Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 14 May 2004, Corrected Copy)

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

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

Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill
State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill

Mr ANDREW STONER, by leave: Yesterday the Minister for Energy and Utilities, representing the Minister for Health, gave a supplementary answer to a question I asked concerning a storm and subsequent water intrusion at Lithgow Hospital. The Minister stated, "The Leader of The Nationals got it wrong." I acknowledge that there was one minor inaccuracy in my question. However, the substance of the question was based on fact. The inaccuracy in my question was a referral to a storm earlier this year; in fact, the storm was on 3 December 2003, hence my question should have stated "late last year" rather than "earlier this year". For that inaccuracy, I apologise to the House. The Minister implied that other parts of my question were also inaccurate. It is a fact that rainwater leaked through the roof during the storm on 3 December last year. As a result, the interior of the hospital was wet and a radiographer received an electric shock and was admitted for observation on the same day. Those matters are of concern for patients and staff at Lithgow Hospital, and I make no apology for raising them.

Debate resumed from 2 April.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [10.04 a.m.]: The main thrust of the Mining Amendment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill relates to opal mining and opal prospecting in western New South Wales. The bill contains some provisions relating to mining leases, which I will address later. The Lightning Ridge area is a fascinating area and I suggest to anyone who has not visited the area to do so. It is unique in New South Wales, probably in Australia, and although I have not travelled everywhere in the world I suggest it is probably unique in the world. The interaction between opal mining and opal prospecting with Western Lands leaseholders has been an area of dispute for probably as long as opal mining and farming have co-existed in western New South Wales. The bill seeks to address some of those issues.

For a long time landholders have argued strongly that their rights have been impinged by the actions of miners, and miners have argued the opposite, saying that they hold certain rights to prospect for opal, to eke out a living, to find that elusive opal that will propel them to instant riches. The two arguments are based on competing but legitimate interests. It is incumbent upon this Parliament to introduce legislation and regulation to make that co-existence a little easier. However, having all the legislation and regulation in the world is not the only way to solve the problem; it can be solved by the actions of the miners and the farmers in western New South Wales. Both groups have to act responsibly, and mostly they do. It is unfortunate that the small minority do the wrong thing, and that causes enormous problems and angst. I commend the Government for introducing this bill; the landholders have been asking for it for a long time. Perhaps my only criticism of the bill is that it has taken so long to be introduced. Nonetheless, it has been introduced and is to be dealt with today. The Opposition will not oppose the bill.

I turn now to the detail of the bill. The bill deals with opal prospecting on Western Lands Commission leases, introduces the concept of access management plans, and deals with miners, prospectors and fossickers entering Western Lands leases where people conduct farming businesses. The bill goes part of the way to resolving the concerns of landholders, but many have said to me that it does not go far enough. One significant issue for landholders is the degradation of their land by miners and fossickers entering upon that land. It is one thing to have a prospecting area or mining lease upon which one can conduct business activities, but getting from a public road to that area has caused problems for landholders in the past. The legislation deals with that issue to some degree by making it a requirement that leaseholders and prospectors use existing tracks and roads where possible as the most direct route to their mining title. It is quite sensitive country out there, and people driving all over the place causes a problem environmentally, and to some degree it can inhibit the ability of landholders to conduct their farming businesses. So the Opposition supports that measure in the bill.

The bill places restrictions on what can be done on lease areas with opal prospecting licences. Previously one could do virtually anything, but at least the bill prescribes, to a certain extent, what one is able to do on those lease areas. Farmers have been concerned about what sorts of activities are undertaken on the licence areas. We certainly support that part of the bill. The bill also requires that fossickers gain the consent of landholders prior to entering their land, something that landholders have been requesting for a long time. Landholders have raised concerns, and I think very legitimate concerns, about the ability of virtually anybody to come onto their land on the basis that they are fossickers. Landholders would like even stricter requirements, particularly for the identification required by fossickers and opal prospectors, but at least this bill goes some way towards dealing with those problems. It is a difficult for landholders from a personal and family safety point of view to have people traipsing across their property, as it impacts on their ability to manage their farming enterprises.

Another part of the bill that we support relates to the restriction on mining in certain designated areas of an opal prospecting area for environmental or farming purposes. It is important that we are environmentally sensitive in everything that we do on our land in New South Wales, and opal prospecting is no exception. I hope that both farmers and miners are consulted when determining the areas of restrictions on mining. I hope that the consultation is comprehensive and not just with landholders or just with miners because, as I said, in many ways it is very much a balance of competing interests.

Another concern to landholders relates to their liability if a person is injured on their property, particularly a person who is a fossicker or an opal miner. The bill clarifies the liability of titleholders to compensate a landholder and provides landholders with immunity from the activities of titleholders under the Mining Act. The Opposition supports this amendment because it protects those landholders who are going about their business of farming. Farmers have been very concerned in the past that they may be liable for any injury that may be incurred by persons entering their property to whom they have not given permission to enter or whom they do not know, and that such persons may make a claim against insurance held by the landholder. For that reason we certainly support the limiting of that liability. Those are the most significant amendments in terms of opal mining,

I turn briefly to the amendments concerning subleases of more than 100 hectares, which, under this bill, will require ministerial approval. I understand that the Department of Mineral Resources and the Minister's office have consulted quite extensively with the New South Wales Minerals Council—which I certainly support—and they have made certain commitments to the New South Wales Minerals Council. Also, one of the amendments foreshadowed by the Government will deal further with the concerns raised by the New South Wales Minerals Council. Perhaps a more appropriate time to deal with that particular part of the bill will be when those amendments are introduced.

As Opposition spokesman on mineral resources, I have consulted broadly on the impacts of this bill because our responsibility is to consider the views of our constituents and to consult as broadly as possible to make sure that the bill is supported by all stakeholders. Perhaps the person most able to comment on the balance between the landholder and mining interests is the local member, who is the honourable member for Barwon, Ian Slack-Smith. He has taken a great deal of interest in this bill.

Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Where is he?

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I will tell the honourable member for Swansea that if he had an electorate the size of the member for Barwon's electorate, he too would be out in his electorate trying to get around that very large area. The member for Barwon is satisfied with the contents of the bill. He has made the point, as I have made the point, that there is a need to balance the competing interests between landholders and miners. We have also consulted with the Lightning Ridge Miners Association, which has indicated that it has concerns about some parts of the bill, but that it is generally happy with it. Since becoming the shadow Minister for Mineral Resources, I have been receiving correspondence from Penne and Tas Clarke, who I know have also contacted the Minister. They have made comments to me that I would like to put on the record. In an email dated 10 April, they say:

The Legislative amendments that will require fossickers to seek landholder permission before entering land is an imperative change.

We believe that we should have the same rules applying to our land as to the rest of the State. So we support that concept wholeheartedly. As managers of our environment and business we simply must have control over who enters and when.

Further in their email they say:

Regarding Landholder immunity for claims I really applaud this idea. It is something we have been most worried about. In this day and age people do look for someone to sue and I don't want to be in the firing line when they hurt themselves on their claim or whilst fossicking.

The comments of Penne and Tas Clarke, together with comments from other landholders, suggest that this bill is certainly heading in the right direction in that regard. I have spoken at some length about the proposed legislation with both Susan Streeter and John Tucker from the New South Wales Minerals Council, particularly in relation to coal mining leases, but also in terms of the opal mining issues in western New South Wales. The New South Wales Farmers Association obviously has taken a great interest in this, particularly from the perspective of landholders. The association has consulted very broadly, and I congratulate Joe Sullivan from the New South Wales Farmers Association on the work he has done, not just on this bill but on many issues involving opal mining in the Lightning Ridge and White Cliffs area. He has communicated with me on a number of occasions and I know that he has consulted with the Minister and the Department of Mineral Resources.

Louise Crites-Foster, a landholder who has written on many occasions to the Minister and to me, is concerned that this bill does not go far enough. Generally, she is supportive of the bill, which goes some way towards giving to landholders the rights that they want. However, she is concerned that it does not go far enough. I commend her for the research that she has done in that area. On 18 April Louise sent me a detailed letter in which she commented on the bill. I would be more than happy to give her a job if ever she wanted to work with me, as she has a wealth of knowledge in relation to this issue. I quote from her letter, which states:

The proposed amendments do not reflect a commonsense and practical approach to solving difficult issues. They reflect the Governments commitment to top-down style of resource management. The DMR is shifting decision making away from the Minister, who must consult with stakeholders and consider the environment, to the Director-General, who need not consult with anyone or consider the environment ...

It is recognised within the local mining community—

I presume she was referring to Lightning Ridge—

that DMR is a "toothless tiger", either unable or unwilling to prosecute those that avoid their responsibilities. This lack of leadership only encourages miners to shirk their rehabilitation, or environmental responsibilities, as they are safe in the knowledge that the chances of being caught and/or prosecuted are virtually nonexistent.

She couched her letter in pretty strong language because they are pretty significant concerns. I understand the frustration of some of the landholders in Lightning Ridge. As I said at the outset, a small minority of miners have done the wrong thing, and that reflects badly on everyone. Louise is aware of some of those miners who have done the wrong thing and that is obviously why she has expressed those strong views. She recognises that there are some benefits to be gained as a result of the implementation of this bill, so she has not asked Opposition members to oppose it. However, she refers in her letter to some of the changes that could be made to the Mining Act in the future and states:

Fossicking should require a permit as well as the landholders consent. To obtain a permit to fossick proof of identification to a value of 100 points must be presented to DMR, along with a signed consent form from the landholder.

The bill includes regulations relating to proof of identification—an issue that has caused problems for miners in Lightning Ridge. I have heard it said that if someone wants to get lost the best place to do that would be in Lightning Ridge. The unfortunate behaviour of one miner should not impact on others, which is why Louise holds such strong views. Louise refers in her letter to rehabilitation and states:

A combined security deposit should reflect the potential cost of rehabilitation for the mineral claim and that a sunset clause is inserted into the provision of the mineral claim and opal prospecting licence for rehabilitation work to be completed.

Landholders have strong views in relation to rehabilitation because of the unfortunate acts of a few. At the end of the day landholders have ultimate responsibility for the rehabilitation of their land. Louise referred also in her letter to restricted areas and states:

Restricted Areas which state where OPL's cannot be lodged over sensitive areas within a mineral claims district is welcomed. However, it is suggested that the Lightning Ridge Mining Board would make these decisions. Restricted Areas should be a decision made between DMR and the landholder when the order is made to set up a mineral claims district.

When the Government determines the areas that are to be restricted I hope it consults with miners and with landholders. I received an email from Louise on 23 April in which she states:

A "permit to enter" should only be issued by a warden and have strict conditions and penalties attached to it. We currently have an overwhelming problem with law and order ... and this will only push it beyond anyone's control.

Those significant concerns have been conveyed to the Minister but it is appropriate to place them on the record again. Opposition members have consulted with the Pastoralists Association of West Darling, which holds strong views about who should be able to enter leasehold properties. On 15 April I received an email from Ken Turner which states:

The Pastoralists' Association believes landholders should be able to control who, when and where people are on their property.

That is a legitimate concern. Their farming businesses will be affected by these mining operations, an issue about which they were aware when they entered into or bought a lease. However, as I said earlier, the actions of a minority of miners reflect badly on all miners. It is important to place on the record that many landholders have been affected at times as a result of those wrongful acts. I will refer in Committee to mining subleases. The New South Wales Minerals Council said it had been consulted by the Department of Mineral Resources and it was satisfied with that consultation. Any concerns that it has in relation to mining subleases will be addressed by the regulations that will be implemented in this bill. The Opposition does not oppose the bill, but it notes the real concerns that have been expressed by pastoralists and landholders. The actions of some rogues make it difficult for farmers to operate in mining areas. Some of the measures that have been introduced to reinforce the rights of landholders might be extended in the future.

Mr MILTON ORKOPOULOS (Swansea) [10.29 p.m.]: I support the Mining Amendment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which will be of benefit to farmers, miners and environmental management. It will also streamline administrative processes. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward a raft of legislation to reform the mining industry over the past 12 months. These amendments relate to many of the mining activities conducted at Lightning Ridge, a unique part of New South Wales that many members will have visited and enjoyed. Currently there are approximately 6,000 mineral claims for opal within the Lightning Ridge mineral claims district. Each claim represents an area of 50 metres by 50 metres, and they are spread across Western Lands lease areas.

Opal mining is an important industry with major benefits to the local community and industries such as jewellery making and tourism. Approximately 7,000 people live in and around the Lightning Ridge opal fields. The intensity of mining in the Lightning Ridge area presents challenges that are distinctly different from those relating to mining and exploration in other parts of the State. The intent of these amendments is to simplify and clarify the procedures concerning mining in our world-famous opal fields. Each year New South Wales derives about $35 million from opal mining. In addition, a number of landholders also derive income in the form of compensation from mineral claims over their property, highlighting the importance of the mining industry to the local community.

The Government is mindful of the need to maintain and improve relations between miners and landholders so that any future opportunities for expansion of the opal fields can be achieved in a way that is mutually beneficial and smooth. Opal mining is different from any other type of mining in that it involves individuals rather than major companies. To encourage these individuals, rather than companies, claims are limited in size and usually only one or two miners work a claim. A major feature of Lightning Ridge is access to private land involving negotiation between miners and farmers. This is where access management plans come into focus.

