Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 22 June 2004, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Mr Speaker laid upon the table a copy of the Budget Estimates 2004-05, Volumes 1 and 2 of Budget Paper No. 3.

Ordered to be printed.

Bills introduced and read a first time.

Mr BOB CARR (Maroubra—Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [11.05 a.m.]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

Pursuant to resolution debate adjourned.

[The Hon. Michael Egan was conducted by the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms onto the floor of the Chamber.]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advise honourable members that the House has requested the attendance of the Hon. Michael Rueben Egan, MLC. I remind members to extend the usual courtesies to him and listen to his speech in silence.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.06 a.m.]: The measures I announced in the April mini-budget had a very clear purpose—to ensure that this year's budget was able to deliver significant additional funding for vital front-line services.

Given the financial pressures imposed on us, that has not been an easy task.

First and foremost among these difficulties is the continuing short-changing of New South Wales by the Federal Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order. The Treasurer will be heard in silence.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: It is a pity that they would not stand up for New South Wales rather than for their Federal colleagues. Since handing over the collection of income taxes to the Federal Government during the Second World War, the States have been compensated by general revenue assistance grants.

These grants currently account for around 26 per cent of our revenues, and a much higher proportion of the revenues of other States and Territories.
In the last three years, the other States and Territories have benefited from a nominal increase of 19 per cent in these payments, while New South Wales has received an increase of less than half of a per cent.

In real per capita terms, the other States have received an increase of 6 per cent, while a reduction of 9 per cent has been imposed on New South Wales.

In just four years, the funds taken from us by the Federal Government, and given to the other States, have increased by almost $800 million a year.

The subsidy from New South Wales to the other States is now almost $3 billion a year.

Queensland already gets too much help from New South Wales, but let me give them just a little bit more. If they want to boost their tourist numbers from New South Wales, here is a good advertising pitch for them: Come to Queensland, and be amazed at how we spend $829 million of your taxes.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Substitute $320 million for Western Australia, $466 million for South Australia, $458 million for Tasmania and $912 million for the Northern Territory, and you have a good, simple tourist advertising template for all the mendicant States and Territories.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The second major pressure is on the wages front. Over the last eight years the Government has delivered wage increases to our public sector work force of between 35 and 45 per cent in nominal dollars, and between 13 and 25 per cent in after-inflation real terms.

Our wages policy makes ample allowance for the continued real maintenance of these very significant increases, and, I might say, accords with the wages policy of other State governments.

Recent decisions by the Industrial Relations Commission for nurses and teachers, in excess of the Government's wages policy, have added nearly $500 million to the ongoing level of annual expenses.

In addition, underlying revenues from transfer duties are expected to decline by around $400 million as the overheated housing market returns to more normal and sustainable levels.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Notwithstanding these financial difficulties, we were determined to deliver significant additional funding for our front-line services.

In the mini-budget, I pledged substantial additional funding for hospitals, for schools, for public transport and community services.

This budget delivers in spades, with increases over last year's budget of:

_$717 million more for education and schools;

_$707 million more for health and hospitals;

_$350 million more for passenger rail transport;

_$100 million more for community services and children; and

_$110 million more for older people and those with disabilities;

_and a record $30 billion program of new capital investment and infrastructure over the next four years.

It is another fair dinkum Labor budget that helps children and families, provides more teachers and nurses, and pumps $30 billion into building a stronger New South Wales.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lane Cove will come to order.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I will say it again: It is another fair dinkum Labor budget.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members will listen to the Treasurer in silence.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: And at the same time it is a budget that will buttress the State's financial and economic strength, with the State's net worth rising to $124 billion—a 78 per cent increase since 1995—and the ratio of net financial liabilities to Gross State Product continuing to decline.

EXPENDITURES

I turn now to our recurrent expenses for 2004-05.

Our total expenses in the coming year will amount to $37,438 million—a 6.4 per cent increase, or $2,239 million more than last year's budget.

Education

The coming year will see our school children benefit with better paid teachers and more of them.

The education budget will increase by $717 million, bringing the total education expense allocation to $9,164 million.

This increase will fully fund the recent 12 per cent pay increase awarded to teachers. In other words the teachers' pay rise will be fully funded by additional budget funds and not from existing education resources.

This, of course, would not have been possible without the revenue and expenditure measures announced in the mini-budget.

By the end of the year, we will have employed 800 of the additional 1,500 teachers we are hiring for lowering class sizes.

Next year will also see 21 new public preschools, further reductions in class sizes in the early years of schooling, and additional funds to minimise the difficulties caused by disruptive students.

Over the next four years $58 million will be spent to provide a wider range of placement and support options for disruptive students, including $12 million for 20 new suspension centres.

Also, over the next four years:

_$250 million will be allocated towards the professional development of teachers and ensuring an adequate supply of teachers in key learning areas; and

_almost $800 million is being allocated to various technology initiatives, including the Computers in Schools Program, upgrading bandwidth in schools and TAFE colleges and the provision of email and other e-services for teachers and students.

In addition to the $9.2 billion allocated for education expenses, $447 million will also be invested in 2004-05 on new school and TAFE facilities.

Health and Hospitals

Over the next four years an additional $4.5 billion will be spent on health and hospital services, starting with an additional $707 million in 2004-05.

This includes an additional $46 million raised by the increased duty on poker machine profits which I announced in last year's budget.

In 2004-05 the health budget for annual expenses alone will total $9,974 million. That is well over $1,400 for every person—every man, woman and child—in New South Wales.
In the last two years we have increased the number of nurses permanently employed by the New South Wales public health system by approximately 3,000.

During the year an additional 973 hospital beds will be provided, including an additional 563 permanent beds and 410 to cope with additional winter demands. Funding for these beds includes money to recruit additional nurses and medical staff.

Over the next four years an additional $241 million is dedicated to improving mental health services, including an additional $24.6 million in 2004-05.

This will provide additional mental health beds, additional supported accommodation and outreach support services, additional mental health facilities in the Corrections system, and more community based mental health workers.

Our new Cancer Institute will see a huge leap forward in 2004-05 with a seven-fold increase in funding to $35 million, increasing to $100 million a year in 2006-07. I can inform the House that tomorrow the Premier and Minister Sartor will be releasing the State's first cancer plan, the first cancer plan of any Government in Australia.

These funds will mean better clinical cancer treatment, and better detection, prevention and research.

An additional $10 million in 2004-05 and subsequent years is also being allocated for the new Clinical Excellence Commission and for the establishment of Professional Practice Units in each area health service in order to improve clinical standards in all of our health facilities.

In the near future, the Minister for Health will be announcing details of a reduction in the number of area health services aimed at streamlining the health system and reducing administrative costs.

I give the pledge now that all of those savings will be ploughed back into front-line hospital services.

The Government is also examining how clinical networks can be expanded by better linking major public hospitals with district hospitals.

In addition, the coming year will see a record $600 million invested in new hospital and health facilities.

Helping People in Need

There is a huge gulf between the values of a Labor government and those of our Liberal and National Party opponents.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore will come to order.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The difference between our commitment to child and family services and theirs says it all.

Just 15 months ago the Leader of the Opposition was desperate to explain how he would fund his reckless raft of election promises.

Mr John Brogden: Why are you talking about it?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Leader of the Opposition will find out. Just two days before polling day, and under the cloak of the media focus on that day's outbreak of war in Iraq, the Opposition announced it would dump the Government's $1.2 billion, six-year program to boost child protection and family support.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. The Treasurer will be heard in silence.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: As I said last year, and will say again next year, " … the Opposition's "betrayal of children will not be forgotten. The Opposition, and the Opposition leader in particular, will wear it forever like the mark of Cain."
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer will be heard in silence. I call the honourable member for Gosford to order.

[Interruption]

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

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am sorry members of the Opposition do not like it, but I will remind them of it each and every year. I am pleased to report that in the coming year the Department of Community Services will receive another $100 million budget boost to further assist children and families at risk.

A key aim is to provide help and advice to the parents of every newborn child, especially those who may be vulnerable to family breakdown and child neglect.

Major initiatives in the coming year will include the employment of 100 new child protection and early intervention caseworkers and a further 50 caseworkers and support staff in out-of-home and foster services for children.

In the coming year it is expected that the department will deal with around 190,000 child protection reports and will provide out-of-home care services to some 16,000 children and young people.

The Department of Ageing, Disabilities and Home Care will also receive an additional budget allocation of $110 million. This includes an extra $5 million to provide more in-home support to people with a disability, $3 million more to assist those with a disability who are displaced due to boarding house closures and $2.7 million to provide a broader range of intensive support options for children with a disability.

An additional $31 million will be provided under the joint Commonwealth-State Home and Community Care Program to assist frail older people, and people with a disability, to continue to live independently.

In addition to the $49 million being allocated to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, a new program, Two Ways Together, is being established to give a new impetus and strategic framework to our work with Aboriginal communities.

Two Ways Together will encompass existing programs, and will also benefit from an additional $40 million over four years, provided through a number of agencies. It will provide very practical initiatives to reduce incarceration and family violence, improve literacy, numeracy and school retention rates, provide 65,000 tests for middle ear infections in children, increase Aboriginal employment and improve living conditions.

Public Transport

The budget provides more than $2.5 billion in grants for public transport, including rail, bus and ferry services, local and community transport and fare concessions for students and pensioners.

An additional $350 million will be available for passenger rail, comprising $150 million extra for operating subsidies and increased maintenance, and a $200 million increase in capital expenditure by RailCorp.

Natural Resources

Last year major reforms were introduced to better manage the State's natural resources and land use planning system. These will result not only in better service delivery, but also significant budget savings in 2004-05 and subsequent years.

In the coming year $681 million will be allocated for the expenses of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources and other agencies within that portfolio, including almost $130 million for catchment management authorities.

Today, I also announce funding to make possible a new approach to deal with necessary, but difficult, reductions in farmers' entitlements to groundwater.

We are looking for the trifecta: to be fair to farmers, fair to the environment, and fair to regional communities.
In addition to a previous commitment of $20 million, this budget provides $38.4 million to be spent in 2005-06 for the New South Wales Government's share of the cost of structural adjustment assistance for irrigators who will lose some of their water to the environment.

Where possible, assistance will be weighted in favour of farmers who are using their water entitlements productively over those licence holders with unused, or under utilised, entitlements.

We are confident that the Commonwealth will match our funding and join us, and the industry, in tackling this very serious problem.

Our plan will assist farmers and their communities in the upper and lower Namoi, Gwydir, lower Murrumbidgee, lower Lachlan, lower Macquarie and lower Murray.

Other major new expenditure in 2004-05 includes $115 million over the next five years, as the New South Wales share of achieving the return of 500 gigalitres of water to the Murray-Darling Basin.

Environment

This budget once again takes some of the bounty provided by a strong economy and uses it to protect and improve our natural environment.

The new Department of Environment and Conservation will receive $453 million for expenses in the coming year.

This includes $294 million to manage national parks and wildlife and develop the world-renowned protected area network, and $57 million for major environmental protection programs.

The Government will this year purchase areas of high conservation value in the Illawarra escarpment to help complete an unbroken chain of reserves from the Hunter to the Illawarra.

Around $35 million is earmarked to improve conservation and recovery of resources, including minimising waste and promoting sustainability.

This allocation includes $1 million to crack down on individuals and companies who are either too lazy, or too cheap, to properly dispose of their waste.

The department also has $35 million to ensure environmental protection and conservation efforts by government and private industry are underpinned by sound policy and strong science.

The Zoological Parks Board will receive more than $24 million to continue the rebuilding of Taronga and Western Plains Zoos and undertake research and public education.

In addition to spending through the Department of Environment and Conservation, the Environmental Trust has $25 million to spend in the coming year and the Waste Fund has $29 million.

Nearly $31 million has also been provided to manage and develop the State's major botanical gardens and to provide associated scientific and horticultural research and education.

Sydney Water, Hunter Water and the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation will spend $48 million on environmental protection in the coming year.

Sydney Water will invest $75 million to tackle sewer overflows in 27 sewer systems in Sydney, the Blue Mountains and the Illawarra, $81 million to upgrade sewerage treatment plants, $51 million to connect communities to the reticulated sewerage system and $17.5 million to reduce nutrient loads going into the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system.

Regional and Rural

I am delighted to report that, once again, country communities will receive a deservedly large slice of public works.
Around 26 per cent of the State's population lives outside Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong.

That 26 per cent of the State's population in country New South Wales will get not 26 per cent but 36 per cent of the $8.6 billion capital works and road maintenance budget.

In addition to this massive capital investment, much of which I will detail in great detail later, the budget provides substantial support for the basic services on which regional and country communities depend.

This budget lifts health funding for people living in regional and rural New South Wales to more than double the level it was when we took office.

Nearly $2.8 billion of this year's record health budget is allocated to rural and regional New South Wales, an increase of $181.5 million on last year, and a phenomenal 106 per cent increase on 1995.

In the coming year, 62 more ambulance officers will be recruited to work in rural communities. Around 25 ambulance stations will receive extra staff, with Ballina and Tuncurry becoming 24-hour-a-day on-duty stations.

The budget also contains $173 million to rebuild rural and regional hospitals and buy health care equipment.

In education, regional and rural New South Wales will benefit from $3.5 billion to reduce class sizes, expand technology, roll out literacy and numeracy programs and increase teachers' salaries.

More than $74 million has been set aside for specific rural and regional programs including distance education centre support for 2,800 students, living away from home allowances for nearly 750 students and isolated school grants to more than 16,000 students in 185 schools.

The record $2 billion police budget will support 4,890 police in country areas, and that figure of 4,890 police in country areas is 1,295 more than when the Coalition was in office.

Major building works are under way on country police stations. Upgrades funded in the budget include $3.1 million for Griffith police station, $5.9 million for Muswellbrook and $7.2 million for Armidale.

The Rural Fire Service will receive a hefty 16 per cent boost in funding to $150 million, allowing it to buy more than 200 new and high-quality reconditioned tankers.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bega will come to order.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: It has been estimated that natural disasters cost the Australian community more than $1 billion a year.

This year, with the Commonwealth, we are establishing the Natural Disaster Mitigation Program, funded with $35.7 million over the next four years.

We will apply science and commonsense to help local communities anticipate, and mitigate, the damage of floods and fire.

With the drought still parching most of the State, the budget provides for continued assistance payments to farming families and their communities.

We have allocated an initial $9.8 million to drought relief, with a further $25 million provision available in the Treasurer's Advance, if needed.

If the drought continues, we will continue our assistance measures until the rain comes.

The Government will continue to provide financial assistance to cart water to ensure that no town hit by drought runs out of water.

A record $1.5 billion will be spent on rural and regional roads. This is 64 per cent of the roads capital and maintenance budget that is being spent in rural and regional New South Wales and that is a $198 million, or 15 per cent increase, on the level of expenditure on regional and rural roads on 2003-04.
The Pacific Highway will receive $197 million, the Great Western Highway $48 million and the Princes Highway $62 million.

The budget once again includes more than $60 million for RTA maintenance—primarily on country roads—which has been funded by increases in the Sydney Harbour Bridge toll and other user charges announced a few years ago.

The new Department of Primary Industries will receive $370 million for expenses in 2004-05, with:

_$257 million allocated to agricultural research, extension services, education and regulation;

_$54 million for fisheries research, conservation and management; and

_$60 million for mineral resource assessment, and environmental and mine safety regulation.

RECORD INVESTMENT IN NEW INFRASTRUCTURE

The public works and infrastructure program that I'm announcing today is by far the biggest in the State's history—not only in nominal dollars, but also in real, after-inflation dollars.

As I will detail shortly, it is a massive building program that will benefit almost every nook and cranny of our great State.

Bob the Builder will be everywhere.

Over the last four years we have spent $25 billion on new assets and infrastructure—a massive investment over that period.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Over the next four years we will invest almost $30 billion in new assets, such as new and upgraded schools and TAFE colleges, health and hospital facilities, roads and public transport, and on the assets of public utilities.

That is more than $20 million invested every single day of the year in creating and sustaining jobs and improving the social fabric and economic strength of the State.

It's a huge investment by any measure—$20 million a day on new public works.

In the coming year alone this new investment will total $7,463 million—$3,614 million in the general government sector, and $3,852 million in government businesses and utilities.

Public Transport Investments

Investment in public transport is high on our priority list.

The provision of 498 new airconditioned rail carriages through a public private partnership, and the $1 billion Rail Clearways Program will be our major new focus over the next five years.

As we all know, Sydney is one of the most beautiful cities of the world. But what helps to make it so beautiful—its peninsulas, its bays and its waterways—also makes it extraordinarily difficult to service with rail transport.

As a result, over the last century Sydney has developed one of the most interconnected and complex rail networks in the world.

That means a small problem in one part of the network is quickly amplified throughout the whole city.

The Rail Clearways Program, disentangling the existing 14 interconnected lines into five separate clearways, is the solution.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer will be heard in silence.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: In the coming year $80 million will be invested for Rail Clearways projects, including work on the $55 million Bondi Junction turnback, the $17 million Macdonaldtown turnback, the $40 million Revesby turnback, a new $60 million platform at Hornsby and the $145 million duplication of the Cronulla line.

Other major capital investments for the coming year include:

_$495 million for the Chatswood to Epping rail link;

_$18 million for Easy Access station upgrades;

_$102 million for new Millennium rail cars;

_$110 million for new outer suburban and Hunter Valley rail cars;

_$18 million to install vigilance control systems;

_$36 million to upgrade existing rolling stock;

_$25 million for information technology improvements; and

_$50 million for other plant and equipment.

The State Transit Authority will also be outlaying $74 million on the purchase of 172 new buses for the Sydney and Newcastle networks.

Investment in Road Infrastructure

In the coming year, over $2,400 million will be spent on road maintenance and management and the construction of new roads.

During the year $80 million will be allocated for the North West Transitway and funds will be allocated for planning and/or construction of major road projects in Sydney, Prestons to West Baulkham Hills, Lane Cove, Strathfield to Haberfield, Wahroonga to Carlingford, Glenwood, Seven Hills, Baulkham Hills, Kellyville, Rouse Hill, Vineyard, Mulgrave, Hoxton Park, Liverpool, Prestons, Ingleburn, Narellan, Bangor, Menai, Alfords Point, Green Square, Mosman, Woodford to Hazelbrook, Lawson, Wentworth Falls, Leura, Katoomba, Karuah, Bulahdelah, Nabiac, Rainbow Flat, Jones Island, Coopernook, Kew, Bonville, Coffs Harbour to Woolgoolga, Ballina, Billinudgel, Mooball, Bulli, Bellambi, Dunmore, Kiama, Pambula, Beresfield, Sandgate, Salt Ash, Mayfield, Teralba, Maitland, Aberdeen, Mount White, Erina, Wamberal, Kincumber, Wyong, Ourimbah, Clifton and Coalcliff, Nowra, Queanbeyan, Port Macquarie, Grafton, Wiangaree, Alstonville, Black Mountain, Armidale, Moree, Coonabarabran, Parkes, Towrang, Gundagai, Tarcutta, Albury, Gerogery, Ardlethan, Corowa, Euston, Echuca and Lidsdale.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lachlan to order for the second time. I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order. Members will listen to the Treasurer in silence.

Mr Carl Scully: Let's hear about those projects again.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Would you like to hear them again? Wait until I get to the schools!

Education and Schools Investments

The Department of Education and Training will receive almost $450 million for new capital investments in 2004-05.

This will fund major new school projects at Airds High School, Ashtonfield Public School, Blacktown South Public School, Blakehurst Public School, Brisbane Water Secondary College, Burraneer Bay Public School, Canley Vale Public School, Caringbah High School, Chipping Norton Public School, Endeavour Sports High, Fairvale High School, Figtree High School, Hamlyn Terrace Public School, Holroyd High School, Hunters Hill High School, Illawarra Sports High School, Jindabyne Central School, Kiama High School, Kooringal High School, Merimbula Public School, Milton Public School, Murray Farm Public School, Muswellbrook South Public School, North Sydney Boys High, Smithfield West Public School, The Hills Sports High, Tuggerah Lakes College and Vardy Road Public School.

Almost $190 million will be spent on ongoing major works at Alexandria Park Community School, Anna Bay Public School, Bankstown Public School, Banora Point Public School, Bega High School, Berala Public School, Blakehurst Public School, Blaxcell Street Public School, Blue Haven Public School, Brisbane Water Secondary College, Bulahdelah Central School, Callaghan College, Chatswood High, Cleveland Street Intensive English High School, Denistone East Public School, Dorrigo High School, Dulwich High School, Eastwood Heights Public School, Frederickton Public School, Glenbrook Public School, Granville Boys High, Harbord Public School, Helensburgh Public School, Holroyd School, the Hunter Performing Arts High School, James Ruse Agricultural High School, Jindabyne Central School, Lightening Ridge Central School, Maroubra Junction Public School, Marrickville High School, Merimbula Public School, Milton Public School, Moree Secondary College, Mullumbimby High School, Northlakes High School, Pennant Hills High School, Penrith Public School, Rose Bay Secondary College, Sefton High School, Soldiers Point Public School, Strathfield Girls High, Sydney Secondary College, Tuggerah Lakes College, Tweed River High School, West Pennant Hills Public School, Westfields Sports High and, last but not least, Westmead Public School.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will come to order.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: An amount of $80 million is also being allocated for TAFE projects, with major new works being commenced at Armidale, Campbelltown, Enmore, Glendale, Lismore, Liverpool, Mount Druitt, Newcastle, Orange, Padstow, Ultimo, Wauchope and Wollongong, and for major ongoing projects at Armidale, Bankstown, Blue Mountains, Goulburn, Grafton, Granville, Meadowbank, Mount Druitt, Mudgee, Northern Beaches, Shellharbour, Ultimo, Wagga Wagga, Wollongong and Wyong.

Health and Hospital Investments

Almost $2,400 million will be spent on the health capital works program over the next four years, with $600 million to be spent in 2004-05, an increase of $143 million on the 2003-04 budget.

Approximately 10 per cent of this spending is funded by local area health services from donations and local asset sales, and will be spent on a range of local priorities such as the acquisition of imaging equipment.

Over $23 million in the coming year will be allocated to cancer care facilities, with the establishment of radiotherapy services at Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie, the replacement of linear accelerators at Royal Prince Alfred and Liverpool hospitals and in the Macarthur region.

Almost $13 million will be spent in 2004-05, as part of a four-year $112 million program, on rural hospital and community health facilities to ensure that country people can be treated closer to home.

Planning will also commence for major hospital redevelopments in Queanbeyan, Bathurst and Orange-Bloomfield.

Over $360 million has also been allocated in 2004-05 to continue works on on-going major health projects announced in previous budgets.

Other Social and Economic Infrastructure Investments

Other major capital allocations include $404 million in the area of public order and safety—$110 million for Corrective Services facilities, $76 million for courts and associated facilities, $38 million for Juvenile Justice facilities, $43 million for fire stations and firefighting appliances and facilities and $94 million for police capital works.

The police capital works allocation includes $700,000 for the planning of a major program of police station renewal to commence with an allocation of $40 million in 2005-06.
Electricity utilities will invest over $1.4 billion on plant upgrades and network infrastructure and over $600 million will be invested in environmental protection and infrastructure needs by Sydney Water and Hunter Water.

Over $310 million is also being invested in social housing projects.

REVENUES

I now turn to the Government's revenues which are expected to total $38.3 billion in 2004-05.

This is an increase of $2.1 billion, or 5.7 per cent over last year's budget estimate, and 2.4 per cent over the latest estimates for 2003-04.

These increases compare with an expected 5.9 per cent nominal growth in gross State product in 2004-05.

Our revenues are expected to fall to 12.6 per cent of gross State product, compared to 13.1 per cent in 2003-04 and 13.5 per cent in 2002-03.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will come to order.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I should point out that apart from payroll tax, our largest source of State taxation is transfer duty on property transactions. Even with the changes announced in the mini-budget, our total transfer duty receipts in 2004-05 are likely to be no greater than in 2003-04.

That implies an underlying fall in transfer duties of about $400 million in the coming year.

Transfer duty receipts can both be extremely volatile and, as experience in all States shows, very difficult to predict.

Higher than anticipated transfer duty revenues would undoubtedly be a boost to budget revenues, but the wider interests of the State's economy and society will be much better served by a moderation rather than tearaway increases in home prices.

While the major purpose of the mini-budget measures was to raise the revenue to protect improved funding of front-line services from the impact of federal funding cuts and higher than budgeted wage awards, an ancillary benefit was to tilt the balance in favour of first home seekers and discourage property speculation.

A decade ago, housing finance for investors and first home buyers was roughly equal. But by January this year the proportion of total loans going to first homeowners had halved, and the proportion going to investors had more than doubled. And meanwhile the cost of housing almost trebled.

[Interruption]

There is a great deal of difference between a speculator and an investor in residential accommodation and I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition does not know the difference.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: These facts underline the fairness of the measures we took in the mini-budget to impose a 2.25 per cent vendor duty on the sale of investment properties and completely abolish stamp duty for almost all first-time home buyers. I hear the Leader of the Opposition saying, it is a disgrace. It is not a disgrace for the almost 50,000 first home buyers who will be able to purchase their first home in the coming year because of our abolition of stamp duty to benefit them.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore will come to order.

Budget Result

I now turn to the budget result and the State's financial position.
At the time of the mini-budget I estimated that the net lending result—in other words, the measure that New South Wales, unlike some of the other jurisdictions, regards as the main budget result—would be a deficit of around $300 million in 2004-05.

At the time of the half-yearly budget review in December, and in the April mini-budget calculations I had already factored into both the 2003-04 and 2004-05 projections the full cost of the Industrial Relations Commission's 5.5 per cent interim increase for teachers.

Pending the final decision of the commission, I had also factored in a further 3 per cent wage cost for 2004-05, that is, a full provision for a total teachers' wage rise of 8.5 per cent.

The commission ultimately awarded a 12 per cent increase—5.5 per cent from 1 January, 3 per cent from 1 July and a final 3.5 per cent from 1 January 2005.

The final determination therefore presented the Government with an additional cost of 10.25 per cent, rather than 8.5 per cent, in the 2004-05 financial year—1.75 per cent or $100 million more than we had budgeted for.

As a result of the Government's decision to fully fund the teachers' pay rise by allocating additional funds to the Department of Education and Training, the 2004-05 budget deficit is now estimated to be $379 million.

The operating result, however, is the measure which indicates whether the year's budget operations are adding to or reducing the Government's net worth.

The operating result remains strong, and over the next four years is expected to contribute over $5 billion to the State's net worth.

In 1995, the State's net worth amounted to $70 billion.

It now stands at $124 billion—the highest net worth of any government in Australia, Commonwealth or State—and is expected to grow to at least $130 billion by 2008.

As a result of the projected cash deficit in 2004-05, underlying general government net debt will rise moderately during the coming year, but should continue to decline over subsequent years.

Underlying general government net debt, which stood at 7.4 per cent of gross state product in 1995, now stands at 1 per cent of GSP—a reduction from 7.4 per cent down to 1 per cent—and is expected to decline to 0.6 per cent of GSP by 2008.

The net financial liabilities of the general government sector, which stood at 19.9 per cent of GSP in 1995—have now been reduced to 8.4 per cent and should further reduce to around 7.0 per cent by 2008.

During the next four years, our State owned businesses will be borrowing $5.9 billion for $15.5 billion of new income-earning assets.

But even with this massive new investment, the State's total net financial liabilities will continue to decline as a proportion of GSP, from 26.7 per cent in 1995, to 15 per cent now and to an estimated 14.1 per cent in 2008.

New South Wales has the second best balance sheet and financial position of any government—State or Federal—in Australia.

Queensland is the only government with a better balance sheet.

Mr Bob Carr: And we know why.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Precisely—which it has achieved with the benefit of massive subsidies from New South Wales over many decades.

New South Wales is one of only a relative handful of State, provincial or local governments in the world to posses a triple-A credit rating. One would have thought that the Opposition would know that the Commonwealth Grants Commission has nothing to do with that.
[Interruption]

The Premier is entitled to educate members opposite when they say something silly. If they are going to be silly, the Premier will correct them each and every time because they have been in this place a long time but they have not learned much yet.

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

[Interruption]

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

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I think the last time I was here you threw him out.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will come to order.

[Interruption]

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

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: It is worthwhile repeating that New South Wales is one of only a relative handful of State, provincial or local governments in the world to posses a triple-A credit rating. But in itself a triple-A financial rating matters little.

Its importance is that it provides the necessary financial platform to secure a triple-A community, with triple-A services and facilities, and the capacity to weather financial and economic shocks and be well placed for the looming demographic and other challenges that lie ahead.

Conclusion

Eleven weeks ago I pledged in this House that we would press ahead with improved funding for our front-line services, notwithstanding the financial obstacles put in our way.

Today, the Government has met that commitment and more.

This budget strengthens the State's social fabric and buttresses our financial strength.

It is a budget that helps children, families and people in need.

It provides substantial additional resources for key front-line services, especially our schools, hospitals and public transport.

And it invests massively in the modernisation of the State's social and economic infrastructure.

Once again—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Leader of the Opposition has heard it nine times already and he will hear it 10 more times.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

[Interruption]

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

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Once again, I am proud to describe it as a fair dinkum Labor budget from top to toe.
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr BOB CARR (Maroubra—Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [11.57 p.m.]: I commend the Treasurer's Speech to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

Copies of the Budget Speech, the Budget Statement, and the State Asset Acquisition Program tabled and ordered to be printed.

[The House continued to sit, by leave.]

Debate resumed from 3 June.

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [11.58 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill. In general terms the purpose of the bill is to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 to allow for a graduated range of responses to ensure that public housing tenants meet their obligations under their tenancy agreements and are accountable for their behaviour as well as that of others living in the property. It is worth pointing out at the commencement of my contribution that in the past there have not been any tenancy arrangements applying to public housing tenants. For many years I and I am sure other honourable members have dealt with many complaints about the minority of badly behaved public housing tenants who engage in antisocial activity, whether it be the destruction of public property or other forms of antisocial behaviour. In many instances antisocial activity has led to a complete loss of enjoyment by other public housing tenants.

This bill, while it has some controversial elements, is a fairly substantial step in the right direction towards improving the accountability of public housing tenants across the State. Specifically, the bill introduces five significant changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1987, and I make it clear that I am talking about public housing tenancies only, not private tenancies. First, the bill is a recognition of the Government's policy on renewable tenancies, which was introduced in 2002. The bill acknowledges a departmental administrative policy and enshrines that policy in legislation. New section 14A allows the department to nominate a further fixed term upon the expiration of a current fixed-term tenancy agreement.

It is significant that we recognise that in the past there really were no tenancy agreements. Some public housing tenants were of the view that once one went into public housing one was there for life, and that tenants could do what they liked, regardless of the impact on other people. The bill, in a general sense, is an attempt to reverse that view and to make public housing tenants responsible for their behaviour, to act responsibly and to appreciate that public housing is not a right. The legislation also provides for tenancies to last, initially, only for a year. Subsequently, if there are no problems, tenants can go into a three-year or even longer-term tenancy arrangement, which I believe to be fair and reasonable.

New section 35A, a controversial section in this legislation, refers to acceptable behaviour agreements—that is, written agreements between a tenant and the department in which the tenant agrees to cease engaging in specified antisocial behaviour. It is worth spending a few moments to refer to such antisocial behaviour. Under this legislation antisocial behaviour includes instances where a tenant, or anyone the tenant allows onto the premises, either persistently or intentionally causes a nuisance that interferes with the peace, comfort and privacy of neighbours; causes serious damage to residential premises; or causes injury to the department's staff or agent, or any person occupying or permitted on adjoining or adjacent premises.

Antisocial behaviour encompasses different behaviours—from dumping cars, petty vandalism, graffiti and noise nuisance to more serious forms of criminal activity such as verbal and physical harassment and burglary. Antisocial behaviour is a disruptive influence on local communities, in particular, in those areas where public housing is located. It can be frightening and devastating for victims and the effects of victimisation can continue for a long time after the event. Antisocial behaviour is a significant issue for law-abiding public housing tenants who are on the receiving end of such behaviour. There have to be some stronger sanctions against a minority of public housing tenants who destroy public property and the quality of public life for other public housing tenants.

I said earlier that I do not believe that public housing is a right, but it should be available to all who need it. Those who do not respect the fact that they are living in public housing and who behave in a way that is totally antisocial and destructive to the local community in which they are living should be subject to more sanctions than have been imposed in the past. This legislation goes a significant way towards dealing with that issue. Sanctions apply in private tenancy arrangements. If people in the private market behave in a way that is contrary to an agreement, eviction is a possibility. This legislation tries to achieve some sort of compatibility or equality between the way in which tenants in the public housing sector are treated and the way in which tenants in the private rental market are treated.

The Opposition raises a number of concerns in relation to this issue. Opposition members have received a significant number of representations from a number of groups in the community, in particular, those that have an interest in the protection of tenants' rights. Opposition members have received representations from Shelter New South Wales, which is opposed to the onus of proof provisions, to which I will refer later. Opposition members have also received representations from the Tenants Union, which is opposed in many respects to this legislation. The Council of Social Service of New South Wales, which has been in touch with Opposition members, wants the legislation delayed. It is also opposed to the onus of proof provisions. The Central Coast Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service Inc. is also opposed to the onus of proof provisions.

