related incidents. The new regulations will set new standards for the industry and will send a clear message to the community that further steps are being taken to reduce alcohol abuse in New South Wales. The courses must be approved by the Liquor Administration Board, which will ensure a consistent standard of RSA training across the industry sector.

My department is conducting a major education campaign to alert the industry and other stakeholders to the new scheme. Licensees and staff have a tremendous responsibility to their patrons and can effectively reduce excessive drinking in the community. Delegates at the four-day summit on alcohol abuse sent a clear message to the Government: they wanted an improvement in the serving practices of staff in pubs and clubs through mandatory training on the responsible service of alcohol. The Government is considering also another recommendation from the Summit including an extension of the RSA training program to security officers who work in pubs and clubs. I am convinced that the responsible service of alcohol training is an important part in the fight against alcohol abuse in our community.

NORTHPARKES MINE WATER SUPPLY

Mr TONY McGRANE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Energy and Utilities. Will the Minister provide the time frame for the implementation of an upgrade to the water supply for the shire of Parkes and the Northparkes Mine?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I thank the honourable remember for inviting me to Parkes, which I visited last Thursday, and it was a very productive visit. I met with the honourable member, the mayor of Parkes, Robert Wilson, and the manager of the Northparkes Mine. The Parkes water supply is under substantial pressure from the drought, as is the supply of water to a mine that employs 300 people. We had lengthy discussions about issues relating to security of supply. The town's two dams are almost dry, although water restrictions were introduced some time ago. The Parkes Shire Council is concerned to secure a water supply in the near future for its township through a package water treatment plant that will allow river water to be adequately processed. The alternative supply, the aquifer bore system, carries the risk of failure over the summer.

Following that productive meeting, I offered $443,000 under the Country Towns Water Scheme to part fund that package plant. The mayor responded expeditiously and in return for that emergency funding offered an interim solution. On Tuesday the council agreed not only to accept our offer, but also to introduce a range of other water conservation measures. The water saving initiatives include a rainwater tank rebate scheme, the refitting of household water fittings and appliances, garden mulch at subsidised rates and distribution of water-wise garden brochures. The council is also considering changes to its pricing policy to encourage water conservation.

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

Mr FRANK SARTOR: The Opposition claims to represent country electorates, but it has no idea what is going on. I made a further commitment to the people of Parkes that the Government would expedite the plan for a water cycle assessment. Instead of a 20-week lead time we will try to achieve that much sooner so that by March we can make a final decision on augmentation of the filtration plant that would secure long-term supply to Parkes. Last August the Shires Association of New South Wales wrote to me, seeking review of the policy and processes in relation to the Country Towns Water Scheme. As a consequence, some weeks ago I commissioned a task force to deal with that issue. The task force will specifically address the existing processes and policies relating to the Country Towns Water Supply Scheme to find better priority, focus and expedition for towns that need a more secure urban water supply.

In addition, the task force will look at the best practice guidelines, announced earlier this year, that need to be gazetted under the Act which provides for dividends to local authorities. I have asked the task force to look at a common classification throughout the State for future water restrictions. It is relevant that I note that the Northparkes Mine has been selected by Rio Tinto as its first pilot study in world's best practice in water management. The honourable member for Dubbo referred to that yesterday in this House. The mine, which employs 300 people, is doing a lot of innovative work in the hope of extending the life of the mine. We have to do what we can to support the township and the mine. The Mayor of Parkes is an actor, he had a key role in the film The Dish, and he is a good bloke. He also has a sophisticated understanding of water issues. He understood our discussions and responded immediately and decisively. In a letter to me he wrote:

Minister, we cannot overstate the critical importance of water to our community. We are therefore most grateful that you have provided the most decisive action we have ever seen since the emergence of the problems in 1996. I thank the honourable member for Dubbo for his diligence in pursuing this matter so that the Government can help the people of Parkes.

TOWNS AND VILLAGES FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr PETER BLACK: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Regional Development. How is the Government promoting growth in small country towns with populations of less than 2,500?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: That is the type of question I would anticipate from a Country Labor member, particularly from the honourable member for Murray-Darling, whose electorate contains a vast number of smaller towns and villages. The Carr Government supports and encourages the future growth of our State's small towns and villages. That is why we have fulfilled an election commitment with our new Towns and Villages Futures initiative, including funding for the Towns and Villages Futures Program. The Government has provided $1.2 million to this four-year program, which targets communities with fewer than 2,500 residents. This initiative is helping smaller towns and villages determine their future growth, and builds on the success of our previous Townlife Development Program. This year, the future development plans of 27 regional communities will be funded by the Government. Each successful small town or village will have access to up to $15,000. The money has been made available for projects designed to create economic growth.

This initiative is about the New South Wales Government supporting local ideas and helping our small towns and villages with their plans to grow. Our support includes: business and economic development projects, marketing, promotion and tourism, business surveys, and funding for 15 community and strategic planning workshops. Honourable members would be interested to learn that five projects have been approved in the Orana region, and I am sure the honourable member for Dubbo would be interested in them. The projects include the Mumbil, Geurie and Stuart Town communities, the Binnaway and Baradine project in the Coonabarabran Shire, and both Nyngan and Trangie. The fifth grant, the Gulargambone project, will support community plans to develop a town logo and branding. The community also plans to manufacture local souvenirs and plans to hold workshops on souvenir making. Five projects have been funded in the Hunter region. These include projects in Stroud, Nabiac, Aberdeen, Broke, Bulga, Milbrodale and Gloucester.

In the Central West the small towns of Tullamore and Canowindra have had their local projects approved. With a population of just 678 people, Tullamore has strong links with Ireland. This funding supports the town's efforts to stage a great local tourist event, the Tullamore Irish Festival, in March next year. In the Far West, the Government is providing further assistance to the Milparinka community. In addition, four projects have been funded in the Murray region. These include the towns of Mathoura, Finley, Wentworth and Rand. Winterbourne in the New England region will also benefit from extra funding. Three towns in the State's Northern Rivers region will benefit from the program, including Iluka, Coraki, and Bangalow. Three towns will benefit from this initiative in the south-east of the State—Taralga, Nimmitabel and Pambula. In the Riverina three small towns and villages will participate in the project. They include Ariah Park, Coolamon and Batlow. The Batlow project is a great example of community drive. The town dates from the mid-nineteenth century when gold prospectors created a demand for fresh produce.

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

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Today the area is known for its apple, cherry and stone fruit orchards. Tumut Shire Council has successfully applied for a $15,000 grant to help fund an event co-ordinator for Batlow. The Smalls Towns and Villages Program is just one of the programs of the New South Wales Government that supports regional development. It is important to note that the New South Wales economy, which is the largest in Australia, accounts for 35 per cent of its national output. The State Government's regional development programs are aimed at ensuring that regional areas continue to contribute to and enjoy the benefits of our strong economy.

Our regional development initiatives are targeted to capitalise on emerging opportunities and also help to push the effects of industry change to regional communities. This Government has helped to secure $6.7 billion of private investment for regional New South Wales through its programs and services. That means that more than 37,000 jobs are being created across rural and regional New South Wales. The Regional Economic Transition Scheme introduced by Labor in 1998 assists communities to recover from major changes in traditional industries. That scheme has benefited more than 20 regional communities since it began. Those communities are as varied as Kempsey and Cobar.

The Regional Business Development Scheme remains a major catalyst for encouraging regional growth by attracting firms from domestic and offshore locations to start up, expand in or relocate to regional New South Wales. In addition, crucial services are provided to help secure projects and funding is provided by the Government on the basis of the value of new investment and the employment that is generated. The Small Towns and Villages Program will continue to produce material, promote various towns and target programs. This program is helping small country towns and villages meet the challenge of growing and developing for future generations.

CAMDEN AND CAMPBELLTOWN HOSPITALS EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION REPORT

Mr MAGUIRE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. Will the Minister guarantee that his department will publicly release the Health Care Complaints Commission report into Camden and Campbelltown hospitals on the same day that it is received by the Department of Health?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I have already given a number of public commitments that the report will be released.

Mr Andrew Stoner: When?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Honourable members should relax; I will come to that. It is anticipated—and there was evidence at the estimates committee the other night from the Commissioner of the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC]—that the commissioner will be making the report available to the department on 10 December. I have given a public commitment which I will repeat now: The report will be made public and I will be presenting a response to the report either on 10 December or immediately afterwards. The other part of the public commitment that I have made is to provide a full and comprehensive response. The Government will take time to consider and respond to the report. So it will be made public on 10 December or the next day, 11 December. The response will be public. There will be a full public response to the HCCC report and that response will be timely in relation to the report.

DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES RELOCATION

Mr PRICE: My question is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources. What is the latest information on the relocation of the Department of Mineral Resources to Maitland?

Mr KERRY HICKEY: Honourable members would be aware that in 2001 the Premier announced the relocation of the Department of Mineral Resources to Maitland—about 200 Government jobs located in the Hunter Valley. That is another significant milestone in the Carr Labor Government's program to relocate its operations and services in regional areas. The Department of Mineral Resources already has regional offices at Armidale, Broken Hill, Cobar, Lightning Ridge, Lithgow, Orange, Singleton and Wollongong.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! One minute of question time remains. At this point I would rather not direct that members be removed from the Chamber. The Minister will proceed with his response.

Mr KERRY HICKEY: It is appropriate that the headquarters be located in the regional area. Where better than in the Hunter, the engine room of the New South Wales mining industry? The arrival of the department in Maitland is a win for Maitland, the Hunter region and our mining industry. The presence of the department in the Hunter will stimulate the region's economy and result in more jobs for local people.

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

Mr KERRY HICKEY: The mining industry in the Hunter will enjoy the benefits of having immediate access to the department and to its expertise. A commercial office building is being built in Maitland central business district to house the majority of the relocated departmental staff. In addition, a new mine safety technology centre is also being built in Thornton, a suburb of Maitland. Both buildings will be equipped with a range of leading-edge geological, communication and information technologies.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much conversation on the Opposition benches.

Mr KERRY HICKEY: The mine safety technology centre will provide a range of mine safety testing activities that are currently undertaken at the department's Lidcombe laboratory. The centre will also have an emergency response capacity. Honourable members would recognise the importance of the construction of these two buildings for local businesses and the economy. A local business developed the property, a regional business is carrying out the construction, local and regional tradespersons will carry out the work, and local materials and construction suppliers will feature significantly during the building works. That is all good news for the city and for the Hunter region.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will be heard in silence.

Mr KERRY HICKEY: It is exactly the outcome that the Government is aiming for through its policy of locating government agencies in regional and rural areas. Current planning indicates that occupation of the two new facilities by the department will take place in late 2004. The redevelopment of the department's business systems to enable it to operate from Maitland has commenced and will continue through to mid-2004. Strategies to ensure minimal disruption to services during the relocation of the department to Maitland are well under way. The relocation of 200 or more jobs is a mammoth task. The Department of Mineral Resources is consolidating support programs and activities to assist staff in their decision-making about relocation.

The department has conducted a series of staff orientation tours to and around Maitland since March 2002. To date, almost 150 staff members have taken part in those tours. Additionally, a staff relocation kit has been produced and an intranet site has been established. Considerable input is being made by many members of staff to ensure that the relocation is a great success. That is great news for the Hunter. As Mr Peter Blackmore, former Liberal member for Maitland, stated in the Maitland Mercury on Tuesday 5 August, "This is a great day for Maitland." I am sure that my colleague the current Country Labor member for Maitland, the Hon. John Price, agrees with me.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MENTAL HEALTH INQUIRY GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Ministerial Statement

Mr MORRIS IEMMA (Lakemba—Minister for Health) [3.20 p.m.]: I present the New South Wales Government's response to the inquiry of the Select Committee on Mental Health into mental services in this State. Governments face many challenges in providing health services to the community but one of the biggest health challenges they will face in the future is providing mental health services. Living with a mental illness can be devastating, and with 18 per cent of New South Wales adults and 15 per cent of children and young people affected by significant mental illness, it is an issue that we must take seriously. People with mental illness are among the community's most vulnerable.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members who wish to converse should do so outside the Chamber.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: They are disproportionately represented in our gaols, in our drug and alcohol programs and on the streets. It is a bleak picture but it is reality for many Australians. It is a reality that has challenged governments of all political persuasions and it is one that this Government must address. That is why the Government supported last year's upper House select committee inquiry into mental health services in New South Wales chaired by the Hon. Brian Pezzutti. The inquiry was wide ranging in its exploration of the issues and made 120 recommendations. I welcome the report from Dr Pezzutti and strongly support its many recommendations, including the need for more resources, improved transparency and better accountability. The Government does not support every individual recommendation but the work as a whole is an outstanding effort and will be valuable in guiding us in the future.

I will outline some of the key initiatives. One of the key recommendations of the inquiry is the need to improve whole-of-government service provision within mental health. We have responded by establishing mental health as a standing agenda item on the newly formed human services committee of the Cabinet. Whole-of-government services examined in Cabinet will be progressed by the human services chief executive officers forum. Never before has mental health been given such focused attention by senior government officials. The inquiry identified a range of issues that require a multi-agency response. These include: an appropriate standard of housing care, police transportation of patients, the development of employment and training programs, and services for people with dual diagnosis to improve the quality of life for people with a mental illness.

The inquiry also highlighted the need for a uniform reporting structure within area health services. Mental health directors in area health services now report directly to the area chief executive officer [CEO] and have operational responsibility for the mental health budget. These mechanisms will bolster existing planning, which, through performance agreements with local areas, already focus on a population-based approach to service delivery. I have also strengthened conditions on mental health budget allocations this year. This means that mental health service directors will receive monthly reports on mental health expenditure and performance. These steps are essential in improving services and accountability.

The review of the Mental Health Act was also recommended by the inquiry and the Government committed to this review in October. The review will examine three broad areas, including the improved involvement of carers and families in developing plans for the care of patients—which will involve examining privacy legislation to ensure that families and carers are better informed about all decisions taken relating to the care of those with a mental illness—operational aspects, including discharge procedures and protocols, the handling of involuntary admissions and the transportation of patients; and the forensic patient system, including examination of the role of the Minister and the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Stakeholder consultation has already begun and discussion papers are being prepared for public release early in the new year.

It is important to note that the Government has made significant inroads into improving mental health services. We have committed more resources than any other Government and effectively doubled the mental health budget since 1995, achieving the doubling of community health and mental health work force; a 20 per cent increase in acute mental health beds; the establishment of an ongoing enhancement of the child and adolescent mental health network; expanded forensic mental health services, including the operation of the court liaison service and statewide forensic directorate; commitment to a new forensic hospital; work force initiatives to improve opportunities for mental health nurses; more support for psychiatrist trainees; and improved systems for standardised assessment and treatment of people presenting to mental health facilities. Many of the recommendations made by the Pezzutti inquiry had already been recognised by the Government and were being addressed, such was the cogency of the case presented by Brian Pezzutti. For example, we had already established the Sentinel Events Review Committee to examine adverse events in mental health.

I mentioned that we do not support all the recommendations. For example, we do not support the use of Rozelle hospital as a mental asylum. However, we support the transfer of Rozelle's facilities to a new purpose-built 174-bed mental facility on the Concord hospital site. We also recently announced an allocation of $77 million to target areas highlighted by the inquiry, including better access to emergency services, more rehabilitation and supported accommodation, better collaboration across services for older people, and the ongoing expansion of services for young people. While the Government has made considerable progress in addressing mental health issues, we can achieve much more. The response to this report is just the first step. We must first get the structure right and then we can commit additional resources to a solid, accountable foundation.