The proposed amendments will introduce access management plans that will provide a more straightforward process for titleholders to access land for prospecting or mining. Currently, the Act contains provisions for access arrangements between individual titleholders and individual landholders but only in the case of exploration licences and assessment leases. No equivalent provisions apply to mineral claims and opal prospecting licences—the titles most often used in the opal fields. It is proposed to introduce simple, straightforward controls over access to land for mineral claims and opal prospecting licences. These new arrangements are good news for farmers and miners, and will contribute to better relations between the two. These agreements will be between the landholder and the titleholders, or their representatives, such as the Lightning Ridge Miners Association.

The new agreements will be similar to an ongoing group access arrangement, and the development of access management plans should be simple and straightforward. In cases where agreement cannot be reached over an area, the dispute will be referred to the director-general or the mining warden for determination. Access management plans will also apply to future titleholders and title applicants in the area. They will be registered and published, and members of the public will be able to purchase a copy. Currently the Act does not include a provision to indemnify a landholder against the action or inaction of titleholders. Indemnity is provided only as a condition of title, and landholders have expressed concern about the strength of such indemnity.

The amendments will remove this concern for landholders so they will not be held liable for what titleholders do or fail to do. The provisions of the Act allow the Minister to specify conditions that are to apply to all mineral claims granted. However, the Act does not allow the identification of areas where it is inappropriate that mineral claims be granted, for instance where an area is too environmentally sensitive, or for farm management purposes. For example, a farmer may want to preserve some higher country as a refuge for stock during flood. This can now be preserved. It is proposed to amend the Act to allow for the flexibility needed to readily manage small areas with transient titles such as mineral claims. Such restrictions may include the identification of areas within the district where applications for claims cannot be lodged.

These much-needed amendments will also assist in improving relations between landholders and titleholders. A significant number of people live in and around the Lightning Ridge opal fields. Although Lightning Ridge is home to some of the world's finest black opals, it also has a diverse range of native wildlife, including kangaroos, wallabies, koalas, echidnas, and rare Australian birds. This environment needs to be protected and the highest standards maintained. Before the introduction of modern standards of environmental care, the landscape of this historic mining area of the State was characterised by the mullock, or spoil heaps from previous mining. Some of these areas will be retained because of their historic and tourist value, but the Carr Government seeks to ensure that more recent opal mining sites are rehabilitated. The community has high expectations about how the environment should be managed, and those expectations have increased dramatically. The opal mining industry is under pressure to improve its environmental performance, and rightly so.

Our understanding of the impact of certain activities on the land has improved dramatically in recent times and the community expects this to be reflected in our environmental management of the land. Opal mining and prospecting operations need to be carried out in a responsible manner and should coexist harmoniously with pastoral activities. Therefore, the rehabilitation of opal mining sites will be brought into line with rehabilitation in the rest of the mining industry. It is no longer acceptable for a claimholder to walk off the land, leaving behind a scarred landscape and rusting rubbish. Claims must be made safe and the land must be restored to its pre-mining use of grazing. Consequently it is intended to amend the Act so the grant and renewal of claims within a mineral claims district may be subject to a levy or levies. They will be used to establish and maintain a Lightning Ridge mineral claims district rehabilitation and environmental management fund, a district road maintenance fund, and other district funds. The grant of opal prospecting licences within an opal prospecting area will also be subject to a levy or levies for the same purpose.

The Lightning Ridge Mining Board and the Miner's Association will be consulted on proposals for levies. Under the Act, a lodgment fee must accompany an application for an opal prospecting licence. There is a ballot for opal prospecting licences and the application fee is returned to unsuccessful applicants. In the past this has led to difficulties with ballots for the more popular opal prospecting licences. Now miners will pay a small fee, which is not refundable, when they make an application. The remainder of the application fee that would normally be paid will now only be paid by the successful applicant when the title is granted. This new arrangement will simplify administration, save time and resources, and provide a much more practical application process for miners.

Overall, these amendments will be of great benefit to our environment. The procedures will be more straightforward and will be able to be dealt with more effectively. The bill will provide advantages for the Lightning Ridge community, its miners, the environment, and the industry as a whole. The Carr Government is intent on bringing improvements to our world-renowned opal mining industry and I urge honourable members to support the bill.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Although I appreciate the need for members to refer from time to time to copious notes, I take a dim view of speeches being read into Hansard.

Mr TONY McGRANE (Dubbo) [10.39 a.m.]: I will not refer to notes. I support the Mining Amendment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and I commend the Minister for Mineral Resources for his achievements in his short time in the portfolio. Amending the Mining Act is a difficult task. For many years there have been disputes between miners, landholders, and the general community, especially in the unique Lightning Ridge area. The honourable member for Swansea said there are many kangaroos around Lighting Ridge. That is certainly true. I suggest that the honourable member visits Lightning Ridge. He can break his journey in Dubbo, where we will entertain him.

Lightning Ridge is vital to the economy of north-western New South Wales. It is particularly important to Dubbo, which Lightning Ridge people consider to be their city. There has been friction between local miners and landholders for a long time and these amendments to the Act will go a long way towards solving some of the problems. In many ways Lightning Ridge and other opal mining areas are a world of their own. For instance, Lightning Ridge has more registered postal boxes than any other town in Australia—in fact, there are many more boxes than there are people. People travel from all over the world to this opal mining mecca to try their luck in the opal industry. The Minister for Mineral Resources has done well to bring together landholders, pastoralists, property owners and Lightning Ridge locals to produce a bill that enjoys unanimous support. Although it could have gone further, the bill is not a compromise but a positive step forward. I commend it to the House.

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.42 a.m.]: I join honourable members in commending the Minister for Mineral Resources for bringing before the House the Mining Amendment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which strikes a balance between the rights of landholders and the activities of opal fossickers in the Lightning Ridge area. While the bill is primarily concerned with issues relating to opal mining at Lightning Ridge, it makes some important changes to the Mining Act that have statewide significance. For the first time landholders will be given full immunity from any action, liability, claim or demand as a consequence of the exercise of any power or right under the Act. This immunity covers not only activities on titles but also any other actions covered by the Act. This has been an area of major concern to a number of landholders, particularly in areas such as Lightning Ridge, where there is a high level of activity on some properties by a large number of small-scale operators.

The amendment relating to access to Western Lands leases by fossickers will mean that landholders will rightfully be able to control access to their properties. Fossickers will be required to get the consent of Western Lands leaseholders in the same way that they are currently required to get the consent of all other types of landholders. Unfortunately, some small groups of fossickers have not been prepared to exercise the normal courtesies that are expected in relation to entry to properties, and hence this amendment is necessary. This does not mean an end to fossicking, which is a legitimate activity that is recognised in the Mining Act; it simply brings the rights of holders of Western Lands leases into line with those of other landholders.

The new provisions relating to subleasing have been introduced to minimise the risk of Nardell-type situations occurring. Except for subleasing between subsidiary or related corporate entities, major subleases will not be permitted. Instead, leases will have to be transferred to ensure that the operator is fully accountable for all conditions of the lease. This process allows the Minister to vary the conditions of the lease at the time of transfer to ensure, for example, that workers' entitlements are protected.

The amendments will result in some major changes in the Lightning Ridge opal mining area. Apart from giving landholders immunity from the actions of opal miners, the changes will assist in improving the standard of rehabilitation in the Lightning Ridge area. The changes will benefit miners and landholders alike. In order to gain access to land, miners must negotiate terms of access with landholders. The Mining Act currently contains provisions for access arrangements between individual titleholders and individual landholders, but only in the case of exploration licences and assessment leases. Since these new access management plans will be made by agreement between all titleholders, applicants and each landholder, the new agreement will be similar to an ongoing group access arrangement. The plans may be made by affected landholders and titleholders or titleholder representatives, such as the Lightning Ridge Miners Association. Once made, an access management plan will apply to future, as well as current, titleholders.

In cases where agreement cannot be reached the Director-General of the Department of Mineral Resources, after considering any submissions received on the matter, may make a determination. If either party is still unhappy with the plan, the Mining Act will allow it to be referred to the Mining Warden for determination. The holder of a mineral claim is currently entitled under the Mining Act to a right of way between the title and a public road. However, the holder of an opal prospecting licence currently does not have the same right under the Act. These amendments will make the Act consistent for both mineral claim and opal prospecting licence holders.

Amendments to the Act also propose that rights of way should continue to run from a public road to the mineral claim but should follow existing constructed tracks. Permits to enter land allow the holder only to mark out a mineral claim. Changes to the Act will mean that a person with a permit will also be able to enter the land to inspect it before applying for an opal prospecting licence or a mineral claim, or to comply with the conditions of a title. The responsibilities of the holder of a permit to enter are now outlined more clearly, and sanctions will be applied to any breaches.

At present a mineral claim or a mining lease cannot be granted within 200 metres of a house. As part of the settlement of the "camps on claims" issue some years ago, it was agreed that miners in some areas of Lightning Ridge could have homes on their claims. It was also agreed that these miners would ultimately be able to obtain a Western Lands lease for claims with homes. The Act will be amended to make sure that the opal fields can continue to be worked near the small 50 metre by 50 metre residential claims. Under the proposed amendments the 200-metre exclusion zone will not apply beyond the boundary of any Western Lands lease for residents within a minerals claims district. The effect of this will be that a mineral claim can be granted adjacent to a 50 metre by 50 metre residential Western Lands lease with a dwelling on it.

Changes to security deposits are also proposed for mineral claims and opal prospecting licences. At present a combined security deposit can be lodged only for a number of mineral claims or opal prospecting licences. However, in some cases an opal miner holds both mineral claims and opal prospecting licences. The amendment will allow a single security deposit to be lodged for a combination of mineral claims and opal prospecting licences. This will simplify the security deposit process and thus benefit miners. The Minister for Mineral Resources has made a number of very important and sensible amendments that both advantage the opal mining community and local prospectors and give security to landholders, thereby balancing interests in Lightning Ridge, which is a major opal mining and farming area, as well as a growing tourist mecca for both national and international visitors. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [10.48 a.m.]: The opal has a fascinating history and it has been treasured for many thousands of years. I am told that opals recently discovered in Coober Pedy are believed to be up to 120 million years old. The Roman Empire established the opal gemstone as a trading product. It was said that Mark Anthony loved the opal so much that he coveted an opal by Roman Senator Nonius. Mark Anthony banished the Senator after he refused to sell the almond sized stone, reputed to be worth 2 million sesterces, which is about $US80,000 now, and legend states that one Roman Emperor offered to trade one-third of his vast kingdom for an opal.

In the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries opals began to fall out of favour in Europe, and they were wrongly branded as bringing bad luck to those who owned them. Indeed, it was declared that opals brought pestilence and famine. However, Queen Victoria did much to restore the good image of opals. Indeed, she became known as an opal lover. Australian opals were first discovered by a German, Johannes Menge, in 1849 in Angaston in South Australia. Both the Queensland boulder opal and Lightning Ridge fields attracted miners in the 1800s. There have been some fascinating finds. It all began at White Cliffs in New South Wales in 1890. Interestingly, the size and quality of the opals are outstanding.

The first large, fine Australian opal mentioned in literature is Dunstan's stone, which was found in 1890 in a new shaft sunk in a field at Lightning Ridge. Charlie Dunstan had found another large opal previously but its blue-green colour play was not considered valuable at the time, although the stone weighed about 12 ounces, which is 1,860 carats. It was at a depth of approximately six metres that Charlie found the brilliant gem opal, sometimes called the Aurora Australis. This treasure was rumoured to have brought Dunstan £100. Still in its original form, this gemstone is currently on display in Sydney. There have been many finds recorded in the information I have available. The Australian opal industry currently produces about 95 per cent of the world's opals for the jewellery industry. Indeed, in 1998-99 Australia exported about $60 million worth of opals, compared with about $85 million in 1997-98. So opals are an enormous contributor to our export market.

This bill has been welcomed by the shadow Minister, and its intentions are well received by all sides. Coming from a rural background, I shall make a couple of points in relation to landholders and unauthorized people accessing property, which causes an enormous amount of dissent between landholders and the people accessing their properties, particularly as mining camps are often rough and ready. When miners—or indeed anyone using a property, whether for opal mining or any other purpose—are finished, landholders can become upset if the land is not restored in a reasonable fashion. Often when I travel around the back country where I come from, I see evidence of kangaroo and rabbit shooter's camps littered with old car wrecks and machinery. These days farmers are becoming more and more environmentally conscious, as we all are and should be.

As a landholder, when I see things like that I want to restore the land to its natural state as quickly and as efficiently as possible. So I would like the Minister to tell me what he proposes, by the bill or by regulation, will happen with the restoration of the environment. I understand that an opal mine is required to be covered by some kind of mesh or other protection. The honourable member for Swansea said there was a requirement to restore the environment to its natural state. Does that mean filling in holes, removing all the equipment that was used, and replanting the area with native seeds and grasses? I should like the Minister to define exactly what is intended by way of restoring a mine site to its natural environment. If restoration means not filling in holes but only doing certain work, does that mean the works would then be fenced off to ensure the area is secure to prevent animals straying into the works, or some poor unfortunate soul wandering along at midnight, having broken down and trying to find a homestead, falling into one of the diggings? Exactly what is intended? I am sure the public would appreciate the Minister putting that on the record.