The Opposition is concerned about two issues. First, it is concerned about the treatment of people with mental health difficulties and those who have intellectual disabilities. If they were subjected to an acceptable behaviour agreement, with the onus of proof being on the tenant rather than on the landlord—in this case the Department of Housing—that would be unacceptable. People with mental health problems or people with mental disabilities would not be able to be their own advocate and bear the onus of proof. The Government has assured me—and there is a reference to this matter in the Minister's second reading speech—that people with mental health problems and intellectual disabilities will not be subject to acceptable behaviour agreements.

I am somewhat comforted by that assurance, but I would like the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to reaffirm that people with mental health problems or intellectual disabilities will not be subject to acceptable behaviour agreements where the onus of proof is reversed and the tenant has to bear that onus of proof. I am concerned about the onus of proof issue as it represents a movement away from the traditional situation between landlord and tenant. Normally, the landlord or the applicant has to make out a case before the tribunal as to why the tenant should be evicted or the tenancy agreement should be terminated. In this case we are talking about people who have been in a normal tenancy agreement and who have subsequently gone into an acceptable behaviour agreement.

If people breach that agreement or they refuse to sign an acceptable behaviour agreement, the provisions relating to the onus of proof, which are to be found in new section 64 (2A), become operative. I am concerned about that issue but I am persuaded by the argument that we are talking about people who are not mentally or intellectually disabled and who have no mental health problems. We are talking about people who have been given the right to a tenancy agreement, who have subsequently engaged in antisocial behaviour, who have had an acceptable behaviour agreement imposed or sought to be imposed on them and they have either refused to enter into the agreement or they are in breach of it.

According to my reading of the legislation, in those circumstances the onus of proof lies with the tenant—bearing in mind that the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, not the Department of Housing, will decide whether a lease shall be terminated. Given that the central thrust of this legislation is to protect the amenity of public housing and to protect public housing tenants from the antisocial behaviour of a minority of people, I believe we can reasonably conclude that the onus of proof can be justified in the circumstances that I have outlined.

The Opposition generally supports the legislation, although with the reservations that I have outlined—particularly in relation to the treatment of people with mental health problems and intellectual disabilities. I have endeavoured to deal generally with the onus of proof problem that has been raised with me. During my past 16 years as a member of Parliament I have dealt with a range of complaints regarding public housing and I have come to the conclusion that too often the minority of tenants who behave antisocially spoil it for the majority. The majority of public housing tenants—notwithstanding the position taken by some of the interest groups that approached the Opposition—want people to behave appropriately. They want antisocial behaviour to be eradicated so that the great majority of tenants can enjoy public housing.

I have had brief discussions with the Government about some outcomes that are not in this legislation. We support the Government's proposal for multi-agency specialist response teams that will work within existing resources to provide joint intensive case management support to problematic families. Various departments must take an integrated approach to dealing with antisocial behaviour. The Department of Housing has emphasised that the changes in the bill are a response to problems of social behaviour on the part of a minority of tenants, who can make other tenants' lives a misery. Other measures described but not in the reforms include further developing the memorandum of understanding with the police—that is a good move as the police often respond to complaints of antisocial behaviour and a memorandum of understanding with them is a positive step. The department advises that it is also developing an eviction policy that clarifies the circumstances in which eviction will occur.

The Government is also looking at improving the department's processes for going to the tribunal and expanding mediation services—mediation is preferable to taking a case to the tribunal. I understand that it is piloting an on-site presence for the department in areas where there is a high level of antisocial behaviour. The department is also developing a tenants' compact to outline tenants' rights and responsibilities. They are positive moves. I reiterate that the Opposition has some concerns about the legislation, particularly in relation to public housing tenants with mental health problems and intellectual disabilities. I have dealt with that matter. I seek an assurance from the Government that those tenants will not be subject to any acceptable behaviour agreements because, with the reversal of onus of proof, they will be unable to state their case in an appropriate and comprehensive manner. I have already mentioned the reversal of onus of proof. I think it is time that public housing tenants, especially those who are involved in antisocial activities, were made more accountable for their behaviour and that tougher sanctions should apply. Public housing tenants who are not prepared to follow reasonable standards of behaviour are spoiling it for the great majority of tenants who are prepared to act appropriately.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.14 p.m.]: As the honourable member for Ballina, the shadow Minister for Housing, who led for the Opposition, said, the Liberal Party and The Nationals will not oppose the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill, but we have a number of concerns about it. I represent an electorate with a very large number of public housing tenants. By far the majority of public housing tenants behave appropriately and reasonably but, by definition, often face major economic problems and a range of social disadvantages that affect them substantially. Those who are in public housing deserve to be there—hopefully—and they deserve to live in a secure environment. Over the years I, as the member for Wakehurst, and my electorate officer Noelene Barrell have probably spent more time on public housing issues than any other electorate issue. Those issues often centre on the basics of transferring tenants to different public housing or getting people into public housing—unfortunately, this Government has so underfunded public housing that there is about a 14-year wait for public housing on the northern beaches.

A substantial amount of time is also spent resolving disputes that arise in the public housing environment. Those disputes are often caused by feelings of insecurity and by safety concerns. A number of the public housing complexes in my electorate contain a mix of people—I think that is fairly typical of public housing communities. But we often find that a person who is not necessarily easy to live with and who has a range of problems is inappropriately located in a complex with frail, elderly people. I particularly want to speak to this bill because it fails to address the complex social issues of a fair percentage of public housing tenants. As a former shadow Minister for Housing and as a local member, I am greatly concerned that this Government has not resourced the Department of Housing to address the burgeoning number of social problems facing many tenants in public housing.
The net result is that mental health problems, intellectual disabilities or a combination of both or perhaps a host of other issues associated with social disadvantage—such as isolation, a lack of involvement in the local community or feelings of persecution arising from mental illness—can manifest in antisocial behaviour that is certainly discomforting and worrying for other tenants in a public housing complex. It is not fair that the Carr Government has failed for a decade to address this growing community problem—particularly mental health concerns. This bill addresses some of those issues. It addresses the situation of people who do not suffer from mental illness or disability insofar as when there is disruptive or antisocial behaviour the alleged disruptive person or persons can be asked to sign an acceptable behaviour agreement. I support that move, as does the Opposition.

However, as the shadow Minister said, we are concerned about what should happen in relation to people with mental illness and intellectual disabilities. No-one in this House wants people with intellectual disabilities or mental illness to be treated unreasonably or unfairly, and in most circumstances it would be inappropriate for those people to have input into an acceptable behaviour agreement. This is a complex matter and that is why the Opposition and the shadow Minister have asked the Government to give an undertaking that it does not intend to blindly start using these agreements to add to the disadvantage of people with mental illness or a disability, but, rather, that it will bear in mind that there are circumstances in fringe cases where it might be necessary to use the agreements.

The far bigger issue as a matter of public policy is that for almost a decade the Government has failed to take a co-ordinated, whole-of-government approach to people in public housing who suffer from mental illness and/or an intellectual disability. I put it to the Government and the Minister—there is no Minister within cooee today, but perhaps the Minister or someone from the department might address the issue—that it is time for the Government to put resources into a whole-of-government approach for the Department of Housing to act as the single gateway to providing co-ordinated support services for people with mental illness or an intellectual disability, or a combination of both, and possibly other social issues. A circumstance of a sole parent with an intellectual or mental disability with a child who attends the local school has been brought to my attention. The child does not fit into the local school, and does not get support because of the problems at home, so other issues arise for the child. There is no comprehensive approach to additional support services for the parent, as the tenant, or the child if they need them.

Today the budget was delivered, and there was not one word about more money for the Department of Housing to specifically co-ordinate those sorts of social and integral services, which it is uniquely placed to do. We need to focus on a lead agency, and the Department of Housing is the logical choice. That department's focus should be not only on whether property maintenance has been done—usually it has not—but also on its staff taking an extra role and identifying the problems of people with a mental illness or disability or people who are acting in a dysfunctional and disruptive way. The staff should be proactive in seeking intervention to provide the support services that are required and available. That would negate problems caused to other tenants in the complex.

The Government must approach this issue in a far more comprehensive way than the simplistic amendments in the bill; otherwise we will continue to have these sorts of problems. A fair proportion of the public housing issues that arise are directly related to people with mental illness and/or an intellectual disability. When I was with the Department of Housing I moved around different areas of the State and Sydney, and I saw communities where mental illness and disability factors are not as high but where there is a more, if you like, dysfunctional and antisocial approach. Tenants in one suburb, which I will not name because I do not want to brand it, sat down with me and told me they were being intimidated by department tenants who were selling drugs in their area. All that the tenants who met with me wanted was to live in their houses in a peaceful manner.

Antisocial and criminal activities such as dealing in drugs might be appropriately dealt with through this acceptable behaviour agreement, but those activities are only a minority of the problems. When this bill finally becomes law I do not believe there will be a remarkable turnaround or change because of what this Government has done. This is the simple stuff that the Carr Government has become all too associated with. The bill will not solve the bigger and more complex issues of social organisation, restoring a sense of community, and working with dysfunctional people to make them a partner with the department and more reasonable people. This is simplistic rubbish that the Carr Government delivers as a guise or pretence to try to resolve some of the major issues in our communities, but it will not achieve it. The Government should think about having a co-ordinated whole-of-government approach and making the Department of Housing the gateway for providing co-ordinated services so we can support those in the community who need it.
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [12.25 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak to the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill, which deals with the important issue of public housing, which I am regularly asked to deal with in my electorate office. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 to allow for a graduated range of responses to ensure that public housing tenants meet their obligations under their tenancy agreements and are accountable for their behaviour, as well as for that of others living in their property.

Specifically, the bill makes four significant changes to the Act. The first is the recognition of the renewable tenancy policy, which allows the Department of Housing to nominate a further fixed term upon the expiration of a current fixed term tenancy agreement. Second, it introduces acceptable behaviour agreements—the most important part of this legislation. These are written agreements between a tenant and the department in which the tenant agrees not to engage in specified antisocial behaviour. Third, it places the onus on the tenant if they refuse to sign, or if they breach, an acceptable behaviour agreement, to demonstrate to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal why that tenancy agreement should not be terminated. Last, it gives the tribunal the power to consider the history of a tenancy agreement when considering an application for termination, and it provides greater protection for the staff of the Department of Housing who may be subjected to sustained and threatening abuse with regard to not speaking about particular tenants.

I concur with previous speakers who said that most Department of Housing tenants act in a responsible manner, despite many of them coping with often quite serious social disadvantages. The argument for this amending legislation is that antisocial behaviour in public housing can be a significant issue that other public housing tenants have to put up with. There must be stronger sanctions against the minority of public housing tenants who seek to destroy public property and literally destroy the quality of life of other public housing tenants. Public housing is a very essential service that we provide for socially disadvantaged people, but it is not a right, and antisocial behaviour agreements are necessary to provide appropriate sanctions. Tenants in private tenancy agreements can be evicted for antisocial behaviour, contrary to the terms of the lease, and the same should apply to public housing tenants.

The onus of proof is to be reversed for tenants who refuse to sign, or who breach, an acceptable behaviour agreement. That is, tenants who do not behave in their premises will have to show why their tenancy should continue, rather than the Department of Housing having to show why the tenancy should be terminated, which is the opposite of normal tenancy arrangements. By their behaviour or refusal to sign an acceptable behaviour agreement, an individual who behaves antisocially could punish other family members who are listed on the lease. What happens if an individual who is not on the lease, but is closely associated with people who are on the lease, engages in antisocial behaviour? The Minister should look at that issue. I have such an issue in my electorate. I visited a Department of Housing site and spoke to a number of tenants. The husband and father of the people on the lease is alleged to have seriously threatened other adults and children. Doors have been kicked in, wilful damage has been occasioned to premises, and other disruptive and allegedly violent behaviour has been occurring.

What is to happen in such a circumstance? The tenants are afraid of retribution should they go to police and give evidence. They are afraid to do anything that would give Department of Housing staff cause to intervene. I have asked the tenants to ring me and my office so I can keep a log of the issues raised so I can try to assist them to stop this behaviour by this person visiting a tenant. That person is creating a lot of unhappiness and fear among other residents. People with a mental illness or a disability may also be disadvantaged, and they must be considered in the context of this amendment.

There is a long wait for public housing—a problem that has not been adequately addressed by the Government. I am aware of considerable mismanagement in the placement of people. Some older people have sought my help in being placed in premises where the tenants are of retirement age, so they might enjoy life during their retirement. Instead, they have become pseudo crisis workers because other tenants, through no fault of their own—they have a mental health problem or an intellectual disability—are not being properly managed by other service providers. The older residents are on a 24-hour watch. That is totally unacceptable. The Opposition will not oppose this amendment, but I ask the Minister to address the serious concerns I have raised.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [12.33 p.m.]: I support the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill. In particular, in light of recent events that have occurred in the electorate of Bega, I support the acceptable behaviour agreements that the bill introduces. In that respect I refer to an incident that took place on 10 June involving a number of young people living in public housing in Woodbridge Avenue and Evans Street, Moruya. Local police were called to deal with what was described as a domestic dispute that got out of hand and resulted in these young people engaging in very serious activities. It resulted in one police vehicle being badly damaged and another being written off, and it exposed the police to considerable danger. Basically, they were dealing with a riot.

It is obvious to all and sundry that the alcoholism, drug-taking, and other antisocial behaviour engaged in by those young people results from the policy that concentrated public housing in particular streets in Moruya. I have called on the Department of Housing to commence selling off a number of these properties. The community and, for that matter, the relevant local government agencies, must respond to this social unrest very quickly. We cannot accept excuses for the antisocial behaviour of these young people, who have been identified and known to government agencies for a long time. It is obvious to all that the current system of dealing with this behaviour has not worked. The Department of Housing and the Department of Aboriginal Housing have failed those families and communities. I reiterate the need for the Department of Housing to sell off a number of these properties. Even if they are sold at lower than the market price, that would at least provide an opportunity for someone to move into a house they will regard as their home and care for as their own.

I believe that the public housing policy is behind this riot. One only has to door-knock residents in the area to know they have been speaking to the Department of Housing about the families involved in this antisocial behaviour and that the department does not have the mechanism to deal with the problem. The introduction of acceptable behaviour agreements—written agreements between tenants and the department—will go some way towards solving the problems caused by such antisocial behaviour. My view is that some of the families living in these Moruya streets must be relocated away from each other. We cannot allow young people to come together there and cause very serious social unrest. This was brought home to me when I knocked on the door of an 80-year-old lady who lives in elderly housing. She said the situation is out of control, and she showed me a plastic bag full of projectiles that had been pelted at her home. She had been constantly asking the Department of Housing to put security doors on her property, but the department has not responded. The Department of Housing has a lot to answer for.

I am concerned about the application of this bill to the Aboriginal Housing Office and to Aboriginal housing generally. The Government must clarify that application. The bill should apply across the board: acceptable behaviour agreements should be in place for all who are in State-provided homes, Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals alike. We can no longer continue, particularly in communities such as Moruya, to tolerate antisocial behaviour. A number of Aboriginal juveniles potentially face a life in prison unless all agencies concerned, including the Department of Housing, come together to look for innovative solutions to these problems. One suggestion is that each night a patrol bus should patrol streets in which public housing is located to deal with problems. If the Department of Housing had not concentrated these homes in a particular area in the first place, some of these measures would not be necessary.

Last Friday I convened a meeting with the Mayor of Eurobodalla shire, Fergus Thomson, Tom Slockee, an Aboriginal community leader, Mick Fuller from NSW Police, and local magistrate David Halpin. We decided it would be necessary to convene another meeting at which relevant estate agencies and representatives of public housing would be invited to workshop ideas. They must respond to community calls for these homes to be sold off. I hope the bill will go some way to guaranteeing that agreements are in place to ensure acceptable behaviour. If people do not behave, they should forgo the privilege of residing in public housing. It is not fair that the broader community has to tolerate drunken thugs in their streets. The Government should not continue to provide a roof over the heads of Department of Housing tenants if the department has no mechanism to ensure that their tenants curb their behaviour.

The behaviour at Moruya—which resulted in four young Aboriginal men being put into cells and bail being refused—has gone far and beyond any acceptable norm. It is an indication that we can no longer have a revolving door between juvenile detention and the outside world. That is changing neither the attitude nor the behaviour of those concerned. The community enjoys relative peace while these young people are detained, but people are sick of experiencing the same problems when they are released a few months down the track. These young people belong to a number of families that are causing a lot of disruption. It will take bold community leadership to work through these problems and recognise that the Government must step in. The community has had enough. I would hate to see the problems continue until someone was seriously hurt.

At Moruya, young people in a public housing area took to two police vehicles with steel poles, fence palings, bricks, and bottles. The police were under an enormous strain, and someone could have been hurt seriously, if not killed. It was completely unacceptable. I commend Eurobodalla Shire Council and the leadership provided by Fergus Thomson, the mayor, on the implementation of alcohol-free zones around the area. If public housing was not so concentrated perhaps those alcohol-free zones would not be necessary. The Department of Housing will require its tenants to enter into acceptable behaviour agreements, but it should reassess its policy of concentrating properties in certain areas. I recognise the need to provide greater protection for Department of Housing staff, who are constantly subjected to sustained and threatening abuse by tenants. The message in the bill is simple: agencies will be empowered to deal with continued and prolonged unacceptable behavioural patterns.

The same process must be in place for Aboriginal housing to ensure consistency. We must provide innovative solutions for the problems in Moruya. Last week I wrote to the Premier and called for the reinstatement of funding to the Department of Juvenile Justice to undertake a program called PASS, a program that coupled sport and education for young indigenous people in Moruya. I reiterate my call for the reinstatement of that funding to enable Mark Bella from the Department of Juvenile Justice in Batemans Bay to continue the program. As one of the community leaders said last week, we must think outside the square. Last week Ron Snape, a commercial fisherman in the Tilba area, put to me the need for a diversionary employment program for coastal Kooris to enable them to participate in the commercial fishing industry.

Again, we are talking about attitudes among government agencies. The attitude of the Department of Fisheries towards indigenous people has been a problem and should be explored. But we can only do that if government agencies work together. The Department of Housing should not be isolated from the Attorney General's Department, the Department of Juvenile Justice or, as in this case, the Department of Fisheries. We should look forward to developing programs to ensure that the Department of Housing plays a proactive part, but it will not be able to do that unless we have in place the measures in the bill. Antisocial behaviour in public housing must be dealt with through legislation. Beyond that we must ensure that those working in the area have the power to deal with antisocial behaviour of tenants.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [12.46 p.m.]: The Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill will amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1987, the principal Act, to enable the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation to declare that a public housing tenancy agreement is subject to a specified fixed term, to enable the corporation to request a public housing tenant to give an undertaking not to engage in antisocial behaviour, to provide for the termination of the tenant's public housing tenancy agreement if the tenant refuses to enter into, or seriously or persistently breaches, an acceptable behaviour agreement, and to provide for the termination of a public housing tenancy agreement if the tenant severely or persistently threatens, or abuses, intimidates or harasses, any member of staff of the Department of Housing.

Public Housing would be the biggest issue that every member in this place would deal with, so everyone is pleased that we are debating such a bill, which is well overdue. I am sure that employees and staff of the Department of Housing, NSW Police, and the Department of Community Services would be happy with it. There are in excess of 120,000 public housing tenants in this State. The department provides stable and affordable housing, which is a fundamental requirement for all people. Each and every one of us would appreciate that without housing it is impossible to hold down a job, stay healthy, get an education, or maintain family and community relationships. The majority of people look after their public housing premises and appreciate them, but there seems to be an attitude among some that if you are in public housing you have every right in the world but, sadly, you do not have to protect your housing.

Mr Tony Stewart: What, sadly?

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: No. They appreciate it, and it is great. However, it is the actions of the minority that ruin it not only for people in the public housing but also for the neighbourhood in general. If a tenant fails or refuses to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement, the corporation may by notice terminate the tenancy agreement. The notice to terminate must specify the grounds for the notice, namely, that the tenant has failed or refused to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement as requested by the corporation, or the tenant has seriously or persistently breached the terms of the acceptable behaviour agreement. If that happens, the corporation has the right to refer the matter to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. However, that provision will not solve the problem. Sadly, in my office I have a thick file of problems associated with unsuccessful attempts by the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal to remove tenants from their houses.

An education process is needed. Tenants who cause problems create a bad environment in the neighbourhood; they have no respect for their neighbours. If they are evicted by the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, where are they to go? The private rental market will not accept them without references. We all say that problem tenants should be evicted, but where are they to go? That is why I strongly believe that an education process is needed. About five minutes ago I rang my office and asked my staff to pick out randomly four or five newspaper clippings relating to public housing estates. The clippings had the headlines "It's like the Bronx: Residents in crisis talk with police", "Residents fear for their safety", and "Residents afraid".

Mr Tony Stewart: The clippings just happened to come off the fax?

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: No, I rang the girls in my office and asked them to give me a random cross-section of clippings in relation to this problem. The article headed "Residents afraid" stated, "House Wrecked: Senseless vandalism, where walls were kicked in at a vacated Housing Commission residence", which was in Lismore. It is sad that these things are happening, but all honourable members face these problems every day. Other headlines were "Dept moves to ease fears in housing complex", "Crime Central", and "Crime needs longer-term solutions". In my area there was a problem with a housing estate, and after nearly twelve months the residents, the police, the department, the council and I we were able to come up with a solution. Another community worked together to fix a problem in another public housing estate. In a letter to the Northern Star, Mr Peter Harbord, the co-ordinator of the Residents Support Group, McDermott Court, wrote:

On August 8, 2002, The Northern Star reported on the adverse life-style experienced by public housing tenants at McDermott Court, a Department of Housing complex in Uralba Street, Lismore.

The adverse living conditions at that time were break-ins, theft, bad language, drug and alcohol problems also intimidation.

Now, 11 months later, with the co-operation of the Department of Housing, Lismore, those adverse conditions, in the majority of cases, have been rectified.

I would therefore on behalf of all the tenants of McDermott Court like to thank The Northern Star for your active reporting of this social issue, the police, who now regularly patrol this area, and Snr Const Hogan for his advice on home and personal security, the staff of the Department of Housing, Lismore, who found the time to listen and act on behalf of the tenants of McDermott Court …

Once again, thank you all.

In that case the community worked together to fix a major problem through an educative process. The bill will not fix the problems tomorrow, because those who cause the problems need to be educated. That process cannot be done within the neighbourhood because it would interfere with good neighbourhood policy. We need to work with those who cause the problems, because if they are evicted by the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal where will they go? They will go down the road and cause further problems, and we need to be conscious of that. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill, which is long overdue.

Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [12.55 p.m.]: This is an important bill. For many years the Department of Housing has had a substantial and essentially positive record in public housing. It has undertaken major projects in Western Sydney that created towns, communities and the necessary infrastructure to support them. There has been a history of people moving to those communities from all parts of Sydney. Over many years people from all parts of Sydney, many from the inner-city areas, moved to the new residential areas of Seven Hills, Lalor Park, Green Valley, Dundas Valley and Mount Druitt. The majority of people who moved there have made a worthwhile contribution to the community. Many years ago my family was involved in the bread delivery business in the Dundas Valley and Ermington areas. The majority of people here were absolutely wonderful; they were responsible and pleased to be given the opportunity by the government of the day to own their own homes and create some stability in their lives.

However, as with all communities, it is not possible to say that was so in every case. There was concern about younger children growing up in areas with which they were geographically unfamiliar. Consequently, a number of social problems arose. It is fair to say that those social problems have been given a lot more publicity than the positive side of life in public housing. For that reason, because of the actions of a minority, ill-informed assessments have often been made about particular public housing areas. The bill acknowledges that those problems continue, as they do in all communities. We cannot claim that these problems occur only in properties owned by the Department of Housing. In more recent years there has been a trend to fragment Department of Housing property development. There is no longer the massive development such as those at Green Valley, Lalor Park, Dundas Valley and Mount Druitt. Public housing is now integrated amongst privately owned dwellings. That worthwhile approach has proved to have additional advantages.

The bill is aimed at people who do the wrong thing. Tenants in private rental accommodation have to be responsible. They do not own the properties they live in; they have a responsibility to look after them and not to interfere with their neighbours or cause undue hardship to them. This legislation will enable the Government to require certain standards of behaviour from those who are not inclined to treat properties with care, or who harass, affect and make life generally unpleasant for their neighbours. In some respects this important legislation will overcome a number of antisocial and behavioural problems faced by Department of Housing tenants. The legislation, which is fairly simple in nature, will enable the department to undertake certain proceedings to obtain vacant possession or to terminate a tenancy when an application under new section 57A is made to what was formerly the Residential Tenancies Tribunal.

Under new section 35A the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation may request a tenant to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement. If a tenant who is living in a cottage, a home or a flat is causing a problem, the department can now request that tenant to do the right thing, that is, to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement and to cease engaging in specified antisocial behaviour. If a tenant refuses to enter into such an agreement, his or her tenancy can be terminated on application to the tribunal. If a tenant who has entered into such an agreement subsequently breaches the terms of that agreement, his or her tenancy can be terminated on application to the tribunal. The tribunal would then have to determine whether the tenant had seriously or persistently breached the terms of the agreement.

Under the residential tenancy legislation the onus of proof in all applications is on the applicant, usually the landlord. This amending legislation deliberately reverses the onus of proof. If a tenant refuses to sign, or is in breach of, an acceptable behaviour agreement—an agreement in which the tenant agrees to cease engaging in specified antisocial behaviour—he or she has to prove why his or her tenancy should be continued rather than terminated. That is contrary to normal tenancy arrangements. In these circumstances that is not unreasonable. The Parliamentary Secretary said in the second reading speech:

This reversal of the onus for antisocial tenants is necessary because there is a history of cases in which tenants have provided evidence against their antisocial neighbours, only to find themselves further victimised if the courts decide anything less than an eviction is warranted.

If a neighbour dobs in someone that he or she believes to be antisocial or causing distress and harm in a community, and an order is not made for that person's eviction, that night they would both have to return to the same premises. That situation is intolerable and should not be allowed. It means that no-one will co-operate with the department or make a complaint. If the department does not establish a case, those who are involved will have to return to live in the same building. For that reason I suggest that the onus of proof provisions be retained. A reversal of the onus of proof will apply only when a tenant has seriously or persistently breached an unacceptable behaviour agreement; it will not apply to other matters before the tribunal. The onus of proof is not reversed for those who are disadvantaged or suffering a mental disability. Complex mental health problems are causing the community more distress than any other health issue and few remedies are available to the Government to deal with such problems.

Some people who live in Department of Housing properties have mental disabilities or other psychological problems that contribute to their conduct. One might well ask why those problems were not assessed before those people were put into a block of units and upset the residents there. Those concerns have been expressed by constituents in my electorate office. For years they have lived happily in a Department of Housing block of units until a new tenant suffering from some kind of mental disability upset the ambience, and their lifestyle and quality of life were eroded, making it intolerable for them to continue to live in the block. That should not be allowed to happen. Although the bill reverses the onus of proof, as I have said, it is the responsibility of the department to ensure that, whenever possible, problems of that sort are avoided. However, some will always slip through the net. People with mental disabilities should not be placed in a block of units in which they can cause stress and concern to adjacent residents. The department has a duty of care to those residents and must look at that issue carefully.

Mr MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [1.08 p.m.]: The Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill has several main objects. First, it gives recognition to the renewable tenancies policy under the Act and it allows the Department of Housing to nominate a further fixed term upon the expiration of a current fixed-term tenancy agreement. Second, it introduces acceptable behaviour agreements. These are written agreements between a tenant and the department in which the tenant agrees to cease engaging in specific antisocial behaviour. Third, it places the onus of proof on the tenant to demonstrate to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal why, if he or she refuses to sign or breaches an acceptable behaviour agreement, the tenancy agreement should not be terminated. Fourth, the tribunal is given the power to consider the history of the tenant's tenancy agreement when considering an application for termination. Fifth, it gives greater protection to Department of Housing staff who may be subjected to sustained threats and abuse. From time to time all members, some more than others, have had to deal with Department of Housing tenants and the problems with which they are confronted.
I state at the outset that the great majority of public housing tenants in my electorate are wonderful people. They are houseproud, they are proud of their community, they work with local schools, they contribute to society, their homes are maintained to a wonderful standard, they are proud of their gardens, and they enjoy the amenities in the suburbs in which their housing is provided and for which they pay a fee. I refer to several points made in the "Legislation Review Digest". Paragraph 28 states:

The Committee is of the view that forced evictions generally conflict with the fundamental right of a person to adequate housing.

Paragraph 29 states:

However, the Committee is also of the view that, while the amendments provide for forced evictions, they do so only in exceptional and justifiable circumstances where the behaviour of the evicted tenant prevents others from fully enjoying their fundamental right to adequate housing.

I shall read onto the record some correspondence I received recently to give honourable members an idea of the problems that public housing tenants face. As previous speakers in this debate have said, the Opposition will not oppose the bill. However, they raised concerns about mental illness and highlighted several other points that I will touch on later. A lady who shall remain nameless wrote to me to say:

I would like to bring to your attention a continuation of the dire circumstances which I have advised your Dept. Since my last report to your Agency I was recently assaulted whilst walking home from church … with my 3 young children. I was approached [by a resident] who is a regular visitor [of my neighbour]. Please see attached copy of pending AVO …

I am taking the time to write this letter, as it seems a necessity to do so for the protection of my young family. We have 3 children … My family has only lived in our house for 13 months as we used to live in a dept house [in another suburb], but had to move because of ongoing problems we encountered in that neighbourhood …

On Thursday 29^th … a young family moved in consisting of a mother, her de facto boyfriend and a young child. Before this family moved in to our neighbourhood it was a safe and peaceful place for people to raise a family in, but this is no longer the case.

Upon reading the latest edition of "Your Home" titled working together to remove antisocial behaviour. This article because a great interest to us as we are trying to deal with this everyday within our house. The dwelling [next door] has now become the meeting place for the "hoodlums" of [the suburb] and its surrounding suburbs. There is known to be at least 15 people in the house and back shed at any one time playing excessively loud music, drinking alcohol and smoking their drugs in complete visibility to others and myself. As well as this they are constantly revving their cars and beeping their horns and screaming extremely foul language in the late hours of the night & early morning, sticking fingers up and swearing out and poking their fingers … they keep teasing our family dogs and making them bark late in the night, which has resulted in complaints from other tenants.

I witnessed a woman who was visiting their residence at the time try to commit suicide on the front lawn. I have also witnessed 2 separate knife attacks by people who were visitors of the residence, they do burnouts on my lawn, and they attempted to burn down a tree on my front lawn. All the abovementioned have been formally addressed to the police and your Dept.

Each morning we have to pick up rubbish from their previous night of partying, articles such as beer bottles and spirit cans, bongs, broken glass and wrappers.

I have notified several agencies regarding this matter …

They are the kinds of local problems that members of Parliament must deal with. I understand this legislation aims to address some of those concerns. However, I return to paragraph 28 of the "Legislation Review Digest", which states:

… forced evictions generally conflict with the fundamental right of a person to adequate housing.

I firmly believe people have a fundamental obligation to the community in which they live. The proposals in this bill will strengthen the power of Department of Housing staff, with whom I have a close professional and amiable working relationship, to remit matters to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. I pay credit to our local Department of Housing staff, who do a difficult job in difficult circumstances, and their regional manager. They have always worked closely with me to address problems such as those I have described. They need legislation such as this to give them stronger tools. I have absolutely no problem with using all provisions in this legislation against people who destroy community amenity to ensure that they alter their behaviour or find somewhere else to live. I think we are sometimes far too soft on such people. The great majority of citizens are peaceful family people whose living environment should not be disrupted by those who engage in antisocial behaviour.

I turn to the circumstance in which an individual who engages in antisocial behaviour may be punished. According to my reading of the bill, the provision for making a family or family member comply with reasonable standards of behaviour is a last resort. However, it is necessary because certain public housing tenants can cause grief and disruption. It is obviously the ultimate responsibility of the family concerned, who have the lease in their name, to take action. If this bill helps families to do that, I have no problem with it.

I am concerned about mental health issues. We all know that people who recover from mental illness can become unwell again. For a myriad of reasons I am keen to hear the Parliamentary Secretary at the table, the honourable member for Bankstown, detail how people with mental illness will be dealt with under this bill. We must acknowledge that such people sometimes cannot control their actions or their speech. I would like further explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary as to how the department intends to manage the wellbeing and housing needs of people with mental illness. As more treatment facilities close, more people with mental health issues are being integrated into the community. That is a good move. However, we must ensure that such people are not disenfranchised or disadvantaged by the Government's policies. Opinions differ about reversing the onus of proof. However, according to my reading of the bill, that tool will be used only as a last resort.

This bill deals with public housing. I would like to know whether the bill or the amendments it contains will apply also to Aboriginal housing. The Aboriginal Housing Office manages several properties in my electorate. There are some wonderful tenants in our community of whom we are immensely proud. However, trouble sometimes occurs in public housing complexes. Is the Government considering applying the amendments to the Aboriginal Housing Act and to housing suppliers—such as the Sisters Housing Enterprise Inc. that temporarily houses women in distress—whose services are called upon from time to time? Will these rules apply to those organisations? What is the Government's time frame for considering their extension? All people must be treated equally; that is fair and right. We must not have one set of rules for one group of people and another set for another group. If people are to live in harmony they must abide by common rules. This is important legislation and I look forward to seeing its results in the future.

Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.18 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who contributed to this important debate on the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill. It is important to reiterate that the Government's primary goal is not to interfere with people's daily activities or to evict tenants. Rather, our aim is to help those who are engaging in problematic behaviour to change that behaviour and sustain their tenancies. These measures provide a clear policy and legislative framework for implementing an antisocial behaviour strategy. The Government is putting in place a number of new checks on the department to make the department's operations more transparent and accountable. Above all, with those measures the Government seeks to give tenants a clear sense of the consequences of antisocial behaviour and an awareness of a range of opportunities to change their behaviour in order to sustain their tenancies.

We need to balance the entitlement to secure housing with the need for tenants to be accountable for their behaviour. The honourable member for Ballina raised concerns about persons who suffer from mental illness being adequately covered in the bill. Under the provisions of this bill there will be far greater opportunity to monitor persons suffering from mental illness or behavioural problems and to take measures to sustain their tenancies through the support of specialist response teams. This will assist the Department of Housing and other agencies to identify tenants who have problematic behaviour and refer them for assessment and support.

The onus of proof was referred to, and it is important to note that there is still an obligation on the Department of Housing to present a case to the satisfaction of the tribunal. The tenants will then need to demonstrate to the tribunal that they had not breached their undertakings under the acceptable behaviour assessment. Importantly, next week human services agencies, including NSW Health, the Centre for Mental Health, NSW Police, the Department of Community Services, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, Aboriginal Affairs, Education, and the Aboriginal Housing Office, will meet to discuss the piloting of the specialist response teams in a whole-of-government approach to meeting concerns about how the policy might be pursued.

As with any new legislative provisions, a policy regarding the implementation of the new measures will be prepared. The policy will provide guidelines to ensure that the measures are used appropriately and effectively to avoid any unintended consequences. The department will develop and provide training for client service staff to enable them to effectively and sensitively implement the measures outlined in the bill, and to mitigate against abuse of acceptable behaviour agreements at a local level. For example, it will be important to understand when it will be appropriate to ask a tenant to sign an acceptable behaviour agreement; to understand that these circumstances are likely to be infrequent; to realise that acceptable behaviour agreements are not to be used to threaten tenants, and that they are tools for tenancy management that will enable departmental staff to assist tenants to sustain their tenancies; and to understand when it may be appropriate to make referrals to these specialist response teams or other specialist support services. The Government is committed to ongoing consultation with stakeholders about the operation of the measures. I strongly commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr John Mills) left the chair at 1.23 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Assent to the following bills reported:

Bail Amendment (Terrorism) Bill
Stock Diseases Amendment (Artificial Breeding) Bill
Greyhound and Harness Racing Administration Bill
Health Legislation Amendment Bill
Filming Approval Bill

Mr BOB CARR (Maroubra—Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [2.18 p.m.]: The late James Alexander Bacon, the former Premier of Tasmania, lived the life of many of his Labor generation: a childhood marred by tragedy, student radicalism, anti-Vietnam war activity and aggressive organisation of the trade union movement. After what seemed to be a sea change in his thirties he moved to Tasmania, his new-found land, which he loved, his wife said on Sunday, "as much as he loved me". Jim eventually found his way into Parliament and very quickly, within two years, became one of Tasmania's most successful Premiers. He found the State an economic basket case, with young people leaving daily. He turned around what many saw its inevitable decline. He set about doing this very quietly, unflamboyantly achieving an economic and social miracle. Tasmania's population is growing again, its tourist business is booming, the brain drain is staunched and the ferries are restored. What seemed an inevitable decline is again a growing concern.

Like many of his generation Jim Bacon was keen to improve society, careless of personal gain and his student radicalism mellowing into an embrace of practical measurable reform. Also like many of his generation Jim chain-smoked. He knew he should not and was unsurprised when the habit brought on his early death at 54 years of age. "I was an idiot", he said, refusing to make some sort of ideological fuss of his own sad passing. The beautiful island State of Tasmania will for decades be beholden to Jim Bacon, a good man who came and stayed a while and did remarkable things. He was a great conciliating force, a local hero whose too few years were well spent and whose unfeigned goodness and gallantry at life's end we will remember for years to come. I know all members of the House join with me in offering heartfelt condolences to Jim's widow, Honey, his sons, Mark and Scott, his stepson, Shane, and to the people of Tasmania.

Mr JOHN BROGDEN (Pittwater—Leader of the Opposition) [2.22 p.m.]: The Coalition joins in very sorrowful fashion with the Premier in extending to the Bacon family and the people of Tasmania our condolences on the death of former Premier Jim Bacon. The people of New South Wales, indeed all Australians who observed the events since the announcement of his retirement, were shocked by the seriousness of his illness and, particularly, the short passage of time from his stepping down as Premier to his sad death just a few days ago. I praise the late Jim Bacon for his message to anyone who might think there is any benefit from smoking: Do not take it up. It has no benefit whatsoever.

I am sure that along with his significant public achievements—which the Premier put on record, and the Coalition acknowledges—Jim and his family would hope a strong message would come from his sad death: do not smoke; never take it up, because it can be very hard to drop the habit; and live a healthier life. Coalition members join with the Government in expressing our condolences to the Bacon family. The Premier of Tasmania holds a unique position in being well-known in an island State. I am sure every citizen, whether or not they voted for Jim Bacon, or whether or not they thought highly of him or not, is very much touched and saddened by his passing.
[During notices of motions]

Mr Carl Scully: Point of order: The gratuitous abuse in the notice of motion of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is out of order. I submit that the notice of motion should be redrafted.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with normal procedure I will review the matter in consultation with the Clerks and make an announcement to the House. In relation to the notice of motion given by the honourable member for Strathfield, I remind members of previous rulings I have given in relation to the length of notices of motions. I will review that matter also in consultation with the Clerks. During the Budget Speech delivered to the House by the Treasurer this morning, some members were called to order a number of times. Those calls to order will stand during notices of motions and questions without notice.

Mr SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I table a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 days after assent as at 22 June 2004.

Mr Speaker announced the receipt, pursuant to section 78 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, of the report entitled "Report on Investigation Into Conduct of the Hon. J. Richard Face", dated June 2004.

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of the Auditor-General's performance audit report entitled "Managing Natural and Cultural Heritage in Parks and Reserves—National Parks and Wildlife Service."

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to section 10 of the Legislation Review Act 1987, of the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No 9 of 2004", dated June 2004.

Petition requesting drug reform through a five-fold strategy of coercive residential drug centres, free Naltrexone treatment, medical panel assessment, co-operation between law enforcement officials and parents of addicts, and random drug tests, received from Mr John Bartlett.

Petition requesting that the Mature Workers Program be restored, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition requesting that the Skilled Migrant Placement Program be restored, received from Ms Clover Moore.
Petitions opposing the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from Mr Steve Cansdell, Mr Andrew Fraser, Ms Katrina Hodgkinson, Mrs Judy Hopwood, Mr Malcolm Kerr, Mr Steven Pringle, Mr Andrew Tink and Mr John Turner.

Petitions opposing any legislative changes that would violate the basic principles of marriage, received from Mr John Bartlett and Mr Barry O'Farrell.

Petition praying that the House reject the Anti-Discrimination (Removal of Exemptions) Bill, and retain the existing exemptions applying to religious bodies in the Anti-Discrimination Act, received from Mr Graham West.

Petition requesting reduction of the Pacific Highway speed limit at Wardell to 70 kilometres per hour, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

Petition requesting the upgrading and sealing of Topdale Road, received from Mr Peter Draper.

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

Petition requesting the construction of an overpass at the intersection of Alfords Point Road and Menai road, Menai, received from Ms Alison Megarrity.

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

Petition requesting funding for construction of a bridge across the Hawkesbury River, from Wilberforce Road and Freemans Reach Road, connecting to the bridge into Windsor, and the rescheduling of the current roadworks program, received from Mr Steven Pringle.

Petitions requesting that plans for the placement of an aeromedical rescue helicopter service based in Coffs Harbour be fast-tracked, received from Mr Steve Cansdell, Mr Andrew Fraser and Mr Thomas George.

Petitions opposing the merger of the Hunter Area Health Service and the New England Area Health Service, received from Mr Peter Draper and Mr Ian Slack-Smith.

Petition requesting urgent maintenance and increased funding for mental health services, received from Ms Clover Moore.
Petition opposing the withdrawal of essential services from Mount Druitt Hospital, received from Mr Barry O'Farrell.

Petitions opposing the abolition of CountryLink rail services and their replacement with buses in rural and regional New South Wales, received from Mr Steve Cansdell, Mr Andrew Fraser, Ms Katrina Hodgkinson, Mr Donald Page, Mr Andrew Stoner and Mr John Turner.

Petition requesting continuation of CountryLink rail services from Sydney to Armidale and to Moree, received from Mr Peter Draper.

Petition opposing the proposed closure of the railway line from Broadmeadow to Newcastle, received from Mr Bryce Gaudry.

Petition opposing any proposal to sell State Forests, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

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

Petitions requesting the retention of the CountryLink rail service from Murwillumbah to Casino, received from Mr Donald Page.

Petition requesting a daily CountryLink rail service from Sydney to Moree, received from Mr Ian Slack-Smith.

Petition requesting continuation of CountryLink rail services from Sydney to Armidale and to Moree, received from Mr Richard Torbay.

Petition requesting increased funding for homeless services, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petitions objecting to the criteria for country cancer patients to qualify for the Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme, received from Mr Thomas George, Ms Katrina Hodgkinson, Mr George Souris and Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition requesting assistance for the horticultural industry to cope with water restrictions, received from Mr Steven Pringle.
Petition opposing the decision by Sydney Water Corporation to restrict the operating times for water carters and not allow Sunday cartage, received from Mr Steven Pringle.

Petition requesting the delivery of sewerage services to the Glenorie and Galston districts, received from Mr Steven Pringle.

Petition requesting that the water tank subsidy be extended to rural residents of Baulkham Hills, Hawkesbury and Hornsby local government areas, received from Mr Steven Pringle.

Petition requesting amendments to the Companion Animals Act 1998, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petitions opposing any forced council mergers, received from Mr George Souris.

Petition opposing cuts to frontline staff in the Tumut offices of NSW Agriculture and State Forests, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

Petition requesting the purchase of a weed harvester for the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system, received from Mr Steven Pringle.

Petition requesting legislation banning the sale of cat and dog meat for human or animal consumption, received from Ms Clover Moore.

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

Petition requesting the introduction of container deposit legislation, received from Ms Alison Megarrity.

Mr SPEAKER: I welcome to the public gallery Senator Hernan Larrain Fernandez, joint leader of a delegation from Chile and President of the Senate of the National Congress of the Republic of Chile.

Mr JOHN BROGDEN: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Why is the Premier conning the people of New South Wales by saying that he is spending a record amount on capital works when the total increase in general government capital works next year is only $115 million, or 3.3 per cent, of which $73 million will be spent to buy computers?
Mr BOB CARR: The last time I checked, acquiring computers was a capital acquisition. We are the Government that put computers into the schools of New South Wales, and I am proud that we have done that. What has made the Opposition so irritable today—

Mr John Brogden: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I give the call to the Leader of the Opposition to take his point of order, I point out that the level of disruption so far in question time has been unacceptable. A number of members have been called to order; I will have no hesitation in calling others to order. If members are called to order the required number of times, I will have no hesitation in ordering their removal from the House. Question time will proceed in an orderly and respectful way. I will not allow this Chamber to be disgraced, which some members seem wont to do.

Mr John Brogden: This Treasury memo shows that prior to last week the Premier leased computers and they were recurrent expenditure. He doesn't even know.

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

Mr BOB CARR: First, the Leader of the Opposition said that acquiring computers is not a capital acquisition and, second, he ignored the facts presented in the statement by the Treasurer today making it clear beyond argument that the Government is spending on capital works the largest amount ever, dwarfing even what was spent in the four years leading up to the Olympic Games, and bringing to just under $30 billion what we are spending in this four-year period on capital works. That is driven by expenditure on hospitals, schools and TAFE, roads and public transport and the assets of public utilities.

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

Mr BOB CARR: It is by any measure a huge investment, and it represents a disproportionately large and proud amount of economic activity taking place in Australia. There is no way that the Coalition could keep its promise of doing away with the vendors tax and spend anything like this amount on either capital or recurrent expenditure. We are very proud of a budget that spends unashamedly large amounts of money on the running costs of front-line services and on capital construction that gives this State its infrastructure edge.

Mr GRAHAM WEST: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. What is the latest information on today's State budget?

Mr BOB CARR: That is the sort of perceptive question, hard-hitting and factually based, that gets a lot of information. The honourable member for Campbelltown ought to be encouraged and congratulated for the research that lay behind the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Willoughby to order.

Mr BOB CARR: What I think the honourable member was getting at was the character of this budget: protecting front-line staff, strengthening public services, building infrastructure and reducing debt as a proportion of gross State product. In the Coalition's last budget education funding was $5.2 billion; it is now $9.3 billion.

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

Mr BOB CARR: On last year's education spending that is an increase of $717 million. That outlay fully funds the 12 per cent pay rise awarded by the Industrial Relations Commission and implements in full the next stage of our class size reduction plan for kindergarten to year 2. It puts an extra 800 teachers in our schools by the end of the year giving effect to the reduction in class sizes in the early years of schooling, which was the biggest financial commitment we made at the last election. It puts an extra $707 million into our hospitals, allowing us to open an extra 973 hospital beds.

[Interruption]
The answer to that is: 563 permanent and 410 for the winter peak. Ask a question and it will be answered. We are here to help.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will come to order.

Mr BOB CARR: The Government inherited a $5.3 billion health budget in 1995, and we have lifted it to $10 billion—practically doubled spending on health.

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

Mr BOB CARR: Add to that the money going to rail passenger transport, $350 million extra; add to that the $1 billion we are spending on our Rail Clearways Plan and the $1.5 billion we are spending to buy 500 airconditioned train carriages.

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

Mr BOB CARR: We have a $100 million increase in child protection.

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

Mr BOB CARR: That money, I need hardly remind the House, the Coalition pledged, under the cloak of war, to strip away to fund its election promises two days before the election, two days before the people voted. In capital works $7.4 billion will be spent this year, part of our $30 billion four-year investment plan and $5 billion higher than the past four year period. In fact, it is the biggest capital program in the State's history, dwarfing, as I said in answer to the previous question, the four-year expenditure leading up to the Olympics, which was by contrast $18.5 billion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lane Cove to order. I call the honourable member for Baulkham Hills to order.

Mr BOB CARR: To entertain ourselves let us compare that with the financial record under the Coalition Government—six deficits. In 1991, the State was put on financial watch by Moody's, the ratings agency.

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

Mr BOB CARR: As Leader of the Opposition I was asked to see the delegation sent out from Wall Street. Percy Allen was the head of Treasury, and he came in to brief us. He said, "Look, we have a delegation from Moody's and they are going to determine whether we keep our triple-A rating. Because of the close position in Parliament, the stand adopted by the Opposition will be all important." Percy Allen got our co-operation by making a presentation to that ratings agency on how our economically responsible policies, as an Opposition, helped the State's position.

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

Mr BOB CARR: I think we saved the day. Percy Allen, as head of Treasury, said to me at the end of the meeting when he prepared us for the delegation, "I should mention that when this delegation arrives from Moody's and Wall Street, matters of atmospherics will be very important." I said, "Percy, I assure you, the Che Guevara posters will be stripped from the walls, and we will put up photos of Calvin Coolidge so the team from Wall Street will know about our fiscal credentials."

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

Mr BOB CARR: Percy went away assured and within a week we were able to satisfy Moody's that the political consensus in the New South Wales Parliament, which was in delicate balance after that wonderful election of May 1991, offered no threat to the continuation of the State's triple-A rating. But the fact is, under the last Coalition Government with those six deficits, the triple-A rating was at risk. It is not now, because we retired debt.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Epping to order for the second time.
Mr BOB CARR: The last coalition Government had $5.5 billion in accumulated deficits. I am happy to say that good fiscal management has all but extinguished the debt burden or the $12 billion overhang that was left to us in 1995 by those opposite. Put another way, we inherited general government debt equal to 7.4 per cent of gross State product. It now stands at a mere 1 per cent of gross State product—down to $2.9 billion. We hacked away at and wound back the $12 billion debt overhang that we inherited from the fiscally irresponsible last coalition Government and, despite the scepticism, we are meeting the targets that we set in the General Government Debt Elimination Act in 1995. In fact, we are ahead of schedule.

We have not done that to keep the economic commentators and editorialists happy; we have done it because it means $1 billion a year less going into debt repayments. It is money that we have put back, as in this budget, into better public services and facilities. So we have record funding for services, record funding for capital works, debt as a proportion of the economy slashed, the highest paid teachers and nurses in the nation and election commitments being kept to the letter—a great Labor budget for a great Labor State.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. Why is he short-changing road users by slashing road capital works funding by $20 million in real terms while the number of Roads and Traffic Authority bureaucrats has blown out to more than 6,800, resulting in more bureaucrats than bitumen?

Mr CARL SCULLY: Hold the front page! Is that the best that Opposition members can do? They dreamed that up over the past two weeks and decided to whack it to us when they came back. We have record expenditure on roads. Do honourable members want me to read out the list of all the projects that will receive funding? I am horrified as the Government has been fair and has ensured that electorates represented by Opposition members will receive capital works funding, as will electorates represented by Government members. After looking at the list of electorates I am embarrassed at the amount of money that will be spent on roads. It is terrific. Roads funding is up by $200 million this year, but it should be $270 million.

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

Mr CARL SCULLY: Members of The Nationals should get onto the phone to John Anderson and ask him why the Federal Government stole $365 million from the New South Wales Roads budget. The Federal Government has made sure that our Roads budget is not as high as it should be, but it is still $200 million more than it was last year. Look at what this Government is doing to maintain the Pacific Highway, the Princes Highway and Lawrence Hargrave Drive. Our State roads are terrific compared to roads in other States and Territories.

[Interruption]

I am shocked to say that we need road workers to do the roadwork.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lane Cove will come to order. The honourable member for South Coast will come to order.

Mr STEVE WHAN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. What is the effect of the Government's plan to invest in new hospitals and health facilities across New South Wales?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Today the Treasurer delivered a record Health budget when he delivered the overall State budget—a record $700 million increase in funding for our hospitals and our health system. That $700 million will deliver more beds, improved access through our sustainable access plan, a focus on clinical excellence and enhanced mental health services. Those increases to our Health budget will deliver much-needed additional support for front-line health care professionals. The focus this year is on beds, access, capacity and sustained improvement in all those areas to improve the quality of health for families that rely on our public hospital system.

The budget will ensure that, in addition to work force strategies that have been put in place, such as Nurses Reconnect, adequate numbers of doctors and nurses will be in place to provide safe and effective treatment in our public hospitals. Today's budget demonstrates the Government's serious commitment to meeting the challenges confronting all States in relation to health and the demand on health services. In addition to the $707 million in increased recurrent funding, this year's budget includes a record $600 million in capital works spending—an increase of $143 million this financial year. This year's record capital works budget includes $23 million in investment earnings from the Health Super Growth Fund. Small local initiatives to large-scale hospital redevelopment health services across the State will share in this record capital works budget.

[Interruption]

If the honourable member for Lachlan would like a list of those initiatives I would be more than happy to provide him with that list. An amount of $173 million in capital funding has been provided for the rebuilding of rural and regional hospitals and supporting technology for this financial year. An amount of $364 million will be spent on continuing works in progress, including $64 million for the Central Coast access plan which will upgrade both Gosford and Wyong hospitals; $23 million for the Central Sydney Resource Transition Program to upgrade Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Concord hospital and Rachel Foster hospital; $18.6 million for the Liverpool mental health facility; $57 million for the Newcastle strategy to redevelop and upgrade Hunter health facilities, including Belmont hospital, John Hunter Hospital and Newcastle Mater hospital; $22.6 million for stage two of the redevelopment of Royal North Shore Hospital; and $29.9 million towards the Western Sydney strategy, which includes redevelopment at Westmead and at St Joseph's hospital.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber from both Government and Opposition members. The honourable member for Wyong will come to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: For the benefit of the honourable member for Lachlan, capital funding for rural and regional New South Wales includes $2.8 million for the redevelopment of the Bourke hospital and health service.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murray-Darling will come to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: It also includes: $3.3 million for the Dubbo acute psychiatric unit; $1.9 million for the Henty hospital and health service project; $4 million for Kyogle hospital; $5.2 million for the ongoing redevelopment of Milton-Ulladulla hospital; $1.5 million for the Shellharbour emergency department; $2.8 million for the construction of new facilities at Young District Hospital to consolidate Young hospital and Mercy Health Service on the one site; and, for the benefit of the honourable member for Lismore, the first instalment of money to redevelop the Richmond clinic at Lismore. An amount of $15.4 million will be allocated for additional cancer service infrastructure to establish radiotherapy services at Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie and to replace linear accelerators at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and in south-western Sydney.

The next allocation of $7.7 million is perhaps one of the sweetest parts of this budget. An amount of $7.7 million has been allocated for the replacement of breast-screening equipment and the development of new breast-screening assessment sites, which will incorporate state-of-the-art technology. I emphasise that an amount of $7.7 million has been allocated for that project. Just three weeks ago I received a letter from the Commonwealth Government telling us that over the next five years the Commonwealth will cut $13.5 million from public health prevention programs, and that includes an amount of $4.5 dollars for breast screening over the next five years.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Commonwealth is inflicting the cruellest possible cut in health funding: it is cutting public health prevention programs, starting with breast screening. That will mean fewer breast screens and longer waiting lists.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: How sweet it is that the State budget allocates $7.7 million—to paint the contrast. Some $5 million will be spent on relocating the Sylvania Community Health Centre to a new stand-alone facility at Sutherland hospital. I have already mentioned the Richmond mental health clinic redevelopment. Some $1.1 million will be spent on beginning the work on that mental health facility in Lismore. The budget allocates $6.5 million to continue the redevelopment of the Victoria Pavilion at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. There is $500,000 to progress the new hospital on the northern beaches.
The budget also allocates $14.8 million for other rural hospitals and community health services. This includes $1.2 million for Dunedoo Health Service; $1.2 million for Portland Hospital; $2.5 million for Guyra multipurpose services [MPS] centre; $800,000 for Walcha MPS; $1.2 million for works at Tottenham; $300,000 for Tingha Health Service; $500,000 for Junee Hospital; $1 million for the expansion of Batemans Bay emergency department; $953,000 for Menindee Primary Health Service; and $2 million to further advance the planned redevelopments of Bloomfield, Orange, Bathurst and Queanbeyan hospitals. An initial instalment of $400,000 will commence the redevelopment of Griffith hospital. They are just some of the projects in a massive capital works commitment of $600 million in this year's State budget. That is a significant investment not only in health services but also in health infrastructure to give local communities and the staff of health facilities the most modern, up-to-date infrastructure, so that staff can continue their dedicated, quality work across the State.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Despite the Minister's rhetoric in answer to the previous question and the Treasurer's rhetoric in his Budget Speech about health expenditure and additional nurses, how is it that at Coonabarabran District Hospital this morning there were 18 beds occupied but only one nurse rostered for ward duty?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The last issue that Opposition members should be asking questions about is the work force. That lot opposite sat silent while the States had a $1 billion cut inflicted upon them, extending over the next five years, in the health agreement.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of The Nationals to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: This meant $300 million less for New South Wales. But that lot opposite have sat silent while thousands of young people who want to study nursing are denied a place in university.

Mr George Souris: Point of order: My point of order goes to relevance. There were 18 patients and one nurse at Coonabarabran hospital. What kind of budget is it?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Upper Hunter will resume his seat. I call him to order for that outburst.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Those opposite come in here crying crocodile tears. Sydney university ceases nursing education and thousands of young people who want to become nurses and work in regional and rural New South Wales are denied places as a result of cuts. Canberra will not fund our universities to the level that people want in order to produce nurses and doctors. Yet the honourable member for Upper Hunter asks a question about nurse numbers. Not once in 12 months has the Opposition said one word about increasing the level of funding to our universities in order to produce more nurses and doctors.

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. What is the effect of education spending as revealed in today's budget?

Dr ANDREW REFSHAUGE: I thank the honourable member for Newcastle for his question and for his long support for education, particularly as Parliamentary Secretary. I am pleased to inform the House that we have a record budget in Education and Training, which is delivering on teachers' pay, literacy and numeracy, technology, capital works and smaller class sizes. This budget is delivering for the students of New South Wales. If we look at the entire Education and Training budget, including the Board of Studies and capital works, we can see that there is an increase of some $726.6 million over the past financial year. That includes $534 million to fully fund the teachers' pay rise of 12½ per cent. Mr Speaker, you may ask whether it is 12 per cent or 12½ per cent. Because it is staged and the percentages are cumulative it effectively comes to 12.5 per cent. That additional funding does not come from the Education budget, which is left intact. It confirms the Carr Government's commitment to education and training and to meeting the challenges of the future.

More resources per capita are going to schools, teachers and students in 2004-05 than in any other year, with the average recurrent funding per public school student at $9,186, which is up 74.2 per cent since we came to government. Over the next four years we will see expenditure of a massive $462.5 million, employing extra teachers and delivering extra classrooms.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lane Cove to order for the third time. I call the honourable member for Baulkham Hills to order for the third time.

Dr ANDREW REFSHAUGE: We can then reduce class sizes in kindergarten, year 1 and year 2. Over the next four years there will be $373 million for extra teachers, and over the next three years there will be $89.5 million for extra classrooms. By next year the Class Size Reduction Program will have provided an extra 800 teachers to reduce class sizes. By 2007 the program will have provided 1,500 extra teachers to reduce class sizes.

As to teachers' pay, it is important to recognise that the Government factored in the teachers' pay claim. However, when the Industrial Relations Commission provided an extra increase we had to find extra funding. But it has not come from the Education budget; it is going to the Education budget to be provided to TAFE colleges and to schoolteachers. This will make New South Wales teachers the highest paid in the country. The starting salary for a teacher in New South Wales is $46,235 compared with that of a librarian at $39,594, a psychologist at $41,600, a legal officer at $41,400, or a science officer at $39,500. Teachers in New South Wales, with $46,000, are ahead of those professionals. The starting salary for New South Wales teachers compares favourably with that of teachers in Victoria at $42,000, the Australian Capital Territory at $41,000, Queensland at $40,000 and Tasmania and Western Australia at $39,000. We have the highest paid teachers in the country.

We are also seeing record spending on government schools, which is up by $571 million on last year. That makes $6.9 billion in recurrent funding. TAFE colleges will receive $1.6 billion, which is an extra $72 million on last year. This benefit will translate to rural and regional areas. In the coming years regional and rural schools and TAFE colleges will receive $3.8 billion, with $59 million for rebuilding regional and country schools and TAFE colleges and $74 million for specific measures to help country students.

We are delivering, and will continue to deliver, on literacy and numeracy. Since 1995 we have ploughed some $841 million into literacy and numeracy, and it has won us international acclaim. The improvements are not just in the brighter kids; across the spectrum we are seeing all the children improving. In fact, a few months ago I announced a significant improvement in the Mount Druitt district, and at the country conference last weekend I announced a similar improvement in literacy in 41 schools in the Armidale area. We have found a dramatic improvement of more than 80 per cent in the lower literacy bands over three years in the Armidale area. That is a great tribute to the teachers and the commitment of my colleagues the former Ministers for education. That is why over the next four years we will spend a further $500 million on the State Literacy and Numeracy Plan.

In technology, computers, email and the Internet are no longer an option: they are becoming a critical part of learning and connecting with the world. That is why this Government will spend $795 million over the next four years on technology in our schools, with $544.4 million to roll out more than 100,000 computers to our schools, $156.6 million to upgrade the band width to give our schools faster access to the Internet, $16.7 million to train teachers in the latest computer technology, and $77.5 million to roll out our revolutionary e-learning system to 2,200 schools over the next 18 months, as well as e-mail accounts for all students and staff in schools and TAFE.

The Government will spend $447 million on capital works in preschools, schools, and TAFE, including $364 million on capital works in schools—part of our four-year $1.2 billion Schools Improvement Program; 32 major new projects announced by the Treasurer, including two new schools, the Ashtonfield Public School near Maitland and Hamlyn Terrace Public School on the Central Coast; work on 60 other major projects will continue; and $80 million, a $10 million increase from last year, on TAFE capital works, including 13 major new projects.

It is important to point out that, for the first time, this year we have not identified what we expect to be the cost of each individual capital works item. We have done that intentionally because previously we have been concerned that it has given an indication to the market of the minimum it should bid when tendering and the bids always come in over that. This year we are trying this as a pilot so we do not waste taxpayers' money. Although the total dollars that we will be spending has been clearly identified in the budget, the cost of individual items has not been listed, to see if we can get better value for money.

Aboriginal education certainly remains a major priority for this Government. This year $45.6 million will be spent to support some 33,500 Aboriginal students across the State, helping to improve their literacy and numeracy and providing more money for mentoring programs for principals wanting to teach in remote and regional areas with a high Aboriginal population. This investment will go hand in hand with the Aboriginal Educational Review currently under way, whose report I expect to receive reasonably soon. We are spending a record $646.1 million on a range of special education programs in government schools—programs that will help students with disabilities to participate and settle into regular classes and get the best possible educational outcomes. The funding is also critical for schools that cater for the often challenging needs of students with severe and moderate intellectual disabilities and students with behavioural problems.

The Board of Studies will receive $94.4 million for the development of syllabuses and curriculum support material for government and non-government schools from kindergarten to year 12. This funding will ensure that our Higher School Certificate continues to be recognised throughout the world. In fact, it is recognised in every area. The international baccalaureate has recognised it; it is seen as the marker. We are finding that many jurisdictions that want to buy a curriculum series are coming to New South Wales, looking at our Higher School Certificate and actually purchasing it holus-bolus, including the testing system. In that sense we have an absolutely enormous commitment to education and training in this State. This is a record budget that delivers on the teachers' pay claim, delivers for literacy and numeracy, delivers for technology, delivers on capital works, and delivers big time for our children, particularly in the Class Size Reduction Program in years K1 and K2.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: Given the Minister's self-congratulatory reply to the previous question, will he explain from where the money will come to pay TAFE teachers the extra 12 per cent awarded by the Industrial Relations Commission, given that there is only a 2.4 per cent increase in the vocational, education and TAFE budget compared with last year's budget?

Dr ANDREW REFSHAUGE: It will come, as the Treasurer said, from extra funding to the Education budget.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Davidson will come to order.

Dr ANDREW REFSHAUGE: The important thing the honourable member for North Shore has not factored in is that in the latest round of discussions between the Commonwealth and the State about Australian National Training Authority funding the Commonwealth Government decided to penalise the States and took $36 million out of TAFE. We have fewer courses available in TAFE because Federal colleagues of the honourable member for North Shore took money out of our budget, and because there will be fewer courses the need for teachers is smaller.

Mrs Jillian Skinner: Point of order: Given that TAFE teachers are waiting with interest for the Minister's reply, could the Minister please answer the question?

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

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police. What is the latest information on improvements to police stations and other Police budget matters?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation on both Government and Opposition benches. Question time has not yet expired and a number of members are on a number of calls to order. I again warn members that I will not hesitate to call them to order, and if they reach the required number I will direct that they be removed. The Minister will be heard in silence.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I am pleased to advise that the Government's tenth budget provides another $2 billion to NSW Police. I am particularly pleased to announce that some of the record funding will start the process of delivering long-awaited improvements to NSW Police properties. While some of the accommodation that officers enjoy around New South Wales is first-class, for too many it is simply substandard. The commissioner and I agree that that is not good enough and that we have to do better. That is why I asked Sinclair Knight Merz, professionals in the private sector who advised Victoria Police about its capital program, to assist in drawing up a plan in New South Wales. That plan informed our submission to Treasury for this budget.
It will take some time and a considerable amount of money to bring our police stations up to scratch. But today I am pleased to announce that the first step in delivering the modern, efficient facilities our police and their communities deserve has been taken. The Treasurer has advised me that from next year an estimated $40 million a year will be available to build new police stations in New South Wales. That will be kicked off with $700,000 this year to finalise the highest priority sites for redevelopment and refurbishment. Those sites are Bowral, Burwood, Camden, Campsie, Coffs Harbour, Corrimal, Cronulla, Dubbo, Ermington, Fairfield, Granville, Gunnedah, Leichhardt, Lismore, Liverpool, Macksville, Moree, Orange, Parkes, Port Kembla, Quakers Hill, Revesby, Windsor, Tenterfield, Wagga Wagga, Warilla and Wyong.

To ensure that these improvements are delivered on time and on budget we have made some crucial in-house changes. From 1 July the Police Ministry and the Department of Commerce will take over the functions of Police Properties. This year's budget provides a total of $94 million for the NSW Police capital program, and that is 35 per cent more than last year's capital program funding. It includes $33.5 million to meet our commitment to build new police stations at Chatswood, Griffith, Muswellbrook, St Marys, Armidale, Redfern and Thirroul.