I state for the record the Government's appreciation of the advocacy by Dr Brian Pezzutti for people with a mental illness. I acknowledge particularly the efforts of my Parliamentary Secretary, the honourable member for Kogarah, who, undeterred by the enormity of the task, has taken a special interest in mental health. Both Dr Pezzutti and the honourable member for Kogarah will play a crucial role in an implementation task force, which will oversee the roll-out of initiatives that address the recommendations supported by the Government. Other members of the task force will include Dr Richard Matthews, Deputy Director-General of the Department of Health; Professor Paul Fanning, Director of Mental Health Services in the Mid Western Area Health Service; Professor Beverley Raphael, Director for the Centre for Mental Health; a senior representative of the New South Wales Cabinet Office; and Professor Philip Mitchell, Head of the School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales. I look forward to working with the implementation task force and announcing further enhancements to mental health services in the context of developing the Health budget bid for the coming financial year. Improving the treatment of those with a mental illness is in all our interests and should be placed above politics. Again, I welcome the constructive role played by both Dr Brian Pezzutti and the Parliamentary Secretary, and I look forward to the support of task force members and the Opposition in this important matter. I seek leave to table the Government's response.

Leave granted.

Document tabled.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.28 p.m.]: All members of the community will welcome a more focused approach to mental health by any government. I know that the honourable member for Bligh, who last month raised the issue of mental illness in our community, will welcome this report. Any evening we can leave the parliamentary precincts and meet, between the library buildings or across the road, homeless people, many of whom are suffering from mental illness. That juxtaposition of legislators, who are supposed to provide basic services to people, with clear examples of our failure to offer services to those who suffer from mental illness reflects badly upon us.

The report of the Legislative Council Select Committee on Mental Health is probably the best parliamentary work that has been done. I say that as someone whose views about the Legislative Council are well known. The committee chaired by Brigadier Dr Brian Pezzutti was exemplary. It started in December 2001 and sat until it produced its report in December 2002. It received 303 submissions and held public hearings attended by 91 witnesses consisting of private citizens, mental health professionals, and government and non-government representatives. The committee conducted a comprehensive examination of mental health issues in this State. As I have said on previous occasions when mental health has been discussed, the first inquiry into mental health was held in New South Wales in 1846. The inquiry to which the reports relates is the latest, and let us hope that in the report we will find the source of addressing the responsibilities of the Parliament for people who suffer from mental illness.

The Opposition looks forward to monitoring the progress of the roll-out of funds to support the recommendations in the report. While the Opposition acknowledges the commitment of $77.5 million referred to by the Minister, we already know from those who work within the Department of Health that there is a concern that that is old money dressed up as new money and that the Government is not actually providing additional services. I say to the Government and the Minister that the Opposition and Independent members will ensure that the Government is held to account and that the funding announced is new money which finds its way into services that are so desperately needed.

I pay a tribute to two members of the joint select committee in particular. The Nationals colleague the late Doug Moppett was a member of the committee, and when the committee report was tabled, Brigadier Dr Brian Pezzutti paid a tribute to him. Doug Moppett died halfway through the committee's work. He had a strong interest in mental health issues and made a significant contribution during the time he served as a member of the committee. I pay a tribute also to Brigadier Dr Brian Pezzutti. I refer to him as Brigadier because his principal occupation now is setting up the Army Reserve Medical Corps. Brian Pezzutti is a man of many passions, and the work of the committee became a passion for him. I am delighted with the Government's announcement that Brian Pezzutti will be a member of the implementation committee, because the Government will find it difficult to slip past Brian Pezzutti any attempt to water down the recommendations or any attempt not to live up to the aspirations, goals and aims set by the Legislative Council's Select Committee on Mental Health.

In conclusion, I am pleased to be part of a Coalition comprising the Liberal Party and The Nationals who were the only ones during the 2003 election campaign to bring forward a policy seeking to commit additional resources to community-based mental health services and to assist those who suffer from mental illness. Too often in this State mental illness is sought to be put out of the public domain. I am delighted that, on behalf of the Liberal Party and The Nationals, the Leader of the Opposition sought during the campaign to commit additional resources not only to forensic hospital facilities but also to community-based services for which the honourable member for Bligh sought funding when she drew attention to the shortage of facilities for mental health in this House last month.

AUSTRALIAN AND INDIAN FILM INDUSTRIES

Ministerial Statement

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [3.32 p.m.]: The links between the Australian and Indian film industries will be strengthened, thanks to the Australian Industry Business Council launching a special chapter devoted to this important field. An organisation known as the Australia-India FAME Council—FAME standing for film, arts, media and entertainment—will be headed by Sydney-based filmmaker Anupam Sharma. Mr Sharma was one of the filmmakers who participated in a Carr Government tour of the Northern Rivers in July as part of an initiative designed to encourage more filming in that region—an initiative that was strongly supported by the honourable member for Tweed. India is now the world's fifth-largest economy, with an impressive annual growth of 5 to 7 per cent since 1992-93 and a growing consumer class of more than 300 million people.

Last year 11 New South Wales film companies went to India on a trade mission that was organised by the State Government. Those companies reported that they have identified new export opportunities worth more than $27 million. At least two joint New South Wales-India ventures are being negotiated. The trading history between India and New South Wales dates back to 1792, but in the twenty-first century India offers great opportunities for our State's exporters of goods and services. That is why from tomorrow I will lead a trade mission to India which will showcase another 11 diverse New South Wales companies that are keen to cement relationships with new business partners in Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore and Chennai. I will attend 20 meetings with senior government and business representatives and a range of official functions to promote New South Wales. This trade mission is the latest New South Wales Government initiative to promote a constructive and healthy business relationship with one of our major trading partners.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [3.34 p.m.]: The Opposition welcomes the initiatives involving the Australia India Business Council and the Australia-India Film, Arts, Media and Entertainment Council as well as the involvement of the filmmaker Anupam Sharma. It is pleasing to note that encouragement is being given to filmmaking in this State, particularly in regional and rural New South Wales. I am pleased to note that a tour of the Northern Rivers was undertaken in July. I know that The Nationals parliamentary representatives on the North Coast from Ballina to Myall Lakes appreciate what a great region it is for promoting our great country, filmmaking, and the participation of regional economies in this burgeoning industry.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Russell Crowe and Jack Thompson think so.

Mr ANDREW STONER: As the honourable member for Coffs Harbour says, Russell Crowe and Jack Thompson are his constituents, and they know what a great location the Northern Rivers area is for filming. I note also that a successful trade mission was undertaken to India in July and that another one is in the offing. These trade missions complement the work that is being done by the Federal Government, particularly by Mr Mark Vaile, who is the Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Federal Parliament and the Minister for Trade. Through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Austrade in particular, Minister Vaile has encouraged international trade opportunities to be developed to the benefit of the whole of Australia, but particularly New South Wales. [Time expired.]

MID WESTERN AREA HEALTH SERVICE BUDGET

Personal Explanation

Mr ANDREW STONER, by leave: Yesterday the Minister for Health provided a supplementary answer to a question I asked about the parlous state of the budget of the Mid Western Area Health Service. He went on to say that I had been forced to recant in relation to a question I had asked the previous day about so-called misleading statements made by the Chief Executive Officer of the Mid North Coast Area Health Service about the operating level of the Kempsey District Hospital. Today the Minister for Health again cast aspersions on me and the information that was the basis for those questions. I make it clear on the record that at no stage have I recanted on that issue. I stand by my assertion that the Labor Government has sought to mislead the people of Kempsey and the Macleay district by stating in the local paper that the hospital was operating at level four. Quite clearly the Government's own internal documents, such as the Mid North Coast Area Health Service roll delineation review—

Mr Carl Scully: Point of order: The honourable member is entitled to make a succinct explanation to the House. He is not doing so. He is using the opportunity to almost undertake a substantive debate. He cannot do that. He must be succinct, precise, to the point, and then resume his seat.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair has allowed the Leader of The Nationals a degree of latitude. Normally I would have requested a member making a personal explanation to have now completed it. The Leader of the House is correct when he says that rulings of former Speakers are explicit. The member making the explanation should explain in succinct and precise terms how his character has been impugned. The Leader of The Nationals has gone beyond those limits and I draw his personal explanation to a close.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Routine of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Roads, and Minister for Housing) [3.38 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended:

(1) to allow the progress through all remaining stages at any time of any bills received from the Legislative Council at this sitting; and

(2) to provide that private members' statements not be called on at this sitting, unless otherwise ordered.
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [3.39 p.m.]: It is obvious that the Minister has moved this suspension motion to ensure that the matter of public importance dealing with State Forests, which I notified earlier, is not debated. Today, information has come to hand that State Forests is shipping whole, blue gum logs from Grafton to China.

Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Point of order: The honourable member Coffs Harbour is not debating the suspension motion; he is debating his matter of public importance.

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

Mr ANDREW FRASER: The Leader of the House does not want to discuss the fact that those logs are being shipped to China. The Auditor-General's report that was tabled today tells us that timber is being brought from the South Coast to the North Coast due to a lack of supply of logs—at the same time as whole logs from the North Coast are being loaded on the docks at Newcastle to be shipped to China.

Mr Carl Scully: Point of order: This is an outrageous breach of the standing orders.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: It is not. What is your point of order? You are trying to avoid a debate on the matter of public importance about State Forests.

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

Mr Carl Scully: The honourable member knows very well that at 4.15 p.m., when private members' statements are normally taken, there is no opportunity to debate a matter of public importance. The honourable member put his matter of public importance on the program so he could issue a press release. This suspension motion does not afford him an opportunity to debate a matter that he knows will not be dealt with.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough on the point of order. In speaking to the motion for the suspension of standing orders, members may debate business of the House that might be dealt with by the House if standing orders are not suspended. They are not at liberty to debate the substance of that business, which is precisely what the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is now doing. The honourable member will return to the leave of the motion for suspension of standing orders. He may not debate an altogether separate motion.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: I believe that the Leader of the House is trying to prevent my matter of public importance coming on for debate because he knows that the Government is about to bring down a report on the Brigalow State Forest that will result in jobs being lost. The Government does not want that issue aired in this Parliament. The Leader of the Government knows that red gum forests in the western region are under attack by the Government, which is about to stop integrated operations down there and take jobs from regional New South Wales.

Mr Gerard Martin: Point of order: The honourable member for Coffs Harbour is flouting the ruling of the Chair by immediately debating the substance of a matter that he thinks is more important than the motion moved by the Leader of the House to allow passage of Government legislation. We would be quite happy to debate his motion, but he should respect and observe your ruling and the standing orders.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I reiterate my earlier ruling: Whilst it is competent for the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to refer to debate on legislation and motions that might be deferred by virtue of the carriage of the motion moved by the Leader of the House, he is not at liberty to address the detail or substance of those matters. I draw the attention of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to my ruling, and ask him to restrict his comments to the debate at hand, and not to debate the substance of the matter of public importance of which he has given notice.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: I am arguing against a motion that would avoid a debate on my matter of public importance. That debate will embarrass the Government and that is why it seeks to suspend standing orders. As the honourable member for Bathurst should know, the Auditor-General's report refers to softwood plantations. In fact, we are 150,000 hectares behind in softwood plantations. These are matters that I would raise if my matter of public importance were to be debated. Councils in the electorate of the honourable member for Bathurst are worried about the privatisation of softwood.

Mr Gerard Martin: No, they are not.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: Yes, they are. They have been speaking to the media and asking where the honourable member stands on the privatisation and the scoping studies into the softwood industry.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bathurst will constrain himself.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: His leader in this House does not want that issue debated today. He is trying to protect the honourable member for Bathurst from being asked where he stands on all the things that are going wrong in his electorate, such as local government amalgamations, softwood privatisation, and many other issues. [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 49

Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Mr Gaudry
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

Noes, 34

Mr Aplin
Mr Barr
Mr Brogden
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mr Fraser
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood

Mr Humpherson
Mr Kerr
Mr McGrane
Mr Merton
Ms Moore
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
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

Tellers,
Mr Maguire
Mr R. W. Turner

Pairs

Ms Allan	Mr Armstrong
Mr Gibson	Mr George

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Divisions and Quorums: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Roads, and Minister for Housing) [3.53 p.m.]: I move:

I will inform the House of the way in which I propose to conduct the business of the House. The House will deal with the motion for urgent consideration. Three or four bills have been forwarded to this House from the Legislative Council and we will substantially deal with them. The House will then adjourn until the ringing of a long bell at 10 o'clock tomorrow, with divisions and quorums. It will be a normal sitting day with the exception that we will not have question time. The House is also awaiting a number of bills from the upper House. I am told that the other place will sit until late, so I cannot enlighten honourable members on what time we will finish tomorrow. It may or may not be a busy day, depending on whether honourable members opposite filibuster. If they filibuster at length, the House will resume next week.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [3.54 p.m.]: This motion is interesting in that the usual procedures of the House will apply, with the exception of question time. That is because the Premier cannot stand another question time like those yesterday and today. The Premier cannot stand the humiliation he experienced yesterday as a result of the toga coming out of the box. Since Mark Latham won the leadership of the Federal Labor Party, the Premier cannot even bear to be in this Chamber. Every time he comes in he is reminded of his pathetic little career compared with that of the Leader of the Federal Opposition.

Mark Latham won preselection by putting ballots in a box in the back of a car that he drove all around the western suburbs of Sydney. When told by the Premier that he must finally yield for Peter Anderson, for heaven's sake, he burst into tears and said, "Please, Bob, don't cast me out." The Premier said, "I am sorry, it was between you and Lynch, and I can't abide either of you"—and that is still the case because the Premier plainly cannot stand Lynch and every time we mention the magic word "Latham", the Premier's face is as taut as a rubber band and as putrid as the colour of the outfit of the honourable member for Peats.

Mr Carl Scully: Point of order—

Mr ANDREW TINK: I apologise to the honourable member for Peats and withdraw that comment. I meant to say that the colour of the Premier's face approximates that colour. The colour looks fine on the honourable member for Peats; it looks absolutely appalling on the Premier. The other thing that obviously irks the Premier is that Mr Latham has published more books than the Premier, and they are a better read. The only thing of any interest in any of the books that the Premier has published, either under his name or under the name of some spoof who is writing on his behalf—probably Walt Secord—is the confrontation he had with the new Federal Leader of the Opposition when Mark Latham broke down and cried when told, "No. Peter Anderson is coming in here to take your place." We all know what a fantastic success Peter Anderson made as the member for the seat that Mark Latham wanted.

Mr Carl Scully: I want to be clear. Is the honourable member for Epping talking about 1989?

Mr ANDREW TINK: I am talking about 1989 and the Premier's ongoing reaction in 2003 to what happened in 1989, which, unfortunately, he cannot purge himself of. It is quite obvious to all Opposition members that he is just as wound up now about 1989 as he was in 1989. He does not have the guts to have another question time, to answer questions and be humiliated; indeed, who would want to be humiliated? [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 46

Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Ms Beamer
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Mr Gaudry
Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter

Mr Iemma
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
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

Noes, 33

Mr Aplin
Mr Barr
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mr Fraser
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson

Mr Kerr
Mr McGrane
Mr Merton
Ms Moore
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
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
Tellers,
Mr Maguire
Mr R.W. Turner

Pairs

Ms Allan	Mr Armstrong
Mr Gibson	Mr George

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

PRINTING OF PAPERS

Motion, by leave, by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:

Report of the Guardianship Tribunal for the year ended 30 June 2003
Report of the Chipping Norton Lake Authority for the year ended 30 June 2003
Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry for Environment and Planning for the year ended 30 June 2003
Report of the Festival Development Corporation for the year ended 30 June 2003
Report of the Department of Local Government for the year ended 30 June 2003
Report of the Local Government Grants Commission for the year ended 30 June 2003
Report of the New South Wales Fire Brigades for the year ended 30 June 2003
Report of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service for the year ended 30 June 2003
Report of the New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry for the year ended 30 June 2003
Report of the Attorney General's Department for the year ended 30 June 2003
Report of the Legal Aid Commission for the year ended 30 June 2003
Report on the Administration of Agricultural Statutory Authorities for the year ended 30 June 2003
New South Wales Government Response to the Select Committee Inquiry Mental Health Services in New South Wales

CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS

Australian Made Campaign

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [4.09 p.m.]: The motion is urgent because the well-respected and successful Australian Made campaign has launched its new guide to help consumers buy Australian. The motion is urgent because it is important that this House endorse this important campaign and encourages everyone in our community to support Australian industry and jobs. It is urgent because at this time of the year, when people are spending a great deal of money on cheaper products, we should highlight the importance of Australian-made products.