I note that the bill provides for the management of funds, and that is positive. There has been consultation with landholders and the mining industry, and the bill provides for access agreements, which will provide how mining sites will be accessed, and how mining activities will be managed. I would appreciate a response from the Minister, the little miner--I say that in a very nice way--because the environment is of great interest to us all. While I acknowledge the enormous contribution of the opal industry and how it contributes to our economic base, it is important that we all understand exactly what is expected of the industry in terms of restoration of land, the Minister's expectations of what the bill will achieve, and how that will be monitored. That is important. Will someone check on that? If so, who will it be, and what will their powers be to ensure that sites are restored to a reasonable standard? I commend the bill to the House.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock—Minister for Mineral Resources) [10.57 a.m.], in reply: I congratulate the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, the honourable member for Swansea, the honourable member for Dubbo, the honourable member for Newcastle, and the honourable member for Wagga Wagga on their contributions to the debate. I am pleased that the Opposition supports the bill. I think that goes a long way to acknowledging the commonsense measures in the bill and how it is addressing many issues. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga asked about the restoration of mine sites. The old existing historical mines around the Lightning Ridge area will be maintained as they are, because they are a tourist attraction--tourists like to look at that area. Existing mines are to be covered by mesh and made safe. Future mines sites in new areas will be restored to their natural environment, with machinery and so on removed.

That will be monitored by the Department of Mineral Resources [DMR]. The department has done a great deal of work in the area to address the problems there. DMR officers should be congratulated on their environmental sweeps of the Lightning Ridge area, which they conduct regularly. Sites that do not comply have been issued with improvement notices. We are trying to clean up that area. In the 12 months I have been Minister we have been working hard to address many of the issues. I know we will never totally appease every group, but it is about balance: ensuring we have an opal industry that is seen to be one of the best in the world, as well as meeting the needs of local farmers.

As Minister I have been trying to reach the middle, commonsense ground, and that is why I have the support of the New South Wales Farmers Association, the miners, and the Opposition. I am deeply grateful for their support. I acknowledge the hard work that officers of the department have put into the bill. My policy adviser, Siobhan Barry, has also worked tirelessly to tidy up this bill and work with all stakeholders. I congratulate all those hardworking people. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock—Minister for Mineral Resources) [11.00 a.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 13:

(2) This section does not apply:

(a) if the holder of the head lease is a body corporate and the holder of the mining sublease is a subsidiary of the body corporate within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth, or

(b) if the mining sublease is exempt from the operation of this section by an order in force under subsection (3), or

(c) if the mining sublease is exempt from the operation of this section by the regulations.

(3) The Minister may, by order in writing, exempt a mining sublease from the operation of this section.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [11.02 a.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose this amendment, which I understand was made following consultation with the New South Wales Minerals Council in relation to their concerns about the requirement in the original amending bill for ministerial approval for subleases of 100 hectares or greater. They were concerned that a sublease to a joint venture or equity partner may have been caught up in the original bill, but as those types of subleases are often made for none other than commercial reasons, and not in an attempt to subvert employee entitlements or do anything underhanded, the amendment has been introduced and the New South Wales Minerals Council is happy about it. For those reasons the Opposition does not oppose the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock—Minister for Mineral Resources) [11.02 a.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 5, schedule 1. Insert after line 29:

(3) An order under this section may not be made with respect to land that is within an area for which a board of management is constituted under section 359 unless the Director-General:

(a) has notified the board of the proposed order, and

(b) has taken into consideration any submissions made by the board in relation to the proposed order.

Considerable consultation has taken place on the proposals in this bill. As a result, several amendments are proposed to improve the operations of various details of the bill. This amendment involves the provisions that allow orders preventing applications for mineral claims over specified areas. This amendment provides that before any such order is made the director-general is to consult with the relevant mining board of management established under the Mining Act. In the Lightning Ridge area the relevant board is the Lightning Ridge Mining Board, which includes representatives of miners and landholders. I commend the amendment.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [11.03 a.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the amendment. For obvious reasons, it supports any measure that involves consultation. As I mentioned in my contribution to the second reading debate, if any areas of an open prospecting lease are going to be excluded from mining, then it should be done with the consultation of miners and landholders. This amendment deals with that specific issue, and for those reasons the Opposition does not oppose it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock—Minister for Mineral Resources) [11.05 a.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 3:

No. 3 Page 14, schedule 1. Insert after line 14:

235E Pending applications

For the purposes of this Act, an application for an opal prospecting licence is pending from the time it is lodged under this Act until the time it is finally disposed of.

This amendment is a minor clarification to provide that where applications for opal prospecting licences are lodged they are to be treated on a similar basis to mineral claim applications, as pending until finally disposed of. I commend the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock—Minister for Mineral Resources) [11.05 a.m.], by leave: I move amendments Government Nos 4 and 5 in globo:

No. 4 Page 20, schedule 1, line 29. Omit "A mining registrar". Insert instead "Subject to the regulations, the Director-General".

No. 5 Page 20, schedule 1, line 34. Omit "The holder". Insert instead "Subject to the regulations, the holder".

These amendments relate to the provision dealing with permits to enter land for purposes such as inspecting or marking out a proposed mineral claim. The overall intention is to give appropriate protection to landholders, while allowing genuine opal miners reasonable access. The amendments now proposed will reinforce that objective, in particular, by the inclusion of supporting regulation powers. The planned regulations are to further prescribe controls and restrictions that will apply in that context. Matters to be covered are to include ensuring the genuineness of applications for permits to enter land, defining permissible inspection activities, and detailing where vehicles used by permit holders are and are not allowed. I commend the amendments.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [11.06 a.m.]: I understand that the New South Wales Farmers Association has specifically asked for amendment No. 4, which the Opposition does not oppose. The Opposition also does not oppose No. 5 but it is concerned when matters are left to regulation. When legislation comes before the Parliament it can be reviewed and commented upon by honourable members, but regulations are much less open to comment, by the Opposition in particular. We are concerned about that matter, but I hope that when the regulations are being formulated there will be extensive consultation, particularly with landholders. This amendment will have a significant impact on the ability of landholders to operate their farm businesses in terms of regulating the access routes across their property for miners to access their mining leases. I note that the Lightning Ridge Miners Association is concerned about amendments Nos 4 and 5. The Opposition does not oppose amendment Nos 4 or 5, but I urge the Minister and the department to consult extensively with landholders and consider their views very strongly when formulating the regulations.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 7 May.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [11.09 a.m.]: It is with pleasure that I speak on the Mine Health and Safety Bill, which had its second reading by the previous Minister in 2002 but was not debated or passed before Parliament was prorogued in the lead-up to the 2003 election. It has been on the table for further consultation for quite some time. I am advised that pretty well all industry groups involved are satisfied with the consultation that has taken place on the bill. The legislation is important because mining can be, and has in the past been, a particularly dangerous occupation. However, I put on the record that the mining industry has come a long way in mine safety. I take this opportunity to commend both the metalliferous and the coalmining industries for their improvement in work safety. They regard work safety as a critical part of their business. They value their staff highly. They have spent a lot of money and taken steps to improve mine safety. I congratulate the industry for that.

This bill takes further steps to ensure the safety of mines as places of work. For that reason the Opposition will not oppose the bill. However, we have concerns about a couple of matters that I will refer to shortly. The Mine Health and Safety Bill supplements the Occupational Health and Safety Act on mining and the risks associated with mining. That is important because the community and Parliament want matters specific to mining to be considered sufficiently under the Occupation Health and Safety Act and for measures that would improve safety in mines to be implemented because of the specific nature of mining. We support the supplementation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act with the Mine Health and Safety Bill. We support the notion of mine safety management plans being developed for both mine operators and contractors.

As mines turn more to the use of contractors it is just as important that contractors maintain high safety standards as it is for mine operators themselves to maintain those standards. We support the element of this bill that requires mine operators to develop mine safety management plans and contractor safety management plans. Contractors can cause as many problems as anyone in a mine so it is important they are regulated as well. The Opposition supports the notion of competencies for key personnel in mines—a notion that is pretty well generally held across most industries. It is probably ironic that historically those competencies have been more recognised in professional industries. When I was a solicitor competencies were regarded as very important. We had to undertake 10 hours a year of additional legal study, which I found always to be very useful. The Opposition supports that notion.

It is important that particularly key personnel have a level of competency that is agreed by the industry to be appropriate. We do not want people whose actions will affect others to lack the necessary competencies. We support the element in the bill that will determine what those competencies are and review those competencies. We also support the creation of offences for individuals or mine operators who do not properly notify accidents or incidents or who under-report accidents. For those offences the maximum penalty is $825,000. Those penalties should be severe because it is difficult to improve mine safety unless information is available to government regulators about the incidents that occur and how often they occur. We want mine operators, contractors and employees to be honest and upfront about incidents so that steps can be taken to make sure they do not happen again.

The one issue that the Opposition has concerns about is the provision in the legislation relating to regulation of hours of work. Our consultation with the non-coalmining industry suggests that it is uncomfortable with prescribed hours being no longer than eight consecutive hours at any time or no more than 48 hours over a seven-day period, with at least a 24-hour break during those seven days. The New South Wales Minerals Council has spoken to me in strong terms about its concerns with that part of the legislation, and I know it has spoken to the Minister and the department about the provision. The concerns relate to the rigidity of those prescribed hours. I understand that the Minister and the department have given some undertakings to the Minerals Council that its concerns will be addressed in regulations that will flow from this bill. I hope they are. The industry makes sound arguments as to why prescribing hours of work does not necessarily lead to increased mine safety. On 12 May the New South Wales Minerals Council wrote to the Minister in the following terms:

Despite these positives [contained in the bill] we must record our disappointment and ongoing concerns with the government's persistence with outdated maximum hours of work provisions … that do not align with modern shift arrangements or outcomes-based OHS requirements in this or any other industry.

As it is the peak mining body, the concerns of the Minerals Council should be taken seriously. In conjunction with the Australian Mines and Metals Association, it has conducted a survey of mines on work and the management of fatigue. The Government has the results of that survey. I will not go into the results of that survey in too much detail, because the Minister is aware of them. Basically they show that prescribing strict hours of work is not the be all and end all of mine safety. Many other issues determine mine safety and the management of fatigue. Fatigue management is very important, but it is a multi-faceted problem to which there are multi-faceted solutions. Simply prescribing hours of work, on the evidence that I have and from conversations I have had with people in the industry, is not the answer. However, the Minister has given an undertaking to address the concerns of the mining industry relating to regulations prescribing hours.

The Opposition has a number of concerns about dealing with important issues such as this by way of regulation, because that is not an altogether transparent procedure. We would like more details included in legislation, rather than trusting that those matters will be properly dealt with in regulations. But I know the Minister, and I think I can say that if the Minister gives such an undertaking he will abide by it. Some members on the Government side do not have complete trust in the Minister, but I certainly do. I conclude on that point by saying that the Opposition will be keeping a close eye on the regulations to ensure that the Minister stands by his commitment. If the regulations are not as promised, we may revisit the matter in the Legislative Council at some future time.

The Lightning Ridge Miners Association also has contacted me concerning the Mine Health and Safety Bill. While the association is happy overall with the bill, it would like input to the competency standards for opal miners, and suggests that that could be achieved through regulation. Otherwise, the opal miners also seem to be fairly satisfied with the bill. Might I conclude by saying that occupational health and safety is an issue that the Coalition takes very seriously. The last things we want in any workplace are injuries caused by practices or incidents that could be avoided. So we support anything that can be done to avoid such injuries. We support the Mine Health Safety Bill because of the way in which it deals with some intricate aspects of mining.

We hope that this legislation will go a long way towards improving mine health and safety. As I said earlier, the mining industry has come a long way. It has made significant investment not just financially but in human capital to improve the safety of mines across New South Wales. I congratulate the mining industry on the efforts it has made, and continues to make, in this respect. In any consultation I have had with mining companies, one of the significant issues raised, supported by associated graphs, is mine safety. The improvements made in mine safety and reduction of injuries, quite apart from the time and money companies spend to improve mine safety, shows that they take these issues very seriously. I am pleased that, after a couple of years, this bill has made it to the Parliament. For the reasons I have given, the Opposition will not be opposing the bill.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [11.23 a.m.]: I join with parliamentary colleagues in supporting the Mine Health and Safety Bill. The honourable member for Lismore is interjecting. Some of his constituents are here today, so I think he should remain quiet. Otherwise, I might be a little unkind. The last time I tried to draw a comment from the honourable member for Lismore I had to bring a packet of peanuts into the office! I do not want to have to do that again. I return to the bill, the objectives of which are set out in the Minister's second reading speech and in the explanatory note to the bill.