We will also spend $2.5 million upgrading cells at police stations across New South Wales as part of the $10 million four-year program. An amount of $3 million has been set aside for additional police station building maintenance, and another $3 million will be provided for increased police leasing costs. The Government's tenth budget has delivered an extra $119 million to NSW Police. Excluding the one-off capital allocation for the new police headquarters at Parramatta, the 2004-05 budget is a 6.3 per cent increase on last year's funding. It is an outstanding budget, delivering to the police and the community of New South Wales.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: My question is to the Minister for Energy and Utilities. In view of the Government's promise to clean up our waterways, how does the Minister justify cutting almost 50 per cent from the Coastal Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade Program—a savage cut of about $202 million?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: In the past four years, Sydney Water spending on capital works has been a record—more than $500 million a year. Again, in the coming year, it will spend $530 million, $121 million of which is on rehabilitation and renewal of waste water networks throughout Sydney. There is a whole range of spending initiatives in the budget. That $530 million in five years greatly exceeds the level of spending by Sydney Water on capital works in the years of the Coalition Government. It doubles it! And, of course, it addresses the priorities in necessary capital works in terms of sewage treatment, environmental impact, and water supply. A record amount will be spent on mains replacement and leak reduction—$82 million next year, for example. This is a Government committed to investing heavily in infrastructure across the entire Sydney system; and it has been at record levels for the past three or four years.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I ask a supplementary question. As the Minister does not seem to understand that he has cut $200 million from the budget, will he explain why he has not allowed Services Sydney to get access to Sydney Water's pipes, to allow reuse of the sewerage water—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is clearly not a supplementary question. I rule the question out of order.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: —to stop the 1,000 pool equivalent of sewage that goes into the Pacific Ocean every day under his Government?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled the question out of order. The honourable member for Heffron has the call.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled about this matter previously. I have not given the honourable member for Wakehurst the call to take a point of order. He will resume his seat.

Mr Brad Hazzard: I am entitled to address you.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.
Mr Brad Hazzard: I am entitled to address you.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the honourable member for Wakehurst.

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

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources. Can the Minister outline the budget initiatives for the development of infrastructure across New South Wales announced in today's budget?

Mr CRAIG KNOWLES: It is a terrific question, isn't it? You can tell when a budget passes the McKell test: when you turn on Country Hour at midday, half an hour after the Treasurer has delivered the budget, and you hear Mal Peters, the boss of the New South Wales Farmers Federation, congratulating the Government on its budget, particularly on natural resource management. And why wouldn't he? It does pass the McKell test. What did Michael Egan say in this Chamber? He said that 26 per cent of the population will get 36 per cent of the State's capital spending. The $8.6 billion allocated this year under the capital expenditure and Roads and Traffic Authority maintenance programs will see the lion's share going to country and rural New South Wales.

In simple terms, that means jobs in the bush—44,000 of them! And why wouldn't Mal Peters congratulate the Government on that budget? By the way, about an hour ago, on Country Hour he also congratulated the Government on the $38-odd million water spending, bringing our total spending up to $55 million—to put the first money on the table, hopefully to be matched by John Anderson, to assist in the adjustment for groundwater in the river valleys of the State. We know we have suspended the groundwater plants for another year. The Council of Australian Governments meeting this Friday will be a good test. The question is: Will the Coalition in Canberra put the same amount of money on the table to match our budget allocation today? This is funding that will underpin the viability of the economies of rural New South Wales.

But it is not just the bush, it is not just water, and it is not just programs that are of particular interest to Mal Peters: major commitments continue throughout the program. The Pacific Highway, the Great Western Highway, and the Princes Highway will be the subject of big spending. In an answer to a question that I thought was a Dorothy Dixer, Minister Scully outlined an extraordinary long list of roads capital works expenditure in the forthcoming 12 months—a 15 per cent increase over the current year. And 60 per cent of the Roads budget goes to rural and regional New South Wales. That is spending that The Nationals, when part of the Coalition Government, could never have achieved. Rural communities, which have 26 per cent of the State's population, are to get 36 per cent of the expenditure—with 60 per cent of the Roads budget going to the bush!

The $30 billion investment in infrastructure over four years does not include all the private sector capital, on top of things like the Western Sydney Orbital, the cross-city tunnel, the Lane Cove tunnel—all extra fruit for the sideboard. It is worth members noting for the press releases to their local communities that the overall capital expenditure budget this year for four years—it is about $8.75 million this year, if the RTA maintenance budget is included as well, which is legitimate in terms of capital expenditure—equates to about $1,100 per head of population, that is, every man, woman and child in the State. Compare that with the historic levels of capital funding over successive governments. Over the past 30 or 40 years, adjusting all those old expenditures to bring them up to real terms, with inflation added, it was about $550 per head. So this budget doubles the amount of real expenditure for capital works for every man, woman and child in this State. As the Premier and the Treasurer said, that is a record level of capital works expenditure.

In the cities the big licks of transport infrastructure are rolling out. In rail particularly, more than $1 billion—$80 million this year alone—will be allocated to fund the Rail Clearways program to get on with those turnbacks at Bondi Junction, Macdonaldtown, and Revesby, the improvements at Hornsby, and of course the $145 million to duplicate the Cronulla line. Those works are fundamentally important to re-engineer and reorganise the untangling of the rail system and make it work better for our commuters. On top of that, of course, as the population of the city continues to grow at a rate of about 1,000 people every single week, they will be looked after with more big spending on new rolling stock and, of course, the airconditioning of the whole electric fleet, to the extent of $1.5 billion.

All of those things, like roads and our transitways program, demonstrate our commitment to big expenditure on important capital works—all co-ordinated in a way to accommodate the needs of our communities, whether they are in rural New South Wales, Western Sydney, or elsewhere. Clearly this is a massive expenditure on capital works, a record level of expenditure. And, as I said, it passes the McKell test every time. The Country Labor boys know that when 26 per cent of the population receive 36 per cent of the State's capital infrastructure, rural and regional New South Wales are being well and truly looked after.

Mr CARL SCULLY: I have been provided with further information by the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] in response to the question I was asked earlier by the Leader of The Nationals. In 2003-04 the budget papers indicated that the RTA had 6,766 employees. The 2004-05 budget papers indicate that the RTA has 6,820 employees, an increase of 54 employees or only four-fifths of 1 per cent, that is 0.8 per cent of the RTA work force. These people are working hard for an organisation engaged in more road-building activity than at any time in living memory. In 2003-04 actual capital expenditure was $1.364 billion. In 2004-05 capital expenditure is expected to be $1.377 billion, an increase of $13 million. In 2003-04 actual maintenance expenditure was $665 million. In 2004-05 maintenance expenditure is expected to be $707 million, an increase of $42 million.

Questions without notice concluded.

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Roads, and Minister for Housing) [3.32 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to provide at this sitting:

(1) for the routine of business to be varied to not call on motions for urgent consideration, matters of public importance and private members' statements; and

(2) for the introduction and progress through all stages of the following bills, notice of which was given this day:

Agricultural Livestock (Disease Control Funding) Amendment Bill
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill and cognate bill

Clearly the Opposition will have the nerve and gall to oppose a motion we have been forced to move. I remind members that earlier in the session the Coalition supported a motion that provided that if legislation is not passed through this Chamber and sent to the upper House by 12 midnight tonight it will not be considered. The honourable member for Epping will feign outrage and indignation—we know he went to NIDA with Mel Gibson about 30 years ago and that he should have gone to Hollywood. But I want to know what he will say to the people of New South Wales as to why bills such as the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Bill and the terrorism legislation we introduced today should wait for three months to be debated. I want to know what he will say as to why changes to the environment, liquor laws, and workers compensation should wait.

The Opposition cannot have a bob each way. They will say, "This is antidemocratic. You shouldn't do this. How can you crush the democratic spirit of the Chamber?" But the artful dodgers sneaked into the upper House and furtively voted for a motion that forces our hand. It is with a heavy heart that I have to move these sorts of motions. It gives me no joy. I believe that the Government should be held to account. We should debate and discuss motions for urgent consideration and matters of public importance. Above all, we should hear private members' statements. All those on the backbench who are denied the opportunity of talking in this House about their communities should blame these characters opposite. I want you to tell the Gulargambone Bugle and the Kiama Times, "These people denied us the opportunity of having urgency and MPIs." I have no choice. On behalf of the Opposition, I apologise for its having forced me to move the motion. Otherwise, I commend it.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [3.34 p.m.]: The motion was designed, first, to save the skin of the honourable member for Tweed. The first motion not to be debated recognises that New South Wales Country Labor resolved on the weekend to call for the reinstatement of the Casino to Murwillumbah line. It is embarrassing for the honourable member for Tweed. Indeed, the only thing that will save the skin of the honourable member for Tweed is the reinstatement of the Murwillumbah line, but it is now clear that that will not happen. The motion was designed, second, to save the honourable member for Bathurst, who has demonstrated very clearly that every time he opens his mouth he puts his foot further and further in it. Even though he has a size 13 shoe, he cannot shut himself up.

The Labor Party will not let the honourable member for Bathurst speak to his motion because when he spoke about forests he said they would not be sold outright but they might be privatised. Even if the honourable member for Bathurst is too stupid to understand that his side is censoring him, I can assure him that that is what it is doing. The motion will, third, censor the Independent members who wanted to raise a budget matter relating to health. They will go west with the rest of us. The Government does not want any serious debate on the budget in relation to health or anything else because it knows it will not stack up.

The Leader of the House said that one of the reasons for the motion is that he wants to debate the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill and its cognate bill. Rhetorically, he asked me to explain why that would not be a good idea, and the answer is that rushing legislation through can create more problems than it might solve. This morning we were circulated with a crossbench briefing note on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill and its cognate bill. Although we will not oppose it, it is a complete and utter mess. For example, anyone who intends to cause damage to the Opera House will face a greater penalty than someone who actually damages the Opera House. According to the crossbench briefing note, anyone who damages the Opera House will be liable to a penalty of five years imprisonment, but anyone who only intends to damage the Opera house will be liable to seven years imprisonment.

I will be nice and polite to the Minister for Police and the Attorney General: We are happy to co-operatively pass any anti-terrorism legislation any time they like. But before they rush this one through they should kick a few backsides in their departments and get the legislation right. And it does not stop there. In their helter-skelter rush to try to tighten up the legislation they have retained the option for a gaol penalty or a fine for the possession of explosives with the intent to cause damage. This well thought out legislation will be rushed through in the interests of the public! Thank God the upper House will have a little time to consider this dog's breakfast, because that is what it is.

The Opposition remains committed to passing any reasonable anti-terrorism legislation at any time, but when bills provide for a lesser penalty for doing damage than for intending to damage property, somebody should quickly go back to the drawing board: It is time for a substantial ministerial reshuffle. Some Ministers are not up to the task. They are not doing their jobs; they are not asking the hard questions. There is also no attempt to change the provision allowing the offence of carrying explosives onto an aeroplane to be dealt with summarily by a magistrate, as a result of which an offender can be let off with a slap on the wrist. Has there been any attempt to deal with that problem in legislation? Certainly not! [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

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

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

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

Mr Aplin Mr Armstrong Mr Barr Ms Berejiklian Mr Cansdell Mr Constance Mr Debnam Mr Draper Mr Fraser Mrs Hancock Mr Hartcher Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Hopwood

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

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

Ms Saliba

Mr Brogden

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 4 June.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [3.49 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill and indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the legislation. Recently the Opposition was advised of the Government's intention to move additional amendments to clarify the legislation and to assist in its implementation. The bill contains miscellaneous amendments related particularly to more severe penalties for inmates who are found with mobile phones, or items associated with mobile phones and their operation, in their possession. The bill is intended to fortify the corrections centre discipline system which operates in New South Wales and to aid in the drug testing of inmates.

Clearly, inmates should not have any form of contraband in their possession, particularly mobile phones, which have emerged as an increasing problem in New South Wales prisons. Approximately 250 mobile phones have been found in the possession of inmates in recent years. This legislation makes it a correctional centre offence and a criminal offence for an inmate to be in possession of a mobile phone, a subscriber identity module [SIM] card, a charger or anything capable of transmitting data in a manner similar to the operation of a mobile phone or a mobile phone network. The possession of mobile phones by inmates has been identified by the Opposition as a major security problem for prison officers, for whose safety the Opposition is concerned, and is a major problem in that it provides inmates with the capacity to deal in drugs and conduct other illegal activities involving communication with or threatening of victims, or friends and relatives of victims. It is a matter of great concern that mobile phones are getting into New South Wales prisons.

The Opposition believes that the primary reason why mobile phones get into prisons is that there are inadequate security and search regimes related to prison entry. Sadly, many mobile phones and contraband items, including large quantities of drugs, enter the prison system through staff or prison officers who are either corrupt or have been compromised or blackmailed by prisoners. Until this State implements a full regime which ensures that all people—from the Premier to private citizens—who enter the prisons system are fully searched by the use of pat-down searches and other techniques to ascertain whether they are carrying contraband, mobile phones will continue to find their way into the prisons system. When mobile phones are found in the possession of prison inmates, tough penalties should apply, and this bill is directed to achieving that end.

Another key provision of the legislation increases the maximum compensation that a prison governor may require an inmate to pay for loss or damage to property. In 2000 the penalty of $50 was increased to $100. At that time the Opposition regarded the penalty as woefully inadequate, particularly in the wake of a riot by 20 inmates in a wing of the Goulburn gaol which resulted in $250,000 worth of property damage. Ultimately, next to no punishment was meted out and taxpayers had to wear the full costs of the damage. In that context it is entirely appropriate that inmates should be ordered to pay a reasonable amount of compensation when they are found to be directly responsible for damage or loss of property.

The bill will increase the penalty from $100 to $500, which is a step in the right direction. The Opposition believes that the increased penalty will still be inadequate. However, inevitably the Government will argue that inmates have limited means and should not be punished excessively. However, it is taxpayers' money that has to be drawn upon to remedy or rectify matters when inmates have acted inappropriately. The Opposition will not oppose the increase, but makes the point strongly that the discretion in relation to punishment available to a prison governor should be much greater than that proposed. The bill proposes also the use of new non-invasive technology for the detection of illicit drug use by inmates. The Opposition certainly concurs with that proposal.

No longer will there be a second chance for an offender whose periodic detention has been previously revoked, who has served a full-time stint in gaol and who has then been given periodic detention. If an offender fails to attend periodic detention, a direction will be given to the Parole Board that will facilitate the immediate revocation of that offender's periodic detention order. The Opposition has been concerned about that for a long time. The periodic detention regime has been far too lax. Many offenders who failed to attend were given chance after chance. Offenders know only too well that they can get around the system, and they have done so for a number of years. The proposal in the bill to tighten up the periodic detention regime is welcomed by the Opposition, although it should have come much sooner. The bill is consistent with the position taken by the Opposition in relation to many aspects of the administration of prison sentences. It is a belated step in the right direction and the Opposition will not oppose it.

Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.55 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Davidson for his contribution to this important debate. Essentially, the bill is aimed at improving the operation of the correctional system. Mobile phones in the possession of inmates represent a serious threat to the security, good order and discipline within the correctional system. Mobile phones in places of detention can also represent a serious threat to the broader community. The security measures adopted by the Department of Corrective Services and the sanctions under the Summary Offences Act 1988 have been relied upon to deter people from attempting to introduce contraband, including mobile phones, into places of detention. The Government is of the view that the possession of a mobile phone in a place of detention is also an extremely serious matter.

The Government's position in respect of mobile phones is one of zero tolerance. The Government holds the view that persons who choose not to respect this position should be punished accordingly. The bill provides for significant sanctions to be imposed on inmates who receive mobile phones, subscriber identity module cards for mobile phones. or mobile phone chargers or any part thereof while in places of detention. The most severe sanctions are comparable to those sanctions that can be imposed on the outside associates of inmates who help to introduce mobile phones into places of detention. The Department of Corrective Services constantly reviews its security arrangements. The diminishing size of mobile phones and their ever-decreasing metal content makes them difficult to detect, despite the department's relentless efforts to do so.

The New South Wales Government has been seeking the Commonwealth's agreement on a proposed trial of mobile jamming equipment to strengthen even further security in prisons. Jammers would seriously curtail the spread of mobile phones in our correctional facilities and prevent potential or convicted terrorists from organising or communicating with their followers. The Minister for Justice has been urging the Commonwealth to take action on this issue since July last year and will take the matter to the ministerial council meeting in Hobart later this month. Hopefully, the Minister will convince the Federal Government that jamming facilities are needed if we are to deal with this matter effectively: prevention is better than cure. I hope the Federal Government will take appropriate action to allow the trial to proceed. No doubt the strong measures contained in the bill will assist in our efforts to counter terrorism.

In addition to addressing the specific problem of mobile phones, the bill introduces other improvements to the general inmate disciplinary system. The amendments to the penalties that the governor of a correctional centre or a visiting magistrate may impose will serve to strengthen the disciplinary system. The new penalties will provide governors and visiting magistrates with the scope to tailor a punishment so as to have the optimum impact on the inmate concerned. The proposed amendments will provide for more severe penalties to be imposed on those inmates who repeatedly breach inmate discipline.
The amendments will also make the disciplinary system more flexible and better equipped to respond to the range of disciplinary matters that arise within the correctional system. The amendments will also make the system more flexible and better equipped to respond to the range of disciplinary matters that arise within the correctional system. The honourable member for Davidson raised concerns relating to gaol searches. As I said at the outset, the Department of Corrective Services has been relentless in its efforts to detect mobile phones. However, we need to do more—for example, mobile phone jamming—if we are to go down the positive track of rectifying this problem. On 6 May in the Australian Ross Fitzgerald stated:

Outgoing federal Communications Minister Daryl Williams and the NSW Opposition justice spokesman Andrew Humpherson wrong-headedly insist that prison officers should focus on the increasingly difficult task of body searching. Given that mobile phones are getting smaller, easier to conceal and harder to detect, this is a backward approach.

Despite its rhetoric about combating terrorism, the Howard Government has chosen to do nothing to address the threat to public safety and good order of correctional centres posed by the abuse of mobile phones.

The Howard Government should come on board in relation to this issue. The Government has made some important changes that will improve security and alleviate the problems associated with access to and use of mobile phones in our correctional system. However, we need more support from the Federal Government. Next month the Minister for Justice, the Hon. John Hatzistergos, will take that strong message to his Federal counterpart. The bill provides clarification in respect of several provisions in the Act. It also provides for the utilisation of developments in drug-testing technology, such as saliva testing, as they occur. The bill also makes it clear that judges have the power to alter sentence dates so that time spent on bail pending an appeal does not count as any part of any term of imprisonment. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.03 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 to 4 in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [1]. Insert after line 5:

mobile phone includes any device that may be used, in whole or in part, for the purpose of sending or receiving voice or other data over a mobile telephone network, whether or not it may be used for any other purpose.

No. 2 Page 10, schedule 1 [27], lines 2 and 3. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

Insert "or before" after "at".

No. 3 Page 10, schedule 1 [28], lines 5 and 6. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

Omit "at the expiry of the earlier sentence". Insert instead "at or before the expiry of the earlier sentence (but after the end of any non-parole period)".

No. 4 Page 20, schedule 3.4. Insert after line 11:

(2) In this section, mobile phone includes any device that may be used, in whole or in part, for the purpose of sending or receiving voice or other data over a mobile telephone network, whether or not it may be used for any other purpose.

These amendments provide for a definition of "mobile telephone" so that other personal communication devices, such as small handheld devices, that are capable of sending or receiving emails are included. Amendments Nos 2 and 3 confirm that if an offender's initial sentence is extended and he or she is to serve another sentence consecutively the consecutive sentence will not begin until the extension of the initial sentence has expired. These amendments will further improve the operation of the bill.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [4.04 p.m.]: The Opposition concurs with these amendments, which seek to clarify, in the context of terrorism, the significant threat that mobile phones and other communication devices in correctional centres in this State pose to victims, members of the public and prison officers. The Parliamentary Secretary and I have said before that prevention is better than cure. Prevention is about stopping mobile phones from getting into the prison system in the first place. Part of the cure is identifying them once they are found in our prisons and punishing those who have them. The only way to prevent mobile phones from getting into the prison system is to adopt a regime similar to the one that has been adopted in the United Kingdom. Everyone who enters into the prison system is properly searched. That is far more effective than the system that is in operation in New South Wales, where over 250 mobile phones have got through the system in recent years.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

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

Debate resumed from 4 June.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (The Hills) [4.07 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Jenolan Caves Reserve Trust) Bill. I state at the outset that I am not surprised that the Government has introduced this bill. The Minister has never been supportive of the trust model set up by the previous Government to administer the Jenolan Caves. In his second reading speech the Minister described these amendments as minor. However, they mark the most fundamental change to the way in which the caves have been managed since 1989. The Minister said that by making the Director-General of the Department of Environment and Conservation an alternate to the Jenolan Cave Trust Board he will effectively transfer the management of these reserves to the Department of Environment and Conservation.

The Minister may have the option of reinstating the trust board, but he has made it clear that he has no intention of doing so. Under section 58ZE of the National Parks and Wildlife Act the Minister has the right to remove any or all of the members of the trust board from office and, if necessary, to appoint an administrator. That is what the Minister did in January when he appointed Mr Alan Griffin to run the caves. But subsection (2) of the same section states that the Minister must appoint new members to the trust board as soon as practicable and, in any case, within six months after removing the members. So it is not possible for the Minister to continue with an administrator in place. He either has to change the legislation or appoint a new trust board. In his second reading speech the Minister said that the trust board was founded as a self-financing and independent entity relying on income from visitor charges as well as lease revenue from Caves House, which is operated under a 99-year lease. The Minister continued:

In recent years, however, the trust has only been able to meet its financial resource requirements by deferring capital works and relying on government grants to carry out some essential works.

That is certainly true to a point. But the Minister did not say that the Government lumped additional costs on the trust in 1997, when it last fiddled with the legislation. The Government added Borenore Caves to the trust's responsibility but offered no supplementary funding whatsoever. Do not take my word for it; let us hear what the administrator, Alan Griffin, had to say about it. In his report dated 31 March 2004, he said:

When Borenore was transferred to the Trust, there was no supplementation and there is no revenue from this Reserve. Consequently, this area is currently managed on a minimalist approach using resources from Wombeyan. This is supported through a partnership with the local Orange and Borenore communities, who mow the grass in the picnic area and generally keep the area clean.

Continuing the on-going relationship with the local community is strongly recommended. However, it is considered more support (0.5 EFT position) is required in managing the potential risk of public liability claims and in conserving the karst reserve at Borenore, which is being degraded by vandalism, inappropriate access and use.

He concluded:

Closing off access is not economically feasible and would cause a major outcry from the local community.

The Minister said that Jenolan Caves was not producing enough revenue to reinvest sufficiently in its own infrastructure and product development. Perhaps that is correct. But what is the reason for this? Let us look at visitor numbers. Visitors are the lifeblood of the caves, which after all are supposed to be the number one tourist attraction in regional New South Wales. Between 1994-95—our last year in government; today we heard the Premier making some comparisons between the Coalition's last year in government and the current situation, after nine years of this Government—and 2002-03 the Government had run down visitor numbers from 260,236 to 214,453, which is a fall of almost 18 per cent.

We heard a litany of excuses for that outcome. One excuse was that the Sydney Olympic Games—the Olympic Games that attracted hundreds of thousands of people to this State¯were to blame and caused a fall in visitor numbers at Jenolan Caves. Apparently all those people came to Sydney but none went to the Blue Mountains. The Minister said that even though the number of international and domestic tourists is up that increase has not flowed to the Blue Mountains. Why do we think that is? The fact is that Jenolan Caves has not been promoted. The Blue Mountains have not been promoted effectively. We must ask where the money is being spent. Worst of all, the Blue Mountains is the Minister's electorate. Jenolan Caves are in the Minister's electorate. But he does not seem to give a damn. Declining visitor numbers in percentage terms at Wombeyan Caves, the second-largest caves system in the suite managed by the Jenolan Caves Trust Board, have been even more precipitate. Visitor numbers are down 23 per cent from 35,000 to 27,000. Will the Minister claim that those numbers were also affected by the Olympic Games?

One reason why visitor numbers are down at Jenolan Caves is that ticket prices have increased by up to 50 per cent. Because of the fall in visitor numbers and the consequent shortfall in revenue Jenolan "was forced to rely on government grants to cover the shortfall" and "a backlog of capital works and maintenance has arisen across all four reserves". That is probably not surprising either. Jenolan Caves were discovered in the 1840s and brought under direct government control in 1866. I think we all know the stories about how the caves were progressively discovered and how visitors were taken down and shown the caves by magnesium flares. Those same magnesium flares coated the delicate interior of the caves with soot. Thankfully, that practice was discontinued in 1887, when permanent electric lighting was installed. That is getting on for 120 years ago. As I understand it, some of the caves' infrastructure—even some of the electric cabling—dates back more than a century. So it is not surprising that additional maintenance and capital works funding would be needed.

Wombeyan Caves also date back to the 1840s. A section of land was set aside for the protection of the caves and a caretaker was appointed in 1862. The caves at Wombeyan were shown to visitors by candlelight and by magnesium flares from as early as 1865. These caves were first lit by electricity in 1928. That is a long time ago, and those assets have needed the expenditure of a significant amount of money to upgrade them. Some of the caves still have chicken wire in them. We are talking about electricity in areas that are constantly filled with water, and electricity and water do not mix. So there are safety considerations as well.

The administrator's report claims that the trust was self-funding until 2002-03, when it required supplementation of $240,000 from the Government. Yet the annual report shows that in 2002 some $875,000 in capital works funding came from Treasury. Last year the Government cut funding by $635,000 at a time when most people believed between $4 million and $6 million was needed to rejuvenate the assets. I think the Minister set up the trust board to fail. In 2002 the Government instructed the trust to pay a productivity increase to its staff of almost 10 per cent. This increase was supposed to be paid only if there was a productivity increase—which, given the run-down in visitor numbers, there clearly was not. So the wages bill increased from $2.237 million to $2.451 million, with a corresponding increase in superannuation and workers compensation payments, at a time when revenues were static or declining. That is the major reason why the trust board was in the red in 2002-03: it had to pay a wage increase that it could not afford. Last July the Government called in the Council on the Cost of Government. When it reported to Minister in December it found:

_ The business model was unsustainable, with reliance on Jenolan to cross subsidise the other reserves. However, Jenolan was not making enough revenue to reinvest in its own infrastructure and product development, instead relying on Government grants to cover the shortfall. Consequently, there was a backlog of capital works and maintenance on all four reserves;

_ The Trust had performed extremely well, given the structural and commercial impediments inherent in its establishment;

_ It had strong Chairmanship and a cohesive Board, despite the unsustainable business model;

_ There was strong evidence of a committed and active Board and staff of the Trust;

_ There was well-recognised karst management and scientific expertise within the Trust and its staff;

_ The split management model at Jenolan (ie, private sector operated Caves House accommodation/food outlets and Government run cave tours) was leading to sub-optimal financial and visitor experience outcomes.
On this basis the trust was sacked and the administrator was bought in. The administrator looked at six different models, which contained some subsections. I think honourable members should know what those models were—this document has not been made public or distributed widely—as some members will find several of the suggestions quite disturbing. Option 1 was to maintain the status quo. It was suggested that Wombeyan, Abercrombie and Borenore caves could be separated from Jenolan and perhaps managed by the Department of Environment and Conservation to reduce overheads. But the administrator concluded that the ability to reinvest in capital infrastructure would remain sub-optimal and the lessee's accommodation operation would remain financially unsustainable. The lessee's accommodation operation will remain financially unsustainable because of the rundown in visitor numbers to the caves from 260,000 to 214,000. That is why the operation of Jenolan Caves House is financially unsustainable and that is an absolute disgrace.

Option 2 was the split ownership model. Under this model, responsibility for cave tours remains separate from accommodation and may be provided for either by government, that is, option 2A, or by a licence to a private operator, that is, option 2B. The major differences to the base case are increased marketing—that is a bit of a hoot and something in pretty short supply over the past nine years—aimed at increasing visitations to 240,000 visitors per annum in the short-term, and increasing maintenance to extend the life of the infrastructure. In the immediate term, two to five years, it is intended a visitation level of 270,000 would be targeted. Option 2A, which had responsibility for the cave tours remaining separate from the accommodation, was described as being the least disruptive with minimal impact on karst conservation. However, the administrator concluded that a new joint and more integrated management approach would be required necessitating renegotiating the current leasing arrangement in line with the council's findings. This may involve changes in rent as an offset for a reduced period of the lease, formal agreements on joint marketing and clearer provisions for non-performance.

The disadvantage of option 2A is that the ongoing problems within the current lease will continue, albeit at a reduced level. The administrator pointed out that capital investment of $3.8 million in the caves is required in safety works and product revitalisation. Under option 2B, the Government and the current lessee would jointly contract for a single operator to manage all services. This provides the opportunity for a single operator to take sole responsibility for marketing and for better integration of services but at a reduced return to the Government. However, the commercial risk in managing the area will be transferred from the Government to the new operator, something about which the administrator was excited.

Option 3 is an integrated lease. This option involves offering licensed cave tours, accommodation and hospitality services as an integrated package to the private sector. This could involve either the Government buying out the current lessee and offering an integrated package to the marketplace, or the Government and the current lessee offering a joint tender for a single operator who would purchase the right to provide hospitality services, that is, buy out the current lessee, and the Government would manage the new contract. According to the administrator, this option would provide the new operator with the capability of investing in new access systems, for example, constructing a car park at the top of the five-mile hill and using shuttle buses or cable cars to get down to the caves, reducing the impact of current road inefficiencies upon visitor numbers, enhancing hospitality services, reducing the risk to government and improving marketing opportunities.

The problems, however, include possible industrial relations impacts from contracting out government services and issues in managing other stakeholder relationships, including speleologists and environmental groups. The stakeholder problems can be resolved to an extent with a strong contract management, a separate regulatory presence and guarantee of continued employment of trust staff. Option 4 offered direct treaty, which involves the Government negotiating with the current lessee to run the caves tours. That option is supposed to have the lowest return on investment, but the administrator, not surprisingly, identifies that problems may occur with other stakeholders such as speleologists, environmental groups and other potential providers. It is likely that unless the current lessee employs a professional operator, this option will not be financially sustainable.

Option 5 requires the Government and the current lessee to establish the joint venture company to engage a professional operator to run an integrated package. This is a variation of option 2B and is aimed at ensuring that the Government and the current operator are kept at arm's length in the day-to-day operation. But it has a lower return, according to the administrator, and is not recommended as it is a more complicated version of option 2B with no added advantage. But the real lulu, the real honey and the one that takes the cake is option 6, restricted access. The Government is actively considered closing Jenolan Caves either partly or completely. In fact, this option scored very high in some of the categories that the administrator put up. Why did the Government not go ahead with the option? I had feedback earlier this year that the Government was actively considering this option.
I am sure there would be major political fallout from full closure, but the real problem was that if the Government did not close the caves entirely it still had to upgrade the five-mile road into the caves at a cost of $18.5 million. This is why what the Government is proposing is so absurd. The Minister said that the trust was not self-sustaining and had to be propped up. The trust was not self-sustaining because in no way could it afford the $18.5 million to upgrade the road. Who owns the road? Who is responsible for the road? Who is responsible for managing the road? Is it the trust board? Is it the Department of Environment and Conservation? The road is a public road and the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] is responsible for it.

The Government in its wisdom seemed to expect the trust to find sufficient money through visitor revenues not only to upgrade the ageing infrastructure within the caves but to pay for maintenance of the ageing access infrastructure of the five-mile road into the caves. That road should have been dealt with some time ago. I would have thought that after the Thredbo disaster this Government would have had sufficient experience of tragic occurrences resulting from its failure to maintain roads properly, but apparently it has learned nothing. The road is dangerous and I understand that the timber supports under part of the road are rotting away. The trust came to the Government and the Minister and talked about the Government funding other options, but those options were rejected. It is my understanding that a major reason for the sacking of the trust was that it had acquired significant nuisance value because the trust expected the Government to upgrade its own road.

Apparently no other options have been considered apart from upgrading the five-mile road into the caves. Another road known as the two-mile road comes from Oberon on the other side and the difficulty is that it is very winding and steep and not suitable for taking buses or heavy vehicles—even emergency vehicles—down to the caves. Consideration was given to parking buses at the top of the two-mile road, putting in a museum and selling tickets, and perhaps building a cableway. That might take a little longer than driving on the five-mile road to the caves but the bus problem would be dealt with. Buses can only just squeeze through the Grand Arch, and there is no question that the parking of vehicles in the Grand Arch has an environmental impact on the caves.

The chair of the former board stated in the 2002-03 annual report that the trust board and senior management have worked with the RTA in relation to the five-mile road access to the Jenolan Caves. Concerns to ensure the safety of trust staff and visitors led to temporary closure of the road and the provision of alternative access arrangements for a short time in May 2003. The trust is continuing to liaise with the RTA regarding short-term and long-term strategies for access to Jenolan. However, following a decision by the New South Wales Treasurer, the trust has recognised that alternative access options such as an aerial cableway will not be pursued at this time. That is code for saying that the board was getting under everybody's skin because it was suggesting alternatives for getting into the caves. The alternatives were not going to be considered by the Treasurer or the Government and ultimately the solution for this Government and this Minister was to sack the trust.

I cannot imagine what the situation would have been had the Government gone ahead and closed the caves. Quite apart from the impact on all of us—because I am sure all members of this place would have been to Jenolan Caves on at least one occasion—there would have been a massive compensation case for the lessee of Caves House, who has a 99-year lease on the property, with something like 85 years yet to run. Clearly, it was not necessary to abolish the trust to do up the road. The road could have been upgraded by the Roads and Traffic Authority if the trust had been left in place. That certainly was not a problem, nor was it a precursor to getting the funding to do up the road.