Local Government Legislation

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [4.09 p.m.]: My motion is urgent because local councils play an important role in our democratic three-tier system of government. The Government's Local Government Amendment Bill will rip the heart out of the democratic process by forcing one tier of government to be controlled by another. This matter is urgent because the legislation sets up a regime of autocratic ministerial control over councils, proposals for amalgamations, dissolutions and boundary adjustments. It allows the Minister to set up a regime of abolition and dissolution of councils. It also allows the Minister to create and name wards and/or adjust their boundaries.

The process for the Government forcing amalgamations or undertaking boundary changes will be significantly altered with less public scrutiny and public accountability. Although the Australian Made campaign is important, the rally of 5,000 people out the front of Parliament House today indicates that my motion is more urgent than the motion of the Minister for Small Business. It is more urgent because the proposed legislation frees the Minister from any form of community consultation on the structural reform of local councils that he has validated. It will mean that any community opposition to boundary changes and amalgamations will become irrelevant and susceptible to the pen of the Minister.

Ms Clover Moore: Shame! Scandalous!

Mr ANDREW STONER: It is good to have the support of the honourable member for Bligh. The Opposition believes that under this legislation further consultation will not occur. The Opposition believes that further consultation be in the form of an in-house review conducted by the Minister, the director-general and the Boundaries Commission. This process of structural reform is undemocratic. The bill allows the Boundaries Commission to consider boundary changes or amalgamation proposals without having to hold public meetings, polls or public inquiries. This matter is urgent because the Government proposes to ban any court action to stop proclamations that implement structural reform proposals or structural reform schemes.

These changes remove the democratic rights of people to be properly consulted on council changes. At present, a council can change its ward structure, method of electing the mayor or councillor numbers only after residents vote on the issue in a poll. The Government wants to remove that provision. As the honourable member for Bligh said, it is absolutely scandalous. The bill repeals section 218F of the Local Government Act 1993, which requires a 40-day public review of process of any proposal for amalgamation, dissolution or boundary change and a poll of electors and replaces it with a weak, optional 28-day process. If the Minister takes full responsibility to move boundaries, to dismiss councils and to determine the number of councils, local councils and grassroots politics throughout New South Wales will become irrelevant. This motion is urgent because this is a blatant attack against the democracy of the third tier of Government in New South Wales.

The result of this legislation will be the loss of small local councils across the State, directly risking the survival of small communities throughout New South Wales. Councils in rural and regional areas are the backbone of local communities. This matter is urgent because local government is often the largest or one of the significant employers in a rural or regional community. Councils are the drivers of change and growth. The pivotal role they play in the survival of many communities cannot be overstated. This motion is urgent because local councils thrive on local leadership and local ownership of solutions to issues. The Minister would be interested to learn that regional development arises from strong local leadership, those who understand the needs and interests of the community. Local councils provide employment opportunities, a wide range of important services, preserve the identity of a community, and provide people with the ability to actively participate within those communities. This matter is extremely urgent because the Opposition and some of the Independents are concerned that section 218E (A2) will enable the Minister to accept a proposal that has been rejected by the public. I have not heard any support from some of the Independents—

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Dubbo, the honourable member for Port Macquarie, the honourable member for Northern Tablelands and the honourable member for Manly should join with the honourable member for Bligh on this issue. The Opposition is concerned that section 218E (A2) states that the Minister may accept a proposal that does not address relevant factors or does so inadequately if he is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so. That is a disgrace. This matter is urgent because section 212 will allow previous reviews or inquiries to be adopted within two years of a proclamation without the need for further public consultation if the Minister believes this to be in the public interest. That is an extremely important issue: the Minister taking sweeping powers, overriding the democratic rights of people in the local communities and overriding the power of local government. He is basically riding roughshod over local government and local communities. The bill will be the death knell of many communities throughout the State if the Government has its way.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 47

Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Mr Gaudry
Mr Greene
Ms Hay

Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
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 West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin

Noes, 33

Mr Aplin
Mr Barr
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mr Fraser
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson

Mr Kerr
Mr McGrane
Mr Merton
Ms Moore
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
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
Tellers,
Mr Maguire
Mr R. W. Turner

Pairs

Ms Allan	Mr Armstrong
Mr Gibson	Mr George

Question resolved in the affirmative.

AUSTRALIAN MADE CAMPAIGN

Urgent Motion

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [4.25 p.m.]: I move:

That this House supports the Australian Made campaign.

The highly successful Australian Made campaign, which was launched in 1986 by the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, has launched the fourth version of its consumer guide to buying Australian products and supporting Australian jobs. A new handbook called "Buying Australian Made, The Official Guide" lists more than 3,500 products, an increase of 1,000 on the previous edition that was published in 2002. Products in the new guide are presented in 59 categories and the more unusual listings include Australian-made vibracoring equipment, which is used to collect soil samples from riverbeds. Rest assured, for those who are seeking cut flower food, a containment system for handling suspicious mail or a mechanical grape harvester, the new guide will point them in the right direction.

Every product in the guide is certified Australian made. Manufacturers and retailers using the trademark agree to comply with a code of practice and to submit to independent compliance auditing. On average, 20 businesses join the campaign each month. Australians love the Australian Made Campaign and its distinctive green and gold triangle trademark. According to a recent survey conducted by the Australian Made campaign, the logo's recognition rate is a remarkable 90 per cent across all age groups. That survey also found that 70 per cent of consumers actively seek out products that are made in Australia and 70 per cent are happy to pay extra for Australian-made goods. The survey found that the "Buy Australian Made" message is strongly associated with the preservation of Australian jobs and the promotion of economic and industry development—an association that I am sure all honourable members understand and appreciate.

According to the survey, consumers look to purchase Australian-made products to support local industry and employment. Government, too, has a major role to play in the push to support Australian businesses. I refer to the Carr Government's support for the Industry Capability Network, which is responsible for the sourcing of locally produced goods and services for major New South Wales construction contracts rather than relying on the use of imports. Since 2000 the value of the imports replaced by the network is a whopping $285 million. Regional New South Wales firms secured more than $150 million of that important import replacement business. For the 12 months to the end of June 2003 the import replacement value to New South Wales firms associated with the Industry Capability Network was $102.4 million. That was an increase of $4 million on the figures for the previous year.

In the same period, 61 regional New South Wales firms benefited from Industry Capability Network activity. That translates to $73 million and 1,300 jobs all in one year, all in regional New South Wales. Across the State, nearly 1,850 jobs were secured by ensuring that New South Wales firms were in the box seat to win Australian contracts. That is simply a fantastic result and an inspiring illustration of buying Australian made. I will give a great example of how the network operates. It has worked with construction giant Multiplex on the new $170 million New South Wales Police Centre at Parramatta. Through early contact with the network, Multiplex put in place a regional industry development plan to maximise local content for the project and New South Wales firms were invited to bid.

One company that was successful was Maxton Fox Furniture of Kings Park in Western Sydney, which won a $4 million contract for furniture for the project. The company's products are environmentally sustainable and it uses recyclable materials. The contract won by the firm will provide ongoing work for 80 employees at its manufacturing plant at Kings Park as well as various suppliers and subcontractors. The Industry Capability Network services New South Wales from its Sydney office and from offices in Newcastle, Wollongong, Orange and Albury. Services were also offered out of Grafton, Tamworth, Goulburn, Dubbo and Wagga Wagga.

Competitive regional companies are being identified with a view to enhancing their access to major products. The Industry Capability Network is an example of how promoting Australian-made products and import replacement is an important way to generate activity in our economy. There are important messages for regional communities in encouraging value adding for agricultural products. That is another aspect of the Australian Made campaign. As the House must deal with important business this evening, I will limit my contribution to this debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this issue. I trust that the motion will be carried and that the House will express its support for the Australian Made campaign.
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [4.35 p.m.]: It was good to hear the speech by the Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business. In fact, it was more of a ministerial statement than a discussion of a matter of urgency. Consideration of the Australian Made campaign is not nearly as urgent as the need to stop this Government from forcing local government amalgamations in regional areas. I refer honourable members to the demonstration outside Parliament House this morning. It is extraordinary that the Minister for Regional Development should move this motion in opposition to the Coalition's motion about local government amalgamations. The Minister, who represents the portfolios of Regional Development and Small Business, must appreciate the effect that council amalgamations will have on the survival of rural communities.

Small businesses in country areas are already doing it very tough, and it is predicted that these amalgamations will make it even tougher for small businesses in places such as Yass. I am sure that the Minister has received an email from the President of the Yass Chamber of Commerce, detailing exactly what he thinks about the proposed amalgamations. I challenge the Minister and all other members in this place to purchase Australian-made products as Christmas presents. It will be a challenge. They will not be the cheapest products but they will be quality products. That is what it is all about: Australian-made products are excellent quality. I am wearing an Australian-made dress today and I am sure that the Minister's suit is also Australian made—he appears to be unsure; perhaps he should check the label.

Mr David Campbell: I am confident.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: That is good. It is important that we lead by example by wearing Australian-made clothing. Let us shop locally, in country communities and in smaller retail outlets. Let us give our trade to businesses that really appreciate it and help small businesses to survive. Tim Fischer was chairman of the Australian Made campaign until quite recently. He is a fanatical promoter of Australian products. He would often talk about Mick's whips—I heard that story so many times that it would put me to sleep—about our exports of pasta to Italy, rice to Japan, gearboxes to Korea, Kevron plastic key tags and key labels to Iceland. Those products are made in Australia and exported around the world.

I have personal experience of the Australian Made campaign as we opened a store called the Sheep's Back in 1989, just after the campaign was launched. We vowed to stock and sell only Australian-made products, partly in response to the story of the day about Paul Keating importing furniture for his prime ministerial office and flagrantly disregarding Australian-designed and Australian-made clothing. People considered Paul Keating to be very loose—a bit like Kim Beasley. That is probably the reason why Mark Latham was chosen as Federal Leader of the Opposition—and we know the Premier is not very happy about that.

We love Australia and we have confidence in Australian products made by companies such as Tooralie; Woolaby Australia, a great Australian company that is now based in Mittagong; Francesdale, which is run by Kathryn and John Body; Shepherd Woolskins; Pacific Sheepskins; and Ruby Brown's Cookbooks. There are many talented artists and craftspeople across the State, including Kim Nelson and Cathy Pearsall. There are potters and weavers in every electorate. The honourable member for Upper Hunter is nodding—he knows there are many creative people in his area who are working hard at their own businesses.

The Australian Made campaign has expanded its scope over the years to include Australian wine, and fruit and vegetables produced by companies such as Goulburn Valley and Dick Smith Foods—what a great Australian Dick Smith is. I refer the House to important products such as ethanol and the work of the Manildra group, which is another great company. Many jobs rely on Australian-made products. Some Australian factories have had difficulties for various reasons. Shepherd Woolskins in Cootamundra is in receivership and Mountain Maid at Batlow was a beneficiary under the Regional Economic Transition Scheme. Batlow is still in difficulty and it would be appreciated if the Minister could find a way to assist that area even more. Tumut Shire Council received $15,000 today but much more funding is needed. The problems have had an enormous economic impact on the town.

Mr David Campbell: Buy Batlow apples.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: Thank you. We must keep fire blight out of the country and we must fight against the importation of New Zealand apples. I have a lot more to contribute to the debate on this matter of public importance but we have agreed to cut it short due to the legislative workload of the House. I look forward to speaking more on this subject some time in the future.

Motion agreed to.

TOTALIZATOR LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing) [4.36 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of the Totalizator Legislation Amendment Bill is to amend the TAB Ltd shareholding provisions in the Totalizator Agency Board Privatisation Act 1997 and the Totalizator Act 1997. The bill also removes the current prohibitions in the Totalizator Act, which prevent a licensee from being associated with a casino. This action will in turn allow TAB Ltd shareholders to consider offers from the Queensland-based UNiTAB and the Victorian-based TABCORP. Honourable members will recall that the New South Wales Totalizator Agency Board was privatised in late 1997 and listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. At the same time the new company, TAB Ltd, was issued with exclusive licences to conduct on- and off-course totalisator betting and limited forms of gaming.

To date, the Carr Government's initiative in privatising the TAB has been a resounding success and the taxpayers of New South Wales and the thousands of participants in the racing industry have been the main beneficiaries. Initially a 5 per cent shareholding limit was imposed under the legislation as part of the Government's policy to ensure that TAB Ltd shares were held widely and to prevent any individual shareholder or group of shareholders obtaining control of, or a significant influence over, the company. Following approaches from TAB Ltd and a review of these provisions, the legislation was amended in 2000 to increase the maximum shareholding restrictions to 10 per cent. Honourable members will no doubt be aware from recent press coverage that UNiTAB and TABCORP have made rival bids to acquire an interest in TAB Ltd. The Government takes the view that it is a matter for shareholders in TAB Ltd to decide the future of the company. The Government has no preference for one proposal or the other.

Irrespective of the ownership and management structure of TAB Ltd, the wagering and gaming licences would remain with that body and would be regulated by the Minister for Gaming and Racing and his department. In addition, commercial arrangements with the New South Wales racing industry would remain unchanged. There is of course always scope for the parties to negotiate new commercial arrangements. There is no doubt that either proposal would envisage the merging of New South Wales totalisator pools with those sourced from other States and Territories. Before any approval can be considered for such a merging of pools, a number of issues would need to be resolved. These include the protection of government and racing industry revenue, effective control and monitoring of totalisator operations at least equal to those currently applying in New South Wales, and consistent totalisator rules.

Although the initial stage of the restructure proposals would not bring any financial benefits to New South Wales taxpayers, it would have immediate benefits for the New South Wales racing industry. In this regard, the restructuring would allow corporate expenses to be distributed across several jurisdictions, thereby increasing the net wagering and gaming profits of TAB. As a 25 per cent beneficiary of these profits, the industry would receive a significant injection of additional revenue. Nevertheless, although the Government is not opposed to either proposal we would still wish to preserve our policy of limiting the ability of any individual shareholder or group of shareholders obtaining control or a significant influence over TAB Ltd. Under legislation in their home States, a 10 per cent limit is imposed on any individual shareholding in UNiTAB and TABCORP. This bill requires that both companies must maintain their 10 per cent shareholding limits and that each must remain listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.

The bill was amended in the upper House last night to accommodate the possibility that either TABCORP or UNiTAB proceed to merge with or acquire TAB Ltd through wholly owned subsidiary companies. The amendments are designed to reflect the true corporate environment in which takeovers or acquisitions occur. In addition, the Government will make the 10 per cent shareholding restriction a condition of the New South Wales totalisator licence and UNiTAB or TABCORP will be required to sign a contract with the Government to maintain their shareholding caps. Additional restrictions would apply to the TABCORP proposal.

TABCORP would have to divest the TAB Ltd Central Monitoring System business within 18 months of any purchase of TAB Ltd. This will remove any potential conflicts of interest, as the centralised monitoring system [CMS] links all gaming machines in clubs and hotels, and provides daily data on the usage and turnover of each machine. This system is the basis for monitoring gaming machines and the collection of tax by the Government. TABCORP currently owns and operates poker machines at Star City Casino. TAB Ltd currently holds a licence to own gaming machines and operate them in hotels and share profits with hoteliers. This licence will be withdrawn, subject to TABCORP being allowed to complete its contractual obligations with respect to machines—around 100—already in hotels.

TAB Ltd also holds an exclusive licence to develop a statewide linked jackpot system, which relies on data from the central monitoring system. The Government would consider whether TABCORP should be required to divest this business. The Government also needs to be satisfied that the New South Wales racing industry is no worse off under either proposal. Accordingly, the legislation contains a provision that requires the successful bidder to enter into commercial arrangements with the racing industry, which will protect the rights and benefits enjoyed by the industry under its current arrangements.