I would like to commend Minister Kerry Hickey for getting the bill to the House for debate—a matter that the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, quite commendably, mentioned also. To do that has required considerable negotiations with all sectors of the industry, not the least parliamentary colleagues and members of the bureaucracy. I note that the bill relates to virtually all mining in the State—apart from coalmining, if you do not count the numerous cross-references to specific coalmining legislation—occupational health and safety and so on, mainly referring to definitions, clarifications and the like.

At first glance, when I learned that the purpose of the bill was to deal with metalliferous mining and quarrying, separate from coal mining, I thought that the separation of legislation might be some new direction. That was, until I read that this bill will repeal the Mines Inspection Act of 1901. I did some research on this aspect. In that respect, could I acknowledge the great assistance of our Parliamentary Library staff. While doing that research I came across a debate in this Chamber that took place on 13 November 1901. In that debate a Mr Kidd, the State member for Camden and Secretary for Mines and Agriculture, introduced the Mines Inspection Bill, which is to be repealed by this bill. Minister Kidd stated when introducing the bill that it had been introduced in a previous session but was prevented from proceeding further because of the close of the session. I note that Minister Hickey also said in his second reading speech that his bill had followed a similar course, being stopped as a result of the session closing before the last election. Of course, that was the election that so overwhelming returned the Carr Government once again. Interestingly, Minister Kidd also said in 1901, as recorded in Hansard:

The necessity for this Bill has been realised for many years past, and honourable members with a practical knowledge of the subject understand how urgently it is required. We have a Coalmines Regulation Bill, but we have no regulations that we can insist upon for the proper management of mining, apart from coal and shale mining.

Minister Kidd went on to say:

In 1897 Judge Murray was appointed a Commissioner to inquire, and make suggestions as to the best course to be taken in framing this measure. The regulations drawn up in 1889 proved inoperative, and were of very little value. Judge Murray strongly urged the passing of a Bill that would enable proper regulations to be framed by the Department for the control of metalliferous mines.

Honourable members might be interested to know that that debate—a big issue of the time—went from 7.10 p.m. until the House adjourned at 1.57 a.m., with the members representing electorates such as Broken Hill, Bingara, Cobar, Sturt, Bathurst, Alma, Armidale, Sydney-Denison and Kahibah participating. I note from a vote taken on one of the amendments that one of the tellers was W. A. Holman, a member of the Labor Party and a Nationalist, who was later to become Premier. My point, of course, in raising this matter is to remind honourable members that the issues addressed in the current bill have been around for a long time.

Another and more serious issue, emphasised by both Minister Kidd in 1901 and Minister Hickey in 2004, is the need to do everything possible to prevent deaths and injuries in our mining industry. Clearly, despite dramatic reductions in mine deaths over that span of time, it is commendable that the current Labor Government is not just resting on its laurels on this question. I should like to record but a sample of tragic accidents that have occurred in mines of all kinds. I found this information recently in an edition of the Macquarie Encyclopaedia of Australian Events, published in 1997, and I read it on to the record to remind honourable members of the dangers confronting workers in the industry. I emphasise that this is a sample, not a comprehensive list, of some of those incidents from around Australia that have brought legislation forward to deal with mine safety matters such as those that were before the House in 1901 and the matters that are before us today.

I read from the list. On 12 December 1882 at the Cresswick goldmine in Victoria a flooding incident resulted in the death of 22 men. On 23 March 1887 at the Bulli colliery in New South Wales an explosion claimed the lives of 81 miners. On 18 July 1895 at the South Broken Hill mine in New South Wales nine men were killed. On 21 March 1898 at the Dudley colliery at Stockton near Newcastle 15 people died. That accident occurred before the debate I referred to in 1901. On 31 July 1902 at Mount Kembla in New South Wales an explosion claimed the life of, incredibly, 95 men. On 25 may 1904 at the Great Baulder goldmine, East Coolgardie, Western Australia, five men died when two gigs fell to the bottom of a shaft.

The list continues. On 12 October 1902 at the North Lyell tin mine, Tasmania, miners were trapped and very few escaped: 42 people were killed. The Minister for Mineral Resources would be very interested and very sad to hear that on 1 September 1923 an explosion in the Bellbird colliery near Cessnock claimed the lives of 21 men. In more recent times, on 21 October 1966 a tunnel roof collapsed at a coalmine in Wyee, New South Wales, killing five men. On 29 July 1979 a gas ignition at Appin in the south-western parts of Sydney killed 14 men. I recall hearing my friend the former Minister for Minerals and Energy Bob Martin speak in the House about an accident that occurred on 14 November 1996 at Gretley colliery in the Hunter Valley when, as a result of water rushing in from another disused colliery, 4 coalminers were killed.

Honourable members will agree that no matter what substance is being mined, mining is not only potentially but also actually a dangerous occupation. There is good news on this issue, if that is possible. The mining industry and employment in the mine industry, whilst still dangerous, is getting safer. Last month I asked the following questions of the Minister for Mineral Resource, relating to coalmining accidents in this State:

(1) What has been the average annual number of people killed in coal mining accidents in the 10-year period ending 31 December 2003?

(2) How does this figure compare with the 10-year period ending 31 December 1953 and the 10-year period ending 31 December 1903?

The figures provided were startling. On 4 May 2004 the Minister provided an answer that the average number of people killed in the 10-year period ending 31 December 2003 was 2.4. For the same period ending 31 December 1953 the number was 16.3. It had dropped from 16.3 in the 1950s to 2.4 by the end of last year. For the 10-year period ending 31 December 1903 the number was 25.1. Whilst the mining industry is still a very dangerous one, I recognise that through the co-operation of all parties involved, particularly the trade unions, which view mine safety as a high priority and have fought for improved mine safety conditions from the start of settlement in this country right through to today, great strides have been made.

The bill covers virtually all mining in New South Wales—apart from coal, which has its own specialist legislation, as previous speakers have mentioned. In my electorate of Mount Druitt and other parts of Western Sydney there are many quarries, the materials from which have been used in the building industry, the concrete industry and road building. The quarrying industry is also defined as mining in the legislation and is covered by the regulations now before the House. Many honourable members may not be aware that the term "mining" as defined in the New South Wales legislation includes all the extractive industry and any activity where material is recovered for sale, such as gravel pits for road making. Many small mining operations employ just a few people. Some operate only when there is demand for the materials they produce.

Until recently the operators of many of the more than 800 small mines in New South Wales were not fully aware of the health and safety obligations they were required to meet. This lack of awareness was demonstrated by their safety record, which was poor compared to that of larger mines and quarries. Since 1990 there have been 14 fatalities in small mines. To remedy the situation the Carr Labor Government included in the Open Mines Inspection General Rule 2000 a provision that all small mines had to prepare and work to a safety management plan. The purpose of a safety management plan is to identify and control or eliminate the hazards associated with these practices. Many of the operators of small mines did not have the knowledge and expertise needed to prepare a safety management plan.

To give them the expertise, the Mine Safety Division of the Department of Mineral Resources developed a small mine campaign, which began in May 2000. The key to this campaign was an education and assistance course designed to give owners and managers of small mines the knowledge they needed to develop and implement their own safety management plans. The course was developed in conjunction with the quarrying industry. Two publications were prepared to assist those attending the course. They are the "Safety Management for Small Mines" and the "Safety Management Plan Workbook", both joint publications of the Department of Mineral Resources and the Institute of Quarrying. "Guidelines for Safe Mining" was also published and quickly became an industry standard. It has now been revised and republished as the "Minerals Industry Safety Handbook". This publication is supported by the New South Wales Minerals Council and will be used for mine safety education in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia, Victoria and the Northern Territory.

The small mines of our State are regularly visited by inspectors or mine safety officers who continue to advise on hazard identification and elimination. The visits are called assessments, and each inspector and mine safety officer has a program of assessments to be undertaken each year. At least one-third of these visits are unannounced, to create a belief amongst mine operators that an assessment could happen at any time. Regular assessments reinforce the safety message, while the experienced eyes of the inspector or mine safety officer can often spot problems or safety issues that may not be apparent to the person who works on the site every day.

The government inspectors and mine safety officers prefer to achieve health and safety outcomes through education and encouragement. They also have a range of enforcement options in cases where their advice is ignored or serious breaches of safety regulations are detected. The Carr Government's $17.4 million six-year program of industry-wide mine safety improvement is delivering positive results. New South Wales now has one of the safest, if not the safest, mining industries in the world. This encouraging improvement is not enough on its own. We cannot rest until fatalities and serious injuries have been completely eliminated from our mining industry.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Lismore should understand that I was talking about small mines, not small minds. I urge honourable members to join with me in supporting the Mine Health and Safety Bill, which is designed to further protect the lives of miners in New South Wales. Perhaps some time in the future another member will speak in this House about an ever-decreasing number of workers who die in this potentially and actually dangerous industry. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JOHN MILLS (Wallsend) [11.37 a.m.]: I am pleased to support the Mine Health and Safety Bill 2004. I acknowledge the excellent contribution by the honourable member for Mount Druitt. He is a difficult act to follow. The Minister for Mineral Resources, the honourable member for Mount Druitt and the honourable member for Murrumbidgee referred to the importance of safety in all of the mining industries. Improved health and safety in dangerous occupations, such as mining, is an important concept that we aim to achieve through politics, and they are among the reasons that I am a member of the Australian Labor Party and my trade union. A bill on mine safety is one of the most important pieces of legislation that a government can introduce in New South Wales.

Each year I try to attend a ceremony that is held at the Cessnock headquarters of the Construction, Mining, Forestry and Electrical Union [CMFEU], formerly the Miners Federation. On the Jim Comerford Memorial Wall at those headquarters is listed the names of the people who have been killed in coalmining accidents in the northern coalfields around Newcastle since mining began in the early 1800s. The honourable member for Mount Druitt referred to the many tragic deaths. What is so tragic is the fact that, despite regular and many improvements, 2001 is the first year since mining started when no names were added to the wall—and we hope that no names will be added for 2003.

The northern coalfields around Newcastle have now been two years free of deaths at work. Debating and passing legislation that will protect the health and safety of workers in the dangerous mining industry is close to my heart and to my job as a Hunter Valley member of Parliament. The bill is another part of the Carr Government's six-year program under which $17.4 million is being invested in positive strategies to steadily improve the safety of New South Wales miners. The program was created in response to the Mine Safety Review, which was commissioned by the Government in 1996, and the investigation into the tragedy that took four lives in November of that year at the Gretley colliery.

The legislation is a direct result of a recommendation by the review that all mining legislation should be examined to ensure that it meets the safety and operational needs of today's mining industry and those who work in it. Some of the other actions stemming from the review and the Gretley investigation have been the creation of a specialist Mine Safety Division within the Department of Mineral Resources, the formation of an autonomous investigation unit to conduct investigations and support prosecutions, the establishment of the tripartite Mine Safety Advisory Council, the creation of mine safety officer positions within the Department of Mineral Resources, the requirement for mines to prepare and work to mine safety management plans, the development of a program of regular workshops, seminars and conferences that educate the mining industry on safety issues, and the training of 4,000 opal miners in safety management and awareness. That figure includes the 279 who attended the more advanced course for mine operators that started in late 2003.

Another recommendation of the Mine Safety Review and the Gretley investigation was the development of policies for enforcement and prosecution. Following extensive consultation with all stakeholders the Carr Government published its policy entitled "The enforcement of health and safety standards in mines" in January 1999. The purpose of that policy is to support an open and consistent approach to the enforcement of health and safety standards in mines. It provides a hierarchy of enforcement responses to suit the severity of the situation. These include giving advice, expressing concern orally, issuing a written notice of concern, issuing an instruction giving a direction, issuing an improvement notice, issuing a prohibition notice—which is a stop work order—reviewing and/or upholding a notice, issuing a formal warning seeking a court order; and prosecution.

That broad range of sanctions allows the response to be tailored to the nature of a particular situation, the actual or possible consequences and the immediacy of danger. Failure to respond, or an inadequate response, will lead to more serious sanctions being applied. Responsibility for ensuring safety rests with mining companies, mine management, mining workers and suppliers of plant and substances. The Department of Mineral Resources assesses compliance and takes enforcement action when safety obligations are not met. Prosecution is considered whenever a significant breach of legislation is discovered. Breaches resulting in prosecutions are most likely to be those involving fatalities, serious injuries or long-term health impairments. However, prosecution is still considered if a serious hazard exists, even if it has not resulted in any injury. Charges are laid under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000. Defendants are most commonly the corporations that are the employers.