In his second reading speech the Minister spoke of setting up a Karst Conservation Policy Unit in the Department of Environment and Conservation. In his report the Minister estimates it would cost $189,000 a year in recurrent funding to manage the reserves to current standards, but the new Karst Conservation Policy Unit will cost an additional $350,000 a year, plus $140,000 in set-up costs. That is an extra $350,000 a year for expertise in karst conservation and management that already exists. My understanding is that staff will be transferred out of Jenolan to the new branch, and they will be away from the caves. That is rather equivalent to running the Warrumbungles out of Albury or telecommuting to Mootwingee.

It is not as though the trust is truly insolvent. It has cash reserves of some $1.449 million. The Caves House lease is in the books with a value of $6.5 million. It is not inconceivable that the trust would fix the capital works backlog and remain self-sustaining—maybe with a couple of million dollars supplementation from the Government. Obviously, the road would need to be fixed as a separate item. However, it was the Carr Government that sowed the seeds of destruction for Jenolan Caves when in 1997 it abolished the Coalition's trust—which was made up of people such as a tourism expert, a business person, a local councillor and a conservationist—and replaced it with the trust that the Minister sacked in January.
Let us look at the people who were on the sacked trust. I am not saying that these are not good people, or that they do not have some skills to offer, but those skills do not seem to extend to expertise in business and tourism management. For example, there is supposed to be on the trust board somebody with experience in tourism nominated by the Minister for Tourism. Whom did the Government nominate? Penelope Figgis, A.M, a long-serving Vice-President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, a board member of the Sydney Olympic Park Authority, a member of the World Commission on Protected Areas, a board member of the Australian Bush Heritage Fund, the Environment Protection Authority of New South Wales, the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee, the Australian Tourist Commission and Landcare Australia. I am sure that, in another context, her appointment would have been eminently sensible. But she did not bring to the Jenolan Caves Trust Board the marketing, tourism and business skills that were sorely needed.

What about the nominee of the Minister for the Environment? Who do honourable members think that might be? Would it be somebody independent? Was it someone the Minister wanted to show was truly independent of the trust board who functioned at arm's length from him? Not at all; it was Maggie Deahm. I am sure the honourable member for Orange recalls the name Maggie Deahm. She was the former Labor member for Macquarie—until she was tipped out, after three years, in the 1996 landslide that installed the Howard Government. I am still scratching my head, trying to work out what her special qualifications are for the job. If the Minister for the Environment thought he should appoint Penelope Figgis, I would have thought that was a good idea. But there still should have been somebody with experience in tourism and business to have taken Penelope Figgis's slot.

Then we have somebody nominated by the Australian Speleological Federation. That is appropriate, but again the person had no marketing expertise. The person nominated by the Minister for Local Government was a grazier and mayor of Oberon. Steve Brown, the Regional Planning Co-ordinator for Western New South Wales, was the nominee of the Minister for Planning. Then we have Alan Hunt, nominated by the Nature Conservation Council; Graeme Pattison from the National Parks Association; Fiona Mandelc, nominated by the National Parks and Wildlife Service; and, of course, the chairman is Professor Richard Mackay, nominated by the National Trust, who is the Managing Director of Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, heritage consultants, and an adjunct professor at La Trobe University.

Individually, these are people with a significant range of skills. But those skills did not extend to the kind of operation that we are discussing here. They did not extend to making, or helping to make, Jenolan Caves self-sustaining. Here we are talking about running a multimillion-dollar tourism business. Not one person on the board had real hands-on tourism experience. Is it any wonder that the trust failed? Interestingly, I understand that the trust was spending 76 per cent on labour and 2 per cent on marketing. Clearly, that is an unsustainable ratio. Only last week the Auditor-General, following a report of an inquiry into the National Parks and Wildlife Service, said:

In our opinion the Service has yet to clarify what constitutes success in reserve management; and the Service does not focus sufficiently on impacts, outcomes and targets.

That seems to have been part of the problem in the past, and it is certainly a problem with the Department of Environment and Conservation as it is currently structured. So why would you want to transfer Jenolan Caves to the Department of Environment and Conservation? The Auditor-General went on to say about the National Parks and Wildlife Service:

The Service estimates it has a substantial and growing deferred maintenance liability.

Where have we heard this before? This is exactly the problem at Jenolan Caves. That is for assets that are by and large much newer than those at Jenolan Caves. The Jenolan Caves infrastructure is one of the oldest sets of assets in the National Parks and Wildlife estate. The National Parks and Wildlife Service also has no agreement with Treasury for ongoing funding of these extra responsibilities—that is, for new land acquisitions—despite six years of negotiation. So why should this House believe it is in the caves' best interests to be transferred to the Department of Environment and Conservation? There is clearly a problem with funding for new parks and reserves. We have certainly seen that in today's budget, with a cut of some $9 million for staffing in the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Why will that not be the case for Jenolan Caves? Why should things improve simply because of a change in the entity that is supposed to be looking after Jenolan Caves?

I do not believe the Minister has made out the case for abolishing the trust and bringing in the Department of Environment and Conservation. The Minister has completely bungled the administration of Jenolan Caves. Not content with sending regional New South Wales's greatest tourist attraction broke, he is now prepared in some extraordinarily cavalier fashion to put 100 jobs at risk—100 jobs in his own electorate! That is absolutely extraordinary. I cannot imagine anybody who had a world-famous tourist attraction, like Jenolan Caves, in his electorate sending it broke—watching it slide down the slippery slope to oblivion, watching those tourist numbers just fall off the end of the world. The Minister might tell us what are the advantages of handing the caves over to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Perhaps he would like to tell us what expertise the National Parks and Wildlife Service has in marketing and promotion of this tourist attraction. Remember, this is the service of which the Auditor-General said:

… it is yet to clarify what constitutes success in reserve management; and the Service does not focus sufficiently on impacts, outcomes and targets.

The recent history of Jenolan Caves is the most shameful episode in the Minister's time as Minister for the Environment. He has sent broke one of our greatest tourist assets, yet he is showing no sign of remorse. I would have thought that he, as the Attorney General, would have clearly understood that, but clearly he does not. Jenolan Caves is in his electorate and he does not deserve to be re-elected. He certainly does not deserve to be Minister for the Environment. We oppose the bill. If the Minister wants to fix Jenolan Caves we would be happy to sit at the negotiating table and talk to him about it on a bipartisan basis. We see no reason to go along with his half-baked scheme to restructure the administration of Jenolan Caves.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [4.40 p.m.]: I support the comments of the honourable member for The Hills. I have a personal interest in the bill because Borenore Caves are in my electorate. I notice that part of the reason the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Jenolan Caves Reserve Trust) Bill was introduced is to split the Jenolan Caves from the other three caves—Wombeyan, Borenore and Abercrombie. As the honourable member for The Hills said, it has been established that the problems experienced by the Jenolan Caves Reserve Trust are as a result of not bad management but lack of support and finance. Since the Jenolan Caves Reserve Trust took over Borenore—I suspect it would be the same with Wombeyan and Abercrombie—hardly any money has been expended there. The Roads and Traffic Authority spent money to provide a turn-off lane into the road that leads down to the Borenore Caves; and some money was expended on the work for the dole project to remove graffiti.

At least some of the locals have used their tractors and slashers to try to keep the place a bit tidy. But the locals have no reason to visit the Borenore Caves because there are a number of other places around Orange and I am sure the other caves are far more user friendly. The caves have been cash-strapped since 1989, when the trust was established, because it has been battling to maintain the infrastructure at Jenolan Caves. It is obvious that the trust was not interested in spending money on the smaller caves. As the honourable member for The Hills said, there are few members of this House and few people that I know who have not been to Jenolan Caves at least once. When we were kids we looked forward to going to Jenolan Caves. Why are people no longer interested? The population of New South Wales has increased and we have hosted the Olympics, but instead of experiencing an increase in visitor numbers we are experiencing a dramatic drop.

I suspect that part of the reason is the bad vibes that have been coming from the Minister, Jenolan Caves, the State Government, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and the green movement. All of a sudden we are supposed to feel guilty about going to the caves. If we enter the caves we will destroy them. If we drive a car through the entrance to the caves we will destroy the ecology. At one stage it was suggested that the road would be closed and people could be bussed to the caves, but, as the honourable member for The Hills said, it is a public road. You cannot close a public road unless you divert it through the national park and build a whole new road around it, which would be far less desirable. Let us stop blaming the road, the trust, and the management of Caves House and look at the real reason why the caves are in such a parlous situation: they have not been appropriately funded by the Government. It is similar to the national parks, which have been proclaimed but not appropriately funded.

When the National Parks and Wildlife Service took over the Canobolas Reserve, which is now the Canobolas State Recreation Area, far too little money was spent on it. Weeds are taking over and the picnic facilities have not been upgraded. No-one has been encouraged to visit the area. What is the point in having all these wonderful facilities if the Government, somewhere behind the scenes, is discouraging people from using them? There is no point in transferring the three caves from the Jenolan Caves Trust to another government department if they are not funded appropriately. Why not leave things in place and put some real money into supporting the trust and these four caves that are absolutely vital for tourism?

Although Borenore, Abercrombie and Wombeyan may not be as spectacular as Jenolan Caves, all of them have unique advantages. Speleologists visit those caves because they are special. It is not a matter of locking them up and not allowing people to visit them. They must be open to the public, as they have been for many years, but they must be funded appropriately so that people will want to visit them. The Wellington Caves, which are under the control of Wellington Shire Council, are advertised and publicised throughout the Central West. People who visit the caves and use the facilities are made to feel welcome. No advertising is seen throughout the Central West for the Wombeyan, Borenore, Abercrombie or Jenolan caves. There is no publicity for them whatsoever. All we hear are adverse reports that if we do visit the caves we will somehow or other destroy them.

I understand that the facilities cannot be used without regard to the sensitivities of the area, but surely in this day and age we have the capacity to acknowledge the sensitivities of these wonderful systems while still visiting them and appreciating them. There are ways and means if we approach them positively and finance them appropriately. As the honourable member for The Hills said, we will oppose the bill because we see no advantage in splitting Borenore, Wombeyan and Abercrombie from Jenolan Caves and giving them to another government department. The only reason the trust is broke is that it was not financed appropriately. If those caves are split off to another department but not financed, we will be no further in front. The number of visitors will decline further and the quality of the caves will continue to decline unless they are funded properly.

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [4.48 p.m.], in reply: Several times during the debate I found myself wondering whether members opposite had been consuming something illegal, or whether they had entered a parallel universe in which there is simply no connection between their arguments and the truth of the circumstances surrounding Jenolan Caves and elsewhere. I am grateful to say that there is no connection at all with the kind of lunacy that has been put forward as argument by those opposite. The honourable member for The Hills seemed to suggest that the Jenolan Caves Reserve Trust was sacked because it created a difficulty about the upgrading of the road from Black Springs into Jenolan Caves.

Two points should be made. First, the budget that was presented today allocates $5 million out of a total upgrading program worth $18 million for that very road following a grant of $300,000 to the Oberon Shire Council to seal Edith Road; so both roads leading to Jenolan Caves are being repaired. Moreover, the members of the former trust board fully supported the strategy I adopted in not renewing their appointments when their term expired. On the last day of the board's term I sat with board members around a big table in a large room at Wombeyan Caves and we enjoyed the most friendly conversation. They agreed with me that the mutually adopted strategy was the only sensible approach to take. The trust had been led by the estimable Professor Richard Mackay, who chaired the board's last meeting. Several years previously I imposed intolerable pressure on him to stay when he wanted to resign. I am on the best of personal terms with members of the trust and I have no criticism whatsoever of the trust. The members agreed with me that the approach being adopted by the Government is necessary and sensible.

Second, the conspiracy theories that have been laboriously strung together by the honourable member for The Hills are complete nonsense. If he wishes to confirm the assertions I have made, he has only to check with any member of the trust, including the Mayor of Oberon Shire Council, Penelope Figgis, Professor Mackay and any others whose names appear on the list. He should then look me in the eye and tell me that what he has been proposing has one iota of truth, let alone sense, in it. It is worth discussing visitations to the caves because apparently it is alleged by members opposite that a reduction in visitation numbers during the late 1990s is the underlying cause of the essential structural problems suffered by the former trust. That is simply not true. The caves continue to attract significant numbers of visitors, despite recent challenges that have been posed to tourism in New South Wales by incidences such as September 11, the collapse of Ansett Airlines, several difficult bushfire seasons and the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome virus throughout Asia.

Mr Russell Turner: So visitation numbers are down.

Mr BOB DEBUS: Nobody doubts that. If the honourable member knew anything about tourism in Orange or the Blue Mountains, he would know that during the 1990s tourist numbers declined somewhat for the reasons I have mentioned. The decline in tourism had nothing to do with anybody in the Blue Mountains or in Orange but with factors that exist throughout the world. Those circumstances have affected tourism in most parts of New South Wales. The honourable member for Orange had the effrontery to suggest that I have paid no attention to the tourism industry in my electorate, but he should know that after the 2000-01 bushfires the Government allocated $500,000 to Blue Mountains Tourism to undertake special promotions in an attempt to overcome the difficulties presented to tourism by bushfires in that part of the world. The Federal Government thereby was shamed into matching that amount, and combined funding was allocated to people adversely affected by bushfires in the Snowy Mountains area also. The fact is that in precisely the period under discussion, a promotional program of unprecedented proportions was undertaken to promote the Blue Mountains, and that included the promotion of the Jenolan Caves.

Mr Chris Hartcher: You should be grateful to Kerry Bartlett.

Mr BOB DEBUS: Come on! If the honourable member for Gosford examined the figures, he would find that the New South Wales Government allocated funding and that Kerry Bartlett then had to ensure that the Federal Government matched it. I assure the honourable member for Gosford that a simple check of the circumstances will verify what I am saying. In any event, tourist visitations to Jenolan Caves increased by 2 per cent last financial year, although I freely acknowledge that in the late 1990s, tourism numbers declined. However, during the last financial year, tourist numbers increased by 3 per cent and have increased by 5 per cent from the end of the 2003 financial year to date. Visitation to Wombeyan Caves increased by 11 per cent in the last financial year and by 14.4 per cent so far this financial year.

Those figures indicate that tourist visitation to the Jenolan and Wombeyan caves is not only on its promotional target but is reaching its highest levels since 1998-99. The Jenolan Caves tourism strategy is closely linked to tourism strategies developed by both Blue Mountains Tourism and the Central West Regional Development Board, which are formal peak tourism bodies for their areas. So much for the nonsense that everything would have been all right if it had not been for declining visitation numbers! Tourism fluctuates according to changing circumstances in exactly the same way as farming, as the honourable member for Orange ought to be able to understand. The Jenolan Caves Reserve Trust has been operating according to an unchanged structural financial basis since 1990.

A fact that is disguised and camouflaged whenever possible by members opposite is that the trust's structure and financial arrangements—in other words, the business plan for the trust—have existed since the Greiner Government established the trust in 1990. Under those arrangements, the Jenolan Caves Reserve Trust was a self-funding, not-for-profit body with competing commercial and conservation obligations. It was charged with administering a 99-year commercial lease of historical Caves House. The Greiner Government signed off on the terms of that commercial lease. Visitation numbers aside—because difficulties arose in financing necessary work at the caves—last year I initiated a special review of the trust which was carried out by the Council on the Cost and Quality of Government by people of the highest quality. The review's chairman, Byram Johnston, oversaw the work of the team, which operated from the Premier's Department.

Earlier the honourable member for The Hills selectively quoted from the review team's report. The review found that the trust had been managing its finances without recourse to recurrent funding, despite longstanding structural and commercial impediments. The review also found that although the trust was managing quite well, it was managing in increasingly impossible circumstances, so the structural arrangements of the trust and the business plan upon which the whole enterprise was conducted had to be changed. Members opposite have contorted themselves to find an alternative to the perfectly straightforward fact that matters were not handled badly by the trust. A perfectly objective, sensible, and professional review found that the structure of the enterprise ought to be changed. The Government moved to overcome the trust's structural problems by transferring responsibility for the caves to the new Department of Environment and Conservation.

The bill makes minor amendments to allow the director-general to assume the former trust's responsibilities. Contrary to the contradictory nonsense continuously spouted by the Opposition, I reiterate that the Government has in no way cut funding to the caves but, rather, has on several occasions simply allocated one-off capital grants to the caves. During the current financial year the Government has contributed $4 million to upgrade the infrastructure of the caves and has allocated $540,000 to recurrent funding to support their ongoing management. We will now have an organisation that is run in the same way as dozens of other natural attractions with supporting visitor facilities around New South Wales, with the benefit of having management expertise and support and the much broader finances of the Department of Environment and Conservation behind it.

I repeat: We are talking about the Government implementing recommendations of the trust itself, supported by a detailed, expert, detached, objective and professional study by the Council on the Cost of Government. At the same time, and again contrary to the strange maunderings of those opposite, particularly the honourable member for The Hills, there is a series of initiatives to fix the roads and generally to reorganise the Department of Environment and Conservation so that all the karst areas of the State—not only Jenolan, Wombeyan and Borenore but also the famous cave complexes around Yarrangobilly in Kosciuszko, Bungonia and others—can be managed consistently by people with a high level of expertise.
The bill makes a very small administrative change to allow us to continue with what is a very large and sensible renovation of the administration of Jenolan Caves. In turn that will be accompanied by a most substantial input of capital to ensure that well into the future the caves remain as attractive as they always have been. Let us remember that with the passing of the influence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome, the Ansett collapse, bushfires and all those things that have affected tourism numbers in most of New South Wales in recent years, the number of people visiting Jenolan Caves has increased quite sharply again. Contrary to the observations of the honourable member for Orange, the caves will continue to be promoted so that future generations will have the benefit and experience that those of us who are now getting older had in past years. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Barr Mr Bartlett Ms Beamer Mr Black Mr Brown Ms Burney Miss Burton Mr Campbell Mr Collier Mr Corrigan Mr Crittenden Ms D'Amore Mr Debus Mr Draper Ms Gadiel Mr Gaudry

Mr Gibson Mr Greene Ms Hay Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Mr Iemma Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr Knowles Mr McBride Mr McGrane Mr McLeay Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Ms Moore Mr Morris Mr Newell Ms Nori

Mr Oakeshott Mr Orkopoulos Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Mr Price Dr Refshauge Mr Sartor Mr Scully Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Mr Torbay Mr Watkins Mr West Mr Whan Mr Yeadon Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Mr Aplin Mr Armstrong Ms Berejiklian Mr Cansdell Mr Constance Mr Debnam Mr Fraser Mrs Hancock Mr Hartcher Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Hopwood

Mr Humpherson Mr Kerr Mr Merton Mr O'Farrell Mr Page Mr Piccoli Mr Pringle Mr Richardson Mr Roberts Ms Seaton Mrs Skinner

Mr Slack-Smith Mr Souris Mr Stoner Mr Tink Mr J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Tellers, Mr George Mr Maguire

Ms Saliba

Mr Brogden

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Debate resumed from 3 June.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [5.13 p.m.]: This amending bill is only one of the numerous pieces of legislation that have been introduced in this House by the Carr Government since it took office in 1995 to amend workers compensation legislation. I lost count when I started going through the list of amendments to workers compensation legislation and the Workplace Injury Management Act as the Carr Government tries to stem the endless haemorrhaging of workers compensation in this State.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! Members will come to order. If they want to have private discussions they should do so outside the Chamber.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The honourable member for Port Macquarie is the worst.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! A number of members are to blame. I suggest that the honourable member continue and restrict his comments to the bill.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: While the bill is presented under the guise of reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal in 2003 in Orica Ltd and Anor v CGU Insurance Ltd, the Government has done more than simply reverse that decision; it has also made a number of amendments to the Workers Compensation Act. This month the poor employers of this State will get no redress when they receive their workers compensation premium accounts. They cannot hope for any assistance from this legislation because their premiums will continue to rise as the WorkCover fund continues to go deeper and deeper into debt. There is no consolation for employers in this State; they will have to continue to pay workers compensation.

The legislation, as well as reversing the Court of Appeal decision in the case to which I referred, abolishes the six funds run by licensed insurers and sets up one fund. The bill also extends the appeal system of the Workers Compensation Commission, provides for the payment of injured workers compensation for domestic assistance and lays down guidelines for the provision of paid and gratuitous assistance. It also extends the protection from liability of Workers Compensation Insurance Fund Investment Board managers, allows Treasury to act as a guarantee for self-insurers and amends the Sporting Injuries Act, so it is wide in its scope. The Coalition in this State maintains its ongoing concern that workers compensation premiums are simply too high, that the Government has failed to bring them down and that the reforms introduced in 2000 have still not stemmed the endless haemorrhaging of WorkCover.

No matter what press releases come out of the office of the Minister for Commerce, that debt remains as high as it ever was and the administration of WorkCover remains under a cloud. If we are to look at the funding—which this bill does as it seeks to abolish the six licence funds, change the provision relating to the board of directors and empower Treasury to give guarantees—we need to establish how WorkCover is expending its money. We need to ask why, in 2002-03, WorkCover spent $12,343,000 on leasehold improvements at its Gosford office, despite having moved into that brand new custom-made building in 2002.

Is that how money that the fund is managing is to be expended? Why did management deem it necessary to upgrade WorkCover's communications system at a cost of $4.2 million within only a year of moving into the new head office at Gosford? I can understand its choice of Gosford as it has an excellent local member, which is what the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Tony Stewart, meant to say earlier by way of interjection, if I am allowed to widen the ambit of his remarks. Notwithstanding that, why did WorkCover's management deem it necessary to upgrade WorkCover's desktop and laptop systems at a cost of $5.4 million within a year of moving into the new head office at Gosford? Why did it deem it necessary to upgrade WorkCover's file storage system at Gosford, paying consultants a total of $61,000 within only one year of moving into the new head office?

WorkCover moved into the office and spent $61,000 to upgrade the file storage system, $5.4 million on new desktop systems, $4.2 million on communications and $12 million on leasehold improvements. Money is being poured down the drain at WorkCover at an extraordinary rate. A few hours ago the Treasurer delivered the Budget Speech in this House. He announced that $20 million would be expended on scheme design and strategic architecture. What does that mean? An amount of $20 million has been allocated for scheme design and strategic architecture for a custom-built office building that was built only in 2002. Money simply haemorrhages out of WorkCover. We are entitled to ask why. We have calculated that every person in New South Wales spends $40 a year on WorkCover administration. Our concerns are not addressed by this legislation.

I turn first to the decision to reverse the Court of Appeal's decision in Orica Ltd and Anor v CGU Insurance Ltd, which can be found in New South Wales Court of Appeal Decisions 2003, page 331. This amendment ensures that the insurance companies are liable for policies relating to occupational disease, such as dust diseases. The Coalition has no qualms with this amendment. The Court of Appeal had no alternative but to find that the insurance companies were not liable under the law, but that would have deprived thousands of people who may suffer from mesothelioma and similar dust-related diseases of any right to claim against insurance companies. Such people would have had to chase the companies concerned, which would not be possible if they were no longer operating. Everyone in New South Wales would agree that it is important that we protect those people. We acknowledge the terrible suffering of those who suffer dust-induced cancers, such as mesothelioma, and it is important that they receive compensation.

But that is only one aspect of the bill. Another amendment relates to the merging of the six funds run by licensed insurers into a single fund to be run by the WorkCover Authority or by a board appointed by it, the Workers Compensation Insurance Fund Investment Board. No-one can have any confidence in a government organisation that continues to lose money at the rate that WorkCover does. It strains credulity that the Government would ask Parliament and the New South Wales community to endorse legislation that hands to the Workers Compensation Insurance Fund Investment Board the six funds that are currently managed by separate licensed insurers and merges them into a single consolidated fund, the Workers Compensation Insurance Fund, and not expect anyone to ask any questions. In 1999 WorkCover had a debt of $1.636 billion. In 2000 it had a debt of $1.639 billion. In 2001 it had a record debt of $2.756 billion, an increase of almost $1 billion in a single year. In 2002 it had a debt of $2.801 billion and in 2003 its debt was $2.982 billion. WorkCover under the Government and the present Minister simply pours money down the drain.

At 30 June 2002 WorkCover's total deficit was $2.801 billion, as I have said, with total assets of $5.7 billion and liabilities of $8.5 billion. At June 2002 the total liability of the WorkCover scheme was $7.6 billion, of which 3.5 per cent goes to insurance companies each year for administrative purposes. That is a total of $266 million. WorkCover's deficit is so large that we must talk in hundreds of millions of dollars, or it simply will not reckon. Despite the so-called reforms of 2000—when Parliament was blockaded according to the Government, or subject to a picket line according to the unions, and Labor members were forced to enter Parliament House under police escort—workers compensation insurance premiums have not been arrested. The Minister for Commerce simply alleges that at last premium incomes are finally exceeding outgoings. However, I have yet to see any actuarial testing of that allegation.

The WorkCover scheme will now merge the six funds and run them through a board. The Federal Department of Employment and Workplace Relations revealed that WorkCover New South Wales spends 17 per cent of its total premium and investment income on administration. We should bear in mind the costs and the income involved: one dollar in every six goes towards the scheme's vast administration costs. About $391 million has been spent administering WorkCover. We can only wonder about those who operate the scheme. We must ask who the Government intends to appoint to the Workers Compensation Insurance Fund Investment Board. Who will control these billions of dollars in income? I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, the honourable member for Bankstown, to answer that question. I am sure he will not be able to as the Government will decline to announce who will be in charge of this vast superannuation fund that will control an enormous amount of employers' money, which employers pay on trust to ensure that injured workers receive benefits. I am sure that the Labor Party and the Carr Government will once again appoint their cronies and their mates and yet another fund will go west.

There is no point in the Government claiming that it will appoint prominent people to the board. In 1999 this fund—I have given the figures—had a debt of $1.6 billion and in 2003 its debt was $2.9 billion. In four years it has lost more than $1.3 billion. The fund is haemorrhaging money at an extraordinary rate. We do not know who will administer it. We have no confidence in the Government's capacity to appoint sensible people or in the capacity of the appointees to run the fund for the benefit of the workers and ensure that employers get a reasonable return on the money they pay. The employers of this State want to know that when they take out a workers compensation insurance premium their employees are covered. The employers of New South Wales care about their employees. It is the normal Aussie way. When a worker is injured the employer wants to be able to say, "You're covered, mate, by workers compensation". But, as we all know, the fund does not work like that: the costs simply rebound to the employer, who foots the bill for the next three years in increased premiums.

Employers receive no protection by taking out insurance. In fact, it is a misnomer to call it "insurance". As members of Parliament know from the number of complaints that we receive these days from injured workers, many workers fall through the cracks and do not receive just recompense. The Australian Workers Union [AWU] is unhappy with the workers compensation system in this State. Russ Collison complains regularly about workers compensation. In all honesty, neither the honourable member for Bankstown nor any other Labor member in this Parliament who has an affiliation with the trade union can claim that the AWU, a union which the honourable member for Bankstown has loyally and faithfully served for many years, is happy with the workers compensation system in this State. The unions and employers of this State continue to be extremely unhappy with the way the Carr Government has reorganised and redetermined workers compensation.

The Workers Compensation Commission under Justice Terry Sheahan does an excellent job within the confines of the legislation. I have a personal regard for Justice Sheahan, a former Attorney General of this State. Why does the bill provide for appeals to the Workers Compensation Commission, constituted by a presidential member, from the decision of an arbitrator to be remitted back to the arbitrator who made the decision or to another arbitrator for determination? Until now the appellate body had the power to substitute a verdict of its own rather than to simply send it back to the arbitrator. I have not been able to check, but I would imagine that amendment is in accord with the wishes of Justice Sheahan and the Workers Compensation Commission. For that reason the Opposition does not dispute it. At the end of the day the Government will not fix up the workers compensation mess in New South Wales. In almost 10 years of this Government there has been an ongoing escalation of the debt, lawyers have been taken out of the scheme, the benefits of workers have been cut by Jeff Shaw when he was Minister and the debt has risen to unprecedented levels.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Lismore referred to the appellation given to WorkCover by Mr Jeff Kennett when he was Premier of Victoria: the great black hole of New South Wales. That is one of the many indictments of the maladministration of the Carr Labor Government, which effectively allowed one dollar in every six—17 per cent—to go into administration. That is the figure determined by the Federal department after investigation. The Government will hand this vast pool of money over to a board made up of members whose qualifications and names we do not know. No-one can have confidence in the future ability of that board, the RailCorp board or the board of any one of a host of other Carr Government organisations, when merit is never the test of appointment.

An appointment to a Carr Government board is a payback to mates for services rendered in past years to the Labor Party. Such appointments are not based on merit and competence. The Opposition has no confidence in this legislation and does not indicate any support for it. However, we will not divide the House on the second reading. We believe it is the Government's responsibility to fix up WorkCover. We will not amend the Government's legislation for it. We will let the community of New South Wales judge the Government, as every employer will judge it this month when insurance premiums are received, as workers judge them when they are denied just compensation and as every trade union in this State judges it and complains about the workers compensation system. As the honourable member for Bankstown indicated, probably the only true defenders of workers in this Parliament are the Coalition parties, who want a fair go for employers and workers.

Mr Tony Stewart: That is not even worth an interjection.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: They will not get a fair go while we have a fund, a system and a scheme that is run by mates and for the benefit of mates of the Government. For the honourable member for Bankstown to say that is not worthy of a reply when his Government is in charge of a fund which is $3 billion in debt is typical of the approach of the Carr Labor Government. While the Opposition does not oppose this bill, it certainly does not support it.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [5.34 p.m.]: I speak on this bill because of what has happened to the workers of this State. It is important to put the workers compensation scheme in context. As the honourable member for Swansea would well recall, the workers compensation scheme was set up in 1926 on the simple premise that people would pay workers compensation premiums and workers who were injured would be paid compensation for their injuries. It was rightly determined that both the employer and the worker were entitled to have their rights observed when an industrial accident occurred. When an accident happened on a factory floor or at any workplace the cause and injury were generally self-evident. It was only when a dispute as to law or fact arose that recourse was made to the Workers Compensation Court, the legislation for which was set up in 1926 and which operated successfully.

New South Wales pioneered the rights of workers to compensation, and the scheme was regarded around the world as an excellent one and became world famous. As members would appreciate, the vast majority of workers who were injured in accidents received compensation and only a relatively small number went to court because of a dispute of fact or law. That situation pertained up until about 1987 when the Unsworth Government decided to change the scheme. The changes resulted in workers being denied common law benefits, and the Government sought to eliminate compensation courts. In the 1988 election the workers friend, the Greiner Government, was elected. It is a matter of public record that the rights of workers were restored.

Mr Tony Stewart: This is what you have spoken so much about in the shire, is it?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: Thank you for reminding me. I will come to the shire later. The honourable member for Bankstown should consult the statute books to confirm that the common law rights were restored and the benefits were increased during the Greiner Government and that there was a surplus. The Carr Government disastrously affected the Unsworth agenda. The Workers Compensation Court has been abolished and the rights and privileges of workers reduced. They do not receive the compensation or the benefits they had under the Greiner and Fahey governments. I would appreciate the honourable member for Bankstown commenting on those facts in his reply.

The injustice of the present scheme was highlighted by an incident in the shire. A worker from New Zealand was recruited for a particular job at the Caltex refinery. In the course of his employment he was injured. Under the old scheme he would probably have been compensated and returned to New Zealand by now. His injuries were such that he could not continue with his employment. The first injury occurred in March 2001 and his case has ground on to the present time. I will not go through the whole sad experience of his physical pain and suffering and the pain and suffering inflicted on him by the workers compensation scheme that was brought in by the Government. In March 2003 he instructed his lawyers to seek permission from the courts for him to return home to New Zealand. He said:

Due to the constant changes in the commission.

When he wrote to me, he said permission from the courts. But, of course, it would be permission from the commission. He states further:

It was not finally registered until September 2003. My file was not finalized until February 2004. And because of a technical clause. The issue of me going back to New Zealand was not listened to. So now I have to reapply. Also I find out that the court assesses my injury in a sort of breakdown, for my neck they split into two, an arm injury and a neck injury. Why? So they can make sure that the injury doesn't go over 15% of the whole body impairment. Reason? So you cannot go to common law.

And when I go in for my assessment for my back they do not take into account my neck injury. It is interesting that when an insurer looks at a car accident, say a car that's been smashed in the front and back for example, they look at the car as a whole. They don't separate it into two separate repairs. Even though the human body is infinitely more complex than a car, the workers compensation commission looks at a work injury regardless of what else might be wrong with the worker. So when they assess my lower back it doesn't matter about my upper back. And anyone can realize that the lower back injury is going to affect the upper back and vice versa. Yet the workers compensation commission does not take this into account. Why is that?

The honourable member for Bankstown might like to address the House on that question. The letter continues:

Fifteen per cent whole body impairment.

As I said, he was injured in April 2001, incurred his second injury in March 2002, and had surgery in 2002 and 2003. His first application to go home was in March 2003. That application failed this year. He lodged his second application in March 2004. He says:

In summary

I came to this country to do a specific job. I was injured. I followed what my company told me to do. I followed what the health care provider told me to do. And I followed what the insurers said.

So far I have received a ruptured disk in my neck, a ruptured disk in my low back that required surgery. I have gone from earning $55,000+ a year, to receiving $22,000 a year. I have now been on that for 2½ years. I have spent all of my savings. I had to sell assets and borrowed money from friends, which I have never had to do in my life. Plus I have been held in this country against my will for over a year. If I leave without the court's permission, I lose all rights to ongoing medical costs and benefits. In short, I am a prisoner. With no rights.