In regard to the issues raised with me by the shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing, I respond in the following terms. While the racing industry will have to negotiate an agreement with the ultimate buyer of TAB, the Government will not proclaim the legislation until TAB Ltd, the nominated company and the racing industry negotiate reasonable commercial arrangements. This will allow the Government to ensure that the reasonable concerns of all parties are addressed. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [4.42 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in the debate on the Totalizator Legislation Amendment Bill. At the outset I indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the bill. I thank the Minister for Gaming and Racing for the remarks he made at the conclusion of his second reading speech in response to a question I asked at the commencement of the debate on this bill. My question arose primarily as a result of concern about one aspect of the amendments that were introduced quite alarmingly without consultation with the Opposition in the Legislative Council. I sought clarification that one of the important stakeholders in the outcome of this corporate battle, the racing industry, would be no worse off as a result of this legislation. As a strong supporter of the racing industry—indeed as a former Minister for Racing whose responsibilities included the then TAB New South Wales—I have a longstanding affection for and interest in the racing industry, and I will maintain my support for it.

My particular concern was to ensure that, irrespective of the outcome of corporate arrangements, the racing industry would not be in a less favourable position than its current 99-year contractual arrangement with TAB Ltd as a result of this legislation, and that the terms of that contractual arrangement would prevail. I acknowledge the Minister's assurance that the Government will delay proclamation of this legislation until the Government is satisfied that satisfactory arrangements have been made, but the question arises whether the Government will unduly delay proclamation, pending the conclusion of unduly protracted negotiations.

The paramount consideration is that the Government should ensure the racing industry remains at least as well off as it is, or that it retains its favourable position. If this legislation permits the parties to engage in indefinite protracted negotiations, it will not be good legislation. That is a relevant matter in relation to corporate governance generally. Legislators should take care when formulating legislation to ensure that it does not result in adverse corporate impacts upon international companies that are listed on the stock exchange and on the Australian racing industry.

I accept the assurance given by the Minister. I interpret it literally to mean that the Government undertakes not to unduly withhold proclamation of this legislation or to unduly disadvantage any of the parties to licensing negotiations if a protracted dispute eventuates, and to preserve the position of the racing industry at prevailing favourable conditions. I anticipate that the racing industry will gain considerably as a result of either corporate battle, principally because either could result in an enlarged totalisator pool. Provided that the racing industry is at least as well off in the future as it is now, or even better off because of the mechanics of the volume and momentum of the takeover or merger, I believe the Government should exercise its responsibility and properly proceed to proclaim the legislation. Indeed, that would not adversely affect the corporation or nominated company, should negotiations occur that are beyond what would be considered to be normal.

The Parliament is principally asked to consider two issues. The first is the shareholding limitations that previously were placed on TAB Ltd at the time of privatisation and the second is the type of business that a resulting entity, which enjoys a licensed monopoly for wagering in New South Wales, would be able to undertake. In those respects, the New South Wales Parliament amended legislation recently to provide for an increase in the size of a parcel of shares any individual could hold in TAB Ltd from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. I understand that one such entity is approaching that figure, but not many more. I am not surprised because I am sure that the share register of TAB Ltd is still dominated by members of the public who participated in the privatisation at the time of the initial float. I am very pleased that that is the case. The Parliament passed the amending legislation principally at the request of TAB Ltd to allow for greater flexibility in TAB Ltd's share structure and in the ability of institutions that invest the superannuation funds of everyday working Australians to undertake a wider range of dealings in companies such as TAB Ltd. That was supported by the Opposition at that time and has now become a reality.

This legislation asks the Parliament to permit relaxation of the rule to extend an individual's shareholding from 10 per cent to 100 per cent. In some respects, the proposition is illusory because other provisions of the legislation provide that the resulting holding company, which would be the entity listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, will be required to maintain that 10 per cent limit. Moreover, New South Wales will be relying either on Victorian or Queensland legislation, depending on the outcome of the corporate battle, to ensure that those conditions are maintained. As well, New South Wales is required to observe the limitation under its licensing responsibilities. It is a condition of licensing that legislation in Queensland and Victoria remains as it currently is. I understand the Queensland Premier has given public undertakings to that effect. I have not heard that the Victorian Premier has given any similar undertakings—although I do not imply that would not be so.

The second question that this legislation asks the Parliament to consider is whether or not the monopoly totalisator wagering company in New South Wales ultimately would be permitted to own also either a casino or gaming machines. At the time of that organisation's privatisation, such exclusions were considered important. They was particularly so with reference to some of the important stakeholders, including the racing industry but also the New South Wales club and hotel industry, which at the time was fearful of the impact that the casino would have on that industry's gaming and/or wagering business. To the extent that at least those aspects where relevant to the Parliament's considerations at that time, indeed there was exclusion of ownership of a casino.

This Parliament now needs to consider the relaxation of that exclusion, because the offer from the Victorian TABCORP Holdings Limited comes from a company that already owns four casinos, including Sydney's Star City Casino. To the extent that the resultant merged entity would therefore own the Star City Casino licence, refusal by the Parliament to accept that relaxation effectively would wipe out the possibility of the offer made to shareholders of TAB Ltd being placed on the table. I think the Government has adopted a correct approach in producing legislation that facilitates the proposals being put on an equal footing. I am pleased that is so. From my original discussions with the Treasurer, it seemed to be the intention of the Government to place enabling legislation before the Parliament in an order that would reflect the earlier approach from TAB Ltd in respect of UNitab Ltd of Queensland ahead of what subsequently became a second offer to the shareholders of TAB Ltd from TABCORP Holdings Limited, based in Victoria.

It seemed in that circumstance that the Government would have sought to rely on public statements of its intention also to facilitate the second offer. I think incorporating all eventualities in this legislation is by far a better approach. It leaves nothing to chance legislatively, and gives shareholders of TAB Ltd a very sound legislative foundation on which to make their considerations. Nonetheless, the Opposition has expressed its view in respect of the casino to the Casino Control Authority. It is that New South Wales ought to continue to maintain a single casino licence into the future. The Opposition notes that this legislation does not affect that position for the time being. Any alternative opinion emanating from the Government—or, potentially, in the future from the Coalition, after my time—nonetheless would be an issue of a different nature for another time.

The point I make is that the Opposition accepts that the resultant corporate entity would be the owner or part owner of the Star City Casino, which would be but one of three other casinos that that particular company already owned. The other conditions—particularly the divestment of central monitoring business—are entirely appropriate to avoid conflicts between the resultant entity and rival businesses. Of course, that condition is entirely supported, as are all of the other conditions that have been imposed.

The fate of the corporate battle will be a quite interesting part of our corporate history. On the one hand, it involves a fairly friendly merger of TAB Ltd and UNitab Ltd of Queensland—a merger that effectively would be facilitated by a reverse takeover. That is to be compared with the subsequent takeover offer from TABCORP Holdings Limited, which is based in Victoria. Interestingly, legislation was required to enable any of the proposed mergers to take place. Coincidentally, we legislators were afforded the opportunity and luxury of being able to provide for both proposals to be dealt with on an equal footing. May the market and the shareholders of TAB Ltd determine what ultimately will prevail, but we as legislators were provided with a unique legislative opportunity of enabling that situation to be enacted and played out.
The New South Wales Parliament is not the only regulatory or legislative authority involved, because the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] also is involved. Of course, that brings into play an interesting aspect of this issue. I recall that, when the TAB was not privatised, there was always a lustful look to TABs across borders with a view potentially to increasing the size of the wagering pool. Though I cannot remember the precise percentages, New South Wales and Victoria were the two largest players. But neither was able to put together a controlling interest in the national pool—that is, one beyond 50 per cent. At the time Queensland had the equivalent of 12.5 per cent of the national pool. I note the presence in the gallery of Mr Darrell Loewenthal. He would know these figures better than I. Whoever was able to join with Queensland would attain an interest beyond 50 per cent and therefore would have strong influence over control of the overall Australian totalisator pool.

I am sure much of what we see in this present corporate battle is relevant to the ultimate control and size of the national totalisator pool. It is from a perspective of speculation and wonder that I contemplate the future outcome beyond whatever proposal the shareholders choose. Are we looking at a potentially national pool? That may be of interest. In fact, prima facie there may be considerable benefits for the Australian racing industry related purely to the pool size. The extent to which the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission would regard that as being somehow less competitive than the present arrangement is a matter for that body's consideration. In the end, whether businesses are conducted under monopoly provisions of State governments—whether a number of monopolies or whether a consolidated monopoly—does not particularly matter unless the ACCC is able to apply its mind to the impacts that competitive or anti-competitive outcomes might bring should a corporation, despite being governed by licence and State government legislation, dominate the totalisator industry in Australia. I do not think this situation could be likened to that of the banks. It is not like other service providers that rely on sufficient numbers in the marketplace to provide at least a closer-to-perfect competition than a monopoly would imply.

This is a Government-controlled, monopolistic industry, and whether State borders exist and pool size increases are permitted will not depend on the corporate structure. In the end, the merger of totalisator pools does not depend entirely upon this bill. In conclusion, I thank Treasurer Egan, the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and their staff. I thank the people who provided the Opposition with briefings: the players, the corporations, the racing industry, and affiliated industries such as the Australian Hotels Association. That association represents approximately 1,000 hotels, which act as outlets for TAB wagering. I thank all those stakeholders for their advice, sometimes on short notice, but always given freely and clearly. This bill will pave the way for shareholders of TAB Limited to make informed decisions in the knowledge that the Parliament has passed legislation that will be in the best interests of New South Wales, the New South Wales racing industry, and ultimately all shareholders.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing) [5.01 p.m.], in reply: I acknowledge the insightful contribution of the shadow Minister to this debate, and particularly his reference to section 43A (1), which I referred to in my second reading speech. He was a former Minister for Gaming and Racing and therefore has considerable knowledge about this matter. I thank the Opposition for its support for the bill. The bill is a sensible measure designed to give UNiTAB or TABCORP the ability to merge with the New South Wales-based TAB Limited. The bill also preserves the principles adopted by the Carr Government at the time of privatisation in relation to the placement of maximum shareholding limitations on any individual shareholder or group of shareholders.

As I said in my second reading speech, either proposal is expected to generate additional income for the New South Wales racing industry through the economies of scale that will be achieved by the distribution of corporate expenses across several jurisdictions. I emphasise that the Government is committed to preserving the existing rights of the New South Wales racing industry and has included appropriate provisions in the new legislation. In addition, the Government will not proclaim the legislation until such time as the racing industry's concerns are reasonably considered. In conclusion, I emphasise that the Government is committed to ensuring that the integrity of the totalisator operations of TAB Limited are not jeopardised by any future merging of New South Wales totalisator pools with totalisator pools in other jurisdictions. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

BILLS RETURNED

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:

Civil Liability Amendment Bill

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council with amendments:

Consideration of amendments deferred.

TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT (RAIL AGENCIES) BILL

In Committee

Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendment.

Schedule of amendment referred to in message of 3 December

Page 10, Schedule 1 [8], lines 18-21. Omit all words on those lines.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing) [5.06 p.m.]: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment be agreed to.

Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [5.06 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Legislative Council's amendment agreed to.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT (QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION) BILL

In Committee

Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendments.

Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 4 December

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [2], lines 15 and 18. Omit "head" wherever occurring. Insert instead "principal".

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [7], line 33 and page 5, schedule 1 [7], lines 1 and 2. Omit "head" wherever occurring. Insert instead "principal".

No. 3 Page 6, schedule 1 [10], lines 21, 26 and 27. Omit "head" wherever occurring. Insert instead "principal".

No. 4 Page 8, schedule 1 [19], lines 19-23. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(a) that a construction certificate or complying development certificate has been issued for such of the building work or subdivision work as requires development consent and over which the principal certifying authority has control, before the work commences on the site, and

No. 5 Page 8, schedule 1 [19], line 24. Omit "head". Insert instead "principal".

No. 6 Page 8, schedule 1 [19], line 26. Omit "as". Insert instead "if".

No. 7 Page 9, schedule 1 [19], lines 9-13. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 8 Page 9, schedule 1 [20], line 25. Insert "principal" before "certifying".
No. 9 Page 18, schedule 1 [44], line 32. Insert "after that commencement" after "appointed".

No. 10 Page 18, schedule 1 [44], line 33. Insert "principal" before "certifying".

No. 11 Page 18, schedule 1 [44], line 35. Omit "certifying authority or".

No. 12 Page 18, schedule 1 [44]. Insert after line 37:

Restriction on issue of occupation certificates

Section 109H (1B), as inserted by the 2003 amending Act, does not apply to any building work that commenced before that amendment.

No. 13 Page 22, schedule 2.1 [4], line 3. Omit "head". Insert instead "principal".

No. 14 Page 22, schedule 2.1 [4]. Insert after line 18:

Note. Principal certifying authorities and principal contractors must also ensure that signs required by this clause are erected and maintained (see clause 227A which currently imposes a maximum penalty of $1,100).

No. 15 Page 22, schedule 2.1 [4], lines 30-38. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

in the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:

(i) the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and

the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,

in the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:

(i) the name of the owner-builder, and

(ii) if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.

No. 16 Page 26, schedule 2.1 [23], line 31. Omit "head". Insert instead "principal".

No. 17 Page 27, schedule 2.1 [23]. Insert after line 12:

Note.

No. 18 Page 27, schedule 2.1 [23], lines 24-32. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(a) in the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:

(i) the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and

the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,

in the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:

(i) the name of the owner-builder, and

(ii) if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.

No. 19 Page 29, schedule 2.1 [32], line 20. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Quality of Construction) Act 2003

No. 20 Page 30, schedule 2.1 [35], lines 9-14. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

Note. These inspections are the critical stage inspections.

(2) Except as provided by subclause (3), the critical stage inspections may be carried out by the principal certifying authority or, if the principal certifying authority agrees, by another certifying authority.

(3) The last critical stage inspection required to be carried out for the class of building concerned must be carried out by the principal certifying authority.

No. 21 Page 31, schedule 2.1 [35], lines15-24. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) A principal certifying authority and each other certifying authority must make a record of each critical stage inspection carried out by the principal certifying authority or other certifying authority.
(2) Any certifying authority who is required to make such a record but is not the principal certifying authority for the work concerned must forthwith provide a copy of the record to the principal certifying authority for the work.

Note. Copies of these records must be kept for at least 15 years (see clause 205).

No. 22 Page 32, schedule 2.1 [36], line 9. Omit "head". Insert instead "principal".

No. 23 Page 33, schedule 2.1 [42]. Insert after line 4:

(h) if the accredited certifier is a principal certifying authority, any copy of a record of a critical stage inspection provided to the principal certifying authority by another certifying authority.

No. 24 Page 33, schedule 2.1 [44], lines 14, 30 and 31. Omit "head" wherever occurring. Insert instead "principal".

Miss CHERIE BURTON (Kogarah—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.07 p.m.]: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to.

Ms PETA SEATON (Southern Highlands) [5.08 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Government's amendments. I received them only recently and my comments about them may not correspond to the order in which they have been presented. The reason we are not opposing the amendments is that we have not had a chance to go back to the many stakeholders to consult them individually in detail on all of the amendments. But I note that some of the amendments that were presented to me apparently take up some of the issues the Opposition raised in debate and sought on behalf of stakeholders, particularly the Master Builders Association and the Housing Industry Association, who expressed specific, well-researched, and very serious concerns about a number of matters in the bill. I note that some of the amendments apparently go some way to solving some of the problems that were raised by those stakeholders.

However, it is fair to say that many issues on which stakeholder groups, particularly the Builders Professional Board, wanted a guarantee and an answer from the Government have not been raised in the amendments. Many other issues that I outlined about the specific practicalities of the bill have not been addressed. I maintain that the amendments do not give any guarantees or security to home owners and home builders who have been severely disadvantaged by a situation that is entirely the responsibility of the Government: a private certifier was able to continue his work for two years when he had no accreditation license. Although the Government has not dealt with this problem, the Opposition will not oppose these amendments.