Individuals, managers, contractors and employees who commit significant breaches are at times also prosecuted. The Government's enforcement policy provides for information on incidents, investigations and prosecutions to be made available to the industry. That is so that mines can act to prevent similar incidents or situations occurring. In the four years since the establishment of the enforcement policy, there have been 20 successful prosecutions resulting in convictions. Fines totalling almost $1.5 million have been imposed. The largest fine to date was $206,250. Those convictions have sent a clear message to the mining industry that the Carr Government will not tolerate the lives of mine workers being put at risk. The Government is committed to using all means at its disposal to continue the ongoing improvement in the excellent safety performance of New South Wales mining. Enforcement by prosecution is one of the means available. Another is the introduction of modern, effective legislation such as the Mine Health and Safety Bill, which I commend to the House.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock—Minister for Mineral Resources) [11.44 a.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, the honourable member for Mount Druitt and the honourable member for Wallsend for their contributions to the debate. I congratulate once again departmental officers and my policy advisers on working so hard to achieve such a commonsense bill. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee referred to fatigue and the hours of work. I refer him to clause 76, "Hours of work and associated working arrangements below ground", which appears in division 2, " Hours of work", on page 36 of the bill. The industry referred to the graph and raised the matter of fatigue with me, but I have never been shown the methodology. I am concerned about fatigue; it is something we need to work through with the industry.

The honourable member for Mount Druitt referred to the history of mining and its impact on lives across the State. He highlighted the dangers of the past. We have improved working conditions in underground mines and mining in general. However, improvement still can be made. Any life lost in a mine is one too many. The honourable member for Wallsend referred to mine safety and its importance across the workplace. Because of my background I work a little harder for mine safety to try to ensure that every miner who goes to work returns home. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read second time and passed through remaining stages.

Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:

That the House at its rising this day to adjourn until Tuesday 1 June 2004 at 2.15 p.m.

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

(1) That a joint standing committee, to be known as the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, be appointed.

(2) That the committee inquire into and report upon such matters as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister that relate to:

(i) the following electoral laws:

(a) Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 (other than Part 2);

(b) Election Funding Act 1981; and

(c) those provisions of the Constitution Act 1902 that relate to the procedures for, and conduct of, elections for members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council (other than sections 27, 28 and 28A);

(ii) the administration of and practices associated with the electoral laws described at (i).

(3) All matters that relate to (1)(i) and (ii) above in respect of the 22 March 2003 State election shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make. The committee shall report on the outcome of any such inquiry within 12 months of the date of this resolution being agreed to by both Houses.

(4) That the committee consist of seven members, as follows:

(a) four members of the Legislative Assembly of whom:

(i) three must be Government members,

(ii) one must be an Opposition member, and

(b) three members of the Legislative Council of whom:

(i) one must be a Government member,

(ii) one must be an Opposition member, and

(iii) one must be a cross-bench member.

(5) That the members be nominated in writing to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and the Clerk of the Legislative Council by the relevant party leaders and the cross-bench members respectively within seven days of this resolution being agreed to by both Houses. In the absence of any agreement concerning Legislative Council representation on the committee the matter is to be determined by that House.

(6) That, notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders of either House, at any meeting of the committee any four members of the committee will constitute a quorum, provided that the committee meets as a joint committee at all times.

(7) That the committee have leave to sit during the sittings or any adjournment of either or both Houses.

(8) That the committee have power:

(a) to send for and examine persons, papers, records and things,
(b) to adjourn from place to place,

(c) to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and elsewhere in Australia, and

(d) to take evidence in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Evidence Act 1901.

(9) That the committee have leave to report from time to time.

(10) (1) That if either House is not sitting when the committee wishes to report, the committee have leave to send any such report, minutes and evidence to the Clerk of each House.

(2) A report presented to the Clerk is:

(a) on presentation, and for all purposes, deemed to have been laid before the House,

(b) to be printed by authority of the Clerk,

(c) for all purposes, deemed to be a document published by order or under the authority of the House, and

(d) to be recorded in the official proceedings of the House.

(11) That the Legislative Assembly requests the Legislative Council to agree to a similar resolution and name the time and place for the first meeting.

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

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock—Minister for Mineral Resources) [12.50 p.m.], on behalf of Mr Bob Debus: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Sexual Offence Evidence) Bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to ensure that victims of sexual assault are automatically allowed to use closed-circuit television and other alternative arrangements when giving evidence in court. A number of high-profile cases have highlighted the distress experienced by complainants giving evidence in sexual assault proceedings. It is extremely harrowing for a person to be in the same room as the accused, and to recount to the court details of what may be the most traumatic, distressing and degrading experience of their life. There is currently some discretion to allow adult complainants in sexual assault matters to give evidence by alternative means, including closed-circuit television. However, this discretion is only exercised occasionally and provides no assurance to the complainant that he or she will be in a position to rely on alternative arrangements at trial.

Providing alternative facilities for giving evidence will help reduce the potential for intimidation of the complainant by shielding him or her from direct contact with the accused, reduce the level of distress complainants experience in relating the circumstances surrounding an alleged assault, and reduce the embarrassment experienced by many complainants in having to be questioned about sexual matters in a public forum. Minimising the trauma for complainants in sexual offence proceedings will also assist in ensuring that they are able to give evidence more confidently and more effectively, allowing courts to hear the best possible evidence available. In some cases the option for a complainant to give evidence by closed-circuit television—or CCTV, as it is commonly known—may mean the difference between proceeding to trial and having to withdraw a prosecution because the complainant is not prepared to give evidence. It is also hoped that the legislation will encourage greater reporting by victims of sexual assault to the authorities, and ensure that more sex offenders are brought to justice.

These reforms deliver on the Government's election commitments to improve support for victims of sexual assault in court and prevent further victimisation of sexual assault complainants by the criminal justice system. They are also consistent with recommendations made by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission in its recent report on questioning of complainants by unrepresented accused in sexual assault trials, and a number of previous inquiries conducted by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, the New South Wales Sexual Assault Committee, the New South Wales Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues, and the Australian Law Reform Commission.

Extending the availability of alternative arrangements to sexual assault complainants is also consistent with the approach taken in many other common law jurisdictions, including other States and Territories in Australia. These reforms will complement a wide range of measures the Government has already put in place to support victims of sexual assault, including significantly increasing the number of witness assistance officers available to support victims of crime, restricting cross-examination of sexual assault victims in committal proceedings, piloting a new child sexual assault jurisdiction in Sydney's west and in Dubbo and prohibiting cross-examination of victims of sexual assault by unrepresented accused persons.

The amendments proposed in this bill amend the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to provide adult victims of sexual assault with similar protections to those already accorded to certain child witnesses under part 4 of the Evidence (Children) Act 1997. The bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 by inserting a new section 294B into part 5 of chapter 6 of the Act, which applies to evidence in sexual offence proceedings. Proposed section 294B will create a presumption that a complainant who gives evidence in sexual assault proceedings can use alternative arrangements to give evidence unless the court orders otherwise. A sexual offence is defined broadly in proposed section 294B (11) to ensure that complainants in sexual offence proceedings are afforded the protections provided by the legislation wherever possible.

The options available to the complainant under these reforms will include, as a first preference, the option to give evidence from a place outside the courtroom, which is deemed by the legislation to be a part of the court, using CCTV or other similar technology. CCTV and other similar technology such as video conferencing will allow a witness to give evidence from a remote location, usually a room within the court precincts, which is equipped with the appropriate technology. The evidence is transmitted to the courtroom from the remote site, so the court can see and hear the witness. Alternatively, where the relevant technology is not available, the complainant will have the option to use screens or planned seating arrangements to restrict contact, including visual contact, with the accused and any other person or persons who might, for example, intimidate the complainant in giving his or her evidence.

The complainant will also have the option of choosing a person to sit nearby while he or she is giving evidence for the purpose of providing emotional support. The option of having a support person will be available to the complainant regardless of whether he or she gives evidence using other alternative measures. The process of empowering complainants is about choice and it is important to recognise that some complainants may prefer to give evidence and face their attackers in court. Accordingly, these reforms give complainants the choice to access a variety of alternative measures as well as the option to give their evidence in open court.

Under proposed section 294B (5) the court retains a discretion to order that alternative arrangements such as CCTV not be used in a particular case. However, subsection (6) makes it clear that the court can only make such an order when it is satisfied that there are special reasons in the interests of justice why the complainant should not have access to CCTV facilities. This limitation on the court's discretion will ensure that a defence argument of disadvantage to the accused will not generally be sufficient to overturn the presumption that the victim is entitled to choose to use alternative means to give evidence. This limitation is similar to the limitation imposed by section 93 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 on the discretion of a magistrate to require a victim of an offence involving violence to give evidence at committal.

The bill will commence on assent, with the provisions extending to evidence given in proceedings that may have commenced before implementation of the new provisions. This will ensure that complainants who are currently scheduled to give evidence in a retrial will still be able to benefit from these reforms. These new provisions will give sexual assault victims more options. They will have the choice to give evidence by a variety of means, in whichever way they feel is most likely to empower them as individuals. That may well be by giving evidence through a CCTV link to the court, but a victim could equally decide to give evidence in court with the support of a close family friend. We want to ensure that victims of sexual assault are given every opportunity to present their evidence clearly and calmly. This legislation is a significant step forward in achieving that aim. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [12.00 p.m.]: As this is the last sitting day before the cessation of the Casino to Murwillumbah rail service, I mark the historic occasion of the rail line's last train service on Sunday 17 May 2004 by informing the House that this is a sad day for the people of my electorate. I record my appreciation of the efforts made by the Northern Rivers community, particularly young people, to have the decision reversed. I acknowledge the presence in the public gallery of school captains from my electorate, who have participated in the campaign. The train service has been catering to the needs of students, elderly citizens and disabled people. Political representatives of all persuasions joined in the campaign to keep the rail line open, and in that context I acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of the honourable member for Ballina, Mr Don Page.

Others who lent their total support include the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner; the Leader of the Opposition, John Brogden; the shadow Minister for Transport Services, Mr Michael Gallacher; the Hon. Melinda Pavey and the Hon. Catherine Cusack of the Legislative Council; my Federal Coalition colleagues from the north of the State, Larry Anthony and Ian Causley; and the mayors of the local government areas in my electorate—Merv King, Charlie Cox, Warren Polglase, Jan Barham, Phil Silver; and Ernie Bennett, the President of the Northern Rivers Regional Organisation of Councils [NOROC]. Irrespective of the side of the political fence those representatives are on, they joined with the community in attempts to retain the rail service.

Sydney media outlets also lent tremendous support for the retention of the line, for which I thank them. In my electorate the Northern Star yesterday continued its comprehensive coverage of the issues with an article under the headline, "These people have failed us and don't deserve our support". As the honourable member for Ballina has said, the Premier and his Cabinet are train robbers, having robbed the people of my electorate of their train. The people will not forget that. Murwillumbah's Daily News and Grafton's Daily Examiner have been very supportive of the campaign, as have the Northern Rivers Echo in Lismore, the Richmond River Express, Neil Marks of Radio 2LM, the ABC, NBN, Prime and Richmond Valley Radio, whose journalists travelled on the train as part of the station's coverage, accompanied by Russell Eldridge, Editor of the Northern Star; even Noelene Daley of Daleys Homeware Lismore supported us by providing the caps. The community feeling about the loss of this rail service is unprecedented during my term in this Parliament. Everyone has been firmly behind the campaign to retain the rail service. The Country Labor Northern Rivers secretary and Lismore councillor, Jenny Dowell, stated: "The announcement to cut the service has effectively meant that the Government has lied. We are all disgusted at this."

However, it is not over yet. The statistics that have been cited by the Minister for Transport Services to justify his decision are not the proper figures. The cessation of the CountryLink service between Casino and Murwillumbah on 17 May has caused an unprecedented level of concern and alarm in Northern Rivers communities. The history of rail service in the northern part of the State has come to an end, but the people of my electorate will continue to fight and draw attention to the economic and tourism importance of the line to development of the region, as well as the significant social benefits derived from the service by elderly and disabled passengers and young people. The rail service will never be fully replicated by a replacement bus service. There are environmental benefits associated with retention of the rail service.

The committee will continue its efforts to obtain future economic, social and environmental advantages from having the line connected to the Queensland rail system. In December 2003, the Minister for Transport Services, Mr Michael Costa, announced that the line would be kept open until December 2004, but seemingly five months after making that statement the Carr Labor Government cancelled the service. I assure the school captains from Bonalbo, Woodenbong, Kadina, Casino, Kyogle and Lismore high schools that they have contributed to a wonderful community effort that has been aimed at retention of the line, a fight that is not over yet. The community feels shattered by the closure of the rail service. The editor of the Northern Star, Mr Russell Eldridge, summed up the community's attitude when he wrote:

Mr Carr you are taking away our train, not your train. Please give us back the service.

[Time expired.]

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! When he next has guests in the public gallery the honourable member for Lismore should ensure that they are made aware of the standing orders. As a member, he should know the standing orders, and what has just happened should not happen again.

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield) [12.05 p.m.]: I inform the House of the annual cultural festival of the Tamil Study Centre in Homebush. It has been a great joy to watch the Tamil Study Centre develop and grow since its inception in 1987. The centre began by providing after-school hours tuition in the Tamil language and now teaches students at the Higher School Certificate level. In an Australian first, the Homebush Public School, where the centre is based, has initiated Tamil language classes as part of the normal school curriculum. The study of community languages at school is not only beneficial for children from Tamil backgrounds but also assists other students in gaining a greater understanding of people from different cultural backgrounds. The Carr Labor Government is proud to continue to support the Tamil Study Centre. Late last year the Government provided funding for the school to develop the lesson plans to assist the centre to maintain and develop the language.