The sum that I received … for my neck injury is $7000. I have been informed from my lawyer that it will be about the same amount for my back injury. To what this has cost me is an absolute bloody joke. And the incentive for the companies and the insurers to do the right thing by their employees? Nothing.

Is that a fair system? Would the honourable member for Bankstown be proud of that?

Mr Thomas George: It is a disgrace!

Mr MALCOLM KERR: As the honourable member for Lismore said, it is a disgrace. It is diabolical that this could happen to a decent person who came from New Zealand to this country to work. Those were his thanks for seeking employment in Australia and trying to secure a reasonable livelihood.

Mr Thomas George: What would Tracie have done?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: I do not think Tracie Sonda was going to help him. I do not blame Tracey Sonda for this. I blame the present Government for what has occurred. It is just not good enough. I know, Mr Deputy-Speaker, you have had quite a bit of experience on the industrial side, you would have seen what happened when workers were injured under the previous system, and you know how that system operated. I do not think you would have come across a situation like the one to which I have been referring. I will be writing to the Minister to establish what recourse this person has. The way he has been dealt with is totally unsatisfactory and quite shameful.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [5.44 p.m.]: The Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Workers Compensation Act 1987, the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 and the Sporting Injuries Insurance Act 1978. It provides for payment of compensation to an injured worker for domestic assistance; enables a presidential member of the Workers Compensation Commission to remit a matter back to an arbitrator for determination; establishes a Workers Compensation Insurance Fund Investment Board to determine policies for the investment of the fund; determines the applicability of insurance policies under the 1987 Act to liability which arises after the currency of the policy from injury suffered during the policy; enables the Treasury Corporation to provide guarantees for security for the performance of self-insurers' obligations to State-owned corporations; and permits the assessment of the degree of permanent loss suffered as a result of a sporting injury. I highlight a few concerns about workers compensation in New South Wales. I quote:

All reforms to the compensation system involving any improvement to benefits or procedures must be subject to the following overriding fundamental principles. The level of work injury insurance premiums in New South Wales must be competitive and at a level which will maintain and encourage employment growth.

That was a statement made by the Labor Party, this Government, in 1995. That was then its industrial relations policy. The Carr Government went to the 1995 election with that industrial relations policy. New South Wales now has a $2.9 billion black hole in workers compensation. I might add that in 1995, when Labor was elected, workers compensation was $800,000 in credit. That is the result of mismanagement by the Carr Government of workers compensation in this State. The business pays the premiums. I have continued to highlight problems associated with extra costs incurred by businesses in the Lismore electorate compared with their competitors who are operating just an hour or in some cases two hours away, in Queensland.

Again I place on record the difficulties faced by the Northern Co-operative Meat Company in Casino, which employs 700 people, in competing with companies operating in Queensland just an hour and a half from the site at which the company operates in New South Wales. The workers compensation premium for operating in New South Wales is $1.5 million more than it is in Queensland. That is the workers compensation disadvantage faced by New South Wales businesses in competing against businesses operating over the border in Queensland. How can businesses operating in this State be competitive when workers compensation premiums alone can put a company that far behind?

I will give another example of concerns that have been raised with me by a number of business people. A car dealership proprietor contacted me. He has car salesmen operating on base rates. Say the base rate is $500 a week. With commissions, these salesmen earn up to $1,000 a week. Workers compensation is charged on the full earnings of $1,000 a week. But if the salesman gets hurt, he is paid the base amount as workers compensation. The companies must pay premiums on the full amount that the salesman earns, but when it comes to compensation the worker gets only the base wage. Where does the difference in money go? It goes into the insurer's coffers.
Recently, a Sydney employer who had connections in the Lismore electorate brought another case to my attention. One day a draughtsman working for him in Sydney came to work and said, "I have three broken ribs. I have to take time off work." Within a week after he took time off work on workers compensation someone rang the office looking for him. The person in the office said, "Sorry, he is off on workers comp." The person who rang said, "No, he can't be. He's just rung me about a job that he's doing for me." The employer decided to make some inquiries and found out that his employee was working for his opposition while he was on workers compensation. The employer then rang the insurance company to advise them that his employee on workers compensation was working for the opposition. Some three weeks went by before the insurance company made any inquiries as to whether that statement was true. After the employer went through the head office in Sydney to reach the top assessor in the State, the insurance company decided to engage a private investigator.

The employer told the investigator exactly where his employee was, and within 24 hours the investigator found out that the employee was working in another company while he was receiving workers compensation payments. Sadly, it did not stop there. The employer who brought this case to my attention continued to pay his employee. Those payments have finally ceased, but the employer is now waiting to receive his annual premiums for workers compensation. I bet you that the person who was fraudulently in receipt of workers compensation payments will be included in the calculation of the employee's premiums for the next three years. The employer will have to solve that problem. I highlight that case as yet another example of the problems with workers compensation in this State. As the honourable member for Gosford said earlier, it is not up to us to sort out the workers compensation of this State, it is up to the Government. Workers compensation problems affect every employer and employee in this State.

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE (Hawkesbury) [5.52 p.m.]: The Hawkesbury Chamber of Commerce has asked me to add its concerns to those already enunciated by speakers from this side of the House. The honourable member for Lismore clearly outlined how workers compensation is making the businesses of this State less and less competitive. We heard about the local businessmen whose premiums had increased by 100 per cent in the past 12 months as a direct result of two claims for which he was not necessarily responsible. We regularly hear of employers whose annual premiums increase by 35 per cent. There is also a premium discount scheme, but for employers to take advantage of the scheme they must bring in auditors who charge up to $3,500 to complete the audit, which very much affects the competitiveness of small businesses. Often the auditor will need to come back again and again to get the systems right and, of course, the costs continue to mount.

We need a government that helps our businesses and does not make things more and more difficult for businesses to survive. We need a government that, as part of the scheme, places much more emphasis on rehabilitation. Many insurance companies are not interested in getting employees back to work and reducing employer costs. We need a government that will support our employers and, once again, get serious about fraud. We hear many stories about fraud, and we know that fraud, in turn, increases premiums. I call on the Government to get serious about reforming the workers compensation scheme and providing support for business rather than making it more and more difficult.

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [5.54 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House some views from Australian Business Limited [ABL], published in the Australian Business News magazine of April-May 2004, which state:

Work related injuries not only mean lost productivity but also possible workers compensation claims and as a consequence rising insurance premiums.

As we would all agree, it is a major concern for many businesses. In monetary terms, of course, a huge workers compensation claim can cripple small business. Not only is it the cost, but it is also the rehabilitation problems and the time taken to comply. In its Business Priorities 2003 report, ABL made a number of recommendations to Parliament to reform the existing scheme and reduce costs. These recommendations were taken up into the terms of reference for the Government inquiry conducted by McKinsey and Company. The report, entitled "Partnerships for Recovery: Caring for injured workers and restoring financial stability to workers compensation in NSW", made recommendations to improve the New South Wales workers compensation scheme by changing the operational arrangement of the scheme and the way that WorkCover manages providers in the scheme.

These recommendations—notably the establishment of a Workers Compensation Commission, changes to dispute resolution and a strengthening of the statutory framework—were recently accepted by the Government. Head of ABL's workplace solutions unit, Mr Greg Pattison, said that essential to these changes was the creation of the commission, which deals with all disputes that arise out of workers compensation claims made on or from 1 January 2002. The disputes referred to weekly payments of compensation, workplace injury management, medical and related expenses, permanent injury and pain and suffering, the death of a worker and property damage. Employers will remember that one of the primary reasons for changing the system was the high level of legal costs and the time taken involved in settling workers compensation disputes.

Disputes are now managed more effectively, but that is only part of the story. Over time it is expected that the way the commission treats disputes will also influence the way injuries are managed. Improving the performance of the scheme, increasing the level of competition by changing the way insurers and agents participate, improving injury management and having a fair distribution of available resources to injured workers will, it is hoped, culminate in lower costs and reduced premiums. The last thing employers need is an increase in premiums. In time, Greg Pattison said, ABL wants to see the Government consider sharing the savings from reductions in scheme costs. He said:

We are keen to see progress towards a cap on aggregate workers compensation premiums.

Recently the Australian Business News received a letter from one of its members outlining the concerns of the director of the company about workers compensation. He wrote:

I am sure that I would not be the first to highlight the fact that businesses are now being slugged the maximum premium by the insurers if any claims have been made over the past two years.

The company, which was an engineering business, had its premiums rise from approximately $34,000 per annum to $70,000 per annum with an adjustment of $11,000 for the previous year. He explained:

We contacted the company who handles our insurance on behalf of the Government to find out how these figures were calculated and to find out why the statement for the new year had only come in days before it was due. This left us with little time to inquire with another agent for a check price (as you may know once the insurance falls due you cannot get another insurer to quote). No explanation was forthcoming on either issue. However they did suggest that WorkCover set the formulas to calculate the premium.

WorkCover was helpful in answering his questions relating to the calculations. It suggested that the insurer provide information on which the premiums were calculated, including the impact of the existing claims and their costs. In reply, Greg Pattison said that insurers are not able to issue premium notices until the premium rates and some other factors are issued by WorkCover. He told Australian Business News:

Typically the information is published in the Government Gazette in June. The premium year starts 30 June so the insurers don't have a lot of time to respond. ABL has argued to date, without success, that the information needs to be available earlier.

Further questions were asked regarding individual claims, what the costs were, and what procedures were taken to investigate the legitimacy of those claims. The company director stated in his letter, "Again, no satisfactory response has yet been forthcoming." With respect to the cost of claims, each insurer is required to follow the same claims estimating guidelines. Greg Pattison suggested that businesses ask their insurers for a claims review meeting for the purpose of estimating the costs for each claim. He stated:

You might have additional information that may enable your insurer to close claims and/or reduce estimates ... It's also an appropriate time to talk to them about what can be done to reduce the cost of the claim ... And while in theory, there should be no difference in pricing between insurers, each insurer (who is actually an agent for WorkCover) is required to apply a common pricing formula, otherwise they can be penalised.

In conclusion, I cite the example of a family shearing company from Culcairn in my electorate whose whole life has changed as a result of a claim that they believed was brought through no fault of theirs. The claim related to shearing conducted in New South Wales which ceased as a result of adverse weather conditions. The company advised shearers to pack up and return home for the weekend because it was impossible to continue, but a couple of the shearers decided not to return home. They remained in the area of their own volition and went fishing. One of the shearers suffered an accident and subsequently lodged a claim against the company. The undisputed claim was not referred by the insurer to the owners or directors of the company and the claim, involving enormous costs, was settled. The owner of the company discovered to his dismay that the escalated cost of premiums has been passed on to him without consultation as a result of this incident. He has applied to extend the cost of insurance premiums over lengthy periods because he will otherwise be unable to cope with the cost. That is an unfortunate consequence of the current system that should be addressed. I hope that implementation of the provisions of this amending bill will address those types of issues.

Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.01 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to debate on this bill. It is worthwhile examining some of the comments that have been made by members opposite. For some perplexing reason, the honourable member for Gosford condemned WorkCover upgrades in his own electorate. The Carr Government is very proud of its excellent record of delivery for the Gosford electorate, despite a dearth of input by the electorate's current parliamentary representative. The honourable member for Cronulla related the history of WorkCover since 1927 and by doing so failed to grasp the nettle of the provisions of the bill. The honourable member for Lismore, in his usual well-intentioned fashion, based his disjointed speech on scribblings on scraps of paper, press clippings about the bill, and garbled anecdotes. The honourable member for Hawkesbury expressed his regard for the significance of this bill by speaking for one minute during the debate. The honourable member for Albury spoke as though he was delivering a pro-Keynesian economic summit paper.

Mr Thomas George: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. Opposition members have participated in the debate whereas Government members have not even bothered to turn up.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no need for any further discussion. There is no point of order. The honourable member for Lismore is wasting the time of the House.

Mr TONY STEWART: I recognise that taking a point of order is an attempt at debate by the honourable member for Lismore. I compliment honourable members who have attempted to deal with the bill by at least participating in the debate. The bill continues the Government's program of reform and improvement to the workers compensation scheme in the interests of workers, employers and the broader community. The matters dealt with by the bill include amendments to reverse an aspect of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Orica Ltd v CGU Insurance Ltd [2003] NSWCA 331 to ensure that the relevant employer is indemnified under statutory workers compensation policies for common law claims despite damage being suffered by the relevant worker many years after the initial injury was sustained; to ensure that WorkCover is able to make guidelines regarding payment for both gratuitous and non-gratuitous domestic assistance; to include the Treasury Corporation among the entities that are able to provide guarantees to State-owned corporations to enable compliance with provision regarding securities for self-insurers; to provide presidential members of the Workers Compensation Commission with an additional power on appeal; and to establish the Workers Compensation Insurance Fund Investment Board to determine the investment policies of the new Workers Compensation Insurance Fund.

The amendment to the Sporting Injuries Insurance Act 1978 proposed in schedule 3 will provide that if a person unreasonably refuses medical treatment, the medical panel or referee may assess that person’s permanent injury on the assumption that the person’s injury was improved by such treatment. There has been an extensive consultation process on the bill. Members of WorkCover’s advisory council received advance copies of the draft bill throughout May. The advisory council includes representatives of peak employer groups, and given comments made by members opposite I point out that those groups include the Labor Council, insurers and workers compensation service providers. The WorkCover board was also provided with an opportunity to comment on the bill.

I understand that the Minister’s staff and WorkCover representatives discussed specific provisions of the bill with insurers and union representatives. The bill was also sent to the Self Insurers Association, various insurers, the New South Wales Law Society, the Bar Association and individual members of the legal profession who had expressed interest in the proposed amendments, so that the legal profession would have an opportunity to comment on the bill's technical provisions, particularly those dealing with the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Orica case. I assure honourable members that the matters raised by stakeholders were carefully considered in settling the final terms of the bill. A lot of interest has been expressed in the provisions of the bill that reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal in Orica Ltd & Another v CGU Insurance Ltd on the part of unions, employers, insurers and the legal profession.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lismore has had an opportunity to speak in the debate.

Mr TONY STEWART: In the Orica case the Court of Appeal held that liability arises under a statutory workers compensation policy of insurance that was issued prior to 1968 only at the time the worker suffers damage—that is, at the onset of the disease. In dust disease cases the damage suffered by the worker will generally occur many years after the injury was sustained. The vast majority of dust disease liabilities that fall under insurance policies issued prior to 1968 may not be covered by insurance. The employers will be solely liable. Before the Orica case it had been assumed that insurers were liable in pre-1968 claims. The decision in the Orica case may also impact on other workers compensation policies. Before the decision in the Orica case, employers assumed that they were indemnified for dust diseases claims, even if the onset of the disease was many years after the policy period.

The bill amends the Workers Compensation Act 1987 to ensure that the relevant employer is indemnified under statutory workers compensation policies for common law claims, despite damage being suffered by the relevant worker many years after the initial injury was sustained. The amendment will apply to all statutory workers compensation policies regardless of when those policies were issued. The amendment will restore the position that applied before the decision in the Orica case and will ensure that workers are compensated and employers are indemnified for common law dust disease claims up to the limit of insurance policies applying at the time of the worker's exposure.

The Government takes this opportunity to clarify two issues in particular to remove any risk of uncertainty about the application of the provisions concerning the Orica decision. Firstly, the provisions reversing the Orica decision are taken to have commenced on the date of the bill’s introduction. The bill, however, does not affect a judgment, compromise or settlement reached prior to the commencement of the bill. For example, if an employer settled a claim with a worker before the bill was introduced, the employer will still be entitled to claim an indemnity from his or her insurer, as long as the insurer was not a party to the settlement.

I have been advised by the peak representative body for insurers, the Insurance Council of Australia, that leading insurers have indicated that when the insurer has denied indemnity on the basis of the Court of Appeal decision and payments subsequently were made by the employer to the injured worker, in accordance with the intent of the legislation the insurer will reimburse the employer up to the limit of the relevant insurance policy. The Government clearly expects this to occur. Of course, insurers may wish to verify that any payment by the employer is otherwise recoverable under the insurance policy. Secondly, the amendment will not affect other aspects of the relevant statutory workers compensation insurance policies that were not affected by the Orica decision. For example, some older policies may have terms providing for caps on liability that will not be affected by this amendment. This is the case under the corresponding provisions in the Act and they are not affected by the Orica decision or the bill. The bill is an important and strong further step in improving the workers compensation scheme, and I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 6.10 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Debate resumed from 3 June.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [7.31 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the bill, whose purpose is to provide for child protection prohibition orders, prohibiting certain conduct, to be made against certain offenders who pose a risk to the lives or sexual safety of children, and to provide for the enforcement of such orders. The Opposition understands that the Commissioner of Police can apply to the Local Court for a child protection order, including interim orders, to prohibit a registrable person—that is, a person who has committed a serious offence related to a child, including murder, kidnapping, sexual intercourse and persistent sexual abuse of a child, and indecency offences—from engaging in specified conduct that has previously been shown to lead to offending, such as association with specified persons, being in specified locations, engaging in specified behaviour, and being in specified employment. The Opposition has indicated previously that it would go further and propose exclusion zones, and that remains our position. However, for present purposes we do not intend to oppose or seek to amend the bill.

Mr JOHN WATKINS (Ryde—Minister for Police) [7.34 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Epping for his contribution. The bill, which will be jointly administered by the Minister for Police and the Attorney General, will enable greater protection for children against high-risk child sex offenders and other serious offenders against children. The bill recognises the recidivist nature of paedophile offenders, and child protection prohibition orders will help manage offenders who pose the highest risk to children. The orders will do that by prohibiting offenders at the highest risk from specified conduct that has been shown to be a precursor to their offending on prior occasions.
The bill builds on the proud child protection record of this Government, which includes the establishment of the first child protection register in Australia under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 and the introduction of an employment screening system to prevent sex offenders having inappropriate contact with children through their employment. Child protection prohibition orders will further protect the children of our State from the risks posed by paedophiles and other violent offenders against children. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr JOHN WATKINS (Ryde—Minister for Police) [7.40 p.m.], on behalf of Mr David Campbell: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill will make important amendments to the Agricultural Livestock (Disease Control Funding) Act 1998, which provides for the collection of funds from industry for the benefit of livestock disease control programs in this State. Honourable members would be aware that agricultural livestock production in New South Wales is valued at over $4.5 billion per annum at the farm gate. The current provisions of the Agricultural Livestock (Disease Control Funding) Act 1998 have been used to provide industry funds to support the National Ovine Johne's Disease Control and Evaluation Program. Most people know this disease as OJD. Since first being detected on the central tablelands in 1980, OJD has become a major issue in the sheep industry, particularly in New South Wales, which has been the most affected.

Unfortunately, OJD has been a very divisive issue for farmers whose sheep have contracted the disease and for those who wish to guard against it. A six-year, $40 million national program was set up to provide a co-ordinated approach to dealing with OJD. Honourable members may know that the National Ovine Johne's Disease Control and Evaluation Program is set to conclude at the end of June 2004, which is next week. There is now an urgent need for a more practical and effective mechanism for the New South Wales sheep industry to collect industry funds to support the new national approach to OJD for the future management of the disease. The State's sheep industry, through the OJD Industry Advisory Committee, has long called for a transaction-based collection scheme to fund the OJD program to make the collection of funds far more equitable. It has also asked for a greater say in both the direction and operation of the disease control program.

The bill provides the mechanism for the collection of these funds and for greater industry consultation on how the funds are utilised. In doing so, it largely reflects suggestions and recommendations from reviews of the current OJD program by the Hon. Richard Bull and others. Nevertheless, the changes will provide a more efficient, equitable and acceptable fundraising mechanism for all agricultural livestock industries that collectively wish to fund significant livestock disease control programs. Before establishing a disease control program the Minister will need to be satisfied that the program is soundly based and that its objectives are reasonably achievable, financially viable and likely to benefit livestock producers in the industry affected by the disease. The Industry Advisory Committee established to advise on the operation of the disease control program will need to consult with the relevant industry to ensure that producers' views are properly reflected in advice to the Minister.

A central plank of the bill is the capacity to collect voluntary contributions from producers when livestock or products are sold—that is, a transaction-based contribution scheme. The automatic collection of funds at the point of sale provides a fairer and simpler system with reduced administration costs. This has proven to be a highly successful method of collecting funds in other States. Authorised collection agents will collect the contributions from designated livestock producers. The rate of contribution will be set on advice from the Industry Advisory Committee. Funds raised through transaction-based contributions will be paid into an industry fund and administered by a fund administrator, who can either be the director-general, the Rural Assistance Authority, an independent corporate or statutory body, or a board of trustees. The fund administrator will be subject to the same auditing and reporting requirements as apply to the director-general under the Act.
I indicated that the proposed amendments allow for voluntary transaction-based contributions. The proposed changes give producers the right to claim back contributions made, if they want, by applying for a refund within a specified period. However, producers claiming a refund will lose their entitlements to services provided by the fund. Producers who seek a service from a program will be required to comply with the rules of the fund. They also have a right to apply to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal if they are unhappy about the decisions made under a scheme. On advice from the industry, the bill retains the current power to impose an industry levy, the amount of which is based on the carrying capacity of a producer's land. For some diseases this may be the most efficient and equitable way to fund the disease control program.

I note that there have been ongoing discussions with the industry about its liabilities under the current scheme for the collection of funds for the OJD program. In particular, there are ongoing discussions with the industry about the need to repay the loan provided by this Government. The raising of funds to repay the loan will be the subject of further negotiations with the New South Wales Farmers Association. The industry has agreed that these negotiations will not impede the progress of the bill, which will introduce a far more effective industry funding mechanism for the future.

I can assure honourable members that this legislation establishes a framework to provide direct support to producers. Its primary aim is to enable the collective funding by the livestock industry of services to assist producers in controlling disease, and that is how it will be used. The move to a transaction-based contribution scheme and its supporting features simplifies the collection of industry funds and provides greater transparency and accountability in how the funds are distributed. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANDREW PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [7.46 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Agricultural Livestock (Disease Control Funding) Amendment Bill. The shadow Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. Duncan Gay, will give a detailed response on behalf of the Opposition in the Legislative Council. However I take this opportunity to make a few comments on the bill. Ovine Johne's disease [OJD] has been a contentious issue, particularly in southern New South Wales, for many years now. There has been disagreement between producers as to the appropriate way in which to deal with OJD and whether it can be controlled. Anybody who has read the Land over the past few years would be aware that there has not been one edition that has not contained two, three or four articles and two, three or four letters to the editor dealing with OJD.

As I said, there is disagreement between producers as to what should be done about this disease. It is a difficult issue for the Government, the Opposition and members of The Nationals to deal with. Despite a great deal of consultation with producers and producer organisations, including the New South Wales Farmers Association, over the past few years the New South Wales Government has got this issue wrong, which is why we have this legislation before us. I note the involvement of Richard Bull, a former Nationals member of the Legislative Council, who chaired a committee that thoroughly investigated OJD. Some of the recommendations of that committee resulted in the formulation of the bill.

Essentially, the bill will change the way in which levies are raised for the control and eventual eradication of OJD. New South Wales currently raises a levy based on the carrying capacity of a farmer's land, and that has proven to be a problem. Whenever a levy is imposed we have to establish the basis upon which it should be raised. A few years ago when the New South Wales Government decided to raise such a levy it determined that the levy for each farmer would depend on the carrying capacity of his farm. That decision has subsequently proved to be inappropriate.

The raising of the levy caused particular problems in the border areas of my electorate of Murrumbidgee and in the electorates of the honourable member for Murray-Darling and the honourable member for Albury. New South Wales farmers were charged the levy based on the carrying capacity of their property, but they faced another charge if they sold their sheep in Victoria, which charges a levy on a transaction basis. This created enormous difficulties. I am pleased to see the New South Wales Government moving towards a transaction-based levy, which will solve at least some of the problems in areas of this State that border Victoria.

I also take issue generally with the State Government's revenue-raising activities. The Government has proven its enormous capacity to raise revenue. It constantly raises additional revenue rather than use funds from consolidated revenue, of which it has plenty. In the past few months the Government has levied a few choice taxes on New South Wales, including the clubs tax, land tax for everyone, and vendor stamp duty charges. The Government has plenty of consolidated revenue but whenever it faces an impost that should be funded from that source it finds nice new ways of raising still more money. The OJD levy is just one example, and fishing licences are probably another. I do not think any business people—farmers included—have been exempt from the various ways in which the State Government has reached into their pockets.
The Opposition will not oppose the bill. As I said, the Hon. Duncan Gay will respond to it in detail in the other place. We support the move to a transaction-based levy because the current system of raising funds for disease control is not working. Nobody, including those in the sheep industry, likes to pay levies or taxes, but the industry accepts that it must bear some responsibility for disease control programs. However, it rejects the current model, which has proved to be complex, unfair and unworkable. Sheep producers were particularly unhappy with the levy collection system, and many refused to make the voluntary payment. This left a shortfall of about $1.8 million, which denied a number of farmers the financial assistance due to them.

To the Government's credit, it recognised the difficulties that farmers and sheep producers were facing during the drought and it suspended the repayment of the $4.2 million loan that it had made to the industry for OJD control measures. Under the new transaction-based fee arrangements, farmers will be able to claim back the money they pay if they choose to do so. If they reclaim those funds they will be unable to access the services offered by the fund. Most people would agree that that is an equitable arrangement. As I said, a similar transaction-based levy system works well in Victoria and in South Australia, and there is no reason why it will not be as successful in New South Wales.

The Minister will also establish a couple of industry committees to deal with ovine Johne's disease control. That is very important, and I commend the Hon. Richard Bull for his work on the committee from which this amending bill has emanated. The Opposition supports the move to a transaction-based levy but the Department of Primary Industries, formerly the Department of Agriculture, still has much work to do to gain the full confidence of producers. I am concerned about some of the cuts that will be made to the department. Substantial job cuts have been announced. Ovine Johne's is a complex disease that is difficult to manage, and cutting departmental staff and resources will not make that task any easier. The change in the levy is a step in the right direction but I do not believe that the savage cuts to the department will be helpful.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [7.55 p.m.]: This is a critical time for the livestock industry in New South Wales and in this country as a whole. Both the State and Federal governments have a responsibility to be ever vigilant and to constantly improve preparedness and the ability to react to any animal disease outbreaks. For some time the Coalition has supported measures that increased this State's ability to react to any outbreak of animal disease. However, the Carr Labor Government has failed to meet its responsibilities in this area and has imposed a user-pays system on the New South Wales industry. I was involved with measures to control the tick problem in the Northern Rivers and on the North Coast of New South Wales. Almost all responsibility for that program has now been passed to producers in those areas, who virtually protect the rest of the State.

This Government has never offered any support to producers to implement the National Livestock Identification Scheme. It is a different story in Victoria, where a Labor Government has come out in support of producers. Various Opposition members in this House and the shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in the other place have continually called on the Carr Labor Government to support producers in implementing that scheme. But the Government has failed to provide any direct funding support for farmers or to guarantee funding for the national ovine Johne's disease abattoir surveillance program.

The Agricultural Livestock (Disease Control Funding) Amendment Bill aims to rectify the New South Wales Government's current unwillingness to take animal disease control as seriously as it should. It has the potential to play an important role in preparing the industry to react swiftly and effectively to disease outbreaks by implementing a transaction-based levy instigated and presided over by representative industry committees. It is again left to the stock and station agents to collect the new levy. I am a past president of the agency industry organisation. In the same way as the Government forces local government to perform extra duties for less pay, stock and station agents throughout the State are continually forced to collect levies and do much other work on behalf of the industry without recompense. When the producer gets his cheque at the end of the day he says, "Look at what those hungry agents have taken off me again today." He does not appreciate that some of that money will be used to rectify problems and benefit the industry as a whole.

The agency industry is a vital part of the chain, and all of the industry has worked together. The industry was shown a draft of the bill only recently and its major concern is that, because the transaction levy will be collected at the saleyard, farmers will assume that the levy is another agent fee. Everyone supports this voluntary-based system. I ask the Minister to be conscious of the fact that the State is experiencing one of its worst-ever droughts and producers will need support for this extra cost. As previous speakers have said, the shadow Minister in the other place will comment more broadly in relation to all of those issues.
Miss CHERIE BURTON (Kogarah—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.00 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. Livestock disease control funding is of concern to many honourable members. The Minister for Primary Industries has assured me that the concerns raised will be addressed when these amendments are implemented. Central to any disease control program is the need for adequate resources to implement measures to prevent, eradicate or manage significant livestock diseases. The Government is committed to working with industry to achieve disease control and protect our livestock industries. As part of this partnership, the Government needs to have in place legislation which will allow industry to implement acceptable mechanisms for raising funds to support disease control programs.

The amendments in the bill respond to industry requests for an efficient and equitable mechanism of collecting funds to operate effective disease control programs. The Government has listened to suggestions and recommendations for reform of the voluntary contribution-compulsory levy system in place under the current Act. The proposed transaction-based contribution scheme is strongly supported as a more simple, fairer and acceptable mechanism of collecting funds. The bill will deliver effective legislation which will enhance livestock disease control programs throughout our State. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Bills introduced and read a first time.

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [8.02 p.m.]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill is the second bill implementing the counter-terrorist reform package announced by the Government on 14 May. Counter-terrorism is a co-ordinated effort involving each jurisdiction in Australia. In 2002 Australian States and Territories including New South Wales referred power to the Commonwealth for terrorist matters and, as a result, the Commonwealth enacted broad-ranging terrorist offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995. These offences deal with every aspect of terrorist activity, including planning, training, membership, financing and organisation. Since that time the Government has not rested. New South Wales has participated in counter-terrorist planning and training exercises under the banner of the national anti-terrorism plan. Our police have developed their tactical hostage rescue and bomb disposal skills, and developed their ability to respond to a terrorist situation in order to protect the citizens of New South Wales.

In 2002 the Government enacted the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act, which gives police extraordinary powers to stop and search persons and vehicles, or to search areas and buildings, in order to prevent a terrorist attack, or after an attack to assist in catching the terrorists red-handed. We have established the Counter-Terrorism Co-ordination Command within NSW Police, which conducts investigations with other State and Commonwealth agencies into terrorist activity in New South Wales. The Government has boosted the NSW Police budget by $2.1 million per annum to fund the Counter Terrorism Co-ordination Command, thus ensuring that police have all the necessary equipment and training needed to respond to a terrorist attack. In addition, the Government is spending a further $9.1 million on new equipment for counter-terrorist response, including new bomb disposal equipment such as bomb disposal robots and bomb containment vessels.

The Counter Terrorism Co-ordination Command’s counter-terrorist skills and equipment are regularly tested in exercises. The latest of these exercises has been Exercise Explorer, which was conducted in May and which culminated in a mock explosion at the Holsworthy Barracks on 31 May. On 6 May the Premier announced the establishment of the counter-terrorism laws task force, which includes officials from my department and the police and emergency services portfolios. The task force will monitor and review the laws of New South Wales and make recommendations for legislative amendments. In early June the first of these legislative amendments was made—the creation of a presumption against bail for persons charged with terrorist offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. This bill makes a range of other amendments to New South Wales legislation.
When it comes to prosecuting persons accused of terrorist activity under the law the first line of defence will be the terrorist offences created by the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Indeed, all persons arrested and charged in New South Wales to date have been charged with Commonwealth terrorist offences. There are limited circumstances, however, where New South Wales criminal offences will be relevant in a prosecution of terrorist activity, for instance, when there is incidental criminal activity discovered during an investigation or when there is no clear evidence that the incident was motivated by terrorism, as defined by the Commonwealth legislation, but the actions are clearly criminal under New South Wales law.

In light of the referral of power to the Commonwealth for terrorism matters, New South Wales law will not create any specific terrorist offences, but will focus on ensuring that offences of the type committed by terrorists, namely offences against the person and offences against property, are relevant and comprehensive. The bill will also clarify the trigger for the use of the powers provided to police under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 and will augment the existing powers by introducing a power for the Commissioner of Police to set up cordons and give reasonable directions to government bodies and agencies to facilitate the exercise of the powers. I will now outline the various elements of the bill.

Schedule 1 relates to amendments to the Crimes Act 1900. Item [1] inserts a definition into section 4 of the Crimes Act in respect of the use of poisons and other destructive or noxious things. Currently, there are a number of offences relating to poisoning another person, with increasing penalties relative to the intention of the offender and the harm caused to the victim. The definition makes clear that the offences in the Crimes Act are not limited to merely placing a poison in someone's drink but extends to modern terrorist tactics such as introducing a poison gas into an airconditioning system—or on a train, as happened in Tokyo—or the use of forms of radiation. Items [2] to [6] of schedule 1 deal with explosives offences. While we must be alert to the sophisticated forms of terrorism that may involve nerve gas, viruses or other toxins, it is clear the most common terrorist weapon remains the bomb.

These offences also have a more general policy application, as regardless of whether a person has terrorist motives or not they should not be possessing or using explosives or bombs unless they have a lawful or legitimate reason to be doing so. New South Wales has a range of explosives offences in several pieces of legislation. These amendments deal with the criminal offences in the Crimes Act rather then the regulatory offences contained in the Dangerous Goods Act. Item [2] amends section 48 of the Crimes Act, which currently uses quite anachronistic terminology. The new section 48 will cover placing explosives in buildings, public places as well as in forms of transport.