Motion agreed to.

Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

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

SUPERANNUATION ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Miss CHERIE BURTON (Kogarah—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.13 p.m.], on behalf of Mr Craig Knowles: I move:

The bill will strengthen the prudential requirements and corporate governance of the New South Wales public sector superannuation schemes. It simply brings our public sector schemes further into line with other parts of industry, and as regulated by the Commonwealth's Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act. The Superannuation Administration Act 1996 was reviewed in 2001-02 as part of the Government's ongoing program of reviewing legislation after five years. The proposed bill simply implements some of the recommendations of the five-yearly review of the Act, and increases the focus on prudential supervision more broadly on the SAS Trustee Corporation and the FSS Trustee Corporation. The SAS Trustee Corporation is responsible for the State's defined benefit super schemes, and the FSS Trustee Corporation covers the public sector's accumulation scheme.

The Government has a responsibility to ensure the trustees' investment and administrative activities are consistent with best practice. As a result, the Government is seeking to amend the Act to provide for increased monitoring of the superannuation trustees. The amendments make three key changes to the Act. They include facilitating prudential reviews of the two trustee corporations, giving the Minister the ability to request information from the trustees, and clarifying the voting requirements of the boards of the trustee corporations. The first of the proposed amendments will provide the Minister responsible for the Superannuation Administration Act with the power to initiate prudential investigations into the operations of the SAS Trustee Corporation and the FSS Trustee Corporation. This would include reviewing the operations of the outsourced scheme administrator. The power to initiate prudential investigations into the operations of superannuation funds brings New South Wales into line with the Commonwealth's Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act.

The legislation will allow Australian Prudential Regulation Authority-style reviews to ensure that members' contributions and earnings are accurately recorded, that the trustees have investment plans and that they are implemented, that fraud controls are adequate, that systems are in place to minimise overpayments to members, and that the operations of the trustees and the administrator are efficient. The review does not review the appropriateness of the investment strategy. The proposed legislation will enable the Minister with administrative responsibility for a New South Wales public sector superannuation scheme to request information relating to that scheme from the relevant trustee. The information would be aggregated data relating to the fund's performance, not information about individuals. The bill also corrects an inconsistency in the Superannuation Administration Act concerning the voting requirements at a board meeting and when business is transacted otherwise than at ordinary meetings.

Under the proposed changes the quorum for a board meeting will be increased to six. Currently five of nine board members constitute a quorum. In addition, the legislation will make the number of votes that constitute a decision of the board consistent both at a board meeting and outside of ordinary meetings. The bill provides that a resolution of two-thirds of the majority of votes—that is, a minimum of six board members—will constitute a decision of the board The proposed amendments to the Superannuation Administration Act will make the voting requirements consistent, and in line with the Commonwealth's Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act. Existing provisions relating to the Local Government Superannuation Scheme and the Electricity Industry Superannuation Scheme, which were established in 1997, are ambiguous about trustee responsibility for disputes and appeals of former members.

The proposed amendments will make it clear that former members in dispute with STC or FTC before they were transferred to local government or electricity industry schemes will now have their issues resolved by the trustees of these latter funds. A number of amendments by way of statute law revision are also proposed to update the Superannuation Administration Act. The superannuation arrangements supported by this bill allow the trustees to achieve efficiencies in their financial and administrative operations, and allow the Government to improve the prudential and corporate governance of the trustees. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Russell Turner.

STRATA SCHEMES MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce) [5.20 p.m.]: I move:

I have great pleasure in introducing the Strata Schemes Management Amendment Bill. The bill further demonstrates the Carr Government's commitment to ongoing review and refinement of legislation that affects so many in our community: those who live in, own, or operate commercial activities in strata complexes. There are nearly 70,000 strata schemes in New South Wales, ranging from simple two-lot suburban developments to massive 700-lot high-rise complexes. Medium-density and high-density living is becoming more and more a part of urban life, and strata title is by far the preferred choice for those who develop and market these buildings. The operation of strata buildings and the handling of the associated administrative tasks by owners' corporations has in many instances become more complex since the first strata management legislation commenced in 1974 via the Strata Titles Act 1973.

Due to the sophistication and variety of modern developments, there are many more issues that owners' corporations or their managing agents now have to deal with. Some strata schemes are now so large that they have more people living in them than entire villages and towns. Their annual budgets may be millions of dollars. This bill deals with a number of necessary improvements to strata legislation. The original idea of strata title came about as a New South Wales invention in 1961. Although there is no doubt that the concept of strata ownership, where individuals have title to their own space but share the responsibility for common areas, has weathered the 42 years of operation in New South Wales very well, some fundamental improvements to the management provisions of the law are needed.

The refinements in this bill include matters identified during the national competition policy review of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 carried out during 2001. The first round of amendments arising from the national competition policy review were passed by this Parliament in November 2002. Dealing mainly with caretaker contracts, proxy voting, and priority voting rights of mortgagees, these amendments commenced operation on 10 February this year. These matters were identified as matters of some priority and were brought in ahead of the broader package of necessary reforms that arose during the national competition policy review process.

However, it is now time to address the other matters, a brief summary of which I will give shortly. In June this year the Government released an issues paper entitled "Living in Strata Developments in 2003". This cross-agency paper covered a wide range of issues connected to strata schemes, including the special concerns affecting very large high-rise developments, building quality and fire safety issues, and the mechanism for terminating schemes when their practical life comes to an end. Submissions from 113 interested parties were received, including strata lot owners, executive committee office bearers, developers, managers, lawyers and government agencies. The issues paper included the national competition policy recommendations and provided a further opportunity for people to comment on them. As a result of the national competition policy review, the "Living in Strata Developments in 2003" issues paper, and the Government's awareness of current aspects of the law needing to be overhauled, a package of refinements is provided by the bill.

I will now outline the more important details of the proposals included in the bill. The first initiative is one of the most significant. The bill provides a mechanism for large schemes to be treated differently from smaller schemes. Since the commencement of the first strata management laws in 1974 under the Strata Titles Act 1973, all schemes irrespective of size and type have fundamentally been subject to the same legislative regime. All strata schemes, whether a six-lot double-storey block at Merrylands, a townhouse development at Nambucca Heads or a 20-story building in the heart of Sydney, have largely been subject to the same rules and requirements in regard to administration.

It has become plainly evident that running a large high-rise building is different to running an average size scheme, and the bill takes account of this. As a first step, any scheme with 100 or more lots will be defined as a large scheme; this will enable the tailoring of special provisions that will streamline the operation of their owner's corporations. In calculating the 100-lot figure, parking lots and utility lots such as storage rooms will not be counted. It is estimated that less than 5 per cent of all the strata schemes in New South Wales comprise buildings of over 100 lots, although many of the developments of recent years, particularly in inner-city areas, are in the large category.

The new provision will provide the necessary flexibility to adjust the administrative requirements for these large schemes, to ensure both a smoother and more workable management process and to recognise the level of accountability that needs to be included. Also, allowances need to be made for the sheer volume of tasks that have to be carried out on a day-to-day basis in such a large enterprise. The regulations will be able to prescribe differing processes and requirements for such matters as the conduct of meetings, the functions of office-bearers, the management of finances, and the operational powers of the executive committee. The development of the regulations, in which the variations will be included, will be subject to consultation with relevant groups. Indeed, representatives from some of the largest schemes have already made their views known to the Government on these issues and there will be ample material to use in commencing the consultation process.

With the passage of time it may become necessary to come back to Parliament with further adjustments to the legislation on some of the matters affecting the operation of large schemes. The aim is to remove administrative burdens wherever possible while retaining the essential objectives and benefits of the strata management legislation. In some instances, new obligations will be placed on owners'' corporations of large schemes in the interests of individual unit owners and in recognition of the corporate nature of such large enterprises. While much of the detail of the variations to apply to the administration of large schemes will be provided through the regulations, some matters associated with large schemes will be addressed directly through the bill. Some current concerns have been identified as being in need of immediate rectification, and the bill includes some specific provisions in this area.

These changes are as follows. Financial accounts will have to be audited annually by suitably qualified persons; at least two quotations will have to be obtained for larger items of expenditure; the executive committee will be limited to spending no more than 10 percent above any approved budget item; personal notice to all unit owners will be required for upcoming executive committee meetings, as will notification of the decisions of the executive committee, and notification of meetings and decisions made will no longer be permitted to be conveyed simply by placing a notice on a noticeboard; and proxy votes to be used at an owners' corporation meeting will have to be submitted to the secretary at least 24 hours before the meeting takes place.

The bill also makes a number of legislative amendments that will apply to all schemes. Notwithstanding what I have already said about the need to make specific adjustments for large schemes, there are many aspects of the strata legislative framework that have relevance and value for all schemes. The bill contains a package of improvements that will tighten up areas where shortcomings have become evident. I would like now to give a brief overview of the remaining provisions of the bill. Changes are to be made to the way in which sinking funds are required to be managed by owners' corporations. This bill will require that owners' corporations have a structured approach to sinking fund reserves. It will be mandatory for all new schemes to implement 10-year sinking fund plans, and they will have to be reviewed at least each five years. They will be required to have a 10-year maintenance and expenditure plan and associated budgeting.

In other words, owners' corporations will have to turn their minds to capital expenditure that will arise over the following 10 years and plan their sinking fund budget accordingly. The revised sinking fund provisions received overwhelming public support during the recent consultation on the "Living in Strata Developments in 2003" issues paper. It is clearly preferable for adequate financial reserves to be built up over the passage of time so that regular planned maintenance can be carried out. This bill will provide sensible support to such an approach. Owners' corporations will be free to use expert outside assistance in formulating their 10-year sinking fund plans if they wish, but this will be optional. They may have experts within the scheme who can help with devising the plans, and, if so, little or no additional costs will arise for the owners' corporation in putting their plan together. I am sure that members will support the Government's endeavours in this area as they will provide benefits to strata unit owners and the wider community for generations to come.

While the bill provides that these new sinking fund provisions will apply only to schemes that come into existence after the revised legislation commences, a regulation-making power has been provided to extend them to existing schemes where appropriate. Where insufficient funds are put aside and inadequate maintenance is provided, major building expense may arise. This requires a large one-off levy on all unit owners, placing a heavy burden on people with limited sources of income. The level of public support for the sinking fund reforms indicates that the extension of the provisions to existing schemes would be appropriate. However, this will not occur until adequate consultation has been carried out.

Another new initiative will be in relation to the commencement of any form of legal action by executive committees. Concern has been expressed that prior to commencing action individual owners should be made aware of the cost of legal action and the likelihood of success. Most strata schemes will include individuals from a broad cross-section of the community with a variety of personal expectations, attitudes and level of involvement. It is impossible to expect that there will always be perfect harmony. The commencement of legal action on matters concerning the scheme is one area where it is certain that a divergence of views will exist. The Government proposes to minimise the level of internal dispute arising in this area by taking some simple but effective measures. Firstly, if legal action of any type is being contemplated, the estimated cost of the action is to be provided in writing to all owners in accordance with the Legal Profession Act.

A meeting of the owners' corporation must be called before the action can actually commence, to ensure that everyone can have a say if they wish. These new provisions will not only include the initiation of legal proceedings but also the obtaining of legal advice. Executive committees will effectively be prevented from undertaking legal action under their own initiative, thus removing the possibility that claims will be made that a committee has not acted in the interests of all owners and added to existing conflict rather than dissipated it. A new mandatory item will be added to the agenda of the annual general meeting of each owners' corporation. The owners' corporation will have to consider whether any restrictions are to be placed on the decision-making powers of their executive committee for the ensuing year. This will remove the likelihood that owners suggest that their executive has acted beyond its mandate and leave the executive free to carry on with its tasks without undue hindrance.

An associated amendment will make it clear that the owners' corporation is the superior body and has the final say in the event of any dispute between the two levels of management. Another clarifying amendment will confirm that the owners' corporation can dismiss its entire executive committee by special resolution should extreme circumstances arise that would lead to such an action being necessary. I want to make it clear that there is no intention to unnecessarily muzzle executive committees. Most owners' corporations could not operate effectively without a diligent executive committee to carry out the essential day-to-day tasks. These measures should minimise the possibility of disputes arising in this area in the future. We are all aware of the critical importance of fire safety in any building, especially those that accommodate large numbers of people. It is very important that local government and fire authorities have adequate access to strata buildings to inspect and confirm that necessary fire safety measures are in place.

To remove uncertainty over who is responsible for providing access, the bill includes a provision making it clear that this is the duty of the owners' corporations. To reflect the seriousness of the issue, owners' corporations will be subject to a significant penalty for not complying with the new obligation. To ensure owners' corporations are not unfairly penalised when residents fail to give access inside individual units for the purposes of a fire safety inspection, they will be given a defence to a prosecution in these circumstances. Another new initiative taken through this bill is to provide that a strata managing agent appointed by the owners' corporation cannot transfer the management responsibilities to another agent without the consent of the owners' corporation concerned. This will be an equivalent provision to the one already in place dealing with the transfer of caretaker management responsibilities.

An important amendment in the bill relates to the extent of documentation required to be handed over by the original owner, usually a developer, at the first annual general meeting of the owners' corporation. It is essential that the owners' corporation has all the necessary plans, warranties, and other documents to enable it to take over the running of the scheme, and the new provisions adds to the list of material that developers will have to provide. To ensure compliance with the new obligations, the associated penalties will be increased tenfold.

The bill contains a package of amendments that have arisen from the national competition policy [NCP] review during 2001 and 2002. As I have said, some of the recommendations from the NCP report have already been implemented. This bill includes the remainder of the recommendations already adopted by the Government. I will not go into detail as the amendments cover a wide range of quite different issues. They have been in the public domain since the NCP report was released and there is no secret about them.

I will just give a broad overview of these provisions of the bill. The bill makes it clear that the owners' corporation has the necessary power to add to, alter, or erect new structures on common property or allow others to do so. This previously uncertain area has often resulted in by-laws being devised to overcome the doubtfulness of the situation. The powers of the owners' corporation and the responsibility for ongoing maintenance of common property affected in this aspect of strata life will now be made clear to all concerned. The inconsistencies over the period for which the various owners' corporations records have to be retained is removed and a five-year period will apply to all records. The bill will make clear that office-bearers cannot simply issue notices to comply with by-laws on residents of a strata scheme without a verification of the action by the owners' corporation or its executive committee at a formal meeting.

Consent to conveyancing searches of owners' corporation records will be able to be given orally by the lot owner concerned. All types of insurance taken out by owners' corporations, whether optional or not, will have to be with approved insurers. An exemption will be provided for two-lot strata schemes on the standard of discretionary audit used for their annual accounts, which will effectively allow them to utilise any form of audit deemed appropriate. The bill includes provisions that assist in overcoming some past difficulties in relation to dealing with the delegation of functions by owners' corporations. Under the Strata Schemes Management Act, owners' corporations can only delegate their functions to licensed strata managing agents. In other words, only strata managing agents can be appointed to stand in the place of the owners' corporation, making decisions and taking actions as if they were the owners' corporation.

Other people can help the owners' corporation in carrying out tasks and duties, but only strata managing agents can be given the power to make decisions for, and undertake the full role of, the owners' corporation. Despite refinements to the law in 1996 there has still been some uncertainty in this area in recent times. The bill therefore seeks to clarify this issue a little further. It does so by specifically listing the types of matters that can only be given to a strata managing agent to carry out under delegation should an owners' corporation elect not to do so itself. These are the critical operational functions of the owners' corporation in the areas of budgeting, fixing of levies, managing the finances, insurance, conduct of meetings, handling of correspondence and other documentation, and keeping the necessary records.