At the cultural evening, students presented excellent Tamil dances. I always enjoy seeing young people take so much pleasure in learning about their culture. The teachers at the centre should be proud of the tremendous work they do. Ensuring the success of a community language school requires commitment not only from teachers, students and parents but also from community leaders, the local school, the wider community, the council and the Government. The Tamil Study Centre's committee has managed to galvanise the support of all those different elements to harness their energy and has tried to do something wonderful for the next generation. I congratulate the president, Mr V. Sooriakumae; the secretary, Mr N. S. Gowrythasan; the treasurer, Mr K. G. Bascaran; the vice-president, Mr R. Jeyamanokar; the assistant secretary, Mr S. Somaskanthan; the assistant treasurer, Mr K. Linganathan; the education officer, Mr N. M. Naresh; the cultural officer, Mr S. Suntherades; the welfare officer, Mr S. Chandramohan; the principal, Mrs K. Jrganathan; and the deputy principals, Mrs N. Dayalan and Mr T. Arulanantham.

The commitment of the Tamil community to education and achievement must be commended. Language is inexorably bound to culture: It is the window through which we view our world. It dictates the way we describe our ideas, experiences and aspirations. It informs our stories, our poetry and our art. It controls almost every facet of our lives in some way. Children who grow up learning two languages are indeed lucky because they more comprehensively understand the cultures of the community. That can be particularly beneficial for Australian-born children from families whose parents were born overseas. It can be a way of bridging generation gaps and maintaining culture. Our diverse community has a wealth of cultural and linguistic resources of which we all should be proud. At the time the 2001 census was taken, there were 1,956 people in the Strathfield electorate who reported speaking Tamil at home, which makes Tamil the sixth most commonly spoken language in my electorate. At the Homebush Public School, students with a Tamil background represent almost 50 per cent of the school's total enrolments, which is fantastic.

The New South Wales Government acknowledges that by supporting community language schools as well as fostering the study of languages as part of the school curriculum. I understand that Homebush Public School now offers Tamil. That is of enormous benefit to students, and I congratulate the school on this initiative, which I believe to be a first not only in my electorate of Strathfield but also in the nation. I am pleased that the Government supports people from different backgrounds. This nation has been built upon generation after generation of different nationalities coming to this country and bringing with them their cultures, language and traditions. Indeed, we always acknowledge indigenous Australians, who were here for so long before we arrived.

I acknowledge the hard work of Mr Vijayaratnam, Sundar Eswaran and other community organisations in establishing Tamil as a Higher School Certificate subject. It was a long project, and I am pleased to report that it has been very successful. The project was an election commitment by the Labor Party that we are proud to have delivered. The Tamil community has achieved a lot, especially in education, but the community must work together to ensure that the Tamil Study Centre can expand and flourish in the future. I thank the centre for the invitation to attend the festival. I always enjoy attending the centre's functions, which are so well organised and run. I congratulate the teachers, students, parents and everyone else involved on their truly outstanding work.

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [12.10 p.m.]: With inward migration to the Northern Rivers area continuing as strongly as ever, the question arises as to how to preserve the attractiveness of the region, sustain job opportunities and not fall into the trap of overdevelopment. To achieve those objectives a vision for the region is needed. I believe that an important part of that vision is to develop and support the concept of the Northern Rivers area being a region of villages. The pattern of development in the Northern Rivers region is unique. Historically the region developed as a series of villages, and at present three of every five local residents live in one of the region's 300 villages. Combined with rural industries spread across the region, and the proximity to the coast, that development pattern has created an extremely attractive lifestyle for local residents. The natural beauty of the landscape is complemented by the perception that the area is generally not overdeveloped and possesses great charm.

Village settlements provide basic infrastructure and services as well as community cohesiveness, whilst larger centres such as Lismore, Ballina, Grafton and Murwillumbah offer extensive retail, educational, health and transport infrastructure, as well as government services. There must always be high-order infrastructure such as hospitals, universities and larger schools in the larger centres, but I believe our future must also embrace the concept of villages. A September 2003 report commissioned by the Northern Rivers Regional Strategy Secretariat entitled "Villages: An Investigation into Village Infrastructure and Services" investigated the functionality of villages in the region. The report compared infrastructure and services provided in three local villages—Bangalow, Evans Head and Uki. It found that there were baseline services and infrastructure needed for a village to function effectively. Those included a community meeting place, postal services, a basic grocery store, a transport network, open space, a water supply, a waste management system, electricity and telecommunications.

With the Northern Rivers featuring in the top 10 growing regions nationwide, the report provides valuable information about the infrastructure and services needed if the future settlement pattern is to include villages. Whilst those who have moved to the Northern Rivers region have chosen our area because of lifestyle considerations, issues such as high unemployment, structural change in the agricultural sector and low average incomes are challenges to be addressed in future planning for the region. In addressing population growth issues, community representatives are faced with a number of options. In its February 2001 discussion paper entitled "A Region of Villages" the Northern Rivers Regional Strategy Secretariat suggests four options: limiting population growth, allowing urban centres to absorb growth, dispersing growth in the rural hinterland, and creating urban and rural villages. In my view, following the urban and rural village model should be seriously considered for the future of the region. Villages allow residents to live in a rural setting, providing for basic infrastructure and a sense of community, whilst also protecting prime agricultural land.

The development of villages, in conjunction with moderate growth in the region's major centres, allows for a choice of lifestyle, with minimal negative impact on social cohesiveness within these centres. The success of this strategy is contingent on the ability of Federal, State and local government bodies to plan for, and provide, appropriate services and infrastructure in these new urban and regional villages. Villages should be small enough to allow for a sense of community, but at the same time have basic services and infrastructure. They should be secure, have local character and be connected to the local environment. One of the undoubted benefits of living in the country as opposed to living in the city is that in country areas there is a much stronger sense of community. People's feeling of belonging plays an important role in ensuring their happiness in their environment.

Bangalow is an excellent example of a village that has successfully enhanced its village status to encourage investment in the area, improve residential amenity, and overcome the challenges associated with the redirection of traffic away from the village. The Spirit of Bangalow Program has addressed issues such as economic development, physical design, events and marketing, and social development. The residents of Bangalow and visitors are impressed by the strength of community spirit in the area and the success of the program. Bangalow has is a healthy mix of new influences, whilst preserving what is good about the old. People who live in Bangalow generally participate in local events, whether it be the local show, the music festival, the billy cart derby or the Christmas Eve street community get-together.

The intelligent development across the Northern Rivers region of villages such as Bangalow will also take some of the pressure off the sensitive coastal areas where many people want to live. A couple of years ago two prominent North Coast planners, Ian Oelrichs and Steve Connelly, went to a number of countries to specifically look at villages, how they worked, what they offered, and how we could use any overseas experience, good and bad, to help the Northern Rivers region, enhance our villages, and develop a sustainable model for village development. Their subsequent contribution has been important, and I am pleased that Ian Oelrichs is Chairman of the Northern Rivers Regional Development Board. I encourage and support Ian in promoting the benefits of the region by promoting the sustainable village concept. Planning for future settlement is a complex, slow and vexed task. Regional coastal areas are at the centre of changing population patterns in New South Wales as retirees, families and individuals choose to move to non-urban coastal regions. I commend all those who support the concept of villages in the Northern Rivers region. [Time expired.]

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY (Heffron) [12.16 p.m.]: I call on the Council of the City of Sydney to resolve a problem that residents in my electorate are experiencing. Victoria Park is a new, purpose-built Landcom development in the electorate of Heffron. Part of a grand plan for South Sydney, the 25-hectare Victoria Park in Zetland has a long and chequered history. Having been the site of a naval supply depot, a car manufacturing plant and a racecourse, it will be a model for successfully transforming overused and decaying inner-city precincts and will act as a catalyst for the development of the rest of the Green Square Town Centre. Up to 2,500 dwellings and 150,000 square metres of office and retail space will create a new, vibrant community in this part of inner Sydney.

However, residents in Victoria Park have been coping with a restrictive parking policy that—this is the irony—encourages them to reject public transport and drive their cars to work. The parking policy provides for unrestricted parking for 25 per cent of parking spaces and four-hour limited parking for the remainder, with no resident parking permits. Originally, unrestricted parking applied to only 10 per cent of parking spaces, but following a community meeting held in July last year we were able to achieve an increase to 25 per cent. Residents have told me that they are forced to drive their cars to work. They fear that if they park their cars on the street and use public transport they will be faced with an infringement notice when they arrive home. Indeed, a resident who works in Moore Park, across the road from Victoria Park, drives his car to work to avoid a fine.

The Council of the City of Sydney believes the parking policy is necessary to reduce reliance on private motor vehicles. The sad reality is that the policy simply encourages people to use their private vehicles. The council has advised me that the policy matches its parking policy for high-demand areas. Victoria Park is a lovely, new development, but it is hardly a high-demand area when compared with Glebe or Newtown. There are no restaurant strips, shops or theatres. Indeed, there is absolutely no reason for people to go to the area unless they live there or wish to visit someone who lives there. The residents I have spoken to, including Sally Camfield and Bill Coles, want a resident parking permit, and I support them in that aim. On 21 April I organised a community meeting, to which I invited the residents of Victoria Park, the Mayor of the City of Sydney, and representatives of Landcom and Waltcorp. The deputy mayor, John McInerney, attended the meeting on the mayor's behalf.

At the meeting the residents raised their concerns about the policy and stated clearly their desire for resident parking permits. As a result of the meeting the deputy mayor undertook that the Council of the City of Sydney would investigate a resident parking permit scheme, and he indicated that it would take approximately one month to do so. The deputy mayor also stated that the Council of the City of Sydney would cease issuing parking infringements pending council reaching a decision about resident parking permits. This is a welcome move. However, the council has not made a firm commitment to issue resident parking permits, and the one-month deadline is fast approaching. I note that in the past few weeks more than 85 residents have signed my petition to the Lord Mayor asking for a resident parking scheme. The Lord Mayor of Sydney has, in her other job as the honourable member for Bligh, put forward her views on private motor use in the inner city. I hope it is safe to assume that what she states as her policy as the honourable member for Bligh remains her policy as the Lord Mayor. On her web site she states:

While limiting car use is vital to reduce the serious traffic congestion, even people who primarily walk, cycle or use public transport find that they need a car for some of their employment, shopping or recreational needs …

Many residents in new apartments are not warned that Council does not provide on-street resident parking permits for new developments. With the DCP limiting parking spaces in new developments, it is inevitable that new residents will have cars but nowhere to park them.

That is exactly the situation faced by residents. A further demand on her web site states:

Council must explore options within its power, including:
flexible procedures for local needs …

more stringent parking requirements, such as shorter parking times for non-residents;

on street parking allocated solely for residents' cars in particularly difficult areas …

That is exactly what we are asking for. Her demands continue:

possible introduction of parking permits for residents' visitors

The honourable member for Bligh is now in charge of the Sydney city council; she can implement those things that she has previously called on the council to do. I ask the new Mayor of the City of Sydney to implement her own policies, recognise the unique nature of Victoria Park, acknowledge the needs of local residents and provide resident parking permits for people who live in Victoria Park.

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE (Hawkesbury) [12.20 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House and the Minister for Education and Training the impending sale of the historic Grose Wold Public School site and the potential loss of vital and valuable public open space, and a building that is part of the history and heritage of the Hawkesbury district. This matter has been raised directly with the Minister, by letter from Mr Chris Harwood of Grose Wold and by a question on notice from me last week. The two-acre block on which the school is sited was a gift from Sir Phillip Charley to the community in 1901 or 1902. Therefore, it should remain an asset of the community and not be sold off to the highest bidder in an apparent grab for cash by the Department of Education and Training.

The old original school building was moved to the current site in 1902 from its former position in Grose Vale. The building was constructed in about 1880—so it is a very historic building—as the South Kurrajong school, making this building one of the oldest in the Hawkesbury district. It is an extremely important and valuable historic asset. Currently the old school is under the jurisdiction of Chifley College, Mt Druitt. Chifley College no longer needs or wants the school site and has not used it for a few years. As a result, unfortunately, the buildings and the grounds have fallen into disrepair. Chifley College has applied to the Department of Education and Training to have the site sold. It appears that the sale has been approved by the department—shame!—and is currently in the process of being rubber stamped by the Government's Asset Management Committee.

I hope that is not the case. I am sure that the Government would not rubber stamp such an outrageous and plainly short-sighted proposal. The Minister needs to intervene in this process and stop the Asset Management Committee from making a major mistake. The local primary school, Grose View School, was formed in 1976 as an amalgamation of the small Grose Wold and Grose Vale schools. Currently it is straining at the seams with an annually increasing enrolment. It has an excellent reputation within the community. As Chifley College no longer wants or needs the site, and as Grose View School could use the site as a valuable adjunct to its fully utilised facilities, it seems obvious that the correct procedure would be to transfer control of the old school to the principal of Grose View School, Mr David Shuster.