Item [3] amends section 55 to create an offence of possessing or making explosives with intent to injure another person. The amendments will increase the maximum penalty from 5 years to 10 years imprisonment. The mental element of "intent to cause injury" justifies such an increase. It is also important that such preparatory offences carry appropriate penalties, so that when police investigations intercept terrorist preparations at an early stage significant sentences are available.

Item [4] amends the heading of part 3B of the Crimes Act to include "explosives". Item [5] creates a new offence under section 93FA of possessing or making of explosives. The new offence under section 93FA has two limbs: the unlawful making or possession of an explosive, formerly section 545D, and the possession of an explosive in a public place, formerly covered under section 545E. As well as relocating the offence in the newly renamed part 3B of the Crimes Act, the bill increases the maximum penalties for making or possessing an explosive from one year to two years and possessing an explosive in a public place from two years to five years imprisonment. One of the difficulties with framing explosives offences is that many everyday common items, such as household cleaning products, can be explosive. Subsection (4), therefore, creates a defence in relation to both of these offences of reasonable excuse or lawful purpose.

Item [8] deletes section 545D. Item [6] amends section 200 of the Crimes Act and creates an offence of possession, custody or control of an article with intent to destroy or damage property. The amendment differentiates between possession of an ordinary item, which will continue to carry a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment, and possession of explosives, which will now carry a maximum penalty of seven years. Item [7] of the schedule amends section 203A of the Crimes Act, which defines "public facility" for the purposes of sabotage offences. The amendment includes a public computer system in the definition of "public facility". This will ensure that attacks, including computer virus attacks, on such important facilities as the Australian Stock Exchange come within the scope of the sabotage offence. The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years.
Schedule 2 contains amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Schedule 2 inserts the newly created offences under section 93FA into table 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. This will enable the prosecution to choose to have a matter dealt with either summarily or on indictment. That, in turn, allows less serious offences to be dealt with more efficiently in the Local Court. Schedule 3 contains amendments to the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002. The Government enacted the Police Powers (Terrorism) Act 2002 following the Bali bombings to give police extraordinary powers to act in emergency situations when there were grounds to believe a terrorist act might be about to occur or had just occurred. Where the Act is triggered, by a very senior police officer, a range of powers of stop and search are available to police to attempt to frustrate a terrorist attack or rapidly close the net on terrorists who may be leaving the scene of an attack. While this Act has not been used, it has been tested in counter-terrorism exercises. Experience in working with the Act in exercises has shown that clarification is required to the trigger to activate the powers and also that some additional powers are needed.

Item [1] of schedule 3 amends the trigger at section 5 of the Act. This is the trigger for activating the powers in advance of a terrorist act. The Government's intention with this legislation is to give NSW Police the capacity to act when a senior and experienced officer, on the basis of the information available, and in light of that officer's experience, feels it is necessary to do so, in order to forestall a possible terrorist attack. In the real world of terrorist investigations, the information available may come from a number of different sources and may not be clear or precise. Police may be gathering surveillance information by watching suspects. Intelligence may be received from overseas agencies about international activities or connections. Information may be shared between other Australian security organisations. In the light of this combination of information, the activities of suspects may raise concerns amongst officers knowledgeable in terrorist methods that the suspects may be going to mount an attack of some kind in the near future. The timing of this activity may also be significant. It may be occurring just before the visit of a foreign VIP or a major public event.

The type of information may not be exact, for example police may not necessarily have an understanding of the form the terrorist threat might take whether it is a car bomb, a suicide bombing or a shooting. The concern the police have must be based on evidence. The trigger does create a genuine test. But that test must have a relatively low threshold given the consequences if police do not act. The bill amends the test to read that the senior police officer is "satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe there is the threat that a terrorist act may occur in the near future". The second limb of the existing test remains and must also be satisfied. It is that the senior police officer is "satisfied that the exercise of the powers will substantially assist in preventing the terrorist act". There must be a concern of an act occurring in the near future. This prevents the legislation from being triggered merely by reference to the general background threat that exists against this country. There must be some combination of factors suggesting that an act may be about to occur. The use of the term "threat", with its connotations of risk and uncertainty, makes it clear that the reasonable belief that there is the threat that a terrorist act may occur in the near future can be based on information that is itself uncertain or vague.

These powers are extreme, but so are the consequences of not acting when, as it were, the terrorists are in the home straight. The existing safeguards under the Act remain. The decision of senior police to activate the powers must be ratified by the Minister for Police. Similarly, when the powers are used, a report must be made by NSW Police to the Attorney General and the Minister for Police. The Act also has a built-in requirement that it be reviewed annually. The ongoing review of terrorism powers, and the experience gained from counter-terrorism exercises, also indicate that these additional amendments to the Act are needed.

Item [2] of schedule 3 creates a new section 14A, making clear that the Commissioner of Police or a senior delegate has the power to give reasonable directions to government bodies and agencies to facilitate the use of the counter-terrorism powers. Such a power may be used, for example, if there is a terrorist threat against Sydney's rail transport system. The size of this system and its complexity mean that if the powers under the Act to stop and search are activated, NSW Police will need assistance from the agencies controlling this infrastructure in order to effectively utilise the powers. In this situation, NSW Police may wish to shut down a part of the rail system. The bill will give the commissioner or a senior delegate the power to give reasonable directions to facilitate this kind of operation. Government agencies are authorised and required to comply.

Item [3] of schedule 3 creates new section 19A, which provides that where the powers are activated NSW Police may also cordon the designated targeted area or establish a cordon around or within a part of such an area. This would facilitate the exercise of the stop-and-search powers that exist, in particular by allowing police to set up roadblocks. It will help police control movement into and out of an area where it is suspected that terrorist acts may occur or have occurred. Schedule 4 to the bill contains an amendment to the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989, clarifying in section 4—"Definitions"—that an actual or imminent terrorist act may be classed as an emergency under this Act, permitting a range of emergency powers to be activated in consequence.

I refer, finally, to the cognate bill, the Sydney Opera House Trust Amendment Bill. I am pleased to introduce that bill today as a cognate bill. It contains a series of tough new laws to protect the security of the Opera House. The Opera House has a unique place in our cultural life and history of Sydney. The iconic stature of the Opera House makes it particularly vulnerable as a target of potential terrorist and other criminal conduct. It is, therefore, necessary to take special steps to protect it. The Government has already allocated $13.6 million since April 2003 to be spent on improving security at the Opera House site. The new laws introduced today support these measures by ensuring that real deterrents are put in place. Many of the prohibited acts are dangerous, and can put the lives of front-line workers, such as Opera House staff and police, at risk.

Many people have been concerned about the damage done to the Opera House sails last year. The new provisions will ensure that such damaging acts are punished appropriately. It will be a criminal offence to trespass on the Opera House, with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. Trespass on the Opera House with intent to cause damage or to commit certain offences, or to seriously disrupt the operations of the Opera House, will be punishable by a maximum of seven years imprisonment. Intentional or reckless damage to the Opera House will attract a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. In addition, the bill makes minor amendments of an administrative nature. The availability of these offences will not prevent a court from requiring offenders to compensate the Opera House for criminal damage. Furthermore, NSW Police will not be prevented from charging a person with another offence that incurs a greater penalty.

Earlier today in this House—I take it in anticipation of the introduction of this bill—my colleague the honourable member for Epping suggested that there was a discrepancy in the penalties for the Sydney Opera House offences: a seven-year maximum penalty for trespass with intent, but a five-year maximum for causing malicious damage. The reason for the difference in penalties is that the trespass with intent offence is extremely broad and covers intent to commit not only malicious damage but also intent to disrupt the running of the Opera House or some other more serious criminal offence. Because of the wider range of criminality encompassed by the offence, we must give the courts power to impose serious penalties when there has been serious criminality that needs to go beyond the five-year maximum that exists for malicious damage, which is a more targeted and more narrow offence.

If somebody has seriously damaged the Opera House, police are not limited to charging that person with malicious damage. For instance, if they used explosives in committing the damage they may be charged with an explosives offence, which has a 10-year maximum penalty. The purpose of the malicious damage offence is to provide further protection to a Sydney architectural icon, a cultural icon, the most distinctive symbol of New South Wales. It is not to cover the entire field of terrorist activity. In summary, these proposed new offences are vital to the ongoing protection of what is almost certainly arguably these days Australia's most enduring symbol. I commend the bills to the House.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [8.24 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the bills, but I have a number of problems with them. They have not been carefully thought out. During the last sitting week the counter-terrorism laws task force was responsible for the introduction of a bail bill at the eleventh hour after some extraordinarily embarrassing publicity the previous evening, when, as I recall, the Leader of the House suspended standing and sessional orders to enable a number of bills to be dealt with. The bail bill was not among them. Not a great deal of thought goes into some of the material that appears before this House, and not enough thought is given to the sorts of topics we are concerned with in this bill. If we are to embark on a process of trying to change the law to deal with terrorism and if, as the Attorney General says, we have an obligation, independent of the Commonwealth, to fix New South Wales laws on terrorism and not assume in every case that a Federal law will cover it, we have to do the job properly and exhaustively.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill omits section 48 of the Crimes Act and inserts instead a provision that covers causing explosives to be placed in or near a building, conveyance or public place. I searched in vain through the bill for any reference to the repeal of section 207 of the Crimes Act, but I found none. The job has not been done properly, appropriately or competently until section 207 is dealt with. Section 207 refers to the placing of dangerous articles on board an aircraft or vessel. In the section "dangerous article" means a firearm, ammunition for a firearm, a weapon or an explosive, or a substance or thing that, because of its nature or condition, could endanger the safety of an aircraft or vessel, or persons on board an aircraft or vessel. Any person who places such an article is liable to imprisonment for seven years.
Before getting into the detail, the first point to be made is that the maximum penalty under the existing law, section 207 of the Crimes Act, is seven years, which is half the sentence now proposed by the Minister. But it gets worse. As I understand it, under section 476 (6) (d) of the Crimes Act a magistrate can with the consent of the accused, not the prosecution, deal summarily with offences committed under section 207 and impose a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment, not the 14 years imprisonment provided for in the bill. The untidiness of the bill can be better appreciated when it becomes clear that new section 48 covers only explosives and section 207 covers dangerous articles, including firearms, ammunition for a firearm and weapons. I would have thought such articles would have been of extreme concern in any terrorist context. Section 207 covers three categories of terrorist implements, so to speak, apart from explosives that are not covered in new section 48. It is a huge problem.

The second problem is that although new section 48 covers a vessel, it does not cover an aircraft. It might be argued that an aircraft is another conveyance, but with an extant section 207 one's work would be cut out in claiming that it is implicit that an aircraft would be covered by new section 48, when the two pieces of legislation are clearly a complete mismatch. I suspect that the drafters of the bill did not even think about section 207. If the Minister is serious about doing something with these pieces of terrorist equipment, for want of a better expression, how section 207 can stand in the face of new section 48 I do not know. If we are serious about this, I would have thought that part of section 207 would have to be repealed and that the rest of it would have to be incorporated in new section 48, which should refer to aircraft, firearms, ammunition for a firearm and a weapon. Unless and until that happens there is a hole the size of the Grand Canyon in the bill. Perhaps someone will argue that that does not matter because aircraft are covered by Federal legislation. However, that was not the Attorney General's starting point for this legislation, and it is not mine either.

Members of this Parliament have a duty to ensure that the laws of the State operate with seamless coverage even if there is only the slightest possibility of State charges being preferred. Many intrastate aircraft journeys are being undertaken and many of them originate from private airfields, but none of that activity comes under any type of direct Commonwealth control. If someone in charge of a light plane undertakes a flight to the wrong place at the wrong time, honourable members can work out the implications of that for themselves. It is not good enough for incongruous provisions to be part of this legislation.

Item [5] of schedule 1 refers to the possession or making of explosives. Despite the plain English in which the provision is expressed, I am struggling to ascertain its meaning. New section 93FA states:

(1) A person who possesses an explosive in a public place is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

The Pitt Street Mall is a public place. If a person is found in possession of explosives in the Pitt Street Mall in circumstances in which no further intent can be proved—bearing in mind that it may be extremely difficult to prove further intent even though the offender has extraordinarily evil motives—that person will face a maximum penalty of five years. Because the starting point for this legislation is a concern about terrorism, I do think that a maximum penalty of five years applying to a person in possession of explosives in the Pitt Street Mall, Martin Place or Circular Quay is a fair dinkum penalty. In this day and age, that could not be considered to be a serious penalty for possession of explosives in a public place. New section 93FA also states:

(2) A person who possesses or makes an explosive, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person did not possess or make the explosive for a lawful purpose, is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 50 penalty units, or both.

That provision carries an alternative penalty of no imprisonment at all through its alternative of a maximum of 50 penalty units. The Opposition thought long and hard about whether it should move an amendment to this provision, but did not want to risk being accused of interfering in the manner in which the Attorney General deals with terrorism legislation. The concern of the Opposition was whether we could allow a provision to be passed by this Parliament sending a message to the courts that it is permissible to impose a fine as a maximum alternative penalty for possession of explosives in circumstances in which there is a reasonable suspicion that the person did not possess or make the explosive for a lawful purpose. The Parliament is effectively saying that a fine is an appropriate maximum penalty, and the Opposition has grave misgivings about that provision. The Opposition came very close to moving an amendment but will not do so because it may be misconstrued. However, I suggest to the Minister that the provision should be amended.

New section 200 in item [6] of schedule 1 relates to the possession of explosive or other article with intent to destroy or damage property. On the face of it, this provision appears to be a step in the right direction. The provision substitutes a penalty of seven years imprisonment for a penalty of three years imprisonment. That sounds good until it is realised that nothing has been done to amend section 476 of the Crimes Act to separate new section 200 from offences that can be dealt with summarily. As I understand it, with the concurrence of the accused—not the concurrence of the prosecution—a magistrate may decide to deal with a new section 200 matter summarily, and the maximum penalty will be only two years imprisonment. To remove all doubts, I will read the provisions of section 476 of the Crimes Act:

(1) Where a person is charged before a Magistrate with an offence mentioned in subsection (6)—

That includes new sections 200 and 207¯

—the magistrate may require the person to state whether he or she intends to plead guilty or not guilty to the charge, and if the person does not so state he or she shall be taken for the purposes of this section to have stated that he or she intends to plead not guilty.

(2) Where a person states under subsection (1) that he or she intends to plead not guilty to a charge, and it appears to the magistrate that the case may properly be disposed of summarily and that the person consents to it being so disposed of, the magistrate shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the charge in a summary manner and pass sentence upon the person.

The provision clearly states that on behalf of the people of this State the prosecution has no right of audience to insist that the matter is serious and should be dealt with on indictment by a superior court in circumstances in which a penalty of seven years imprisonment that has been proposed by this Parliament is the maximum penalty that may be imposed. The Attorney General should make it clear that as far as section 200 offences are concerned, section 476 of the Crimes Act does not apply. That must be so; otherwise, simply by default the procedure will revert to a magistrate and an accused person agreeing to a maximum sentence of two years in spite of the fact that the Parliament has set a normative standard of seven years imprisonment.

If members opposite consider that to be a fanciful construction of the provisions, I remind the House of a relatively recent matter in which this Government chose not to appeal a penalty relating to a car bomber. On 15 April 2004 the Sydney Morning Herald published a report on a man who blew up a car by using a 97-kilogram homemade bomb made of nitroglycerine, other chemicals and fertiliser, but escaped a gaol sentence. The report states:

Blacktown electrician Mark John Avery … was fined $6500 for using a prohibited weapon and given a 16-months suspended sentence. The blast at Doonside left a crater five metres wide and two metres deep and spread debris over 300 metres.

Any ordinary person in this State would regard such a case as warranting a period of imprisonment, but the offender did not receive a custodial sentence. Moreover, the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Government chose not to lodge an appeal. The idea of these offences being dealt with by magistrates who generally do not have an appetite for imposing custodial sentences is, or should be, of the utmost concern to every person in this State. I understand that the offence involved a car being blown up in an open field that was readily accessible by the public. The bomb had precisely the same components as the bomb made by the idiot, Tim McVeigh, who killed approximately 200 people in an Oklahoma public office building. This legislation will allow offenders to have a little practice run with their bomb in the field somewhere and they will later be able to walk out of court with a fine. That is why I think the concept of new section 93FA (2) providing an alternative of 50 penalty units encourages the development of a weakened approach to the application of the criminal law.

If members of this Parliament are serious about trying to deter terrorism, the imposition of significant gaol penalties should be the normative standard, not the exception. It must be acknowledged that when someone uses a 97-kilogram homemade bomb similar to the bomb used in the Oklahoma killings to blow a crater measuring five metres deep and receives a fine, that clearly indicates that the New South Wales Government is not getting the message. I am thankful that the Federal Government is serious about tackling terrorism. At the end of the day one hopes that an Australian Federal Police officer who is dealing with matters that are the subject of this legislation will decide not to go anywhere near this legislation and will apply Federal statutes instead. However, even if that happens, it will not remove the duty of New South Wales parliamentarians of ensuring that New South Wales legislation is effective. Unfortunately, this bill is full of loopholes.

I now deal with the cognate legislation, the Sydney Opera House Trust Amendment Bill. I acknowledge that I mentioned this bill earlier in the context of the crossbench briefing note. However, after examining the bill, I still have some concerns. Legislation of this type is not read in some artful way to achieve the best possible outcome for the government of the day. Such provisions are read down and are reduced to their tightest meaning. The reality is that new section 28B (a) in schedule 1 embraces the clear concept of an intention to cause damage and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for seven years. Subsection (c) refers to actually committing the offence of causing damage but provides for a maximum penalty of only five years imprisonment.

Anyone who is loitering around the Sydney Opera House with intent and is about to be apprehended for trespassing would be better advised, under the terms of this legislation, to commit the more serious offence because it attracts a lesser penalty. This is absolutely absurd legislation. On a plain English interpretation of this bill, it encourages somebody who is about to be apprehended on the basis of their apparent intention to commit an offence to actually go ahead and do it because in those circumstances they will face a lesser penalty for a more serious offence. On a plain reading of the bill that is exactly where it heads. There can be all sorts of spin and artifice around these provisions, but that is where it will head in a criminal court: reading it down and reading it hard.

I refer now to new section 28A, which covers trespassing at the Sydney Opera House. A lot of nice words have been said about the iconic stature of the Sydney Opera House, which makes it particularly vulnerable as a target potential for terrorist and other criminal conduct. The briefing note was signed off by the Premier, but he really means that it has finally dawned on him that he has some personal responsibility as Minister for the Arts for the security of the opera house. However, the Premier has not thought beyond the Opera House. Sure, the bill goes some way towards dealing with a more meaningful penalty for trespassing at the opera house but what about all the other iconic structures? Today the Opposition made a pretty good fist of trying to determine the law pertaining to those structures. One could have a team of researchers working on that for a day and still be none the wiser.

The Parliamentary Counsel's office worked on that matter for about half a day and the best they could come up with was section 8A of the Summary Offences Act, which covers climbing on or jumping from buildings or other structures including bridges, cranes, towers, et cetera, but not for recreational purposes. I assume that means lawful recreational purposes such as authorised bungee jumping and the like, rather than base jumping. But what does that mean? What about every other iconic structure in Sydney, apart from the Opera House? Currently the only iconic structure referred to in the bill is the Sydney Opera House. What about other structures, including bridges. The Sydney Harbour Bridge would be a good start and I cannot see anything that governs what happens on that bridge other than section 8A of the Summary Offences Act.

Similarly there is no other provision that covers the Anzac Bridge, the Gladesville Bridge, the Roseville Bridge or The Spit Bridge. And what is the penalty for trespass on bridges? The maximum penalty is 10 penalty units or imprisonment for three months. The Premier has set up a hue and cry on the Opera House to do something about it. He does not want the Opera House sails on television again, embarrassing him in the lead-up to the election. I well remember the extraordinary event when some senior people briefed the Leader of the Opposition and me during that caretaker period last year when the sails of the Opera House were painted red. Obviously those people had been chewed out personally by the Premier in the most fearful way, as were some of our senior police. One could only feel sorry for them.

It is plain to me that that is the Premier's mind-set: he has co-signed the crossbench briefing note and has not gone beyond his portfolio responsibilities. He has not thought of any of the bridges, or the Centrepoint Tower, which one assumes would be covered by section 8A of the Summary Offences Act. Similarly, I assume Parliament House would be covered by that section as would the Art Gallery of New South Wales, the Sydney Town Hall and other buildings in the State which would be obvious targets. The only building to get special attention is the Opera House, and the only reason for that is because the Premier was embarrassed, probably to the same colour as the paint on the sails just prior to the last election. He has not thought beyond the square.

What is needed is an amendment to the Summary Offences Act; perhaps the provisions of section 8A of that Act could be inserted into the Crimes Act. Rather than having a Sydney Opera House Trust Amendment Bill we need a further clause in the Crimes Act that more seriously reflects the criminality and threat posed by climbing on or jumping from certain buildings in this age of terrorism. That provision should apply to structures such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Anzac Bridge, this building, the Centrepoint Tower and many other buildings. That is where the penalties ought to apply, and in that sense the Opera House should be no different from the Centrepoint Tower or the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Goodness me! Talk about iconic structures, maybe this building is not one, but certainly the Sydney Harbour Bridge is. Why it should be treated differently from the Sydney Opera House is beyond my comprehension.
Unfortunately, these bills are found wanting: they are incomplete and have not been fully thought out. I think they are ragged and do not fit properly with the principal Act that they are amending. Not enough thought has been given to the summary application of section 476 of the Crimes Act or the surviving provisions in the Crimes Act that overlap in whole or in part the intention of the new bill. Why would the carrying of an explosive onto a vehicle that might result in a serious penalty, such as 14 years imprisonment, not apply to an aircraft? One would have to stretch the implications of new section 48 to include aircraft while section 207 of the Act remains in place. The simple way to do this is to get rid of section 207; as long as it remains, someone, such as Chris Murphy, will use that section as a base for a good argument. New section 48 certainly does not cover the weapons that are currently covered by section 207 such as firearms, ammunition, and weapons of that type.

What does it matter whether a terrorist carries onto an aircraft or any other vehicle or vessel an explosive or firearm or ammunition? Does the Attorney General and the Government need to be reminded that the greatest terrorist acts in the history of the world were carried out by people armed with nothing more than box cutters? Yet, the Government cannot get into its collective head that firearms are dangerous and need to be proscribed in the same way as are explosives. Between now and Friday the Attorney General should get this right. Come back on Friday and we will pass the bills through in five minutes. But if the Attorney proceeds with these bills he will be a laughing stock. Get it right!

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [9.46 p.m.], in reply: I acknowledge the contribution of the honourable member for Epping. Terrorism presents a modern democracy with some very hard decisions. The task that confronts us as a Government, as a Parliament, as a State and as a nation is to meet the terrorist threat while still preserving the things that mark us out as a free and open society. The Government does not resile from ensuring that we have strong and effective laws and powers to protect the citizens and to punish those who would plan and commit terrorist acts. But with each power we have ensured that there is a corresponding balance or safeguard. I will address several matters that have been raised in the debate so histrionically by the honourable member.

The honourable member for Epping asserted that there is a problem with creating an offence of intentionally damaging the Opera House, carrying a penalty of five years imprisonment, and creating an offence of trespass on the Opera House with intent to commit an offence, carrying a penalty of seven years. His point being that one gets less for actually committing the offence of damage than if one trespasses with the intent to do so. Honourable members would not have to look very hard at the Crimes Act to discern that the criminal law severely punishes offences that carry elements of criminal intent. Those offences are distinguished and punished more harshly than reckless or opportunistic crimes because the offences are also punishing the planning and premeditation involved in offences that carry criminal intent.

Applying the same principle, the New South Wales law punishes attempts to commit a crime at the same level as an actual or completed crime. Once one understands that principle, one can comprehend why it is that the creation of those two offences makes perfect sense. If a person intentionally damages the Opera House recklessly or opportunistically the person will be liable to the maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. If, on the other hand, a person hatches a plan to damage the Opera House and trespasses in order to do so, he or she would be liable for seven years imprisonment. That will be the case in circumstances where the person is prevented from causing the damage and also in circumstances where the person damages the Opera House, the completed act being the evidence of the intention. I might add that in prosecuting this latter circumstance it would not be unusual for the Crown to include both offences on an indictment, with a five-year charge being an alternative to the seven-year charge. That would be done in case there was an issue in proving the element of intent, which I am sure the honourable member for Epping knows is harder to prove than the physical elements of the offence.

The honourable member also commented on the mechanism allowing the prosecution to elect to have matters dealt with either summarily or on indictment. The example that he persistently used involved carrying an explosive onto a plane and that matter being dealt with by the Local Court. I say by way of preliminary observation that large numbers of offences in the Crimes Act overlap and are applicable in different situations. Section 207 of the Crimes Act does not need to be repealed because it is applicable to dangerous articles other than explosives, such as knives, for example. We are dealing with a matter of correct charging procedures, and no more. There is no need to repeal section 207 of the Crimes Act simply because it overlaps some other provisions in the Act.

An election mechanism is contained in the Criminal Procedure Act 1986—a tool used for a whole range of offences—to allow less serious matters to be dealt with in the summary jurisdiction. To put that matter simply, there is no point in taking a matter to a higher court when the criminality involved can be dealt with within the sentencing range available to a Local Court. In the Local Court a matter can be dealt with more expeditiously. What we have, which apparently is uncomprehended by the honourable member for Epping, is a mechanism that allows us to choose to go either for prosecution summarily in the Local Court or by indictment in a higher court, depending on the circumstances. The great missing element in the arguments of the honourable member for Epping is the prosecutorial practices either by the police or by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who understand how to use the mechanisms made available to them in the Crimes Act and the Criminal Procedure Act, which supports it.

Let us take the example of a person taking an explosive on a plane. First, I doubt whether such a scenario would be dealt with under new section 93FA. It would be more likely to be charged under section 205 of the Crimes Act, which is prejudicing the safe operation of an aircraft or vessel, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. If there were evidence of the intention of the person, a charge of attempted murder might be appropriate. If there were evidence that it was done in furtherance of a terrorist cause, a charge under section 101.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code might be laid, and that is an offence that carries a penalty of life imprisonment. All those offences are strictly indictable. Second, if it were charged under new section 93FA I think that the prosecution would elect to have the matter dealt with on indictment.

The honourable member for Epping similarly criticised the fact that monetary penalties are provided for in some explosives offences. He drew attention to the case of the so-called Doonside bomber and implied, by the way, that the Doonside bomber was fined. On 10 January 2004 Mark John Avery exploded a 97-kilogram fertiliser bomb in a suburban paddock. He was convicted on 14 April of possessing an explosive substance under section 545D of the Crimes Act, which carries a 12-month penalty, using a prohibited weapon under section 7 of the Weapons Prohibition Act, which carries a maximum penalty of two years, and of trespassing on Crown land. He received not only a fine; he received a suspended sentence of 16 months, 200 hours of community service and a fine of $6,600.

Mr Andrew Tink: He is not in gaol, which is the point that I made.

Mr BOB DEBUS: The honourable member is being ridiculous. The magistrate found that Mr Avery was stupid and naive—a comment that could be made about several honourable members opposite. Although Mr Avery, like honourable members opposite, was stupid and naive, there was no evidence that he intended to harm any person. His actions destroyed no property but his own. Nevertheless, it is that circumstance that led the Government to review existing provisions under the Crimes Act, and it introduced the kind of legislation that we have before us. I make it clear that it is this Government that made the change.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! I call the honourable member for Epping to order. He will remain silent. The Minister has the call.

Mr BOB DEBUS: The honourable member for Epping is truly an idiot. If a kid got on a plane with a firecracker in his pocket would Opposition members send him to gaol? Notwithstanding the intrepid stupidity of Opposition members I mention that the approach taken to the full range of penalty options is appropriate because sometimes there is no way to punish an offender other than a fine. Honourable members opposite will be aware that section 4 of the Crimes Act defines a person to include a company. It is not at all beyond the realms of possibility that a company could be found in possession of explosives with no reasonable excuse or lawful purpose. In that circumstance a fine is the only way to proceed, it being very difficult to detain a company in a correctional institution.

My suggestion is that those opposite might exercise a little less arrogance and a little more commonsense and recognise that those who are engaged in the prosecution of the criminal law, by and large, know what they are doing. It is their advice that we have relied on in the preparation of this legislation, which fills the kind of hiatus in the criminal law that I originally described when introducing the bill, and it does so in a perfectly sensible fashion. Fortunately, it does so recognising principles of both criminal law and prosecutorial practice that so far appear to be beyond the comprehension of those opposite. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

[Quorum formed.]
The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council with amendments:

National Competition Policy Liquor Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill

Consideration of amendments deferred.

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

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit:

(1) the taking of private members' statements forthwith;

(2) no divisions or quorums to be called for the remainder of the sitting; and

(3) the House to adjourn without notice at the conclusion of private members' statements.

Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:

That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Wednesday 23 June 2004 at 10.00 a.m.

Mr JOHN MILLS (Wallsend) [9.02 p.m.]: Today's budget contained a very pleasant surprise—a little gem—for me and for the people of the Wallsend electorate and neighbouring electorates in the Lower Hunter. It is a wonderful and much desired community project—and it is funded. Some $750,000 will be spent on a cycleway along the former Wallsend to West Wallsend tramway between Wallsend and Glendale. The announcement was nestled in a statement by the Minister for Roads entitled "Funding Boost for Roads in the Hunter Region", which listed key projects to be undertaken in the Hunter region. The second dot point was $750,000 for a cycleway along the old West Wallsend tramway. I express my great thanks to the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, the honourable member for Bankstown, for their support for this project following my representations to them.

The project has won support because of its future benefits for the communities of the western and north-western suburbs of Newcastle and Lake Macquarie cities. The cycleway was proposed as a strategic route for recreational and transport cycling in the 1996 Newcastle-Lake Macquarie Bike Plan. It will link with the existing off-road east-west cycleway at Wallsend and to the proposed off-road Speers Point to Glendale cycleway. Newcastle Cycleways Movement advised me in August last year that the tramway cycleway was its next most important regional priority after the Fernleigh Track, which is nearing the completion of its next stage.

I was visited in August last year by Darrell Stone, the past vice-president of planning of Newcastle Cycleways Movement; Ben Ewald, the vice president of planning; and Bill Livingstone, the president. They outlined their priorities, which are, first, finish the Fernleigh Track, and, second, commence the Wallsend to Glendale cycleway. Like the Fernleigh Track, that tramway cycleway will be a real trunk route, raising the possibility of not only recreational cycling but its use as a transport route. Newcastle Cycleways Movement wrote to me and I subsequently made strong representations to the Minister for Roads and spoke to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning about this issue. Newcastle Cycleways Movement wrote to me about the future use of the former Wallsend to Glendale tramway and emphasised the importance of that abandoned tramway. It wrote:

It will enable cyclists to avoid the steep and hazardous climbs in fast-flowing traffic up Lake Road, with its variable shoulder widths ranging from non-existent to quite good and wide.

NCM sees this route to be the next most important regional cycle link for Newcastle and Lake Macquarie Councils once the Fernleigh Track has been completed. It will provide the same type of benefits to your electorate as the Fernleigh Track does to the coastal suburbs

_ enabling cyclists to travel from the northern and western parts of Lake Macquarie through to the University and Newcastle in a safe, off road environment;

_ providing access for cyclists and pedestrians to important trip originators such as Glendale TAFE, schools, and both Wallsend and Glendale shopping centres;

_ the population centres of Glendale and Wallsend have a wide population demographic, meaning that there are plenty of people either too young or too old to drive, increasing the importance of non-car transport options

Newcastle Cycleways Movement concluded by saying:

The gentle gradients of the tramway make it suited to cycling and wheelchair access, as well as by pedestrians. For this reason, we believe that the route of any cycleway in this area must follow along the tramline bed. This would also enable the historical significance of the route to be highlighted to preserve some of the region's coal mining heritage, as is being done with the Fernleigh Track.

The development of the cycleway will require similar close co-operation between Newcastle and Lake Macquarie city councils as is occurring with regard to the Fernleigh Track cycleway. It is proposed to establish a steering committee comprising the mayors of Newcastle and Lake Macquarie and me to guide the process of developing the tramway cycleway. The steering committee could establish a working group of stakeholders, including Newcastle Cycleways Movement, officers of the Roads and Traffic Authority and both councils, local community groups, and local stakeholders. The June-July 2004 edition of "Cyc-ed Out", the newsletter of the Newcastle Cycleways Movement, contains a Wallsend to Glendale track report by Leigh Marshall, which states:

The existing track route mapping has been completed. A short film has been shot and is in the editing, sound and voice dubbing phase. The film is intended as a selling argument to stakeholders.

Today I advised the Newcastle Cycleways Movement of progress. According to Alan Elvin of the Wallsend Heritage Group, the steam tramway opened in 1910 and closed in 1930. It served the people of the western part of Lake Macquarie.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [9.07 p.m.]: More than three months after inviting public submissions on its revised plans for Epping railway station, the State Government has failed to provide any response to those who made submissions and has simply ignored them. It appears that the Government is proceeding instead with its revised plans regardless. On 10 February 2004 the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation sought submissions relating to "Modifications to the Parramatta rail link proposed Epping station and transport facilities". I, like many others in the area, received a letter on the letterhead of the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation per Martin Halliday, Director, Environment and Planning, asking that submissions regarding modifications, additional works to platforms, a new aerial concourse, modifications to the existing bus interchange, and changes to construction methodology be made by 1 March.