Other less important tasks could be carried out by other persons. It is intended that, once and for all, time-consuming and unnecessary arguments that a person who sweeps the common property hallways and staircases or who rakes the leaves on the lawn must be a licensed strata managing agent to be able to do so on behalf of an owners' corporation be resolved. The process for appointment of strata managing agents by strata schemes adjudicators or the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal is to be streamlined, giving a wider range of circumstances when such appointments can be made. It will also be put beyond doubt that a managing agent could be appointed compulsorily on the basis of circumstances revealed when an adjudicator or the tribunal is considering an application about an unrelated issue.

Important changes are to be made to the mediation provisions of the legislation. Mediation has been one of the real success stories of the revised strata management laws that commenced in July 1997. The success rate is very high and the New South Wales mediation mechanism is the envy of other Australian jurisdictions. However, we aim to improve it even further. We will achieve the improvements by widening the discretion of the registrar to waive the need for mediation. This will give added flexibility to ensure that in those circumstances where mediation would obviously be fruitless or counterproductive, the registrar could shortcut the dispute resolution process by sending the parties directly to adjudication. Some types of disputes, such as the reallocation of unit entitlements will be specifically listed as being exempt from the mediation requirement. The other major reform to the mediation provisions will be to provide for a ratification order by an adjudicator once parties have come to a mediated settlement.

If there has been one weakness in the mediation mechanism, it is in the area of making mediated settlements stick. The Office of Fair Trading has received information on a number of experiences where parties have left mediation sessions in apparent full agreement with the terms of settlement, only to have a change of heart at a later time, thus resulting in the matter going on to formal adjudication. The Government believes that the process would be streamlined if the mediation settlement achieved could, wherever possible, be ratified by a confirmation order by an adjudicator. This would mean that the settlement would be binding and the avenues already provided in the legislation for parties to have orders enforced would be available. However, in recognition that the inherent effectiveness of mediation could be jeopardised by too stringent a process, ratification will arise only when the parties agree to it at the conclusion of the mediation session.

The bill also deals with some essential by-law issues. Many owners' corporations use by-laws to deal with matters specific to their own complexes. By-laws are intended to enhance and utilise the laws that are already in place so that the circumstances of a particular scheme can be accommodated. They are not able to change fundamentally what the general law already provides. It is recognised that some owners' corporations may attempt to stretch by-laws further than their intended limit, and the bill contains a provision that will stress that by-laws cannot be used in an endeavour to go beyond the provisions of the Strata Schemes Management Act or any other relevant law. It is also made clear that by-laws that conflict with any existing law are invalid.

A secondary amendment to the by-laws provisions will have a substantial and fully intended impact. "Exclusive use by-laws" are sometimes registered to give individual owners' sole access to, or use of, a portion of the common property. It takes a substantial vote of the owners' corporation—effectively a 75 per cent vote in favour—to pass an exclusive use by-law. The laws already provide that, as a consumer protection, during the early life of an owners' corporation when a developer is likely to still have substantial voting control, exclusive use by-laws that would benefit some but not all owners cannot be passed. However, there is no restriction in such by-laws being registered with the plan by the developer. To ensure that incoming purchasers are not disadvantaged by not being aware of exclusive use by-laws already in place, disclosure will be required by the vendor. Perhaps a developer may have exclusive use by-laws in place with regard to common property parking spaces. Those who did not have access to the spaces by virtue of by-laws already in place should obviously know about this in advance. Purchasers can then receive advice on whether to go ahead with the acquisition.

There are more than 700 retirement villages operating in New South Wales, and between 40 and 50 of them are strata schemes. The Retirement Villages Act and the Strata Schemes Management Act operate in tandem in respect of these villages. The overlap of the two sets of laws can sometimes require some careful consideration by older members of the community who are moving out of their family home. For instance, both village fees and strata levies are usually payable by residents. There are two separate annual budget processes and individual annual meetings.

Sometimes both village rules and strata by-laws apply. At present, prospective residents of retirement villages must be given a package of information by the village operator to help them decide whether to move into a particular village. The amendments in the bill will ensure that those contemplating entry to a strata retirement village will also be provided with the necessary information about strata levies payable and other relevant strata information to assist in making their choice.

The last substantial reform provided in this bill's package of amendments relates to a regulation-making power to exclude certain strata schemes from the dispute resolution mechanisms should it ever be found to be desirable. This provision is merely to provide sufficient flexibility should it be found appropriate to move certain schemes from the dispute resolution processes available under the Act to other more conventional mechanisms. It could be argued that large commercial strata schemes should not be utilising a dispute resolution process fundamentally designed for issues arising in residential buildings.

It could be held that it is a misuse of resources to have a relatively inexpensive, quick and informal process designed for residential matters to be accessed by wealthy commercial interests. While there are no specific plans for any schemes to be excluded at this stage, the new provision will provide the necessary flexibility to deal with any valid concerns that arise in this area. The Government concedes that quite extensive regulation-making powers are included in this bill, which might draw some interest from the Legislation Review Committee. However, it is considered that none will lead to unreasonable restrictions on personal rights. They are largely supported by the community and none will be finalised without adequate consultation with relevant interest groups.

In conclusion, as well as the matters that I have outlined, there are some minor amendments dealing with consequential changes arising from the February 2003 amendments. Matters relating to accountants carrying out the functions of treasurer of an owners' corporation and the granting of a licence over common property by an owners' corporation are also included in this very extensive package of amendments. Further refinements to the strata schemes and related laws are likely, and to this end the Government intends to release a further issues paper shortly, which will invite comment on a number of areas where a final position has not yet been reached and where a diversity of views has been encountered.

The paper will include coverage of matters such as the most desirable mechanism for the termination of schemes, the extension of the new sinking fund provisions to schemes already in existence, a special category of manager for large schemes, further issues affecting the operation of large schemes, further restrictions on the use of proxy votes, building and performance standards, fire safety assessment, the maximum number of persons permitted to occupy residential units, the modernisation of model by-laws, the delineation of common property and private property, access to strata buildings by emergency services, and the relevance of the most recent strata reforms to community schemes. I am sure that the refinements and improvements outlined in the bill will prove to be beneficial to that substantial proportion of our community associated with strata scheme life and will assist in the better operation of the laws. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

ELECTRICITY (CONSUMER SAFETY) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce) [5.47 p.m.]: I move:

Honourable members might recall that in May this year I spoke of pending reforms to the Electricity Safety Act 1945. A national competition policy review of the sections covering electrical articles and installations has been completed, and the Government now intends to remake this important consumer protection legislation with some amendments to further reaffirm our commitment to the safety of consumers and residents in New South Wales.
The Government has considered comments from extensive consultation with consumer, industry and union representatives, as well as the recommendations from the review, in preparing this bill. The untold number of lives saved, injuries prevented, and property undamaged because of the Electricity Safety Act could only, and inevitably does, demonstrate the need for the continuation of this legislation. There can be no dispute with the public safety objective of the legislation, and this bill continues to meet the essential safety principles that it laid down, while promoting more efficient administration.

Electricity plays a vital role in our everyday lives. Electrical articles that plug into our electrical installations are ubiquitous and innumerable: consider the televisions, computers, kitchen appliances, heaters, vacuum cleaners and other domestic products that run on mains power. The Electricity Safety Act is a mechanism for ensuring that electrical articles and wiring work and meet national and internationally recognised standards. It ensures that consumer electrical articles are safe for purchase and hire and that information asymmetry is balanced in favour of consumer safety.

The Electricity Safety Act ensures that all electrical items are made to minimum safety standards, and we have inspectors checking retailers and wholesalers to ensure compliance. To protect the public further, items from certain classes of articles must be tested, approved and marked before they may be made available to the public. These goods are high risk because people have high levels of exposure to them. They are goods such as household appliances, mobile phone chargers, electric lawn mowers, extension cords and safety switches, which we take for granted as safe to use. And they are safe to use because of the electricity safety legislation. If an item is found to be unsafe, action can be taken under this legislation against a supplier.

Consumers have the right to be confident that the electrical articles they buy are safe to use, and this legislation meets that objective. At the same time, consumers using domestic, commercial, and industrial installations have an obligation to maintain their installations to the best of their knowledge and ability. This is a requirement under the Electricity Safety Act. It is encouraging to note that the trend in electricity-related fatalities in New South Wales has been a continuing decline over the 57 years since this legislation commenced. The safety recommendations and regimes that have grown from the legislation protect life and property in this State, not only in the electricity industry, but in homes and businesses. These safety provisions cover the power lines which carry electricity around the State and the table lamp plugged in at a bedside or on an office desk. But we can still do better in fatality reduction and consumer protection.

New South Wales has amongst the lowest incidence of death by electrocution in Australia, but one fatality is one too many. Tragically, during 2002, 10 fatal electrical accidents were reported, compared with 39 fatal electrical accidents when the Act was introduced in 1955, a peak of 42 fatal electrical accidents in 1959, 25 fatal electrical accidents in 1994, 20 fatal electrical accidents in 1997, and 15 fatal electrical accidents in 2000. This downward trend is encouraging, but can be improved even further.

Since the introduction of this legislation, it has played an important role in minimising the number of fatalities and injuries. As the Minister for Fair Trading I jointly administer the Electricity Safety Act 1945 with the Minister for Energy and Utilities. Under the Act, the Minister for Energy and Utilities is responsible for regulating safety in the electricity generation, transmission and supply industries; associated accident reporting and investigation functions; registration of systems to prevent corrosion of electricity supply structures; safety inspections of private installations, and promoting the energy efficiency of electrical appliances—an important contribution to this Government's greenhouse abatement initiatives.

The Act has been rewritten in plain English, and this bill achieves this in two ways: the provisions have been modernised, but, in addition, the administration of the legislation has been split to clarify areas of responsibility. Matters administered by the Minister for Energy and Utilities have been transferred to either the Electricity Supply Act or the Energy Administration Act as appropriate. This provides for improved administrative efficiency and enhancement of the consumer protection framework, underpinned by a comprehensive inspection and regulatory regime. The sections which provide certain powers, duties and functions to the Energy Corporation of New South Wales—the corporate entity of the Ministry of Energy and Utilities—are being transferred to the Energy Administration Act. Provision for the inspection, investigation and reporting of matters relating to network assets are more properly housed under the Electricity Supply Act.

The provisions administered under the Fair Trading portfolio prescribe a regime for safe electrical articles, the safety of electrical installations and reporting and investigation of accidents involving articles and installations. The bill has been discussed with consumer, employer and employee representatives to ensure that the legislation is appropriate for the needs of this modern, dynamic and high-technology society. The provisions of the Electricity Safety Act have been strengthened to further enhance the protection and safety of consumers. The coverage of the 1945 Act and the technology it regulates has advanced inordinately since the original legislation commenced. Part of the Act's intent was to ensure that electricity was available everywhere in the State, not only where supply was commercially viable. Electricity is now used by over 99 per cent of New South Wales household installations and the vast majority of commercial and industrial places.

The electricity industry in New South Wales is a significant and dynamic industry, with over 3 million network customers and over 280,000 kilometres of wires. Twenty licensed retailers compete to supply those 3 million customers by buying electricity from the national wholesale market and arranging for the electricity to be conveyed to their premises through transmission and distribution networks across southern and eastern Australia. As at 30 June 2002, total revenue from the sale of electricity in New South Wales was $7.4 billion.

Whilst this Government has taken steps to reduce electricity-related accidents within households and workplace premises, it remains an unfortunate fact that accidents still do occur. Continuing the Government's initiatives to improve electricity-related safety, the powers of Ministry of Energy and Utilities inspectors and Office of Fair Trading investigators have been enhanced. In the future when undertaking an investigation, an authorised person's powers to make enquiries will not be limited to the place where a serious accident occurred.

The key benefit is that all causes of an accident can now be more thoroughly investigated. Under current legislation, an investigation can be hampered by the inability of an authorised person to obtain relevant information from other sites. Investigations also will be possible at all premises where commercial activity involving electrical works and articles is carried on, although a search warrant will remain necessary for entry to the parts of places used for residential purposes. Penalty notices will be introduced for clearly identified one-off breaches relating to electrical articles and installations. The key driver for change is to improve levels of compliance and enforcement in New South Wales and to align NSW with equivalent interstate legislation. The Government is taking this opportunity to strengthen the enforcement aspects of the electricity consumer safety legislation. Maximum penalties for breaches will correspond with the seriousness of those breaches.

Electricity is essential to our society, but electricity can also kill, injure and burn and irresponsible actions cannot be tolerated. Poorly manufactured electrical articles and substandard wiring work present hazards to life and property. Attempting to supply or sell an electrical article which does not meet even the minimum safety requirements will attract a fine of up to $550,000 for corporations—$825,000 for repeat offenders—and $55,000 for individuals, or $82,500 for repeat offenders. A person or corporation who knowingly fails to ensure the safety of their electrical installation and therefore poses a threat to themselves, their neighbours and their environment may face similar penalties. The offence of undertaking electrical wiring work other than in accordance with the Wiring Rules has been transferred from the regulations into the Act to underscore the importance of professional electrical wiring work.

Penalties under the articles and installations regulations will also be increased to properly reflect the nature of offences. Under the regulations, a maximum of $55,000 will apply in the case of corporations and $27,500 for individuals. The House should know that one of the recommendations from the review of the Electricity Safety Act is not supported. This concerns the exclusion from the Electricity Safety Act of electrical installations which use privately generated power. We can understand that these remote installations might originally have been exempt because there were so few of them, or because they were so inaccessible. However, there are an increasing number of commercial and domestic installations with stand-alone electricity generators which have the same lethal potential as installations connected to the mains supply—approximately 5,000 of them.

People who own and use these remote installations have as much responsibility to themselves, their families, neighbours and their environment to ensure—to the best of their knowledge and ability—that the installation is safe. It is not acceptable that the responsible government authority has no power to inspect the credentials of someone doing wiring work or investigate a complaint about an electrician's work at a business or home which has been running on electricity from its own generator. This bill reflects general support for all electrical installations to be covered by this important safety legislation. The provisions of the Electricity Safety Act relating to electrical articles and installations have been remade in this Electricity (Consumer Safety) Bill, with some amendments, to improve the administration of the legislation, to enhance consumer safety, ease the burden on suppliers of electrical articles and to underscore the serious intent of this safety regime.

In addition to the measures already mentioned, definitions have been clarified and will be consistent across related electricity and occupational health and safety legislation; the power to declare the classes of electrical articles which require approval will be transferred from the Governor to the regulator, but will remain in line with the nationally consistent regime already in place; suppliers of all electrical articles may be required to prove that an electrical article they sell meets the minimum safety standards if there are serious questions about the safety of that article; suppliers will have the certainty that certificates of approval for declared articles will remain valid for the full term of the approval; the Commissioner for Fair Trading will be able to apply for an injunction to enforce an agreement, such as to cease the sale of an unsafe article; a procedure for notifying the Commissioner for Fair Trading about serious accidents relating to electrical installations and articles will be put in place; legal proceedings for breaches of the Act will be able to be commenced within two years after an offence is detected, but no later than five years after the offence, recognising that, for example, poor wiring work might not be detected until several years after it was done; and appeals against administrative decisions will be made to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal instead of the Minister.

The legislation before the House will further enhance the safety measures in place in relation to electricity supply, electrical articles and installations and therefore further protect the consumers of electricity in this State. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Divisions and Quorums: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Special Adjournment

Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:

(1) That standing and sessional orders be suspended to provide that until the adjournment of the House no divisions or quorums be called.

(2) That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Friday 5 December 2003 at 10.00 a.m.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Private Members' Statements: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

_________

TWEED RIVER FESTIVAL

Mr NEVILLE NEWELL (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.02 p.m.]: I bring to the notice of the House details of the second annual Tweed River Festival. The festival, though it started only last year, has gained a great deal of support amongst the local community. It also has the ongoing support of the New South Wales Government. I was involved in the official launch of the Tweed River Festival this year on Saturday 15 November. I had the pleasure of participating in both the opening, held at the Lower Tweed Historical Society's premises on Kennedy Drive on the Saturday, and also in Sunday's Day at the Park, at Jack Evans Boat Harbour, which involved displays and activities organised by the Point Danger Volunteer Marine Rescue organisation.