With its spacious grounds, specialist ropes and teamwork building course already installed, the site could be used by a number of community groups such as scouts and guides, subject, of course, to public liability issues, which have not been addressed. There is a distinct lack of that type of venue in the district, and community groups would benefit greatly from use of such a facility. This is a community asset, not only a development site. The community needs that facility. I commend Mr Don Ezzy and Mrs M. Duffy from the Grose Vale Community Centre Inc., Mrs Judy Newland from the Hawkesbury Historical Society and, importantly, the staff and parents of Grose View School for their foresight and dedication to a local community issue. I hope the Minister for Education and Training listens to the people of Grose Vale, who need this local community facility. Do not sell it off: save it for the community.

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote) [12.25 p.m.]: Many people are aware of Sydney's obsession with lifestyle programs. Nearly every night of the week we can watch television programs on how to improve our homes and backyards. There are also dozens of magazines on how to improve our backyards and redesign our personal space. Recently I was able to celebrate an important milestone in one of the world's most important shared spaces. Shared space, or community space, is extremely important to our wellbeing. That milestone was the 125th anniversary of the establishment of the Royal National Park, which was originally created as the lungs of Sydney in response to the desperate need for breathing spaces for the urban inhabitants of nineteenth-century Sydney. The park's original managers, the National Park Trust, set about turning the area into a metropolitan-style park for recreation, with buildings, roads, gardens, exotic plantings and animals such as swamp wallabies and superb lyrebirds.

In 1887 3,700 ornamental trees were planted, and they can still be seen at Audley and along the famous Lady Carrington Walk. Sections of the park were also used by acclimatisation societies concerned with the introduction of exotic animals for economic production. In contrast, 15 years later on the other side of Sydney, Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park became the first national park in Australia set aside purely for nature conservation. I have the honour and the privilege of being the State representative of the Royal National Park and I live in Bundeena, one of the villages located on the edge of the park. My grandfather, Ron McLeay, was also an honorary ranger in the park during the 1950s. That meant my dad and his sister would spend nearly every weekend of their childhood visiting Bundeena and getting out into the park.

Honourable members would understand how proud I am to be associated with that park. I have the opportunity to work with the fantastic rangers, volunteers and users to ensure that for the next 125 years other people will be able to celebrate future anniversaries. One of the important points about the park is its Aboriginal significance. It is a place where Dharawal people once lived. Their history is evidenced in at least 200 recorded Aboriginal sites, including the landmark whale engraving at Jibbon Beach. The park remains one of the most biologically diverse national parks on the continent, with more than 1,000 known plant species and 247 animal species living in the Royal National Park and its neighbouring two reserves. Its diversity lies in its unique geography, which stretches from coast to escarpment. On 26 April 1879 a little less than 7,000 hectares of land on the fringes of Sutherland shire was proclaimed "The National Park". It became the Royal National Park in 1954 after the visit of Queen Elizabeth II.

Today the park covers more than 15,000 hectares, stretching from Stanwell Park to Loftus, skirting the villages of Bundeena and Maianbar and along the Hacking River. The Royal National Park has lived through and experienced some monumental disasters. In 1994, 90 per cent of it was burned in Sydney's January bushfires. Only three years ago it experienced another fire. The outpouring of concern from all over the world in times such as this has been staggering. People love the Royal National Park. Millions have used the 100 kilometres of walking tracks. The 26-kilometre coast track is one of the great walks of Sydney.

The Royal National Park is Australia's oldest national park and one of the most popular with more than 2.5 million visitors each year. On the 125th birthday of the park in company with other important people—including Betty and Bob, and Jack and Jill, also residents of Bundeena—I cut a birthday cake. Those resident are among the much-loved and much-needed volunteers within the park. Rangers Patsy Ross and Peter Hay are representative of the many rangers who are always there to protect the park. We were also joined by two former rangers, one of whom was Bill Senior, who was a ranger for nearly 50 years in the park, and he had some amazing stories to tell that are an important part of its history.

There are many who love and protect the park, including the National Parks Association [NPA], who initiated their great Australian Bushwalk there last year, an event that I have informed the House of on a previous occasion, as well as the many local bush fire brigades. I particularly mention the two captains from my local brigades, Bill from Maianbar and Ian Nightingale from Bundeena. I thank them and all members of the brigades in the Sutherland shire under the leadership of Fire Control Officer John Wood. I also thank the Rural Fire Service brigades from across the State and Australia, who assist in emergencies, the National Parks and Wildlife Service rangers, support staff and volunteers, the cabin communities in Little Garie, Bolga, Burning Palms and Era, the NPA, the bushwalkers, the users, and all those who love and use the park. Congratulations, well done, thank you—and happy birthday to the Royal National Park.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [12.30 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to tell the House about the Reserve Forces Day national parade in Sydney on Sunday 4 July. The Reserve Forces Day Council, whose motto is "Recognising the Value of Reserve Service to the Nation", has as its Patron-in-Chief His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery, AC, CVO, MC (Rtd), who is the Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia. The New South Wales patron is Her Excellency Professor Marie Bashir, AC, the Governor of New South Wales. The National New South Wales Chairman is the Hon. Sir Laurence Street, AC, KCMG, QC. The National Executive Officer and New South Wales Deputy Chairman, who works so hard, is Lieutenant Colonel John Moore, OAM, RFD, ED (Rtd).

The Reserve Forces Day Council in New South Wales was formed in 1998 by volunteers under the chairmanship of the Hon. Sir Laurence Street. The inaugural National Chairman was the late Sir Roden Cutler, VC, KCMG, KCVO, CBE. Sir Laurence is now the National and New South Wales Chairman. In the main the council is made up of former members of the Navy, Army and Air Force who give their time voluntarily to run the Reserve Forces Day activities. The inaugural Reserve Forces Day celebrated the 50th anniversary of the re-forming of the Citizens Military Forces after World War II on 1 July 1948 and the reserve service.

The first parade was held along George Street, Sydney, with 8,000 members participating. Nationally, 12 cities took part in 1998 with 22,000 serving and former members with past and present equipment. It was such a success that many new unit associations were formed and existing associations increased their membership. As a result, parades and celebrations are now run annually throughout Australia. This year six major cities in New South Wales will conduct parades to celebrate the day. The objective of the day is to raise the profile of the Navy, Army and Air Force Reserve, to recognise former and serving reservists, and to thank partners and their employers for their support.

The year 2004 marks 90 years since the outbreak of the Great War and this year we are acknowledging the debt we owe to our wonderful Australian horses. Over 185,000 horses served in the Boer War and the 1914-1918 war. They suffered unimaginable conditions but never failed their riders. Only one horse, a charger named Sandy, that belonged to Major General Sir William Throsby Bridges, who was killed at Gallipoli, was allowed to return home to Australia to take part in his State funeral. There will be at least 90 horses in the 2004 parade, one for each year since 1914. The Light Horse Squadron will consist of a Light Horse troop and two contingents of "civilian recruits in 1914 dress who have come in from the bush to join the Australian Imperial Force, along with some ladies who have brought in their horses to donate to the war effort".

Following the Light Horse there will be horse-drawn wagons and vintage armoured and transport vehicles from World War II up to the current day. This horse and vehicle contingent will be among the ranks of 5,000 former and serving reservists, including bands. They will then continue from College Street down Macquarie Street to a position of honour. Following will be Navy, Army and Air Force bands, comprising both serving and former reservists, banners and flags, together with reservists from the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand.

The Patron-in-Chief, his Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery, AC, CVO, MC (Rtd), Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, will review the parade and take the salute on the dais in front of Parliament House. The United States National Guard is the custodian of the United States Cavalry traditions, as are the Yeomanry of the British Army, the custodian of the British Cavalry. The senior reservist of the British Defence Force, Major General the Duke of Westminster, KG, OBE, TD, DL, a former Yeomanry commanding officer, will also be in attendance. The Prime Minister is a great supporter of the Reserves in this country, and it gives me pleasure to read the message he will deliver on the day:

I am delighted to provide this message for the National Launch of Reserve Forces Day 2004 and to express my appreciation to the men and women who comprise Australia's Reserve Forces for the professional contribution they make to Australia's security.

Reserve Forces remain valued and important partners in the defence and security of Australia and its interests and the promotion of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). In recent years, the traditional role for the Reserves—as a mobilisation base for the ADF in time of major conflict—has been replaced by a true sense of the importance of the Reserves in adapting to meet the requirements of contemporary military operations. The professional endeavour of Reserve units and individuals on recent operations and the development of high readiness Reserve capabilities in each capital city bear testament to this change.

Significantly, 2004 will mark the 90th anniversary of the commencement of World War I. We remember those brave Australians who stepped forward to provide service for their country at a time of great need; a service which is continued by the Reserve Forces of today. I note too that the theme for this Reserve Forces Day will be the value and contribution of the horse, and the role it played in Australia's victories.

On behalf of all Australians, I acknowledge our nation's great debt to the Reserves for their commitment and courage
in continuing a long tradition of distinguished service. To this end, I wish all Reservists and the Reserve Forces Day Council every success in the years ahead.

On a personal note, I congratulate the Reserve Forces Day Council. Those men and women give of their time freely; it takes a large amount of time and effort to organise this event. I also ask that the reservists in the Army, Navy and Air Force in New South Wales participate in this great day. I commend Reserve Forces Day to the House.

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [12.35 p.m.]: It gives me pleasure to speak about business in Penrith, particularly home-based business and small-business. Penrith is home to thousands of home-based businesses. In fact, I joined the honourable member for Keira and the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development at an amazing joint meeting of the Penrith and Hawkesbury home-based business networks. I am pleased to report that the Penrith Valley Economic Development Corporation, which runs the Penrith home-based business network, held another "speed dating for business" at Rosehill Gardens during March, when participants were asked to bring at least 250 business cards, meaning they will make contact with at least 250 other home-based businesses on the day.

On the day at Penrith I made sure I had plenty of business cards and met many local business people. One can imagine the amount of new businesses that represents. By networking, these people are supporting each other and tapping into an important group of consumers who would obviously favour buying from a fellow home-based business operator. I am particularly pleased with the efforts that the State Government and others are making to remove what is potentially the biggest barrier to successful home-based business operators.

I am able to speak about isolation with some authority because I was once a home-based business operator, operating a building consultancy firm mainly doing pre-purchase inspections. When running the business I felt the isolation factor personally, together with professional development and growth, the challenge of meeting legislative requirements and insurance changes and challenges, and establishing new clients—all as a home-based business. Isolation is an important factor. It is incredibly important that home-based businesses operators make contact with each other, whether they be potential clients, potential partners, or people they potentially need for their development. It not only leads to an exchange of ideas and advice but, as is evident in the Penrith example, it gives access to a mini-community of people who might be interested in someone's goods and services.

Penrith has been a major beneficiary of the Government's interest in and commitment to the home-based business sector, and it is exciting to see how the experience in my region is being used to help others. Jane Holdsworth, who is the Penrith Valley Economic Development Corporation Chief Executive Officer, has helped set up the Penrith home-based business network and the Hawkesbury home-based business network, and she is also establishing a network on the South Coast in the Shoalhaven region. Unfortunately, the latest statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics are outdated: they are from 2001. However, they give an idea of the size of the sector, showing that more than 80,000 small businesses in New South Wales are operated from home.

Importantly, those figures show that the growth of the sector far outstrips the growth in many other areas. Now, as more and more businesses are taking advantage of new technology, we can confidently expect that growth will increase at a faster and faster rate. It is also interesting to note that Jane Holdsworth has also said that within the home-based business network at Penrith, 80 per cent do not want to grow, but 20 per cent do. They do not earn a lot of money—under $15,000—but it is their job, their lifestyle and their choice. This is the key: they want to keep themselves in business; they want to make a network. If the Government supports them in their businesses, that is one less job that has to be found. I commend the Minister for Small Business and Regional Affairs for helping to support them with these speed business dating sessions. The Penrith home-based business network believes that knowledge is the key to keeping it informed and to ensuring that it develops professionally.

I would also like to refer to small business in Penrith. Freshwater Environmental Management Pty Ltd is a small business that was established in 2002 to minimise the effect of aquatic plant infestation in waterways and regatta centres. The company developed an innovative aquatic plant-harvesting system utilising cutting-edge aquatic harvesting technology for which it was highly commended and for which it received an industry award in the biotechnology agribusiness innovation section during a dinner in western Sydney. I commend Chris O'Toole, a local person who saw a harvester on the banks of a river in the United States of America, knew that he could do better, and patented his idea. I also commend Mark Newcombe and Tony Young. The company, which employs 11 staff, is experiencing rapid growth, with demand for its system increasing both domestically and internationally. I wish it the best of luck with its negotiations in Athens.

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [12.40 p.m.]: Last Saturday I attended the national launch of Food Allergy Awareness Week 2004 at the Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Conference in Albury. The title of the conference was "Be a MATE"—an acronym for "Make Allergy Treatment Easier". The conference was organised by Anaphylaxis Australia Incorporated [AAI] as part of international awareness activities. AAI is a non-profit organisation that provides information to schools, to health professionals, to the food industry and to government officials about food allergy and educational resources to those affected by food allergy,.