Despite that deadline for the receipt of submissions, no-one that I know who made submissions—including me—has had the courtesy of a reply. However, a pamphlet entitled "Epping to Chatswood Rail Line Project Update No. 1" of May 2004 makes a number of references to the Epping station upgrade. Among other things it states:

In June, construction on the new Epping Station will start from within the rail corridor. The new Station and bus interchange will include a new aerial concourse, upgraded surface platforms, an underground transfer concourse and underground platforms.

Clearly the Government has decided to proceed with major modifications to Epping station above and beyond those that were initially approved in the environmental impact statement process for a rail link to Parramatta. But equally clearly, the Government does not seem to care to acknowledge or respond to the many submissions made by Epping residents who have expressed concerns about the problems arising from the rail link being terminated at Epping, including the lack of commuter car parking—there is none, compared with 800 spaces at the now cancelled Carlingford station; the proposed bus interchange being located on the wrong side of the railway line; the proposed concourse not lining up with the pedestrian footbridge of the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA]; and the proposed demolition of one of the existing heritage station buildings.
The concourse is located in such a position as proposed by State Rail that there has to be a massive 75-metre return back to the overbridge of the RTA. It appears that the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation cannot get the RTA to move the overbridge to what is a major piece of infrastructure. At a recent Epping Civic Trust meeting many people expressed their anger and frustration at being kept in the dark after going to the time and trouble of responding to the invitation to comment at some considerable length. I made detailed submissions and I am equally angry with the Government's failure to respond, especially as it has the duty under section 111 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to be transparent and inclusive in its planning.

Epping faces a potential crisis with a lack of commuter car parking and a bus rail interchange on the wrong side of the railway line in the project as it is now designed, but the Government is hiding its response to those concerns. Since Mr Costa cut this project in half there has been a complete failure, and perhaps an avoidance of responsibility, to seriously acknowledging and taking a full and mature consideration of what cutting the rail link in half will mean to the bus interchange, which is on the wrong side of the line now, and to a complete lack of commuter car parking. Mr Graham Lovell, the President of Epping Civic Trust, said at the trust's 20 June meeting that many members requested that I be contacted and asked to make appropriate representations to the Government, expressing concern that these submissions to the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation regarding the proposed modifications to Epping station and bus interchange still have not been acknowledged. He also said:

It is four months since the public exhibition and people are asking why there has been no information provided on the progress of this very important matter considering the large amount of construction work currently taking place in Langston Place and High Street, Epping?

Mr Lovell also said:

People are cynical but despite their detailed and well-intentioned submissions, the TIDC is proceeding with the proposed modifications without any further reference or discussion.

Mr Lovell continued:

Taxpayers at the very least deserve to know that these submissions have been received, are being thoroughly assessed and are kept informed of the progress, as they pass from the TIDC to the Department of Planning and finally to the Minister for Planning.

Mr Lovell added:

The large carport design for the new station concourse and its proposed location is completely unacceptable. People overwhelmingly want the existing towers to remain including the clock and the new concourse to be built on the existing site, saving both heritage platform buildings.

We want replies to all these concerns. We made submissions when requested, and we think we should get a full response.

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [9.12 p.m.]: I wish to report to the House on the Georges River Riverkeeper Program, which impacts very significantly upon my electorate and directly involves a number of my constituents. The riverkeeper for the Georges River is Simon Annabel, who is jointly employed by the Georges River combined councils and the Waterways Authority, which is under the control of the Department of Transport. One of the roles of the riverkeeper is to try to establish volunteer riverkeeper groups along the Georges River. One volunteer group is based at Lansvale within my electorate, and its major organiser and spokesperson is Jo Jones, a constituent of mine. The program has a number of aims, but the most obvious one focuses on minimising pollution and rubbish in the Georges River system. This allows the maximum use of what is an extraordinary resource of great natural beauty in the middle of urban Sydney. It is already a major recreational centre with great use. The Riverkeeper Program aims to maintain this situation and develop it.

Several weeks ago I had the opportunity of inspecting the river system with riverkeeper Simon Annabel. By boat I saw the Georges River from Revesby to the Liverpool weir, including the Chipping Norton Lakes, significant parts of Cabramatta Creek, Prospect Creek and Orphan School Creek. An extraordinary amount of rubbish finds its way into our waterways. At one level it is unsightly, and at another it can have a quite horrific impact upon the river. Smaller bits of rubbish can form a complete mat over mangroves or other similar areas, killing them off. There is a significant dumping of cars, and that is quite serious for the ecology of the river, given the effect of battery acid, to say nothing of oil or petrol, on surrounding waters.
The riverkeeper has organised to remove dumped cars, including winching them out of the river. Another of his roles is to co-ordinate periodic detainees and others under the control of the Department of Corrective Services in working on various programs. Their efforts include cleaning up the rubbish that has found its way onto river banks and islands. It also involves a quite spectacular plan to plant 70,000 trees on Heron Island in the Georges River in the Chipping Norton Lakes area. I saw some of that work firsthand. Some of the detainees, I should add, also undergo training and obtain certificates in this process. There are also plans to establish some of the wildlife sanctuaries of the islands and reintroduce native animals to them. The absence of foxes and cats makes this option particularly attractive. This is the Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Project.

One glaring need that struck me during this inspection was the desperate requirement for gross pollutant traps at the point of exit for stormwater drains into the river and surrounding creeks. They can be comparatively cheaply installed, with wire mesh at an angle directing gross pollutants to one side. One of the interesting characteristics of the river system is that rubbish that enters the system in one council area tends to pollute not that council area but an adjoining council area. That suggests that a concerted stormwater drain effort by all councils would be helpful. Another serious problem is the growth of a particular weed in the water. This weed will die in saltwater so does not normally grow below the Liverpool weir on the Georges River, which is the saltwater area. Above the weir, of course, the river is freshwater and there the weed is growing in vast amounts. The only way to really impact on this in the long run is to reduce the nutrients going into the river. The development of reed beds in Bunburry-Curran Creek, for example, would go some way to help that.

The problem for the saltwater reaches of the river is that in times of heavy rain, water cascades over the weir, taking with it large amounts of weed. So the weed is a problem in both the saltwater and freshwater portions of the river. It forms larger islands and attracts all sorts of debris, including wood and timber. It forms a thick mat several feet deep. It is quite dangerous and it also has serious environmental consequences. Another problem involves syringes. The number of syringes washed up with other rubbish is quite extraordinary. There is no easy solution to that, especially for those of us who support harm minimisation programs, but it is certainly a problem that requires consideration. I should add that despite these issues there are some quite spectacular scenes. Going up the Cabramatta Creek, including beyond Ireland Bridge, and seeing hundreds of fruit bats hanging from trees and taking flight in the middle of the day gives the impression of being just about anywhere except in the centre of Sydney.

The work done by the volunteers to whom I referred earlier is really quite impressive. They have regularly cleaned parts of the river in the Chipping Norton Lakes area, which is adjacent to Lansvale. They act, in a sense, as the eyes and ears for the riverkeeper. Once a month some of the participants in the Lansvale group put a boom across Prospect Creek to collect rubbish from the creek. The first meeting of the Lansvale volunteer riverkeepers was in March this year. Following the storm in April, vast amounts of rubbish, including weed from the freshwater portion of the river beyond the Liverpool weir, were washed down the river and the volunteers helped remove a remarkable amount of it. The volunteers adopt the view that trying to clean the Georges River should not simply be left to government bodies, at whatever level, that it is a community issue. As Jo Jones rightly said:

The rubbish wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the people dumping it. This is our community and everyone living on the Georges River needs to take responsibility for it.

The volunteer riverkeepers are putting that theory into practice. I am happy to draw the attention of the House to the work of the volunteers and of the riverkeeper, and to congratulate them on all the work they are doing.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [9.17 p.m.]: I cannot express how happy I am that the Minister for Small Business is in the Chamber, because a lot of people throughout regional New South Wales would like to give the Minister their true thoughts on his recent decision in relation to business enterprise centres [BECs]. I note in today's Bega District News that the Minister said that BECs are not his responsibility. He said that BECs are private sector organisations not run by the Government. I advise the Minister that they have provided a fantastic service to small micro businesses throughout regional New South Wales, and particularly Bega, over the past 12 years.

Small businesses received—by accident—a press release from the Minister. He should have had the common decency to phone or write 51 letters to BECs in regional New South Wales to advise them of his decision. The BECs have provided the necessary assistance to small business throughout regional New South Wales through a free face-to-face advisory service. It is a disgrace that the Minister did not pay them the respect of notifying them of his structural change to BECs. That goes to the very heart of the way in which this Government continues to treat people in regional New South Wales. BECs have provided a wonderful face-to-face contact for small micro businesses to help them get off the ground and run their businesses in an environment that will only lead to their success. In the south-east of New South Wales the Minister has, through the removal of contracts, closed the Cooma and Bega business enterprise centres. The Minister suggests that business people should now travel to Queanbeyan or Wollongong. In fact, the press release that the Minister issued on Monday 7 June—

Mr David Campbell: You're a liar.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: The Minister calls me a liar. The only person in the Chamber who is regarded as a joke in regional New South Wales is the Minister.

Mr David Campbell: You're a liar.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: The Minister does not have the common courtesy to notify people about the structural changes that he will make to business enterprise centres.

Mr David Campbell: You're a liar.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: Does Madam Acting-Speaker wish to ask the Minister to withdraw the comment?

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! I did not hear the comment. The honourable member for Bega will continue.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: This issue is not going to go away, because 51 regional communities in New South Wales look forward to targeting the Minister.

Mr David Campbell: Wrong!

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: It is the Minister's approach that is wrong.

Mr David Campbell: Wrong.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: The Minister is wrong in ripping out of regional communities a business advisory service that has presented people with wonderful opportunities to get ahead with the small businesses they seek to operate in regional communities. The fact is that the Minister has gutted a far South Coast enterprise that was providing a face-to-face service to small businesses in both the Bega Valley shire and the Eurobodalla shire. The Minister instead suggests that businesses operators pick up a telephone and ring a toll-free number or go online to get advice. Let me tell the Minister that, by closing the 51 business enterprise centres in regional New South Wales and delivering only 18 such centres, he presides over the loss of a whole raft of expertise—

Mr Thomas George: Local expertise.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: Yes, local expertise. That will now go out the window as a result of the Minister's action of reducing budgetary support to small business from $4 million to $3 million. The $3 million that the Minister is spending to provide advisory services to small businesses throughout regional New South Wales is the same amount that the Premier spends on Rehame Media Monitoring. That demonstrates the lack of commitment to small business by the Carr Labor Government. I hope the Minister will have a change of heart and consider providing a contract to the Bega BEC so it can continue to provide that business support throughout the far South Coast, from Eurobodalla to the Bega valley. I reiterate that the people I have spoken with are angry with the Minister, especially as he did not even have the decency to write 51 letters and notify them of the structural changes he decided to implement. That is nothing short of disgraceful. I hope the Minister has a change of heart on this policy relating to the Bega area.

Mr JOHN BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [9.22 p.m.]: I wish to congratulate the Nelson Bay Rotary Club on its Neil Carroll Rotary Park project. During the Second World War the Fly Point area between Nelson Bay and Shoal Bay was used as an amphibious landing camp area for up to 20,000 American troops at a time. They practised in the surrounding beaches before the camp was eventually moved to northern Queensland. The hospital used in those times is still in use today as the local cultural centre, and after the war the army camp became a migrant centre, taking many of the migrants who came to the Hunter region.

The Neil Carroll Rotary Park project had its beginnings in the 1950s, when land at Fly Point was to be subdivided for housing. A local by the name of Neil Carroll led a group of people in opposing this development. Working with the appropriate authorities, he managed to save the area for parkland. Neil Carroll was a Rotarian, and in 1963 the Port Stephens Council advised him that the park would be named the Neil Carroll Rotary Park. In the 1990s an outdoor performance stage, with roof and storage area, was built in the park. It is located in an area something like an amphitheatre. You can sit in the park and watch performances by local young dancers from the Robyn Yvette Dance School, or listen to instrumentals by the Port Stephens Community Band, local school bands and others. Through the stage you can see passing sail boats and fishing vessels. In fact, the classical Greeks would have chosen a site such as this promontory for a temple or a drama theatre. The natural amphitheatre, with its views through the stage to the water beyond, gives a beautiful sight in the evening for those attending events such as Carols by Candlelight.

The park has been constantly used by the local community for picnics, family gatherings, and many community events. On Australia Day the Rotary Club of Nelson Bay is contracted by Port Stephens Council to organise many of the activities. It is here on Australia Day that the citizenship ceremony takes place, against a backdrop of blue water wonderland. As time passed, the park attracted more and more people, and this year the Rotary Club of Nelson Bay, under its first female president, Helen Ryan, decided to upgrade many of the park's facilities. They have already done a wonderful job, but work is still in progress. It was time to repaint, reroof the seating shelters, and replace the wood barbecues with modern electric barbecues. They improved the stage by constructing access steps and paved the grassed, but dusty, area in front of the stage. Because Rotary has been involved with this project since the 1950s, it has also put up an historical interpretive sign so that people coming to the area can better understand the history of the park.

Many activities have been taking place. Barbecues have been put in place, slabs have been laid, and electricity has been connected. It is a credit to the Rotarians who have been involved. All Rotarians helped with this project, but many warrant particular commendation, such as Warwick Mathieson, who was the prime mover in designing and organising the materials for construction; Len Currie, who did the electrical work and ensured the safety of the barbecues; Norm McLeod, who worked with Warwick Mathieson on the costing of the project, assisted by section 94 funds from the Port Stephens Council; and Rosalie Derrick, Ian Rolfe and Joe Palagy, who helped put together the history of the site.

It is to the great credit of the Rotary Club of Nelson Bay that, in the 99th year of Rotary—its 100th year is coming up—it looked back 50 years to the presence of American troops in the Port Stephens area and decided to take on this project. I heartily congratulate the Nelson Bay Rotary Club on what it has done. The Neil Carroll Rotary Park is a place for all to visit, sit in and enjoy, as they look out over the beautiful waters of Port Stephens. I congratulate everyone involved.

Mr IAN ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [9.27 p.m.]: It is no coincidence that I wish to speak about business enterprise centres [BECs]. I note that my colleague the honourable member for Bega also raised a similar matter. I suspect that that indicates the gravity of concern of many towns across New South Wales. Why are they concerned? Simply because business enterprise centres have been doing a hell of a good job. Two centres affected by the latest decision of the New South Wales Government to withdraw funding are the Cootamundra BEC, on the southern line, and the Parkes-Forbes BEC. I represent the town of Forbes and I was instrumental in the early days of the establishment of the Parkes-Forbes Business Enterprise Centre. I think the BECs were established by a former member for Dubbo, Mr Gerald Beresford Ponsonby Peacocke. They were given considerable support by Mr Ray Chappell, a former member for Northern Tablelands. Though governments of all persuasions are sometimes accused of not doing very much, and at other times are lauded for getting it right, every government to this time has had business enterprise centres.

Business enterprise centres [BECs] are widely regarded by local government, the business community, the broader community, investors, businesses wishing to relocate or expand, financial institutions and the banks as the most helpful and responsible authorities in giving business advice to and holding the hand of businesses that want to enter, or expand, into those communities. The inaugural president of the Parkes-Forbes centre was Mr Ken Turner, a most successful businessman. Currently, Mr Mike Greenwood is the chief executive officer. Parkes, which is on the intersection of the Newell Highway and the transcontinental railway line, is one of the fastest-growing economies in Australia. Both Parkes and Forbes have experienced a major expansion in business.

A few months ago, when a factory in Forbes that manufactures modular units for hospitals in New South Wales closed down, about 60 people were out of employment. Where did they go for help and assistance but the BEC? When I made representations on their behalf the Government said, "Go and talk to the BEC, get them to give the advice." A few weeks later a major abattoir in the district, which employed nearly 300 people, closed down after nearly 50 years of operation. Again the BEC in Forbes was asked to shoulder the responsibility and give advice. Then the BECs came across to Cootamundra, which, in the last 10 years, has had more than 100 public service jobs withdrawn from it. The town has gone through some tough times.

The most respected organisation in Cootamundra, apart from accountants and private business people, is the BEC. For the past 18 months or so the BEC has been working on some major developments that involve the State Government. I ask the Minister at the table, the Minister for Small Business, who, coincidentally, is responsible for the BECs, to reconsider the withdrawal of funding to the BECs. For a small amount of money the Government has the opportunity to make a major difference in these communities. Sometimes we spend a lot of money—let us face it, all governments sometimes get things wrong—and get a dreadful result, but in this case a small amount of money would produce large and graphic results in business, the economy and quality of life. It would also attract people to regional country towns and regional centres.

The Opposition would be happy to work with the Minister on a bipartisan basis to ask the Premier and other members of the Cabinet to see sense and reinstate funding to the BECs across New South Wales as a matter of good business sense and good commonsense. The Government could help smaller country towns by acting like a business instead of some sort of social disaster, which is the way it is looked at in many places at the moment. I know that the Minister is experienced in local government and that he has good ideas about business. This is his chance. Let us co-operate. If he gives us the word we will go with him, but if he does not he will have missed one of the greatest opportunities for the Government to assist the country and small towns. BECs are essential. In most cases the withdrawal of government funding will mean their death.

Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne) [9.32 p.m.]: I acknowledge the Rotary Club of Haberfield Eleventh Annual Pride of Workmanship Awards, which were held on 28 May at the Five Dock RSL Club. The theme—pride of workmanship—which is now promoted throughout Australia, was initiated by Rotary Club Australia. The Pride of Workmanship Award is designed to acknowledge an employee, irrespective of age or vocation, who, in the eyes of his or her employer, displays outstanding qualities in approach, attitude, dedication and commitment to his or her job. The awards are intended to cover all aspects of work performance and ethics, including quality of output, safety, initiative and sense of responsibility.

The Pride of Workmanship scheme has become a favourite means by which rotary clubs around the world contribute to improving community and employee relations. The scheme, consistent with its theme, emphasises commitment to a job well done by any citizen. The nominating employers were Babington Real Estate, Annandale; Budget Beauty, Burwood; Elite Mortgage, Five Dock; Five Dock RSL Community Club; Mortgage Australia, Five Dock; Newhaven Funerals; Automoda; and Home Care Inner West. I extend my sincerest gratitude to the employers and work colleagues of the recipients of the Pride of Workmanship Awards for taking the time to nominate a workmate and acknowledge their contribution to our communities.

The recipients of the Pride of Workmanship Awards were Giovanna Bonanno for her kind nature in her dealings with clients and fellow employees. She is described as a willing worker who always has a smile on her face even when she has her own personal problems or her days are particularly difficult. She tends to her clients as though they are part of her own family and she provides support not only to her clients, but to their families as well. Her devotion to her work and her commitment to her clients is greatly appreciated by Home Care Inner West. Julie Horne received her award for her unselfishness towards fellow employees and her clients at Home Care Inner West. She has that uncanny ability to reach out to others in need, remembering their birthdays, and bringing them flowers and cakes to brighten up their day. She has great empathy and understanding in caring for her clients and is often the only contact they have. She is always smiling, despite her own adversities. Her clients feel a special bond with her and consider themselves lucky to have such a carer.
Peter Biviano joined Babington Real Estate in property management over two years ago and through hard work and tireless effort has won the respect of landlords and tenants alike. He is a willing and dependable part of the Babington Real Estate team. Nerina Signorelli has been employed by Babington Real Estate for over five years. She is considered part of the family and has shown loyalty and dedication in her professional attitude. Nerina excels at customer relations and is an important part of the team. Her efforts and commitment are appreciated at Babington Real Estate. Rita Simpson joined Mortgage Australia in July 2003 as office manager. As a result of her diligence, focus and attention to detail she has significantly increased office efficiency. She is regarded as a great asset by Mortgage Australia and a most worthy recipient of the award. Con Cavallaro shows great enthusiasm in his work at Automoda. He is regarded as trustworthy and responsible and shows great respect for both his fellow workers and all his customers. He is considered a great asset and an important part of the team.

Aziza Ammar is a hardworking, loyal team player with strong leadership skills. She stepped into the manager's role when the manager was away on maternity leave. Aziza took charge of the business, including managing staff, dealing with accounts and all business liaison matters with the utmost proficiency. Aziza takes great pride in her work and is an asset to Budget Beauty and the local community. Lloyd Fraser joined the team at the Five Dock RSL Club in February 2002. He has displayed a great deal of vitality, enthusiasm and maturity. He is described as reliable, hard working and honest with high-quality work standards in all aspects of front-of-house operations. Lloyd has an even disposition and is never fazed under pressure. Lloyd has full-time employment elsewhere, but he often works up to five shifts a week. He is always cheerful and polite, which makes him popular with his fellow staff and club members alike. He is regarded as a great asset to the Five Dock RSL Club. I wish the seven recipients all the best for the future. I know they will continue to undertake their roles in their professions with pride and dedication.

Rotary is one of the world's largest and most active service clubs. Rotarians balance their family and work with community activities. They enjoy making contributions to their local communities, to youth and to international projects. As the State member for Drummoyne it gives me great satisfaction to acknowledge the Haberfield Rotary Club President, Philip Smith, and his lovely wife, Cathie, who have always welcomed my husband, Richard, and I with wonderful smiles; the immediate past President, Carolyn Burlew; President elect, Fren Wran; the Secretary, Marie Cassaniti; the Treasurer, Charles Hughes; the Club Service Director, Margaret Babbington; the Community Service Director, Vince Plenzich; the International Service Director, Michelle Calvert; the Vocational Service Director, Murray Turner; and the Youth Adult Service Director, Evan Williams.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [9.37 p.m.]: Today the Treasurer delivered the Budget Speech in this House to great accolades from both himself and the Premier. I raise a serious issue relating to the budget on behalf of Jane Adams, a lawyer in Coffs Harbour, and Catherine Vines and Belinda Milne, committee members of the Coffs Harbour Child and Adolescent Sexual Assault Service. To highlight their plight it is best that I read sections of their correspondence. The service will cease on 30 June because the Department of Community Services refuses to fund it. A letter from Jane Adams states:

The DoCS funding proposed for the 2004/2005 is simply inadequate. DoCS offers approximately $139,00.00 whereas they have been told on numerous occasions by the staff and management committee that a budget of around about $200,000.00 is the reasonable minimum within which they can work … DoCS have refused and apparently say that the Department of Health are going to take over the caseload.

I am informed by CASAC staff who in consultation with local health professionals advise that the Mid North Coast Area Health Service is in no position whatsoever to take over the existing caseload, nor to deal with any new referrals. Referrals I am told come in at the rate of approximately two per week. The adult sexual assault service at Coffs Harbour has a waiting list … The Coffs Harbour CASAC is the only service of this kind in the area. It is difficult to imagine that the Department of Health will continue such supportive service.

I quote also from a letter written by Catherine Vines, which states:

… the service will be closing on the 30/6/2004 due to budget constraints.

Belinda Milne and myself were informed by (DOCS) today that they have no legal responsibility towards the Child and Adolescent Sexual Assault Service.

The difficulties are as a committee we have no power to initiate transferring the service in order to facilitate the smooth transition of clients, their files and access to these files to an appropriate alternative service. This leaves the committee and the service in a very vulnerable position with our hands tied, having all responsibility with no capacity to rectify this issue.

Belinda Milne states:

My greatest cause for concern at this stage is the appropriate storage of clients files and the future welfare of our clients. Currently the service has around 1200 clients files stored in archives and in our service.

At a final meeting held on the 10/6/04 with representatives from the Department myself and members of the management committee, there were concerns raised with the representatives from the Department regarding the "ongoing duty of care to clients". At this meeting we were given assurances from the Director of Planning and Partnerships that,
1 "clients were to be appropriately redirected to Health",
2 "future meetings will take place before the 30/6/04 with representatives from DOCS Health and Myself in regards to these issues.

The concerns that I have are:

• There has been no progress to allow for the smooth transition of clients documents to an alternative service/or Health/once we close on the 30/6/2004.

I ask honourable members to remember that the previous letter to which I referred indicated that Health cannot handle transfers and the provision of alternative services.

• Information verbally received from the CPO is that DOCS do not have any legal overriding responsibility to clients files.

• There has been no protocol determined at this stage in regards to the safe and confidential storage of some 1200 files.

• It is imperative that an organisation such as health and or DOCS take over responsibility to store these files appropriately.

• The future access of files; these files are legal documents and as such need to be stored for at least 10 years or more, consequently access of these files needs to be carried out by an appropriate authority when they are required for legal purposes.

• Including responsibility to ensure that files are stored in a safe and secure site with limited access.

• Files need to be housed in an environment that contains the infrastructure to support the storage and appropriate retrieval which is necessary on a regular basis.

• I have been unable to give clients any support for the continuation of their counselling, some of these clients are high risk and will be attending court …

• There are serious child protection considerations here.

• When the service closes on the 30/6/04 there is currently no alternative support structure for these vulnerable clients, we have a genuine concern for the safety and welfare of this clients group. Should one of these clients suicide as a result of lack of support after the closure of the service, this would weigh heavily upon all persons involved in this matter.

• We all have a clear duty of care to prevent any further damage to the clients …

• With the service closure in one week none of these concerns have been addressed satisfactorily between DOCS Health and myself. Up to this date there has been little consultation between myself the Department of Health as stated by DOCS representatives at our final committee meeting on the 10/6/04 that a solution would be reached.

The situation portrayed by these letters is an absolute disgrace. The issue is the welfare of vulnerable children who have been placed in the care of the Department of Community Services through the Coffs Harbour Child and Adolescent Sexual Assault Service. Funding has been withdrawn and the organisation's files will not be secure after 30 June 2004. The future of the children concerned rests in the hands of the State of New South Wales and the Carr Government. I urge the Government to restore funding to the service immediately.

Mr MILTON ORKOPOULOS (Swansea) [9.42 p.m.]: Early on the morning of Saturday 19 June, while I was at the Country Conference of the Australian Labor Party at Bathurst, I received a telephone call from my eight-year-old daughter, Anastasia, to tell me that the Belmont High School was on fire and that a large number of fire services personnel were fighting the fire. Fortuitously, the Minister for Education and Training, Dr Refshauge, was at the conference and he assured me that Belmont High School would be rebuilt after a comprehensive assessment was undertaken, and that the department would ensure that students and staff suffered a minimum of inconvenience. These assurances and the concerns of the Minister and myself were conveyed to the district superintendent for Lake Macquarie schools, Ms Liz Rushton. Ms Rushton advised me of the extent of the damage.
The fire began in the central section of the school and largely destroyed the two-storey building, comprising 15 classrooms, three staffrooms, storerooms housing the faculties of English, mathematics and social science, and a performance and rehearsal room. Also destroyed were 40 computers, more than 20 digital cameras, an array of DVDs, hundreds of textbooks, as well as printing and photocopying equipment. Mercifully, valuable teaching resources that had been collected over many years were saved largely by the quick and effective action of the firefighters, who contained the fire to the second floor. However, the ground floor was damaged by water and smoke. The preliminary estimate of damage is $3 million. The police are treating the fire as suspicious and are thoroughly investigating all leads. An article in today's Newcastle Herald, which indicates how close the police are to resolving the case, is worth reading.

Belmont High School is a first-rate public school with more than 1,100 students. It is led by the principal, Mr Peter Morgan. The staff and students achieve outstanding results in public exams and in the creative and performing arts. My colleague the Parliamentary Secretary, Bryce Gaudry, and I visited the school yesterday and spoke to Mr Morgan and the staff. Mr Morgan advised us that he was pleased with the response of the department. Over the weekend and yesterday the department was preparing for the delivery of 15 demountable classrooms. Only year 12 and, later, year 11 students were to attend while the rest of the students would be phased in as circumstances allowed.

A school severely damaged and disrupted as a result of a fire, albeit one involving damage to buildings that were already in need of a capital upgrade, will provide the opportunity to not only rebuild but enlarge the school when restoration and refurbishment take place. With appropriate design, an additional wing could be added to the reconstruction to allow for the provision of a flexible technology centre, a performing arts space and one common room for staff across all faculties, thereby improving the current Stone Age staffroom facilities to a standard that would be acceptable to professionals throughout the world.

I indicate to the House, as I have indicated to the Minister for Education and Training, that the vision of the school community, which has been traumatised by the fire, has my strong support. During the planning and assessment stage, I will press for improvements to Belmont High School to ensure that reconstruction of the damaged building will incorporate a much-needed upgrade in the standard of facilities. I seek a commitment from the Government to upgrade the school to make it an educational facility that is in line with twenty-first century standards.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [9.47 p.m.]: My purpose in making this private member's statement is to draw to the attention of the House rail services in the Cronulla electorate. For a number of years a CountryLink office has been attached to the Cronulla railway station and has provided excellent service for the people of my electorate. I personally have visited the CountryLink facility and have found the staff there to be excellent to deal with. The people of my electorate often travel to the country for social and business reasons. It would be highly detrimental to my electorate for the CountryLink office to close. It is ridiculous for the Minister for Transport Services to suggest that people can use the Internet as an alternative to that office. Not everyone has access to the Internet, and many people who have computers prefer to visit the CountryLink office to make their arrangements because dealing with the CountryLink staff is efficacious and pleasant.

Mr Thomas George: The Government seems to be following the behaviour of the banks.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: As a result of the banking sector's rather disastrous public relations exercises in the past, it is probably more sensitive to the requirements of its customers than the New South Wales Government. Recently the Leader of the Federal Opposition wanted to take on the banking sector, and that was regarded as poor policy because people would suffer as a result. In fact, the banking sector has made some improvements, a lot more improvements than Mr Costa seems to be making in that regard.

Mr Grant McBride: Could you get back to the topic?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: I will return to the topic, but that was only one aspect. Another aspect is safety on the rails, about which I have received a number of complaints.

Mr Grant McBride: Is that the Clearway policy?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: No. I have received a number of complaints about public safety while travelling on trains. A couple of weeks ago I was rung by a person who had been bashed. That story appeared in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader. I am happy to make public another letter to me outlining the horrific experience of a young woman while travelling on a train. This is not good enough. In 2004 people should be able to use trains with perfect safety. Another aspect concerns the Cronulla railway station. There have been rumours that the Government would sell a large part of railway property, particularly the grassed area.

Mr Thomas George: Don't you let them do it!

Mr MALCOLM KERR: No, I will not allow the Government to do that. Perhaps the Government is planning to sell the land for high-rise development in Cronulla. I have asked a series of questions about it.

Mr Grant McBride: Does the new mayor support that?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: No, the mayor would not support that. I am pleased the Minister for Gaming and Racing has raised that topic. It would be regarded as inappropriate development and would not be supported by the new Sutherland Shire Council or the new mayor. It is time the Government came clean, because questions about the grassed area have been answered in an evasive fashion. I notice the honourable member for Lismore shakes his head. He is aware of the blocking tactics one faces when trying to get information from the Minister for Transport Services. On that subject, honourable members should look at the correspondence between the Minister and the Chairman of the Legislation Review Committee, the honourable member for Miranda, in which a number of allegations are made by the chairman regarding the Minister and by the Minister regarding the chairman and the committee.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [9.52 p.m.]: I am also concerned about business enterprise centres [BECs], their centralisation from 50 to 18, the creation of so-called super centres and the lack of increased funding for the centralised locations.

Mr Thomas George: Less funding.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT: Yes, less funding, that is right. I have spoken with representatives of my local business enterprise centre, and they are very concerned about its future. At my request they provided me with some statistics, which indicate that the centre provides a significant service to the Hastings Valley community which will be lost with centralisation of the service. The statistics show, for example, that in 2003 the service provided 64 new jobs in the Hastings Valley through direct employment. The centre emphasised that it prevented many people from setting up businesses in the Hastings Valley which would have resulted in them losing money. That is a matter that is not often mentioned. Therefore, the centre saved many young people, young entrepreneurs, from wasting money on crazy ventures.

The statistics are impressive. In 2003 458 business operators were in contact with the service, 1,470 inquiries were dealt with, 458 business entities were assisted with establishment or start-up, 12 workshops were conducted with the attendance of 94 people, 17 other significant events were conducted with the attendance of 687 people, and through direct employment the Hastings Business Enterprise Centre assisted 35 owner operators of new business, 11 jobs in new business, and 18 jobs from business expansion, totalling 64 jobs. That is 64 jobs that would not have been created in the Hastings Valley if it were not for the BEC. There is now the potential that those 64 jobs will not be created, thanks to the crazy idea to centralise the centres in regional New South Wales from 50 to 18.

There is broad disappointment throughout the BEC network in regional New South Wales following the media release, embargoed on a Sunday night, that was sent out by the Minister for Small Business, who had had no contact with any of the BEC operators. It would have taken the department 50 letters or 50 phone calls to advise the businesses, but the department did not extend them that courtesy. As a result the BEC staff and supporters woke up on Monday morning to the great shock of being significantly centralised and placed under significant financial pressure. Along with other honourable members I call on the Government to consider the significant impacts this change will have on regional New South Wales and to reverse its decision to centralise the services. If the Government cannot undertake full reversal it should at least consider an open tender. For some reason 18 particular sites have been tagged for the super centres. That decision locks out every other town and community in regional New South Wales from tendering, although the Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Small Business claims there is enormous goodwill in many of the non-prescribed centres. I call on the Minister to open up that tender process so that anyone can submit a tender and to provide a fair market for the location of the 18 new super centres.

Private members' statements noted.