The river festival continued for two weeks, with many events being organised throughout that time. The Fire and Water Celebration, held at the Jack Evans Boat Harbour on Sunday 23 November, commenced with the Tweed Coast Outrigger Canoe Race Day, with a series of 250-metre sprints. The Tweed Riverfest, the Jazz 'n' Blues Festival, buskers and sidewalk artists, fashion parades, and markets were all part of the fun and activities at the Chris Cunningham Park, around the boat harbour. A highlight of the Sunday events was the lantern parade, which took place at dusk. I pay tribute to all of the people and organisations that made lanterns and took part in that parade. It was a spectacular sight: hundreds of lanterns were walked around the entirety of the boat harbour by festival participants.
This was followed at 7.45 p. m. by the Fireworks Symphony. I should mention here the great work of the Northern Rivers Symphony Orchestra. The following fireworks were a great finale to a wonderful day. All credit goes to the organisers, but particularly the Tweed River Management Committee. I acknowledge the work of Councillor Wendy Marshall, the chair of that committee, in that regard. This spectacular event was attended by many thousands of local residents. Indeed, the entire fortnight was a great success. The final activity of the two-week festival was the Dragon Boat Charity Day on Sunday 30 November, put on for a very worthy charitable organisation known as Kids In Need.

That extremely well-attended day raised some $30,000 for Kids In Need. There were many good reasons for the organisers of the Kids In Need Day to be very pleased. I acknowledge the co-ordination work of the Rotary Club of Tweed Heads South and particularly Rod Baines, who did a fantastic job co-ordinating the day's activities—as did members of the other services clubs who took part in events and assisted in the running of various stalls that helped raise that money. The day initially raised $10,000 in cash for Kids In Need. However, the major sponsor, AMP, pledged to match the funds raised dollar-for-dollar, and as a result made a further donation of $10,000. That was a tremendous contribution. The $10,000 donated by the Seagulls Club took the total for that charity to $30,000.

I had the pleasure of taking part in one of the dragon boat races on that day, along with a number of other politicians, including Gavin Laurie and Larry Anthony, the member for Richmond. We enjoyed our row. Unfortunately, we beat home only two other boats, and therefore did not qualify to go further. Some of the winners on that day were the Kirra Sports Club, which also donated $1,200 to the fundraising effort. The Tweed River High School year 10 team won from the Tweed River High year 7 side in the schools competition. The clubs and pubs section was won by the South Tweed Bowls Club. The corporate business final went to John Flynn Hospital, which the previous night had celebrated its tenth anniversary. The business house final was won by Heritage Funerals, and an appreciation award was made to the Point Danger Volunteer Marine Rescue organisation. [Time expired.]

NATIONAL POLOCROSSE CHAMPIONSHIPS

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [6.17 p.m.]: I speak this evening about an event of significance to the electorate of Albury, polocrosse. Polocrosse was created by Australians, and Australia is the undisputed leading country in international polocrosse. Developed in 1938, and now played by more than 6,000 people in Australia as well as internationally in eight countries, polocrosse is as Australian as Akubra hats, the Australian stock horse and, dare I say it, the Sydney Opera House. Sometimes described as football on horses, it is one of the most exciting horse sports and appeals not only to equestrians but also to people from non-equestrian backgrounds who can readily appreciate the skill and athleticism of the horses and their riders.

Polocrosse genuinely is a sport for the whole family. Children start playing from as young as six years old, and there are many players who are in their sixties—so it is not uncommon to have children, parents and grandparents playing, and to have brother, sisters, mums and dads all in the one team. The Winergy National Polocrosse Championships will be held between 27 April and 2 May 2004 at the Albury Wodonga Equestrian Centre in Albury. Held every two years, the nationals are the pinnacle event of polocrosse in Australia. In 2004 the championships are being hosted by the Albury-Holbrook Polocrosse Club in conjunction with the Tasmanian Polocrosse Association.

The Albury-Holbrook Polocrosse Club was founded by polocrosse enthusiasts based in Holbrook and Albury. It has been operating for 17 years. Today, the club has more than 60 full members, plus numerous social members, and it regularly fields at least six teams at local carnivals. The club is part of the South-West Slopes Zone in New South Wales, and it hosted the 1994 New South Wales Club Championships. This event was said by many to be one of the best-run club championships in their experience.

The nationals will be played on five fields. These fields will be among the best in Australia and are being prepared specifically. The number one field will be the venue for the finals, which will extend over 1� days. This field will have grandstand seating erected around the perimeter. The other four fields will also have seating available. Games will be scheduled evenly over all fields, so that there will be activity on each field for virtually the duration of the nationals. The championships are expected to attract up to 7,000 people, including 450 competitors and up to 600 horses from each State and Territory. This may be a conservative estimate, given that the inaugural Polocrosse World Cup in Warwick last May attracted 25,000 people and the proximity of Albury to major population centres, in particular Melbourne and Canberra, means it is beautifully situated for this major event.
The competition will extend over six days. That includes a two-day curtain-raiser event, the Australian Polocrosse Masters Games. Players, their support teams and spectators travel from all parts of Australia to attend the championships. Direct expenditure by competitors, support teams and spectators could mean that approximately $1.4 million will be injected into the Albury region. When one applies the Bureau of Tourism employment ratio, this equates to 13 full-time jobs, although these jobs would mainly be in the accommodation and food and beverage sectors.

The organising committee seeks funding to assist in establishing the best polocrosse fields and facilities in Australia. Warwick in Queensland is the only polocrosse venue that has the appropriate standard of facilities to host major events such as the nationals. The inaugural Polocrosse World Cup was held in Warwick this year and attracted 25,000 people. The Queensland Government provided substantial funding in support of this event. The Holbrook club aims to develop fields and facilities that are equal to, if not better than, those at Warwick and thus create a southern centre for polocrosse to complement the current focus around Warwick. This will have a major impact on the Albury-Wodonga region and attract major polocrosse and other equine events to New South Wales.

The Holbrook club has already sown two fields and will sow a further three this month. These fields are located at the Albury-Wodonga Equestrian Centre at Thurgoona. They will be the best fields in Australia. Most important, they will provide a fantastic venue for attracting polocrosse events to the region beyond the nationals, as well as for other equine events in dressage, eventing, pony club and jumping. I commend this event to the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation.

WOMEN IN POLITICS

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield) [6.12 p.m.]: On Saturday 15 November I had the great privilege to be guest speaker at a seminar for women considering careers in local government. The seminar was organised by Women into Politics and the Australian Local Government Women's Association and was hosted by Ashfield council. The Department for Women and the Electoral Commission also provided assistance. The seminar outlined the reason for more women in politics, campaigning, the role of councillors and the function of councils.

Councillors, representatives and guests participated by sharing knowledge and interesting experiences. These included Councillor Emma Brooks Meagher; Joan Bielski from Women into Politics; Councillor Frances Vissel, Executive member of the Australian Local Government Women's Association; Councillor Marie Sheehan, Mayor of Leichhardt Municipal Council; Councillor Pauline Tyrell, Deputy Mayor of the City of Canada Bay Council; Michelle Calvert, a former councillor from Ashfield council, Councillor Monica Wangmann from Ashfield council; Jane Waddell, former mayor and councillor from Hunters Hill council; Councillor Claire Blades, Deputy Mayor of Ashfield council, and Councillor Cathy Jones from Strathfield Municipal Council.

With local government elections fast approaching it is timely that we consider the number of women representatives and how we can encourage more to enter politics. Probably the most often quoted line about politics is the mantra that all politics is local. Having worked in local and now State government, I can safely say that that is absolutely right. I adapt this statement to my own experience and say that, unfortunately, some women have found that all politics may also be personal. I have lost count of the number of times journalists have asked my age, whether I am married, whether I have children and my husband's occupation. No matter how far we have come, in the minds of the public women are still trapped in the private sphere. No matter how high we climb people are ready to perpetuate a few stereotypes before sending us back to women's magazines and gossip pages, where some think women belong.

Women have certainly come a long way, but we have some important challenges ahead. Some would argue that in the fight for equality we have reached the stage where many women, particularly young women, take a critical view of the traditional feminist movement. The impact of the women's movement in Australia has been profound and far reaching, revolutionising our views of marriage, parenting, work, politics and equality. Although many younger women believe in equal opportunity, they would not call themselves feminists. These women have watched their mothers come home from work at six, after having stopped at the supermarket, picked up younger brothers and sisters, prepared dinner, perhaps studied, cleaned up and eventually gone to bed. Understandably, they are reluctant to be identified as feminists if this is what the movement is offering them. However, they have their own feminist vision for the future. They do not want to have to do it all. They are retreating from the superwoman madness and are embracing a new, perhaps more complex goal—choice.
Our political history is littered with incidents where women have been offered opportunities but for many reasons they have been unwilling to take up those challenges. We must close this gap and translate legislative change to real change. Despite the fact that Australia was the first country in the world to allow women the right to vote and to stand for election, a woman was not elected to Federal Parliament for another 41 years. Women are still significantly underrepresented in Australian parliaments, constituting only 25.3 per cent of members of the House of Representatives.

After the last local government elections in 2000 I am advised that the result for women was around 26 per cent councillors, 16 per cent mayors and 25 per cent deputy mayors—woeful underrepresentation. On the world scale Australia currently ranks twenty-third on an international list on the proportion of female members of the lower House of Parliament in each State. We have the legislative capacity to enter politics but few women choose to make that leap. This begs a few questions: What are the obstacles to women entering politics? What can we do to overcome or sidestep these obstacles?

Different women will face different issues but there are a few key factors. First, women are not encouraged to choose politics as a career. Second, many women dislike the manner in which parliamentary proceedings are conducted. Third, late sitting or meeting hours and the travelling involved make politics a difficult career choice when many women have family responsibilities. Fourth, female politicians are scrutinised to a greater extent than their male colleagues; and, fifth, the portrayal of women politicians by the media can sometimes trivialise their role. Indeed, even today in this Chamber one member of Parliament trivialised a woman and commented on her dress.

We need to womanise our system of government to ensure that we not only have the legislative framework in place but also have a practical infrastructure to facilitate the participation of women in government. We all know that the benefits of having more women in our political system are overwhelming. Quite apart from simple equity or the practical benefits of broadening the pool of talent from which we draw our leaders, more women in politics will improve the status of women overall. It will also provide wonderful role models and, more important, it will legitimise our political institutions. We cannot claim to be truly democratic until the people who lead us more accurately reflect the make-up of our community.

TAREE LAW AND ORDER

Mr JOHN TURNER (Myall Lakes) [6.17 p.m.]: I wish to speak tonight about ongoing problems with law and order in Taree. My comments do not reflect on the police because they are underresourced and experience many difficulties. The problems occur mainly in shopping centres and involve two gangs, one comprising young people under the age of 10 years and the other comprising teenagers and young adults. Unfortunately, there is little the police can do to apprehend the younger gang members, although the juveniles and young adults can be prosecuted. Following the unfortunate death of the former mayor, Taree has a new mayor, John Hackney, who coincidentally manages one of the shopping centres. Out of sheer frustration he handed my business card to all shopkeepers suggesting they ring me when incidents occur. I am more than happy to assist but I would urge them to ring the police in the first instance so that the details may be recorded.

A couple of days ago I had a phone call from people who run KMart to say that a teenage gang was in the premises harassing staff and customers. An employee of KMart said that she was scared to go to her car and that she had been physically punched on a number of occasions. On Sundays particularly, and this is a theme throughout the complaints I have received, it has got to the stage where many of the shops will not open because these gangs—I regret to say it, but they are Koori problems—are running rife and harassing people. One of the problems is that our Aboriginal Liaison Officer left the area two or three months ago and has not been replaced. The officer played a very important role in the community and was quite successful. That is incidental, but I am sure it would help to ameliorate the problems if the position of Aboriginal Liaison Officer were filled.

I had a phone call from another person who has a shop in the mall. She said that five or six groups of Aboriginal youths continue to harass her. She has banned them from her shop as best she can. They run in, they vandalise the shop, they spit on people and they swear at people. On Saturday she was up the street shopping when she was surrounded by these youths who gave her a terrible going over because she had banned them from her shop. It is a real problem. I hate talking down my electorate in any way, but unfortunately, this has been a problem in Taree for some time and it is a problem that has to be addressed. Only a small number of people are involved. By far the majority of young people in my electorate are fantastic. They involve themselves in community activities and sport.
I am not sure what we can do about the under 10-year-olds, but we have to examine it. We must have a mechanism whereby we can act quickly to control juvenile gangs. When I rang the police the other day on behalf of the woman from KMart they arrived within six minutes, which was terrific. But we need beat police. I hate the phrase, but we need zero tolerance. We have to stamp it out. People should be able to conduct their businesses without being harassed. Customers should be able to enter shops without being sworn at or spat at and generally being fearful as they go about their day-to-day activities. It is a complex problem not only for the police but also for the community. We must do something about it.

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.22 p.m.]: I have listened carefully to the honourable member for Myall Lakes. Obviously, there is a problem. But, as he said, it is not only a police problem but a community problem. The behaviour he has outlined is unacceptable. I compliment Greater Taree City Council on its work in crime prevention at the community level. Even though this is a very serious matter, the most important thing is to try to work with the community. I am sure I am not telling the honourable member anything that he is not already aware of. I sympathise with the honourable member because at the moment he is the one who has been placed under pressure to get some action. He is aiding that by bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

AGL GAS PRICING POLICY

Mr JEFF HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [6.23 p.m.]: I wish to bring to the attention of the House the AGL gas pricing policy. After I have completed this summation, most members will agree that the policy seems to be completely unfair. In the Lakes Mail on 20 September the front-page story was entitled "Gas Price May Stop New Gateway Factory Deal". The subheading stated, "The gas line is just metres away but no existing contract gas price for Morisset could mean a huge increase in gas charges through monopoly pricing, fears company keen to move into the area." The exclusive story by David Quick continued:

Lake's Mail

The heading of the story on page 17 of the Newcastle Herald of 1 October this year, written by Neil Keene, is "Business in balance", with the subheading "Firm's blow-up over gas bill". The story continues:

The Lakes Mail ran a follow-up story on 23 October headed "Morisset Gas Bill Blows Out Company", which highlighted that the quote given to the company was $23,545 or 77 per cent extra per year for the same gas out of the same pipe that supplies the company in its current location. I raised these issues with the office of the Minister for Energy and Utilities, who got back to me and advised that Hunter Pod Suppliers was a large customer that used tens of thousands of dollars of gas and that gas prices were regulated for small customers, such as households, by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART]. Commercial pricing for large customers is, therefore, outside IPART's usual role.

AGL said that due to confidentiality it could not comment on the specifics of the contract, although Hunter Pod Suppliers has been very keen to speak to me about it. They have given me copies of the quote from AGL. It boils down to the network cost of close to some $24,000 more than the cost for the gas that is being supplied to their Thornton site. They have sought a competitor's price from EnergyAustralia, but the network charges imposed by AGL are the problem. I call on the Premier, the Minister for the Hunter and the Minister for Energy and Utilities to work with the regulator and AGL to ensure that this situation is remedied and that jobs in our local area are not jeopardised.

SUTHERLAND HOSPITAL RAILWAY STATION PROPOSAL

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [6.28 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to the need for a railway station at Sutherland Hospital, which services my electorate. This matter was raised during the last election and it had the support of all candidates who stood at that election. Mr Deputy-Speaker, you would appreciate that this matter is urgent. The people of the shire need a commitment from the State Government that the railway station will be built. I would particularly welcome the support of Labor members of Parliament from the Sutherland shire in this matter. Also, the Sutherland Shire Council should state its view on the need for the station. The Government should make clear whether the station will be built.