The conference facilitator was Mrs Loretta Buchhorn, an incredibly hard-working Albury-based committee member whose seven-year-old daughter is afflicted by multiple allergies. The conference was officially opened by His Excellency Lieutenant General John Sanderson, Administrator of the Commonwealth of Australia, and included a great line-up of speakers to present the many perspectives of allergy and anaphylaxis treatment and management. The first speaker was Dr Rob Loblay, Director of Allergy at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. He explained that allergies are very common, affecting around one in three people at some time in their lives.

There are many different causes of allergy, and symptoms vary from mild to potentially life threatening. A food allergy is an immune system response to a food protein that the body mistakenly believes is harmful. When the individual eats food containing that protein the immune system releases massive amounts of chemicals, triggering symptoms that can affect a person's breathing, gastrointestinal tract, skin, and/or heart. The symptoms of food allergy can include hives, swelling of the lips and the tongue and face, breathing difficulty, wheezing and coughing, abdominal pain, vomiting, and even heart failure. If left untreated, these symptoms can be fatal.

There are eight foods that account for 90 per cent of allergic reactions: peanuts, tree nuts—such as walnuts, almonds, cashews, pecans, et cetera—fish, shellfish, eggs, milk, sesame and soy. Currently, there is no cure for food allergy and avoidance of the food is the only way to prevent a reaction. Anaphylaxis, the most severe form of allergic reaction, is potentially life threatening. It occurs after exposure to an allergen such as food, insect sting, or medicine to which a person is already extremely sensitive and it results in symptoms such as difficulty in breathing, severe rashes, stomach upset, or a drop in blood pressure and loss of consciousness. Other symptoms include swelling of the face or throat, dizziness, difficulty thinking, tightness in the chest, headache, anxiety, convulsions, vomiting or diarrhoea.

There are several known causes of anaphylaxis. In food they are nuts, seeds, fish and crustaceans in adults, and cows milk, soy, eggs, nuts and wheat in children. Medication can cause anaphylaxis, particularly painkillers and antibiotics, and sometimes X-ray contrast dyes. Insect stings, such as from bees, wasps and jumper ants, and tick bites can also cause allergies. Latex—for example balloons and rubber gloves—can also cause allergies. Herbal remedies such as Echinacea or royal jelly and cold urticaria can cause allergies. Patients with this allergy get hives when exposed to cold air or water and some will experience a drop in blood pressure and go into shock if they go swimming in very cold water Exercise will occasionally result in anaphylaxis, either alone or in combination with food to which the person is allergic.

Dr Loblay showed examples of the reactions and explained how the mast cells in the body release irritant chemicals, including histamine. He explained that people who have had an episode of anaphylaxis must recognise the early signs and know what to do. Effective management includes wearing a Medic Alert bracelet or disc and carrying a self-injectable adrenaline EpiPen. Adrenaline acts as a natural antidote to some of the chemicals released during severe allergic reactions and is considered as first aid for treatment of anaphylaxis.

The President of AAI, Mrs Maria Said, also spoke at the conference. She outlined the need for careful management and emergency treatment, and gave personal examples of how her son had to be aware at all times of the content of food and the possibility of cross-contamination between bowls of different snacks at parties. For instance, he could eat chips from a bowl until other foods, such as peanuts or M&Ms were made available and then he could not risk the chance that someone might touch the chips after touching other food, which would cause him to have an allergic reaction.

Mr Michael Kruger Davis, a school counsellor from Griffith, spoke on departmental guidelines and said that the Be a MATE program was as much for teachers as it was for children. He noted that schools need to be aware of the information about a child if there is a risk of anaphylaxis because children share lunches and there are class parties, and teachers need to be prepared during class excursions. Children in the 10-15 age group are most at risk of fatality and it is important that they do not hide their allergy and that their friends know what to do.

The conference, which was sponsored by the city of Albury and the Commercial Club, was supported by many local businesses. Local paediatrician Dr John Douglas was the master of ceremonies and Mr Michael Vassili, a solicitor in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the final speaker, dealt with legal issues relating to the care of children with anaphylaxis in school and child care. I congratulate Mrs Buchhorn and the AAI on organising a successful conference in Albury. I wish them well in educating young people and the wider community of the need to be aware of allergies and their treatment.

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [12.45 p.m.]: I wish to advise the House about matters of great importance to many of my constituents. In particular, they involve issues in an important book published this year by Peter Manning entitled Dog Whistle Politics and Journalism. Abe Quadan, a constituent of mine and a well-known and well-respected member of the Liverpool community, gave me a copy of that book, accompanied by a warm endorsement. The author of the monograph is Peter Manning, adjunct professor of journalism at the University of Technology, Sydney [UTS] and a part-time teacher. Peter Manning is a former Sydney Morning Herald reporter, a former head of news and current affairs at ABC television, and a former head of current affairs at Seven Network. The book was published by the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism and by UTS.

The title of the monograph refers to dog-whistle politics. A quote from journalist Mike Steketee is used to define dog-whistle politics as "where a subliminal message, not literally apparent in the words used, is heard by sections of the community". Manning analyses the news coverage of the Sydney Morning Herald, including the Sun-Herald, and the Daily Telegraph, including the Sunday Telegraph, for a two-year period—being the 12 months before and the 12 months after 11 September 2001. This includes not just the events of 11 September 2001 but also the Tampa issues, gang rapes, and the Palestinian intafada. Manning writes:

This paper uses the same sheep farmer's image to talk of "dog whistle" journalism, in relation to the news coverage in two Sydney newspapers, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph. In this context the expression refers to the layers of meanings that come with the words, phrases, sentences and context of the reports produced by journalists in these two newspapers.

He also refers to other writers on related subjects, including Collins, Noble, Poynting and Tabar's Kebabs, Kids, Cops and Crime: Youth, Ethnicity and Crime, to which I have previously referred in this place, Robert Fisk's Pity the Nation, from which I have also quoted several times in this place, and David Marr and Marian Wilkinson's Dark Victory, another impressive book. All those books are important in their own right. Most of all, however, Peter Manning refers to the work of Edward Said, a particularly significant author who died only comparatively recently. There are two separate approaches adopted by Manning. One is a statistical analysis of a sample of the two newspapers in the relevant period and the second is a literary analysis of some of the 12,000 or more articles from the two papers during the relevant period.

At first glance some of his propositions seem counter-intuitive, but that is why this sort of rigorous analysis is necessary to replace commonplace, but inaccurate, assumptions. For example, most of the portraits in the media of Arabic and Muslim people come from foreign news—not, as I would have thought, from Australian communities. That is then coupled with a finding that almost 60 per cent of the time Arabic and Muslim people are associated in news reporting with terror and violence. The quantitative analysis goes some way towards explaining the development of inaccurate generalisations about Muslims and Arabic people in Australia that verge on racism. Manning writes:

If such sweeping generalisations were made of Jews, black Americans, black Australian or Asians, they would be condemned out of hand as absurd.

Another counter-intuitive comment is that in the coverage of the Palestine-Israel conflict there was a greater diversity of views in the Daily Telegraph than there was in the Sydney Morning Herald. I do not have the time to go into the details of all of Manning's arguments. I can, however, record some of his conclusions:

The sample analysis suggest that most images of Arabic or Muslim people come from international news, rather than local. Within the band of international news, most images come from the Middle East (rather than the Islamic region to our north) and, within the Middle East most of the images come from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Within the band of local news, most images by far of Arab people and people of Muslim belief came from coverage of the asylum seekers heading to Australia's northern borders.

In his classic analysis of Western notions of Arabs and of Islam in Orientalism, Edward Said laid out a set of nineteenth century images of the 'orient'—'its sensuality, its tendency to despotism, its aberrant mentality, its habits of inaccuracy, and its backwardness'. In Covering Islam he focused on contemporary, largely American images of Islam, particularly its "irrationality" and fondness for "terror". This paper suggests the two Australian newspapers examined here fit well within the tradition.

This study suggests that Sydney journalism, in foreign and domestic reporting, has picked up the imperial inheritance with full force. Yet there is an ambiguity still to be explored. Australia too, was a colonised space. It was an outpost of empire in one sense and subjugated to the empire in another. The Irish in Australian history recognised the contradiction early—for obvious reasons. The Aboriginal movement in the twentieth century made the full force of imperialism in our culture painfully obvious. Now another group, having experienced British and French imperialism—the Arabic population of Sydney, especially the Palestinians—are moving to object to the dominant narratives. This monograph suggests the representations of Arabic and Muslim people in our major print media are so distorted as to give good grounds for major challenge.

The close contextual reading, sometimes assisted by the statistical analysis, elicits some clear patterns of portrayal.

I could spend a lot more time dealing with this matter because it is a particularly significant and important book. I would commend Manning's book, not just to members in this place but also to everyone concerned with Sydney's media and with the nature of our society. It is important that the work is raised here, although given its subject matter there is a risk that it might not receive as much media attention as it ought.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [12.50 p.m.]: The announcement this week that Biosecurity Australia's Import Risk Analysis [IRA] Appeals Panel rejected several producer appeals seeking severe restrictions on imports of uncooked pig meat will, indeed, be the final nail in the coffin for pork producers, not only in my electorate of Tamworth but across New South Wales. Today I inform the House that comments made by the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries in relation to the devastating effect of allowing imported pork meat into Australia could not have been more accurate. Ian MacDonald described the IRA appeals panel decision to uphold a ruling allowing pig meat into Australia as effectively signing a death notice for the industry.

Essentially, producers have two well-justified fears. This decision will not only allow countries that subsidise their pork producers to undercut Australian producers already hamstrung by drought and high feed prices, it could well expose Australia's stock to exotic disease. The spectre of this prospect has forced one of the industry's biggest bacon producers, who happens to be based in my electorate, into demise. The opening of Australia's doors to internationally grown pork has slammed the lid on production for Rod Hands, a Tamworth producer who has invested 20 years in the industry—and his father invested 40 years—to build up a family business with an annual turnover of $7 million. Mr Hands told me this week that his family will exit the industry because of the risk of disease from these imports compounding the effects of drought and the rising dollar's impact on the export market.

Mr Hands has halted his 1,500 sow breeding program so that by January next year the 17,000 pigs on his three farms, which employ 15 people and subcontract several families in towns like Walcha, Bingara and Gunnedah, will be gone. Let me stress this fact: an enterprise generating a turnover of $7 million in the Tamworth region will simply disappear as the farm will be sold stripped bare of stock. The Federal Government has literally sold out Mr Hands, his family and 15 employees. Those additional families who relied upon the extra income generated from growing out the Hand's pigs have also been hung out to dry.

The impact of this decision will be felt by every one of the 800 pork producers in New South Wales, 95 of whom are in my electorate. Down the road near Scone a major producer at Parkville is also in the process of closing down an operation of 2,500 breeding sows. To put it in perspective, the total sow population in Australia stands at around 300,000, and I am told the industry's breeding companies are predicting an estimated 100,000 sows will exit the industry in the next 12 months as a result of this decision. In a submission in the recently handed down report of the inquiry by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs Committee into Biosecurity Australia's risk analysis of pig meat imports and Australia's decision to approve them, Australian Pork Ltd pointed out that the pork industry nationwide generates over $1.1 billion in household income while Australian pork export markets are valued at over $228 million per year.

In its inquiry report, the committee recommended, first, that the animal and plant quarantine director withdraw the determination to allow pig meat imports and, second, that the director be asked to invoke a precautionary clause under the world trade rules because the risk of the exotic pig disease post-weaning multisystemic wasting syndrome [PMWS] is too great. Australia is one of only four or five countries that do not have this disease. In a submission to the inquiry Australian Pork Ltd suggested that the Australian industry would be expected to lose about $81 million in sales revenue and $6.4 million in household income, and forego almost $17.6 million in value adding, based on the devastating economic impact of PMWS in the North American and European pork industries.

The published facts show that the science on PMWS is incomplete. There is no real scientific answer as to how it spreads and the agents that allow it to spread. Producers like Mr Hands take absolutely no comfort from assurances by David Banks, the General Manager of Biosecurity, that any countries with cases of pork respiratory or wasting disease would have to cook their meat prior to export. In their inquiry the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs Committee could not accept that risk management protocols such as cooking the meat would lessen the risk of an outbreak of PMWS. I also take the view that it is a disease risk not worth taking. There should be absolutely no risk to the pristine status of Australia's pork industry.

Biosecurity Australia has made this decision with absolutely no consideration for the livelihood of producers and the communities they support. It is a case of the pig industry being completely sold out. On a national scale the impact will be significant but its effects will be most keenly felt in country communities, especially in the electorate of Tamworth. Rural New South Wales cannot afford this loss, and I call on the State Government to leave no stone unturned in making a contribution to having this decision reversed.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): I shall now, in accordance with the sessional orders—

Mr Peter Debnam: Mr Acting-Speaker—

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! Pursuant to the sessional orders I will now adjourn the House. The only way the honourable member for Vaucluse can avoid that is by seeking to move, under Standing Order 405, that standing and sessional orders be suspended. However, that would require the leave of the House, and it is unlikely that leave would be granted. I have no option but to do precisely what the sessional orders direct me to do, that is, leave the chair upon the conclusion of private members' statements.

Private members' statements noted.