TRIBUTE TO MR ARTHUR WEST

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [6.29 p.m.]: Tonight I pay a tribute to a wonderful man whose commitment to his family, employers, local community, and the Australian Labor Party [ALP] is worthy of recognition in this House. Arthur John West was born in Cooper Street, Maroubra, on 13 June 1926. He attended Daceyville Primary School and Cleveland Street High School, a selective high school, and gained his leaving certificate, quite an achievement in those days. He moved to Picnic Point Road, Panania, in my electorate, and met Marjorie, his future bride, when she was 15 years of age at the Revesby Congregational Church. In 1942, during the Second World War, when he was 17, he joined the Navy. He served on the HMAS Swan in the Pacific region and in Papua New Guinea.

Unfortunately, as with many of our servicemen, Arthur caught malaria and completed his war service at Rushcutters Bay. Those of us who knew Arthur well, knew that he had an obsession with being on time: which his Naval service must have imprinted on his character. Arthur was notorious: if a meeting did not start within a minute of its scheduled time, the meeting did not happen. If you arranged to get a lift with Arthur and arrived a minute late, Arthur would be gone. There should be more people like him, and fewer people waiting around.

Arthur West married Marjorie in 1945 and they became the proud parents of three daughters, Marilyn, Jill and Leslie, and a son, Arthur Junior, who, tragically, died at 21 years of age. Arthur attended technical college at night to enhance his education and employment opportunities. Arthur worked as an analytical chemist with a pharmaceutical company and began work with the Department of Public Works in 1953 as a quantity surveyor. Later he worked as an earthworks construction manager for six years on the Snowy Mountains scheme. Arthur was a key employee in the construction of some of Australia's icon dams and major earthworks, including Eucumbene Dam and power stations in New South Wales and Victoria.

Arthur worked all over Australia, wherever work took him. It was not uncommon for Marjorie to pack up the household and move with him. He worked in Darwin on subdivisions and at Uluru. He had a rapport with and respect for Aboriginal people and their culture, which was fairly unique in the 1950s and early 1960s. Before his retirement he was actively involved in the M5 project. In 1959 Arthur and Marjorie West bought a block of land in Valley Road, Padstow Heights, on which they built a lovely house. Arthur worked also on building the Fairfield Hospital, where, ironically he passed away on Friday 28 November 2003, having been very seriously ill since July. I first met Arthur West in 1974 when Pat Rogan, then a member of this Parliament, had persuaded Arthur to run in the local council elections as an independent candidate to assist the ALP. In those days I ran as the youth candidate.
Mr Steve Cansdell: Youth?

Mr ALAN ASHTON: Yes, certainly, in 1974 I was about 13. Arthur West's involvement in his community was widespread. As a member of the Revesby Workers Wine Club he was notorious as a fine judge of a good wine, and he actively supported the Bankstown-East Hills Handicapped Association. Arthur taught English to migrant workers on the Snowy Mountains Scheme and learnt to speak German fluently so he could converse with many of the migrants who came to Australia after the war to work on that scheme. Arthur remained a keen member of the Naval Association, he read widely all his life, and his passion for dams and building them remained with him. He held virtually every position a member could hold in the local branch of the ALP. He was president of the Padstow Heights ALP branch for many years, and president of the Menai State Electorate Council.

Although Arthur was not well in March this year, each Saturday for more than a month he worked in the Padstow shopping centre helping me and the honourable member for Menai to be re-elected to Parliament. Arthur was also the representative of the honourable member for Menai on the Bankstown Traffic Committee. Arthur and Marjorie had nearly half a century of a loving relationship together, and I pass on my sympathy and the sympathy of my family and our local ALP members on the sad loss of Arthur, to Marjorie, Marilyn, Jill, and Lesley. I also pass on Daryl Melham's sympathy. Daryl and I could not attend the funeral this week because of our parliamentary duties. I conclude by saying that Arthur's funeral service was held at St Andrews Church in Lakemba, where Marjorie and Arthur were married in 1945.

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.34 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for East Hills for his eulogy for Arthur John West, a long-time resident of his electorate and a great worker for his community. Arthur was a dedicated member of the Australian Labor Party, a man who saw war service and was involved in many major projects with the Department of Public Works across Australia. I join with the honourable member for East Hills in passing on my respects to Marjorie and Arthur's family, and in celebrating the life of a strong community man.

RED ROCK-CORINDI SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB

Mr STEVE CANSDELL (Clarence) [6.35 p.m.]: In 1988 two young boys were swimming in the Red Rock River when they encountered difficulties with the extremely fast outgoing tide. Their father, Gary Wall, dived into the river and pulled one boy to safety. Gary then went back into the swelling, fast-running water and both he and his young son, Terry, were washed out into a treacherous surf. The nearest surf life saving club was 30 minutes away at Woolgoolga. Gary Wall paid the ultimate sacrifice in his selfless action in that valiant attempt to save his son's life. Gary and Terry Wall's drowning on that day was the catalyst, motivation, and reason for the community's campaign for and involvement in moves to establish a surf life saving club at Red Rock and ensure that a similar tragedy never happened again.

Concerned men and women joined the Woolgoolga surf life saving club so they could obtain their bronze medallion accreditation to patrol the Red Rock River and the beach. Their rewards came eight years ago with Red Rock-Corindi Surf Life Saving Club being recognised in its own right. The future looked bright and they were allowed to build a storage shed, the size of a double garage, in the Red Rock Caravan Park. That is, and has always been, an area limited in space, because the holiday season conflicts with vehicle movements and surf club activity. It seems that the main source of conflict is the lack of co-operation from the Red Rock Reserve Trust. For eight years the surf club has been talking, negotiating, and begging in an effort to get some sort of commitment from the trust, from the Department of Land and Water Conservation, or even the Minister, for a designated, logistically acceptable site on which to build a much-needed, long-awaited, surf clubhouse.

Currently, the Red Rock-Corindi Surf Life Saving Club members have their equipment stored in containers, garages, and under houses all over the Clarence Valley. With 150 senior members and 35-50 junior nippers, it is one of the strongest clubs on the North Coast. Yet, it has no clubhouse! It has won country, State, and Australian surf club titles, and four members of the club are in the State training squad. Yet, it has no clubhouse! The club's presence in the village over the past eight years has ensured the safety of thousands of locals and holidaymakers on the beach and in the river. It has also supplied general first aid services to the community; from oyster cuts on the feet to cardiac arrest—it has been there. Red Rock does not have a resident doctor, and as I said, the presence of surf club members gives reassurance to the surrounding small, isolated communities.

In November a rally, march, and public meeting were held at Red Rock at which solid support for a surf life saving clubhouse was demonstrated. The petition that I tabled in Parliament this morning—a petition with 500 signatures on it—emanated from that meeting. The meeting resolved that the healthy, ethical, and positive direction that surf life saving training gave to our youth was vital for the area. Reference was made also to volunteers who not only saved lives but also prevented tragedies from happening. The Chairman of the Red Rock-Corindi Surf Life Saving Club reassured locals that the club had no intention of seeking a licence to serve alcohol or to hold any party functions on site.

The surf club had a preferred site that was acceptable and accessible to the beach and to the river, but the surf club lacks the co-operation of the Red Rock Reserve Trust and any solid commitment from the Minister's department. After eight years of promises the Red Rock-Corindi Surf Life Saving Club is back where it started from: it has no approved site on which to build its clubhouse. A decision must be made; if necessary, there must be ministerial intervention to ensure that this long-awaited volunteer surf life saving clubhouse at Red Rock becomes a reality. In memory of Gary and Terry Wall there must be less procrastination and more affirmative action. This clubhouse is urgently needed.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.40 p.m.]: I acknowledge the strong representations made by the honourable member for Clarence. As a member who has six surf clubs in his electorate I am aware of the enormous amount of work that is done by surf clubs, and I am aware of their voluntary efforts in saving lives and giving young people the opportunity to learn lifesaving skills and to engage in the competition that is provided by surf clubs. As the honourable member said, this club has experienced a great deal of difficulty in obtaining a required site for its clubhouse. As a member of the Coastal Council I am aware of the issues with which surf lifesaving clubs are confronted when they want to construct buildings in areas that are prone to erosion. I am sure that the Minister will examine this issue closely.

RETIREMENT OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY CHAMBER ATTENDANT MR IAN WARMAN

ETTALONG BEACH WAR MEMORIAL CLUB

Ms ANDREWS (Peats) [6.41 p.m.], by leave: I refer tonight to two important matters. The first matter relates to the pending retirement of long-serving parliamentary Legislative Assembly Chamber attendant Mr Ian Warman, who is in the Chamber tonight and who resides in my electorate of Peats. Ian commenced as an attendant on 15 September 1986 following military service. His last day of duty will be 24 December 2003 and, thereafter, Ian will be proceeding on extended leave pending his retirement on 29 October 2004. During his employment Ian worked in all areas for which attendants are responsible, including the mailroom and the reception area in the front of Parliament House. He finally progressed to the position of Chamber attendant.

Ian was reconfirmed in that position following the restructure of the attendant services section on 1 July 1998. Prior to coming into Parliament House Ian served with the Australian Army from 1962 until 1986, including service in Vietnam from January 1968 until February 1969 as a field force medical assistant. At the time of his discharge in 1986 Ian was a warrant officer in the medical administration. I take this opportunity to thank Ian for his dedicated and loyal service to the New South Wales Parliament. I wish Ian and his good wife, Yvonne, a long, happy and well-earned retirement.

The second matter I wish to refer to tonight relates to the recent gaining of accreditation by Ettalong Beach War Memorial Club as a "Club with Heart" from the Heart Foundation. I am pleased to inform the House that the Ettalong Beach War Memorial Club, which is often referred to as the Ettalong Beach Club, is the first registered club in the State to become a "Club with Heart". In order to meet the criteria to become a "Club with Heart", Ettalong Beach Club had to meet high standards in a number of areas and pass random auditing by the Heart Foundation. The aim of the program is to improve the environment for club patrons. Ettalong Beach Club now provides its patrons with a menu that includes a number of choices for healthy meals developed by the club's catering staff in liaison with the Heart Foundation.

As part of the program the club will be providing a range of activities to encourage people to become involved in physical exercise. The club is now seeking feedback from its patrons on the types of activities that they would favour. The club already offers a wide choice of physical exercises, including special exercises for persons aged 50 years and over in the gym, Synergize, which is located on the first floor of the club. Synergize, a well-equipped and well-run gym, was officially opened in the first half of this year. The third aspect of the program is assisting the club in complying with the Smoke-free Environment Act and occupational safety laws. This aspect focuses on healthy, clean air quality and it will assist in updating and expanding smoke-free areas and providing Quit kits to assist staff and patrons to give up the unhealthy habit of smoking.

The "Club with Heart" program qualifies under the community development support expenditure scheme that is applicable to registered clubs in this State. The program provides an ideal opportunity for clubs to become active in their communities by helping local people to lead healthier lives. Robyn Whitfield, the "Club with Heart" co-ordinator, said:

We are delighted that Ettalong club has become a "Club with Heart". Cardiovascular disease is Australia's biggest killer, claiming the life of one Australian every 10 minutes. Everyone can make a difference to their heart health, and by helping patrons make small lifestyle changes, Ettalong club is reducing risk and helping to keep Ettalong's heart beating.

I congratulate Ettalong Beach War Memorial Club on becoming the first club in New South Wales to be named a Heart Foundation "Club with Heart". It is hoped that other clubs not only in the Peats electorate but right across the State will follow suit. The Chief Executive Officer, Mr Peter Hale, the chairman of the board of directors, Mr John Houtman, and his fellow board directors and staff members who co-operated with the highly respected Heart Foundation in getting this program off the ground are to be congratulated on their fine efforts. The "Club with Heart" program is yet another example of some of the positive contributions that registered clubs make to our local communities. I wish the Ettalong Beach War Memorial Club and the Heart Foundation every success in promoting the "Club with Heart" program.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.46 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Peats for giving me an opportunity to congratulate and thank attendant Ian Warman for his dedicated service to the Parliament. We are well served in this Parliament by staff members who give us so much assistance, and Ian epitomises that dedication and professionalism. I am sure that every honourable member will join the honourable member for Peats and me in thanking Ian for the service he has given this Parliament. The honourable member referred also to Ettalong Beach War Memorial Club and to the fact that it has been accredited as a "Club with Heart". I suggest that the program should be implemented in this Parliament as many members—including me—would benefit from an improved approach to health. I take this opportunity to welcome to the House my grandchildren, Jesse and Hannah Gallagher, and my wife, Barbara.

WINDSOR PRESCHOOL

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE (Hawkesbury) [6.48 p.m.], by leave: Last week I had an opportunity to visit Windsor preschool, one of the four local preschools in the Hawkesbury area. I saw the children undertaking a variety of learning activities, I saw their posters and their artwork, and I had a productive conversation with teaching staff, committee members, and, importantly, parents. I went away with a great deal of admiration for all the ladies and I felt positive about the degree of care, nurturing, and effort that they are focusing on our children. It gives me a great sense of hope for future generations.

I suggest that all honourable members who have not already done so should talk to the staff and parents at their local preschools and witness the passion for lifelong learning that they impart to this important section of our community. Unfortunately, however, the future of our children does not just rely on the dedication of teachers and parents, it takes an equal commitment from the Government to provide the necessary funding and support to achieve the goals of early childhood development between three years of age and starting school. The Early Childhood Services Policy for New South Wales states:

… early childhood services like preschools ... play a vital role in the lives of children, in supporting families with their work and family commitments and in building strong communities

There are potential preschoolers in the Speaker's Gallery at present. I shall address the specific needs of preschools and highlight the situation at Windsor Preschool. Windsor Preschool is not situated in a uniformly high income area. It has been established for more than 20 years and rightly takes pride in its high teaching standards and levels of parental involvement. I am informed that the bulk of its funding is raised from fees. This places a burden on the preschool to remain financially viable, which means that fees are set to increase from $24 to $26 per day next year. Some would say that that is not a large increase. But that is certainly not true for families on fixed incomes, for those with more than one child, for families whose children attend the preschool on more than one day per week—or when the increase is considered on a per term basis. This user-pays system means that the wealthier are able to pay more, and hence the gap between affluent areas and less affluent areas will widen—providing preschool facilities are offered in such areas.

I note the recent Government funding in the earlier part of this year but I must concur with the New South Wales Children's Services Forum that the Government's implementation lags well behind its policy. This is also the feeling of the staff and parents at Windsor Preschool. They have asked me to raise in this House the plight of their preschool and that of other preschools so that appropriate and viable levels of funding can be found. Perhaps some funds from the massive stamp duty or land tax revenue buckets could be used to avoid the slow death of these valuable community-based institutions.
Some honourable members opposite may try to blame the Federal Government for this situation, as the Minister for Community Services did earlier this year. However, the other States and Territories have accepted that the funding of high-quality preschool services is a State responsibility. According to figures supplied by the Commission for Children and Young People in 2002, New South Wales invested a total of $150.90 per child in child care and preschool services, which compared unfavourably with the average investment of $350.74 made by the other States and Territories—more than double the New South Wales figure. This means that New South Wales preschools have high fee levels. I encourage those opposite to talk to their preschools—as some have talked to their clubs—and to discover for themselves the need to provide viable funding for our community preschools.

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.52 p.m.]: The honourable member for Hawkesbury has caught me in a rather weak moment as my grand-daughter, who attends Wickham Preschool, is in the Speaker's Gallery. The matters that the honourable member has raised in the House are also being addressed by Wickham Preschool—in fact, I will be meeting with the preschool's director in the next week. The honourable member's point about the impact of any fee rise, particularly on the more disadvantaged in the community, has much purchase with me. Fathers and mothers, and particularly single mothers, usually have to work, and $26 or $28 seems to be quite a considerable preschool daily fee. I take note of the issues that the honourable member for Hawkesbury has put before the House, and I acknowledge that I will be discussing them directly within the next week.

Private members' statements noted.

The House adjourned at 6.54 p.m. until Friday 5 December 2003 at 10.00 a.m.
_______________

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:19:46 : Update this page